marine resources management plan for the State of Connecticut

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

A
MARINE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN,
FOR THE
STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Department of Environmental Protection

Division of Conservation & Preservation
GC
1021 Bureau of Fisheries
.C8
B 6 Marine Fisheries Program
1984

July 1984

A Marine Resources Management Plan
for the
State of Connecticut

State of Connecticut
William A. ONeill, Govemor

Department of Environmental Protection
Stanley J. Pac, Commissioner

July 1984

blake, A&k

MARINE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN

FOR THE
STATE OF CONNECTICU@l

Prepared by

Mark M. Blake, Marine Biologist
Marine Fisheries Program

Eric M. Smith, Assistant Director
Bureau of Fisheries
Marine Fisheries Program

July 1984

This document was financed in part by a grant to the
Department of Environmental Protection Coastal Area Management
Program from the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U. S. Department of
Commerce under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.

The activity was initiated in 1981 at the request of the
Office of Coastal Zone Management with the intent that each
coastal state prepare what OCZM envisioned as a "Comprehensive
Living Marine Resources Strategy."

Reviewed by:-.@t>
Robert A. J"n a
Director
Bureau of Fisheries
Date: L2-

Appr
oved biz-::52@1
Dennis'P. DeCarli
Deputy Commissioner
Division of Conservation
& Preservation
Date: 0

CONTENTS

Page

Preface ........................................... xi
Acknowledgements .................................... xii

PART ONE: MARINE RESOURCES AND RESOURCE USERS

1.0 Introduction ........................................ 1

2.0 The Resource Management Community ................... 3

2.1 State Government .................................. 3
2.2 Federal Government ................................ 6
2.3 Local Government ................................... 7
2.4 Relationships within the Marine Resource
Management Community in Connecticut ............... 8

3.0 Information for Management of Marine Resources ....... 12

3.1 Scientific Information ............................. 12
3.2 Fishery Statistics ................................. 13

4.0 Marine Resources of Connecticut ..................... 14

4.1 Description of Long Island Sound .................. 14

4.1.1 Geomorphology ................................. 14
4.1.2 Sources of Fresh Water ........................ 16
4.1.3 Physicochemical Characteristics ............... 16
4.1.4 Sedimentary Characteristics ................... 18

4.2 Habitats Supporting Marine Species ................ 19

4.2.1 Open Water .................................... 19
4.2.2 Estuaries ..................................... 19
4.2.3 Eelgrass Beds ................................. 20
4.2.4 Rocky Shore ................................... 20
4.2.5 Reefs ......................................... 21
4.2.6 Sand and Mud Bottom ........................... 21
4.2.7 Tidal Marshes ................................. 22
4.2.8 Beachfront .................................... 23

4.3 Living Marine Resources ........................... 24

4.3.1 Introduction ... ........... o.o .......... 24

4.3.2 Finfish .......................... o.o ....... o.. 27

4.3.2.1 Blackfish ................................ 27
4.3.2.2 Bluefish ................................. 30
4.3.2.3 Butterfish ............................... 34
4.3.2.4 Cod .......................... o..... o..... 37
4.3.2.5 American eel .......o...... o.............. 40
4.3.2.6 Winter flounder .......................... 42
4.3.2o7 Fluke ............................. o...... 45
4.3.2.8 Yellowtail flounder ............... o...... 48
4.3o2.9 Mackerel ....... o............ o.o .......... 51
4.3.2olO Menhaden .. ...... * ................... o .... 54
4.3.2.11 River herring ............ o ............ o.. 57
4.3.2.12 Scup .............. o...................... 60
4.3.2.13 American shad ............................ 63
4.3.2.14 Striped bass ................ o............ 66
4.3.2.15 Weakfl'sh ......... o........ *.............. 70
4.3.2.16 White perch ................. o..o ......... 73
4.3.2.17 Whiting ................... *........ 0..... 76
4.3.2.18 Other finfish ...................... o..... 79

4.3.3 Crustacean Shellfish ........ oo ......... o...... 85

4.3.3.1 American lobster .. .................... o... 85
4.3.3.2 Blue crab ............... o .......0......... 89
4.3.3.3 Other crustacean shellfish .. ............ o. 91

4.3.4 Molluscan Shellfish . .................. o ....... 92

4.3o4.1 Hard clam .......... oo ............ o...... o. 92
4.3o4.2 Soft clam o......... o.o.o ... *.o.. 94
4.3.4.3 Conch ........ oo.oo.-o-o ...o.... o.... o. 96
4.3o4.4 American oyster o.o.oo ... oo..o ... o-o ... o-o 99
4.3.4.5 Bay scallop ........ ...-o-o 102
4.3.4.6 Sea scallop .....oooo.oo .... ooo ... o-o ... 104
C3.C7 Long-finned squid . ....o ..... oo ... 105
4.3.4o8 Other molluscan shellfish .... ..... oooo ... o108

4.3.5 Species that are Endangered or
Being Restored . ... o ... o.o .... o....- .... o.oo 109

4.3.6 Marine Mammals ...o ........ -_ ......... o .... 110

5.0 Marine Resource Users in Connecticut ................ 111

5.1 The Commercial Fisheries .......................... 111

5.1.1 Introduction ................................. 111
5.1.2 The Oyster and Hard Clam Industry ............ 113
5.1.3 The Lobster Fishery .......................... 120
5.1.4 The Otter Trawl Fishery ...................... 126
5.1.5 The Sea Scallop Fishery ...................... 133
5.1.6 The Connecticut River Shad Fishery ........... 134
5.1.7 The Conch Fishery ............................ 138
5.1.8 Natural Growth Seed Oyster Harvesting ........ 141
5.1.9 The Hook and Line Fishery .................... 143
5.1.10 The Eel Pot Fishery .......................... 146
5.1.11 The Gill Net and Haul Seine Fisheries ........ 148
5.1.12 The Menhaden Purse Seine Fishery ............. 150
5.1.13 The Blue Crab Fishery ........................ 151

5.2 The Recreational Fisheries ........................ 152

5.2.1 Recreational Finfishing .................. o ... 152
5.2.2 Recreational Shellfishing .......... 156
5o2.3 Personal Use Lobster Fishing o..... 159
5.2.4 Recreational Blue Crabbing .. .... o ... o..o..o.. 159

5.3 The Party and Charter Boat Industry .. ....... ooo- 160

6.0 The Use of Marine Resources in Connecticut oo.ooooo.-162

6.1 Marketing ...... oo ......o ........... oo- ...o... - 162

6.1.1 Finfish and Squid .. ............ o ........ o.... o 162
6.1.2 Molluscan Shellfish ....... - ... ooo-oo 164
6.1.3 Lobster ...... oooo ............... o..oo .... o. 165

6.2 Processing ............ o........ - .......... oo 166

6.3 Consumption of Seafood in Connecticut ...... o 167

6.4 International Trade ..... oo ...... o..oo .....- ..... 169

6.5 Industry Assistance .... ... oo ....o ......... o..... oo 169

6.5.1 Commercial Fishing .... .... ooo- ...... o..... o. 169
6.5.2 Recreational Fishing ... .................. o.o.o 173
6.5.3 Dredging Needs ... ..... oooo ....- ........... 174

6.6 Economic Comparison among Connecticut's Commercial
and Recreational Fishing Industries ....... 177

7.0 Groups with Special Interest in Marine
Resources ..... oo ...... - ...... oo ....... o....... oo 179

PART TWO: PROBLEMS, ISSUES, AND OPPORTUNITIES

1.0 Introduction ........................................ 181

2.0 Man's Influence on Long Island Sound Resources ...... 182

2.1 Fishing Effort .................................... 182
2.2 Pollution and Degradation of Long Island Sound .... 182

3.0 information for Management of Marine Resources ...... 188

3.1 Scientific Information ............................ 188
3.2 Fishery Statistics ................................ 189

4.0 Opportunities for Resource Use ...................... 191

4.1 Commercial Fishing ................................ 191
4.2 Seafood Marketing ................................. 191
4.3 Recreational Fishing .............................. 192

5.0 Gear and User Group Conflicts ....................... 194

5.1 Introduction ...................................... 194
5.2 A Connecticut Case History ........................ 194

6.0 The Resource Management Community in Connecticut .... 197

7.0 Other Issues ........................................ 199

7.1 Law Enforcement Needs ............................. 199
7.2 Information and Education ......................... 199

PART THREE: POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES FOR MANAGEMENT OF
MARINE RESOURCES

1.0 Introduction ......................................... 201

2.0 Marine Resource Conservation ......................... 202

2.1 Fishing Effort ..................................... 202
2.2 Interjurisdictional Fisheries Management ........... 203
2.3 Interstate Fisheries Management in
Long Island Sound .................................. 204
2.4 Fisheries Management in the Absence of
Interstate Fisheries Management Plans .............. 205
2.5 Shellfish Management .............................. 205
2.6 Interstate Anadromous Fisheries Development ........ 206
2.7 Enhancement of Marine Resources .................... 206
2.7.1 Mariculture ..................................... 206
2.7.2 Reef Construction .............................. 207
2.8 Marine Conservation Law Enforcement ................ 207

3.0 Pollution and Degradation of Long Island Sound ....... 208

3.1 Review of Regulated Activities ..................... 208
3.2 Review of Regulations .............................. 209
3.3 Support of Field Operations ........................ 209

4.0 information for Management of Marine Resources ....... 210

4.1 Long Island Sound Commercial Fishery Statistics .... 210
4.2 Offshore Commercial Fisheries Statistics ........... 211
4.3 Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics ........... 212
4.4 Cooperative Fisheries Statistics Programs .......... 213
4.5 Fishery-Independent Monitoring Programs ............ 213
4.6 Fisheries Research ........................ 0 ........ 214

5.0 Information and Education.o ................. *.0 ...... 216

5.1 Public Participation in the Management Process.. ... 216
5.2 Public Information from Fisheries Investigations ... 216
5.3 Public Information from Fisheries Statistics .... o.. 216

6.0 Opportunities for Fishery Resource Use... oo .......... 217

6.1 Objectives Related to Recreational Fishing ......... 217

6.1.1 Shore-based Fishing ...o ........... o......... o.. 217
6.1.2 Boat-based Fishing ............... o ............. 217

6.1.3 Land Acquisition and Land Use ............... oo. 218
6.1.4 Saltwater Fishing Guidebook.........0.0.*0-0-00 218
6.lo5 Saltwater Fishing License ...... *0--- .... 0 219

6.2 Objectives Related to Commercial Fishing- ... o .... 221

6.2ol The Connecticut Offshore Fishing Industryo ... 221
6.2.2 Commercial Fisheries Support Services- .... 221
6.2A Seafood Processing and Marketing ... o- ..... 222
6o2.4 The Connecticut Aquaculture Commission ......... 223
6o2.5 Business Assistance ... ...... o 223

6.3 Objectives Related to Both Recreational and
Commercial Fishing.. ... oo.oo ... 224

6.3.1 Shellfish Resources under Town Jurisdiction ... 224
6.3.2 Underutilized Species Fisheries ....... 224
6.3.3 User Group Conflicts .... ........... o .... 225

CLOSING 226

REFERENCES 228

Appendix I: Government agencies with marine resource
management responsibility in Connecticut
and New England ............ -- ......... 240

Appendix II: Academic institutions with special interest
in Connecticut marine resources-oo.oo..- 242

Appendix III: Private groups with special interest in
Connecticut marine resources...-.- .. oooo 243

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Long Island Sound and its environs ................ 15

2 Connecticut commercial blackfish landings,
1939-1983 ......................................... 29

3 Catch per unit of effort for blackfish caught by
Connecticut-licensed trawlers, 1977-1983 .......... 29

4 Connecticut commercial bluefish landings,
1939-1983 ......................................... 33

5 Catch per unit of effort for bluefish caught by
Connecticut-licensed trawlers, 1977-1983 .......... 33

6 Connecticut commercial butterfish landings,
1887-1983 ......................................... 36

7 Catch per unit of effort for butterfish caught by
Connecticut-licensed trawlers, 1977-1983 o..o ...... 36

8 Connecticut commercial cod landings, 1880-1983 .... 39

9 Catch per unit of effort for cod caught by
Connecticut-licensed trawlers, 1977-1983 .......... 39

10 Connecticut commercial eel landings, 1939-1983 .... 41

11 Connecticut commercial winter flounder
landings, 1939-1983 .............. o ................ 44

12 Catch per unit of effort for winter flounder caught
by Connecticut-licensed trawlers, 1977-1983 ..... 44

13 Connecticut commercial fluke landings, 1939-1983 47

14 Catch per unit of effort for fluke caught by
Connecticut-licensed trawlers, 1977-1983 .......... 47

15 Connecticut commercial yellowtail flounder
landings, 1939-1983 o ............................. 50

16 Catch per unit of effort for yellowtail flounder
caught by Connecticut-licensed trawlers,
1977-1983 o ...... oo ....... oo ......... ..... 50

17 Connecticut commercial mackerel landings,
1880-1983 - ............... o....... o ....... o ....... 53

vii

18 Connecticut commercial menhaden landings,
1880-1983 ......................................... 56

19 Connecticut commercial river herring landings,
1880-1983 .... o ........................ o ........... 59

20 Connecticut commercial scup landings, 1880-1983 ... 62

21 Catch per unit of effort for scup caught by
Connecticut-licensed trawlers, 1977-1983 ..... oo ... 62

22 Connecticut commercial shad landings, 1939-1983 65

23 Connecticut commercial striped bass landings,
1939-1983 ........... o ............................. 69

24 Connecticut commercial weakfish landings,
1939-1983 ........................................ 72

25 Catch per unit of effort for weakfish caught by
Connecticut-lic'ensed trawlers, 1977-1983 .......... 72

26 Connecticut commercial white perch landings,
1939-1983 ....... o.o ...................... o 75

27 Connecticut commercial whiting landings,
1887-1983 .......................... o..... o ........ 78

28 Catch per unit of effort for whiting caught by
Connecticut-licensed trawlers, 1977-1983 .......... 78

29 Connecticut commercial lobster landings,
1880-1983 .................. o..o.o .... oo.ooo ... o-oo 88

30 Catch per unit of effort of lobster caught by
Connecticut-licensed lobstermen, 1975-1983.
Reported in pounds per trap and pounds per trap
haul set-over day (THSOD) oo.o.-ooo .... _-ooo ... 88

31 Connecticut commercial blue crab landings,
1939-1983 o-o-oo..o.. ... oooooo.o ..... o.ooo .... 90

32 Connecticut commercial hard clam landings,
1887-1983. (In pounds of meats) ...... oooo ... 93

33 Connecticut commercial soft clam landings,
1880-1983 (In pounds of meats) ...... 95

34 Connecticut commercial conch landings,
1939-1983 (In pounds of meats) 98

viii

35 Connecticut commercial oyster landings, 1880-1983
(In pounds of meats) ............................. 101

36 Connecticut commercial bay scallop landings,
1887-1983 (In pounds of meats) .................... 103

37 Connecticut commercial squid landings,
1898-1983 ......................... ooo ........... o. 107

38 Catch per unit of effort for squid caught by
Connecticut-licensed trawlersr 1977-1983 .......... 107

39 Connecticut landings and value of finfish
and squid, 1939-1983 o ...................... - .... 112

40 Connecticut landings and value of crustacean and
molluscan shellfish (excluding squid), 1939-1983 .. 112

41 Connecticut oyster dredge landings and value,
1939-1983 .... o.o ... oo ... o..o.o ...........o ........ 118

42 Connecticut hard clam dredge landings and value,
1939-1983 ..oo .... o ... o..o..oo ...... oo ...... 118

43 Connecticut hand tong landings and value of
oysters, 1939-1983 o.o ... oo.o .......... _.ooo ..... 119

44 Connecticut hand tong landings and value of
hard clams, 1939-1983 ..* ..... 000 .........0... 006.. 119

45 Connecticut lobster trap landings and value,
1939-1983; and catch of Connecticut-licensed
lobstermen, 1975-1983 .... o ......... o..... o ......... 124

46 Number of lobster traps fished by Connecticut-
licensed lobstermen, 1939-1983; and lobster
fishing effort in terms of number of trap haul
set-over days (THSOD's), 1975-1983 -- .......... 124

47 Connecticut otter trawl lobster landings and
value, 1939-1983 ........ 0......... 00 ....... 0 ...... 125

48 Connecticut otter trawl landings and value,
1939-1983 ... o ................................... o. 132

49 Connecticut commercial drift gill net landings
of shad, 1939-1983 ..... o.... o..*.oo ............... 136

50 Connecticut commercial haul seine landings of
shad, 1939-1983 ................ o...... oo-o-o-oo 136

51 Connecticut commercial anchor, set, or stake
gill net landings of shad, 1939-1975 ...... ooo.o.o. 137

52 Connecticut commercial pound net landings of
shad, 1939-1983 ..................... - ........... 137

53 Connecticut commercial conch pot landings and
value, 1939-1983 .................................. 140

54 Number of conch pots fished by Connecticut
commercial conch fishermen, 1952-1983 ............. 140

55 Connecticut commercial hook and line landings
and value, 1939-1983 .......................... o..o 145

56 Number of hooks and lines fished by Connecticut
commercial hook and line fishermen, 1939-1983 ... o. 145

57 Connecticut commercial eel pot landings and value,
1939-1983 ........... o.......... o....... o..... o .... 147

58 Number of eel pots fished by Connecticut eel pot
fishermen, 1939-1983 ... oo .......... o .............. 147

59 Areas closed to shellfishing in Connecticut waters. 185

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Conservation measures regulating the commercial
and recreational harvest of marine species in
Connecticut ........... o................. o....... 26

2 Number of trawl vessels that reported fishing in
Connecticut waters, 1979-1982, by county of landing,
vessel size class, and whether vessels were used for
trawling only (T) or for both trawling and tending
lobster pots (PT). Source: CT DEP Marine Fisheries
Information System... .............................. 130

3 Comparison between the Connecticut recreational
and Connecticut-licensed commercial catch of
finfish species, 1979 ............................. 155

4 Acres of ground under town jurisdictions that
were open to shellfishing in 1981 ........... o ...... 158

5 Connecticut party and charter boat catch, 1981 .... 161

6 Projected federal maintenance dredging, most
probable future scenario--1985-2035 .... 176

PREFACE

A Marine Resources Management Plan for the State of Connecticut
describes the magnitude and importance of Connecticut's marine
fishery resources, identifies problems of marine resources and their
users, and suggests potential strategies for their future management.

Part One summarizes much of the knowledge of those resources in
Connecticut and identifies resource userst government agencies, and
programs responsible for, and working with, those resources. Part
One also describes the magnitude of historical as well as present
Connecticut fisheries.

Part Two identifies problems, issues, and opportunities in both
marine resource use and management. This section is presented with
the understanding that it is extremely sensitive to the time at which
it was prepared. Since the interactions of marine resources and their
users are dynamic events, one must expect that problems, issues, and
opportunities in marine resource use are also dynamic and will evolve
as the characteristics of our fisheries change.

Part Three suggests six broad categories of policies and objec-
tives for marine resource managers in Connecticut. They are admitted-
ly narrow in perspective; the responsibility of the authors was to
identify marine fishery resources and initiate planning for their
wise use. Subsequent activities on the part of principal marine
resource management programs will be to develop "action plans" to
achieve specific goals for marine resource use.

The most pertinent features of the Plan are worth emphasis at
this time.

Part One is intended to be as accurate a summary of marine
fishery information in Connecticut as can be presented--given the
shortcomings of that information. The reader is cautioned in the
interpretations he or she makes based on the commercial landings and
catch per unit of effort data presented in Part One. Landings in
particular have been collected by a variety of organizations and
methods over the years. As a result, temporal comparisons in the
time series may be misleading and should be used cautiously. We have
presented the best information available on the subject but emphasize
that much of it is rather weak for a variety of historical and
logistical reasons. For a more thorough description of the sources
of bias associated with these data, the reader is directed to Part
One, Section 4.3.1.

Part Two is sensitive to problems and issues facing resources
and their users in Connecticut through early 1984. It is intended to
stimulate positive thinking on a series of important resource
management issues. In particular, Sections 2.0, 4.0, and 5.0 are
intended not to provoke the reader but to provoke his or her thinking
on the subjects.

Finally, Part Three presents policies and objectives that may
remain unchanged for some time but are also sensitive to the complex
and changing interactions of resource users and the resource manage-
ment community at the present time. Sections 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 should
interest the reader concerned with government efforts to protect and
manage marine fishery resources; Section 6.0 will be of most
interest to those concerned about their opportunities for marine
resource use.

It is hoped that all elements of this plan will be viewed as a
contribution to a dynamic management process, capable of change and
requiring change in order to be effective. Such change will be most
effective if it results from the dynamic interaction of a responsible
public and an informed community of marine resource managers.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Several people have been instrumental in providing background
information during the preparation of this plan. Joe and Ralph
Accabo, Norm Bender, Ed Costal Joe D'Eugenio, Michael Infantino,
Charles Johnson, Joe Maco, John McNeely, Jack Milkofsky, John Popa,
Ron Rozsa, Chris Staplefeldt, Lance Stewart, Whitney Tilt, Tim Visel,
Jim Wallace, Kaye Willliams, and many members of Town Shellfish
Commissions and Town Clerk's Offices all provided valuable insight
into various aspects of marine resources, their users, and the ways
in which they are used in Connecticut.

In particular, we thank John Volk, Chief of the Division of
Aquaculture (Department of Agriculture), and Malcolm Shute of the
Department of Health Services for their assistance with sections
pertaining to shellfisheries.

xii

MARINE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN

FOR THE

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Part One:

Marine Resources and Resource Users

1.0 Introduction

The marine fishery resources of Connecticut exist in a
diverse and unique assemblage of finfish, shellfish, and crusta-
cea. The location of Long Island Sound in mid-temperate lati-
tudes, its protected, relatively shallow geomorphology, and its
high nutrient load, seasonally mild temperature, and moderate
salinity make it unique both as spawning and nursery habitat and
as a location in which many coastal species pause to feed during
seasonal migrations. These resources support a variety of pro-
ductive fisheries.

Management of coastal fishery resources in Connecticut by a
number of state agencies has been increasingly active in recent
years. The earliest activities required implementation of legis-
lation by the Connecticut General Assembly while initial agency
activities began with the development of a marine fisheries pro-
gram in 1954 under the auspices of the former Connecticut Board
of Fisheries and Game. Subsequent program developments included
the acquisition of a marine research vessel and employment of a
marine fisheries biologist.

More recent evolution of coastal resource management has
included passage of the Connecticut Coastal Area Management Act
in 1979, the institution of a Division of Aquaculture in the
Department of Agriculture for the administration and management
of state-owned shellfish beds, a reorganization providing for a
Marine Fisheries Program within the Bureau of Fisheries of the
Department of Environmental Protection (the former Board of
Fisheries and Game), and the development of both a Sea Grant
Program with a Marine Advisory Service and a Department of Marine
Sciences within the University of Connecticut at its Avery Point,
Groton campus. Planning was underway in 1983 to develop a Nation-
al Undersea Research Program at the Avery Point Campus.

While there has been much attention given to marine re-
sources during the past thirty years, actions relating to the
central issue of this document--management of marine fishery
resources-have often been, fragmented. Moreover, the importance
of Connecticut's marine resources, the characteristics of their
users, and a description of the ever-changing management
community have eluded efforts to be documented in one volume.

The purpose of the present effort is to prepare a Marine
Resources Management Plan for the State of Connecticut which will
serve as a comprehensive statement of policies and objectives for
informed future planning of marine resource utilization and man-
agement. It is also intended to provide planners with a single
source of information about Connecticut's valuable marine fishery
resources, to indicate which of its citizens have an interest in
those resources, and to identify those in the management commun-
ity who are responsible for ensuring their wise use.

The plan has been developed in three parts. Part One is a
description of Long Island Sound (LIS), its resources and users,
the use of marine resources in Connecticut, and the resource
management community at the state, local and federal levels. it
is intended that Part One provide useful information on which to
base future management efforts.

Part Two presents problems, issues, and opportunities facing
Connecticut's marine resource managers while Part Three presents
policies and objectives for future marine resource use and man-
agement. Policies will relate principally to the use of re-
sources by recreational and commercial fishermen, as well as to
the' philosophies and intentions of the management agencies in
providing stable, productive, and valuable resources for the
public good.

Nothing in Part Three will be considered a final product,
that is, incapable of being changed. Resources as well as man-
agement strategies are dynamic. We hope to avoid future manage-
ment problems by maintaining flexibility in the management
planning process.

Development of the Marine Resources Management Plan has been
funded by the Department of Environmental Protection Coastal Area
Management Program and prepared by the DEP Bureau of Fisheries,
Marine Fisheries Program with the assistance and cooperation of
the Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquaculture.

-2-

2.0 The Resource Management Community

2.1 State Government

There are two principle agencies responsible for the manage-
ment of Connecticut's marine resources. Within the first--the
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)--the Planning and
Coastal Management Unit, based in Hartford, exercises broad
authority over the use and development of the shoreline and
mants activities there which may affect marine resources. This
authority is exercised in cooperation with coastal communities
upon development of municipal coastal management programs.

The DEP Bureau of Fisheries is responsible for the man-
agement of finfish, lobster, squid, and crab resources living
within the waters of the State'. The Bureau's main office is
located in Hartford, CT and functions as the administrative and
federal aid office for the inland and marine fisheries programs.
The Marine Fisheries Headquarters of the Bureau is located in
Waterford, CT. This site supports field marine fisheries re-
search and management activities of the Department, and the
marine conservation law enforcement program; and serves as the
operations and maintenance facility for marine program activi-
ties. The headquarters houses nine fisheries biologists, ten
conservation officers, clerical and support staff, and several
technical assistants employed on various field projects.

The second agency involved in marine resource management is
the Department of Agriculture, with its Division of Aquaculture
located in Milford, CT. The Division manages all molluscan shell-
fish resources (except squid) in state waters outside of town
jurisdictions other than those in the towns of Milford, West
Haven, New Haven, and Westport.

A third agency with some responsibilities similar to those
of DEP and Agriculture is the Connecticut Department of Health
Services in Hartford which exercises certain controls over the
harvesting, processing, and distribution of oysters and clams
to assure that they do not present a health hazard to consumers.

The three management agencies, Environmental Protection,
Agriculture, and Health Services are responsible for licensing
and the collection of fishery statistics where such activities
are mandated. In addition, DEP and Agriculture are responsible
for the regulation of coastal fishing activities when such regu-
lation is necessary for the conservation, preservation and man-
agement of resources or for the well-being of participants in the
fisheries; Health Services may regulate aspects of the shellfish
industry when the health of citizens might be jeopardized.

Licensing of fishing activities in Connecticut is authorized
by the Connecticut General Statutes (CGS). All commercial fish-
ing activities are covered by license, permit or registration.
The DEP issues 10 types of commercial fishing licenses and regis-

-3-

trations, a landing license, a lobster dealer license, and a
party and charter vessel registration with fees ranging from
$10.00 to $500.00 (CGS Sec. 26-142a).

In contrast, virtually all marine recreational fishing
activities are unlicensed. The exception to this generality is
the "personal use" (non-commercial) lobster license issued by the
DEP for a fee of twenty-five dollars, and many of the municipal
shellfish harvest programs for oyster, bay scallop, and soft-
shell or hardshell clams. Programs administered by municipali-
ties will be addressed in Section 2.3.

The Division of Aquaculture leases waters under the juris-
diction of the State to private persons or firms, for periods up
to ten years at a time, for the purpose of planting and cultivat-
ing shellfish (CGS Sec. 26-194). In addition, three licenses are
issued which govern use of shellfish vessels (CGS Sec. 26-212),
taking shellfish from natural beds (CGS Sec. 26-213), and taking
conch (CGS Sec. 26-219). Licensing requirements for harvesting
from waters under municipal jurisdiction will be discussed in
Section 2.3.

The Department of Health Services issues two types of com-
mercial shellfishing licenses: permits for harvesting in closed
areas (CGS Sec. 19-59); and certificates for harvesting from open
waters and for processing and distribution (CGS Sec. 19-53).

The DEP requires submission of catch and effort statistics
from all holders of marine fishing licenses, permits, and reg-
istrations. Depending on the type of license, however, this
requirement can be extensive or almost non-existent. Resident
and non-resident commercial lobstermen and trawler operators,
fishermen who land lobsters in Connecticut, lobster dealers,
purse seine vessel operators, commercial shad fishermen, party
and charter vessel operators, and personal use lobster license
holders are required to record information on catch and fishing
effort, or receipts of lobsters, on a daily basis, on forms pro-
vided for this purpose.

Commercial lobster and trawl fishing reports, lobster dealer
reports, and lobster landing reports are submitted monthly.
Personal use lobster, purse seine, and party and charter vessel
reports are submitted at the end of the year, while shad reports
are returned in July at the end of the eight week shad fishing
season. All other commercial license holders (finfish, marine
and inland bait, pound net, and blue crab licenses) submit annual
summary totals of their activities.

The Division of Aquaculture does not require submission of
catch and effort statistics for shellfishing. However, accurate
records are maintained which document the extent and location of
State-owned shellfish beds leased by private parties for cultiva-
tion and harvest of oysters. The Department of Health Services
requires that natural growth seed oyster harvesters, who harvest

-4-

in areas Closed due to pollution, submit monthly reports which
document quantities taken, their source, to whom they are sold,
and where they will be transplanted.

Management authority over marine resources is broadly vested
in Title 26 of the Connecticut General Statutes. However,
amendments to the statutes in 1980 (P.A. 80-164; CGS Sec. 26-
159a) granted the Department of Environmental Protection regula-
tory authority over a broad range of finfishing activities in the
coastal area. Activities which are now managed by regulation are
season and area closures, limitations on species sizes and the
gear by which they may be taken, and mesh size and other gear
restrictions. However, certain other management responsibilities
continue to be authorized only by statute. Chief among these are
authority over the lobster resource (CGS Sec. 26-157a) and sever-
al site-specific area closures implemented during past years for
a variety of social as well as conservation reasons (CGS Sec. 26-
154, 26-154a, 26-169 through 26-185).

The regulatory process may require a maximum of four months
to complete and consists of drafting and Departmental review,
public hearing, redrafting if appropriate, and submission for
approval to both the Regulations Review Committee of the General
Assembly and the Office of the Attorney General. The process is
similar to that required of any Unit or Bureau of the Department
of Environmental Protection with one notable exception: the
legislation implementing regulatory authority over marine fishing
requires that public hearings be held in coastal communities
which might be impacted by the proposed changes.

Management authority over shellfisheries also is vested in
Title 26 of the Connecticut General Statutes. CGS Sections 26-
192 through 26-237 govern leasing of shellfish grounds, permis-
sible gear to be used, and other required activities such as the
marking of boundaries and dumping of mud and other substances on
shellfish beds. Regulatory authority granted to the Commissioner
of Agriculture is restricted to designating shellfish spawning
beds (CGS Sec. 26-220), taking oysters from the Housatonic River
(CGS Sec. 26-233a), and setting daily limits on the take of
oysters (CGS Sec. 26-234a).

I
Enforcement of fisheries statutes and regulations by the DEP
is implemented through the DEP Bureau of Law Enforcement. The
marine staff of this bureau has a variety of responsibilities
which include conservation law enforcement activities such as
checking catches for species that are less than some prescribed
legal minimum size, or for violations of season, area, and gear
restrictions. Ancillary but important duties include boating
safety patrols, investigation of boating violations, and coop-
erative law enforcement activities with the National Marine
Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and munic-
ipal and state police forces within Connecticut and from adjoin-
ing states.

-5-

The Commissioner of Agriculture may appoint shellfish war-
dens in coastal towns (CGS Sec. 26-205) and shellfish policemen
upon application by commercial shellfishing interests (CGS Sec.
26-206). These officers may assist in detecting and prosecuting
offenses against state shellfish harvesting laws. Enforcement of
provisions of shellfish harvesting and distribution pertaining
to public health is the responsibility of local directors of
health, police departments, and shellfish policemen.

2.2 Federal Government

Federal resource management responsibilities are vested in
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for marine species
including marine mammals and endangered species and, in coopera-
tion with NMFS, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for anadromous
fisheries such as Atlantic salmon.

Implementation of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act of 1976 (MFCMA as amended) introduced an entirely
new concept for management of fisheries resources in the Fishery
Conservation Zone (FCZ), that is, the area of the contiguous
oceans and continental shelf three miles from the baseline of the
territorial sea to 200 miles seaward of this baseline. The
territorial waters of coastal states extend from the baseline--
usually the shoreline--to 3 miles seaward of the baseline. The
Fishery Conservation Zone is also referred to as the Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ) in recognition of U.S. jurisdiction over all
resources including fishery resources, oil, and sand and gravel,
to name several, that occur in the zone. For the purposes of
this plan, and given its emphasis on marine fisheries resources#
the zone will be referred to as the FCZ.

The MFCMA called for cooperative fisheries management to be
implemented by NMFS based on fishery management plans developed
by one or more of the eight regional Fishery Management Councils
authorized' by the Act. Connecticut is a member of the New
England Fishery Management Council. Appointed memberships on the
Councils of private citizens qualified in fisheries matters are
determined by NMFS from lists submitted by each of the coastal
state governors. Standing members of the New England Council
include the state agency directors with principle fisheries
management responsibility, the Regional Director of the National
Marine Fisheries Service, and, as non-voting members, the Region-
al Director of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and representa-
tives of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, the
Department of State, and the U.S. Coast Guard. To date, the New
England Council has prepared fishery management plans for
Atlantic groundfish, sea scallop, American lobster, and Atlantic
herring. Plans developed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council for species that occur in both the New England and mid-
Atlantic regions include plans for bluefish; surf clams and ocean
quahogs; and squid, butterfish, and mackerel. The South Atlantic
Fishery Management Council is presently preparing a fishery

-6-

management plan for swordfish in cooperation with four other
Councils including the New England and Mid-Atlantic Councils.

The federal regulatory process for implementation of FMPs
developed under the MFCMA is rather complex. Typically, plans
are prepared by the Councils and submitted to NMFS along with an
environmental impact statement (mandatory) and a draft of pro-
posed regulatory language. Plan review under the National Envir-
onmental Policy Act and NOAA/NMFS guidelines, and implementation
of regulations by NMFS have often taken in excess of a year.

The interactions of the federal regulatory process with
those of the state government agencies potentially can be in
conflict but ideally, and usually, they are compatible. For ex-
ample, in many of the more recent cases of federal fishery
regulation under MFCMA, Connecticut has acted immediately to
implement identical or compatible regulations in order to present
a unified fisheries management position to all users. This is
not surprising when one considers that Connecticut, as a member
of the New England Council, has had an active role throughout the
process in the development of FMP's and the promulgation of
regulations. The Act, therefore, stimulates cooperative state/-
federal fishery management programs and, in Connecticut, this
philosophy is embodied in the state's regulatory process.

Another example of a cooperative interjurisdictional manage-
ment effort is the Connecticut River Anadromous Fish Restoration
Program. The program is a joint effort of the four Connecticut
River basin states (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
and Vermont) with assistance from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Program par-
ticipants are structured into a Technical Committee and a Policy
Committee. The program participants are responsible for develop-
ment of projects and activities to enhance the American shad
resource in the system and to restore Atlantic salmon to the
basin. Further discussion regarding this program is contained in
Section 2.4.

Late in 1983, the next generation of the program was begun,
referred to as the Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission,
and authorized by Act of Congress and the approval of each of the
respective four state legislatures. The Commission and its
powers will be discussed in Section 2.4.

2.3 Local Government

Resource management by municipalities is exercised exclu-
sively over shellfish in beds under town jurisdiction with the
exception of the town waters of West Haven, New Haven, Milford,
and Westport (CGS Sec. 26-238 and 26-257). Shellfish resources
in the waters of these cities and towns are managed by the
Aquaculture Division of the Department of Agriculture. Munici-
palities are granted broad authority by CGS Sec. 26-257a(b) to

-7-

regulate shellfisheries and shellfish grounds when such authority
is not granted to other parties and when such grounds are not
under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Agriculture. How-
ever, Sections 26-238 through 26-294 of the statutes do provide
statutory authority by which area-specific management measures
are enforced in waters under local jurisdiction. Principal
species of interest are the fall bay scallop fisheries and
predominantly summer fisheries for hardshell and softshell clams.

Due to the degraded quality of much of Connecticut's inshore
tidal waters, many areas supporting shellfish populations are
closed to shellfishing. Exceptions are in the more eastern, non-
urban communities such as Madison, Clinton, Westbrook, East Lyme,
Waterford, Groton, and Stonington. All coastal towns have some
clean water areas offshore which are capable of supporting
populations of the American oyster.

Management by the towns is through appointed shellfish com-
missions empowered to enact regulations on seasons, quantities to
be taken, minimum sizes of shellfish and the methods of harvest.
In this manner, local control is exercised over local resources.
The towns of Madison and Old Saybrook, among others, have
developed shellfish management plans through which commercial
harvesting of shellfish in closed areas is allowed provided that
the commercial harvesters transplant an agreed upon amount of
their harvest to a certified clean water area for recreational
shellfishing. The town of Branford also operates a similar
program.

The process for enacting or amending town shellfish regula-
tions varies among communities. Generally, proposals may be made
by the town shellfish commission, or to the commission by inter-
ested citizens. Also, most commissions retain shellfish wardens
who have law enforcement responsibilities. These individuals
often become the most knowledgeable persons regarding the status
of the town's resources and the activities of their users. As a
result, proposals many times emanate from the shellfish wardens.
After due process, which includes review and public hearing,
regulations are enacted for the coming fishing season. Gener-
ally, the process is repeated each year.

2.4 Relationships within the Marine Resource
Management Community in Connecticut

Cooperative, interjurisdictional management is an essential
element of any marine resource management program since virtually
all species of interest to one state migrate through the waters
of another or through the FCZ. The inability to participate in
cooperative management planning activities reduces the ability of
each individual state to protect its resources and precludes
regional efforts which are of benefit to all states.

-8-

Two examples of successful, interjurisdictional management
programs are the Connecticut River Anadromous Fisheries Program,
and the Interstate Fisheries Management Program (ISFMP) administ-
ered by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

Anadromous fisheries management in the Connecticut River
basin is accomplished largely through a cooperative effort
between the four river-basin states and both the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the National marine Fisheries Service.
Since the mid-1960's, enhancement activities for American shad
have been conducted in the form of fishway and fish lift
construction, and fishery investigations. More recent efforts of
the program have been in the restoration of Atlantic salmon to
the river system. Funding for these activities has been provided
not only by the state and federal agencies involved, but also by
utility companies operating in the Connecticut River and its
tributaries. Through construction of fishway traps on mainstem
tributaries, as well as selective breeding and rearing of smolts
for release as sea-run fish, the cooperative, interstate,
interagency program has shown remarkable success in restoring a
previously extirpated species to the Connecticut River.

The most recent example of this effort was authorized by
Congress as the Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Compact.
Membership on the Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission
@authorized by the compact legislation includes the four state
fishery management agency directors, citizens knowledgeable in
salmon restoration efforts, and the Regional Directors of the
U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service. The Commission, in effect, replaces the Policy Board
of the Connecticut River Anadromous Program, while the members of
the Technical Committee are expected to continue serving as
advisors to the Commission.

Connecticut is a member state of the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission. A state's delegation to the Commission is
composed of a member of the state legislature, a gubernatorial
.appointee, and the director of the state agency with principle
marine fisheries management responsibility.

Under the auspices of the Interstate Fisheries Management
Program, the Commission is responsible for preparation of fishery
management plans for species meeting five criteria. These are:

1) That the fishery is in need of management,
2) That the fishery is of considerable value to the
states and the nation,
3) That the fishery is not scheduled for management under
the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act
in the near future or that the harvest does not occur
predominantly in the Fishery Conservation Zone,
4) That there is a reasonable expectation of plan
implementation, and
5) That management is expected to be cost-effective.

-9-

To date, participants of the ISFMP and its predecessor
program (the NMFS State/Federal Fisheries Management Program)
have developed fishery management plans for American lobster,
Atlantic menhaden, summer flounder, striped bass, and northern
shrimp. Management planning for American shad and river herrings
is in progress. Additional program activities include the coor-
dination of regional, interstate activities in the collection,
processing, and dissemination of coastal fisheries statistics.
With one exception, plans developed under the interstate program
have been presented to each of the ASMFC member states for indiv-
idual implementation under that state's regulatory or statutory
authority. Inherent in this statement lies both the weakness and
the strength of the ISFMP in promoting cooperative management
efforts between the states.

The interstate program, in itself, has no authority to reg-
ulate fisheries for which management plans have been developed.
However, member states with a similar interest in a regional
fishery can elect to designate ASMFC as the management body for
that plan. By exercising Amendment One of the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Compact, regulations may be enacted by inter-
ested states which become force of law for each of the states
having so elected to manage a particular species by this means.
At the present time, northern shrimp in the Gulf of Maine are
managed under Amendment One.

Regardless of the applicability of Amendment One, it is
assumed that each member state will make a legitimate attempt to
implement those parts of a plan pertinent to its fisheries when
that plan has been approved by the Commission. In practice, this
does not always occur since the pressures brought to bear within
a state during public review often overcome the initial inclina-
tions of state representatives to the Commission during develop-
ment and initial approval of the plan.

The advantage to the interstate management process is that
it requires negotiation and compromise during development and
approval of a plan. This is considered desirable since most state
legislatures are unwilling to relinquish management authority to
a central fisheries management commission which would then have
jurisdiction over those fisheries and resources within the
state's waters. The plan resulting from such compromise is more
likely to receive approval within the individual states since the
process, properly conducted, will have resolved most major
differences in management strategies.

Marine Fisheries staff of the Department of Environmental
Protection and staff of the Aquaculture Division of the Connect-
icut Department of Agriculture periodically communicate with the
New York Department of Environmental Conservation on management
issues involving finfish, lobsters and shellfish. The shellfish
situation in Connecticut is an interesting one in that much cf
the oyster harvest from Connecticut is transported to New York

_10-

for relaying (depuration). As a result, there is as great a
motivation for cooperative discussions between the two states
regarding shellfish management as there is for management of
migratory finfish species and lobster. Finally, the Aquaculture
Division has engaged in cooperative shellfish management efforts
with the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
(DEM) in nearshore eastern Connecticut areas and the Marine
Fisheries Program maintains continued liaison with the DEM on
interstate fisheries issues through mutual involvement on the New
England Fisheries Management Council.

Cooperative town shellfish management programs include those
where a water body may represent the boundary between two towns
such as the Niantic River between Waterford and East Lyme. Also,
coastal towns with similar management philosophies often cooper-
ate to manage beds in each of the towns. An example of this type
of program is in the towns of Clinton, Madison and Guilford which
annually sponser a joint shellfish commission meeting.

3.0 Information for Management of Marine Resources

3.1 Scientific Information

The major scientific studies on the physical and chemical
oceanography of the Long Island Sound ecosystem were performed in
the 1950's and 1960's by G. A. Riley and his associates at the
Bingham Oceanographic Laboratory of Yale University (Riley 1952,
1956, 1959, 1961, 1967; Riley and Conover 1956; Riley and Schurr
1959; Larkin and Riley 1967). More recent information can be
found in the Technical Report Series of the marine Science
Research Center of the State University of New York (Hardy 1970,
1972 a,b; Hardy and Weyl 1971; Jay and Bowman 1975). A compre-
hensive bibliography of Long Island Sound prepared by the DEP
Natural Resources Center provides an extensive list of references
to scientific studies of Long Island Sound (DEP, NRC 1982).

Studies of Long Island Sound sediments include: McCrone et
al. (1961); Sanders (1956); Donohue and Tucker (1970); Krebs
(1963); Yingst and Rhoads (1978); Bokuniewicz et al. (1976);
Ellis (1962); and Rhoads et al. (1978 a,b).

Environmental baselines in Long Island Sound are reported in
Reid et al. (1979). Investigations designed to measure levels of
pollutants in Long Island Sound, and to determine their origins,
distribution, and fate in the environment (Dehlinger et al. 1973,
1974), and to monitor dredged material disposal sites (Serafy et
al. 1977; Valenti and Peters 1977; Cobb et al. 1977; DAMOS 1979;
Stewart 1980) also provide baseline scientific information on the
Long Island Sound ecosystem. Transcripts of the proceedings of a
major conference on the pollution of the Sound and its
tributaries contain a large volume of information on this subject
(EPA 1971). A comprehensive data base reflecting marine habitat
quality in western Connecticut inshore waters, and mid-Sound
waters along the entire Connecticut coast was completed in 1983
for the Connecticut Coastal Energy Impact Program (Oceanic
Society 1983; Pellegrino and Hubbard 1983). These studies
included intensive sampling and hydrocarbon analysis of sediments
and benthic organisms, as well as information on commercial and
recreational marine resource species sampled by trawl and gill
net.

Scientific information on biota that are of commercial,
recreational, and ecological importance is available in Thomson
et al. (1978); Bigelow and Schroeder (1953); Grosslein and
Azarovitz (1982); RAD, NEFC (1983); Technical Series Reports of
the NMFS Sandy Hook Laboratory; FAO Fisheries Synopses; draft and
final Fishery Management Plans prepared by regional Fishery
Management Councils, and reports of investigations conducted by
the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, New York
Department of Environmental Conservation, and Northeast Utilities
Service Company's environmental laboratory at the Millstone
Nuclear Power Station in Waterford, CT. In addition, the most
useful scientific journals, in which results of recent investi-

-12-

gations on the population dynamics, migratory habits, and other
information vital to the management of marine species are
reported include: Fishery Bulletin, Marine Fisheries Review,
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Ecology,
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Copeia, and
Estuaries.

3.2 Fishery Statistics

The Connecticut DEP marine Fisheries Information System is a
program of automated procedures implemented in 1975 to process
marine fishing licenses and commercial fisheries catch reports.
At the present time, trip catches and the associated fishing
effort, area of capture, and port of landing for lobster pot and
bottom trawl fisheries are included in the system. From these
data# the relationship of catch to fishing effort for lobster and
the finfish species most effectively caught by trawl nets may be
derived and used as one indicator of relative stock abundance or
the general "condition" of the resource. A similar automated
data base is generated annually for the party and charter boat
fishery.

Trip information is also obtained for the shad gill net,
menhaden purse seine, and personal use (recreational) lobster
fisheries, however, these data bases are not automated. Other
fisheries of importance for which catch statistics are available
but less than acceptable for management purposes are those con-
ducted by hook and line, gill net (other than shad and bait
species), haul seine, eel pot, and authorized gear used to take
blue crabs for commercial purposes and certain crab and finfish
species as bait. All holders of these license types report their
annual total catch and gear used on the same form at the end of
the year. No timely harvest and effort statistics are available
for the oyster, hard clam, or conch fisheries.

In 1982, through a cooperative agreement with NMFS, DEP
marine fisheries staff began collecting commercial landings sta-
tistics on all finfish and shellfish species landed in Connect-
icut. In addition to landings of each species by gear type and
county, information on operating units--the number of fishermen
employed in each fishery and the number of boats and fishing gear
used--was supplied to the Resource Statistics Division of NMFS.
This cooperative agreement has been extended on an annual basis
since 1982.

-13-

4.0 Marine Resources of Connecticut

4.1 Description of Long Island Sound

4.1.1 Geomorphology

Long Island Sound (LIS) is an approximately 928 nautical
square mile embayment, 113 miles long with a maximum width of
about 21 miles, bounded on the south by Long Island, New York and
on the north by the Connecticut and New York shore. Fisher's
Island, Great Gull Island, Little Gull Island, and Plum Island
delimit the eastern end from the more open coastal waters of
Block Island Sound while the western Sound is connected with the
New York Bight via a tidal strait--the East River (Figure 1).
Maximum depths of about 328 ft occur in the eastern end, which
decrease to about 115 ft (maximum) in the central and western
basins. The mean depth of LIS as a whole is 65 ft (Riley 1961).
A volume of approximately 16,800 billion gallons or 15.4 cubic
miles of water is contained in LIS (OCZM and CAM 1980; USGS &
NOAA 1973).

The Connecticut coast has an irregular geography with many
headlands and embayments. Total shoreline frontage, including
tidal rivers and embayments, is 583 miles (OCZM and CAM 1980).
Of the 278 miles of shoreline that directly fronts on LIS, 14.2%
consists of sandy beach, 11.3% is glacial drift, 8.2% is arti-
ficial fill, 7.2% is bedrock, and 59.1% exists as combined tidal
wetland and undifferentiated tidal shores (CAM 1979).

Irregularity is the dominant characteristic of the coastline
of Westchester County, N.Y. and the western half of the northern
Long Island coast. Eastward, the coast becomes exceptionally
regular with no significant indentations. Along the entire north
shore of Long Island, the beaches are generally narrow and rocky
or pebbly, except where beaches have been nourished with sand, or
groins have been constructed. Beaches usually front high bluffs
or small marshes and embayments. Large wetlands are uncommon
except at the heads of a few embayments (NERBC 1975).

There are 129 islands in LIS, 3 in the East River, New York,
and 126 along the Connecticut coast. They range from small
outcroppings to wooded and settled islands with dwellings. Large
shoals lie off Stratford and Old Saybrook (NERBC 1975).

-14-

0
Rh

Connecticut

Now York ajocV.
1 9%806
So"I'd
00; %s%and Sound
\.Ong 64
Ln

1.0 n

Long Island, NY .000'

Atlantic Ocean

Figure 1. Long Island Sound and its environs.

4.1.2 Sources of Fresh Water

Three major drainage basins provide Long Island Sound with
fresh water. In order of importance they are:

1) The Connecticut River basin with a drainage area of
11,250 sq mi.
2) The Housatonic River basin (1,950 sq mi).
3) The Thames River basin (1,470 sq mi).

In addition to these three, 66 mainland coastal streams flow
directly into LIS with a combined drainage area of 1,467 sq mi.
Of these, the three largest are the Pawcatuck River (304 sq mi),
the Quinnipiac River (166 sq mi), and the Saugatuck River (93 sq
mi) (USGS & NOAA 1973).

The average annual freshwater inflow is approximately 6,200
billion gallons, equal to 37 percent of total volume. Most of
this inflow (80% or more) is into the eastern end of LIS from the
Connecticut and Thames Rivers. Considering that the average
annual precipitation in Connecticut is 36 inches, an additional
800 billion gallons a year of fresh water falls directly on LIS
(USGS & NOAA 1973). Maximum river runoff generally occurs during
April and May, preceded by secondary peaks from December to
February. Minimum flow rates usually occur in early autumn
(Riley 1967).

4.1.3 Physicochemical Characteristics

Long Island Sound displays mildly estuarine characteristics
in the western and central parts and embayment characteristics in
the eastern third. True estuaries exist in the lower reaches of
the major rivers (the Connecticut, Thames, and Housatonic), and
occur on a smaller scale in the mouths of other rivers flowing
into the Sound.

Minimum tidal range and maximum tidal currents occur at the
eastern end, while maximum tidal range and minimum tidal currents
occur at the western end. Circulation or movement of water with-
in LIS and the adjacent estuarine streams is controlled princi-
pally by tidal currents modified by freshwater inflow, winds and
other weather conditions, and bottom topography (NERBC 1975).

The circulation pattern of surface and near-surface waters
is fairly well defined (Larkin and Riley 1967; Riley 1952), but
relatively little is known about deep current circulation. There
appears to be a surface drift into LIS at the western end which
merges with a counterclockwise current following the shoreline in
the western third of the area. This gives way to weak and con-
fused currents in the broad central portion. Here the require-
ments of continuity and the measured drifts, such as they are,
suggest that there may be a weak clockwise eddy. Another clock-

-16-

wise eddy, of small size but with strong currents, is found
between the mouth of the Connecticut River and Long Sand Shoal.
Both of these eddies probably supply water to an eastward drift
that follows the Long Island Shore and moves out through the
eastern passes (Riley 1952). At the eastern end, surface water
flows out of LIS into Block Island Sound, and oceanic bottom
water flows into LIS through a channel commonly known as "the
Race". At the western end, surface water from the East River
flows into the Sound and bottom waters move into the East River.
Quantified information on inflow and outflow in the western end
of the sound is unavailable (NERBC 1975).

Well-oxygenated, cold, dense, marine waters remain unmixed
below the surface throughout a large area of the eastern Sound.
The less oxygenated, warmer, lower density fresh water enters
mostly in the eastern end from the Connecticut and Thames Rivers,
remains near the surface, and is flushed out to sea rather
rapidly. Thus, dilution of marine waters is minimal. This
physical two-layer movement system influences the chemical regime
of the Sound and its estuaries. Lighter suspended inorganic and
organic materials, including pollutants, from inland sources tend
to be flushed out to sea while nutrient-rich bottom waters circu-
late to surface layers. The sediment distribution within the
Sound is also affected by circulation patterns (NERBC 1975; USGS
and NOAA 1973).

Vertical and horizontal variation of the Sound's chemical
parameters are influenced by its bathymetry and interaction with
the adjacent inshore waters of Block Island Sound and freshwater
tributaries. Freshwater drainage and the two-layer transport
system described above tend to develop and maintain a vertical
salinity gradient throughout the Sound (Riley 1959) although fall
and winter mixing destroys these vertical gradients (Kester and
Courant 1973). A general east-west gradient in salinity occurs
whereby the salinity of the western end is 3-5 O/oo lower than
the eastern end in which the surface salinity ranges from 31-
32 O/oo except during periodic flooding of the Connecticut and
Thames Rivers (Riley 1959).

East-west temperature gradients vary seasonally with the
western part being lower in temperature during winter and higher
in summer. Surface water temperature ranges from about 34-66OF
in the eastern end, and 32-73 0F in the western end. A slight
vertical temperature gradient occurs during the summer with
surface temperatures ranging from 68 0F in the western part and
640F in the eastern part of the Sound to bottom temperatures of
63 OF and 610F, respectively. Maximum differences between surface
and bottom temperatures are about 90F in central LIS (Riley
1959).

Supersaturation of oxygen in surface waters occurs during
the spring bloom of phytoplankton, while the oxygen content of
bottom water declines during the spring bloom and early summer,
with minimum saturation values of 50%. This type of vertical

-17-

distribution indicates that production of oxygen in the surface
layer by phytoplankton exceeds utilization. During fall and
winter, the Sound's waters are generally undersaturated with
respect to oxygen. Three factors are probably involved:

1) a slight lag between surface cooling and oxygen uptake;
2) acceleration of vertical mixing and convection;
3) excess oxidation over production in most of the water
column, which is indicated by an increase in nutrients
in fall and winter (Riley and Conover 1956).

The saturation of oxygen in surface waters is spatially uniform
within the Sound, except for increases caused by occasional
phytoplankton blooms at river mouths due to the influx of a
limiting nutrient such as nitrate. Greater variability occurs at
depth after the summer season with reduced saturation near New
York City and the Connecticut River (Kester and Courant 1973).

Long Island Sound is a moderately turbid body of water in
which most Secchi disk transparency readings generally range from
3-15 f t. During rare -heavy plankton blooms or river flooding,
values of as little as eight inches have been recorded. The
maximum recorded value is slightly more than 30 ft. Usually the
highest readings are taken in the early spring in the eastern end
of the Sound, which is relatively deep and subject to rapid
interchange with open coastal waters. Phytoplankton is respon-
sible for about one third of the total light extinction. The
remainder is due to a conglomeration of other factors: the water
itself, dissolved and particulate organic matter, and silt and
bottom sediment in suspension. The latter appears particularly
important since significant correlations were found between
transparency and such variables as depth, sediment stability,
wind, and tidal speed, all of which might be expected to influ-
ence the rate of suspension of bottom materials (Riley and Schurr
1959).

4.1.4 Sedimentary Characteristics

In sedimentary environments such as beaches, tidal marshes,
estuaries, and offshore bottom areas., the distribution of most
sediments, although complex, follows a simple rule: the more an
area is protected from wave action, the finer is the grain size
of its sediment. Protection can be found in deep water, the
shelter of islands, in estuaries, or tidal marshes. The waves of
LIS, which govern sediment grain size distribution, are small but
steep, and are capable of moving large amounts of material (Ellis
1962).

Areas of deposition (estuaries, tidal marshes, protected
offshore areas) are characterized by fine sediments, while areas
of erosion (some parts of beaches and exposed offshore areas) are
characterized by coarse sediments (Ellis 1962).

-18-

In general, the eastern part of the Sound is characterized
by predominantly medium to coarse grained sediments with
relatively local and intermittent occurrences of poorly sorted,
fine grained sediments. Sediments of western LIS are predom-
inantly fine grained and, with the exception of the relatively
thin surface layer, exhibit poor sediment sorting and high silt
and/or clay compositions from top to bottom of core profiles.
This indicates little or no reworking of the sediment mass sub-
sequent to initial deposition (Donohue and Tucker 1970).

Estuarine currents superimposed on tidal currents produce a
net westward transport of sand out of the eastern Sound into the
central muddy basin. A large amount of silt has accumulated in
the central and western basins. Fine sediment is introduced by
rivers and is carried by estuarine circulation into the inner
Sound. The accumulation of silt is aided by the feeding activity
of animals inhabiting the muddy bottom. Fine grains of silt are
bound into much larger fecal pellets by bottom-dwelling animals
(CAM 1977).

During every tidal cycle, a layer of sediment approximately
1/16 inch thick is eroded and redistributed within the central
basin. Throughout LIS, tidal streams re-suspend and re-deposit
more than 7 million tons of sediment daily. Because of this
activity, fine silt is accumulating in the central and western
basins at a rate of slightly less than 1/16 inch per year (CAM
1977).

4.2 Habitats Supporting Marine Species

4.2.1 Open Water

The open water habitat, or the water column, is utilized by
nektonic (swimming) and planktonic (drifting) organisms. The
physical and chemical characteristics of this habitat, such as
currents and water circulation, temperature, depth, salinity, and
dissolved oxygen and nutrient concentrations differ spatially and
temporally within LIS and its adjacent estuaries. These factors
influence the distribution and seasonal occurrence of pelagic
organisms.

4.2.2 Estuaries

Generally, many habitats which support marine species in LIS
can be broadly classified as estuarine due to the dilution of the
Sound by its freshwater tributaries. However, especially in the
eastern part of the Sound, both open water and benthic habitats
are more representative of those oceanic habitats occurring on
the continental shelf of New England. The estuarine classifica-
tion becomes more specific and accurate for areas near the mouths
and in estuarine reaches of rivers tributary to the Sound.

_19-

The confinement of estuaries provides shelter from wave
action, permits the retention of plankton, and enables plants to
root and shellfish larvae to settle. Shallow depths permit light
to penetrate through the entire water column (except in areas of
high turbidity) , thus stimulating the growth of bottom plants.
These depths also allow the growth of marsh plants and tideflat
biota, and allow for flushing of the system. Freshwater flow
dilutes salt water and fosters an especially rich and varied
biota; it also deters oceanic predators which cannot tolerate low
salinity and encourages estuarine forms which can. Freshwater
flow, tidal energy, and salinity together create a two-layer
water movement system, beneficial to suspended life for
transport, and useful for diluting and flushing wastes.
Estuaries have a high capacity for energy storage; marsh grass
and submerged grasses convert and store energy for later use, and
physical conditions promote the retention and rapid cycling of
nutrients and the conversion of available nutrients to animal
tissue (Clark 1977).

4.2.3 Eelgrass Beds

In LIS, submerged marine eelgrass (Zostera marina) beds grow
in shallow waters where turbidity is low enough for sufficient
light penetration, currents are not too swift, wave action is
low, and bottom sediments are favorable. They prosper in quiet,
protected waters of healthy estuaries and are essential elements
of the estuarine ecosystem, particularly where marshes are
reduced or absent. They often provide a substantial amount of
primary productivity and nursery habitat in estuaries. They
supply food to herbivorous animals and detrital nutrient to the
water, add oxygen (during daylight hours), and stabilize
particles that settle from the water column as tidal currents
slow (Clark 1974).

4.2.4 Rocky Shore

The shallow depths of subtidal rocky shorelines (30 ft or
less) permit light penetration sufficient for algal primary
productivity and an associated food chain. The rocky shore
provides a stable substrate for the attachment of algae, and in
many areas, dense kelp (Laminaria) beds cover the rock substrate.
Barnacles and mussels also utilize the hard substrate for
attachment. Crevices, caves and attached kelp provide protective
shelter from predators for crabs, lobsters, and fish.

The rocky intertidal shore is a habitat of high stress
resulting from wave action, alternating exposure and inundation
from tidal action, and temperature and salinity extremes in
tidepools which have formed at low tide. Larval and juvenile
stages of crustaceans and fish receive some protection from large
predators under and among rocks in this habitat; snails such as
Littorina littorea are usually abundant. Generally, the rocky
intertidal zone is not a habitat from which species are
commercially or recreationally harvested, although some bait
species such as green crabs may be available.

-20-

4.2.5 Reef s

Subtidal rocky reefs offer habitat characteristics similar
to those of subtidal rocky shore areas. Nearshore rocky reefs
such as Bartlett (Waterford), and Penfield (Bridgeport) and
offshore reefs such as Stratford Shoal in the middle of the Sound
are productive sportfishing and lobstering areas. The same
shallow rocky habitat characteristics are found at man-made
breakwaters such as the Stonington and Duck Island breakwaters
which make them productive lobstering and fishing areas.

4.2.6 Sand and Mud Bottom

Subtidally, a flat bottom composed of sand or mud, or a
combination of both, is the predominant benthic habitat in LIS
and its estuaries. Burrowing deposit feeders such as polychaete
worms and small crustaceans (i.e. amphipods, isopods) feed on
detritus, bacteria, and unicellular algae at the base of the food
chain. Bivalve molluscs filter feed on phytoplankton suspended
in the water near the bottom. Epifaunal animals such as crabs,
lobsters, and snails feed on the infaunal species. Bottom-
feeding fish of resource importance such as flounder and scup
feed on the infauna and epifauna of this habitat.

Dredged material disposal sites in LIS become quickly
colonized by infaunal species which are followed by epifaunal
species in search of food and potential shelter. Disposal sites
were originally chosen in areas considered to be of low habitat
value. Species such as lobster and finfish are attracted by the
"feature" aspect of the mound on an otherwise featureless bottom
in addition to the food source provided by the initial colonizing
infauna. Fine grained silts and clays are manipulated by crabs
and lobsters and, due to their cohesiveness, easily formed into
protective burrows.

Tidal marshes usually extend into unvegetated expanses of
mud or sand. These flats may extend above the low-tide mark and
thus create a tideflat shoreline, where the tidelands area is
unfavorable to the growth of grasses because of heavy tidal
scouring or other factors. Mud and sand flats are often rich
sources of basic nutrients for the ecosystem and feeding areas
for fish at high tide or birds at low tide. In many estuaries,
they support large populations of polychaete worms and shellfish.
Mudflats are important energy storage elements of the estuarine
ecosystem. If they were not present, vital dissolved chemical
nutrients (such as phosphates, nitrates, and nitrites) would be
swept out of the marshes with ebbing tides, eventually depleting
the energy supply to the marsh food chain. The mudflat serves to
catch the departing nutrients and hold them until the returning
tide can sweep them back into the marsh. There appears to be an
optimum balance between the proportion of marsh to mudflat area
which is vital to the stability and the continued existence of
both systems (Clark 1977).

-21-

4.2.7 Tidal Marshes

The tidal marshes of Connecticut represent a very limited
but valuable resource totaling some 15,500 acres (Niering et al.
1977). Marshes of the northeastern United States are dominated
by a small number of plant species. Along the intertidal zone,
saltwater cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) usually forms a
conspicuous belt of varying width. On the adjacent higher marsh,
� finer and shorter saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina patens) forms
� matrix within which occur "islands" of short S. alterniflora,
blackgrass (Juncus gerardi), spikegrass (Distichlis spicaFa-)and
forbs (flowering plants usually with broad leaves; i.e., sea
lavender, seaside goldenrod), or a mixture of these species. At
the upland/marsh interface, Juncus often forms a belt along with
the marsh elder (Iva frutescens). Here, reed-grass (Phragmites
communis) and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) also may be
conspicuous (Niering et al. 1977).

Three major tidal- marsh types (salt, brackish, and fresh)
are recognized in Connecticut, each of which exhibits different
vegetation patterns. Brackish and fresh tidal marshes attain
their optimal development on large, slowly flowing river systems
characterized by gentle gradients and tidal influence over
considerable distances. They are a relatively rare class of
tidal wetlands in Connecticut. The combined acreage of brackish
and fresh marshes of the Connecticut and Housatonic Rivers
represents only 6.3% and 8.0%, respectively, of the total acreage
of Connecticut tidal wetlands.

Tidal inundation is the main feature shared by salt, brack-
ish, and fresh marshes, with dissimilarities in aquatic vegeta-
tion correlated to variations in salinity. Generally, areas with
salinities greater than 15 O/oo and less than 0.5 O/oo will
support salt and fresh marshes, respectively. Brackish marshes
occupy the salinity zone between the fresh and salt marsh zones
(Metzler and Rosza 1982).

Tidal marshlands serve as a vehicle for the storage and
transfer of nutrients from upland sources which are partially
used and recycled within the marsh system, but ultimately trans-
ported into coastal waters to provide basic nutrient for the food
web system. Vegetation plays a key role in converting inorganic
compounds (nutrients) and sunlight into the stored energy of
plant tissue. When dead leaves and stems of plants enter the
water and are broken down by bacteria, they leave the storage
component of the energy cycle and, as small particles of organic
detritus, they become the food of fiddler crabs, worms, snails,
mussels, and larval stages of fish and shellfish in estuarine
waters. About one half of the plant tissue created in tidal salt
marshes is flushed out into the estuary to support life there
(Clark 1974).

-22-

Tidal creeks that transect salt marshes provide a way for
various fishes and invertebrates to move into marshes to feed, to
spawn, or to seek sanctuary. Some species, such as the blue crab
and various fishes, actively move in and out of these tide
marshes while others, such as copepods and larvae of fish and
invertebrates, are passively carried in and out with the tide.

Tidal marsh systems perform a valuable function in pollution
filtration by oxidizing organic waste and by serving as a
nutrient "sink", thus reducing both the pollution load entering
the Sound and the resulting algal blooms and eutrophication
(NERBC 1974). As sediment accretors, tidal marshes also act as
depositories for sediments, therefore reducing the frequency of
dredging needed for navigation. This, in turn, reduces the
potential for smothering shellfish and other bottom estuarine
invertebrates. Marshes also are important in erosion control.
During severe storms, extensive mats of marsh peat exhibit great
resiliency, and thereby serve to buffer the shoreline and
provide the upland with an added degree of protection (Niering
and Warren 1974).

Thus, tidal marshlands serve as essential habitat, nutrient
producer, water purifier, sediment trap, aesthetic attraction,
storm barrier, shore stabilizer, and, perhaps most importantly,
as an energy storage unit for the ecosystem (Clark 1974).

4.2.8 Beachfront

The beachfront is a harsh, unstable environment and not a
permanent habitat for species of major resource importance. it
can provide productive sportfishing for gamefish as they prey
upon schools of baitfish such as sand lance (Ammodytes
americanus) which often occur there.

-23-

4.3 Living Marine Resources

4.3.1 Introduction

The amount of information available that pertains to
Connecticut's living marine resources varies considerably among
the individual species. Some life history information such as
geographic range, migratory habits, preferred habitat, food
habits, and reproduction has been established and is briefly sum-
marized in this section based on the existing literature. The
occurrence and distribution of important commercial and recrea-
tional species in Long Island Sound is known to some extent,
however, it is unclear for many species which may be less
important to fishermen but of considerable ecological importance.

Information in Section 4.3 is presented based on available
literature, commercial and recreational fishery statistics, and
the knowledge of biologists and fishermen familiar with the
species. Life history information for finfish has been extracted
from Bigelow and Schroeder (1953), Thomson et al. (1978), Olsen
and Stevenson (1975),- Grosslein and Azarovitz (1982), and RAD,
NEFC 1983. Sources of similar information on molluscan and crU8-
tacean shellfish are referenced individually for each species.

Where they are available, commercial catches per unit of
fishing effort (CPUE) are provided as preliminary indicators of
stock conditions. To be truly useful, a lengthy time series of
such data--as is now being collected--must be available. As the
time series increases, so too will the usefulness of the data.
The reader should be aware that annual changes in CPUE may not be
directly proportional to changes in stock abundance just as vari-
ations in landings are not always caused by variations in stock
abundance. CPUE may also reflect changes in gear selectivity,
gear saturationg non-random fishing patterns, and patch distribu-
tion.of fish species. Thus it should be used only tentatively#
as the best available--but still rough-- ind i cator of variations
in abundance.

Trends in the commercial landings of each species are
indicated for the period for which records are available. The
methods of collection of landing statistics have varied widely
over time and may, in fact, present serious biases in the time
series of data. The reader is cautioned against drawing conclu-
sion8 based only on the commercial landings data contained in
this document; while variations in landings may be the result of
commercial and recreational fishing activities, they may also be
caused by reasons entirely unrelated to those activities (e.g.
changes in abundance due to environmental factors).

Prior to 1981, Connecticut commercial landings statistics
were compiled by the National Marine Fisheries Service in part
from the total catches recorded for certain species by DEP Marine
Fisheries staff and their predecessors from annual commercial
fishing reports. Landings of species were published annually in

-24-

"Fisheries Statistics of the United states" from 1939 to 1976
although, in 1941, no data were collected in Connecticut. Land-
ings for several species have been recorded intermittently from
as far back as the late 18001s. For the years 1977-1980, prelim-
inary data were obtained from NMFS, which will eventually be
published in "Fisheries Statistics of the United States".

In 1982, DEP Marine Fisheries staff, through a contract with
NMFS, assumed full responsibility for the collection and compila-
tion of commercial landings statistics, beginning with the year
1981. A problem was encountered in accounting for the Connecti-
cut landings of offshore trawlers that do not fish in Connecticut
waters, many of which have their home port in another state. The
landings of these vessels, which are of considerable magnitude
for many species, often went unreported because these vessels did
not have a Connecticut commercial fishing license, a requirement
of which is to submit monthly reports of catch and landings to
the DEP Marine Fisheries Office. Effective January 1, 1984 how-
ever, all vessels landing at Connecticut ports, regardless of
where the catch is taken, will be required to be licensed and to
provide fishery information to the DEP.

From 1981-1983, information about the magnitude of offshore
landings was obtained from fish dealer interviews and integrated
into the total annual landings of each species. Because landings
of species trawled from offshore grounds such as yellowtail
flounder, butterfish, haddock, the hakes, bluefish, and cod show
dramatic increases over those from 1976-1980, and because of
differences used to collect these statistics, landings obtained
by NMFS prior to 1981 may not be directly comparable to 1981
through 1983 landings. It is believed that the figures reported
prior to 1981 reflect underestimates of the true performance of
the southern Mew England fleet landing in eastern Connecticut.

A final point of caution involves the application of an ex-
vessel dollar value to the annual landings of each species. it
is unknown how ex-vessel values were obtained by NMFS for annual
Connecticut landings prior to 1981. For the years 1981 and 1982,
average annual prices paid per pound for each species in the
State of Rhode Island were used. However, during the 1983
compilation, it was realized that the Rhode Island prices were
fairly low for many species, not representing the true value paid
for the species in Connecticut that year. Therefore, more
realistic (although still conservative) prices--derived from
interviews with people familiar with the fisheries--were applied
to the 1983 Connecticut landings of each species.

Certain restrictions such as minimum legal size limits,
creel limits, and prohibition on the taking of egg bearing
females, that were designed to protect species from detrimental
harvesting practice's have been imposed on commercial and
recreational harvesters under Title 26 of the Connecticut General
Statutes. These restrictions are presented in Table 1.

-25-

Table 1. Principal conservation measures regulating commercial and
recreational fishing for marine species in Connecticut
in early 1984. Note that regulations may change on an
annual basis. Contact DEP Narine Fisheries for the
most current limits.

Finfish
commercial recreational
minimum legal lengths minimum legal lengths

inches (total length) inches (total length)
blackfish 12 none
black sea bass 8 none
bluefish 9 none
cod 17 15
weakfish 12 none
haddock 17 15
winter flounder 10 10
fluke 14 14
tomcod 7 none
striped bass 24 (fork length)*
scup 7 7
yellowtail 11 11
flounder

Striped bass taken from Connecticut waters may not be sold.

Crustacean shellfish - commercial and recreational limits.

Lobster 3-3/16 inches minimum carapace length; no egg-
bearing females may be taken; no lobster parts
other than those for immediate personal
consumption may be possessed or brought ashore.

Blue crab 5 inches minimum length from tip to tip of shell
spikes for hard shell crabs, 3-1/2 inches for soft
shell crabs; no egg-bearing females may be taken.

Molluscan shellfish - taken from public grounds.

Hard clam Those taken from public grounds must be no less
than 1 inch in thickness and must not be able to
pass through a ring of 1-1/2 inches internal
diameter; creel limits differ among towns.

Bay scallop Only adult scallops with a definite growth ring
may be taken. Those taken from the Niantic River
must not be able to pass through a ring of 2 inches
internal diameter; creel limits differ among towns.

Oys,ter,
soft clam Creel limits differ among towns.

-26-

4.3.2 Finfish

4.3.2.1 Blackfish (Tautoga onitis), tautog

Description: Blackfish are stout-bodied with thick lips, blunt
nose, stout conical teeth, and are enlarged anteriorly. They are
a dark mottled color with adults bearing a prominent white spot
on the chin. Blackfish caught in Connecticut usually weigh from
two to nine pounds. They range along the Atlantic coast of North
America from Nova Scotia to South Carolina and are most abundant
from Cape Ann to the Delaware capes. Blackfish are a year-round
inhabitant in LIS. No extensive migration occurs. During the
colder months blackfish move into deeper water and lay dormant,
returning to shallower waters as they warm in the spring. They
are found mostly inshore around breakwaters, ledges, piers and
docksf over boulder strewn bottoms and on mussel beds predomin-
ately in salt, and sometimes brackish water. They are sensitive
to sudden cooling of the water. Blackfish feed mainly on
molluscs, predominantly mussels, crushing them with their large,
stout teeth and specialized pharyngeal teeth. Their diet also
includes crabs, sand dollars, amphipods, shrimps, isopods, and
lobsters. Spawning occurs in late spring and early summer in LIS.

Fishery and Condition of Stocks;

Percent of Percent of Value of
Commercial total commercial commercial landings commercial
landings finfish landings of all species landings
Year (Lbs) (includes squid) (includes shellfish) W
-----------------------------------------------------------------

1977 10,000 0.3 0.2 1,200
1978 12,000 0.3 0.2 11200
1979 12,900 0.4 0.2 11100
1980 15,300 0.5 0.3 11600
1981 21,300 0.4 0.2 3,800
1982 21,100 0.4 0.3 3,600
1983 33,500 0.8 0.4 16,700*
See boldface print, Section 4.3.1.

Blackfish contribute a low percentage to total commercial
finfish landings and landings of all species including shellfish
in Connecticut. They are harvested primarily by trawl and hook
and line, with small percentages of annual landings being caught
with gill nets. Commercial landings have generally ranged from
10,000-40,000 pounds since 1939, except for 1948 when a record
150,000 pounds were landed (Figure 2).

-27-

Connecticut-licensed trawlers report catching blackfish
mostly in central LIS. Small percentages are caught in eastern
and western LIS. Essentially none are caught by trawl in Block
Island Sound and waters further offshore. It should not be
inferred that blackfish are more abundant in central LIS than the
eastern and western ends because they are a by-catch species of
trawlers seeking scup or flounder which concentrate their effort
in central LIS.

In 1979, 423,000 blackfish were reported caught by
recreational anglers (NMFS 1980), ranking this species sixth by
number caught and third by estimated total pounds caught (Table
3) * This catch was 49 times greater than the reported catch of
Connecticut-licensed commercial fishermen that year (Table 3).
In 1981, 24,500 pounds of blackfish were reported caught by
Connecticut party and charter boats. Blackfish are a very
desirable sportfish, susceptible to angling and spearfishing by
skin and scuba divers. In 1979, the peak of seasonal angling
effort occurred during June when 15% of the overall effort was
directed towards the species. However, blackfish are most
susceptible to sportfishing during spring and fall by both shore
and boat based anglers. They are also vulnerable to angling
during October when they congregate in large numbers around deep
water reefs and in shoal areas (Sampson 1981).

Relative abundance of blackfish as indicated by catch per
commercial trawl hour of Connecticut-licensed trawlers increased
109% from 1978 to 1980, declined 32% from 1980 to 1982, then
increased 46% from 1982 to 1983 (Figure 3).

-28-

THOUSANDS OF POUNDS

160

140

120-

100-

80-

60-

20!_

1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
YEAR

Figure 2. Connecticut commercial blackfish landings, 1939-1983.

POUNDS PER TRAWL HOUR

20-

- -----------
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983
YEAR

Figure 3. Catch per unit of effort for blackfish caught by
Connecticut-licensed trawlers, 1977-1983.

-29-

4.3.2.2 Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix),
snapper (young)
X,

Description: Bluefish are an elongate, powerfully built fish,
with a somewhat compressed body, a large head with projecting
lower jaw and a single row of large teeth on both jaws. They are
blue-green on the dorsal surface and silvery below. Most adults
caught in Connecticut waters are 2-8 pounds, and sometimes weigh
up to 15 pounds. Bluefish are a world-wide species, found in the
coastal margins of the Atlantic, Indian, and western Pacific
Oceans and the Mediterranean Sea. They range along the east
coast of North and South America occurring regularly from Cape
Cod, sometimes straying to Nova Scotia, to Brazil and Argentina.
They appear in Connecticut waters during May and June, peak in
abundance usually during August and September, and remain into
the fall. Bluefish migrate seasonally in response to warmer
temperatures and photoperiod7 generally north in spring and
summer, south, in autumn and winter. Bluefish are pelagic,
preferring warmer waters, and are seldom found in waters below
58-600F. Young are seen close inshore inhabiting the bays and
estuaries during summer and early fall. They are voracious
predators traveling in large schools feeding primarily on fish,
althou gh a large variety of organisms are preyed upon including
squid, crabs, worms, lobsters, and shrimp. Spawning in the
western Atlantic Ocean occurs in two major areas: 1) offshore
near the Gulf Stream between southern Florida to North Carolina
in spring; 2) the mid-Atlantic bight over the Continental shelf
in0 summer. Preferred spawning temperatures range from 64 to
79 F.

Fishery and Condition of Stocks:

1977 12,800 0.4 0.2 2,700
1978 54,800 1.3 0.8 9,800
1979 52,500 1.4 1.0 9,400
1980 49,300 1.6 1.0 13,800
1981 312,000* 5.6 3.7 56,200
1982 300,500* 5.8 3.8 90,100
1983 69,400 1.6 0.9 17,300
*See boldface print, Section 4.3.1

Landings of bluefish contributed a low percentage to total
commercial finfish landings as well as landings of all species
including shellfish from 1977-1980. However, in 1981 and 1982,

-30-

bluefish contributed a significant percentage to these landings.
In 1983, bluefish landings again contributed a relatively low
percentage to total landings of finfish and all species.

Approximately 70% of the bluefish landed in Connecticut are
caught by trawl, with approximately 20% caught by hook and line.
The remaining small percentage is taken by gill net. Bluefish
are the mainstay of the hook and line fishery and constitute
approximately 50% of all commercial angler landings. A peak in
historical landings of 90,000 pounds occurred in 1952, landings
declined to less than 10,000 pounds in the late 19501s, increased
to 50,000-100,000 pounds in the 1960's and early 19701s,
decreased to 13,000-23,000 pounds from 1975-1977, then began to
increase in the late 19701s. The 1981 and 1982 landings of over
300,000 pounds are records. The dramatic decrease in landings in,
1983 was due almost entirely to a decrease in landings of trawl
vessels not licensed or fishing in Connecticut.

Connecticut-licensed commercial trawlers report catching
bluefish mostly in central LIS, a small amount in western LIS and
Block Island Sound, and essentially none in eastern LIS.
Commercial anglers catch most bluefish in well-known major
bluefish sportfishing areas such as the Race, and other
productive areas in western and central LIS such as Penfield Reef
off of Bridgeport, and reefs near the mouth of the Connecticut
River.

The 1979 recreational catch of bluefish in Connecticut (NMFS
1980) ranked the species first for total number caught
(2,015,000). Because an estimated 75% of all bluefish reported
from Connecticut are snappers (1,511,000 in 1979; Sampson 1981),
snapper bluefish are ranked second, and adults fifth, by number
caught. By weight, adult bluefish are ranked first in importance
to the recreational fishery because an estimated 3,500,000 lbs.
of adult bluefish were caught by recreational anglers in 1979.
This figure is approximately 70 times greater than the number of
pounds landed commercially in 1979 (Table 3).

In 1981, 1,074,200 pounds of bluefish were caught from
Connecticut's party and charter boats, accounting for 81% of
their catch of all species that year. This catch exceeded the
1981 Connecticut-licensed commercial catch of bluefish for all
gear types combined (178,000 pounds) by a factor of six. It also
exceeded the 1981 commercial landings of bluefish (312,000
pounds), which includes landings of vessels not licensed by
Connecticut, by a factor of three.

The relative abundance of bluefish in LIS and adjacent
nearshore waters, as indicated by catch per commercial trawl hour
of Connecticut-licensed trawlers, steadily increased from 1977-
1981, with 1981 approximately 90% greater than 1977, declined 42%
from 1981-1982, then increased 74% from 1982-1983 (Figure 5).
Relative abundance indices for bluefish, calculated from the
National Marine Fisheries Service's Northeast Fisheries Center

_31-

(NEFC) bottom trawl surveys for the areas from Georges Bank to
Cape Hatteras, underwent a sharp increase from the period 1967-
1970 to 1970-1981. NEFC inshore surveys conducted from Cape Cod
to Cape Hatteras since 1974, have shown an increase in the
relative abundance of young-of-the-year bluefish. Waters north
of Cape Hatteras also have shown a warming trend since the late
1960's, so it is unclear whether bluefish increased in absolute
abundance along the entire Atlantic coast or merely underwent a
northerly shift in distribution from south to north of Cape
Hatteras in response to warmer water temperatures (RAD, NEFC
1983).

-32-

THOUSANDS OF POUNDS
,350[-
300

250

200

15CI

100L

50-

C) @ 1@ ....I .......
1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
YEAR

Figure 4. Connecticut commercial bluefish landings, 1939-1983.

POUNDS PER TRAWL HOUR

35-

30-

15-

.10 -

5 -
0 ' 1 1 -1- -4- 4
1977 978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983

YEAR

Figure 5. Catch per unit of effort for bluefish caught by
Connecticut-licensed trawlers, 1977-1983.
4@a

-33-

4.3.2.3 Butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus)

Description: Butterfish have a very thin deep body, are bluish
on top, with light sides and a silver belly. They are usually 6
to 9 inches long and range to 1 pound in weight. Butterfish are
most common from South Carolina to Nova Scotia and Cape Breton,
occasionally straying northward to the Gulf of St. Lawrence and
southward to Florida in deep water. Seasonally migrating,
loosely formed schools appear in LIS in late spring and remain
until late fall when they return to the edge of the continental
shelf. While inshore during the warmer months, butterfish are
most abundant over sandy bottom, swimming near the surface in
water usually not exceeding 30 fathoms. They are pelagic
feeders, concentrating on nektonic or planktonic organisms.
Their diet includes jellyfish and ctenophores, small fish, squid,
amphipods, copepods, shrimps, and annelid worms. Spawning occurs
in spring and summer (June to August in New England) in coastal
waters from southern New England to Maryland including LIS.
Post-spawning individuals return to offshore waters.

Fishery and Condition of Stocks:

Percent of Percent of total Value of
Commercial total commercial commercial landings commercial
landings finfish landings of all species landings
Year (Lbs) (includes squid) (includes shellfish) M
----------------------------------------------------------------

1977 28,200 0.8 0.5 7,500
1978 66,000 1.6 1.0 18,500
1979 25,900 0.7 0.5 2,800
1980 7,700 0.2 0.2 5,400
1981 510,400* 9-1 6.0 158,200
1982 505,700* 9:8 6.4 161,800
1983 390,600* 8.8 5.0 195,300*
See boldface print, Section 4.3.1

Landings of butterfish from 1977-1980 indicate that this
species contributed a low percentage to total commercial finfish
landings and landings of all species including shellfish.
However, the 1981 through 1983 landings, which include previously
unreported offshore landings, suggest that butterfish contribute
a significant percentage to those categories. They are harvested
primarily by trawl (greater than 80% of annual butterfish
landings) with small amounts'taken by hook and line (less than
10%) and gill net (less than 5%).

Historical landings ranged from 6,000-102,000 pounds per
year prior to the 1940's, increasing to a record I million pounds

-34-

in 1947, after which they dropped as low as 3,000 pounds in the
early 1970's. Annual landings increased to over 20,000 pounds in
the late 1970's, dropped to 8,000 pounds in 1980, then increased
to over 500,000 pounds in 1981 and 1982 under the new statistics
collection procedures (Figure 6). Landings dropped slightly to
390,600 pounds in 1983.

Connecticut-licensed trawlers report catching butterfish
mostly in central LIS, Block Island Sound (10-20%), and waters
further offshore (17-54%). Very little was reported caught by
trawl in eastern and western LIS.

No butterfish were reported caught by recreational anglers
in 1979 (NMFS 1980). Thus, they are not an important sportfish,
although available to anglers, since 1-3 thousand pounds are
usually taken by commercial anglers each year. They are highly
regarded as a food fish.

Relative abundance of butterfish as indicated by catch per
commercial trawl hour of Connecticut-licensed trawlers, decreased
69% from 1978-1979, remained at that low level until 1981, then
increased 150% from 1981-1983 (Figure 7). This is in contrast to
an observed decline in abundance and biomass from 1981 to 1982
based on 1982 NMFS autumn trawl survey data (RAD, NEFC 1982).

_35-

THOUSANDS OF POUNDS

1100--

1000-

900-

800-
700[
600,

500
4001
300
2004
100@

1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980
YEAR

Figure 6. Connecticut commercial butterfish landings, 1887-1983.

POUNDS PER TRAWL HOUR

60-

50-
40/

30-

0
1977 1978 1979 1960 1981 1982 1983
YEAR

Figure 7. Catch per unit of effort for butterfish caught by
Connecticut-licensed trawlers, 1977-1983.

-36-

4.3.2.4 Cod (Gadus morhua),
scrod-T'j7-uven i le

Description: Cod are heavy-bodied fish with three dorsal fins,
two ventral fins and a nearly square tail. Color varies widely
from gray-green to reddish. Near LIS, weight ranges from 6-12
pounds, and length, up to 20 inches. In the northwest Atlantic,
they are found from West Greenland south to Cape Hatteras with
the continental slope marking the offshore boundary. Cod rarely
enter LIS, instead remaining outside its eastern edge.
Migrations are associated with temperature, food and spawning.
Seasonally, cod move into deeper water in winter and spring.
They occur most frequently on rocky and pebbly bottom, on gravel
or sand, and on a substrate of clay and broken shell. They are
found at temperatures between 32 and 550F, and to depths of at
least 250 fathoms. Typically a bottom fish, cod consume a
variety of invertebrates and fish. Spawning grounds are
generally small and well defined shoal areas. Peak spawning
occurs from January to mid-September, depending upon location, in
temperatures ranging from 30 to 540F, usually at depths between
5-25 fathoms.

Fishery and Condition of Stocks:

Percent of Percent of total Value of
Commercial total commercial commercial landings commercial
landings finfish landings of all species landings
Year (Lbs) (includes squid) (includes shellfish) W
----------------------------------------------------------------

1977 49,400 1.4 0.9 12,600
1978 55,200 1.3 0.8 14,600
1979 19,200 0.5 0.4 6,400
1980 35,600 1.2 0.7 9,200
1981 504,800* 9.0 6.0 176,700
1982 515,500* 10.0 6.6 180,400
1983 115,200* 2.6 1.5 39,200
See boldface print, Section 4.3.1

Landings of cod from 1977-1980 indicate that this species
contributed a low percentage to total commercial finfish landings
as well as to landings of all species including shellfish.
However, the 1981 through 1983 landings suggest that cod
contributes a significant percentage to those categories. They
are harvested primarily by trawl (90-98% of annual cod landings),
with a few thousand pounds (2-8%) taken by hook and line.
Historical landings peaked in the late 1920's to almost 9 million
pounds in 1930. They have ranged from 19,000-400,000 pounds
until 1981 and 1982 when they exceeded 500,000 pounds under the
new statistics collection procedures. Landings dropped to

-37-

115,200 pounds in 1983 (Figure 8). Connecticut-licensed
commercial trawlers report catching cod mostly in Block Island
Sound and offshore grounds. Essentially none are reported from
LIS.

Less than 30,000 cod were reported caught by recreational
fishermen in 1979 (NMFS 1980). A rough conversion of 15,000 cod
to 90,000 pounds ranks cod thirteenth in recreational importance
by weight of landings (Table 3). Recreational landings exceed
the 1977-1979 commercial landings approximately two-fold7
however, commercial cod landings figures for these years are
probably underestimates. In 1981, 58,500 pounds of cod were
reported caught by Connecticut party and charter boats.

Relative abundance of cod as indicated by catch per
commercial trawl hour for Connecticut-licensed trawlers,
decreased 75% from 1978-1980, remained low in 1981,, increased
136% from 1981-1982, then decreased slightly (6%) from 1982-1983
(Figure 9). NMFS autumn 1981 and spring 1982 research vessel
catch-per-tow indices for Georges Bank and Southern New
England/Middle Atlantic cod stocks were among the upper third of
recorded values (RAD, NEFC 1983).

-38-

MILLIONS OF POUNDS

71
r

1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980
YEAR

Figure 8. Connecticut commercial cod landings, 1880-1983.

POUNDS PER TRAWL HOUR

30@
iL

10L

1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983
YEAR

Figure 9. Catch per unit of effort for cod caught by
Connecticut-licensed trawlers, 1977-1983.
L

_39-

4.3.2.5 American eel (Anguilla rostrata)

Description: Eels have an elongate, snake-like appearance. The
dorsal fin originates far behind the pectorals. They are brown
to olive green in color, silvery when migrating. Males are
generally smaller than females which average 2 to 3 1/2 feet.
They range from West Greenland to Central America and the West
Indies. The eel is a common species in Long Island Sound
inhabiting estuaries and streams along the entire coastline. it
matures in fresh water, then migrates downstream to salt water
and out to open ocean breeding grounds in the Sargasso Sea.
Adult eels are assumed to die at sea following reproduction
during mid-winter. The elvers (young eels) then migrate back to
fresh water. Eels are not particular about the type of bottom
they inhabit, and can tolerate wide ranges of environmental
variables such as temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and
levels of pollutants. They are principally a nocturnal feeder,
consuming. all types of animal matter both living and dead,
including small fish, crabs, lobsters, worms, shrimp and small
crustacea.

Fishery and Condition of Stocks:

1977 34,200 1.0 0.6 17,100
1978 26,400 0.6 0.4 19,500
1979 27,600 0.8 0.5 24,100
1980 24,300 0.8 0.5 16,600
1981 27,300 0.5 0.3 20,500
1982 19,300 0.4 0.2 14,500
1983 3,500 0.1 0.04 2,600

Eels contribute a low percentage to total commercial finfish
landings and landings of all species including shellfish in '
Connecticut. They are harvested primarily with eel pots (85-97%
of annual eel landings) with small amounts taken by trawl (0.1-
4%), gill net (0.1-10%), and hook and line (less than 1%).
Commercial landings have generally ranged from 10,000-50,000
pounds per year since 1939. The 1950's and 1960's were a period
of consistently low landings between 10,000 and 25,000 pounds.
Recent landings have exhibited a decreasing trend since 1975 to a
record low of 3,500 pounds in 1983 (Figure 10).

-40-

In 1979, less than 30,000 eels were reported caught by
recreational anglers (NMFS 1980), ranking this species, along
with four others, last by number caught. Eels are considered a
desirable food fish by many people. In Japan they are considered
a delicacy.

The condition of Connecticut eel stocks may be stable.
However, some commercial eel fishermen believe that catches are
declining while fishing effort is increasing (Shen 1982).
Although the dramatic decrease in landings in 1983 may be cause
for concern about the condition of Connecticut eel stocks,
knowledge of the fishing effort expended to catch the eels landed
annually is inadequate, as it is only in the rough form of number
of commercial eel pots fished. While the number of eel pots
reportedly fished has decreased from 1981-1983, this unit of
effort is not well correlated with the catch of eels (See Part 1,
Section 5.1.10). Scientific research or at least accurate
commercial catch per unit of effort information, which takes into
account the number of pots fished and the effective length of
time that they fish, is clearly needed to determine the condition
of Connecticut eel stocks.

THOUSANDS OF POUNDS

45-

40 L

30-

25-

0
1935 1940 1945 1950 1953 1980 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
YEAR
,AV vxvv@@@ 1@-

Figure 10. Connecticut commercial eel landings, 1939-1983.

-41-

4.3i.2.6 Winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus),
blackback flounder, lemon sole

Descrietion: The eyes of the winter flounder are on the right
side of its body, it is small mouthed, and thick bodied: color is
variable but generally this is the darkest of the flatfish.
Adults are commonly 12 to 15 inches long and weigh 1.5 to 2.0
pounds. The winter flounder ranges from Labrador to Georgia, but
is most common from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to Chesapeake Bay.
It is a permanent resident of LIS, -completing its life cycle
there. Adults migrate seasonally, moving into deeper water in
the summer and then back to shallow water and estuaries in the
winter. Juveniles spend their first year in estuarine waters.
Softt muddy bottom (commonly where there are patches of eelgrass)
is preferred over a moderately hard one. Winter flounder
tolerate a wide range of temperatures but are most abundant at
about 53-600F, and are found between 1-20 fathoms. Winter
flounder are sight feeders and are active during daylight hours.
They eat a wide variety of isopods, copepods, amphipods, crabs,
shrimp, worms, molluscs, snail eggs, and some seaweed. Spawning
occurs at night in winter and early spring (between January and
May in New England) on sandy estuarine bottoms, often in water as
shallow as 6-18 feet.

Fishery and Condition of Stocks:

1977 609,000 17.7 11.6 134,000
1978 804,100 19.5 12.4 231,400
1979 529,400 14.5 10.2 132,400
1980 501,700 16.4 9.7 125,500
1981 1,161,200* 20.8 13.8 429,600
1982 1,134,600* 21.0 14.4 465,200
1983 1,171,500* 26.4 14.7 585,800
See boldface print, Section 4.3.1

Among Connecticut commercial finfish and -squid landings,
only unclassified baitfish and yellowtail flounder landings from
1977-1982 exceeded those of winter flounder. In 1983, winter

-42-

flounder landings exceeded landings of all other species of
finfish and squid. Winter flounder can be considered
Connecticut's most important resident commercial foodfish
species. Essentially all (99%) of the winter flounder landed
annually by commercial vessels in Connecticut are caught by otter
trawl. Small quantities are also commercially taken by hook and
line, and gill net.

The greatest commercial winter flounder landings, between 3-
5 million pounds annually, were recorded from 1940-1950.
Landings have remained less than or near I million pounds per
year since then, although very low landings (less than 20,0,000
pounds) occurred in 1972, 1974, and 1975 (Figure 11).

Connecticut-licensed trawlers report catching winter
flounder mostly in Block Island Sound and eastern and central
LIS. The trawl catch in western LIS is relatively low compared
to these areas.

The 1979 recreational catch of winter flounder (1,377,000
fish; NMFS 1980) ranked this species third by number and fifth by
weight in recreational importance (Table 3). In 1981, 34,000
pounds of winter flounder were reported caught by Connecticut
party and charter boats. It is the most highly-sought species in
Connecticut waters due to its high quality flesh and the ease
with which it may be caught (Sampson 1981). In 1979, the
recreational catch exceeded the commercial catch by all gear
types by 17% (Table 3).

Abundance of winter flounder as indicated by catch per
commercial trawl hour of Connecticut-licensed trawlers, decreased
28% from 1977-1980, increased 19% from 1980-1981, decreased 11%
from 1981-1982, then increased slightly (3%) from 1982-1983.
Because these changes are relatively small in magnitude,
abundance from 1977-1982 could be considered relatively stable
(Figure 12).

-43-

M!LLIONS OF POUNDS

4t!

1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985

YEAR

Figure 11. Connecticut commercial winter flounder landings,
1939-1983.

POUNDS PER TRAWL HOUR

120- -

100@

90@

1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983

YEAR

Figure 12. Catch per unit of effort for winter flounder caught
by Connecticut-licensed trawlers, 1977-1983.

-44-

4.3.2.7 Fluke: (Paralichthys dentatus),
'M"
summer flounder
W k
'90 . . . . .

Description: The eyes of the fluke are on the left side of its
body. Its mouth is large with sharp teeth, color is variable
depending upon background, from shades of brown and gray to
almost black, with several prominent spots. The average size of
fluke in LIS is 17-22 inches weighing 2-5 pounds, although larger
ones up to 10-15 pounds are often caught. Fluke occur on the
continental shelf from Nova Scotia to Florida. They occur
seasonally in LIS during summer months in bays, harbors, and
mouths of estuaries. Fluke move inshore to shallow coastal water
in the early summer, and migrate offshore in the fall to
overwinter. Medium sized and larger fluke occur between the 25
to 30 fathom contour and the 80 fathom contour during winter and
early spring. They spend most of their lives on the bottom
preferring sand or mud, but will rise into the water column when
chasing prey. Fluke consume primarily small fish, squid, crabs,
shrimp, molluscs, worms, and sand dollars. They spawn as they
are migrating offshore during the autumn.

Fishery and Condition of Stocks:

Percent of Percent of total Value of
Commercial total commercial commercial landings commercial
landings finfish landings of all species landings
Year (Lbs) (includes squid) (includes shellfish) W
---------------------------------------------------------------

1977 63,500 1.8 1.2 34,400
1978 110,800 2.7 1.7 89,300
1979 30,700 0.8 0.6 19,600
1980 48,300 1.6 1.0 41,600
1981 81,300* 1.4 1.0 77,300
1982 64,100* 0.5 0.8 55,100
1983 129,300* 2.9 1.6 129,300
See boldface print, Section 4.3.1

Fluke contribute a low percentage to total commercial
finfish landings and landings of all species including shellfish
in Connecticut as indicated by reported landings. They are
harvested primarily by trawl (greater then 95% of annual fluke
landings) with several hundred pounds (1-2%) taken by hook and
line. Historical landings fluctuating between 200,000 and
800,000 pounds per year occurred from 1944-1959. Landings
dropped to 7000 pounds in 1972, increased to 110,800 pounds in
1978, dropped to 30,700 pounds the following year, then increased
to 129,300 pounds in 1983 (Figure 13).

-45-

Connecticut-licensed trawlers report the greatest catches of
fluke in central and eastern LIS, as well as Block Island Sound.
The combined catch from these areas amounts to about 90% of
annual fluke catches. The trawl catch of fluke from western LIS
is relatively small compared to the aforementioned areas.

In 1979t 39,000 fluke were reported caught by recreational
anglers (NMFS 1980), ranking this species fourteenth by number
caught and sixteenth by estimated total pounds caught (Table 3).
This ranking is not an indication of the species' appeal to
recreational fishermen. It is the seventh most sought after
species by Connecticut recreational anglers (Sampson 1981). Low
recreational catches in 1979 may represent an extreme low in
abundance or availability that year since the same depressed
figure is represented in Connecticut commercial catches as well.
Fluke are of high quality as a food fish, and catching larger
fluke may provide an exciting angling experience. The 1979
recreational fluke catch was 13% greater than the 1979 reported
catch of Connecticut-licensed commercial fishermen (Table 3). In
1981t 7,600 pounds of fluke were caught from Connecticut party
and charter boats.

Relative abundance of fluke as indicated by catch per com-
mercial trawl hour of Connecticut-licensed trawlers was highest
during 1978, decreased 35% from 1978-1979, remained at that level
during 1980, increased 27% from 1980-1981, then decreased 51%
from 1981-1982 and decreased further (8%) from 1982 to 1983
(Figure 14). Decreases in both the 1981 NMFS spring and fall
survey indices and commercial nominal catch during 1981 suggest a
recent decline in abundance (RAD, NEFC 1983).

-46-

THOUSANDS OF POUNDS

goo ---

800-

700-

600

500-

400-

300-

200
'00 . . . . . . . . .......
1935 1940 IM 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
YEAR

Figure 13. Connecticut commercial fluke landings, 1939-1983.

POUNDS PER TRAWL HOUR

35-

101
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983

YEAR

Figure 14. Catch per unit of effort for fluke caught by
Connecticut-licensed trawlers, 1977-1983.

-47-

4.3.2.8 Yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea)

Description: The yellowtail flounder is small-mouthed, with its
eyes on the right side of its body. It is brownish with reddish
spots, with a distinct yellow spot on the underside at the base
of the tail. They average 15 to 18 inches in length, weighing 1
to 2 pounds. Yellowtail range from Labrador to the lower part of
Chesapeake bay, and are especially abundant off southern New
England and on Georges Bank. They are not known to enter LIS.
Fish tagged off Block Island made a regular annual migration
eastward in spring and summer to the vicinity of southern
Nantucket shoals. They returned westward in autumn and winter.
Yellowtail inhabit sand or sand-mud bottoms and avoid rocky and
very soft, muddy areas. They are found in moderate depths from 7
to 40 fathoms and are tolerant of water temperatures ranging from
34 to 640F. A demersal fish with a small mouth, yellowtail feed
mainly on amphipods, shrimps, mysids, and small molluscs as well
as on worms. Spawning takes place from mid-March to September
with peaks in April to June in New England.

Fishery and Condition of Stocks:

1977 384,300 11.2 7.3 159,100
1978 307,600 7.4 4.8 152,400
1979 346,300 9.5 6.6 140,200
1980 867,100 28.3 16.8 357,800
1981 1,502,416* 26.8 17.8 826,300
1982 1,501,500* 29.1 19.1 810,800
1983 950,300* 21.4 11.9 475,200
See boldface print, Section 4.3.1

Landings of yellowtail flounder from 1977-1979 indicate that
this species contributed a substantial percentage to total
commercial finfish landings and landings of all species including
shellfish. In 1977 and 1979 it was second only to winter
flounder in importance as a commercial finfish. In 1978 it was
third in commercial importance as a finfish; winter flounder and

-48-

scup being first and second, respectively, in magnitude of com-
mercial landings. However, the landings from 1980-1983 indicate
that yellowtail flounder is the most important commercial finfish
landed in Connecticut, winter flounder being second. In 1983,
yellowtail was second to winter flounder.

Yellowtail are harvested entirely by trawl. Landings near 6
million pounds in 1942 decreased steadily to less than 200,000
pounds in the 1950's and 1960's. In 1974 and 1975, landings
peaked dramatically at 9 million pounds. Landings then dropped
sharply to 126,000 pounds in 1976, increased to 1.5 million
pounds in 1981 and 1982, then dropped to 950,000 pounds in .1983.
The increased level of landings during 1981-1982 over that
recorded for 1976-1980 is believed to be a result of improvements
made in the methods of collecting statistics. Therefore,
landings from the late 1970's may be underestimated. However,
the 1981 and 1982 landings are still low compared to those of
1974 and 1975 (Figure 15).

Connecticut-licensed trawlers report catching yellowtail
mostly offshore (south and east) of Block Island and in Block
Island Sound. Reports of catches made at the extreme eastern end
of Long Island Sound occasionally account for a small percentage
of the Connecticut-licensed trawl catch.

No yellowtail flounder were reported caught by recreational
anglers in 1979 (NMFS 1980). The species may be caught
incidentally by anglers fishing for cod, but is not a target
species itself.

The relative abundance of yellowtail flounder as indicated
by catch per commercial trawl hour of Connecticut-licensed
trawlers decreased 59% from 1977 to 1981, then increased 159%
from 1981-1983 (Figure 16).

Individuals of two yellowtail stocks--the southern New
England and Georges Bank stocks--are landed in Connecticut,
probably more of the former than the latter. NMFS research
survey data on the southern New England stock indicate pronounced
declines in abundance and biomass to minimal levels by the mid-
1970's, followed by substantial increases in recent years.
Recruitment has clearly improved since the mid-1970's, with the
1979 and 1980 year classes being perhaps the strongest in recent
years (RAD, NEFC 1983).

-49-

MILLIONS OF POUNDS

7@
6

1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985

YEAR

Figure 15. Connecticut commercial yellowtail flounder landings,
1939-1983.

POUNDS PER TRAWL HOUR

160

140

120

1
L
00;

60-'

1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983

YEAR

Figure 16. Catch per unit of effort for yellowtail flounder
caught by Connecticut-licensed trawlers, 1977-1983.

-50-

4.3.2.9 Mackerel (Scomber scombrus)

Description: Mackerel have a streamlined body with a narrow
caudal peduncle, and are blue-green above with dark, wavy
tranverse bars, whitish sides and belly. Adults are usually 14
to 18 inches long weighing approximately 1-3 pounds. They range
from Labrador to Cape Hatteras out to the edge of the continental
shelf. The mackerel is an early summer visitor to LIS, leaving
in the fall. LIS may be an important nursery area for young
mackerel. Each fall, mackerel move out of LIS and overwinter off
the southern New England coast near the edge of the continental
shelf. They return each spring as part of a general northerly
and inshore migration. Mackerel swim in dense schools, and are
occasionally seen in harbors and estuaries, but adults are more
commonly found in open water, down to 100 fathoms. They are
mainly a pelagic feeder with the diet consisting of copepods,
crustaceans and small fish. Spawning occurs during the spring
and summer and progresses from south to north as surface waters
warm and the fish migrate. A Southern stock contingent spawns
from mid-April to June in the middle Atlantic Bight and the Gulf
of Maine, and a northern contingent spawns in the southern Gulf
of St. Lawrence from the end of May to mid-August. Most spawn in
the shoreward half of continental shelf waters, although some
spawning extends to the shelf edge and beyond.

Fishery and Condition of Stocks:

Percent of Percent of total Value of
Commercial total commercial commercial landings commercial
landings finfish landings of all species landings
Year (Lbs) (includes squid) (includes shellfish), M
----------------------------------------------------------------

1977 32,800 1.0 0.6 13,000
1978 15,600 0.4 0.2 6,800
1979 12,200 0.3 0.2 3,300
1980 38,800 1.3 0.8 10,900
1981 86,200 1.5 1.0 14,700
1982 101,600 2.0 1.3 21,300
1983 21,100 0.5 0.3 6,900

Landings of mackerel from 1977-1983 indicate that this
species contributes a low percentage to total commercial finfish
landings and landings of all species including shellfish.
Mackerel are commercially harvested mostly by gill net (32-65% of
annual mackerel landings) and trawl (19-58%). Small percentages
(5-16%) are taken by commercial anglers.

Landings of 1.3 million pounds in 1880 decreased to less
than 300,000 pounds per year until the late 1920's/early 1930's

_51-

when a record 2 million pounds was landed in 1929. Landings
declined dramatically in the 1930's. Small peaks near 300,000
pounds occurred in the 19401s, after which landings have remained
less than 100,000 pounds until 1982 when 102,000 pounds were
landed (Figure 17).

In 1979, 254,000 mackerel were reported caught by
Connecticut recreational anglers (NMFS 1980), ranking this
species eighth by number caught and seventh by estimated total
pounds caught (Table 3). Mackerel are important to the
recreational boat fishery during a three to six week period from
May to mid-June and sporadically throughout the summer and fall.
On days during their peak availability , 50% or more of the boat
based -fishing effort during one or two weekend-s per year may be
targeted towards mackerel. Shore based anglers seek this species
19% of the time during that same period of peak abundance;
however, the species seldom ventures within casting range of
shore (Sampson 1981). In 1981, 19,400 pound's of mackerel were
reported caught by Connecticut party and charter boats.

High catch-per-tow indices for mackerel in the NMFS spring
and autumn trawl surveys, and by the U.S. commercial fishery in
the last several years are indicative of an increasing trend in
mackerel stock biomass. Rebuilding of the North Atlantic
mackerel stock from low levels of abundance during the late
1970's has been aided by relatively low commercial catches during
1978-1982 as well as some improvement. in the size of recent year
classes. In addition, higher mean weights at age in recent years
resulting from improved growth rates have also influenced the
upward trend in stock biomass (RAD, NEFC 1983).

-52-

MILUONS OF POUNDS

1.5

. . . . ......
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980
YEAR

Figure 17. Connecticut commercial mackerel landings, 1880-1983.

-53-

4.3.2.10 Atlantic Menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus),
bunker

Description: Menhaden are deep-bodied with a deeply forked tail,
dark blue to blue gray above, with silvery sides. Adults average
12 to 15 inches in length and up to one pound in weight. They
range from Nova Scotia to eastern Florida. A seasonal migrant in
LIS, menhaden first appear in Connecticut waters in April and
remain until late fall. Both adult and immature menhaden make
long northern migrations during the summer and then move south in
the fall. It is suspected that they migrate into the deep
offshore waters of the continental shelf during winter. During
summer/ they concentrate near large estuarine drainage systems
where food is most abundant. They are rarely found in water
below 500F. Menhaden are efficient planktivores, swimming with
their mouths open using layers of comb-like gill rakers to
capture minute crustacea, decapod larvae, rotifers and vast
quantities of unicellular algae. Spawning of menhaden north of
New Jersey occurs from April to October in the ocean over the
continental shelf and in some of the larger more saline bays and
sounds. In LIS, Wheatland (1956) found menhaden eggs between
June and October.

Fishery and Condition of Stocks:

Percent of Percent of total Value of
Commercial total commercial commercial landings commercial
landings finfish landings of all species landings
Year (Lbs) (includes squid) (includes shellfish) ($)
-----------------------------------------------------------------

1977 106,600 3.1 2.0 51330
1978 85,100 2.1 1.3 5,021
1979 100,200 2.8 1.9 7,050
1980 99,700 3.2 1.9 5,000
1981 151,300 2.7 1.8 91100
1982 171,100 3.3 2.2 8,600
1983 136,200 3.1 1.7 6,800

Menhaden contribute a moderately low percentage to total
commercial finfish landings and landings of all species including
shellfish in Connecticut. They probably contribute a much larger
percentage to these categories because an unknown quantity of
menhaden is reported in the commercial landings statistics as
unclassified baitfish, of which over 1 million pounds were landed
annually from 1977-1979. Menhaden landed in Connecticut are

-54-

commercially harvested primarily by gill net (90-97% of annual
menhaden landings) with small amounts taken by trawl (2-8%) and
angling using snag hooks (1-2%). The majority of these
"landings" are not sold, but are used for bait by the same
commercial lobstermen and hook and line fishermen who report
catching menhaden.

Record historical landings exceeding 40 million pounds per
year occurred in the 18801s. They declined to less than 200,000
pounds in the 1930's and 1940's. From 1954-1969, record low
landings less than 50,000 pounds occurred. From 1970 to the
present, landings have generally ranged between 100,000-60 '0,000
pounds (Figure 18). The early landings from 1880-1930 reflect
the magnitude of Connecticut's former menhaden industry.

Processing plants serving purse seine boats fishing in Long
Island Sound operated in Connecticut from about 1870 to 1930
(General Dynamics 1968). Purse seining is the most efficient
method of harvesting menhaden to be used for reduction to fish
oil and fertilizer. Since the closing of the Connecticut
menhaden processing plants, purse seine boats have continued to
operate in LIS. However, the landings have been made at out-of-
state ports (see Section 5.1.11). Thus, the actual catch of
menhaden from LIS is much greater than landings statistics since
1930 indicate. From 1974-1981, one company operating several
purse seine boats in LIS reportedly caught greater than 2 million
pounds per year to be processed as industrial fish. The
Connecticut landings' statistics only represent that menhaden
which is used for bait by Connecticut lobstermen and anglers.

No menhaden were reported caught by Connecticut recreational
anglers in 1979 (NMFS 1980). However, anglers probably did take
considerable numbers using snag hooks to use as bait for bluefish
and striped bass.

All menhaden along the Atlantic coast belong to a single
stock. Abundance has declined since the last century. Heavy
fishing pressure on the stock as a whole may have caused the size
of the spawning stock to drop below an optimum level which may
have caused poor recruitment in the 1960's. Few menhaden were
landed in southern New England between 1963 and 1968 (Henry 1971;
Olsen and Stevenson 1975). This is reflected by low Connecticut
landings during this period (Figure 18). During the 1970's and
at present, catches of menhaden entering LIS have been relatively
large, indicating that the condition of the stock may be stable.
However, no scientific data is available on the population
dynamics of that portion of the Atlantic menhaden stock entering
Long Island Sound.

-55-

MILLIONS OF POUNDS

20
1\%
10@

0
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980
YEAR

Figure 18. Connecticut commercial menhaden landings, 1880-1983.

-56-

4.3.2.11 River herring: alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus),
blueback herring (Alosa a_estivali@j), glut herring

Description: The bodies of river herring are strongly compressed
laterally and are deeper than in sea herring. They have one
short dorsal fin and a deeply forked tail. Color is blueish
above for the blueback, grayish green above for the alewife, and
both have silvery sides. Adults of both species are commonly
less than 12 inches in length and 1/2 pound or less in weight.
Alewives range from New Foundland to North Carolina apparently
centering between the Gulf of Maine and Chesapeake Bay.
Bluebacks are a more southern species, most abundant from
southern New England to Florida but occurring north to Nova
Scotia. In spring, alewives are aggregated on the continental
shelf between Block Island and Cape May, N.J., preparatory to the
inshore spawning migration. In autumn, alewives are found in the
northern part of their range. Presumably, adult alewives, having
returned from the freshwater spawning grounds in late spring and
throughout summer, migrate in autumn northeasterly toward the
Gulf of Maine or proceed directly offshore to overwinter on the
outer edge of the continental shelf. In general, the timing and
nature of the seasonal movements of blueback herring appear
similar to those of the alewife. Pre-and post-spawning
anadromous river herring pass through Long Island Sound on their
migration to and from the rivers in which they spawn, especially
the Connecticut.and Thames Rivers. The spawning migration of the
alewife occurs in the early spring in Connecticut rivers and
streams, before the blueback's spawning migration in the late
spring and early summer. Both are mainly planktivores, feeding
on copepods, other crustacean zooplankton, and fish eggs. The
alewife does not feed when swimming upriver to spawn-, when they
return to saline waters they feed ravenously. This is probably
true for bluebacks but not known with certainty. River herring
are broadcast spawners; alewives prefer spawning areas of
relatively slow flow and temperatures of 55-60 OF; bluebacks
prefer areas of relatively fast flow and later spring
temperatures of 70-75OF in which to spawn.

Fishery and Condition of Stocks:

Because no distinction is made between the blueback herring
and alewife by commercial harvesters, both species are included
under "alewives" in commercial landings statistics.

-57-

1977 61,300 1.8 1.2 4,900
1978 39,900 1.0 0.6 3,200
1979 62,700 1.7 1.2 6,300
1980 55,200 1.8 1.1 3,900
1981 52,800 0.9 0.6 6,300
1982 41,800 0.8 0.5 4,200
1983 37,400 0.8 0.5 6,400

"Alewives" contribute a low percentage to total commercial
finfish landings and landings of all species including shellfish
in Connecticut. They are harvested primarily by haul seine (90-
95% of annual "alewife" landings) with 2-6% taken by gill net.
Commercial fishing for river herring occurs mainly in the
Connecticut River, during their spring spawning migrations. They
are currently used primarily as lobster bait and bait for game
fishing. During the 1950's they were used as industrial fish,
being reduced to fish meal. Actual commercial landings may be
much greater than those reported under the "alewives" category
because a large percentage of the landings reported under
"unclassified baitfish" may consist of river herring. These
"unclassified" landings exceeded 1 million pounds from 1977-1979.

Two peak periods in the recorded historical landings
occurred from 1892-1908 and 1950-1955. During these periods,
annual landings exceeded 500,000 pounds. A record landing of
1.94 million pounds occurred in 1950. Landings have generally
remained at less than 100,000 pounds since 1960 (Figure 19).

River herring are a productive bait for recreational anglers
fishing for striped bass and bluefish. However, they are not a
target of recreational fishing effort.

From annual surveys of juvenile shad abundance in the
Connecticut River conducted by the DEP since 1979, it is known
that the blueback herring stock of this river is quite abundant.
In fact, juvenile blueback herring are the most numerous species
taken in haul seine samples from August to October. Juvenile
alewives are seldom taken in samples-, thus little is known of
the size or condition of the Connecticut River alewife stock. No
scientific information is available on the present condition of
the river herring stocks of other Connecticut rivers and streams.

-58-

MILIJONS OF POUNDS

0
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980
YEAR

Figure 19. Connecticut commercial river herring landings,
1880-1983.

-59-

4.3.2.12 Scup (Stenotomus phrysops), porgy

Nit. R

Description: Scup are half as deep as they are long, very thin,
with large scales. They are silvery and irridescent, darker
above, with a white belly. Adults are usually 8 to 14 inches
long weighing 1/2 to 2 1/2 pounds. Scup range from Cape Cod to
Cape Hatteras. They occur in LIS from June to mid-October.
Juveniles were found to overwinter in LIS during 1971-75 (Thomson
et al. 1978). Scup migrate to inshore regions along the New
England coast, including LIS, to spawn during June, leave the New
England coast around mid-October, and migrate southward and
offshore of the New Jersey and North Carolina coast. In the
following spring, they again undertake their spawning migration
northward into nearshore areas of southern New England and New
York. Scup prefer smooth to rocky bottom and stay in fairly deep
(30-100 feet) waters during the summer in LIS. They are very
sensitive to temperature; apparently the need for an environment
of about 450F determines how far offshore they move in winter.
Scup are bottom and near-bottom feeders. Their prey includes
small crustaceal worms, molluscs, squid, vegetable debris,
hydroids and sand dollars. They apparently cease feeding during
spawning. Spawning occurs in late spring apparently over sandy
and weed covered grounds.

Fishery and Condition of Stocks:

Percent of Percent of total Value of
Commercial total commercial commercial landings commercial
landings finfish landings of all species landings
Year (Lbs) (includes squid) (includes shellfish) W

---------------------------------------------------------------

1977 256,200 7.4 4.9 46,100
1978 379,700 9.2 5.9 90,600
1979 174,600 4.8 3.4 55,500
1980 37,900 1.2 0.7 14,400
1981 98,000 1.8 1.2 33,300
1982 55,500 1.1 0.7 21,600
1983 109,900 2.5 1.4 76,900*
*See boldface print, Section 4.3.1

Scup contribute a moderate percentage to total commercial
finfish landings and landings of all species including shellfish

_60-

in Connecticut. They are commercially harvested primarily by
trawl (87-98% of annual scup landings) with small amounts taken
by angling (0.2-9%) and gill net (0.5-2%). The period of major
scup landings was from 1940 to the mid-1960's when they ranged
from 1-2.5 million pounds per year with a record of 3.4 million
pounds in 1955. Landings declined in the 1960's to a low period
in the early 1970's fluctuating between 57,000-191,000 pounds,
exhibited a small peak from 174,000-398,000 pounds in the late
1970's, then declined to present low levels ranging from 38,000-
110,000 pounds annually (Figure 20).

Connecticut-licensed trawlers report the greatest catches
of scup in central LIS, lesser amounts in western LIS, Block
Island Sound and further offshore, and small catches in eastern
LIS.

In 1979, 1,984,000 scup were reported caught by recreational
anglers (NMFS 1980), ranking this species first by number caught
and second by estimated total pounds caught (Table 3). Scup are
the sixth most popular recreational finfish species in terms of
targeted angling effort. This effort occurs from May through
October for the species. In 1979, scup catch rates were less
than 10 fish per 100 hours of angling from shore, since the
species is relatively unavailable to shore based anglers.
However, from July-September, catch per effort was higher for
scup than any other species caught in the boat fishery. A peak
of 180 scup per 100 hours occurred during September for the boat
fishery (Sampson 1981).

In 1981, 16,500 pounds of scup were caught by party and
charter boats. The recreational catch of scup in 1979, which
includes the party and charter boat mode, was two times greater
than the catch of Connect icut-li censed commercial fishermen that
year (Table 3).

The relative abundance of scup, as indicated by catch per
commercial trawl hour of Connecticut-licensed trawlers, decreased
68% from 1978 to 1980, increased 40% from 1980 to 1982, then
decreased 39% from 1982-1983 (Figure 21). NMFS autumn bottom
trawl surveys indicate increased abundance in the southern New
England area in recent years. The 1981 autumn southern New
England catch-per-tow index is the second highest ever recorded,
although the 1982 index declined (RAD, NEFC 1983).

-61-

MILLJONS OF POUNDS

3.5

2.5
2[
1.5

1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980
YEAR

Figure 20. Connecticut commercial scup landings, 1880-1983.

POUNDS PER TRAWL HOUR

ISO

180

140

120-

100-
so L:

4o
1977 1978 1970 1980 1981 1982 1953
YEAR

Figure 21. Catch per unit of effort for scup caught by
Connecticut-licensed trawlers, 1977-1983.

-62-

4.3.2.13 American shad (Alosa sapidissima)

Description: Shad are the largest of the herrings. Their body
is deep, with a sharply serrated belly, deeply forked tail, and
large scales. They are bluish or greenish above which gradually
shades into bright silver sides. Adult males weigh up to 6
pounds and females, up to 12 pounds. Shad range from the St.
Lawrence River and Nova Scotian banks south to the St. Johns
River in Florida. They enter the Connecticut River to spawn from
early April through mid-June. They are present in eastern LIS as
they migrate from the ocean to the Connecticut River and back
again after spawning. Juveniles migrate through LIS from the
Connecticut River to the ocean in October. After migrating as
far as Turners Falls, Massachusetts in the Connecticut River to
spawnt post-spawners move back downstream to the sea and then
swim north to spend the summer and early fall in the Gulf of
Maine. With declining fall water temperatures, most shad move
out of the Gulf of Maine and congregate offshore, between
southern Long Island and Nantucket shoals. Adults enter coastal
waters in a broad front toward the middle Atlantic coast, as far
south as North Carolina during the winter and spring. North
Atlantic populations proceed north up the coast to their natal
rivers in spring with the warming of coastal waters, while south
Atlantic populations migrate southward to their natal rivers
(Neves and Depres 1979). During their adult life in the sea,
shad are pelagic schooling fish, and they never re-enter fresh
water until they return to their natal river to spawn, though
they sometimes do appear in brackish estuaries. In the ocean,
schools of shad are often seen at the surface in spring, summer
and autumn, but are seldom seen during the winter. They have
been trawled from depths of 50 fathoms off Nova Scotia in March,
and at 26 to 68 fathoms off southern New England in May. Shad
are primarily plankton feeders, like other herrings. In the sea,
adult shad feed on copepods and mysid shrimp. They take little
or no food in fresh water during the spawning migration. Most
spawning in the Connecticut River presently occurs between the
Enfield Dam, Connecticut and the base of the Turners Falls Dam,
Massachusetts 0from mid-May through mid-July at water temperatures
between 14-23 C. Broadcast spawning begins about an hour after
dark in open water over sandy or pebbly bottom, during which
groups of 5-10 male and female shad swim close together in small
circles near the surface. Adults experience considerable energy
and weight loss during migration and spawning: therefore, post-
spawning mortality is believed to-be high. Surviving shad will
leave the river shortly after spawning, endure an unknown rate of
oceanic mortality, and return to the river in the following year
as repeat spawners. Due to the high rate of post-spawning mor-
tality., shad will rarely spawn more than twice in their lifetime.

-63-

Fishery and Condition of Stocks:

Percent of Percent of total value of
Commercial total commercial commercial landing commercial
landings finfish landings of all species landings
Year (Lbs) (includes squid) (includes shellfish) M
---------------------------------------------------------------

1977 332,400 9.7 6.3 149,600
1978 306,300 7.4 4.7 211,400
1979 206,800 5.7 4.0 154,800
1980 310,500 10.1 6.0 40,400
1981 324,600 5.8 3.8 162,314
1982 282,966 5.5 3.6 198,100
1983 426,000 9.6 5.4 298,200

Shad are one of Connecticut's five most important commercial
finfish species in terms of annual landings. Only winter
flounder and yellowtail flounder consistently contributed higher
percentages to total annual landings than shad during 1977-1983.
Since 1975, shad have been commercially harvested entirely by
drift gill net in the Connecticut River from its mouth north to
Portland, Connecticut. Except for the period 1942-1949, during
which landings peaked at 1 million pounds in 1946, annual
landings have generally fluctuated between 200,000-400,000 pounds
(Figure 22).

Shad that swim upriver past the commercial gill netting
areas in the lower Connecticut River are then subject to being
caught in a substantial sportfi8hery located mainly in areas near
Windsor locks and Enfield, Connecticut, and Holyoke,
Massachusetts. A 1982 creel census of the shad sport fishery in
Connecticut conducted by the DEP revealed that an estimated
118,900 pounds of shad were taken, and an additional 42,600
pounds were caught but then released. The American shad is
acclaimed by many anglers for its trophy size (3-8 pounds), and
its fighting quality on light tackle. Recent tag-recapture
studies by the DEP indicate that recreational anglers annually
harvest between 8-13% of the shad run.

The DEP is currently conducting an early life history study
of the Connecticut River shad population in which the strength of
each year class is estimated by annually monitoring the survival
of larvae and relative abundance of juvenile shad. With this
information the condition of the stock is closely monitored and
measures can be taken, if necessary, to maintain the stock at a
stable level of abundance.

-64-

THOUSANDS OF POUNDS

1000@

Boo

600

400

200

o
1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985

YEAR

Figure 22. Connecticut commercial shad landings, 1939-1983.

-65-

4.3.2.14 Striped bass (Morone saxatilis)

Description: Striped bass have a deep body with a broad tail,
and are dark olive green to bluish above, with silver sides, that
have narrow dark stripes. Bass over 40 pounds are quite rare in
Connecticut waters, 5-20 pounds being the usual range. They
range along the Atlantic coast from the St. Lawrence River to
Florida, into the Gulf of Mexico to Louisiana. Their center of
abundance lies between Cape Cod and Cape Hatteras. Although
small groups may overwinter in LIS, the majority of fish are
seasonal migrants. They appear in early spring traveling
northward and return in fall on their way to overwinter in the
Hudson River and Chesapeake Bay. Striped bass rarely occur more
than 5 miles from the coast. They prefer surf-swept beaches,
shallow estuaries and bays, and rocky stretches. Water
temperatures between 46-70OF are preferred. They are a voracious
predator feeding primarily on fish but also worms, squid, clams,
lobsters and crabs. Their first two years appear to be spent in
the rivers in which they were spawned. Bass three years and
older undergo extensive northern migrations in early spring,
returning to large rivers and bays, principly the Hudson River
and Chesapeake Bay in late fall. An anadromous species, striped
bass enter brackish and fresh water to spawn. Along the Atlantic
coast, spawning usually occurs from April to June, governed
largely by water temperatures (55-730F). The most prolific
spawning area is Chesapeake Bay. Spawning occurs in moving water
which serves to keep the semiboyant eggs from settling to the
bottom and smothering.

Fishery and Condition of Stocks:

1977 57,700 1.7 1.1 41,400
1978 25,600 0.6 0.4 20,800
1979 44,600 1.2 0.9 59,400
1980 28,900 0.9 0.6 51,600
1981 4,900 0.1 0.1 81900
1982 6,000 0.1 0.1 11,700
1983 2,200 0.05 0.03 3,500

-66-

Since the early 1950's under the Connecticut General
Statutes, striped bass taken from Connecticut waters cannot be
sold-, they are considered a recreational gamefish. Therefore,
Connecticut striped bass landings are of fish mainly taken
legally from New York and Rhode Island waters. Effective in
1984, however, the State of Rhode Island declared a moratorium on
any type of striped bass f ishing, and the State of New York
declared an annual closed season for striped bass fishing from
December 15th to April 15th. These measures should severely
reduce commercial landings of striped bass in Connecticut.
Striped bass contribute a low percentage to total commercial
finfish landings and landings of all species including shellfish
in Connecticut. They are taken entirely by angling.

Generally, landings were less than 30,000 pounds from 1939-
1965. From 1965-1975 no landings were reported; then in 1976, a
record 63,000 pounds were landed. Landings have generally
decreased since 1979 (Figure 23).

In 1979, 65,000 striped bass were reported caught by
recreational anglers (NMFS 1980), ranking this species thirteenth
by number caught and fourth by estimated total pounds caught
(Table 3). Striped bass were sought by about 5% of all shore
based anglers interviewed during June, October, and November,
1979. In the Thames River estuary, shore based striper fishing
is particularly popular from November through May. Striped bass
are ranked fourth in order of directed recreational angling
effort in Connecticut (Sampson 1981).

From 1979-1981, over 1,500 striped bass were reported caught
by Connecticut recreational anglers participating in a Volunteer
Angler Survey conducted by the DEP. Most were reported from
western- LIS but as a result of volunteer angler, rather than
fish, distribution. For both 1979 and 1980, over 90% of the
stripers caught were under 24 inches, and over 90% of these small
bass were released unharmed. Of successful anglers, 66% caught
bass between 20-30 inches long, and 87% caught bass over 30
inches (Sampson and MacLeod 1982).

The 1979 catch of striped bass by recreational anglers,
including those fishing from party and charter boats, exceeded
the catch of Connecticut-licensed commercial anglers that year by
a factor of 21. In 1981, the party and charter boat catch was
9,400 pounds, almost twice the commercial catch.

The abundance of striped bass fluctuates widely depending on
the success of year classes. Three major stocks constitute the
striped bass population of the Atlantic coast. They originate
from the Hudson River, Chesapeake Bay, and Roanoke River. In
1975, estimates of the relative contributions of these stocks to
the coastal population were calculated to be 6.5%, 90.8%, and
2.7% respectively (Berggren and Lieberman 1978). The Atlantic
coast fishery is no longer dominated by the especially strong
1970 Chesapeake year class, and it is probable that the Hudson's

-67-

contribution to the Atlantic coast migratory stock is now higher
than 7 percent (Kumar and Van Winkle 1978--cited in ASMFC 1981).
For LIS fishermen, at least, striped bass from the Hudson may
partially compensate for the declining abundance of Chesapeake
fish until another dominant year class is produced (ASMFC 1981).
The striped bass catch of western LIS anglers who voluntarily
participated in the 1981 DEP survey is believed to be primarily
of Hudson River origin. The estimated total annual fishing
mortality on that stock is 27% and it is estimated that
Connecticut anglers account for about 9% of that 27% (Florence
1980; Sampson and MacLeod 1982).

-68-

THOUSANDS OF POUNDS

60@

50.@-

40 L

I OrL

1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
YEAR

Figure 23. Connecticut commercial striped bass landings,
1939-1983.

-69-

4.3.2.15 Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis)),
seatrout, squeteague

Description: Weakfish are slim-bodied with a relatively deep
caudal peduncle, two large canine teeth in the upper jaw and two
separate dorsal fins. They are greenish above with purple and
bronze metallic reflections, and silvery below. Weakfish
weighing up to 12 pounds are commonly caught in LIS. They range
from Cape Cod to Florida, being most common off the middle
Atlantic states. A seasonal migrant, weakfish appear in
Connecticut waters in late spring and leave in the fall. With
the onset of colder water, larger fish, greater than 4 years old,
move south and offshore, probably no farther south than North
Carolina. The younger fish move south along the coast, some as
far as Florida. During the summer, weakfish stay close inshore
in bays, estuaries, and frequently in the surf, usually staying
near the surface, and often traveling in schools. They prefer
warmer waters and are sensitive to sudden cooling. Weakfish feed
on a variety of organisms which include crabs, amphipods, shrimp,
molluscs, worms, and fish. The larger fish tend to concentrate
on small fish while the young depend more on shrimp and other
small crustaceans. Spawning usually takes place at night from
May to October throughout most of their range, usually in or near
large estuaries, at temperatures ranging from 60 to 700F.

Fishery and Condition of Stocks:

1977 7,300 0.2 0.1 1,600
1978 17,700 0.4 0.3 4,700
1979 33,800 0.9 0.6 71300
1980 9,600 0.3 0.2 1,400
1981 28,500 0.5 0.3 19,100
1982 25,500 0.5 0.3 17,600
1983 43,400 1.0 0.6 31,700

Weakfish contribute a low percentage to total commercial
finfish landings and landings of all species including shellfish
in Connecticut. They are commercially harvested primarily by
trawl (46-89% of annual weakfish landings) with lesser amounts
taken by angling (5-46%) and gill net (6-12%). Commercial
landings were highest in the 1940's, during which a record
150,000 pounds were landed in 1946. Annual landings dropped to

-70-

less than 25,000 pounds in the 1950's and 1960's. Landings have
fluctuated between 0-20,000 pounds from 1970 to 1978 with an
increase to 34,000 pounds in 1979, dropping to 10,000 pounds in
1980, and increasing to 43,000 pounds in 1983 (Figure 24).

From 1977-1981, Connecticut-licensed trawlers reported
catching weakfish mostly in central LIS, with lesser amounts
taken in western LIS and waters outside of LIS. A very small
percentage was caught in eastern LIS.

In 1979, less than 30,000 weakfish were reported caught by
Connecticut recreational anglers (NMFS 1980). This is believed
to be an underestimate because field sampling was insufficient
during June when weakfish were most abundant (Sampson 1931). In
this report, a catch of 30,000 fish was assigned to weakfish to
compensate for the underestimation of the 1979 angler catch
(Table 3). It is unknown how much greater the actual weakfish
catch may have been that year. In 1981, 7,400 pounds of weakfish
were caught by party and charter boats.

In 1979, weakfish were sought by only 5% of interviewed
Connecticut anglers, all fishing modes combined. Weakfish were
ranked eleventh in order of directed fishing effort for target
species. However, there is some evidence that interest in
weakfish angling is increasing (Sampson 1981).

Relative abundance of weakfish as indicated by catch per
commercial trawl hour peaked in 1979, declined 56% from 1979-
1981, increased 35% from 1981-1982, and decreased 18% from 1982-
1983 (Figure 25).

Weakfish were of significant historical importance to the
sport fishery of the North Atlantic. However, about forty years
ago their numbers rapidly declined. Since 1975 the species has
apparently made a resurgence in Connecticut waters. Anglers
actively seek weakfish with marked success in areas that ten
years ago only produced striped bass and bluefish (Sampson 1981).

-71-

THOUSANDS OF POUNDS

160

140

120

1 00@'-

60@

0
1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985

YEAR

Figure 24. Connecticut commercial weakfish landings, 1939-1983.

POUNDS PER TRAWL HOUR

35-

20
1977 1978 1979 igao 1981 1982 1983
YEAR

Figure 25. Catch per unit of effort for weakfish caught by
Connecticu t-licensed trawlers, 1977-1983.

-72-

e americana
4.3.2.16 White perch (Moron'

Description: The white perch is similar to its larger relative,
the striped bass, although it is a deeper-bodied fish, more
flattened laterally, and has no longitudinal stripes. They
average 8 to 10 inches long, weighing 1 pound or less. White
perch range from the Gulf of St. Lawrence and Nova Scotia to
South Carolina. The species is a year round resident in
Connecticut waters, completing its life cycle there. White perch
exhibit seasonal movements, migrating into deeper water in
winter, returning to brackish waters to spawn in the spring.
They prefer brackish and nearshore salt water and are also found
far up in rivers, and in lakes and ponds. White perch feed on a
variety of organisms including small fish fry, squid, shrimp,
worms, crabs and the spawn of various fish. Spawning in southern
New England takes place in spring in fresh or slightly brackish
water.

Fishery and Condition of Stocks:

Percent of Percent of total Value of
Commercial total commercial commercial landings commercial
landings finfish landings of all species landings

Year (Lbs) (includes squid) (includes shellfish) M
----------------------------------------------------------------

1977 12,600 0.4 0.2 5,500
1978 6,000 0.2 0.1 2,700
1979 24,600 0.7 0.5 12,300
1980 13,200 0.4 0.3 3,400
1981 14,900 0.3 0.2 7,400
1982 6,700 0.1 0.1 3,300
1983 8,000 0.2 0.1 4,000

White perch contribute a low percentage to total commercial
finfish landings and landings of all species including shellfish
in Connecticut. They are commercially harvested primarily by
gill net (54-86% of annual white perch landings) and trawl (3-
32%). Small amounts are taken annually by seine (0-12%), angling
(0-2%), and fyke net (0.2%). White perch were not commercially
landed in significant quantity until the 1970's when record
landings of 68,000 pounds occurred in 1973 and 1974, after which
they dropped to 6,000 pounds in 1978, increased to 24,000 pounds
in 1979, then decreased to 8,000 pounds in 1983 (Figure 26).

White perch are commercially harvested mainly from the
Connecticut River with gill nets; reported trawl catches of
white perch probably occur near the mouths of the Connecticut and
Thames Rivers in LIS.

-73-

In 1979, 31,000 white perch were reported caught by
Connecticut recreational anglers (NMFS 1980), ranking this
species eighteenth by number caught and twenty-first by estimated
total pounds caught (Table 3).

The condition of Connecticut white perch stocks is thought
to be stable. The Connecticut River population is commercially
underutilized, and any increase in fishing effort should yield an
increase in catch. The Connecticut River white perch fishery is
highly selective, with most of the catch consisting of fish 9 1/2
inches and over, thus allowing for the species to reproduce at
least once and usually twice prior to being harvested (Maltezos
et al. 1976).

-74-

THOUSANDS OF POUNDS

40-

30-

1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1.9-15 1980 1985
YEAR

Figure 26. Connecticut commercial white perch landings,
1939-1983.

-75-

4.3.2.17 Whiting (Merluccius bilinearis),
silver hake

Description: The whiting is a slender fish with two separate
dorsal fins, a projecting lower jaw, and numerous rows of sharp
recurved teeth. They are dark grey above with silvery sides and
belly, usually about 14 inches long, reaching a maximum of 2 1/2
feet and 5 pounds. Whiting range from the Newfoundland Banks to
South Carolina. In general, whiting are an offshore species,
with some individuals migrating into LIS in the summer. Very
small catches have been reported from all areas of LIS by
Connecticut-licensed trawlers. Whiting have wide areal and
depth ranges throughout the year, with only major concentrations
of fish varying from season to season. In response to major
seasonal changes in hydrographic conditions, availability of
food, and spawning requirements, adult whiting undergo extensive
migrations, overwintering in the deep waters of the Gulf of Maine
and along the outer continental shelf and slope south and west of
Georges Bank, and moving to shallower waters during March-
November to spawn. They are found over all types of bottom
except rocks, in depths ranging from the tide line down to 400
fathoms. Whiting prefer temperatures ranging from 40 to 640F.
They are extremely voracious predators on the young of any
species of fish as well as a variety of invertebrates. Whiting
regroduce throughout their range at water temperatures from 45 to
55 F or warmer, predominantly in July and August. Major spawning
areas include the coastal region of the Gulf of Maine from Cape
Cod to Grand Manan Island, southern and southeastern Georges
Bank, and the southern New England area south of Martha's
Vineyard.

Fishery and Condition of Stocks:

1977 97,900 2.8 1.9 12,600
1978 168,400 4.1 2.6 16,800
1979 147,500 4.0 2.8 64,900
1980 17,300 0.6 0.3 2,500
1981 103,100 1.8 1.2 191600
1982 100,600 2.0 1.3 20,100
1983 136,400 3.1 1.7 21,800

Whiting contribute a moderate percentage to total commercial
finfish landings and landings of all species including shellfish

-76-

in Connecticut. They are harvested entirely by trawl. Peak
historical landings greater than 800,000 pounds per year occurred
in the 1940's, with a record 1.65 million pounds landed in 1944.
A smaller peak of 500,000-800,000 pounds occurred in the early
1960's. Since then, annual landings have been less than 300,000
pounds (Figure 27).

From 1977-1981, Connecticut-licensed trawlers reported
catching essentially all of their whiting in Block Island Sound
and waters further offshore.

No whiting were reported caught by recreational fishermen in
1979 (NMFS 1980). They are not considered to be a sport f ish
although they will readily take a baited hook.

Relative abundance of whiting as indicated by catch per
commercial trawl hour of Connecticut-licensed trawlers increased
153% from 1977-1978, decreased 75% over the period 1978-1982, and
increased 32% from 1982-1983 (Figure 28).

Edwards (1968) estimated that whiting comprised the largest
standing crop of any species in the offshore area between the
Nova Scotian shelf and the New York Bight during 1963-65. Based
on current assessments of the status of the stocks in this area,
whiting still maintains that supremacy at the present time. By
virtue of the available biomass and the currently low level of
landings, whiting must be classified as an underutilized species
(Anderson et al 1980).

-77-

MILLIONS OF POUNDS

18W 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

YEAR

Figure 27. Connecticut commercial whiting landings, 1887-1983.

POUNDS PER TRAWL HOUR

150.

130

110

70 V

30
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1953
YEAR

Figure 28. Catch per unit of effort for whiting caught by
Connecticut-licensed trawlers, 1977-1983.

-78-

4.3.2.18 Other Finfish

A number of finfish species that are commercially harvested
by trawlers fishing on offshore grounds contribute small or
inconsistent percentages to annual Connecticut landings. These
species are not considered to be major living marine resources of
Connecticut, although they are sometimes found in Long Island
Sound. Some, such as haddock, pollock, and Atlantic herring, are
important and traditional New England finfish species, but are
exploited most heavily by the Massachusetts, Maine, and Rhode
Island offshore trawler fleets, and landed at major ports in
those states.

The American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides), or dab,
is a right-handed flounder: (eyes on the right side of the body)
distributed on both sides of the Atlantic from Greenland south to
Rhode Island in deep water. The most consistent Connecticut
landings occurred from 1943-1954 and peaked at 252,000 pounds in
1951. Intermittent landings generally less than 3,000 pounds per
year have occurred since, except for 1977 when 33,000 pounds were
landed.

The haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) is a member of the
cod family that prefers cold, deep water. They are most abundant
north of Cape Cod, although they range from the Grand Banks to
New Jersey along the Atlantic coast. Substantial Connecticut
haddock landings of 200,000-300,000 pounds occurred in the late
1800's and early 1900's. Record landings ranging from 18-48
million pounds were landed from 1928-1931. Haddock was landed
consistently from 1940-1965, with annual landings ranging from
1,000 to 110,000 pounds, after which no landings were reported
until 1978. Fifty thousand pounds and 15,000 pounds, were landed
in 1981 and 1983, respectively.

Adults of the red hake (Urophycis chuss), or squirrel hake,
are migratory, coming inshore and into LIS in the spring,
although they generally prefer deep, cold waters. Juveniles may
reside in LIS throughout the year. They range from the Gulf of
St. Lawrence to Virginia. Red hake have been landed relatively
consistently in Connecticut since 1939, although landings have
generally decreased since the 1950's. A record landing of 1.7
million pounds occurred in 1956. From 1981-1983, annual landings
ranged from 17,000-18,000 pounds.

The white hake (Urophycis tenuis) is similar in appearance
and habits to the rej hake. A record 1.1 million pounds were
landed in Connecticut in 1930. Annual landings have generally
remained at less than 10,000 pounds since the late 1940's.

The black sea bass (Centropristes striatus) ranges from
southern Florida to Cape Cod and occasionally to Maine. It is
usually found on rocky bottoms and around pilings or wrecks in
water from a few feet deep to 70 fathoms. It occurs in LIS and
several thousand pounds were reported caught mainly in the

_79-

central Sound by Connecticut-licensed trawlers from 1977-1981.
The peak period of commercial landings in Connecticut occurred
from 1939-1966. A record 215,000 pounds were landed in 1957.
Since 1967, less than 6,000 pounds have been landed annually,
except for 1983, when landings increased to 10,000 pounds. The
black sea bass is valuable as a food and gamefish in its center
of abundance which is from the southern shore of Long Island to
North Carolina.

Adult Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) appear to be winter
migrants to LIS. They range from northern Labrador and the west
coast of Greenland to Cape Cod and Block Island, occasionally
straying as far south as Cape Hatteras. Herring have been
consistently landed in Connecticut annually from 1943-1967, with
two peaks of 3.3 million pounds occurring in 1948 and 1953.
Landings since 1970 have been intermittent and generally less
than 4,000 pounds except for 1978, when 65,000 pounds were
landed, and 1981 and 1982, when 26,000 pounds were landed,
respectively. In 1983, landings decreased to 12,000 pounds.

The kingfish (Menticirrhus saxatilus), or king whiting, is
related to and resembles the weakfish in several characteristics.
It is a more southern fish, distributed from Florida to Cape Cod,
being most common from Chesapeake Bay to New York. It is an
excellent food fish and supports recreational and commercial
fisheries south of LIS. Connecticut landings of generally less
than 1,000 pounds occurred from 1939-1950. A record of 5,400
pounds were landed in 1948. There have been no commercial
landings in Connecticut since 1969, when less than 500 pounds
were landed.

The pollock, (Pollachius virens) is a member of the cod
family that ranges from Hudson's Bay to North Carolina on the
Atlantic coast, and is most common from the Gulf of St. Lawrence
to the Gulf of Maine. The peak period of commercial landings in
Connecticut occurred from 1920 through 1940 with a record of
300,000 pounds in 1931. Since 1940, landings have been
intermittent and generally less than 20,000 pounds per year. In
1979, less than 30,000 individual pollock were reported caught by
Connecticut recreational anglers (NMFS 1980). In 1981, 24,000
pounds of pollock were caught by Connecticut party and charter
boats. Pollock are a firmer-fleshed fish than either haddock or
cod. They yield high quality fillets, and put up a good fight
for anglers.

The swordfish (Xiphias gladius) ranges along the entire
eastern American coast as far north as the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
It is an oceanic fish that prefers temperatures of 61OF or
higher. They are traditionally harvested with harpoons. From
1880-1933, Connecticut landings generally ranged from 100,000-
400,000 pounds per year with a record 451,000 pounds landed in
1905. Annual landings were generally consistent from the late
1930's to the early 1960's at usually less than 10,000 pounds per
year. Since then, landings have been intermittent and less than

-80-

5,000 pounds annually, except for 1981 and 1982, when 10,000
pounds were landed.

The tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps) is an offshore,
deepwater fish ranging along the outer continental shelf and
upper slope from northern Nova Scotia to southern Florida and the
Gulf of Mexico. Its chief center of abundance is between
Nantucket and Delaware Bay in a belt only 15 to 25 miles wide on
the outer part of the Continental shelf and upper part of the
slope. The peak period of commercial landings in Connecticut
ocurred from 1946-1956. A record 218,000 pounds were landed in
1952. Since 1956, tilefish have been landed very infrequently;
none were landed from 1967-1977. In 1981, 2,000 pounds were
landed, and 1,000 pounds were landed in 1983.

The bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) is a large, oceanic fish
occurring throughout t@e Atlantic and Pacific Oceans in warm
waters. Those commercially landed in Connecticut are caught by
trolling lines. The peak period of bluefin landings in
Connecticut occurred from 1946-1958. A record of 36,000 pounds
were landed in 1949. Otherwise, landings during this period were
less than 10,000 pounds per year. Since 1958, there have been
essentially no tuna commercially landed in Connecticut, although
from 1981-1983, landings did occur, decreasing from 1,000 pounds
to 300 pounds over this period. Tuna are a popular recreational
species sought by Connecticut anglers7 in 1979, 39,000 individual
mackerel and tuna were reported caught (NMFS 1980). In 1981,
26,000 pounds of bluefin, 7,400 pounds of other tuna species, and
3,000 pounds of bonito (Sarda sarda) were reported caught by
Connecticut party and charter boats.

Two other finfish that occur in estuarine Connecticut
waters, the smelt and tomcod, are worthy of mention as living
marine resources of Connecticut that are of minor commercial and
recreational importance. The rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax) is a
small (7-9 inches in length), anadromous/ shoal-water species,
remaining very close to the coast, often in an estuarine
environment. They range from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to New
Jersey along the Atlantic coast and support commercial fisheries
especially in Maine and Canadal but not to a large extent south
of the Gulf of Maine. They spawn in fresh or brackish water in
the late winter or early spring. The most well known population
in Connecticut occurs in the Thames River, and is presently the
seasonal target of a small recreational fishery. The species'
population in Connecticut has been classified by Dowhan and Craig
(1976) as being of indeterminate status, indicating that further
investigation and additional information is necessary to
determine the condition of stocks. A small commercial smelt
fishery existed in Connecticut from 1880 to 1946 and again from
1960-1969. A record 27,000 pounds were landed in 1880. Since
1931, landings have been less than 5,000 pounds per year. During
the 19701s, the only commercial landings reported were 300 pounds
in 1979.

-81-

The Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod), or frostfish, is a
small (9-12 inches in length) member of the cod family that
ranges from southern Labrador to Virginia and is largely
restricted to coastal waters and estuaries, close to shore,
occasionally entering fresh water. They spawn between November
and February in shoal water. They are of no commercial
importance, but are the most important winter species to
Connecticut shore-based recreational anglers, and are exploited
by over 25% of those fishermen (Sampson 1981).

The following group of relatively abundant finfish species
available to Connecticut commercial and recreational fishermen
have been traditionally considered trash fish and have been
commercially used for fish meal, as bait, or discarded. These
species may be more properly termed underutilized species and are
potentially valuable as food fish if proper preparation
techniques are used and they are promoted through innovative
marketing campaigns.

The anglerfish (Lophius americanus), monkfish, or goosefish,
ranges from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to North Carolina. it
occurs in LIS, although it is more abundant in Block Island Sound
and waters further offshore, as evidenced by catches of
Connecticut-licensed trawlers from 1978-1981. It is a grotesque-
looking demersal fish which attracts prey fishes with its fleshy
modified first dorsal spine that serves as a "fishing lure". it
has an enormous mouth with many long, sharp teeth with which it
devours prey species coming within reach. Connecticut commercial
landings from 1940-1950 peaked at 120,000 pounds in 1944. Little
or no landings were recorded annually from 1950-1973, after which
landings increased to 100,000 pounds in 1981 and 1982, decreasing
to 39,000 pounds in 1983. In recent yearst the tailmeat of
monkfish 'has been marketed as a "substitute" for lobster meat
because of its consistency and flavor.

The conger eel (Conger oceanicus) is found from the edge of
the continental shelf to the coast and even within tidal rivers,
from Cape Cod to Brazil in the western Atlantic. It was
commercially landed in Connecticut from 1939-1958 with a record
of 570,000 pounds landed in 1944. With the exception of 1976,
when 12,000 pounds were landed, none have been landed since 1958.

The cunner, (Tauto2olabrus adspersus) is closely related to
the blackfish, similar D7 -habits and appearance but smaller, and
is abundant in LIS, ranging from Labrador to Chesapeake Bay. it
was commercially landed in Connecticut from 1939-1961, with
annual landings generally less than 10,000 pounds. None have
been commercially landed since 1961. In 1979, 705,000 individual
cunners were reported caught by Connecticut recreational anglers
(NMFS 1980). This figure is believed to be an underestimate
because they are not a target species, and some anglers fail to
report catching them to angling survey interviewers. Most
fishermen consider cunners to be either a trash fish or a
nuisance species because they frequently steal bait (Sampson
1981).

-82-

The ocean pout (Macrozoarces americanus) , or eelpout, is a
demersal fish living in shallow water to 100 fathoms, ranging
from North Carolina to Labrador. It is a permanent resident
species of LIS. Ocean pout were first commercially landed in
Connecticut in 1976, and annual landings since then have ranged
from 2,000-65,000 pounds.

The northern sea robin (Prionotus carolinus) and striped sea
robin (P. evolans) are permanent resident species of LIS. Their
geographic ranges are from South Carolina northward to
Massachusetts Bay for the striped sea robin, and further north to
the Bay of Fundy for the northern sea robin. They are demersal
species and have been reported caught throughout LIS by
Connecticut-licensed trawlers from 1977-1981. Sea robins have
been commercially landed in Connecticut consistently since 1939.
A record 245,000 pounds were landed in 1951. From 1953-1967,
landings were less than 30,000 pounds, increasing to near 100,000
pounds in 1968 and 1971, after which landings have generally
remained at less than 3,000 pounds per year.

The spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) and smooth dogfish
(Mustelus canis) are small sharks occurring seasonally from June
to September in LIS, migrating back to southern, offshore waters
in the fall. Commercial landings in Connecticut have fluctuated
from near 30,000 pounds in the 1940's, to generally less than
10,000 pounds until 1968, when a record 50,000 pounds were
landed, after which landings declined to less than 10,000 pounds.
In 1983, 12,000 pounds were landed. Dogfish are widely used as
lobster bait, but have value as a foodfish if properly prepared.

Other species of sharks have been commercially landed in
Connecticut since 1939, generally less than 10,000 pounds per
year, except for 1953, when 130,000 pounds were landed. The mako
(Isurus oxyrinchus) and blue (Prionace 21auca) sharks have been
known to enter Connecticut waters, and are valuable as food
fishes if prepared properly. They also provide an exciting
recreational angling experience for Connecticut sportfishermen.
In 1981, 8,700 pounds of sharks were caught from Connecticut
party and charter boats.

Four species of skates (aAja sp.) are permanent residents of
LIS. Record commercial landings of 400,000 pounds in 1928
declined to less than 100,000 pounds until 1947-1953 when annual
landings as high as 270,000 pounds occurred. They have since
remained at generally less than 20,000 pounds, except for 1979
and 1983, when 65,000 pounds and 51,000 pounds were landed,
respectively.

In 1979, 39,000 individual skates were reported caught by
Connecticut recreational anglers (NMFS 1980). Skates are widely
used as lobster bait by Connecticut lobstermen. As f ood, the
meat of the "wings", or modified pectoral fins, is considered to
be of good quality by some people.

-83-

The windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus), sand dab, or
brill, ranges from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to South Carolina/
being more common south of Cape Cod. It is a permanent resident
of LIS, abundant, and prefers sandy bottom areas. From 1977-
1981, Connecticut-licensed trawlers caught 3,000-19,000 pounds
annually, mostly in Block Island Sound. From 1981-1983, annual
landings ranged from 11,000-18,000 pounds. Windowpane is
commonly used for lobster bait in Connecticut. In 1979, 86,000
individual windowpane were reported caught by Connecticut
recreational anglers (NMFS 1980). Although it is edible, most
fishermen discard the species because it is very thin, with
little meat.

The following finfish species are of ecological importance
as Connecticut living marine resources for the role they play as
forage species for larger commercially and recreationally
important finfish in Long Island Sound. They are the most common
resident species. A number of other less common species that may
serve as forage also occur in LIS.

The bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) is a schooling species,
found mostly along sandy shores and the mouths of rivers, but
sometimes in muddy coves and into freshwater rivers.

Four species of killifish (Fundulus sp.) and the related
sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) are schooling forage
species found in protected waters of all salinities.

The American sandlance (Ammodytes americanus) travels in
large schools over sandy bottoms, both inshore in LIS and on the
offshore banks of the continental shelf. They avoid rocky
bottoms and can burrow several inches into the sand if trying to
escape predators.

The Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia) congregates in
schools along sandy or gravelly shores and also are found in
brackish water.

-84-

4.3.3 Crustacean shellfish

4.3.3.1 American lobster (Homarus americanus)

Description: The lobster's body is divided into a combined head
and thorax (cephalothorax), and a segmented abdomen or "tail".
The claws, usually one crusher and one pincher, are outstanding
anatomical characteristics. Adult coloration is usually dark
green with darker spots on the dorsal and lateral surfaces while
the ventral side is yellowish or reddish brown. Marketable
lobsters vary considerably in size from the minimum legal size
(3-3/16" carapace length) which weighs slightly less than one
pound, to giant specimens weighing 25-35 pounds. Lobsters range
offshore from Labrador to North Carolina and inshore from the
Canadian maritimes to Delaware. Tagging studies show that
lobsters in western LIS generally remain there, while lobsters in
eastern LIS may undergo extensive migrations, some as far as the
continental shelf (Briggs 1980, Lund et al 1973). Moreover,
circular surface current patterns in western LIS have been shown
to retain larvae hatched in this area (Lund and Stewart 1970).
Thus, a relatively closed lobster population exists in western
LIS, while eastern LIS lobsters may mix with offshore and Rhode
Island inshore stocks through migration. A seasonal movement to
nearshore waters which occurs in the spring, and to deeper mid-
Sound waters in late summer is related to seasonal changes in
water temperatures. Lobsters appear to prefer habitats that
provide shelter or in which they can construct shelters. Burrows
are constructed by sediment excavation under rocks or ledge
outcroppings, and constitute approximately 90% of the lobster
shelters in eastern LIS. Less utilized crevice and rock
interspace shelters appear to provide temporary cover. Mud
burrows dug into substrates with a high silt fraction were the
only shelter noted in the deep water areas of mid-western LIS.
Mud burrows excavated directly under mussel (Mytilus edulis) beds
and the sulfur sponge (Cliona) occur to some degree in eastern
LIS (Stewart 1972). Lobsters occupy depths from the low tide
mark to the continental slope, as great as 400 fathoms. Their
temperature range is 29-750F. They are generally inactive below
400F and are seldom found where salinities are lower than 25
0/00. Adults feed mainly on crabs (especially Cancer irroratus)
and molluscs. The amount and composition of the stomach contents
varies significantly depending on the season, stage of the
molting cycle, and the relative abundance of food organisms.
They are primarily active predators, ingesting living prey, but
obtain food by scavenging whenever dead organisms are available
(Weiss 1970). Female lobsters in western LIS mature at a smaller
size than has been recorded elsewhere in the range of the
species. Many appear to be mature at a carapace length of 3-3/16
inches which is the present minimum legal length limit in
Connecticut and New York. Males mature at a smaller size than

-85-

females with essentially all over 3-3/16 inches being mature
(Briggs and Mushacke 1979). The disparity in size between the
sexes at maturity appears to offer no problem with mating, since
small males can mate with much larger females (Hughes and
Matthiessen 1962). Females also molt about a month later than
males, which may assist mating since copulation can be achieved
only when the female is soft-shelled and the male hard-shelled.
A progressive decrease in mean size of ovigerous females from the
eastern (coldest) end of LIS toward the western (warmest) end
(Smith 1977), supports the hypothesis that small size at maturity
is associated with relatively high summer temperature (Aiken and
Waddy 1980). Females are impregnated immediately after molting
and retain the sperm within their seminal receptacle for at least
9 months, after which the eggs are extruded and fertilized
simultaneously. The eggs remain attached to the swimmerets on
the underside of the tail for an incubation period of 10 to 11
months.

Fishery and Condition of Stocks:

Percent of Percent of total Value of
Commercial total commercial commercial landings commercial
landings shellfish landings of all species landings
Year (Lbs) (excludes squid) (includes finfish) M
--------------------------------------------------------------

1977 638,400 35.1 12.1 1,337,300
1978 798,500 34.3 12.4 1,974,800
1979 807,700 52.1 15.5 2,067,700
1980 830,200 36.4 16.0 2,186,800
1981 11010,800 35.5 12.0 2,567,500
1982 1,094,102 40.4 13.9 2,997,839
1983 1,854,200 52.5 23.3 5,043,300

From 1977-1982, lobster ranked from second to fourth in
terms of weight contributed to total annual landings of all
species in Connecticut. In 1983, this ranking improved to number
one. During 1977 and 1978, lobster contributed the second
highest percentage to annual landings of crustacean and molluscan
(excluding squid) shellfish in Connecticut, oysters being first.
However, from 1979-1983, lobster was first in terms of shellfish
landings. The year 1983 broke all historical records for
landings of lobster in Connecticut. Historical landings are
presented in Figure 29. The history of Connecticut's lobster
landings and fishery, as well as its present characteristics are
described in detail in Section 5.1.3

The relative abundance of the lobster population in LIS, as
indicated by the number of pounds of legal sized lobsters (> 3-
3/16 inches carapace length) caught per trap haul and per trap
haul set-over day from 1975-1983, was stable after a small
increase from 1975-1978, then increased relatively sharply from
1981-1983 (Figure 30).

_86-

The effect of future increases in fishing effort on the
apparently stable and recently increased population abundance is
uncertain. There is relatively widespread concern that the
coastwide lobster population, as well as that in LIS, is
presently being fished to its limit. However, as yet there is no
evidence that fishing is depleting the population below a level
that is necessary to adequately support recruitment.

-87-

MILLIONS OF POUNDS

1.5-

OL4
11380 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1W 1950 1960 1970 1980
YEAR

Figure 29. Connecticut commercial lobster landingst 1880-1983.

POUNDS PER TRAP POUNDS PER THSOD

.5"

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983
YEAR

Figure 30. Catch per unit of effort of lobster caught by
Connecticut licensed lobstermen, 1975-1983. Reported
in pounds per trap and pounds per trap haul set-
over day (THSOD).

_88-

4.3.3.2 Blue crab (Callinectes sapidus)

Description: Blue crabs have a carapace up to 7 inches wide with
two sharp lateral spines, and are dark green with bright blue and
sometimes scarlet legs. They range from Nova Scotia to the Gulf
Coast. Blue crabs are present in many river mouths, shallow
bays, and salt marsh creeks in Connecticut. Tagging studies in
South Carolina and Delaware have shown that most crabs do not
migrate between estuaries. Their movements are limited to lower
estuaries and adjacent coastal zones (Fischler and Walburg 1962;
Porter 1956). Males display only limited movement in North
Carolina (Judy and Dudley 1970). However, in Rhode Island both
sexes migrate into deeper water in the fall (Jeffries 1966). The
blue crab's ability to osmoregulate over a wide salinity range
(Ballard and Abbott 1969) allows it to inhabit waters ranging
from ocean salinity to almost fresh water in upstream reaches of
tidal rivers. The blue crab is a scavenger and a predator eating
live or dead fish, crabs, shrimp, whelks, snails, mussels, roots
of marsh vegetation, and sets of young oysters and clams (CAM
1977) in less saline waters, frequently in tidal rivers. Females
mate while in the soft-shell state and males may mate several
times with several females (Van Engel 1958). Egg laying may
occur two months after mating but is frequently deferred for as
long as 9 or 10 months if mating occurred late in the season.
About 2 million eggs are extruded in early spring or summer. The
fertilized eggs are attached to the underside of the female in a
"sponge-like" egg mass.

Kisheryand Condition of Stocks:

In Connecticut, blue crabs have never been commercially
landed in large quantities-, 5,800 pounds in 1945 is the record
annual landing. Landings generally ranged from 2,000-5,000
pounds from 1946-1961, after which they declined dramatically to
intermittent landings of less than 500 pounds per year (Figure
31). The blue crab is an important recreational species.

Little is known about the condition of Connecticut blue crab
stocks. Abundance fluctuates widely from year to year; recently
there have been years when blue crabs were so scarce that it was
not worthwhile for recreational crabbers to look for them. Other
years have been productive. It is apparent that the abundance of
blue crabs has declined since the 1940's and 1950's when they
were abundant enough to support a small commercial fishery. Many
basic aspects of the life history of blue crabs in Connecticut
waters are unknown, which emphasizes the need for biological
studies.

_89-

THOUSANDS OF POUNDS

0
1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
YEAR

Figure 31. Connecticut commercial blue crab landings, 1939-1983.

-90-

4.3.3.3 Other crustacean shellfish

The rock crab (Cancer irroratus) ranges from Labrador to
South Carolina-, the Yo-nah crab (C. borealis) ranges from Nova
Scotia to just south of the Dry !f-ort'ugas in Florida. They are
both common in LIS and are permanent residents. The crabs are
edible and are considered to be underutilized species. A number
of feasibility studies have been conducted in recent years to
develop harvestingr processing, and marketing techniques and
strategies for Cancer crabs in Rhode Island and Connecticut
(Marchant and Holmsen 1975; Stewart L., pers. comm. 1982).

The green crab (Carcinus maenas) is the most common crab
inhabiting rocky shorelines, tidal mudflats, salt marshes, and
Pstuaries in Connecticut. Not native to the United States, it
was accidentally brought to North America on the bottoms of ships
from European waters (CAM 1977). Green crabs are extensively
used and sold as bait for blackfish angling. In 1982 and 1983,
33,000 and 23,000 pounds were landed, respectively.

The horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus) is not a true crab
or a crustacean. It belongs to the same taxonomic group as the
spiders and mites. They are common on sandy or muddy bottoms in
shallow, brackish water. They are used as - bait for eels and
conchs in Connecticut. From 1969-1971, 7,000-16,000 pounds per
year of horseshoe crabs were reported landed in Connecticut.

-91-

4.3.4 Molluscan shellfish
40f

4.3.4.1 Hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria)
quahog,round clam
littleneck, cherrystone

Description: The shell of the hard clam is solid and oval, the
outside is dingy white to brown with concentric growth lines, and
the inside is porcellanus white, with deep violet blotches near
the muscle scars. Hard clams range from the Gulf of St. Lawrence
to the Gulf of Mexico (Miner 1950). They are wide-spread
throughout LIS in nearshore areas. Localized beds of high
abundance can be found in nearly all areas from east to west
along the Connecticut shore. The distribution of dense
assemblages is extremely patchy, however (Pratt 1953-, Saila et
al. 1967). No' population migration occurs except for the
dispersal of pelagic larvae by currents. Hard clams prefer sandy
or muddy bottom from the intertidal zone to water depths of about
18 meters (Gosner 1979). They are principally estuarine, and
populations flourish best in bays at salinities of 18-26 0/00
(Merrill and Ropes 1967). Mercenaria feed on suspended
particulate matter consisting of detritus, bacteria, and plankton
by means of ciliary mechanisms on the gills and labial palps
which sort the particles according to size. In Connecticut,
spawning occurs mostly during June through August depending on
the temperature in a particular river, bay, or LIS proper, which
must exceed 680F (Loosanoff 1937a, 1937b). Sperm and eggs are
released into the water through the excurrent siphon. Mercenaria
become sexually mature in their second summer and continue to
produce gametes every summer until they die. Sexes are distinct,
and although about half those in a given stock that produce sperm
in their first year later develop into females , no sex reversals
take place after their second summer (Loosanoff 1937b).

Fishery and Condition of Stocks:

Commercial Percent of Percent of total Value of
landings total commercial commercial landings commercial
(Lbs of shellfish landings of all species landings
Year meats) (excludes squid) (includes finfish) W

-----------------------------------------------------------------

1977 180,000 9.9 3.4 150,000
1978 180,000 7.7 2.8 300,000
1979 300,000 19.4 5.8 750,000
1980 325,000 15.4 6.3 926,250
1981 360,000 12.7 4.3 1,170,000
1982 419,800 15.5 5.3 1,397,900
1983 461,600 13.1 5.8 1,523,200

_92-

Hard clams contribute a moderate percentage to total annual
commercial landings of all species in Connecticut in terms of the
weight of clam meats, exclusive of the shell, that are landed.
Among the Connecticut landings of all species, they ranked from
fifth to ninth in terms of pounds landed from 1977-1983. This
ranking would be much higher if landings were reported as wet
weight, including the weight of the shell. Historical landings
are presented in Figure 32. The history of Connecticut's hard
clam landings and industry, as well as their present
characteristics, are described in detail in Section 5.1.2.

The condition of hard clam stocks on private commercial beds
is enhanced by the seeding and predator control activities of the
shellfish companies that own them. The hard clam is a productive
species for aquacultural efforts and Connecticut waters are
capable of sustaining much larger populations than they currently
do. A major drawback to increased production of marketable clams
is the limited amount of productive ground located in unpolluted
water. The hard clam is probably the most abundant species
available for recreational shellfishing in Connecticut at the
present time.

THOUSANDS OF POUNDS

500

400-

300

200 -

100

Q
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

YEAR

Figure 32. Connecticut commercial hard clam landings, 1887-1983.
(In pounds of meats)

-93-

4.3.4.2 Soft clam (Mya arenaria) steamer

Description: Soft clams are thin-shelled, usually whitish with
dark markings, have gaping valves, and are commonly one to three
inches long. They range from the Arctic Ocean to Cape Hatteras.
Historically, soft clams were abundant all along the Connecticut
coast wherever there was favorable habitat. Presently, however,
populations are small and of patchy distribution. In New
England, soft clams burrow predominantly in intertidal mud flats,
and are frequently found subtidally in estuaries. They are
mainly found subtidally in Chesapeake Bay (Saila and Pratt 1973).
Soft clams can tolerate salinities as low as 4 O/oo (Green 1968).
A filter feeding bivalve, soft clams utilize several species of
unicellular algae in laboratory culture; they may derive
nourishment from non-living particulate organic matter in their
natural environment. Sexual maturity is reached at one year of
age when the clams are 1/2 to 1 inch in length (Merrill and
Tubiash 1970). Spawning, which depends mainly upon temperature,
may occur twice in the same year south of Cape Cod (Ropes and
Stickney 1965). In New England, spawning principally occurs from
June to mid-August and progressively later in the summer for the
more southern populations (Hanks 1963). Spawning and
fertilization takes place in the water above or near the clam
beds.

Fishery and Condition of Stocks:

No commercial fishery presently exists for soft clams in
Connecticut. Historically they were commercially harvested from
public beds with clam hoes. A record 750,000 pounds of meats was
commercially landed in 1880 after which annual landings declined
to less than 50,000 pounds in the 19401s. From 1952-1974 annual
landings were intermittent and usually less than 500 pounds per
year. The last year that commercial landings were reported was
1974 (Figure 33). Recreational harvesting of soft clams from
several small beds is controlled by the few towns where such beds
exist. Attempts are made to prevent overharvesting of the
resource by implementing closed seasons and bag limits. The
decline of Connecticut's soft clam populations and fishery may be
attributed to the destruction of productive beds by land
development activities such as filling and dredging, and to the
closing of existing beds to shellfishing due to poor water
quality.

-94-

THOUSANDS OF POUNDS

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

YEAR

Figure 33. Connecticut commercial soft clam landings, 1880-1983.
(In pounds of meats)

-95-

4.3.4.3 Conch (Busycon canaliculatum),
channeled whelk

Description: The channeled whelk is a gastropod mollusc (snail)
with a heavy whorled shell reaching a length of 6 to 9 inches and
is distinguished by having a deep channel-like groove following
each whorl at the suture. They are yellowish-gray and the
interior of the shell is lined with yellow (Miner 1950). Conch
range from Cape Cod to Florida. The highest concentrations of
conch in LIS appear to be in nearshore areas of central LIS,
where the commercial fishery is concentrated. Movement appears
to be random, with no evidence of seasonal inshore or offshore
migration. In Narragansett Bay, RI, the mean daily movement of
tagged conchs was 14 meters (Sisson 1972). Conch prefer shallow
sandy and mud bottoms. According to one Connecticut conch
fisherman, in spring and summer they are caught near rocks and
islands with ledges dropping to soft bottom. In fall, they are
caught over open, muddy bottom. Busycon prey on bivalve molluscs
by inserting the outer lip of their shell between the bivalves'
shells and prying them apart. They also feed on dead fish,
annelids, and other soft living or dead animals (Magalhaes 1948).
Fresh horseshoe crab is the superior bait for catching conch in
pots (Sisson 1972). Fertilization in Busycon occurs internally
through copulation. Eggs are enclosed within capsules that are
laid in strings anchored in the mud. Apparently, reproduction
occurs in spring and fall as freshly laid egg case strings have
been observed in March and April, and September and November in
southern New England (Magalhaes 1948).

Fishery and Condition of Stocks:

---------------------------------------------------------------

1977 52,700 2.9 1.0 29,900
1978 88,000 3.8 1.4 61,600
1979 163,600 10.6 3.1 120,000
1980 147,100 7.0 2.8 119,000
1981 472,500 16.7 5.6 439,400
1982 134,900 5.0 1.7 143,900
1983 201,900 5.7 2.5 256,400

Conch contribute a moderate percentage to total annual
commercial landings of all species in Connecticut in terms of
pounds of conch meats, exclusive of the shell, that are landed.
Among Connecticut's landings of molluscan (excluding squid) and
crustacean shellfish, they ranked from third to fifth in terms of

-96-

pounds landed from 1977-1983. Recent landings show an increasing
trend, especially from 1979-1981. However, this may be due to
differences in procedures for landings statistics collection
during recent years. In 1981 and 1982, commercial landings were
estimated by the DEP by asking dealers how much conch they
purchased that year from Connecticut fishermen. It is unknown
how previous landings figures were obtained by NMFS. One buyer
who purchased several thousand bushels of conch from Connecticut
fishermen in 1981 bought none in 1982 and 1983 from Connecticut
fishermen. This may account for the large decrease in landings
from the peak that occurred in 1981 (Figure 34). The history of
Connecticut's conch landings and fishery, as well as their
present characteristics, are described in detail in Section
5.1.7.

The condition of the conch population in LIS is unknown but
it is thought to be abundant enough to sustain present levels of
fishing. If the exploitation rate continues to increase,
however, it is uncertain what effect it would have on the
population, because knowledge of the species' biology and
population dynamics in LIS are unknown.

-97-

THOUSANDS OF POUNDS

500

450

400

350

300
2501
2001
150

loor

0 ...... ...
1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
YEAR

Figure 34. Connecticut commercial conch landings, 1939-1983.
(In pounds of meats)

-98-

4.3.4.4 American oyster (Crassostrea virginica)

Description: The two valves of the oyster's -shell are attached
by the lef t valve which is convex; the upper valve is nearly
flat. The shell is irregular and variable, and is often folded
in layers and very thick. oysters are usually 3 to 4 inches at
market size but may grow variably in shape and size up to 17
inches in length. They range from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to
Mexico. In Connecticut waters, most natural and nearly all
commercial oyster beds are located in estuarine river mouths and
harbors west of the Connecticut River. High concentration areas,
due mainly to the efforts of commercial operations on beds leased
from the state, are located in New Haven Harbor, off Milford, and
in the Bridgeport and Norwalk areas. On these privately managed
beds, densities of over 3,000 bushels per acre have been reported
(MacKenzie 1970). Oysters prefer hard rock bottom or semi-hard
mud, normally setting on areas already inhabited by other oysters
(Galtsoff 1964). Shifting sand and soft mud are unsuitable
substrates. Oysters are 0euryhaline, and can survive salinities
from 3 O/oo to 0almost 40 /oo as adults. Their temperature range
is from 34-86 F over their geographic distribution (Saila and
Pratt 1973). The oyster filters a mixture of suspended particles
from the water and sorts them according to size by passing water
through its gills. Several species of phytoplankton, bacteria,
and detrital particles provide nutrition. In LIS, the spawning
season is generally from late 0 June to late August (Loosanoff
1965) at temperatures above 68 F (Galtsoff 1964). Oysters can
change sex throughout their lives. Under natural conditions a
large female is surrounded by several small males. When the
female dies, one of the males changes sex. Gametes are released
directly into the water column where fertilization occurs.

Fisheryand Condition of Stocks:

1977 852,000 46.9 16.2 1,991,600
1978 1,058,300 45.4 16.4
1979 174,800 11.3 3.4 567,500
1980 695,000 32.9 13.4 2,370,066
1981 947,100 33.3 11.2 3,210,700
1982 999,600 47.9 12.7 4,288,200
1983 989,000 28.0 12.4 4,203,100

_99-

In 1977 and 1978, oysters contributed a higher percentage to
total annual commercial landings of all species in Connecticut
than any other individual species, even when reported in weight
of meats exclusive of the shell, the standard measure used for
statistical reporting of bivalve and univalve mollusc landings.
Unclassified baitfish landings were greater, but are comprised of
several species. Apparently 1979 was not a good year for
oysters, and their landings represented only a small percentage
of total landings of all species. During 1981-1983, because
landings from offshore fisheries were accounted for, oysters
ranked third to fourth in terms of pounds of all species landed,
with yellowtail and winter flounder and lobster ranking in the
first through third places. It is obvious that a great volume of
oysters are commercially landed in Connecticut each year. When
it is considered that only the weight of the meats exclusive of
the shells constitute the landings figures, the actual number of
pounds of oysters, including shells, harvested from LIS becomes
enormous compared to other individual species. Given this fact,
oysters clearly rank first in landed weight of all species landed
in Connecticut by commercial fishermen. Historical landings are
presented in Figure 35. Record landings of 10-15 million pounds
of meats which occurred from 1890-1900 may reflect an
overexploitation of the resource, and may not be a realistic
indicator of its potential (Folsom 1979). The history of
Connecticut's oyster landings and industry, as well as their
present characteristics, are described in detail in Section
5.1.2.

The condition of oyster stocks in LIS, as is the case for
hard clams, is enhanced by the aquacultural activities of the
private shellfish companies. The oyster is a most productive
species for aquacultural efforts and is presently artificially
propagated to a greater extent than any other species in
Connecticut. A limiting factor in expanding the overall
Connecticut production of oysters is the availability of
productive grounds that are not presently held under lease or
franchise by the existing shellfish companies.

Several towns have oyster resources that are subject to
recreational shellfishing. Programs to enhance recreational
oystering are presently being conducted by these towns and are
described in Section 6.2.2.

-100-

MILLIONS OF POUNDS

14-

12 -
10@
8-

6
4/
2

0
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980
YEAR

Figure 35. Connecticut commercial oyster landings, 1880-1983.
(In pounds of meats)

-101-

11w,*

4.3.4.5 Bay scallop (Aeguipecten irradians)

Description: Bay scallops are two to three inches in diameter,
with 17 to 20 radiating ribs, the shell being evenly scalloped
around the margin. Their shell color is drab brown or gray,
sometimes with yellow. Bay scallops are abundant from Cape Cod
to Cape Hatteras, more so in the northern part of their range.
They also occur locally farther north (Miner 1950). In
Connecticut, bay scallops are most abundant in the Niantic River
and in bays and rivers further east where eelgrass beds occur.
They are capable of localized movements but don't migrate
extensively. They move by crawling and "swimming" by clapping
their valves together. Bay scallops prefer subtidal, shallow
eelgrass beds of estuaries, but are occasionally found in water
as deep as 60 feet (Belding 1931; Gutsell 1931). Scallops feed
by filtering suspended material, much of it of benthic origin,
from the water (Davis and Marshall 1961). Niantic River scallops
spawn from mid-June through July. The great majority of bay
scallops spawn only once during their 20-26 month life span.
They are hermaphroditic-, the same individual can produce both
sperm and eggs, though never concurrently (Belding 1931).

Fisheryand Condition of Stocks:

A small seasonal fishery for bay scallops presently exists
in the Niantic River from October through March each year. It is
primarily a recreational fishery; however, the Waterford/East
Lyme Shellfish Commission issues permits to harvest up to three
bushels per day for the entire season and those that obtain such
a permit could be considered small time commercial harvesters
when they sell their catch. A number of retail seafood markets
and restaurants in New London County purchase Niantic River bay
scallops from these harvesters. An estimated total of 12,000
bushels of bay scallops per year are taken from the Niantic River
by recreational and commercial harvesters (Porter, R., pers.
comm. 1982). It is unknown what percentage is actually sold.
Because each bushel contains approximately 6 pounds of meats
(NMFS, Fishery Statistics of the U.S.), approximately 72,000
pounds of meats have been annually harvested in recent years from
the Niantic River. Commercial bay scallop landing statistics for
Connecticut have not been reported since 1965, when 12,000 pounds
of meats were landed. A record of 420,000 pounds were landed in
1953. The early 1930's and the 1950's and early 1960's were peak
periods of landings, when they were usually greater than 100,000
pounds per year (Figure 36).

The condition of bay scallop stocks in Connecticut is
enhanced by seeding conducted by the NMFS shellfish laboratory in
Milford, Connecticut, the UCONN Marine Advisory Service, and the
towns with scallop resources such as Waterford/East Lyme, Groton,
and Stonington.

-102-

THOUSANDS OF POUNDS

450

400-

350-

300-

250-

200-

150-

100

0
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

YEAR

Figure 36. Connecticut commercial bay scallop landings, 1887-
1965. (In pounds of meats)

-103-

4.3.4.6 Sea scallop (Placopecten magellanicus)

Description: Sea scallops are similar to bay scallops but
without ribs in the shell. The upper valve is brown, the lower,
white. They grow up to 7 inches long. Sea scallops range from
the Gulf of St. Lawrence to Cape Hatteras (Posgay 1957). An
oceanic bivalve, sea scallops do not occur in LIS. Those landed
in Connecticut are harvested from Nantucket Shoals and the waters
around Block Island. Sea scallops are capable of localized
movements, and swim by clapping their valves together. No
evidence exists of long distance movements or seasonal population
migrations (MacKenzie 1979). They occur at depths from mean low
water to several hundred feet on bottom types ranging from rocks
to a mixture of sand and mud (Merrill and Posgay 1967). They are
filter feeders utilizing plankton and perhaps some organic
detritus as food (Mackenzie 1979). Sea scallops spawn from early
summer to early fall (Merrill and Tubiash 1970).

Fishery and Condition of Stocks:

Commercial Percent of Percent of Value of
landings total commercial commercial landings commercial
(Lbs of shellfish landings of all species landings
Year meats) (excludes squid) (includes finfish) ($)
---------------------------------------------------------------

1977 93,800 5.2 1.8 160jOOO
1978 198,000 8.5 3.1 492,700
1979 98,300 6.3 1.9 98,300
1980 115,700 6.6 2.2 398,600
1981 50,000 1.8 o.6 185,000
1982 30,000 1.1 0.4 120,000
1983 0 0 0 0

Sea scallops contribute a moderately low percentage to
annual commercial landings of all species in Connecticut. Among
crustacean and molluscan (excluding squid) shellfish, annual sea
scallop landings are the lowest. The history of Connecticut's
sea scallop landings and fishery, as well as their present
characteristics, are presented in Section 5.1.5.

Abrupt yearly fluctuations occur in the ' density of sea
scallop populations. These variations do not appear to be the
result of migrations. Overexploitation may be an important
factor in these fluctuations, especially for the Georges Bank
beds (Saila and Pratt 1973).

-104-

4.3.4.7 Long-finned squid (Loligo pealei)

Description: The body of LoliTo is a flattened cylinder with
fins more than half the length of the trunk. They are commonly 8
inches long and their color is dark grey with reddish spots.
Loligo are reported as far north as New Brunswick (Summers 1969)
but are primarily distributed from Cape Hatteras to Georges Bank
(Tibbetts 1977). They are a seasonal visitor to LIS, entering
the Sound during late spring and summer. Loligo migrate on- and
offshore as much as 125 miles seasonally, generally remaining in
waters where the temperature is 460F (Lange and Sissenwine 1980).
They overwinter offshore along the upper continental slope from
western Georges Bank to Cape Hatteras (Summers 1969). From late
spring to early autumn they disperse from the shelf edge into
shallow coastal waters and during summer, may possibly occur
anywhere on the continental shelf. This dispersion is part of a
spring inshore spawning migration which begins in the southern
areas, and as water temperatures riser proceeds northward along
the coast. By April or May, mature squid arrive in Massachusetts
waters with smaller immature individuals arriving in May and
June. During late spring and summer, they may be found in
harbors and estuaries, particularly in southern New England
(MAFMC 1978). Squid are a pelagic species. A strong correlation
exists between abundance and bottom temperatures over 46 0 F
(Summers 1968). The largest biomass occurs at depths between 55-
92 fathoms (Summers 1969). They are active, voracious predators.
Young squid feed heavily on euphausid shrimp and other small
crustaceans. As they grow, the diet gradually changes to young
fish such as cod, haddock, redfish, capelin and sculpin (Squires
1957). L. pealei usually spawn in shallow waters between
Delaware @_nd eastern Cape Cod. A six-month spawning season
extends through the warmer half of the year. Two overlapping
reproductive cycles occur. Those squid spawned in spring hatch
in June, mature during their first winter, and spawn during late
summer of the following year (at about 14 months). Their
progeny, those spawned in late summer, hatch in September, are
too young to mature over the first winter, and spend the next
spring and summer feeding and growing. This group matures during
their second winter to spawn, as large individuals, early in the
spring (Mesnil 1977). During spawning, male squid deposit sperm
cells in the mantle cavity of the female with a modified arm.
The female then extrudes eggs into its mantle cavity which upon
contact with sperm cells become fertilized. Between 150 and 200
fertilized eggs are contained in individual gelatinous capsules
which are passed through the siphon into the water (McMahon and
Summers 1971). The demersal capsules are attached to bottom
debris or often to clusters of previously spawned egg capsules
(MAFMC 1978).

-105-

Fishery and Condition of Stocks:

Percent of Percent of total Value of
Commercial total commercial commercial landings commercial
landings finfish landings of all species landings

Year (Lbs) (includes squid) (includes shellfish) W

-----------------------------------------------------------------

1977 37,600 1.1 0.7 16,500
1978 37,000 0.9 0.6 15,700
1979 23,200 0.6 0.4 6,000
1980 13,100 0.4 0.2 3,800
1981 24,900 0.4 0.3 12j,200
1982 13,500 0.3 0.2 5,400
1983 216,700 4.9 2.7 69,300

Squid contribute a low percentage to Connecticut commercial
finfish (including squid) landings and landings of all species.
In this report, they are grouped with finfish because they are
pelagic and harvested by trawl. The peak period of historical
landings occurred in the 1940's. A record 622,000 pounds were
landed in 1948. Landings since 1950 have been less than 150,000
pounds except for 1969 and 1983 when 269,000 and 217,000 pounds
were landed, respectively (Figure 37).

. From 1978-1981, Connecticut-licensed trawlers reported
catching squid mostly in Block Island Sound and waters further
offshore (44-60% of annual squid catches). Smaller amounts were
taken in central LIS (7-32%), and eastern (0.1-7%) and western
(1-7%) LIS.

Relative abundance of squid as indicated by reported catch
per commercial trawl hour of Connecticut-licensed trawlers
increased 44% from 1979-1981, decreased 48% from 1981-1982, then
increased dramatically 245% from 1982-1983 (Figure 38). The
abundance index (mean number per tow) from the NMFS 1982 autumn
bottom trawl survey increased 37% from 1981 and was 15% above the
1967-1981 average (RAD, NEFC 1983).

-106-

THOUSANDS OF POUNDS

600-

500

400

300

200

100-

0 ........
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

YEAR

Figure 37. Connecticut commercial squid landings, 1898-1983.

POUNDS PER TRAWL HOUR

60-

50-

30-

20-

0
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983
YEAR

Figure 38. Catch per unit of effort for squid caught by
Connecticut-licensed trawlers, 1977-1983.

-107-

4.3.4.8 Other molluscan shellfish

The blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) is an abundant intertidal
bivalve ranging from the Arctic Ocean to South Carolina. It is
very abundant along the Connecticut shoreline and may almost
cover the rock substrate to which it attaches by its byssus
threads. Mussels are edible; however, despite their abundance,
they have never been consistently harvested in large amounts in
Connecticut. In 1949, a record 96,000 pounds of meats were
landed. Landings from 1953-1958 were less than 500 pounds per
year, after which mussels were landed only in 1971 (<500 pounds)
and 1974 (1,000 pounds). The potential for commercial and
recreational harvests of mussels exists in Connecticut, although
the limited amount of productive beds in unpolluted waters could
be a limiting factor in such activities. Mussels in most
existing beds are of small size due to overcrowding. If beds in
unpolluted waters were thinned out, mussels there could grow to a
desirable, marketable size.

The ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) is an oceanic species
most common at depths between 60 and 90 feet. It is not found in
Long Island Sound but does occur in large concentrations in the
Rhode Island and Block Island Sounds where it supports a
substantial fishery in Rhode Island. This species was
commercially landed in Connecticut from 1969-1972 and in 1976.
Annual landings ranged from 7,000 pounds of meats to a record
532,000 pounds in 1971.

The surf clam ( 'Spisula solidissima) is a large triangular-
shaped clam with a solid shell, found from the intertidal zone to
depths up to 70 fathoms in waters of oceanic salinity. It occurs
predominantly in sand and gravel, is an active burrower, and well
adapted to the surf zone of sandy beaches. Surf clams are present
in LIS waters; however, it is unknown whether sufficient natural
stocks are available to interest commercial harvesters (Volk, J.,
pers. comm. 1982) No commercial surf clam landings in Connecticut
have been recorded in "Fishery Statistics of the U.S.".

-108-

4.3.5 Species that are endangered or being restored

The only Connecticut marine resource species classified as
"Endangered" is the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum),
an anadromous fish that formerly spawned in large numbers during
the spring in the Connecticut River. It is a bottom dwelling
fish which feeds on small, infaunal plants and animals. It is
highl-y susceptible to water pollution, and only limited spawning
areas are available in Connecticut (Dowhan and Craig 1976).

The Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus) is classified
as "Threatened". It is an anadromous species along the Atlantic
coast, - and small numbers are reported each year in the
Connec ticut River and occasionally in other major rivers in the
state. Only limited areas for spawning, which occurs in June and
July, are available in Connecticut for this species. The young
are found in estuaries and around the mouths of rivers. Formerly
more common in historical times, the decline of the Atlantic
sturgeon in Connecticut has been largely attributed to dams,
although water pollution has also been implicated (Dowhan and
Craig 1976). Commercial landings of sturgeon, usually less than
10,000 pounds per year, were recorded from 1939-1975. A record
11,000 pounds was landed in 1962, after which landings declined
to less than 500 pounds per year in the early 1970's. No
distinction was made between Acipenser species in the commercial
landings statistics. Sturgeon were harvested by trawl, probably
in LIS as they traveled to and from spawning grounds in the
Connecticut and other large rivers. The taking of sturgeon in
Connecticut is now illegal and no person may sell sturgeon taken
from the waters of the state (CGS Sec. 26-159a).

The Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) is an anadromous species
which spawned in large numbers in the Connecticut River prior to
1800. The construction of dams obstructed migration and caused
the extinction of the population. The salmon has been re-
introduced into the Connecticut River through the cooperative
efforts of the fisheries resource management agencies of
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries
Service. Hatchery reared juveniles have been stocked since 1967
in the Connecticut River and its tributaries. Since 1974, when
one adult returned, the number of returning adults has increased
to a record of 529 in 1981. Eventual goals of the program are to
produce slightly over 200,000 wild Atlantic salmon smolts per
year within the river basin, and to insure that 2,000 adult
salmon in excess of spawning needs are available for an annual
sport harvest (Minta et al 1982).

_109-

4.3.6 Marine mammals

As a group, marine mammals are a relative rarity in Long
Island Sound because it is largely cut off from the open sea in
which they normally occur. However, observations of marine
mammals along the Connecticut shore are reported from time to
time. The harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) sometimes frequents the
rocks off Stonington and Groton during the winter months, and on
rarer occasions species such as the harbor porpoise (Phocoena
phocoena) may be sighted in LIS or in one of the major rivers.
On extremely rare occasions whales have become beached on the
Connecticut shore, as in 1975 when a finback whale (Balaenoptera
physalus) beached itself in Groton (CAM 1977).

-110-

5.0 Marine Resource Users in Connecticut

5.1 The Commercial Fisheries

5.1.1 Introduction

Of the five coastal New England states, Connecticut ranks
fourth behind Rhode Island and ahead of New Hampshire in terms of
annual commercial landings and value of finfish and shellfish
(Fishery Statistics of the U.S.). The following subsections
describe Connecticut's commercial fisheries and their respective
ex-vessel values. In the figures presented, landings are repre-
sented by solid lines, and values of landings by broken lines.

From 1939 to the present, the period of greatest finfish and
squid landings of all Connecticut finfish fisheries combined
occurred from 1942-1957. These landings--from 10-20 million
pounds per year--were largely composed of flounder species.
Since then, annual finfish landings have remained at 2-5 million
pounds. The value of Connecticut's finfish landings peaked at
1.3 million dollars in 1948 and generally ranged from $500,000 to
$1.0 million until increasing in 1981 (Figure 39). However, this
increase may only reflect the more precise collection methods
referred to in Part One, Section 4.3.1.

Connecticut landings of molluscan and crustacean shellfish
are dominated by the landings of the oyster mariculture industry
and the lobster fishery. Combined molluscan and crustacean
shellfish landings decreased from 6 million pounds in 1939 to
between 1 and 2 million pounds in the 1940's. Landings rose to
near 4 million pounds in 1949 and 1950, then dropped to levels
near I million pounds until 1966. Molluscan and crustacean
shellfish landings have fluctuated between 1 and 3.5 million
pounds since then (Figure 40). The reason for these fluctuations
in landings may be found in the history of both the oyster
industry and lobster fishery.

From 1939-1960, molluscan and crustacean shellfish landings
were dominated by oysters. The peak that occurred during 1949-
1950 was due to a peak in oyster landings. After 1960, combined
shellfish landings were dominated by lobster, as the oyster
industry experienced a low period in production. It was not until
the late 1970's that oyster landings (in pounds of meats)
increased again to a level about equal to those of lobster.

From 1939 to the present, the value of the landings of
Connecticut's molluscan and crustacean shellfish industries has
increased dramatically, from less than $1 million during 1940-
1960, to a record $11 million in 1983 (Figure 40). Relative to
finfish, molluscan and crustacean shellfish are high value
products, usually bringing greater than $2.00 per pound to the
fisherman. In recent years 78-85% of the total value generated
by the harvest of all marine resources in Connecticut has been
earned by the industries involved in harvesting molluscan and
crustacean shellfish.

MILLIONS OF POUNDS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS

20-

18-

16-

14-

12-

2
7 --Z=
0 7
1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985

YEAR

Figure 39. Connecticut landings and value of finfish and
squid, 1939-1983.

MILLIONS OF POUNDS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS

10-

9 -

0 ..........L.... ....
1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1- 0 1985
YEAR

Figure 40. Connecticut landings and value of crustacean and
L

molluscan shellfish (excluding squid), 1939-1983.

-112-

5.1.2 The Oyster and Hard Clam Industry

OYSTER DREDGER

A small number of private companies grow, tend, and harvest
oysters and, to a lesser extent, hard clams in Long Island Sound.
These companies lease bottom acreage in the Sound from both state
and town governments for seeding and growing the species to
marketable size. The industry is Connecticut's most economically
valuable among those based on the harvest of living marine
resources. From 1977-1983, it was responsible for 43-51% of the
total annual revenue generated from such harvests. Oyster dredge
landings accounted for 35-45%, and clam dredge landings, 3-13% of
the revenue generated during this period. However, in 1979 the
harvest of oyster dredges was small and only earned 12%. That
same year, the harvest of clam dredges earned a larger percentage
(16%), relative to other recent years.

Historical oyster dredge landings declined from a record 5.2
million pounds of meats in 1939 to between 500,000 pounds and 1.4
million pounds in the 1940's. In 1949 and 1950, landings jumped
to three and 3.6 million pounds, respectively, then dropped and
remained at between 100,000-500,000 pounds through the 1950's and
19601s. In the 19701s, landings fluctuated between a high of one
million pounds in 1978 and lows of less than 200,000 pounds
(Figure 41). From 1939 to 1957, oyster dredges operated on
public grounds as well as private grounds, however, the greatest
percentage of oyster landings were taken from private grounds. A
record of 103,000 pounds was taken by oyster dredge from public
grounds in 1943, after which annual landings fluctuated between
zero and 31,000 pounds until 1957 when landings from public
grounds ceased. Connecticut oyster landings have been entirely
from privately leased or franchised grounds since 1958.

The hard clam dredge fishery began in 1951 although inter-
mittant landings of low magnitude were made in prior years. Clam
dredge landings increased to 460,000 pounds of meats in 1958,
decreased to 151,000 pounds in 1965, increased dramatically to a
record 810,000 pounds in 1971, decreased to 120,000 pounds in

-113-

1975, and have since been increasing to 462,000 pounds in 1983
(Figure 42). Prior to 1960, essentially all of the hard clams
landed were harvested from public grounds. After 1960, develop-
ments by private shellfish companies in seeding and tending
private hard clam beds changed the dredging of hard clams into
more of a mariculture industry such as that for oysters.

Oysters and hard clams were commercially harvested from
public beds by hand tong until 1974. Annual hand tong landings
of oysters decreased from 43,000 pounds of meats in 1944 to
12,000 pounds in 1948, increased to a record 50,000 pounds in
1951, then decreased to between 1,000 and 8,000 pounds from 1957
to 1967, and decreased further to less than 500 pounds until
1974, after which these landings ceased (Figure 43).

TONG I NG

Prior to 1951, essentially all hard clams were harvested
from public beds by hand tongs. A record of 105,000 pounds of
hard clam meats were commercially landed with hand tongs in 1939;
however, none were landed in 1940. Hand tong landings increased
to 50,000 pounds in 1946, fluctuated between 4,000 and 30,000
pounds in the 1950's and remained at less than 2,000 pounds until
1974, after which they ceased (Figure 44). Hard clams were also
commerciaily harvested with clam rakes from public beds from 1939
to 1956. A record 64,000 pounds were landed in 1939, after which
rake landings decreased and then ceased in 1956.

The decline of the commercial hand tong and clam rake fish-
eries for oysters and hard clams may reflect the closing--due to
pollution--of nearshore public shellfish beds in shallow waters
where these gear types are most efficiently used, as well as a
decline of natural oyster and hard clam populations. The former
harvesting of shellfish from public beds using hand tongs and
rakes can be considered a true fishery because a "wild" natural
resource was being harvested, in contrast to the maricultural
strategies of seeding, transplanting, and predator control pres-
ently employed on private beds.

The operation of one of the two major oyster companies work-
ing in Long Island Sound was described in detail by Korringa
(1976) for the period 1971-1972. At that time, the company owned
4,788 acres of ground held under perpetual franchise under the
jurisdiction of the Shellfish Commission of the State of Connect-
icut (now the Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquaculture)
and in addition, 357 acres under lease, partly from towns and

-114-

partly from the State. The total acreage of the company was
spread over 94 plots of which only a small number were greater
than 100 acres. The company has since increased its acreage of
franchised and leased shellfish grounds.

Seed oysters to be planted on growing beds are purchased by
the company from natural growth seed oyster harvesters (See
Section 5.1.8). Seed oysters are also produced on certain beds
by scattering oyster shells (cultch) to collect settling larvae
(spat). The company keeps a huge pile of cultch on its premises,
partly derived from the shucking procedure and partly composed of
shells of dead oysters collected when dredging for marketable
oysters. When the oysters spawn and conditions are favorable for
the settlement of the pelagic larvae, 1,500-21000 bushels of
cultch per acre are quickly spread on the grounds on which the
larvae will settle. Usually the best time for larval settlement
is the second half of July, but occasionally a set of commercial
importance may come as late as September, as was the case in 1971
(Korringa 1976).

About 6 to 8 weeks after the settling season, a regular sys-
tem of inspection of the spat is conducted every few weeks. This
not only allows for timely action to be taken if predators are
discovered, but also indicates whether spat is being shifted by
storms, therefore requiring transplantation to a safer ground in
October (Korringa 1976).

Seed oysters are transplanted from the settling grounds to
growing grounds, which are characterized by fast water currents
rich in food. Transplantation begins in September and October
for those seed oysters that are in danger of being washed away
from unprotected shoal grounds. Seed oysters in protected areas
are transplanted the following spring. From 300 to 800 bushels
of seed per acre are evenly planted, depending on the size of the
individuals (Korringa 1976). Seed oysters purchased from natural
growth harvesters are planted on the growing grounds as they are
received.

Seed oysters remain on the growing grounds for 1-3 years, at
which time they are transplanted to special fattening grounds
during the final year before marketing. These are shoal grounds,
well protected from storms, and in unpolluted waters. Oysters
are spread here at a rate of no more than 500 bushels per acre,
to assure maximum fattening. Oysters are harvested for market
mainly in the fall and spring (Korringa 1976). To assure that
the oysters do not contain disease-causing organisms when they
are marketed, the Connecticut Department of Health Services
stipulates that they must remain in an area where the water has
been certified as unpolluted for a minimum of, two weeks during
which the water temperature is 50OF or above.

Predator control is an important part of oyster farming in
Long Island Sound. The major predator of oysters is the starfish
(Asterias forbesi). When they are not excessively abundant,

_115-

starfish are removed from the oyster beds by weekly and sometimes
daily starfish "mopping". Starfish become entangled in strings
of cotton attached to an iron frame that is dragged over the
oyster bed by boat. The mop is hoisted aboard the boat and the
starfish are killed by dipping the mop into a tank of boiling
water. When mopping is ineffective for eliminating severe
infestations, the spreading of quicklime (about 2,000 pounds per
acre) is an efficient alternative method of control (Korringa
1976).

Other predators causing substantial mortality of LIS oysters
are the Atlantic oyster drill (Urosalpinx cinerea) and the thick-
lipped drill (Eupleura caudata). A mixture of polychlorinated
benzenes known as "Polystream" was formerly used to successfully
control oyster drills, but is no longer in use. Drills are
presently removed from the beds when the oysters are dredged
during the transplanting process. Other minor oyster predators
are the mud crab (Neopanope texana), and the rock crab (Cancer
irroratus). No efforts are made to control these predators.

The peak season for harvesting hard clams is during the
months of June, July, and August, which is exactly opposite to
that for oysters. Therefore, the harvesting of oysters and hard
clams are complementary aspects of the shellfishing business. It
has been reported that, in 1971-1972, one company operating in
LIS earned over half of its annual income from sales of hard
clams, the rest being from oysters.

Because hard clams bury themselves in the sediment with only
their siphons protruding, a standard oyster dredge is not
effective for harvesting them. A special hydraulic clam dredge
is used which has a narrow blade, six-inch teeth, and water jets
through which water is forced by a pump on board the vessel to
soften the sediment in front of the teeth. The chain-link bag of
the clam dredge can hold from 10 to 15 bushels of material.

OPERATION
FISHING IN 30-40 Fr.
HOSE Of WATER
230 FT. IN LENGTH
FLOATS

LIFTING CABLE

TOWING -STEEL RINGS
ROPE
--SLE

STEEL RINO

MAIN JETS
A
SECONDARY JETS
Hard ciams are dredged by t-he shellfish companies from
public natural beds and private beds leased from the state for

-116-

the purpose of hard clam farming. Seed clams are dredged from
public grounds which are closed to the harvest of shellfish for
direct marketing, and then transplanted to leased beds in clean
water for further growth and depuration, or just depuration de-
pending on the size of the clams. As is the case for oysters,
hard clams must also remain in certified unpolluted water for at
least two weeks during which the water temperature is 50OF or
above, before they can be marketed.

The other of the two principal shellfish companies operating
in LIS leases natural oyster setting grounds in New Haven Harbor
from the State of Connecticut to produce seed oysters. Most of
the growth of this company's oysters takes place on leased beds
in Connecticut waters. However, all oysters are transplanted to
fattening beds leased in unpolluted New York waters on the north-
ern Long Island coast. This company operates a processing plant
in Northport, Long Island, where the oysters are landed. A small
amount of hard clams are harvested annually by this company and
landed in Connecticut. It has been estimated that less than 10%
of their annual income was earned from sales of hard clams in
1971-1972.

Two other companies harvest and land oysters and hard clams
in Connecticut, although in relatively small quantity compared to
the two principal shellfish companies previou*sly mentioned. In
1981, the shellfish companies that harvest market oysters and
hard clams from Connecticut waters and land them in Connecticut,
collectively employed approximately 23 full-time and 13 part-time
workers. A total of 11 boats were operated by the shellfish com-
panies landing their harvest in Connecticut in 1981. Approxi-
mately 8 were used for oyster dredging and tending of oyster
grounds and 3 for hard clam dredging and tending of clam grounds.

No major conflicts are apparent between the commercial
shellfishing industry and recreational shellfishermen. Most
shellfish grounds owned by commercial harvesters that are acces-
sible to recreational shellfishing are in polluted waters and not
open to harvest for direct consumption. Private beds located in
unpolluted waters are usually also in deep water (15-20 feet) not
accessible to traditional recreational shellfishing gear such as
rakes and tongs.

Potential gear conflicts between private shellfish companies
and otter trawlers are avoided by a law prohibiting dragging
across any buoyed, actively worked shellfish ground (CGS Sec. 26-
231).

-117-

MILLIONS OF POUNDS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS

01 .................
1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
YEAR

Figure 41. Connecticut oyster dredge landings and value, 1939-
1983.

MILLIONS OF POUNDS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS

1.6

1.4-

1.2-

.8-

.6-
.4

.2-

0 - -------
1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
YEAR

Figure 42. Connecticut hard clam dredge landings and value
1939-1983.

-118-

THOUSANDS OF POUNDS THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

20@

10
@V

0 ...... ......
1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 19B5

YEAR

Figure 43. Connecticut hand tong landings and value of oysters,
1939-1983.

THOUSANDS OF POUNDS THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

100-

80-

60 -

40-

30-
201- A
10
OL
1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
YEAR

Figure 44. Connecticut hand tong landings and value of hard
clams, 1939-1983.

-119-

5.1.3 The Lobster Fishery

The lobster fishery is second to the oyster industry in eco-
nomic value, earning 21-44% of the total annual revenue generated
by the harvest of all living marine resources in Connecticut from
1977-1983. However, as a true fishery, relying strictly on the
harvest of a "wild" resource, it is the most valuable of Connect-
icut's commercial fisheries.

From 1880-1892, 1.4-1.6 million pounds of lobster were
landed annually and represented the greatest landings in the
history of Connecticut's lobster fishery until 1983. Landings
declined from about 700,000 pounds in the early 1900's to
100,000-300,000 pounds in the late 1950's (Figure 29). Landings
began to increase in the 1960's due to the otter trawl fishery
for lobster caught mainly on offshore grounds rather than in LIS
(General Dynamics 1968). As trawler landings began to decline in
the late 19601s, trap landings increased, and combined trap and
trawl landings of about 900,000 pounds were reported. Annual
reported trap landings from 1943-1964 were generally less than
300,000 pounds but increased to 500,000-600,000 pounds in the
early 19701s, 800,000-900,000 pounds in the early 1980's and a
high of 1,850,000 pounds in 1983 (Figure 45). Lobster landings
accounted for 10-22% of Connecticut's total annual landings of
all fish and shellfish from 1977-1983.

Annual lobster landings in Connecticut during the period
1976-1983 were about 10-15% lower than the catch taken by
Connecticut lobster license holders because some landings were
made at out-of-state ports (Figure 45).

toggle buoy 15-20 feet of line

5-50 fathoms

The traditional wooden lobster trap (or "pot") is the main
gear currently employed in Connecticut's lobster fishery.
Lobster pot landings appear to be roughly correlated with the
number of pots reportedly fished each year (Figure 46). However,
the best indicator available of the effort expended by the

-120-

lobster trap fishery is the trap haul set over day (THSOD), which
has been recorded since 1975 in the Connecticut DEP Marine
Fisheries Information System. This index is calculated by
dividing the catch (in pounds), by the number of traps hauled
times the number of days the traps were fished (soak time).
Lobster fishing effort based on the THSOD increased 48% from
1975-1980, decreased 21% from 1980-1982, then increased 43% from
1982-1983 (Figure 46).

Lobsters were landed by otter trawlers fishing in offshore
waters from 1951-1972. Substantial trawl landings between
200,000-400,000 pounds were recorded during 1962-1968, when total
lobster landings were divided about equally between the pot and
trawl gear types. In 1962, trawl landings exceeded pot landings
by 52%. It is believed that most of the trawl-caught lobster
landings during this period were from areas other than Long
Island Sound. No significant trawl landings of lobster were
reported from 1973-1981, however in 1982, 24 trawlers reported
landing more than 30,000 pounds of lobster in Connecticut. Catch
reports show that seven of these trawlers consistently reported
considerable amounts of lobster from LIS, sometimes exceeding 200
pounds per trip, and could be considered to direct their trawling
effort towards catching lobster. Four of these trawlers caught
lobster outside of LIS. The remainder could be considered to
catch lobster from LIS as a by-catch while trawling for finfish.
Due to a controversy over lobster trawling which surfaced in
1982, trawl fishermen were criticized for their activities and,
in some cases, became reluctant to discuss their businesses. it
is believed that trawler operators under-reported their lobster
catches during this period. However, it is also believed that
trawler operators tended to report their activity more accurately
in 1983. That year, 100,000 pounds of lobster were reportedly
caught by trawl, most of which is believed to be the result of
trawling activity directed specifically for lobster in LIS
(Figure 47).

The number of commercial lobster fishermen in recent years
increased from 390 in 1976 to 567 in 1980, and decreased to 498
in 1982. An estimated 14% of all commercial lobstermen (70 in
1982) derive 50% or more of their income from lobstering and are
considered full-timers, while the remaining 86% are considered
part-timers (Smith 1977). An additional component of the part-
time category of lobstermen is the personal use or recreational
fisherman. Approximately 3,000 such licenses are issued each
year (Sec. 5.2.3).

From 1977-1979, about 60% of the catch of Connecticut li-
censed lobstermen was landed in about equal proportions between
New London (28-36%) and Fairfield (23-33%) Counties. In 1980 and
1981, however, New London County reported a higher percentage of
these landings--45% in 1981--and 21% was landed in Fairfield
County that year. About 14-16% was landed in New Haven County,
and less than 6% in Middlesex County during 1977-1981. The
remainder is landed at out-of-state ports.

-121-

The distribution of landings among counties is reflected by
the distribution of the number of lobster boats among the
counties. From 1977-1979, New London and Fairfield Counties each
harbored from 35-40% of Connecticut's lobster boats. However,
from 1979-1981, Fairfield County's percentage decreased from 36
to 21%. New Haven County harbored 16-26%, and Middlesex, 7-12%
of Connecticut's total lobster boats during 1977-1981.

Smith (1977) examined the vessel characteristics of Connect-
icut's lobster fleet in 1976. The mean length of the boats used
by full-time lobstermen in Connecticut was 31 feet and mean
horsepower was 142. Eighty-five percent of all full-time lob-
stermen owned wood boats and 15% owned fiberglass boats. Sixty
percent of the boats owned by full-timers were powered by diesel
fuel and 40% by gasoline. In contrast, the mean length of all
part-time commercial lobstermen's boats was 22 feet and mean
horsepower was 81. The distribution of hull material and type of
fuel among part-time lobstermen's boats was 65% wood and 35%
fiberglass, and 21% diesel and 79% gasoline. Fifty-five percent
of the part-time lobstermen used their boats for sportfishing and
pleasure a's opposed to 13% for full-timers. This is reflected in
the differences in vessel characteristics noted above.

Gear conflicts have always occurred between fixed gear fish-
eries such as that conducted with lobster traps and the mobile
gear (trawl) fishery. When traps are set in desirable trawling
areas, they--and the nets--are subject to physical damage and
loss due to trawling activity. Gear loss and damage, whatever
the cause, has normally been accepted by pot lobstermen as part
of the operating costs of pot fishing. However, in 1982, when
trawlers began fishing directly and successfully for lobster in
western Long Island Sound, conflicts between trawl and pot
lobstermen developed into what would be properly classified as a
Ifuser group conflict" between two different groups of fishermen
competing for the same resource in a given area. All aspects of
this conflict are discussed in Part 2, Section 5.0.

Conflicts also occur among commercial lobstermen themselves,
who are often "territorial" in personally claiming desirable
fishing areas. Commercial pot lobstermen are plagued by unscru-
pulous commercial and recreational pot fishermen# boaters, and
scuba divers who illegally and maliciously cut buoys, steal gearl

-122-

and take lobsters from traps. The extent of this theft is un-
known, but arrests by conservation officers are made each year
for this activity and a large number of complaints which do not
result in arrests are received annually.

Another conflict that has to do with experience in the fish-
ery and simple gear competition occurs between commercial lobster
fishermen, and between commercial and personal use (recreational)
lobstermen. A large number of commercial lobstermen and an
enormous number of personal use lobstermen are licensed. It has
been reported that inexperienced operators may set their traps in
the same areas as experienced fishermen, in effect, simply fol-
lowing them and setting where they set. This causes pot satura-
tion in productive areas, and the resultant decline in catch--
relative to the amount of effort used to take that catch--reduces
the productivity of the fishing experience for all concerned.

-123-

LOBSTER CATCH OF
TRAP CONNECTICUT
LANDINGS VALUE LOBSTERMEN

MILLIONS OF POUNDS & DOLLARS
5
4.51
4@

2.5

1.5

.5
OL M-_-_ r 1 1-.. A I._
1935 1944D 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
YEAR

Figure 45. Connecticut lobster trap landings and value,
1939-1983; and catch of Connecticut-licensed
lobstermen, 1975-1983.

THOUSANDS OF TRAPS MILLJONS OF THSOD'S

40 --------

15
10@

o
1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985

YEAR

Figure 46. Number of lobster traps fished by Connecticut-
licensed lobstermen, 1939-1983; and lobster fishing
n "'Mj

effort in terms of number of trap haul set-over days
(Thsod's), 1975-1983.

-124-

MILLIONS OF POUNDS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS

.5 - ----- ---

.2 1-

0
i 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985

YEAR

Figure 47. Connecticut otter trawl lobster landings and value,
1939-1983.

-125-

5.1.4 The Otter Trawl Fishery

OTTER TRAWL IN OPERATION,

The otter trawl fishery is Connecticut's third most
economically valuable commercial fishing industry. From 1979-
1983, it earned 11-21% of the total revenue generated by all such
industries each year. Because more finfish are harvested by
otter trawl (79-86% of annual finfish landings) than any other
commercial gear, the otter trawl fishery is Connecticut's number
one commercial finfish fishery in terms of quantity and value of
annual landings.

From 1940 to 1959, over 8 million pounds of demersal and
pelagic species were landed annually by trawl, with a peak of
18.5 million pounds in 1949. Landings since 1960 have fluctuated
between 2 and 5 million pounds (Figure 48). Otter trawl catch
statistics, derived from reports submitted by holders of the Con-
necticut commercial fishing license, are not accurate indicators
of the activity of the otter trawl fleet landing in Connecticut
because vessels not licensed by the state may contribute large
percentages to Connecticut landings. From 1977-1979, Connecti-
cut-licens 'ed otter trawlers landed only 43-56% of the total Con-
necticut otter trawl landings. In 1981 and 1982, they landed
only 10% and 14%, respectively. The remainder of the total otter
trawl landings are believed to be those of offshore trawlers that
were registered in other states, did not fish in Connecticut
waters, and did not possess a Connecticut commercial fishing
license. Thus, through the end of 1983, they aid not report
their catch and landings to the Connecticut DEP Marine Fisheries
Office as a requirement of possessing a license. Effective Jan-
uary 1, 1984, non-resident fishermen who only land but do not
fish in Connecticut will be licensed and required to provide
landings information to the Department.

From 1977-1981, annual Connecticut landings of otter trawl-
ers licensed by Connecticut have decreased from near 1.5 million
pounds during 1977-1979 to 0.5-0.6 million pounds during 1980-
1982. This is not only because the catch of the Connecticut-
licensed fleet has decreased from 1978 to 1981, but also because
much of the catch is not landed in Connecticut. From 1977-1981,
the percentage of the Connecticut-licensed trawler catch annually
landed at out of state ports increased from 30-67%. This figure
decreased slightly to 40% in 1982. Point Judith, R.I., New York
City, Northport and Oyster Bay, Long Island and, to a small

-126-

extent, Fisher's Island, N.Y., receive some landings of Connecti-
cut-licensed trawlers. Several New York resident trawlers possess
the Connecticut commercial fishing license to be able to legally
fish in Connecticut waters. The price received for the catch,
travel time from fishing grounds to a landing port, and the con-
venience of landing in a home port largely determines where the
catch of Connecticut-licensed trawlers is landed.

Winter flounder and scup are the two principle species taken
by Connecticut-licensed commercial otter trawlers, together
accounting for 42-66% of their annual catch from 1977-1982. The
importance of winter flounder to the otter trawl fishery has been
increasing over this period, from 24% of the catch in 1977, to
42% in 1982. Conversely, the percentage of scup in annual catches
has decreased from 30% in 1978 to 18% in 1982. Species classi-
fied as lobster bait are third in importance, making up 2-12%.of
annual catches from 1977-1982. Other species which individually
do not usually account for more than 5% of annual Connecticut-
licensed trawl catches include weakfish, squid, fluke, bluefish,
butterfish, herring, dogfish, blackfish, and skate. In combina-
tion, however, these species accounted for 16-29% of the annual
trawl catches from 1978-1982.

The number of trawl vessels that reported fishing in
Connecticut waters during 1979-1982 are presented in Table 2 by
county of landing, three vessel size classes, and whether the
vessels were used for trawling only, or for both trawling and
tending lobster pots. The total number of trawlers fishing in
Connecticut waters has decreased slightly since 1980--when 130
boats reported fishing--to 90 and 92 boats in 1981 and 1982,
respectively. The peak in 1980 was mainly due to a temporary
increase in the number of trawlers in the smallest size class.

New London County harbors the greatest number of trawlers,
most of them in the port of Stonington. It must be noted that
there are an additional number of trawlers that do not fish in
Connecticut waters but land their catch in Stonington, dock and
receive supplies there, or both. These boats are not accounted
for in Table 2. They include large vessels that fish mainly on
the offshore grounds of the FCZ, and some small trawlers in the
27-44 ft class that fish in Rhode Island waters, especially Block
Island Sound.

The trawl vessel size classes used in Table 2 are based on
size classes used in regulations implemented by the DEP to alle-
viate concern about the growth of the large vessel trawl fleet
fishing in western Long Island Sound (see Part Two, Section 5.2
for further information).

The greatest number of trawlers that are used only for
trawling are in the 27-44 ft class. The majority of trawlers
used for both trawling and tending lobster pots are less than or
equal to 26 f t in length. The majority of these boats are used
mainly for lobstering, while a small number of trawling trips are

-127-

conducted during the year, mainly to obtain lobster bait. The
majority of the large trawlers (greater than 44 ft in length)
that fish in Connecticut waters are from other statest mainly
Long Island, New York. The number of large resident trawlers
fishing in Connecticut waters increased from 2 vessels during
1980-1981 to 6 vessels in 1982.

. Because trawl fishing operations require at least two fish-
ermen on a boat, there are at least twice as many commercial
trawl fishermen as there are boats. Therefore, in 1982, there
were at least 162 resident fishermen, including unlicensed
assistants, that derived some income by working on 81 resident
trawl vessels. Many of these 162 also derived some income from
lobster pot fishing. On the six resident trawlers in the largest
size class in 1982, at least 18 fishermen worked who could be
considered full-time trawl fishermen, earning most or all of
their living solely from trawling.

Virtually all of the Connecticut trawlers that fish in LIS
are day boats which leave before dawn and return to port in the
afternoon of the same day. Most of the trawlers that f ish in
Block Island Sound are also day boats. A few of the largest
trawlers may make trips to offshore grounds that last several
days.

Otter trawling is not permitted in Connecticut estuaries. A
statutory line that is generally not more than 1/4 mile from
shore was designated in 1981, north of which trawling is pro-
hibited (Sec. 26-154). This law aids in the conservation of the
young of many species that utilize estuaries as nursery habitat.

Trawling is further prohibited in Connecticut waters from
one hour after sunset to one hour before sunrise in an area west
of a line drawn from the Stratford Shoal light to the easterly
breakwater of the Housatonic River in Milford (Sec. 26-183(b)).
This statutory change was enacted in 1979.

Gear conflicts occur between the otter trawl and lobster pot
fisheries when pots are set in smooth-bottom, productive trawling
areas. Such conflicts, and a related concern for the stability
of the lobster resource in LIS stimulated the controversy over
trawling referred to previously. While the content of the Marine
Resources Management Plan generally presents information avail-
able through 1982, the controversy resulted in a number of
statutory and regulatory changes in 1983. Since a comprehensive
review of the marine fisheries of Connecticut would be incomplete
without it, the following information is presented to provide the
most current information available about this still dynamic
issue. For a complete discussion of the origins of the contro-
versy, see Part Two, Section 5.2.

In 1983, the Connecticut General Assembly acted to prohibit
the directed trawl fishery for lobster in western LIS for a two-
year period although the statute allowed a 100 lobster by-catch

-128-

on any trawl vessel west of the 730 001 line of longitude (CGS
Sec. 26-157a as amended by P.A. 83-262). At the end of the two-
year period, a study being conducted by the DEP Marine Fisheries
Program and the University of Connecticut Sea Grant Marine
Advisory Service is intended to provide information and recom-
mendations regarding the effects of trawling on the lobster
resource in LIS.

Due to concerns about the effects of trawling for fish on
the opportunities of sportfishermen in western Connecticut, two
regulations were implemented in July, 1983 controlling the growth
and distribution of large vessel trawling effort in western LIS.
one essentially prevents an increase in the number of trawl
vessels greater than 44 ft. in length west of 730001 longitude
(Milford), while "grandfathering" the rights of those fishermen
having a recent history of use of such vessels in the Sound (sec.
26-159a-5a Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies). Less than
15 fishermen were so identified in 1983. The other regulation
was implemented in order to separate sport and trawl fishermen.
Section 26-159a-5b of the regulations prohibits otter trawling by
any vessel greater than 26 ft. in length in an area west of
Stratford and north of a line described in Section 26-154a of the
Statutes and commonly known as the "menhaden line". The line is
located approximately one to two miles from shore.

-129-

Table 2. Number of trawl vessels that reported fishing in
Connecticut waters, 1979-1982, by county of landing,
vessel size class, and whether vessels were used for
trawling only (T) or for both trawling and tending
lobster pots (PT). Source: CT DEP Marine Fisheries
Information System.

1979

Distribution by Vessel Length
Total Trawlers < 26 ft 27-44 ft >44 ft

County Total T PT T PT T PT T PT

NL 47 17 30 9 20 7 10 1 0
MSx 19 5 14 1 11 3 3 1 0
NH 20 3 17 1 9 2 8 0 0
FF 10 1 9 1 5 0 4 0 0
UNKN 3 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 0
OS 13 12 1 0 0 4 1 8 0

1979
TOTAL 112 41 71 12 45 17 26 12 0

1980

Distribution by Vessel Length
Total Trawlers < 26 ft 27-44 ft >44 ft

County Total T PT T PT T PT T PT

NL 61 25 36 15 28 9 8 1 0
MSx 11 6 5 1 3 4 2 1 0
NH 27 8 19 3 13 5 6 0 0
FF 13 0 13 0 8 0 5 0 0
UNKN 2 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
OS 16 14 2 1 0 3 2 10 0

1980
TOTAL 130 55 75 21 52 22 23 12 0

-130-

Table 2. (Continued)

1981

Distribution by Vessel Length
Total Trawlers < 26 ft 27-44 ft > 44 ft

County Total T PT T PT T PT T PT

NL 38 16 22 9 13 7 9 0 0
MSX 10 5 5 3 2 1 3 1 0
NH 18 6 12 2 6 3 6 1 0
FF 10 4 6 1 4 3 2 0 0
HTFD 3 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
WNDM 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
TOLL 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
OS 9 8 1 0 0 3 1 5 0

1981
TOTAL 90 42 48 17 26 18 22 7 0

1982

Distribution by Vessel Length
Total Trawlers < 26 ft 27-44 ft > 44 ft

County_ Total T PT T PT T PT T PT

NL 58 27 31 13 22 12 9 2 0
MSX 9 6 3 0 1 5 2 1 0
NH 8 2 6 0 2 0 4 2 0
FF 6 2 4 1 3 0 1 1 0
OS 11 9 2 0 0 3 2 6 0

1982
TOTAL 92 46 46 14 28 20 18 12 0

*County Codes

NL= New London County
MSX= Middlesex County
NH= New Haven County
FF= Fairfield County
HTFD= Hartford County
WNDM= Windham County
TOLL= Tolland County
UNKN= Unknown County
OS= Other State

-131-

MILLIONS OF POUNDS MILUONS OF DOLLARS
20[
Is

16-

14-

4-
2 L
0
1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985

YEAR

Figure 48. Connecticut otter trawl landings and value, 1939-
1983.

-132-

5.1.5 The Sea Scallop Fishery

Connecticut's recent offshore sea scallop dredge fishery
began in 1976 and annually produced landings ranging from 12,000
pounds in 1976 to 198,000 pounds in 1978. Landings have since
decreased to less than 70,000 pounds in 1981 and 1982. No land-
ings could be documented in 1983. Although only a small fishery,
it ranked fourth in economic value among all Connecticut commer-
cial fishing industries, earning 1-7% of the total annual revenue
generated by these industries from 1977-1982. This ranking is
due to the generally high ($2.00+ per pound) ex-vessel value of
the product.

Prior to 1976, sea scallops harvested by otter trawl were
intermittently landed in Connecticut usually in amounts less than
10,000 pounds per year except for 1919, 1932, and 1933 when
landings ranged from 38,000-94,000 pounds.

Nantucket Shoals and the waters around Block Island produce
most of the current Connecticut landings. After being caught
with a large scallop dredge, the scallops are shucked, washed,
weighed, packaged in plastic bags, and frozen on board the
fishing vessel. Catches are usually landed at Stonington.

SCALLOP DREDGE

-133-

5.1.6 The Connecticut River Shad Fishery

The Connecticut River shad fishery is Connecticut's fifth
most economically valuable commercial fishery earning 2-3% of the
total annual revenue generated from 1977-1983. It is the second
most valuable commercial finfish fishery in Connecticutr the
otter trawl fishery being first. Drift gill nets are the major
gear used and have been used exclusively since 1975. Landings of
shad taken by this gear have generally fluctuated between 100,000
and 500,000 pounds per year with peak landings of about 550,000
pounds occurring in the 1940's (Fig. 49). Peak haul seine shad
landings of 220,000 pounds occurred in the late 1940's after
which they declined and ceased in the 1960's (Fig. 50). Station-
ary gill nets classified as anchor, set, or stake nets have also
been used intermittently with shad landings over 50,000 pounds
occurring in 1944, 1958, and 1967, after which they no longer
accounted for significant quantities. The 1967 stationary gill
net shad landings of 145,000 pounds were a record (Fig. 51). In
1975, section 26-148 of the Connecticut General Statutes--which
allowed for the use of set gill nets for taking shad in the
Connecticut and Farmington Rivers--was repealed, thus prohibiting
the use of stationary gill nets for shad in these rivers. Shad
were also caught by pound net in the 1940's and 50's during which
peak pound net shad landings of 50,000 pounds occurred (Figure
52).

From 1977-1982, the number of drift gill nets employed
decreased from 59 to 38. The same is true of the number of boats
used in the fishery since each boat uses one gill net. The
number of active fishermen increased from 109 to 153 during the
same period, but decreased to 81 from 1981-1982. All shad fish-
ermen including assistants are required to be licensed. Common-
ly, a crew of 2-4 men operate in each boat which, typically, are
small (less than 20 ft) outboard powered, open workboats. Most
(63-75%) commercial shad fishermen report their home port as
Middlesex County. Hartford and New London Counties each account
for 10-26% of the fishermen. The same distribution applies to
boats in the fishery. Middlesex County receives most of the shad
landed (59-75%), while New London County receives 15-28%, and
Hartford County receives 10-30%.

-134-

There is an open season for shad fishing which extends from
April 1 to June 15 each year. Shad fishermen are prohibited from
using monofilament gill nets. This results in the fishery being
conducted principally at night with multifilament nets which are
invisible to the shad during night time hours. The exception to
this rule is during periods of turbid water when fishermen are
able to effectively use the multifilament nets during daylight
hours. Shad fishing is also prohibited from sundown Friday to
sundown Sunday in an effort to allow a certain proportion of the
population to reach upriver spawning grounds.

Conflicts occasionally occur between shad netters when
certain sections of the river are "claimed" by one or more groups
of fishermen. In these areas, other fishermen may be harassed if
they attempt to fish for shad. In certain areas where only one
net can effectively fish at a time, the fishermen must agree on a
time schedule or an order of rotation in order to set and tend
their nets with a minimum of conflict.

-135-

DRIFT GILL NET

THOUSANDS OF POUNDS THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

600

550-

500-

450-

400-

350

300

250-

zoo-

150-

100

0
1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985

YEAR

Figure 49. Connecticut commercial drift gill net landings of
shad, 1939-1983.

HAUL SEINE

THOUSANDS OF POUNDS THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

240

220-

200-

180-

160-

140

120 -

100-

40-

n
1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
YEAR

Figure 50. Connecticut commercial haul seine landings of shad,
1939-1983.
n

-136-

ANCHOR, SET, OR STAKE GILL NET

THOUSANDS OF POUNDS THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

160

140

120-

100-

so-
601
40

0
1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980- 1985
YEAR
Figure 51. Connecticut commercial anchor, set, or stake gill net
landings of shad, 1939-1975.

POUND NET

THOUSANDS OF POUNDS THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

55-

50-

45-

40-

30-

25-

20-

15-

10-

0 ... ....
1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
YEAR
Figure 52. Connecticut commercial pound net landings of shad,
1939-1983.
L

-137-

5.1.7 The Conch Fishery

Connecticut's conch pot fishery is the sixth most valuable
commercial fishing industry in the state. From 1977-1983, its
earnings ranged from 1% to 5% of the total annual revenue
generated by these industries. The method of estimating recent
landings may differ from that used in the past by NMFS. Conch
buyers, all in Rhode Island, were asked to recall how much they
purchased from Connecticut conch fishermen in 1981, 1982, and
1983. It is unknown how the information was obtained in previous
years.

Annual conch landings have increased--with fluctuations--
from less than 50,000 lbs in the 1940's to progressively higher
peaks of 75,000, 150,000 and 200,000 lbs in 1955, 1967, and 1972,
respectively. The 1981 landings were estimated to be 472,000
pounds of meats and are the highest on record. From 1976-1981,
landings increased ten fold but then dropped in 1982, probably
due to a reported decrease in the number of buyers purchasing
conch (Figure 53). The 1983 landings were estimated at just over
200,000 pounds.

DQ@

Conch pots (or winkle traps) baited with horseshoe crab or
shark (usually dogfish) are the principal gear uo d. They
resemble square wooden lobster traps with a completely open top
and a line tied around the inside margin of the top approximately
1 inch from the inside edge. Conch climb up the side, fall in,
and are prevented from climbing back out since, "having only one
foot, they can't step over, the line" (Anonymous recollection of
an old-time conch fisherman).

The best indicator of fishing effort available--the number
of pots used each year--appears to be correlated with the
magnitude of annual landings (Figure 54); however, it is unknown
how the number of pots was derived by NMFS prior to 1981. In
1981, based on a conversation with an experienced commercial
conch fisherman, 100 traps per licensed fisherman was estimated
for calculating the number of pots used. This probably yielded
an underestimate of the total number. It was learned that at
least 100 pots are needed to make a reasonable living from full-
time conch fishing, which is seasonal from June to October.
Part-time fishermen use 20 or 30 pots.

_138-

Prior to 1984, conch fishermen were able to tend conch pots
and take up to 5 bushels per day without a license. The number
of commercial conch licenses issued from 1977-1982 fluctuated
between 6 and 22 with thirteen licenses issued in 1982. During
these years, it is assumed that all licensed conchmen were full-
timers. Since it is believed that many unlicensed people often
legally took close to 5 bushels each day--and that some took in
excess of the limit without a license--effort derived from
license sales is undoubtedly an underestimate of the amount
actually expended. Also, to the extent the catches of unlicensed
fishermen were sold in markets other than the principal ones
surveyed, the catch of conch taken from Long Island Sound also
may have been underestimated. During the 1983 session, the
Connecticut General Assembly enacted a provision requiring a
$25.00 license for any conch fisherman taking more than 1/2
bushel of conch per day.

Boats used by conch fishermen are small, usually 25 feet or
less, outboard-powered open work boats or sportfishing boats.
Conch fishing does not require much equipment, the traps are
relatively small and can be hauled by hand, thus one man alone
can operate efficiently. Each licensed fisherman operates his
own boat, therefore the number of boats involved in the fishery
is the same as the number of fishermen.

All licensed conch fishermen operate nearshore in central
LISo In 1981, seven fishermen docked their boats and landed
their catch in New Haven County, and four in Middlesex County.

The only gear conflict identified was between experienced
conchmen and inexperienced part-timers who set their pots in the
same area as experienced men, thus competing for the resource in
a limited area by not taking time to find their own productive
fishing grounds. Conch pots are usually set near to shore and
over muddy bottom, which avoids conflicts with the lobster
fishery.

-139-

THOUSANDS OF POUNDS THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

500-

450-

400-

350-

300-

250-
200 r
150

1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
YEAR

Figure 53. Connecticut commercial conch pot landings and value,
1939-1983.

NUMBER OF POTS

1800 1 ----
1600-

1400-

1200-

1000-

800-

600

400

200

1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
YEAR

Figure 54. Number of conch pots fished b y Connecticut commercial,
conch fishermen, 1952-1983.

-140-

5.1.8 Natural Growth Seed Oyster Harvesting

Seed oysters are defined as those oysters taken from natural
beds in areas closed to market harvesting because of pollution
and which are then transplanted to clean water for depuration.
The harvesting of seed oysters is Connecticut's seventh most
valuable industry based on the harvest of living marine
resources. From 1979 to 1981, it earned 0.8-3% of the total
annual revenue generated by all such industries. It is a unique
fishing industry because the catch is not landed for marketing.
Instead, seed oysters are sold to Connecticut's private shellfish
companies, who then transplant them to their leased grounds
before marketing, either for depuration, or for depuration and
further growth depending on the size of the oysters.

The harvest of seed oysters in recent years from September
through the following August is as follows:

1976-77 34,985 bushels
1978-79 20,000 bushels
1979-80 48,000 bushels
1980-81 8,847 bushels
1981-82 10,193 bushels
1982-83 50,000 bushels

For 1980-81 and 1981-82, this information was derived from
aggregated catch reports of seed oyster harvesters submitted to
the Department of Health Services. For 1982-83, it was obtained
from the Aquaculture Division of the Dept. of Agriculture. Infor-
mation for other years was provided by NMFS. The decrease in
seed oyster production in 1980-81 and 1981-82 was due chiefly to
a temporary closure of the Housatonic River seed oyster beds.

-141-

The gear used, as specified by lawt is an oyster dredge
weighing 30 pounds or less with a chain bag having rings of
greater than 3/4 inch in diameter which must be hauled by hand
into the boat used for towing (CGS Sec. 26-215, 26-217). Tongs
may also be used. However, because of their inefficiency
compared to hand-hauled dredges, very few are used each year. In
1981, only one seed oysterman used tongs.

In 1977, 64 fishermen were licensed to harvest seed oyste -rs.
In 1979 and 1981, there were 42 and 49 fishermen, respectively.
In 1977, 42 dredges were used, 34 were used in 1979, 41 in 1981,
and 43 in 1982. Because one dredge is used per boat, the number
of boats in the fishery is the same as the number of dredges for
those years. The boats used are small (less than 20 feet in
length) outboard-powered skiffs and scows.

Natural oyster beds under state jurisdiction from which seed
oysters are harvested are located in Darien, Norwalk, Westport,
Fairfield, Bridgeport, and Stratford including the Housatonic
River. In addition to these traditional natural beds, productive
natural oyster beds under town jurisdictions have recently been
opened to commercial seed oystering as regulated by town
shellfish management plans (See Part One, Section 6.5.2).

To assure the continued productivity of the state's natural
oyster beds, the Aquaculture Division of the Department of Agri-
culture, natural growth harvesters, and a private shellfish com-
pany have participated in a variety of cooperative restoration
programs. These include the planting of cultch to provide habi-
tat for settling larvae, cultivation of the bottom to remove silt
from shells (thereby making them more suitable for collecting
spat)l and predator control (Folsom 1979).

Because only hand power may be used to haul dredges on natu-
ral beds, conflicts are avoided between the natural growth har-
vesters and private shellfish companies using large dredges and
hydraulic haulers. If this more efficient gear were allowed,
those using it would, in effect, be able to monopolize the
resource. The law permits a traditional small scale fishery to
exist in which a number of individuals can enter and participate
at a relatively low expense.

-142-

5.1.9 The Hook and Line Fishery

The hook and line fishery is a fairly small fishery which,
from 1977-1981, earned not more than 2% each year of the total
annual revenue generated by Connecticut's commercial fishing in-
dustries. Therefore, it ranked eighth among all such industries.
However, it is the third most economically valuable finfish fish-
ery, the otter trawl and Connecticut River shad fisheries being
first and second, respectively.

Record hook and line (longline) landings of 250,000-300,000
pounds were reported during -1946-1947. Annual landings were
generally below 100,000 pounds in the 1950's and 19601s. In the
early 1970's, between 150,000 and 200,000 pounds--probably by
single hook anglers--were landed which decreased to less than
100,000 pounds from 1976-1979. In 1982, 148,000 pounds were
landed (Figure 55). The 1983 landings for hook and line were
incomplete at the time of publication.

Bluefish is the principal species taken in the fishery,
generally constituting half of the total annual catch from 1977-
1981. Mackerel, blackfish, and weakfish are other notable
species taken in significant quantities. Small quantities of
flounder, fluke, scup, and cod are also taken.

From 1943-1953 and 1961-1968, multiple hooks were used on
handlines. After 1970, the number of hooks fished was no longer
reported in "Fisheries Statistics of the U.S." The number of
lines and hooks fished generally appears to be related to the
size of annual landings and serves as a rough indicator of the
amount of fishing effort expended (Figure 56). If the time that
each unit of gear fished was known, a more precise indicator of
fishing effort could be obtained. Effort and landings increased
in the 1970's from the low values of the 19601s.

-143-

From 1977-1981, between 84-141 fishermen participated
annually in this fishery. New London County harbored most hook
fishermen (74-83%), Middlesex County harbored 9-16%, and New
Haven and Fairfield Counties each harbored 3-6%. However, the
1981 catch reports for this fishery indicate that increasing
numbers of fishermen fished out of New Haven and Fairfield
Counties, 14% and 20% respectively. Also, the number of New
London County hook fishermen decreased from 116 to 32 from 1979-
1981.

During the period 1977-1981, it is estimated that very few
of the commercial hook fishermen were full-time fishermen who
earned over 50% of their livelihood from fishing; most fished out
of Middlesex County ports. The remainder of the hook fishermen
deriving some income from the sale of fish are believed to be
relatively casual participants.

Almost every commercial hook fisherman operates his own boat
although a few boats may be shared. Most of the boats are small
(< 25 feet) sportfishing boats or other open work boats powered
by outboard motors. It is likely that many commercial hook and
line fishermen are extremely avid recreational anglers who sell
their catch mainly to pay for or defray the operating expenses of
their fishing trips.

There are conflicting viewpoints about when an angler who
sells his catch should be considered a commercial fisherman. it
is not known what number of anglers who sell their catch do so
"under the table" without possessing a Connecticut Commercial
Finfish License. However, the General Statutes mandate the
license requirement if any of the catch is sold, however infre-
quently such sale might occur (CGS Sec. 126-42a).

-144-

THOUSANDS OF POUNDS THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

300

250

200

150

100-

50-

0- 7717
1935 1940 1M 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
YEAR

Figure 55. Connecticut commercial hook and line landings and
value, 1939-1983.

NUMBER OF LINES NUMBER OF HOOKS

300----
280-
260-
240
220-
2001
180-
160-
140
120
100.
80-
60
40

0
1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
YEAR

Figure 56. Number of hooks and lines fished by Connecticut
commercial hook and line fishermen, 1939-1983.

-145-

5.1.10 The Eel Pot Fishery

The eel pot fishery is a small fishery, accounting for less
than one percent of the total annual revenue generated by
Connecticut commercial fishing industries from 1977-1983. Record
eel pot landings between 40,000 and 50,000 pounds occurred in the
late 1960's and 1970's, although during the same period fluc-
tuations from year to year were as great as 20,000 pounds (Figure
57).

EEL POT

Pots are constructed of wire and baited with horseshoe crab
or fish. Green crabs are also caught in eel pots and are sought
by some eel f ishermen to sell for fishing bait. Approximately
22,700 pounds of green crabs were reportedly taken in eel pots in
1983. The number of eel pots reportedly fished each year does not
appear to be correlated with the magnitude of landings and thus
does not serve as a useful indicator of fishing effort (Figure
58).

From 1977-1979, between four and seven full-time and 10-16
casual commercial eel fishermen operated in Connecticut waters.
New London County harbored the greatest number of eelmen (9-13)
most of whom operated in the Thames and Connecticut Rivers.
Middlesex County harbored less than 5 fisherman. Most eel
fishermen operate from small (< 20 ft) outboard-powered, open
skiffs. The number of boats operating in this fishery is nearly
the same as the number of fishermen although some sharing of
boats may exist. From 1977-79, most eels caught with eel pots
(50-70%) were landed in New London County. Middlesex County
received 20-30%, and New Haven and Fairfield Counties each
received 2-13%.

-146-

THOUSANDS OF POUNDS THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
50F
45

30-

25-

20-

is-

0
1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 19-6-0- -5 1970 1975 1980 1985
YEAR

Figure 57. Connecticut commercial eel pot landings and value,
1939-1983.

NUMBER OF POTS

,3000

2500-

2000-

1500-

1000

Soo
oL,.
1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
YEAR

Figure 58. Number of eel pots fished by Connecticut eel pot
fishermen, 1939-1983.

-147-

5.1.11 The Gill Net and Haul Seine Fisheries

Excluding the Connecticut River shad gill net fishery, gill
net and haul seine fisheries in the state are primarily directed
toward catching fish for use as lobster bait and as bait for
gamefish (bluefish, striped bass). The fishermen involved are
commercial as well as personal use lobstermen, and commercial and
recreational anglers. Each of these fisheries earns less than 1%
of the total annual revenue generated by all industries that are
based on the harvest of living marine resources.

GILL NET

The drift gill net fishery operates in LIS and the
Connecticut and lower Thames Rivers. Fifty to 60% of the annual
catch is menhaden, and up to 20% is mackerel. White perch and
unclassified species reported as lobster bait each account for
up to 10%. Nearly all finfish species occurring in LIS and its
major tributaries may, at times, be taken by this method.

In the early 1970's, landings of finfish species other than
shad caught by drift gill nets increased to a peak of 600,000-
800,000 pounds from previous landings of less than 100,000
pounds. In the late 1970's, landings decreased to 122,000 pounds
and have since begun to increase again, to 213,000 pounds in
1981. In 1981, 240 fishermen reported using gill nets for
species other than shad. Approximately 220 boats and the same
number of gill nets were used. The home ports of the fishermen
and the distribution of landings is divided about equally among
the four coastal counties.

The haul seine fishery operates mainly in the Connecticut
River and is directed towards catching river herring whichl in
1979 and 1981, made up almost 100% of the annual catch. Some
fishermen apparently seine along the shores of LIS, as evidenced
by small catches of blackfish, winter flounder, fluke, mackerel,
skates and other marine species that are reported annually.

-148-

'.4

77@.

BEACH OR HAUL SEINE

A record haul seine landing of 2 million pounds of finfish,
almost all of which was river herring, occurred in 1950.
Landings decreased through the 1950's and have remained at less
than 100,000 pounds per year since 1959.

In 1981, 25 fishermen reported using haul seines. A total
of 12 boats and the same number of seines were used. River
herring taken from the Connecticut River are landed mainly in
Hartford County and also in Middlesex and New London Counties.

-149-

5.1.12 The Menhaden Purse Seine Fishery

Menhaden recently were harvested annually from June through
October in LIS by 6-7 purse seining vessels which landed their
catches in New Jersey. Thus/ this fishery is not a Connecticut
industry. It may, however, have a great impact on Connecticut's
menhaden resource. From 1974 to 1981., 3-11 million pounds of
menhaden were reported caught annually from LIS; in 1981, over
six million pounds were taken.

Early in 1982, Seacoast Products, Inc., a company operating
menhaden seiners, announced it would not fish in New England for
a period of two years (1982-83), however company officials have
expressed the expectation to return to fishing in Long Island
Sound in future years.
PURSE SEI E BOAT
_jOW LINE

SKIFF

CORK LINt

LEAD- LINE

PURSE LINE

Schools of menhaden are spotted at the surface of the water
from the 70-80 foot long vessels or by the pilots of small
airplanes who direct the operation from the air. A school is
encircled by the seine which is usually set by two smaller boats
(tenders) which are 30-40 feet long. The bottom of the net is
then drawn together (pursed) in an attempt to completely enclose
the school. The net is hauled in until the fish are concentrated
in a small portion of the net from which they can be removed and
transferred to the vessel's hold by a large pump.

Menhaden purse seining is prohibited north of a line gener-
ally running from one to two miles south of the Connecticut
shoreline. This law eliminates hazards to navigation that may be
caused during the seining operation, and also prohibits seining
in some of the most productive sportfishing areas (CGS 26-154a).

Recreational fishermen have expressed concern that large
purse seining operations in LIS might deplete the menhaden stock
entering the Sound, thus adversely impacting gamefish stocks that
utilize menhaden for food. However, there is no evidence of a
correlation between catches of menhaden and gamefish.

_150-

5.1.13 The Blue Crab Fishery

The commercial blue crab fishery in Connecticut is conducted
by less than 10 fishermen. Annual landings are minimal--less than
1,000 pounds--and are taken principally by scoop net and manually
operated, personally attended devices (crab traps) such as the
"Star" crab trap.

Taking blue crabs between December lst and April 30th,
taking egg bearing females, and taking hard shell crabs less than
5 inches or soft shell crabs less than 3-1/2 inches--measured
from tip to tip of the shell spikes--is prohibited.

Popular blue crabbing areas include salt water coves and the
mouths of rivers, especially in the eastern two-thirds of the
state.

-151-

5.2 The Recreational Fisheries

5.2.1 Recreational Finfishing

..7

The Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey, Atlantic
and Gulf Coasts, 1979 (NMFS 1980), estimated that 304,000
resident and 78fOOO non-resident anglers made 1.4 million and 0.2
million fishing trips, respectively, in Connecticut during 1979,
for a total of 1.6 million fishing trips that year. An
independent estimate by the Connecticut DEP yielded an estimated
total of 327,500 resident and non-resident anglers (Sampson
1981). On weekend days between July and November, 1979, aerial
observations indicated that as many as 1,500-2,000 anglers per
day were fishing at any given time.

The Connecticut Marine Recreational Fisheries Survey
(Sampson 1981) identified a total of 528 angler fishing sites of
four modes along the Connecticut coast. The four mode classifi-
cations, number of sites and percentage of sites of each mode
are:

1) Beach and bank fishing from natural structures such as
beaches or rock outcroppings (145, 27.5%)
2) Man-made structures such as docks, bridges, and jetties
(113, 21.4%)
3) Private and rental boat areas (the small boat fishery)
(229, 43.4%)
4) Party or charter boats (41, 7.7%)

Sites in the private and rental boat mode include private
marinas. The number of slips and moorings available in these
marinas are presented in CEM (1981), although no distinction is
made among the accomodations for sailboats, power yachts, and
smaller power boats such as are used for sportfishing. There are
approximately 25 major boat launch sites along the coast, of
which 16 are state-owned. The remainder are owned privately or by
towns.

Aerial flights and the-composition of angling sites indicate
that most marine angling in Connecticut waters is performed from
boats. Approximately 66% of all anglers observed between July
and November, 1979 fished from boats.

-152-

Private and rental boat sites were the most commonly used
mode in all counties. Man-made structures also appear to be more
popular among anglers than natural sites. Reasons for these
differences may lie with patterns of coastal development as well
as with factors such as availability of fish species. A second
reason for the popularity of boats and man-made structures, is
that docks and jetties furnish natural cover, currents, and
backwater areas which tend to attract fish, and boats provide the
angler freedom to locate and follow moving schools of fish
(Sampson 1981).

The National Survey reported that 7.8 million fish of all
species were caught by anglers fishing in Connecticut during 1979
(NMFS 1980). The greatest reported catches were for bluefish and
scup (2.0 million and 1.9 million fish, respectively). Catches
of the third through sixth ranked species were winter flounder
1.3 million fish, cunner 705,000, blackfish 423,000 and mackerel
254,000 (NMFS 1980). Cunner are not a target species and are
considered either a "trash" fish or a simple nuisance because
they frequently steal bait. Therefore, the reported catch may be
low because some anglers fail to mention the species in their
catch (Sampson 1981).

Winter flounder is considered the most popular recreational
finfish species in Connecticut waters. When DEP interviewers
asked anglers, "Are you fishing for anything in particular?", the
most frequently reported response was "winter flounder". It is
sought year-round despite seasonal changes in availability. In
the spring and fall, a great deal of effort and success is re-
corded for this species. The high quality flesh and easy catch-
ability makes flounder a very desirable fish.

When DEP interviewers asked anglers, "Are you fishing for
anything in particular?", the second most frequently reported
response was "No species in particular", or "Anything we can
catch." The remaining annual ranking in order of directed
fishing effort was adult bluefish, blackfish, striped bass, scup,
fluke, tomcod, snapper bluefish, mackerel, weakfish, and cod.
Fish such as snapper blue f i sh--separa ted here from adults due to
the great difference in fisheries for the two stages--and
mackerel ranked relatively low due only to their extremely short
seasonal availablity. Pressure on both is intense, however, it
exists only for a few months each year (Sampson 1981).

The impact of Connecticut's marine recreational finfishery
on the finfish resources of LIS is considerable relative to that
of the commercial fisheries. When the numbers of fish of each
species reported caught by NMFS (1980) in the national survey are
converted to pounds with an average weight conversion factor, it
is evident that recreational fishermen harvest as much, and in
most cases more, of the LIS finfish resource than do commercial
fishermen (Table 3). Average weights were calculated from data
obtained by DEP interviewers and the observations of DEP
biologists involved with the recreational fishery survey. Most
are considered to be underestimates.

-153-

Notable examples of target species where the 1979 recre-
ational catch exceeded the commercial catch and by what factor
they were exceeded are: blackfish or tautog (49 times greater),
mackerel (35 times), adult bluefish (31 times), cod (6 times).
The recreational catch of winter flounder, fluke, scup, and
weakfish exceeded the commercial catch but were less than 2 times
greater. The only significant species for which commercial
catches exceeded recreational catches were white perch, eels, and
herrings. Management of marine finfish resources in the future
must take into account the impact of Connecticut's marine -recre-
ational fishery on these resources.

-154-

Table 3. Comparison between the Connecticut recreational and
Connecticut-licensed commercial catch of finfish
species, 1979.
1979 Reported
Commercial Catch,
All Gear
1979 Recreational Catch Types
------------------------------ ----------
Number Conversion* Weight Weight
of Fish (lbs/fish) (Lbs) (Lbs)

Scup 1,984,000 0.5 992,000 629,700
Snapper bluefish 1,511,250 0.2 302,250
Flounder 1,377,000 0.66 908,820 777,900
Cunner 705,000 0.5 352,500
Bluefish (Adult) 503,750 6.9 3,475,875 111,604
Blackfish 423,000 3.2 1,353,600 27,900
Other 256,000 0.5 128,000
Mackerel 254,000 1.8 457,200 13,100
Sea robins 159,000 0.8 127,200 2,600
Tomcod 119,000 0.25 29,750 c
Herrings 113,000 0.5 56,500 269,600
Windowpane
flounder 86,000 0.3 25,800 18,000
Striped bass 65,000 14.9 968,500
Fluke 39,000 d 1.5 58,500 51,600
Mackerel & Tunas 39,000 15.0 585,000
Dogfish 39,000 2.0 78,000 58,800
Skates 39,000 1.0 39,000 68,069
White perch 31,000 a 0.5 15,500 23,700
Weakfish 30,000 b 5.0 150,000 125,800
Cod 15,000 b 6.0 90,000 15,700
Eel 15,000 b 0.9 13,500 27,600
Pollock 15,000 b 4.0 60,000
Puffers 15,000 b 0.3 4,500
Toadfish 15,000 0.7 10,500
Total 9,863,000 10,282,495

Sources: Recreational estimated numbers (NMFS 1980); Average
weights (Sampson 1981); Commercial weights (Connecticut
DEP Marine Fisheries Information System).

Conversion of numbers to weight are based on creel samples
taken by DEP field staff in 1979.
a Less than 30,000 according to NMFS (1980), which is an
underestimate (Sampson 1981)-,.30,000 assigned arbitrarily
b Less than 30,000 (NMFS 1980); 15,000 assigned arbitrarily
c Includes sea herring, river herring, and menhaden
d Assumed to be mostly tuna since there is a separate mackerel
category

-155-

5.2.2 Recreational Shellfishing

In 1981, approximately 5,000 permits were issued by Connect-
icut coastal towns for the recreational harvesting of oysters,
hard clams, and soft clams. For the taking of bay scallops,
Stonington and Waterford/East Lyme, issued 2,103 and approx-
imately 7,700 permits, respectively. Scalloping takes place in
the area near Stonington's Barn Island salt marsh, and in the
Niantic River in the towns of Waterford and East Lyme. The
Poquonock River in Groton was closed to scalloping in 1981, but
in 1980, 905 permits were issued there. Depending on town
regulations, permits may be issued for quantities of shellfish,
or daily or seasonal limits. Thus, it is difficult to determine
the true number of shellfishermen from the number of permits
issued.

The recreational shellfish permitting process varies greatly
from town to town. The towns of Old Lyme, Old Saybrook,
Westbrooke Clinton, Milford, and Fairfield have harvestable
shellfish resources in unpolluted waters and allow shellfishing
in these open areas but do not issue permits. Permits are issued
by Stonington, Groton, Waterford/East Lyme, Madisonj Guilford,
Branford, Westport, Norwalk, Darien, and Stamford. The towns of
New London, East Haven, New Haven, West Haven, Stratford,
Bridgeport, and Greenwich have no areas open to recreational
shellfishing. The period for which permits are issued varies
among the towns from one day to one year. Daily limits on the
amounts that can be taken by one permit holder vary from 1/2
bushel to 2 bushels per day for oysters, hard clams and soft
clams, and 1/2 to 3 bushels per day for scallops. All towns with
open shellfishing areas, including those that do not issue
permits, have bag limits in effect.

Assuming that each permit holder harvested at least one
bushel of oysters, hard clams, or soft clams, or a combination of
the three, (a desirable quantity for a few hours of shell-
fishing), at least 5000 bushels were harvested in 1981.

-156-

Undoubtedly this is an underestimate because of the unknown
number of individuals shellfishing in towns where permits are not
required and because the number of recreational trips made by
licensed and unlicensed individuals is unknown.

Except for scallops, the permits issued are general shell-
fishing permits which authorize the taking of any bivalve shell-
fish species. Therefore, the amounts of hard clams, soft clams,
and oysters taken cannot be determined even if the number of
recreational trips made was known. An estimated 9,052 bushels of
scallops were taken in 1981 from Stonington and the Niantic
River. The indefinite character of the above estimates points
out the need for ongoing, comprehensive monitoring and licensing
programs for recreational shellfishing activities. The magnitude
and importance of particular recreational shellfisheries could
also be quantified through such programs.

The major impediment to recreational shellfishing in Con-
necticut is the closure of over 75% of the State's productive
shellfish beds by the Connecticut Department of Health Services
due to pollution (Jacklin 1980). MoBt towns, however, do have
clean water areas that could be utilized to depurate contdminated
shellfish transplanted from productive closed areas in those
towns (Table 4). Also, as sources of contamination become elimi-
nated through the efforts of town and state health departments,
some areas that are permanently closed may eventually be opened
on a conditional basis depending on rainfall conditions and
frequent water quality monitoring by town health officials. Such
a program has been implemented in Old Saybrook and has shown the
potential for success.

-157-

Table 4. Acres of ground under town jurisdictions that were open
to shellfishing in 1981.

Town Acres Acres conditionally Total
open opened

Madison 6,060 0 6,060
E. Lyme 3,127 0 3,127
Westport 756 1,612 2,368
Stonington 1,940 0 1,940
Westbrook 1,860 0 1,860
Branford 1,798 0 1,798
Milford 1,768 0 1,768
Norwalk 0 1,334 1,334
Old Saybrook 1,274 200 1,474
Guilford 907 69 976
Stamford 745 222 967
Clinton 913 0 913
Groton 895 0 895
Waterford 614- 0 614
Fairfield 589 0 5.89
Darien 523 44 567
Old Lyme 445 0 445

New London 0 0 0
E. Haven 0 0 0
New Haven 0 0 0
W. Haven 0 0 0
Stratford 0 0 0
Bridgeport 0 0 0
Greenwich 0 0 0
24,214 3,481 27,695

Sources: 1) Connecticut State Department of Health, June, 1980.
List of restricted shellfish areas in Connecticut
where clpsure lines have been definitely
established by the Department of Health Services.

2) Aquaculture Division, Connecticut Department of
Agriculture, maps of shellfish grounds in Long
Island Sound under state jurisdiction.
Acreages were determined using scales on maps.

Conditionally opened means opened to shellfishing depending
on rainfall conditions and concentrations of coliform
bacteria in the water as tested by local or state health
department officials.

Towns where shellfish resources are under the state
jurisdiction of the Aquaculture Division of the Connecticut
Department of Agriculture.

-158-

5.2.3 Personal Use Lobster Fishing

From 1977-1982, the number of Connecticut personal use
lobster license holders increased from 2,227 to 3,341. Persons
who wish to take lobster for personal use, but not for sale, can
do so by the use of not more than 10 lobster traps, by skin or
scuba diving, or by hand. An analysis of the 2,320 license
holders in 1976 indicated that, of the total who fished, 89%
fished with traps and 11% took lobsters using scuba. Twenty-
three percent of the license holders did not fish. In 1976, trap
users fished an average of 19 days, and scuba divers, 4 days.
Trap users hauled an average of 5-6 traps per day and col-
lectively made approximately 160#000 trap hauls during the year
(DEP Marine Fisheries Statistics). A survey of the personal use
lobster fishery indicated that the boats used were 17 feet in
average length and of 53 average horsepower-, an average of 8-9
traps were owned and an average of 6 were fished at one time; the
mean age of individuals was 42 years old; an average of 3 trips
per week were made, and an average of 3-4 hours per week and 13-
14 weeks per year were spent lobstering (Smith 1977).

The total pounds of lobster reported caught by personal use
lobstermen increased from 62,422 in 1976 to between 80,000-90,000
pounds in 1977, 1978, 1979, to 98,754 pounds in 1980. The amounts
reported by personal use lobstermen represent approximately 8-13%
of the total pounds of lobster reported caught by Connecticut
commercial and personal use lobstermen from Long Island sound
during this period (Smith, E., Conn. DEP -- unpublished data).

Of the 62,422 pounds of lobster reported by personal use
license holders in 1976, 53,879 pounds (95%) were reported caught
by traps; and 2,868 pounds (5%), by scuba divers. On the average,
trap fishermen caught just less than two legal sized lobsters per
day fished, and scuba divers, just less than four (Smith, E.,
Conn. DEP -- unpublished data).

5.2.4 Recreational Blue Crabbing

Taking blue crabs for personal use is a fairly popular
recreational fishing activity in Connecticut in years when blue
crabs are abundant. However, very little is known about the
numbers of people involved or how many crabs are harvested
because the activity is unregulated except for prohibitions on
taking crabs between December Ist and April 30th, taking egg
bearing females, and taking hard shell crabs less than 5 inches
or soft shell crabs less than 3-1/2 inches measured from tip to
tip of the shell spikes. Popular blue crabbing areas include
salt water coves and the mouths of rivers, principally in the
eastern two-thirds of the state.

Crabs are taken mostly by dip (or scoop) net, and by crab
traps. Such traps--as specified by regulation--must be manually
operated, personally attended devices (Sec. 26-142a-8a(b)). The
taking of blue crabs in lobster pots is prohibited.

_159-

5.3 The Party and Charter Boat Industry

.1 t

In contrast to commercial fisheries, whose primary purpose
is to catch and sell fish, the purpose of the party and charter
boat industry is to provide transportation, facilities, and
equipment for paying customers to catch fish. It is a commercial
industry, but its members profit by selling the recreational
fishing experience as opposed to selling fish.

A total of six party fishing boats, or headboats, operate in
.Connecticut--five in New London County and one in Fairfield
County. Including the captain, a crew of about 3-5 assist the
customers and maintain the vessels which range from 50-80 feet in
length. The vessels operate from March through November. From
March through May, and October through November, they usually
make three trips per week and may fish for cod, pollock, winter
flounder, fluke, mackerel, blackfish, or scup. When the bluefish
season begins in June, they operate daily until about October and
fish for bluefish almost exclusively. The New London County
boats specialize in cod, pollock and bluefish, often traveling to
Block Island Sound, while the Fairfield County boats are known as
porgy (scup) boats and usually fish within LIS largely for scup,
but also for winter flounder, blackfish, mackerel, and bluefish.
The capacity of Connecticut's party boats ranges from about 40 to
100 passengers. During the bluefish season, the vessels make two
6 hour trips daily.

Charter boats are smaller (16-50 feet in length) than party
boats and accomodate from 1-6 passengers. In 1983, thirty char-
ter boats were located in New London County, six in Middlesex
County, three in New Haven County, and four in Fairfield County.
The totals in the three western counties have increased slightly
since 1979 but remained constant in New London County (DEP Marine
Fisheries Statistics). Charter boats generally fish for the same
species as party boats but in addition, because they are faster
and more flexible in making special trips to meet the desires of
customers, they may also travel to offshore areas to fish for
larger oceanic gamefish such as tuna and sharks.

_160-

In 1981, the first year that party and charter boat catch
statistics were reported, bluefish accounted for 81% of Connect-
icut's party and charter boat catch. Cod, flounder, bluefin
tuna, blackfish, pollock, mackerel, and scup each accounted for
1-4% of the total catch (Table 5). In 1979, during the months of
July, August, and September, the catch per effort of bluefish
.taken from party and charter boats was greater than for any other
fishing mode--i.e., beach/bank, man-made structures, and
private/rental boats (Sampson 1981).

Table 5. Connecticut party and charter boat catch, 1981

Species Weight (lbs) Percent of total
Weight

Bluefish 1,074,208 81.3
Cod 58,484 4.4
Flounder 33,949 2..6
Tuna, bluefin 25,984 2.0
Blackfish 24,463 1.8
Pollock 23,568 1.8
Mackerel 19,367 1.5
Scup 16,457 1.2
Striped bass 9,413 0.7
Sharks 8,735 0.7
Fluke 7,582 0.6
Tuna, other than bluefin 7,412 0.6
Weakfish 7,388 0.6
Bonito 3,021 0.2
Marlin 715 0.1
Menhaden 80 <0.1
River herring 30 <0.1
Total 1,320,856

-161-

6.0 The Use of Marine Resources in Connecticut

6.1 Marketing

6.1.1 Finfish and Squid

The majority of finfish and squid landed in Connecticut that
are caught in the offshore waters of the FCZ (3-200 miles from
shore), the state waters of Rhode Island in Block Island Sound,
and New York waters near Long Island, as well as most fish caught
in eastern Connecticut waters, are landed at the port of
Stonington. Two major buyers purchase finfish and squid directly
from trawlers as they unload at the Stonington town dock. Fair
weighouts, dependability of the buyers, payment of reasonable
prices per pound--which are sometimes higher than those offered
at major ports in Rhode Island and Massachussetts--and
geographical proximity to productive fishing grounds are factors
that often attract non-resident offshore trawlers to unload and
sell their catch in Stonington.

Stonington is principally a flounder port; over 60% of the
total 1981 landings there were comprised of blackback, yellow-
tail, and summer flounder (fluke). Most of the fish landed at
the port is graded by size and quality, boxed in ice, and trucked
to various markets. Fishermen are paid immediately for their
catch based on the quality of the fish and the prevailing price
per pound. one buyer either re-sells fish through previous agree-
ments and orders from local wholesalers and retailers, exports
it, or trucks it to major markets, mainly the Fulton fish market
in New York City. In 1981, approximately 50% of the flounder
species dealt with by this buyer were trucked to the Fulton
market. Smaller blackback flounder, and most yellowtail--con-
stituting about 40% of the total flounder landings--were trucked
to New Bedford, where smaller flounders were processed on fillet-
ing machines and yellowtail were marketed. The remaining 10%,
mainly the larger flounders, were sold to Connecticut whole-
salers. Most butterfish and all whiting were sold at the Fulton
and Philadelphia markets. The other buyer, a relatively new
fillet house, purchased fish from the aforementioned buyer for
several years in the early stages of operation. However, the
company now purchases fish directly from trawlers unloading at
the town dock.

Fulton has been the traditional, recent market for other
species landed in Stonington including cod, bluefish, blackfish,
scup, weakfish, squid, anglerfish and others. However, since
1981, Stonington fish landings have been directly marketed in
increasing frequency within Connecticut. Late in 1983, one buyer
indicated that virtually all of the product he handled was
marketed directly in Connecticut (New London Day 1983).

-162-

-2

Room

FULTON MARKET, NEW YORK CITY

Fulton fish market is also the traditional major market for
trawlers fishing in LIS although increasing amounts of their
catches are being sold to Connecticut wholesale and retail
markets--especially when certain species such as flounder and
scup are in season. Historically, however, it has been much
easier for a LIS trawl fisherman, after fishing for 10-12 hours a
day, to ship his entire catch to New York rather than to attempt
to distribute the catch in small quantities to more than one
Connecticut market, after which he might still have to pack and
ship the remainder. Arrangements are made with a wholesaler who,
for a fee, transports the catch of one or more fishermen at a
time to Fulton where the prevailing--but variable--price is paid
depending on quality. Under this arrangement, the harvester does
not learn the price until after the sale is completed (New Haven
City Plan Dept. 1979).

Smaller scale LIS finfishermen such as commercial anglers,
supply Connecticut wholesale and retail markets with their
seasonal catches. These catches are generally small and of an
unsteady supply, not exceeding a few hundred pounds per day.

Eel pot fishermen sell their catch to wholesalers who
transport and sell the eels in the Fulton market, to local Con-
necticut markets dealing in ethnic speciality seafoods, or to
bait shops where the smaller eels are sold as gamefish bait. The
export market to Japan and Europe was utilized in the past at
which time air freight shipments of live eels were made, however,
this market has since declined (Shen 1982).

Connecticut River shad are sold by the fishermen to small
filleting houses usually associated with wholesale and/or retail
markets in several Connecticut River towns such as Old Lyme, Old
Saybrook, and Haddam. Here they are filleted, boned, and the roe
are removed. Removing the bones from shad fillets is regarded as
an art, at which few people are adept. The majority of the
boners are female and the "secrets" of the process are taught
only to those who are associated with the individual businesses.
The wholesale value of boned shad is approximately four times
greater than the ex-vessel value. The ex-vessel price paid for
female shad is usually twice that for males because of the value
of the roe and because of the relative ease of boning female
shad. The boned fillets and roe are distributed to Connecticut
retail markets and restaurants where they are regarded as a
seasonal delicacy. They are also trucked to major New York and
Philadelphia markets.

-163-

6.1.2 Molluscan Shellfish

One major shellfish company in Connecticut shucks only about
10% of its oysters; the remaining 90% are shipped in the shell.
These are predominantly of the "medium" category with about 20%
sold on the "half-shell." After being washed by dipping them
into a tub of fresh water, the oysters are packed either in
wooden baskets or one-bushel burlap bags. The packed oysters are
then shipped by truck within 12 hours of packing to several
locations in the northeastern U.S., especially in the states of
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusettsf New York,
and also to eastern Canada (Korringa 1976). The company also
operates an oyster shucking and packing plant in Port Norris, New
Jersey where oysters from LIS as well as New Jersey are processed
(New Haven City Plan Dept. 1979).

A smaller volume harvester of market oysters in Guilford
provides oysters and hard clams for an associated restaurant and
retail market. Another in Clinton ships market oysters to
wholesalers on Long Island and in Massachusetts.

The other of the two major shellfish companies harvesting
shellfish from LIS lands all of its oysters in Greenport, Long
Island where it operates a processing plant. The setting of spat
(larvae) and most growth (2-3 years) of these oysters takes place
in Connecticut waters, mainly in leased beds located in polluted
water. Before harvesting, they are transplanted to clean water
beds off the northeastern Long Island, NY shore for about 3-6
months. They are then harvested and processed--involving sorting
to size, washing, and packing in water-resistant cardboard boxes
of various sizes. The company's oysters are distributed in
refrigerated trucks as freshf unshucked product to the major New
York, Boston, Los Angeles, and Chicago markets. Smaller orders
are also filled for specific New England and Mid-Atlantic whole-
salers and restaurants.

LIS oysters have the distinction of being of very high
quality which greatly enhances their market value in the raw,
unshucked state. They are considered more hardy than Chesapeake
Bay or other, more southern, stocks because they are raised in
colder water with greater temperature fluctuations. They have
good proportions, are meaty, have a distinctive salty flavor,
withstand the stress associated with shipping, and last from two
weeks to several months under normal refrigeration.

The Connecticut Department of Health Services oversees the
harvesting, processing, and distribution of Connecticut shellfish
using a system of certification of all persons or firms involved.
The certificate holders are responsible for record keeping,
proper storage, handling, and tagging of shellfish. Tags must be
kept a minimum of 60 days.

The Connecticut General Statutes require that shellfish
shipping tags have the name and address of the shipper and

-164-

consignee, the state of origin and certificate number issued, the
date and area of harvest, and the date of shipment or re-
shipment. The tag must remain on that container until the
shellfish have been fully removed for sale, or until consumption
in the case of restaurant operations. Certificate holders
involved with interstate transport are included on the
"Interstate Certified Shellfish Shippers List" published by the
Federal Food and Drug Administration. Connecticut-licensed
intrastate and interstate certified market shellfish dealers are
included on a list provided by the Department of Health Services.
Any shipment of shellfish by individuals or firms not appearing
on either of these two lists are of unknown origin, would not be
considered an approved food source by the Connecticut Department
of Health Services or the other certifying states and countries
appearing on the federal list, and should not be found in food
establishments (Shutet M., pers. comm. 1982).

Conch landed by Connecticut fishermen are sold to processors
in Rhode Island who also process conch from Rhode Island and
Massachusetts. Serious conch fishermen, who consistently harvest
large amounts, make - their own shipments to these processors.
other fishermen, who periodically harvest small amounts, sell
their catch to certain wholesale seafood dealers for less than
the rate paid by the processors. Conch may be stored in sea water
tanks until the wholesaler has a large enough shipment to truck
to the Rhode Island processors for resale. The minimum shell
width at which conch can be processed efficiently is 2.4 inches
(Wood 1979) ; the minimum weight is approximately one third of a
pound. Smaller animals yield less meat (weight) in proportion to
shell weight, and the yield per 50 pound bushel is less (Sisson
1972). Conch are steamed, sliced, and frozen at the plants. The
most common preparation for retail and restaurant sale is in an
Italian conch salad called "scungilli".

Virtually all sea scallops caught offshore and landed in
Connecticut have been landed at Stonington in recent years. They
are either sold to Connecticut wholesalers or at the Fulton Fish
Market depending on the magnitude of trip landings.

6.1.3 Lobster

Essentially all of the lobster landed by Connecticut
lobstermen is marketed in the state as a live product. The demand
for lobster is strong. Those lobstermen who also have retail
markets or operate restaurants receive the highest returns by
selling direct to the consumer. Although large volumes are more
easily sold through wholesalers, some lobstermen feel that
wholesalers do not always pay fair prices. In 1982, certain
wholesalers paying $2.10 per pound to the lobstermen reportedly
would get up to $4.50 per pound on resale. As a result, some
lobstermen have expressed interest in forming a cooperative to
increase their market power and get a better price (New Haven
City Plan Dept. 1979).

-165-

The supply of lobsters created by the Connecticut catch
cannot meet local demand. As a result, live lobsters are import-
ed primarily from Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Maine. Such
imports tend to depress the prices paid to local lobstermen
during periods of low abundance or seasonally low, local supply.
on the other hand, they are important in maintaining stability in
retail prices. Some landings of lobster from Connecticut, or
other state or offshore waters may be exported from Connecticut
if suitable prices and marketing arrangements can be made.

6.2 Processing

DRAWN FISH

y
......... .k'

STEAMS

3
GLE
1"
FILLETS BUTTERFLY
FILLET

DRESSED

Three companies are known to process fishery products in
Connecticut. The Stonington Fillet Company in Stonington,
formerly the Blue Ocean Fillet Company, processes whole fish into
fillets. Late in 1983, this company was processing the major
portion of the foodfish landings made in Stonington for distribu-
tion in the Connecticut retail market. Abbotts of New England,
formerly Abbott's Seafood, Inc., prepares seafood enhancements
and concentrates in their plant in New London, and markets them
nationally in canned form. Connecticut Seafood Producers, Inc.
operates a processing plant in New Haven to prepare butterfish
for export.

The DEP recently received an inquiry from a New England
exporter and processor about the possibilities of having a

_166-

foreign factory processing vessel anchor in Connecticut waters or
dock at suitable port facilities to receive catches of squid,
monkfish, dogfish, and other underutilized species from southern
New England fishing vessels under a joint venture agreement.
Such ventures, relatively common in other states and offshore
waters, provide an opportunity for U.S. fishermen to sell their
catches to foreign-flag processing vessels under the cooperative
management of a foreign partner and a U.S.-based company. Such
activities are authorized by the Magnuson Fishery Conservation
and Management Act when surplus domestic processing capacity
exists for a species for which domestic harvesting capacity also
exists. Recent amendments to the Magnuson Act allow such
ventures in waters under state jurisdiction when approved by the
governor of the state having such jurisdiction. The impacts of
such ventures in Connecticut will have to be carefully studied to
ensure that existing Connecticut wholesale and processing busi-
nesses are not adversely affected by such activities.

The processing sector also includes the small-scale fresh
fish filleting that is done by individual retailers or fishermen.

6.3 Consumption of Seafood in Connecticut

Lobster, oysters, scallops, and clams, due to their
relatively high retail prices, are considered gourmet items by
most consumers. Finfish have the potential of serving as a
regular source of meat protein in the diet of consumers and,
particularly in a New England state with its own seafood resource
such as Connecticut, may be a relatively inexpensive source of
protein. However, the attitudes of many consumers prevent fish
from being as popular as beef and poultry. Also, recent national
trends in fisheries utilization appear to be removing, or at
least greatly restricting, the access of non-fishing consumers to
marine food fish species taken from inshore waters. Such trends
bear scrutiny insofar as they may eliminate an opportunity for
resource use from a large sector of the public.

Consumption of seafoods has increased during the last two
decades. U.S. per capita consumption increased by 2% per year
from 10.6 pounds in 1967 to 12.7 pounds in 1977. A record of
13.4 pounds per capita was reached in 1978; since then, per
capita consumption has remained near 13 pounds (Fisheries of the
U. S. 1981). The increase in the number of Connecticut retail
seafood outlets in operation in the last 10 years is also
evidence of the trend towards greater per capita consumption of
seafood (Costar E., pers. comm. 1982).

Connecticut per capita consumption figures,are likely to be
much higher than the national average. Conservatively, Connect-
icut consumption of seafood approximates 39 million pounds (13.0
lbs multiplied by 3.0 million residents). In 1982, approximately
8.0 million pounds of product were landed in Connecticut by com-
mercial fishermen and an additional minimum of 8.0 million pounds

-167-

were estimated landed by recreational fishermen. The total of
approximately 5.5 million pounds of edible weight--when sub-
tracted from the estimated total--suggests that some 83% of the
seafood consumed in Connecticut is imported. Dependance on out-
of-state imports may have been an important reason for the
decline of commercial landings in Connecticut, however, it is
possible that it is simply a result of this decline. Almost
certainly, such dependance has contributed to a general apathy in
the public to losses of commercial fishing opportunities since,
if local fishermen are unable to provide seafood products, those
products can always be obtained from out-of-state sources.

The general distribution of New England seafood to the
consumer--65% to restaurants, 5% to food service operations, 30%
to the home--illustrates an opportunity to increase the home con-
sumption of seafood. In contrast, 51% of other types of meats are
consumed in the home. It appears that the beef industry has
declined in the past five years as consumers take up the trend to
eat what they believe to be fresh, more healthful foods. This
situation is favorable for the seafood industry (Harris 1982).

Fresh seafoods, finfish in particular, have the potential to
become a major source of meat protein in the diets of people who
are increasingly aware of their health, and who want to avoid the
cholesterol and fat associated with eating red meats. The
characteristics desired in fresh finfish are firm, white, bland
flesh, and as prices of traditional species such as cod have
risen# non-traditional species such as whiting have been used to
meet this growing demand for white-fleshed fish (New Haven City
Plan Dept. 1979).

Negative consumer attitudes about eating fresh fish can be
overcome by improving r 'etail quality and display. Several Con-
necticut retailers have conducted public seafood education sem-
inars in libraries and at their markets to demonstrate proper
preparation, innovative recipes, the use of underutilized species
for food, and the promotion of the seafood industry as a provider
of a nutritional, high quality source of protein (Popa, J.j pers.
comm. 1982).

Organizations that are instrumental in promoting the seafood
industry include the New England Fisheries Development Foundation
which is dedicated to product development and marketing programs
in both domestic and export markets. The Mid-Atlantic Fisheries
Development Foundation has conducted extensive marketing cam-
paigns with the theme of health, nutrition, fitness, and balanced
diet through eating seafood. Seminars, workshops, and media
campaigns have been conducted using the logos "CATCH AMERICA" in
1981 and "Seafood USA ... a better choice" in 1982 on all posters
and literature, as a trademark of the government/ industry
initiative. The program is coordinated nationwide through four
major organizational structures: the NMFS, regional fisheries
development foundations, the National Fisheries Institute, and
DWJ, a private marketing firm (Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Development
Foundation, Inc. 1982).

-168-

6.4 International Trade

Butterfishl fluke, anglerfish, swordfish, and bluefin tuna
landed in Connecticut have been exported to Japan in the recent
past through contracts negotiated by a large wholesaler and a
fish brokerage, both located in New London County. Japanese
buyers have also expressed interest. in purchasing squid.
However, no long term exporting contracts for fish landed in
Connecticut have yet been developed because the supply of desired
species has been unsteady.

6.5 Industry Assistance

6.5.1 Commercial Fishing

Many small harbors have one or a few vessels which fish
daily on a seasonal basis for lobsters and finfish. A listing of
these ports would include every navigable harbor in the state and
is therefore not presented. The following section summarizes the
major areas of activity, opportunity, and need in support of
commercial fishing in Connecticut.

Stonington is Connecticut's major commercial fishing port,
in 1981, supporting a fleet of 19 fishing boats and 15 lobster
boats. Nine of the larger vessels are trip boats, going out for
several days at a time before returning to port; the others make
day trips. The activity of the fishing fleet is year round (CEM
1981). Trawlers from other states such as Rhode Island,
Massachusetts, and New York also periodically land their catch at
the Stonington town dock which is managed under a long-term lease
by the Southern New England Fishermen's Association. The size of
Stonington's trawlers ranges from 35-85 feet in length (Bir-
mingham, R. 1982). Three new steel vessels over 70 feet in
length were added to the fleet during 1980-1981.

During 1980-1981, over $400,000 in funding was provided to
repair and develop the Stonington town dock. An initial grant of
$50,000 was provided by the Connecticut Department of Economic
Development for emergency dock repairs. Other funds were obtained
from the Community Block Grant Program of the U. S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development and the Industrial Development
Grant Program of the Farmer's Home Administration. An addition
was also built to expand the existing ice house at the dock (Bir-
mingham 1982).

The town, with the assistance of the University of Connect-
icut Marine Advisory Service and the New England Innovation
Group, submitted a proposal for financial as 'sistance to the
National Marine Fisheries Service Fisheries Development Grant
Program for $900,000 over three years for a major development
project which, unfortunately,, was not funded. Proposed inf ra-
structure developments included dock extensions, expansion of ice
and fuel capacity, and the establishment of a small filleting

-169-

operation. It was also proposed that technical assistance be
obtained for developing management and training activities,
improving utilization and transfer of new fisheries technology,
improving capital and minority business access to Stonington
fisheries, and increasing awareness and utilization of public and
private fisheries development programs. It was estimated that
100 new jobs at sea and on shore would result soon after the
proposed plan was implemented.

Those concerned with the project have expressed enthusiasm
towards continuing these efforts. Stonington has the potential
to become a moderately-sized, successful port with up to 30
trawlers if small filleting and freezing operations are begun.
However, to accomplish this, a steady supply of fish of par-
ticular species is required, and cooperation must occur between
the harvesters and processors (Birmingham 1982). To this end,
the Southern New England Fishermen's Association unveiled plans
in 1983 to build a new 6,600 square foot fish house at the
Stonington town dock, using loans from the federal Farmer's Home
Administration and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.

In the Mystic River harbor, mainly at Noank, two moderately-
sized lobster wholesale establishments, one with an associated
restaurant, provide unloading and fuel facilities for several
lobster boats. The Thames River harbor supports the commercial
activities of about 6 lobster boats, one party fishing boat and
several small trawlers on the Groton side. Lobster boats,
trawlers, and charter vessels also operate from the New London
side.

From time to time, commercial trawlers also land their catch
at the New London City pier. In 1982, the owner of a 128 f t
steel trawler began docking the vessel in New London and was
seeking a waterfront site in the city to unload and process the
catch. The city pier is unsuitable for such an operation accord-
ing to the city's marine Commerce and Development Committee (Cray
1982).

The city of New London prepared a feasibility study in 1979
for the development of a major commercial fisheries facility.
The analyses indicated that a fishing operation using five 95 ft
trawlers would be feasible if located at either of two potential
sites. The financial returns calculated indicated that a
facility in New London would have to annually produce at least 15
million pounds of round (whole) fish under a harvest strategy of
40% whiting, 40% squid, and 20% mixed ground fish to obtain a
reasonable return on investment. It was assumed that the owner-
ship and operation of the facility would lie with private entre-
preneurs, and that the harvest strategy selected would be based
upon the development of contracts for the sale of frozen whiting
fillet blocks and frozen long-finned squid. Whiting would be
sold to U.S. buyers who now purchase similar products from
abroad, and squid would be produced for export (Development

-170-

Sciences, Inc. 1979). Employment projections for the 95 ft fleet
option include 40 jobs for personnel manning the vessels (crew of
8 per vessel) and a minimum of 40 jobs ashore to operate the
processing/support facilities as direct employment effects. In
addition to direct employment, another 80 jobs could be expected
to result from the enterprise under an assumed multiplier of 2.0
(Development Sciences, Inc. 1979).

Other ports include Niantic in the towns of Waterford and
East Lyme, where several lobster boats, four party fishing boats,
and about 15 charter vessels are harbored in the Niantic River.
Many Connecticut River towns such as Old Lyme and Old Saybrook
are home to several small-scale commercial lobstering operations
and eel fishermen in addition to commercial shad fishermen.
Further north, shad fishermen also fish out of Haddam, Portland,
Rocky Hill, and other Connecticut River towns.

Commercial fishermen are harbored in the Patchogue River in
Westbrook, and in Clinton where 6 slips and 100 ft of dock space
are available for commercial fishermen. Several oyster boats,
along with other fishing boats, provide the total commercial
activity of Guilford Harbor. In Stony Creek, Branford, the pri-
mary commercial commodity is fresh fish, including shellfish; in
all of these harbors, lobster boats go out almost daily in season
(CEM 1981).

In 1979, facilities in New Haven Harbor supported 6-11 boats
of the two major oyster companies on LIS and about 10 other
boats; two used small otter trawls, several were engaged in both
lobstering and trawling, and several in lobstering only (New
Haven City Plan Dept. 1979). More recently, two to three trawlers
in the 70 foot size class have docked at City Point.

In 1980, the city of New Haven applied to the NMFS Research
and Development Grant Program for a grant to study the feasi-
bility of establishing commercial fisheries facilities in New
Haven harbor. A preliminary document which accompanied the pro-
posal was prepared by the City Plan Department which analyzed
development potentials for such a facility. It was concluded that
there is a significant demand for a modern commercial fishing
berthing and landing facility in New Haven and a potential to
establish a fish processing and distribution facility, supplied
by both LIS and offshore fishing vessels. If a modern fisheries
facility and a buyer offering attractive ex-vessel prices for
fish were located in New Haven, it was expected that five off-
shore boats in the 60-90 ft class would be based there. This
would provide 35-40 on-vessel jobs and, with an initial 8-10
million pounds of fish landed annually, create a demand for 25-30
jobs in fish handling and processing. Assumimg a muliplier of
2.0, another 50-60 jobs would be generated in the local economy
as a result of the processing operation. Several sites con-
sidered suitable for development of an active commercial fishing
operation were analyzed on a preliminary basis to suggest
approximate development costs. These ranged from $1.0-2.5

-171-

million. The results of the analysis raise some serious questions
regarding competing uses for marine resources and the impacts of
large commercial fishing operations on Long Island Sound
resources. Such developments should not be seriously considered
without careful analysis of the expected impacts to resources
from the activities.

Approximately 5-6 lobster boats operate out of the
Bridgeport area (CEM 1981). In 1982, a commercial fishing
facility was privately financed and built in Black Rock Harbor.
A dock with 6000 sq ft deck space and berths for about 10
vessels, an ice house, fueling facility, retail seafood market,
and a small, "take out" seafood stand were constructed. At the
time of its construction, the facility was expected to attract
close to six trawlers, being mainly designed for those operating
in LIS that are presently docked at deteriorated facilities and
recreational marinas along the central and western Connecticut
coast. A tourist attraction atmosphere was developed through the
sale of "fresh off the boat" seafood at the small restaurant.
The retail market features fresh seafood caught in the Sound by
local fishermen at prices that tend to be lower than at other
markets because there are no transportation Costs involved. A
larger restaurant may also be built in the future. A Co-op
atmosphere is promoted for the fishermen and the main method of
marketing the fish is to truck it to the Fulton fish market in
New York City although sales to local wholesalers and retailers
are encouraged (Williams, K., pers. comm. 1982).

Five full-time lobstermen, two of which have combination
trawl and lobster boats, 6 part-time lobstermen, and 8 boats
operated by a major shellfish company are harbored in Norwalk
(CEM 1981). Most commercial fishing boats are docked in recrea-
tional marinas at which dockage fees are quite expensive.
Moreovert there are no shore8ide facilities available to store
lobster traps and other equipment. The shellfish company has a
relatively large facility at which they maintain a large supply
of oyster cultch (shell). They also rent*dock space at this site
to several lobstermen.

The city of Norwalk developed plans in 1981 to construct a
multi-million dollar "Norwalk Seaport" which would include a
much-needed commercial fishing dock for year-round use. At that
time, it was believed that the city planned to develop the
facility and turn it over to a private investor which would
presumably keep the docking prices high. However, in order to
meet their needs, area commercial fishermen felt that the city
would have to own and operate it to keep prices low.

Other harbors in Darien, Stamford and Greenwich also provide
limited opportunities for commercial fishermen to dock and unload
their catches. Competition for dock space in predominantly
recreational boating marinas often increases costs of operation
beyond what might be experienced if commercial space were
available. Some fishermen avoid these costs by mooring their
boats and using a skiff to travel to and from the boat.

-172-

6.5.2 Recreational Fishing

New London and Fairfield Counties have the highest total
number of angling sites, with 196 and 156 respectively, however
they average only 0.57 sites per coastal mile. In contrast,
Middlesex and New Haven Counties have equal or fewer coastal
miles but higher site densities (0.61 and 0.72 per mile). The
distribution of sites by coastal town appears to reflect a
combination of topography and coastal residential development.
Towns with natural harbors have high concentrations of fishing
sites, whereas those with heavily settled coastal areas have
fewer sites. For example, towns such as Greenwich, Darien,
Westport, Guilford, and East Lyme are all heavily developed with
single family dwellings and contain few sites per mile. In
contrast, commercially developed harbor areas such as Norwalk,
Bridgeport, Stratford, New Haven, and New London have many more
sites per coastal mile (Sampson 1981). Acquisition and
development of shore-based sport fishing sites--and supporting
features such as well-lit parking areas with clean toilet
facilities--represents a principal support need for recreational
fishing in Connecticut. Howevert without access to the coast,
increases in support infrastructure will have only limited value
in improving fishing opportunities. An additional, very impor-
tant need therefore, is to encourage development of recreational
boating facilities in areas already developed for industrial or
other commercial purposes. Such facilities should not be consid-
ered for naturall undeveloped areas.

A survey of the telephone books of coastal Connecticut towns
indicated that there are at least 60 shops that sell bait and
tackle to Connecticut marine recreational fishermen. Marine
fishing tackle may be purchased at these 60 shops in addition to
a large number of department and sporting goods stores throughout
Connecticut. These stores also sell clam rakes, tongs, scallop
nets, and other equipment to support recreational shellfishing.

Several towns have developed programs to enhance
recreational shellfishing activity. These programs are based upon
the transplanting of contaminated shellfish from polluted beds to
beds in certified clean water where recreational harvesting is
allowed after the required depuration period--two weeks in water
of 520F. In the towns of Madison and Old Saybrook, the programs
were the result of comprehensive Shellfish Management Plans
prepared at no charge to the towns by Timothy Visell a graduate
student at the University of Rhode Island. The main objectives
of the plans are to:

1) re-establish recreational shellfishing,
2) improve the yield and quality of shellfish on existing beds,
3) increase employment opportunities for commercial shellfishermen,
4) generate revenue from commercial harvesting to spend on
improving the yield and quality of shellfish on existing beds.

-173-

The plans call for making the best use of shellfish popu-
lations, particularly oysters, that are overcrowded, slow-
growing, and dying in potentially productive habitats ' These
resources cannot be legally harvested for market or consumption
because they are located in polluted waters. Under the shellfish
management plans implemented in Madison and Old Saybrook,
commercial natural growth seed oyster harvesters were allowed to
harvest oysters to sell to large shellfish companies for use as
seed oysters. At the same time, they transplanted specified
amounts of oysters to town waters that are open to recreational
shellfishing. In 1978, 600-800 bushels were transplanted in
Madison. In 1981, 1,500 bushels were transplanted in Madison#
and 200 bushels in Old Saybrook.

Madison had a successful recreational season in 1979 when
the transplanted oysters were harvested (Maco, J., pers. comm.
1982). Old Saybrook was unfortunate in 1981 because their
recreational transplanting grounds are "conditionally opened" and
steady rainfall during the fall recreational season caused the
grounds to remain cl.osed. The oysters could not be found the
following spring probably because currents washed them out of the
area or,buried them, causing high mortality (Milkofsky, J., pers.
comm. 1982). A similar oyster and hard clam transplanting program
was conducted by the Branford Shellfish Commission in coop-
eration with a commercial harvester who planned to transplant 30%
to recreational grounds and 70% to his privately-leased beds (In-
fantino, M., pers. comm. 1982).

In 1982, the Waterford-East Lyme Shellfish Commission
purchased and planted 23,000 seed hard clams in a clean area of
the Niantic River and covered them with plastic mesh to protect
them from predators. After sufficient growth, plans call for the
clams to be made available for recreational harvest. Scallop
seeding has been undertaken in Stonington, the Poquonock River in
Groton, and the Niantic River with the assistance of the UCONN
Marine Advisory Service.

6.5.3 Dredging Needs

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has projected the federal
maintenance dredging requirements of Connecticut's major harbors
over the 50 year period from 1985 - 2035 (U.S. ACE 1982). The
number of times each harbor requires dredging and the amounts of
material to be dredged during this period are presented based on
a 'emost probable future scenario" (Table 6). Stonington harbor,
supporting Connecticut's major commercial fishing fleet, requires
no dredging of its main channel due to its natural depths.
However, in the area of the town dock, especially on the north
side, vessels with drafts greater than ten feet have limited
access because of a silting problem, and can only dock at the end
of the pier. There are also problems in turning on the south
side of the pier because of shallow areas (CEM 1981).

_174-

New Haven and Norwalk harbors, where commercial fish landing
facilities have been proposed, will require substantial future
dredging. New London harbor will require a moderate amount of
dredging. While this activity would mainly support naval submar-
ine navigation, the benefits would accrue to all deep draft users
of the port. A proposed commercial fishing fleet based in New
London would have little problem with existing channel depths.

The Center for the Environment and Man, Inc. (CEM), in its
Market User Survey for Selected Long Island Sound Ports (1981)
has described in detail all Connecticut harbors including the
smaller ones, their industrial/commercial and recreational uses,
and projections of future harbor activities. Information is
provided about needed dredging projects that would not be
eligible for federal maintenance dredging such as harbors which
support only recreational boating traffic.

One proposal for disposal of dredge spoils is to create con-
tainment structures that would be designed to receive spoils over
an extended period of-time from several small projects in a given
area (U.S. ACE 1979, 1980). They would be constructed as either
shoreward extensions of existing land features, or as containment
islands. In either case, they would be impermeable structures in
which spoils would be deposited and then capped with relatively
clean sediment for later uses, such as recreation areas. Such
proposals are thought-provoking and bear review. However, the
potential impacts related to endeavors of such magnitude must be
addressed in an equally careful manner.

-175-

Table 6. Projected federal maintenance dredging, most probable
future scenario--1985-2035

Average
Volume Average 50-year
Coastal Number of Per Annual Cumulative
Area Project Projects Project Volume Quantity
(Cubic yards of dredged material)
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Western Greenwich Hrbr 2 50,000 2,000 100,000
Coastal Mianus River 2 35,000 1,400 70,000
Area Stamford Hrbr 2 100,000 5,000 200,000
Westcott Cove 3 20,000 1,200 60,000
Fivemile River 2 70,000 4,200 140,000
Norwalk Hrbr 9 150,000 21,000 1,350,000
Westport Hrbr &
Saugatuck River 2 35,000 2,100 70,000
Southport Hrbr 3 50,000 3,000 150,000
Bridgeport Hrbr 9 275,000 55,000 2,475,000
Housatonic River 5 200,000 20,000 1,000,000

------ ---------
Total 114,900 5,615,000

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Central Milford Hrbr 6 40,000 4,800 240,000
Coastal New Haven Hrbr 22 225,000 99,000 4,950,000
Area Branford Hrbr 5 100,000 10,000 500,000
Stony Creek Hrbr 2 35,000 2,100 70,000
Guilford Hrbr 3 80,000 6,400 240,000
Clinton Hrbr 6 30,000 4,200 180,000
Duck Island Hrbr 2 100,000 4,000 200,000
Patchogue River 7 50,000 7,000 350,000
Conn. River
(Below Hartford) 28 200,000 100,000 5,600,000

------- -----------
Total 230,500 11,980,000

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Eastern Niantic Bay
Coastal & Harbor 2 40,000 2,400 80,000
Area Thames River 6 200,000 16,000 1,200,000
New London Hrbr 2 100,000 10,000 200,000
Mystic River 2 25,000 1,000 50,000
Stonington Hrbr 0 -- -- --
Pawcatuck River 4 25,000 2,000 100,000

------ ----------
Total 31,400 1,630,000

Source: U.S. ACE (1982)

-176-

6.6 Economic Comparison Among Connecticut's Commercial and
Recreational Fishing Industries

In Section 5.1, Connecticut's commercial fishing industries
have been ranked in order of their economic value. Also, the
percentage of the total annual revenue generated from the harvest
of living marine resources that each fishery earned from 1977-
1981 is presented. The following section provides economic com-
parisons between the various Connecticut commercial and recrea-
tional fisheries using 1979 as a baseline year. This is because
although more recent commercial data is available, comparative
recreational data is only available for 1979. The reader is urged
not to make too much of such comparisons since# in many cases,
economic equivalents cannot be made and in other instances,
dependable data is lacking. More importantly, such comparisons
detract from the intrinsic value of the total resource by making
competitors out of common users of that resource.

Obviously, there are many ways to value a resource. The ex-
vessel value has been chosen because of the resulting opportunity
in equalizing values. Capitalized values and total expenditures
are two other methods of estimating the value of an industry and
both greatly increase the maximum apparent value of the resource.
However, use of such values is clouded by an inability to confirm
the accuracy of the comparisons being made; therefore they have
been discarded in favor of more conservative, but more comparable
values.

The total ex-vessel (dockside) value of the finfish catch of
Connecticut-licensed commercial fishermen in 1979 ($893,000) is
considerably less than the total value of finfish caught--in
equivalent ex-vessel dollars--by recreational fishermen that
year. When commercial ex-vessel prices per pound for each
species are applied to the 1979 recreational finfish catch, a
value of 3.3 million dollars is obtained. However, the actual
value of the recreational catch may be at least double this
value, considering that the retail price of a fish is a more
realistic indicator of its value to the recreational fisherman,
who would otherwise have to purchase it from a retail outlet if
he wanted it for consumption. Similarly, a more realistic value
of commercial finfish landings to the economy of Connecticut, due
to the commonly applied multiplier (or "ripple") effect of 2.8
for marine fishery products (Morton 1967) approaches 2.5 million
dollars annually.

In 1979, 88,000 pounds of lobster were taken by personal use
(recreational) lobster license holders. If the 1979 commercial
ex-vessel value of $2.56 per pound is applied, this catch was
worth approximately $225,000. This amount represents 9% of the
value of lobster landed by Connecticut licensed commercial
lobstermen in 1979 (939,810 pounds, ex-vessel value $2,406,000
at $2.56 per pound). Considering the "ripple" effect, the total
value of lobster landings to Connecticut's economy was in excess
of 7.0 million dollars.

-177-

Because precise information on the recreational harvest of
oysters and hard clams is lacking, a quantitative comparison of
commercial and recreational shellfishing cannot be made.
Qualitatively, however, it is widely believed that the economic
value of the commercial harvest of Connecticut's private shell-
fish companies far exceeds the value. of shellfish that are
harvested by recreational fishermen. It is also generally
undisputed that the bay scallop harvest by recreational shell-
fishermen far exceeds the take of commercial men. However, given
the inability to distinguish between the two groups, it is
impossible to make a clear distinction in relative catch levels.

-178-

7.0 Groups with Special Interest in Marine Resources

Many groupst through many affiliations, associate themselves
with the catch, marketing, consumption, research into, education
about, and conservation of Connecticut's marine resources.
Before listing the identifiable groups, however, it is important
to note that the largest, although most silent group, is the
general population of Connecticut. While not indicating a
particular affiliation, uncounted numbers of Connecticut citizens
are interested in marine resources as food, as a source of
recreation, and for their intrinsic aesthetic value.

Appendix I provides a list of government agencies involved
in marine resource management while Appendix II lists academic
institutions involved with marine resources in Connecticut.
Appendix III is a list of known commercial and recreational
fishing organizations, development foundations, and known private
marine research and educational programs. The reader should
refer to the "Directory of Environmental Organizations" prepared
by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection in 1979
for a statewide listing of environmental organizations without
particular reference to the marine environment, and to "Long
Island Sound, A Directory of Natural Resource Information
Sources" prepared by the DEP Natural Resource Center's Marine
Program in 1982.

Interested groups may be categorized broadly as those which
contribute to management programs and those which benefit from
such programs. An example of the former group is the Sea Grant
Marine Advisory Service while the latter group includes marine
retailing and trade associations, marine oriented businesses, and
consumers. Some organizations obviously belong in both groups
(fishing organizations) since they contribute to the management
process and also derive benefits from that process.

Groups not necessarily concerned with the use of marine
resources, but which nonetheless recognize the advantage of hav-
ing those resources available, include commerce and planning
committees looking for ways of diversifying community develop-
ments. Examples are the efforts of waterfront commissions in
several communities which, within the past few years, have
explored the potential for development of fish piers and
recreational facilities along presently unused water frontage.
Such activities generally are not related to government activi-
ties but rather, relate to the ad hoc designation of committees,
by government, for the purpose of exploring development potential
in the coastal area.

-179-

MARINE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN

FOR THE

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Part Two: Problems, Issues, and Opportunities

-180-

1.0 Introduction

The relationship of Connecticut's citizens to Long Island
Sound is characterized by complexities of competing uses and an
all too frequent lack of regard for the requirements of the
resource and the rights of other users. The special interests of
resource users many times become the principal motivation in
management issues when, in fact, the motivation should be rooted,
first, in the requirements of the resource, and second, in the
desires of the users.

User conflicts arise between commercial and recreational
fishermen, among members in each group, between fishermen and
other boaters, and between competing users of the environment
such as those who take fish or shellfish for food and recreation,
and those who use Long Island Sound as a repository for dredge
spoils, municipal sewage, and industrial waste. Resolution of
such conflicts without prohibiting any one type of user from
either traditional or legitimate new uses of the Sound is one
challenge facing marine resource managers.

Part Two of the Plan, titled "Problems, Issues, and Oppor-
tunities," documents principle areas of concern to fisheries
managers in planning for future uses of Long Island Sound. The
list is by no means complete nor are the individual sections
representative of final philosophies on dynamic issues. The
topics are intended to address problems, issues, and oppor-
tunities that have been raised during preparation of Part One of
the Management Plan. The final section of the Plan, Part Three--
Policies and Objectives--is intended to direct one's thinking
toward eventual resolution of such problems.

-181-

2.0 Man's Influence on Long Island Sound Resources

2.1 Fishing Effort

Exploitation by commercial and recreational fishermen is
often blamed for a decline in resource abundance. However,
abundance indices derived from fishing activities often simply
indicate that such changes have occurred rather than identify the
causes of the change. The real causes may include changes in
climate, water quality, and the availability of the prey species
necessary to support an abundant, fishable stock.

On the other hand, instances have been documented in which
fishing pressure is believed to have been the principal, if not
the sole, cause of a resource collapse. Examples include the
Atlantic haddock, the Susquehanna River shad, and both the At-
lantic and Pacific herring stocks.

Exploitation of marine resources can be summarized in two
categories. One relates to commercial exploitation in which
relatively few fishermen each take a relatively large number of
fish which ultimately become food for the non-fishing public.
The other category includes recreational exploitation in which
relatively great numbers of fishermen each take relatively few
fish which become food for themselves -- the fishing consumer.

It is generally believed that most fish stocks in coastal
waters are sensitive to a combination of man-induced stresses--
including both fishing practices and degraded water quality. The
problems associated with each of these stresses and a generally
poor understanding of their interactive effects often leaves
resource managers with no alternative but to regulate fisheries
exploitation on depressed stocks as a means of avoiding potential
failures in stock recru i tmen t--rega rd less of the cause of the
decline in abundance. At the same time, pleas are periodically
made for increased regulation of water polluters. In fact,
considerable progress has been made in Long Island Sound as a
result of federal legislation governing the discharge of
pollutants (i.e. the "Clean Water Act") and state initiatives in
developing domestic water treatment facilities and in regulating
discharges and land development in sensitive coastal areas.

2.2 Pollution and Degradation of Long Island Sound

The degraded quality of estuarine and coastal waters is
thought to be one of the most important factors contributing to
the long-term decline in abundance of many important fishery
resources. Major sources of pollution affecting Long Island
Sound include inadequately treated municipal and industrial
wastes, overflows from combined sanitary-storm sewers, non-point
sources of discharge, wastes from pleasure craft and other boats,
oil and other hazardous materials spilled from ships and also
from bulk storage areas, heated water inputs from power plants,

-182-

dredging and dredge spoil -disposal, and both sediment and other
substances flowing into the Sound from rivers. The relative sig-
nificance of man-made sources of water pollution is complicated
by the fact that contaminants often enter the water in complex
mixtures of many substances whose specific chemical identities
are largely unknown, and by the fact that LIS has a complex water
circulation pattern (NERBC 1975).

The worst contributors of pollution in LIS are municipal and
industrial sources. Municipal sources are dominated, in terms of
volume and costs of treatment, by the New York City discharges to
the East River, which flows back and forth past Throg's Neck into
western LIS (NERBC 1975). An engineering solution to this
problem was proposed by Bowman (1976) to construct tidal locks
across the upper East River which would result in a undirectional
flow of LIS out into the New York Bight. By eliminating the
input of polluted East River water into LIS, the principle
estuarine characteristic of western LIS would also be changed
toward that of a more coastal embayment--salinity would increase
by about 4 O/oo. The study noted that the implementation of such
a project would have many political, socio-economic, ecological,
sedimentary, navigational, engineering and hydrographic ramifica-
tions, further discussions of which were beyond the scope of the
paper.

Some scientists have voiced concern over the acceleration of
eutrophication caused by man's introduction of nutrients into
LIS. The short term effects of excessive enrichment are gener-
ally rapid growth or blooms of algae resulting in large daily
fluctuations in oxygen concentrations, lowered dissolved oxygen
due to algal die-off and biodegradation, and possible benthic
animal and fish kills because of oxygen stress. A related
problem is a general lowering of the aesthetic and recreational
value of the water. Long-term effects include an increased rate
of aging of the water body, characterized by increased plant
production, shifts in species composition, and a net increase of
plant and animal biomass due to increased flow of food through
the food chain (NERBC 1975).

Artificial nutrient enrichment may be a favorable factor in
maintaining some areas of the LIS ecosystem at a high level of
productivity. Some of the natural nutrient input that was once
provided by Connecticut's extensive tidal marshes (many of which
were subsequently eliminated during this century by shoreline
development) is now derived from the organic discharge of munici-
pal sewage systems. Unfortunately, this type of "compensatory"
nutrient enrichment is not entirely organic, since heavy metals
and other toxic substances often accompany these discharges
(Stewart, L., pers. comm. 1982).

Connecticut's tidal marshlands and shellfish beds are the
two most ecologically and economically important habitats to
suffer because of man's influence. By 1965, shoreline develop-
ment activity in Connecticut had destroyed or altered the ecology

-183-

of more than 50% of the tidal marshland existing in 1914 (Niering
and Bowers 1966). Causes of tidal marshland loss and the per-
centage of loss attributable to each cause are: miscellaneous
fill (48%)-, waste disposal (14%), bridges, roads, and parking
(9%); industry (7%), airports (7%), marinas, docks, and channels
(6%); housing (5%); recreational developments (3%); and schools
(1%). As one moves from east to west, the number of impacts
intensifies and the ecological integrity of the marshes tends to
decline in environmental quality. This can be correlated with
increased development in western Connecticut (U.S. Fish and
Wildl. Serv. 1965).

Seventy-five percent of Connecticut's 60,000 acres of shell-
fish grounds are closed to the harvest of shellfish for consump-
tion (Figure 59) due to poor water quality (Jacklin 1980). The
decision to close areas is made on the basis of the concentration
of coliform bacteria, which are not normally considered to be
pathogens in themselves, but which may indicate the presence of
human pathogens transported to the Sound in sewage. Areas are
closed to shellfishing by the Connecticut Department of Health
Services if they:

1) are located near sewage treatment plants,
2) are exposed to direct sewage discharges, chemical or
radiation contaminants,
3) have average levels of coliform indicator organisms greater
than 70 total coliform per 100 ml or more than 10% of the
samples taken have levels above 230 total coliform per 100 ml.

Most of the closures in both the western and eastern ends of
LIS are in the shallower bays and harbors that are most access-
ible to recreational shellfishermen. Southwestern Connecticut is
the coastal area of greatest population density as well as a
major area of shellfishing demand. Since coastal population
density is the principal factor stimulating all other sources of
adverse environmental impact on the Sound's waters, it is
unlikely that those negative impacts can be entirely eliminated
(NERBC 1975). However, it is possible to moderate their effects
by controlling pollution whenever possible.

Periodic historic use of Long Island Sound as a "dump" for
large unwanted articles has posed recurring problems to
commercial fishermen attempting to derive their livlihood from
the Sound. The condition of otherwise good trawling areas,
especially in western LIS, has been adversely impacted by the
dumping of scrap refuse. Furnaces, boilers, cement reinforcing
rods, and cement have been hauled up by trawlers trying to
recover snagged nets. Sunken wrecks of barges, boats, and
automobiles make bottom trawling virtually impossible in certain
areas (Staplefeldt, C., pers. comm. 1982).

-184-

io
N-1
ip

4P k
++

0410

&4,,D ;0

OD
VI
+IA
Closed areas A& - @
+

"e.
Figure 59. Areas closed to shellfishing in Connecticut waters. +
(See page 186 for key to abbreviations)

Key to abbreviations used in Figure 59.

GRNW Greenwich
STAM Stamford
DAR Darien
NRWK Norwalk
WSPT Westport
FF Fairfield
BPT Bridgeport
STR Stratford
MLFD Milford
WH West Haven
NH New Haven
EH East Haven
BRFD Branford
GLFD Guilford
MDSN Madison
CLTN Clinton
WSBK Westbrook
OSBK Old Saybrook
OLYM Old Lyme
ELYM East Lyme
WTFD Waterford
NL New London
GRTN Groton
STON Stonington
CT Connecticut
RI Rhode Island
NY New York

-186-

Currently, sand and gravel mining operations in Long Island
Sound and its estuaries are of relatively small magnitude. How-
ever, the expansion of such operations depends only on economic
factors. As soon as large-scale marine sediment mining oper-
ations become economically feasible, i.e., as soon as the demand
for sand and gravel becomes commensurate with the costs of
extracting it from the marine environment, marine mining oper-
ations will expand.

A number of adverse effects on the environment and inhabit-
ing species are known to be caused by such operations. These
effects include altered bathymetry (which changes the dynamic
equilibrium on the bottom as fine sediments fill in holes where
coarser sediments were extracted, thereby affecting recoloniz-
ation); altered circulation; release and loss of nutrients; a
chemical oxygen demand (which develops as a result of unoxidized
iron compounds coming in contact with oxygen in the water column
thus depleting oxygen in the water column); burial of organisms;
permanent removal of indigeneous hard-sediment organisms which
are replaced by a community of soft-sediment organisms; release
of toxic heavy metals and hydrocarbons; and turbidity due to the
suspension of solids in the water column.

-187-

3.0 Information for Management of Marine Resources

3.1 Scientific Information

The Department currently conducts several fishery research
projects supported in part with funds authorized by the
Commercial Fisheries Research and Development Act (P.L. 88-309)
and the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act (P.L. 89-304)
administered through the National Marine Fisheries Service Grant-
in-Aid Program. The DEP also conducts investigations and pro-
grams funded in part by the Federal Aid to Sport Fish Restoration
Act (P.L. 81-681, the Dingell-Johnson Act) administered by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS).

Although basic life history information is available for
essentially all species of importance found in Long Island Sound,
this information usually is not specific to the species as they
occur in the Sound. Variability in such factors as temperature
and food supply may affect a species' life history thus making
Sound-specific studies of important species essential.

For migratory species, it is important to design future
studies to determine what proportion of the species' population
actually enters the Sound and what levels of catch of that pop-
ulation are compatible with optimum sustainable yields as deter-
mined by coastwide fishery management plans. Important migratory
species that are taken when seasonally present in LIS are
bluefish, butterfish, fluke, mackerel, menhaden, scup, weakfish,
striped bass, and squid. Spawning populations of the anadromous
American shad and river herring are also important migratory
fishery resources in Connecticut.

For resident species, in addition to standard stock assess-
ments that evaluate population size, growth rates, and mortality
rates, early life history studies are needed that will determine
the recruitment process and factors that affect recruitment to
the population so that, through annual monitoring programs,
forecasts can be made about the relative success and eventual
abundance of each year class of a species. Ideally, such infor-
mation might help reduce the chances of stock declines caused by
recruitment overfishing. Important resident resource species for
which such studies are needed include blackfish, winter flounder,
white perch, lobster, blue crabs, oysters, hard clams, soft
clams, bay scallops, and conch.

There is a clear need for comprehensive and detailed surveys
of molluscan shellfish habitats and populations. Some of the
most productive natural oyster and clam beds in Connecticut are
unusable because they are located in polluted waters. The extent
of these beds and their potential productivity should be
determined. Through utilization of existing aquacultural methods
and technology (i.e. transplantation and relaying), many of these
resources could provide productive shellfishing opportunities for
Connecticut's citizens.

-188-

The type of fishery assessments which estimate stock size
and predict future stock potential are, without question, some of
the most necessary of all management-related research activities.
However, they are difficult to justify because, while they
attempt to provide information on what will happen in the future,
the funding to support them may have to be generated in a year
during which the condition of the stock may be quite good. often
the only funding available for such activities is of short dur-
ation and is, in fact, made available only because of a real or
perceived resource emergency. Such funding strategies effective-
ly eliminate the ability of the manager to monitor the condition
of resources in a consistent and continuous manner. While "after
the fact" funding may allow one to perform a "post-mortem" on a
fishery that has collapsed, the long-term information needed for
effective management will always be lacking without long-term
committments in funding.

3.2 Fishery Statistics

The lack of accurate, current fishery statistics documenting
the exploitation of marine resources has often been identified as
a major impediment to effective marine resource management. With
the implementation of the automated DEP Marine Fisheries Infor-
mation System in 1975, considerable progress was made in resolv-
ing this problem. However, improvements to the existing system
are necessary and important species presently omitted should be
incorporated within the statistics program.

The information system documents trip catches, the fishing
effort used to take those catches, and area, method, and port of
landing information for lobster pot and bottom trawl fisheries.
Similar information is obtained for the party and charter boat
fisheries. Information of value is also obtained for the shad
gill net, menhaden purse seine, and recreational lobster fisher-
ies, however, these data are not automated. Other fisheries of
importance for which annual catch statistics are available but
less than acceptable are those conducted with hook and line, gill
net, and eel pot. Fisheries for which virtually no harvest and
effort statistics are available are the oyster, hard clam, and
conch fisheries.

No information can be obtained through present annual
reporting systems on effective fishing effort, areas fishedi and
seasonality of catches. A high priority for improvement of the
marine fishery statistics effort is to obtain trip-specific catch
and effort data with which to document the performance of
important fisheries. Addressing these inadequacies represents one
of the more important needs in future system planning.

Information derived from a trip reporting system has some
inherent weaknesses in fisheries management. The principal one

_189-

relates to the mistrust some fishermen have of government motives
in managing resources, and the resultant misrepresentation of
fact which occurs in the reporting process. However, we believe
such a system provides a good opportunity for the collection of
diverse fragments of information as well as a more cost-effective
method than can be obtained through alternative means.

The relationship of catch to fishing effort is used as a
preliminary indicator of relative stock abundance. Such fishery-
specific reporting provides indispensible data on commercial
catches and fishing effort, however, it has inherent biases which
must be carefully scrutinized when using it to evaluate the
condition of resources. Because of these biases, one must also
periodically review "fishery-independant" data in order to
confirm the usefulness of the fishery-dependant data. Develop-
ment of this type of data base began in 1981 under the auspices
of the Marine Recreational Fisheries Study conducted by the
Marine Fisheries Program.

At the end of 1983, virtually all of the basic needs of the
Connecticut in-house statistics program had been met. The
statutory authority to collect fishing data and to protect its
confidential nature was in place. Computer equipment was
available to support the operation, and the programs necessary to
manage the data base were developed for lobster pot, trawl net,
and party/charter boat fisheries. Development of new programs to
handle other important fisheries not now automated or covered at
a trip-specific level of detail will be a continuing responsi-
bility which will be addressed on an as-needed basis.

The cooperative statistics program between the DEP and NMFS,
begun with the 1981 fishing year, marked the start of a new
statistics initiative between state and federal government in
Connecticut. The agreement has drawn on the available resources
of each party to achieve a common objective and satisfy common
responsibilities--the coordinated collection, processing, and
dissemination of coastal fishery statistics. This agreement has
been extended on an annual basis since 1982. A review of the
current statistics program, the relationship of the Connecticut
program to those of adjoining states and the NMFSr and the
opportunities and disadvantages posed by such programs is a
necessary requirement of future statistics planning activities.

The most serious need in the fisheries statistics effort is
to- generate a stable source of funding to maintain the Marine
Fisheries Information System. At the present time, the funds for
certain key staff and operations are made available from the
National Marine Fisheries Service via the cooperative agreement
for fisheries statistics. However, this is a tenuous source of
funding which must be applied for--and reapproved--each year.
This places the necessary continuity of program operations in
considerable jeopardy. Since maintaining a continuous time
series of information is one of the most important features in
statistics efforts, the inability to guarantee program operations
into the future is of serious concern.

_190-

4.0 Opportunities for Resource Use

4.1 Commercial Fishing

Although some potential may exist for expanding the level of
commercial fishing in LIS, further development of the offshore
fishing fleet and landing facilities to support that fleet is the
most realistic opportunity for expansion of Connecticut's
commercial fishing industry. At least two ports in eastern
Connecticut--Stonington and New London/Groton--are in an ideal
geographical location to serve as landing and support sites for a
fleet of offshore vessels fishing in southern New England waters.
one of the most important requirements of such an activity is
the development of an in-state processing and marketing capabil-
ity for resources landed in Connecticut. Efforts to revitalize
the industry, as described in Part One Section 6.5.1, "Industry
Support to Commercial Fishing", should be continued.

Fisheries which center on the use of underutilized or non-
traditional species may present the greatest potential for
expansion of the industry in Connecticut. The harvest strategy
proposed in the New London fisheries facility feasibility study
(Development Sciences 1979) appeared to have potential for an
offshore fleet based in Connecticut, although not necessarily in
New London. However, the risks involved in such ventures are con-
siderable and seem to be the factor limiting such developments.

By concentrating on the harvest of whiting and squid--two
relatively underutilized species--a Connecticut offshore fleet
and a port designed to support such a fleet would not be com-
peting with groundfish vessels at traditional, wel I-establ i shed
ports like New Bedford, MA. Development of in-port processing
facilities, and contracts for domestic and export marketing of
the landings are the most important factors in the success of
such a fleet (Development Sciences 1979).

Other considerations include a continuation of attempts to
provide an appropriate tax and business climate to the commercial
fishing industry similar to that provided in other states and to
the agricultural industry in Connecticut. Also, some provision
for exempting commercial vessels from competition with recre-
ational boaters and other harbor users for dock space * is
necessary and justifiable if Connecticut is to retain a food-
producing industry in coastal communities. Such diversification
in community development is considered highly desirable.

4.2 Seafood Marketing

Over 60% of the seafood consumed in the United States is
imported. If it is to flourish, the U.S. seafood industry must
obtain a larger share of the existing market, as well as develop
new markets. This means that the industry must collectively
increase exports and decrease dependence on imports to help

_191-

reduce this "balance of trade" deficit. Marketing, both domestic
and export, is the single most important factor within the
seafood industry that must be addressed if the industry is to
develop to its fullest potential (Mid-Atlantic Fisheries
Development Foundation, 1982).

A recurring problem with marketing seafood in Connecticut is
that the majority of local landings often have been transported
to out-of-state markets due to poor prices paid for the catch and
to unstable demand. Many Connecticut fish markets, especially
those in western Connecticut, still purchase most or all of their
stock from out-of-state major markets such as the Fulton fish
market in New York City. The problem created by this marketing
system is that seafood sold to Connecticut consumers is priced
higher than it could be if seafood landed in Connecticut were
sold in this state. Simply removing the cost of transportation
could significantly reduce cost to consumers. Reasons for buying
from large out-of-state dealers are that the local supply is
unsteady and the variety of species that the market wants to sell
are not available from Connecticut harvesters. It is easier to
buy from a major market--such as Fulton--from which any quantity
of almost any desired species is available.

This problem may also create an opportunity for Connecticut
harvesters, processors, and marketers to undertake a cooperative
venture to create an in-state marketing system whereby profits
will be greater to them, and prices of fresh seafood will be
lower for the consumer.

4.3 Recreational Fishing

other than the five coastal state parks, occasional town
parks and docks, and some privately owned commercial sites, there
are few recreational fishing sites on the Connecticut coast for
anglers who do not own private boats. The most popular boat
launches cannot handle peak demands for launching and mooring.
With national angling activity increasing on the order of 300,000
anglers per year (Deuel 1973), the problem of fishing access is
one that will surely increase in future years (Sampson 1981).

Sampson (1981) recommended that marine recreational angling
sites, particularly shore-based ones, should be procured and
developed by the State. However, before embarking on development
activities, sites should be evaluated for their potential as
productive fishing areas. Several means of improving saltwater
angling opportunities are summarized below.

1) Improve or construct boat launch areas

This might be accomplished by increasing parking space and
by installing loading docks in state launch areas to improve the
ease and speed of transferring boats to and from the water.
other developments might include dredging activities to improve

_192-

approach channels to existing launch areas. The construction of
new boat launch sites would entail many of the same development
activities as would improvement projects--with the added advan-
tage that entirely new areas would be available to the public.

2) Develop existing structures that have the most potential
for enhancing fishing opportunities

Fishing walkways on coastal bridges will improve angler
opportunities, however the legal and procedural difficulties in
accomplishing this task may be prohibitive. Such development
would be an inexpensive way of creating additional fishing sites.
For example, a 50 foot walkway leading to and encircling the
first abutment on the 1-95 bridge in Groton, CT would provide a
safe and productive fishing site for 40 to 50 anglers.

3) Construct fishing piers and barges

Large "pay to fish" piers are a costly but viable method of
improving fishing opportunities. Informal surveys indicate such
a project would be favorably received by the fishing public.
Other methods, such as construction of anchored, offshore fishing
barges have proven successful in other states. Development of
inshore fishing sites in bays and estuaries would provide areas
that would be utilized by anglers throughout the year. The
seasonal availability of winter flounder, tomcod, and snapper
bluefish would provide the stimulus for heavy use of these sites.

Potential exists for re-establishing recreational shellfish-
ing in Connecticut on a much larger scale than exists at the
present time. Towns can provide the support necessary, at minimal
cost, by combining commercial and recreational harvesting pro-
grams. Shellfish commissions must become more active, shellfish
surveys need to be conducted, and management plans are needed for
towns that are not presently taking advantage of their shellfish
resources.

Consistent with this philosophy, recent amendments to
Section 19-59 of the Connecticut General Statutes require that
towns prepare shellfish management plans subject to review by the
Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquaculture. Shellfish in
polluted waters can be utilized if transplanting programs are de-
veloped. Revenue-s earned from the sale of commercial and recre-
ational harvesting permits should be used to purchase and spread
oyster cultch to enhance the success of larval settlement and
recruitment to the population. However, cultch is expensive, and
large quantities are needed. To gain revenue necessary for
adequate cultch purchase, it has been recommended that the price
of a town-issued commercial seed oyster harvesting permit be
increased from the present $50 charged by Old Saybrook and
Madison to $100, and the fee per bushel harvested should be
increased from $0.25 to $0.50 per bushel. If towns cannot raise
sufficient funds to purchase the. necessary amounts of cultch, it
is felt that State assistance should be solicited for this
purpose (Visel,T. pers. comm. 1982).

-193-

5.0 Gear and User Group Conflicts

5.1 Introduction

The occurrence of gear and user group conflicts is perhaps
the most frustrating problem facing Connecticut's marine resource
managers in the 19801s. Such conflicts are occurring in in-
creasing frequency along the entire Northeast coast. Resolution
of the controversies in an equitable, responsible manner is be-
coming the resource management challenge of the decade.

Since one of the greatest motivating factors in resource
management is public input from concerned citizens, and since
organized recreational fishermen represent the largest, most
influential group of resource users, such decisions regarding
resource use traditionally have more greatly 'restricted the
availability of those resources to commercial fishermen. In these
instances, such restriction is perceived as protection of recre-
ational fishing opportunities. Ultimately however, such restric-
tion may also result in long-term decreases in the availability
of certain food fish resources to the non-fishing consumer,
increases in the retail cost of restricted resources to the
general public, and concomitant financial losses to commercial
fishermen. While some sympathy might be felt for the plight of
those fisherman, that is not the most pressing source of concern
regarding present methods of conflict resolution. In the event
that the present trend continues, the non-fishing consumer may
eventually be eliminated from use of certain food fish resources.
Reversal of this trend requires the immediate attention of both
informed resource managers and responsible resource users.

5.2 A Connecticut Case History

The history of the most recent conflict in Connecticut,
which began in the autumn of 1982, demonstrates the complexity of
the issues involved and the fact that an easy resolution which is
equitable to all users will be difficult to achieve. At that
time, a controversy arose between fishermen who began using trawl
nets to fish specifically for lobsters, and fishermen using more
traditional lobster pots. The conflict occurred in western LIS
where the predominantly unobstructed, flat mud bottom allowed
trawlers to fish in the same areas fished by pot lobstermen.

Not coincidentally, the conflict came at a time of great
lobster availability with indices of abundance almost twice those
of previous years. The lack of coincidence typifies the opportu-
nistic characteristics of the trawl fishery which, being mobile,
commonly shifts effort in order to capitalize on high species
abundances and to maximize earnings.

-194-

The two opposing viewpoints were that, in the view of Pot
lobstermen, lobsters and habitat would be irreparably damaged by
trawling, trawlers would deplete the abundance of the resource,
and large amounts of Pot fishing gear would be lost and damaged
due to trawling activity. On the other hand, trawl fishermen
felt that pot fishermen were preempting or "reserving" fishing
grounds with their fixed gear and were not allowing trawlers
equal access to a common resource that is owned by no one until
the species is caught.

A number of economic fears appeared to be underlying the
controversy. Some pot lobstermen were concerned that the market
price for lobster would suffer due to a "glut" of lobsters on the
market and that trawl-caught lobsters would demand a market price
equal to that of pot-caught lobsters even though the quality of
the lobsters might be lower due to potential damage or delayed
mortality caused by trawling. Also, although not always stated,
it was apparent that the perennial gear conflict between mobile
(trawl) gear and non-mobile or "fixed" (pot) gear fishermen was
motivating many of the fishermen on both sides of the issue.
Gear conflict, and the ensuing pot loss, resulted in legislation
in 1979 prohibiting night trawling west of Stratford Shoals.

At the same time that the commercial lobster controversy
developed, sportfishermen in Fairfield County became aroused by
the increase in number and size of trawl vessels fishing in west-
ern LIS. The specific concerns of the sportfishermen were that
the trawlers were taking too many fish (and specifically fishing
too close to shore with too large a size of vessel), and that
they were selling small, but legal-sized winter flounder as bait
at those times that they were unable to market them as foodfish.

To achieve a common purpose, that is, relief from trawlers,
the lobster pot fishermen and Fairfield County sportfishermen
appealed to the Department of Environmental Protection and to the
Connecticut General Assembly to resolve the controversy.

Given these facts and the unique combination of forces ac-
tively engaged in the controversy, the Connecticut General
Assembly took steps during the 1983 session to restrain the
directed trawl fishery for lobsters in western Long Island Sound
through July 1985. In doing so, the intent of Public Act 0 83-262
was to limit trawl vessels operating west of longitude 73 00' to
a daily catch of 100 lobsters until July 1, 1985.

In an additional action, the legislature called for inves-
tigations to be conducted by the DEP and the Sea Grant Marine
Advisory Service to- address specific concerns regarding the
effects of trawling on lobsters. A report of the findings is to
be presented to the Environment Committee of the General Assembly
in February 1985 at which time the results and any related
recommendations will be acted on in an attempt to resolve the
controversy.

_195-

At the same time that' the lobster trawling legislation was
enactedir the Department of Environmental Protection implemented
regulations raising the minimum legal length of winter flounder
for commercial fishermen, restricting the growth of the large
vessel trawl fleet operating in western Long Island Sound, and
prohibiting trawlers greater than 26 feet in length from fishing
inside the so-called "menhaden line" in the area of Long Island
Sound west of the Housatonic River. These actions were in
response to stimulation from sportfishermen in western Connect-
icut and do not bear directly on the lobster controversy.

Although many fishermen expressed concern for the viability
of the lobster resource given the additional fishing pressure
placed on it by the trawl fishery, much of the controversy
appeared to be a social conflict between the sportfishermen and
lobstermen west of West Haven, and the trawl fishermen from all
areas who fish at certain times of the year in western LIS.
Finally, the conflict was compounded by bitter personal rela-
tionships among fishermen which often made the proposal of
compromises appear useless.

Most recently in the fall of 1983, gear conflicts continued
between trawlers and pot lobstermen with the apparent reason
still the great abundance of the lobster resource. Pot fishermen
set a large amount of gear in the Sound to capitalize on this
abundance and trawl fishermen have directed their activities
toward lobster for the same reason. The passive vs dynamic
nature of the two gears makes such conflicts inevitable.

The statute limiting trawlers to a 100 lobster by-catch per
day west of 730001 longitude caused trawlers to concentrate their
directed fishing for lobsters east of that line, in waters off
New Haven. A considerable amount of pot fishing gear was re-
ported lost in this area and the pot fishermen blamed this loss
on the trawlers. In an effort to alleviate the conflict, the DEP
held informal meetings separately with trawl and pot fishermen
with the intent of developing certain areas in the waters off New
Haven where pot fishermen would agree not to set their gear in
order to leave specific areas clear for trawlers to tow their
nets. It was understood that a pot fisherman could set gear in
these specific trawling areas, but at his own risk of losing them
or having them damaged. Likewise, trawlers could tow in areas
other than those specified, but with the responsibility not to
damage or otherwise disrupt lobster pots.

Late in 1983, it appeared that the compromise was unsuccess-
ful. While one might have expected that no voluntary solution
would be entirely acceptable, the hope was that the gear conflict
could be resolved by mediation and compromise between the two
groups rather than by regulation. Remaining options for solution
include continued negotiations, regulation of mandatory gear sep-
aration areas, time of day restrictions, prohibition of lobster
trawling, and elimination of one or the other of the gear types
in use.

-196-

6.0 The Resource Management Community in Connecticut

Of all the issues raised so far, none is more complex than
management itself since it encompasses all elements of resource
related activities. Management is not limited simply to the
enactment of statutes and regulations to deal with resource prob-
lems. Various aspects of fisheries research, law enforcement,
education, public relations, and public health all must be
assimilated by managers to yield effective management of marine
resources. The product of this effort--exploitable surplus
stocks of marine species--should be managed to maintain equitable
opportunities for resource use among all who would use them.

Part Three of the Management Plan will address the major
problems, issues, and opportunities raised in Part Two by pre-
senting broad policies and objectives to guide our management
activities. However, two aspects of marine resource management in
Connecticut periodically generate concern in planning for coordi-
nated management of coastal resources and are appropriate for in-
clusion in a section titled "Problems, Issues and Opportunities."
These are: 1) the occasionally dissimilar philosophies of
different programs in managing and providing resources for the
public, and 2) the overlapping jurisdictions of those Departments
responsible for different aspects of marine resource management
in Connecticut.

The philosophical differences relate essentially to the pub-
lic health vs. public use concept of managing public resources.
The "health strategy" generally holds that the public is best
served by a conservative approach to use of resources which might
be contaminated (e.g. shellfish). The result of this philosophy
in Connecticut is that use of resources taken from certain waters
is prohibited or generally discouraged by what sometimes seem to
be arbitrarily-drawn shellfish closure lines. Alternatively, the
"use strategy" suggests that ways be found either to purify the
waters or purify the resources living in those waters so that the
public can put them to full use.

In the present example, Connecticut's shellfish resources
are managed in a relative imbalance which places unequal weight
on the protectionist strategy at the expense of the one which
fosters resource use. The problem is a difficult one to recon-
cile since no one argues the health risks associated with contam-
inated shellfish; in no way should the present argument be
construed as diminishing the serious nature of these risks.
However, neither can one justify the waste--either through
neglect or abuse--of valuable resources. The problem will be
solved only through an enlightened management process--one which
recognizes both the responsibility we share to protect the public
from health risks and the opportunity now occasionally being
ignored to increase use of our coastal resources.

-197-

Three areas of overlap presently exist in Connecticut's
resource management community. These involve the overlap in
jurisdiction between the Department of Agriculture's Aquaculture
Division and the Department of Health Services with respect to
public health and shellfish management, the overlap in management
responsibilities between individual town shellfish commissions
and the Aquaculture Division, and the "split" management of
marine resources caused by the Aquaculture Division's responsi-
bilities for shellfish and those of the Department of Environ-
mental Protection in managing finfish, lobsters and crabs.

It is believed that some additional coordination of activ-
ities between Aquaculture and Health Services would have a
positive impact on shellfish management and utilization in
Connecticut without sacrificing any necessary public health
considerations. Such activities include the licensing of seed
oyster harvesters and those who transplant (relay) shellfish.
If such licenses were administered by the Aquaculture Division,
it is believed that resource use would be more efficient and
health risks would be no greater than they are at present.

A level of coordination between town shellfish commissions
and the Aquaculture Division is necessary to ensure that access
to marine resources under town jurisdiction is not discouraged
either by the permitting process or by inconsistent policies
which inadvertently and selectively prohibit resource use by cit-
izens other than those of the town. While care should be taken
to encourage the role of town shellfish commissions in the man-
agement of town resources, coordination of management strategies
and their resultant regulatory impact must also be encouraged.

There are differences in the two agency resource management
programs (Marine Fisheries and Aquaculture) which suggest that
coordination of activities other than communication between the
two would not increase the efficiency of either of the programs.
These differences relate principally to program responsibilities
and legislative mandates. Nonetheless, observation of agency
organization in most other Atlantic coast states suggests that a
more commonly occurring management structure includes shell-
fishery programs within an overall resource management agency.

Given existing mandates, it is believed that the two pro-
grams are no less efficient than they would be under one agency.
Furthermore, they are probably just as responsive to the public
and no more costly than if both were organized under either of
the parent agencies. It is believed that the present strong
emphasis on inter-program communication and cooperation repre-
sents the best potential and most realistic option for coor-
dinated marine resource management in Connecticut. However, an
opportunity for review of this belief is now presented by
development of this Plan. It is believed that a continuing re-
sponsibility of managers in the Aquaculture, Health Services and
Marine Fisheries programs should be to review the activities of
each and to recommend options to improve those programs and the
quality of marine resource management in Connecticut.

-198-

7.0 Other Issues

7.1 Law Enforcement Needs

One of the most common complaints of fishermen is their
perception of a lack of marine conservation law enforcement on
Long Island Sound. Law enforcement on the Sound is difficult due
to the large area of jurisdiction, high visibility of officers on
the water, enormous numbers of resource users, and frequent bad
weather which precludes small boat operations.

The coastal zone is one of the two most densely populated
areas of Connecticut. Since population density is one of the key
factors influencing the magnitude of man's impacts on resources,
the enforcement needs in coastal areas are considerable.
Nonetheless, a staff of only seven conservation officers, two
boating enforcement officers, and one supervisor is responsible
for the enforcement of DEP conservation laws and regulations in
the area south of Interstate 95. In addition, the Connecticut
General Statutes authorize the empowering of shellfish police by
the Division of Aquaculture and shellfish constables by town
shellfish commissions at their discretion, however these officers
have only limited ability to deter serious violations of the law.

The development of specific shellfish enforcement capability
under jurisdiction of the Aquaculture Division is an important
need in view of the recent increase in harvesting and trans-
planting shellfish from polluted waters to clean waters. Strict
shellfish law enforcement will not only protect the health of
citizens consuming transplanted shellfish, but will also protect
the rights of the owners of leased grounds by preventing thefts
of transplanted shellfish. Close coordination in this activity
with the DEP Bureau of Law Enforcement is strongly encouraged.

Imaginative and innovative planning will be required in
future years in order to provide effective conservation law en-
forcement on the Sound and to protect the State's marine
resources for all of its citizens.

7.2 Information and Education

A problem facing Connecticut's marine resource managers in
their interactions with fishermen and other members of the public
is the public's occasional lack of knowledge about Connecticut's
marine resources and fisheries. This problem is made more
serious when inaccurate information is presented publicly as fact
by seemingly knowledgeable representatives of particular user
groups, and perceived as fact by the public.

It is hoped that the information presented in Part One of
the Plan will be used by the public to obtain background
knowledge of Connecticut's marine resources and fisheries.
However, the need for continual public dissemination of current
information on these subjects should not be ignored.

_199-

MARINE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN

FOR THE

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Part Three: Policies and Objectives

-200-

1.0 Introduction

Resource managers are often hesitant to prioritize their
goals. This is because resources, fisheries, and the concerns of
users are all dynamic rather than static in nature and the man-
agement of each requires a dynamic planning effort in order to be
effective. It is generally feared that the results of efforts to
set long-range goals will eventually constrain one's flexibility
in responding to changing conditions in the fisheries. On the
other hand, the identification of goals and priorities can serve
a useful function by continually re-emphasizing a program's
purpose and by keeping program efforts from being dissipated in a
series of irrelevant activities.

The following list of priorities of the Department of
Environmental Protection, Bureau of Fisheries, Marine Fisheries
Program will let the public know the direction of our thinking in
conducting our marine resource management activities. These prin-
ciples also guide the efforts of the Department of Agriculture,
Division of Aquaculture in their resource management efforts.

Priority Description

1 Protection of marine resources from
inappropriate use and unnecessary abuse.

2 Management of marine resources as a
food source for the public.

3 Enhancement of the recreational and
commercial fishing opportunities
provided by Long Island Sound marine
resources.

There are other issues of great significance to marine
resource managers in Connecticut. They include pollution, coastal
land use, dredging and dumping, and others. The principal
emphasis of the policy statements which follow will address
issues regarding the utilization of marine resources by those who
would harvest them for food or for recreation. This is because
the responsibility of the Marine Fisheries Program is relatively
narrow--to conserve marine resources and to provide equitable
opportunities for marine resource use to all who would use them.
Also, in one way or another, all of the other issues referred to
in the following statements are the responsibilities of other
Bureaus and Units within the Department of Environmental Pro-
tection or other divisions in other agencies. Our statements of
policy in these instances will address our concerns with the
impact of those activities on marine resources and our objectives
will identify what we think we can do in assisting the
responsible parties in the resolution of such problems.

-201-

2.0 Policy: Marine Resource Conservation

It is the policy of the State of Connecticut through the
Department of Environmental Protection, the Department's
Marine Fisheries Program, and the Aquaculture Division of
the Department of Agriculture to protect, conserve, and
enhance populations of marine and anadromous species which
reproduce and grow in, or migrate through, the waters of
Long Island Sound and its estuaries.

2.1 Objective: Fishing Effort

Control fishing methods or levels of exploitation that are
detrimental to the continued viability of populations of
marine species.

Fishing practices and levels of exploitation which: 1)
reduce the abundance of a species below a level necessary to
maintain its population at an exploitable and productive level,
or 2) destroy or significantly disturb necessary reproductive and
nursery habitat so as to adversely impact the reproductive
potential of a species, will be controlled through the implement-
ation of appropriate regulations, or by other necessary means.

Where necessary to provide such protective measures, every
attempt will be made to distribute the burden of management
equally among all users of the resource.

The introduction of non-traditional, highly efficient com-
mercial fishing gear in fisheries for naturally-occurring species
should be discouraged when there is evidence or a reasonable
expectation on the part of managers that the fishing of such gear
may result in the exploitation of a resource by the new user at
such levels that the users of traditional gear become displaced
from the existing fishery. It is intended that some level of
balance in the distribution of fishing opportunities be main-
tained--understanding that some level of redistribution in these
opportunities inevitably occurs when new gear technology and new
fisheries develop. It is not intended that innovation be stifled
but rather that no one user or user group monopolize the harvest
of a naturally-occurring resource. It is intended that this ob-
jective apply to common property, natural ly-sus ta ining resources
in the public domain.

This objective implies that the unregulated introduction to
the Sound of large and highly-efficient fishing vessels or enor-
mous numbers of users may contribute to overfishing of its re-
sources. If an uncontrolled number of large vessels or users
were allowed to take unlimited large catches, it is believed that
levels of exploitation could be significantly increased to the
point where the resources were being seriously overfished. Such
levels or types of exploitation are to be discouraged.

-202-

For example, in 1983 the Department of Environmental
Protection implemented a regulation that limited the use of trawl
vessels fishing in Connecticut waters west of longitude 730001
(West Haven) to 44 feet in length subject to certain exceptions
identified in the regulation. This measure applies only to
vessels in the Connecticut waters of western Long Island Sound.

Activities which alter or degrade habitat critical for
shellfish reproduction and development will be discouraged. Such
activities include degradation of the benthic substrate and
contamination of marine and estuarine waters.

2.2 Objective: Interjurisdictional Fisheries Management

Actively participate in regional and interstate fishery
management planning conducted by the New England and Mid-
Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission, and both the National Marine
Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Liaison with the regional fishery management councils,
especially the New England Fishery Management Council, should be
maintained to ensure an exchange of information that is useful in
the management of fisheries which occur in Long Island Sound and
the Fishery Conservation Zone (FCZ). This zone generally consists
of waters extending from a line 3 miles from the baseline of the
territorial seas to 200 miles from shore, although Long Island
Sound consists entirely of the internal state waters of Connecti-
cut and New York.

Species important to the fishermen of other coastal states
migrate through the Sound on a seasonal basis and are subjected
to fisheries by residents of Connecticut and New York. Sim-
ilarly, many species important to Connecticut residents are
exploited by fishermen of other states in waters outside of Long
Island Sound. As a result, Connecticut must continue to take an
active role in the development and review process for interjuris-
dictional fishery management plans (FMPs) developed by regional
Fisheries Management Councils. Perhaps more importantly, Connect-
icut must participate fully in plan developments under the
auspices of the Interstate Fisheries Management Program of the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Part One Section
2.4). This program serves as the catalyst for interstate, coop-
erative management plan development for stocks of marine species
occurring in the internal waters and territorial seas of the
coastal states. Continued involvement in the program is essen-
tial to ensure effective interstate management of marine re-
sources important to Connecticut.

-203-

2.3 objective: Interstate Fisheries Management in Long Island
Sound.

Develop Long Island Sound-specific fishery management plans
in cooperation with the State of New York for fisheries
existing in Long Island Sound.

The management of Long Island Sound fisheries must be
performed and enforced in a uniform manner in the waters of both
Connecticut and New York. While the Fishery Conservation Zone
consists of waters between the so-called "3-mile and 200-mile
limits", Long Island Sound consists entirely of the internal
state waters of Connecticut and New York, and each state uni-
laterally manages the fisheries conducted within its respective
jurisdiction. The political boundary between the two states in
the middle of the Sound is not recognized by populations of
marine species and neither do commercial and recreational fish-
ermen limit their fishing activities to their own state waters.
Therefore, constant communication and cooperation between the
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and the New
York Department of Environmental Conservation is essential for
proper and uniform management of the resources of the Sound.

Cooperative management of Long Island Sound fishery re-
sources can be enhanced by the development of interstate fishery
management plans for resident and migratory species, or groups of
species. Such plans should complement existing federal fishery
management plans for fishery resources in the FCZ. However,
particular management problems and situations that are unique to
Long Island Sound and which may not be covered appropriately by
strategies set forth in federal plans should be addressed
specifically for Long Island Sound in bi-state fishery management
plans regardless of how they are treated in federal plans.

The highest priority should be given to the development of
management plans for fishery species which spawn, grow, and are
subject to exploitation in Long Island Sound and its estuaries,
i.e., lobster, winter flounder, blackfish, white perch, blue
crabs, conch, oysters, hard clams, soft clams, and bay scallops.
Management plans for molluscan shellfish species in Connecticut
waters should be developed by the Aquaculture Division. However,
any management strategies having potential impact on species or
fisheries under town jurisdiction should be developed only in
close coordination with pertinent town shellfish commissions.

The next priority should be given to the development of
plans for migratory species entering the Sound, i.e., bluefish,
butterfish, fluke, mackerel, menhaden, scup, weakfish, striped
bass, squid, and the anadromous Atlantic salmon, American shad
and river herrings. Although the determination of optimum yields
for marine species in the Sound may require extensive monitoring
and research, management actions involving fishing gear and area
restrictions--as well as potential allocation problems among user
groups--may be necessary before such information is available,
giving the development of such plans high priority.

-204-

2.4 objective: Fisheries Management in the Absence of
Interstate Fisheries Management Plans.

Coordinate in-state and offshore fishery management activ-
ities in those instances where interstate fishery management
plans have not been developed and where federal Fishery
Management Plans have been developed.

In the absence of Long Island Sound-specific fishery manage-
ment plans, consider the implementation of regulations comple-
mentary to those included in plans implemented for fisheries
conducted in the FCZ.

As the DEP has done in the past when a federal FMP is devel-
oped or amended, the current Connecticut regulations or statutes
applying to the particular species that is the subject of the
plan will be reviewed for conformity to that plan and recommenda-
tions for appropriate changes will be suggested.

2.5 Objective: Shellfish Management

Encourage the development of shellfish management plans
which promote the conservation and wise use of shellfish
resources in waters under the jurisdiction of coastal towns.

Several species of molluscan shellfish contribute to Con-
necticut's coastal resource. The most important include oysters,
hard clams, soft clams, and bay scallops.

The successful development and implementation of shellfish
management plans in several Connecticut towns suggests the poten-
tial that exists for the rehabilitation of shellfish populations
that had previously been left unused in polluted waters.
However, continued management efforts are necessary to protect
and conserve habitat important for shellfish development and to
control the excessive harvest of the resource.

Town shellfish management plans should be developed to
ensure that these valuable resources are used wisely and are
protected from the adverse impacts of coastal development. As
plans are prepared, they should be subject to approval by the
Aquaculture Division, so that town shellfish management policies
and conservation measures will be relatively uniform throughout
the state.

-205-

2.6 Objective: Interstate Anadromous Fisheries Development

Actively participate in the Connecticut River Anadromous
Fish Restoration Program and the Connecticut River Atlantic
Salmon Commission.

The Department of Environmental Protection is an active par-
ticipant in the Connecticut River Anadromous Fish Restoration
Program (Part One Section 2.4). Continued participation in this
program and on the Atlantic Salmon Commission is essential for
managing interstate issues involving cooperative Atlantic salmon
restoration, and commercial and recreational fisheries for
American shad. The Director of the DEP Fisheries Bureau serves
as a representative to the Commission and the Bureau's
Anadromous Fisheries Biologist serves on a Technical Committee
which acts in an advisory capacity to the Commission.

2.7 Objective: Enhancement of Marine Resources

2.7.1 Mariculture

Assist in the enhancement of populations of bivalve
shellfish in areas where populations are established,
and reestablish populations through seeding projects
in areas where there is evidence that populations were
once abundant.

Oysters, hard and soft clams, mussels, and bay scallops are
species for which certain artificial propagation and management
activities will result in the most cost-effective increase in the
size of marine resource populations available for harvest by the
public. The value of such species can be greatly enhanced
through cultivation, spreading of cultch, and predator control.

Shellfish populations on seed beds in polluted waters should
be enhanced by returning cultch for larval settlement, and by
implementing predator control programs under the direction of
town shellfish commissions and the Aquaculture Division of the
Department of Agriculture.

@ Natural oyster beds along the western Connecticut shore
should be the subject of continued enhancement efforts by the
Aquaculture Division, seed oyster harvesters, and private shell-
fish companies. Town shellfish commissions should also consider
this a primary objective of shellfish management plans for the
shellfish populations under their jurisdictions.

-206-

2.7.2 Reef Construction

Investigate the feasibility of creating artificial
reefs or other habitats in appropriate areas, and the
potential for increasing the abundance of marine fish-
ery resources in such areas.

The construction of artificial habitat has the potential to
increase commercial and recreational fishing opportunities, thus
helping to achieve other objectives of the Management Plan. How-
ever, such construction activities would have to be carefully
studied to determine environmental impacts and options for the
most feasible methods, materials, and areas for construction.

This type of habitat enhancement activity should be avoided
if it disrupts either existing fishing practices or navigation,
and it should not adversely impact either existing fish and
shellfish populations or the Long Island Sound ecosystem.

2.8 Objective: Marine Conservation Law Enforcement

Encourage an increase in marine and estuarine fisheries law
enforcement coverage.

Because fisheries resource conservation laws are relatively
useless without effective enforcement, it is desirable to
increase the level of enforcement coverage currently performed by
staff of the DEP marine law enforcement program and the various
shellfish programs.

Options for increasing fisheries law enforcement coverage in
Long Island Sound and its estuaries include: 1) re-evaluating and
more efficiently distributing the present efforts of existing DEP
conservation officers, 2) obtaining approval to acquire addition-
al DEP marine conservation officers, and 3) developing a state
shellfish warden service under the jurisdiction of the Aqua-
culture Division.

In the development of future fishery management regulations
and plans, close communication with the DEP Bureau of Law
Enforcement should be achieved to ensure that new laws can be
adequately enforced and to utilize the practical experience of
conservation officers in gaining information with which to
formulate new management policies.

-207-

3.0 Policy: Pollution and Degradation of Long Island Sound

It is the policy of the Department of Environmental Protec-
tion Marine Fisheries Program to assist all appropriate
Units and Bureaus of the Department in efforts to prevent
further pollution and degradation of Long Island Sound, and
to reduce present pollution,, so that populations of marine
resource species can exist at the highest level of natural
abundance and be fully utilized by Connecticut's citizens.

3.1 Objective: Review of Regulated Activities

Review all applications for permits to conduct regulated
activities. Upon review of any activity determined to
result in an adverse impact upon marine or estuarine fishery
resourcest prey species, or habitat--or any other adverse
impact upon the env ironment--recommend denial of the permit
and provide justification for this recommendation to the
appropriate Agency.

Permits are required for the performance of any regulated
activity in wetlands (Sec. 22a-32 of the Connecticut General
Statutes) such as "draining, dredging, excavation, or removal of
soil, mud, sand, gravel, aggregate of any kind or rubbish from
any wetland or the dumping, filling or depositing thereon of any
soil, stones, sand, gravel, mud, aggregate of any kind, rubbish
or similar material, either directly or otherwise, and the
erection of structures, driving of pilings, or placing of
obstructions, whether or not changing the tidal ebb and flow."
(Sec. 22a-29). Because wetlands are an important source of
nutrients for primary production and because they provide nursery
habitat for many marine and estuarine species, it is important
that marine program staff be aware of any proposed activities
that may adversely impact wetlands and assist appropriate DEP
Units in the permit review process.

Also of concern to the Marine Fisheries Program is any new
application to discharge water, substance, or materials into the
marine and estuarine waters of the state (Sec. 22a-430), permits
for erection of structures or placement of fill in the marine and
estuarine waters of the state (Sec. 22a-361), permits to divert
waters of the state (Sec. 22a-368), especially tidal streams and
estuaries and freshwater streams currently used or which may have
potential use in the future for the restoration of Atlantic
salmon, and permits for the removal of sand and gravel from lands
under tidal and coastal waters (CGS Sec. 22a-384).

-208-

3.2 Objective: Review of Regulations

Review and comment on any federal or state regulations
having direct or indirect impact on marine resources.

As new regulations dealing with pollution of the marine and
estuarine waters of the state are introduced by other DEP Units
and Bureaus or other Departments of state or federal governmentr
review and comment on these regulations in accordance with the
above policy.

3.3 Objective: Support of Field Operations

Provide logistic support to other Divisions, Bureaus., and
Units of the Departments of Environmental Protection and
Agriculture, and to other state or federal agencies, which
may be involved in pollution abatement and environmental
monitoring activities.

Both the Marine Fisheries Program and the Aquaculture
Division operate boats and vessels from 161 to 501 in length.
Within the constraints of existing program activities, and
subject to the temporary reassignment of priorities in the event
of a resource emergency, both programs are capable of, and
willing to provide logistic support for Long Island Sound
sampling efforts related to environmental management.

-209-

4.0 Policy: Information for Management of Marine Resources

It is the policy of the State of Connecticut through the
Department of Environmental Protection Marine Fisheries
Program to improve the accuracy, precision and usefulness of
fishery statistics and to develop the body of knowledge
regarding Connecticut's living marine resources and their
habitat to levels that are most useful for making informed
management decisions.

4.1 Objective: Long Island Sound Commercial Fishery Statistics

Obtain information on catch, effort, area fished, and port
of landing from all commercial fisheries at a level of
detail that will allow DEP fisheries scientists to estimate
the relative condition of stocks of fishery resource species
and to monitor the performance of Connecticut's commercial
fisheries.

Long Island Sound has great potential to provide food,
recreation, and a source of income to Connecticut citizens and
others who would use its resources. On the other hand, ex-
ploitation of marine species by commercial and recreational fish-
ermen can be one of the most important factors influencing the
abundance and availability of those resources. Careful moni-
toring of any use which may impair the ability of the Sound to
sustain its productivity must be continued and, where necessary,
improved. As a result, maintaining a marine fisheries statistics
data base has become one of the most important of the management
activities facing the Marine Fisheries Program.

The Department manages a computerized Marine Fisheries
Information System for lobster pot and trawl net fisheries in LIS
and nearshore waters. Activity reports in which fishermen record
catch, effort, area fished, and port of landing for each fishing
trip are submitted on a monthly basis. Unfortunately, similar
information is necessary for other fishing activities but it is
only available in hand tallied form. Automating these other
reports is necessary so that the processing and dissemination of
fisheries information will be more rapid.

one option for achieving this objective is to develop a
multi-fishery report form in which fishermen can record
information for each fishing trip using specific codes for gear
and units of fishing effort, in addition to species caught, area
of catch, and port of landing. In this way, the development of
new programs to process the new information would be minimized
and the existing system would remain relatively standardized.

-210-

One reason for collecting information in trip intervals is
to be able to monitor the seasonally changing performance and
characteristics of Connecticut's commercial fisheries by identi-
fying "within-month" area and gear-specific alterations in each
fishery. Another reason is to identify the specific level of
effort associated with a catch without biasing the data base
through aggregations of catch and effort over time. The speci-
ficity of trip data is useful in determining relatively unbiased
indices Of stock abundance based on catch/effort information.

Shellfish are produced in Connecticut through both natural
harvest, and cultivation (transplantation and relaying). Com-
mercial shellfish companies are not required by law to report
their production to any resource management agencyl however,
since 1981, Connecticut's large shellfish companies have been
extremely cooperative in voluntarily providing shellfish landings
information to DEP Marine Fisheries. This cooperative atmosphere
between the shellfish industry and state resource management
agencies should be encouraged in the future.

However, in the event that an existing operator chooses not
to provide landings information--for whatever reason--the state-
wide body of information becomes incomplete. Also, future indiv-
iduals that enter the business of producing shellfish for direct
marketing may not agree to voluntarily report their landings as
have the existing operators. Therefore, the development and
institution of a mandatory reporting system for shellfish har-
vesters operating on privately leased grounds should at least be
given some consideration. In the event such a system is contem-
plated, the Aquaculture Division should be the agency coor-
dinating such a system.

It is believed that the Aquaculture Division should also
consider implementing a trip reporting system for the conch pot
fishery to obtain information on a level comparable to that
presently obtained by DEP for the lobster pot fishery.

4.2 Objective: Offshore Commercial Fisheries Statistics

Investigate methods by which the landings of vessels that do
not fish in Connecticut waters but land their catch at
Connecticut ports can be accurately quantified.

A number of vessels, particularly trawlers that fish mainly
offshore in the FCZ and whose home port is in other states,
intermittently land relatively large amounts of fish and shell-
fish at Connecticut ports, particularly Stonington. The frequency
of this activity depends on a number of factors including market
conditions and distance from fishing grounds. Historicallyr the
captains of most of these vessels have not been licensed by
Connecticut andt therefore, no record of such landings has been
developed.

-211-

According to Sec. 26-142a of the General Statutes as amended
effective January 1, 1984, "No vessel shall land any finfishl,
lobsters, squid or bait species for sale, barter, exchange, con-
signment or transportation to any point of sale unless an
operator of the vessel is licensed for such purpose, except that
holders of a commercial fishing license to fish by the method
used to take such fish shall not be required to obtain a landing
license." As a requirement of possessing a landing license,
fishermen will be required to provide information on landings to
the Department.

It is essential that offshore*landings be recorded accurate-
ly. These data are published in "Fisheries Statistics of the
United States" and ar 'e widely used in activities ranging from
resource management to fisheries development. In essence, such
statistics become the source of facts regarding the importance of
the fishing industry to the State of Connecticut. Without accu-
rate statistics, this importance is unknown and is subsequently
ignored by those persons able to assist in fishery developments.

Options by which the objective may be achieved include the
following: 1) Require holders of the Connecticut landing license
that land their catch in Connecticut to report their landings of
each species and where they were caught to the DEP Marine
Fisheries OfficeT 2) Assign a fishery reporting agent to obtain
landings information on a daily basis; 3) Enter into a cooper-
ative agreement with the fish dealers at the port of Stonington
to provide the required information7 4) Require wholesalers of
marine species landed in Connecticut to report information on
landi:ngs.

4.3 Objective: Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics

Obtain recreational fishery statistics suitable for the
informational needs and management activities of the Marine
Fisheries Program.

The Marine Fisheries Program presently conducts a Marine
Angler Survey of Connecticut saltwater anglers to collect infor-
mation on catch, effort, and levels of participation in the
state's marine recreational fisheries. Program staff did not par-
ticipate in the national marine recreational fisheries statistics
survey conducted by NMFS during 1982-83 because the national
contractor could not provide adequate funding for in-state
sampling efforts and because of long delays experienced in re-
ceiving past years' program results. However, such partic-
ipation is considered highly desirable if the obstacles to such
involvement can be overcome. As an alternative to future partic-
ipation on the national survey, the Marine Fisheries Program will
continue to explore independent methods to collect and utilize
the most important elements of recreational fisheries statistics
for fisheries management purposes.

-212-

4.4 Objective: Cooperative Fisheries Statistics Programs

Improve the level of coordinated data transfer and
information processing between the existing National Marine
Fisheries Service and DEP data processing systems. Improve
the integration of information on commercial shellfish
landings within the cooperative program.

The DEP/NMFS cooperative fishery statistics program provides
useful information in several ways. Connecticut commercial land-
ings and detailed information on fishery employment, boats, and
gear are now provided to NMFS at a more accurate and compre-
hensive level than ever before. Such information is published in
"Fishery Statistics of the United States" and "Fisheries of the
United States"j, and serves as the historical record of landings
and employment for the Connecticut fishing industry.

The reliability of historical Connecticut fisheries landings
data is questionable because a full-time NMFS fishery reporting
agent has never been assigned to Connecticut. Prior to 1974,
NMFS derived annual Connecticut landings information from annual
catch reports made to the Department by licensed commercial fish-
ermen. From 1975 through 1981, the DEP continued to provide sum-
marized annual landings information on finfish, squid, and
lobster to NMFS using information derived from the newly-
implemented Marine Fisheries Information System.

Beginning in 1982, under the auspices of the cooperative
statistics agreement, DEP marine fisheries biologists became
responsible for the collection of all commercial fisheries
information, including that for shellfish. It is believed that
this procedure--administered by persons most familiar with the
state's fisheries--will result in more reliable Connecticut
fishery statistics and a more accurate historical record.

4.5 Objective: Fishery-Independent Monitoring Programs

Conduct resource monitoring programs independent from the
biases associated with commercial and recreational fisheries
for the most important and most heavily exploited of the
marine and estuarine species inhabiting the Sound.

Many of the results of a fisheries statistics program are
inherently biased either because of the selectivity of the gear
used or because of a reluctance of the resource user to provide
accurate information. In addition, some elements such as spe-
cific weights and lengths of species in the catch and ambient
physical and chemical properties of the Sound at the time of
sampling simply cannot be effectively obtained through a sta-
tistics program. It is these elements which must be derived
through fisheries-independent sampling efforts.

-213-

The Marine Fisheries Program began such an effort in 1981 in
sampling the scup (Stenotomus chrySOP8) population in Long Island
Sound by trawl net at eight different stations. In 1984, this
study was expanded to cover 40 trawl stations randomly selected
and stratified by water depth and bottom type. Principal species
of importance for which detailed information will be obtained
include winter flounder, scup, fluke, and blackfish. Limited
data on species of lesser importance will also be recorded. In
addition, variable mesh gill nets will be used in the mouths of
major estuaries to sample the bluefish and weakfish stocks
seasonally inhabiting the Sound.

4.6 Objective: Fisheries Research

Conduct research on the biology and population dynamics of
resident and migratory marine and estuarine species, and on
the general ecology of Long Island Sound.

Research on populations of commercially and recreationally
important marine resources as well as lower-level food chain
species should include assessments of: adult population size;
age, size, and sex composition; growth and mortality rates;
reproductive information such as fecundity, age and size at
maturity, spawning areas and seasons; early life history
information such as abundance and distribution of larvae and
juveniles; larval and juvenile growth and mortality rates-, and
the ecology of early life history stages relative to the
recruitment process.

Research aimed at understanding the recruitment process for
resident species should ultimately be used to develop an ability
to predict the size of the adult population in subsequent years.

Research should provide information useful for developing
Long Island Sound-specific fishery management plans for resident
and migratory species. Useful information would include: the
most biologically sound areas and times when fishing may occur/
and the most appropriate gear to use for harvesting. Research on
certain fishing gear and the effect of such gear on fish and
shellfish populations, i.e., gear selectivity studies, and
investigations of damaging effects of gear on species and
habitats, would also provide useful information applicable to the
development of fishery management plans.

Research should be directed not only toward population
assessments of marine and estuarine species, but also toward
improving knowledge of the ecology of species inhabiting Long
Island Sound.

Research should be performed to determine whether certain
species contain levels of toxic substances that may be
detrimental to the health of humans consuming those species.

-214-

While this effort is beyond the present scope of Marine Fisheries
Program research activities, program staff might play a role in
collecting species to be sampledt in orienting the knowledge of
health services officials toward the most appropriate sample
species, and. in informing those officials and the general public
of the distribution and availability of species of interest in
such investigations.

Of particular interest to Connecticut's shellfish fisheries
is research directed toward revitalizing historically productive
oyster setting areas that are no longer productive, and research
aimed at developing more accurate water quality standards for
shellfish harvesting.

Research that provides information directly applicable to
the management of marine resources will be given the highest
priority in program planning. Comprehensive resource surveys and
monitoring programs such as the one described in the previous
section (Part Three, Section 4.5) effectively provide such
information and are most appropriately conducted by the DEP
Marine Fisheries Program for finfish and crustaceans, and by the
Aquaculture Division for molluscan shellfish.

-215-

5.0 Policy: Information and Education

It is the policy of the Department of Environmental Protec-
tion Marine Fisheries Program to improve the dissemination
of information about Connecticut's marine resources for the
education and benefit of Connecticut's marine resource
users.

5.1 Objective: Public Participation in the Management Process

Promote public participation in the management process by
soliciting information through well-publicized public
informational meetings.

It is intended that the Marine Fisheries Program hold a
series of annual coastwide meetings to inform the public of the
activities of the Program during the year. Presentations may
include results of research projects, annual commercial and
recreational fishery statistics, and general information of
interest to Connecticut's marine resource users.

5.2 Objective: Public Information from Fisheries Investigations

Increase the availability of information derived from
research and management projects.

A considerable amount of information resulting from Marine
Fisheries Program investigations is available but often it is in
a form unsuitable for public dissemination. Efforts will be made
to make such information more available in the form of
newsletters, short reports, and newspaper and magazine articles.

5.3 Objective: Public Information from Fisheries Statistics

Promote public awareness of the availability of information
derived from the Marine Fisheries Information System and
encourage public use of such information to increase the
general knowledge of Connecticut's marine resources and
fisheries.

Although reports submitted by individual fishermen are
strictly confidential, summary fishery statistics are publicly
available in anonymous, aggregated form and provide much useful
information. It is hoped that such information will become a
source of inquiry for researchers, managers, academic institu-
tions, and the public in their attempts to better understand the
dynamics of commercial and recreational fishing in Connecticut.

-216-

6.0 Policy: Opportunities for Fishery Resource Use

It is the policy of the State of Connecticut through the
Department of Environmental Protection Marine Fisheries
Program to promote and improve opportunities for the growth
and further development of Connecticut's recreational and
commercial fishing industries in balance with each othert
with other marine-related industries and marine resource
users, and with full recognition of the conservation ethic
established in Policy 2.0 wMarine Resource Conservation.0

6.1 Objectives Related to Recreational Fishing

6.1.1 Objective: Shore-based Fishing

Improve public access to shore-based saltwater angling
sites.

Options by which this objective may be achieved include: 1)
improvement of existing structures with good potential as fishing
sites-, 2) construction of fishing piers; 3) construction and
operation of fishing barges anchored in productive offshore
fishing areas-, 4) construction of fishing walkways on coastal
bridges; and 5) development of inshore fishing sites along the
shores of bays and estuaries.

Construction of walkways on existing jetties and break-
waters--the Ash Creek jetty in Bridgeport, the Gulf Beach jetty
in Milford, and the Rocky Neck groin in East Lyme, to name
three--would provide productive fishing for many anglers in many
areas of the state. A 50-foot walkway leading to and encircling
the first abutment on the 1-95 bridge over the Thames River in
Groton would similarly provide good fishing. Such developments
could also be considered on other bridges. Fishing barges are
expensive but have been proven to be effective as offshore
fishing platforms in other states. Fishermen might be transported
to and from such barges in Long Island Sound via a shuttle ferry
service.

6.1.2 Objective: Boat-based Fishing

Improve public access to offshore boat-based fishing
sites.

Options for achieving this objective include: 1) construct
more boat launch areas, 2) increase parking at existing launch
sitest 3) install docks in state launch areas to improve the ease
and speed of launching and transferring equipment to and from the
boats, and 4) improve approach channels to boat launch areas.

-217-

6.1.3 objective: Land Acquisition and Land Use

Encourage state acquisition of coastal land for use as
public access sites. Encourage the elimination of
unreasonable restrictions on public access to bridges,
piers, and beaches for recreational fishing.

The uses of Long Island Sound as fishing and recreation
areas are continually increasing. However, due to the limited
availability of public access areas, such activities are expected
to be restricted in future years. Many suitable structures
presently exist or can be reconditioned to provide valuable fish-
ing opportunities.

Acquisition of fishing access sites--complete with good
lighting, parking, and rest facilities--represents the best type
of support that can be provided to Connecticut's recreational
f ishing public. Given the competing uses for coastal property
and the greater profitability of residential and commercial
developments, it is doubtful that development of private access
areas is a likely possibility to improve fishing opportunities.
The best possibility remains state government acquisition or
redevelopment of existing, government-owned property. The purpose
of this objective is to direct the thinking of all appropriate
parties toward the use of existing structures and areas as well
as the acquisition of new areas for public use of marine
resources.

6.1.4 Objective: Saltwater Fishing Guidebook

Develop a saltwater recreational fishing guidebook for
Connecticut waters.

The compilation and distribution of a guidebook which
includes details on the species available, methods for catching
them, fishing areas, and preparation of both traditional and
underutilized species would serve to educate novice fishermen and
provide additional information of value to even the most exper-
ienced fishermen, thereby improving opportunities for recreation-
al fishing in Connecticut.

_218-

6.1.5 Objective: Saltwater Fishing License

Investigate the advantages of instituting a salt water
recreational angling license similar to, and consistent
with, the provisions of federal legislation initially
introduced to the U.S. Congress in 1983.

According to the 1979 Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics
Survey, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, more than 300,000 recreational
anglers fish in Connecticut marine waters (NMFS 1980). By
comparing data collected in the 1979 survey with commercial catch
statistics, it is known that recreational anglers are the major
users of most finfish species in Long Island Sound. Because only
one year's data is available at this time, it is unknown how the
magnitude of the 1979 recreational catches compare with previous
or subsequent years. A continuous data base of information on
naturally occurring fishery resources and their users that
accurately documents the true level of exploitation--by both
recreational and commercial fisheries--is essential for intelli-
gent management of our resources.

The need for and advantages of implementing a marine
recreational licensing system in all coastal states is clearly
illustrated by remarks made by Congressman Harold S. Sawyer
(Michigan) upon introducing the Uniform Marine Recreational
Fishing Licensing Act of 1983:

"It is apparent that we are entering a new era, when
hard political decisions are being made concerning who
will harvest coastal species, in what numbers, and by what
means. The business of allocating and conserving fish
stocks requires sound data on catch and participation as
well as on the conditions of fish stocks and supporting
habitat. In addition, socio-economic data on all sectors
of the economy affected by resource allocation decisions
must be obtained. Recreational anglers must be willing to
accept a fair share of the responsibility for funding the
research, development, and data acquisition programs
necessary to protect the resource. To do nothing will
result in the decline of our coastal recreational fisher-
ies . ............ It is time that all marine recreational
fishermen assume their fair share of the costs of
research, management, and development. The introduced
legislation will require the coastal states to adopt a
marine angling license featuring: 1) reciprocity between
states governing fishing in their contiguous waters, 2)
dedication of revenues exclusively to recreational
fishery-related expenditures ....... a) to provide for
development of a wide range of useful marine recreational
fishing facilities, b) to permit socio-economic, biolog-
ical, ecological, and environmental research and data
collection urgently needed for effective management of the
recreational fisheries, and c) to provide for minimum
related administration and enforcement activities."

-219-

It is believed that the licensing of marine recreational
anglers along the lines suggested by Congressman Sawyer is an
inevitable and essential component of future marine resource
programs both for the conservation and management of the nation's
natural resources and for development of the opportunities
desired and deserved by the nation's recreational fishermen.
Without such funding -- dedicated to such uses -- both the
management of increasingly exploited resources and the develop-
ment of productive fishing opportunities will suffer.

-220-

6.2 Objectives Related to Commercial Fishing

6.2.1 Objective: The Connecticut Offshore Fishing Industry

Promote further development of the Connecticut offshore
fishing fleet and shoreside support facilities through
comment on fisheries development proposals, and aid in
the procurement of financial assistance for appropriate
projects proposed by municipalities and individuals to
develop fisheries facilities to serve the fleet.

Although some potential may exist for expanding the level of
commercial fishing in Long Island Sound, further development of
the fleet fishing in the offshore waters of the FCZr and landing
facilities to support that fleet, is the most realistic oppor-
tunity for expansion of Connecticut's commercial fishing indus-
try. Efforts to expand or develop facilities in Stonington, New
London, and New Haven, as described in Part One, Section 6.5.11
"Industry Support to Commercial Fishing", should be encouraged.

6.2.2 Objective: Commercial Fisheries Support Services

Encourage the development of efficient commercial fishing
facilities in appropriate Connecticut harbors to accomo-
date inshore Long Island Sound fishermen by providing
docking, storage space for equipment, ice-making capabil-
ities, and fuel.

The inshore fishing operation in Connecticut performs a
useful function in providing high quality, fresh seafood to the
non-fishing consumer. Although not all of this seafood is
directly marketed in Connecticut at this time, the development of
an in-state marketing system is considered desirable (Policy
6.2.3), and inshore fishermen would play a key role in providing
fresh seafood for Connecticut's citizens through such a system.

Problems in the so-called "infrastructure" supporting
Connecticut fisheries have been identified as a principal reason
for the decline of commercial fishing as an industry in the
state. The intent of this objective is to stimulate the re-
development of existing sites and the development of new sites in
support of these ventures.

For most Long Island Sound fishermen, the profits earned
through fishing are not great enough to retain their dock space
in recreational marinas. However, such marinas often provide the
only suitable docking and landing facilities for commercial
fishing vessels in many areas along the Connecticut coast.

-221-

Several fishermen have discussed opening retail and whole-
sale outlets in Connecticut to market their catch. The develop-
ment of a marina in Black Rock Harbor with an associated retail
seafood market and restaurant, and which is capable of providing
the support needed by inshore commercial fishing vessels, serves
as an example of the potential for success of modest commercial
fishing facilities serving Long Island Sound fishermen.

6.2.3 Objective: Seafood Processing and Marketing

Promote the development of in-state processing facili-
ties to serve fishermen landing their catch in Connecti-
cut, including filleting plants, canneries, and freezing
plants for both traditional and underutilized species.
Encourage the development of an in-state marketing
system and promotional program for Connecticut seafood.

This objective is intended to diversify the base of resource
use in Connecticut. Much of the seafood harvested from
Connecticut and offshore southern New England waters is consumed
in Connecticut but since processing facilities do not exist in
this state, the catches are landed in New York, Rhode Island, and
Massachusetts, processed in those states, and trucked to
Connecticut retail outlets. In fact, resources harvested from
Long Island Sound many times are landed in Connecticut, trucked
to Massachussetts, New York or Rhode Island, processed in those
states and returned to Connecticut retail mairkets. This is
inefficient and removes a valuable source of commercial diversif-
ication from coastal communities.

Until such time that in-state processing capability is
developed, the use of so-called "joint ventures" (Part One,
Section 6.2) should be considered in state waters. These ventures
depend on purchases of U.S. caught fish by foreign flag
processing vessels, under terms of a strict agreement negotiated
by the U.S. based partner of the venture and the state in which
the activity will occur.

Development of a Connecticut seafood marketing and promo-
tional program would make the Connecticut seafood industry more
competitive with those of its neighbor states and would more
accurately reflect the importance of the seafood industry to
Connecticut seafood consumers.

-222-

6.2.4 Objective: The Connecticut Aquaculture Commission

Assist the State of Connecticut Aquaculture Commission
in investigating the feasibility, potential for success,
and legal, economic, technical, and other limitations
involved in developing Connecticut's mariculture indus-
try. Assist in developing ways to overcome such
limitations. Aid in the preparation of a plan to
stimulate and guide the growth of such an industry
ensuring that competition for marine resources, con-
flicts with traditional fisheries and other uses of
coastal areas, and adverse impacts to marine resource
species and their habitat will be minimized.

Public Act 83-36, which took effect in June, 1983, estab-
lished an Aquaculture Commission which is responsible for many of
the activities identified in the above objective. A detailed
study may be necessary to determine the feasibility and problems
involved in private mariculture operations in Long Island Sound.
Although the present operations of private shellfish companies in
the Sound could be termed mariculture, such operations essen-
tially only enhance the natural production of bivalve shellfish
in natural habitats. Technologically advanced methods that uti-
lize artificial habitats where large volumes of shellfish are
produced in a small area--such as the floating rack culture of
shellfish--should be encouraged. The potential for finfish and
crustacean mariculture in LIS should also be considered.

6.2.5 Objective: Business Assistance

Encourage the development of a tax and business climate
that is favorable to the commercial fishing industry,
similar to that provided in other New England states and
to the agricultural industry in Connecticut.

Food producing industries in most states are granted a
variety of tax and business shelters in recognition of the
service they provide to the non-harvesting sector of the public.
In Connecticut, recent amendments to the General Statutes have
provided assistance to commercial fishermen in the form of
exemptions from sales taxes and a portion of boating registration
fees. The purpose of this objective is to foster a continuation
of this philosophy in government circles as an incentive and
assistance to the food producing industries of the state.

-223-

6.3 Objectives Related to both Recreational and Commercial Fishing

6.3.1 Objective: Shellfish Resources under Town Jurisdiction

Promote the management of town shellfish resources to
provide increased shellfishing opportunities for all
citizens of the State.

The shellfish resources of Connecticut are some of the most
valuable and least utilized in the State. While important
contributions to the productivity of these resources have been
made by members of the commercial shellfishing industry and
through cooperative agreements between seed oyster harvesters and
town shellfish Commissions, the development of additional
opportunities for shellfishing are necessary and desirable.

Town shellfish management plans can provide increased
shellfishing opportunities through the implementation of coopera-
tive harvest programs. Such programs involve the transplantation
of shellfish from polluted waters to clean waters by commercial
oystermen who perform the activity in return for a portion of the
harvest. This portion is then sold to a larger shellfish company
for transplanting to growing beds and the remaining amount is
available in clean waters for harvest by recreational shellfish-
ermen.

Cooperative transplanting and cultch stocking programs have
proven successful in several Connecticut towns. Support of this
philosophy of cooperative resource development is strongly
encouraged. Such programs will be assisted whenever possible.

6.3.2 Objective: Underutilized Species Fisheries

Promote the development of commercial fisheries and
markets for presently underutilized species and promote
the recreational utilization of these species where they
are available outside of, and within, Long Island Sound.

Underutilized species available to Connecticut-based
fishermen fishing in Block Island Sound and further offshore
include whiting, red and white hake, anglerfish, ocean pout, sea
robin, dogfish, skate, rock and Jonah crab, and squid. Those
available in Long Island Sound and its estuaries include American
eel, river herring, whiting, red and white hake, sea robin,
dogfish, skate, rock and Jonah crab, and squid. Many species
that are discarded by recreational fishermen and discarded or
sold as bait by commercial fishermen have significant value as
food when processed and prepared properly, and if markets can be
developed for their sale.

-224-

6.3.3 Objective: User Group Conflicts

Alleviate conflicts among resource users

Management strategies intended to alleviate user group
conflicts should be formulated in a manner which recognizes
existing fishing practices, the rights of access of individuals
presently fishing, the rights of those who might wish to begin
fishing either with non-traditional methods or in future years,
and the rights of the non-fishing public. Where restrictive
strategies prove necessary to resolve such conflicts, every
effort will be made to distribute the burden of such strategies
among all participants in the conflict so that they may share
equally in its resolution.

-225-

CLOSING STATENENT

The existence of marine resources in an environment not
readily visible to the human eye is a large part of the reason
that understanding them and subsequently managing them is such a
complex task. Until relatively recently--through the use of.SCUBA
and deep sea submersibles--resources could only be observed upon
capture by fishing gear or other sampling techniques. This meant
that any understanding of the interaction of a species with its
environment had to be inferred from sampling programs rather
than direct observation. Even now, physical limitations on
diving activities preclude most observations of marine life in
anything other than the shallow water, nearshore environment.
Similarly, the finances necessary to support a submersible obser-
vation program makes this means of obtaining information virtu-
ally impossible. As a result, marine resource managers are faced
with the task of understanding those resources using the results
of sampling programs which may not always reflect the true
abundance, distribution and population dynamics of a species.

An additional complexity facing managers is the simple
magnitude of that which must be managed. It is one thing to
attempt the management of a 100 acre lake and quite another to
make the same attempt in a coastal sea. Long Island Sound alone
is 928 square nautical miles, or 787,000 acres, yet it represents
only 0.04% of the earth's marginal seas and a minute 0.0009% of
the world's oceans.

our understanding and management of marine resources is made
more difficult by the behavior of marine species. many of
Connecticut's marine fishery resources are migratory, often
spawning in oceanic waters and seasonally inhabiting Long Island
Sound as a nursery and feeding area. On the other hand, many
species migrate to the Sound to spawn and then continue their
feeding migration in offshore waters or the waters of other
states. Still other species are relatively or entirely non-
migratory members of the Long Island Sound ecosystem.

The migratory nature of most of the Sound's fishery species
poses additional problems for resource managers. Since the
behavior of many important species carries them across juris-
dictional boundaries, exploitation by fishermen in one region can
have an effect on the opportunities of fishermen in other areas.
Therefore, management activities must also be interjurisdic-
tional. Developing effective interstate and state/federal coop-
erative management plans which protect migratory resources while
caring for the rights of citizens of all states is one of the
greatest challenges facing marine resource managers in the
19801s.

However, developing such plans is not the most difficult of
the problems that must be addressed. Enlightened citizens have
finally realized that the abundance of our marine resources is
not infinite and that inevitable increases in management efforts

-226-

will be necessary to protect as well as maximize the availability
of those resources and, finally, to equitably allocate opportuni-
ties for resource use among all who would use them.

Conflicts between marine resource users in Connecticut as
well as in all coastal states can be divisive and often appear
unresolvable. Resolving such differences while achieving the
principal objective of protecting the state's natural resources
is the most difficult of the tasks facing Connecticut's marine
resource managers.

There are two principal groups involved in the utilization
of the Sound's fishery resources. These are the fishing consumer
and the non-fishing consumer. The former group includes recre-
ational and commercial fishermen who catch and eat seafood. The
latter group represents a usually uncounted and underestimated
but extremely large and important component of our society--the
consumer who, for whatever reason he or she may have, does not
fish for seafood but purchases what is consumed. It is appro-
priate that this user group be considered equal in importance to
any of the more visible users of our resources in the event that
questions arise regarding the allocation of opportunities for
resource use.

Because of the complex nature of these issues, it is be-
lieved that management can no longer progress in an "ad hoc"
manner. This commonly has been referred to as crisis manage-
ment--a situation in which managers react to problems as they
arise, only doing what is necessary to resolve the immediate
concern without addressing the long-term implications of the
problem and its potential solutions.

Long range planning--as difficult as it may be given our
relatively poor understanding of many of our resources--has
become necessary to identify problems of larger magnitude, and to
develop solutions that have more success than the "band-aids"
commonly applied to "wounds" arising under present approaches to
marine resource management. It is hoped that this document will
be an assistance to those involved in such efforts.

The Marine Fisheries Program philosophy in the management of
marine resources is that Long Island sound represents an
invaluable food producing resource--both to the fishing consumer
and the non-fishing consumer alike--and this is believed to be
its most important use. Other uses, from our perspective, should
be scrutinized so that the food producing capabilities of the re-
source and the opportunities offered us by it are not diminished.

Nothing in this statement is intended to lessen the impor-
tance of other uses of the Sound. The opportunities for recre-
ation, game fishing, and other water-related activities presented
by Long Island Sound are enormous and require the continued
attention of managers in planning for coastal area use. It is
hoped that all users understand the common opportunity provided
by the resource and the rights of all to use it wisely.

-227-

REFERENCES

Aiken, D.E. and S.L. Waddy. 1980. Maturity and reproduction in
the American lobster. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci.
932:59-69.

Anderson, E.D., F.E. Lux, and F.P. Almeida. 1980. The silver
hake stocks and fishery off the northeastern United States.
Mar. Fish. Rev. 42(l):12-20.

(ASMFC) Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1981.
Interstate fisheries management plan for the striped bass of
the Atlantic coast from Maine to North Carolina.

Ballard, B.S. and W. Abbott. 1969. osmotic accomodation in
Callinectes sapidus. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 29:671-687.

Belding, D.L. 1931. The scallop fishery of Massachusetts. Mar.
Fisheries Series No. 3. Mass. Dept. of Conservation,
Boston, Mass. 51p.

Berggren, T.J. and J.T. Lieberman. 1978. Relative contribution
of Hudson, Chesapeake, and Roanoke striped bass, Morone
saxatilis, stocks to the Atlantic coast fishery. Fish.
Bull., U.S. 76:335-345.

Bigelow, H.B., and W.C. Schroeder. 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of
Maine. Fish. Bull., U.S. 53(74). 577p.

Birmingham, R. 1982. Remarks made at the Connecticut Marine
Fisheries Forum, March 27, 1982, University of Conn. Avery
Point Campus, Groton, Conn.

Bokuniewicz, H.J., J. Gebert, and R.B. Gordon. 1976. Sediment
mass balance of a large estuary, Long Island Sound.
Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science. 4:523-536.

Bowman, M.J. 1976. Tidal locks across the East River: an
engineering solution to the rehabilitation of western Long
Island Sound. Pages 28-43 in Wiley, M. (ed). Estuarine
Processes vol. I. Academic Press, New York.

Briggs, P.T. 1980. Growth, movements and mortality rates of
American lobsters in western Long Island Sound. Commercial
Fisheries Research and Development Act, New York Project No.
3-292-R. Completion Rept.

Briggs, P.T. and F.M. Mushacke. 1979. The American lobster in
Western Long Island Sound. N.Y. Fish and Game Jour. 26(l):
59-86.

(CAM) Coastal Area Management. 1979. Shoreline erosion analysis
and recommended planning process. State of Conn. Dept. of
Environmental Protection, Coastal Area Management Program.

-228-

(CAM) Coastal Area Management. 1977. Long Island Sound: an
atlas of natural resources. Coastal Area Management
Program. Conn. Dept. of Environmental Protection. 52p.

(CEM) The Center for the Environment and Man, Inc. 1981.
Market user survey for selected Long Island sound ports.
Report to the Dept. of the Army New England Div. Corps of
Engineers. CEM Report No. 4280-03-729.

Clark, J.R. 1977. Coastal ecosystem management; a technical
manual for the conservation of coastal zone resources. John
Wiley & Sons, New York. 928p.

Clark, J. 1974. Coastal ecosystems. The Conservation
Foundation, Washington, D.C. 178p.

Cobb, S.P., J.R. Reese, M.A. Grant, B.W. Holliday, E.H. Klehr,
and J.H. Carroll. 1977. Aquatic disposal field
investigations, Eaton's Neck disposal site, Long Island
Sound - an environmental inventory. DMRP Technical Report
D-77-6. Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.

Costa, E., M. Costa and Son Seafoods, Groton, Conn. Personal
communication, 1982.

Cray, M. 1982. Trawler owner looking at property. The New
London Day, March 23, 1982.

(DAMOS) Disposal Area Monitoring System. 1979. Annual data
report - 1978. Naval Underwater Systems Center, Newport,
Rhode Island. New England Division Corps of Engineers,
Waltham, Massachusetts.

Davis, R.L. and N. Marshall. 1961. The feeding of the bay
scallop. Proc. Nat. Shellfisheries Assoc. 52:25-29.

Dehlinger, P., W.F. Fitzgerald, S.Y. Feng, D.F. Paskausky, R.W.
Garvine, and W.F. Bohlen. 1973. A determination of budgets
of heavy metal wastes in Long Island Sound. First Ann.
Rept. submitted to Office of Sea Grant Programs, NOAA.
Univ. of Conn. Marine Sciences Inst. Groton, Conn.

Dehlinger, P., W.F. Fitzgerald, D.F. Paskausky, R.W. Garvine,
W.F. Bohlen, S.Y. Feng, A.J. Nalwalk, R.J. Szechtman, C.D.
Hunt, D.L. Murphy, C.E. Perkins, and G.M. Ruddy. 1974.
Investigations on concentrations, distributions, and fates
of heavy metal wastes in parts of Long Island Sound. Final
Rept. submitted to Office of Sea Grant Programs, NOAA.
University of Conn. Marine Sciences Inst., Groton, Conn.

-229-

(DEP, NRC) State of Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection, Natural Resources Center, Marine Program. 1982.
Long Island Sound, a preliminary bibliography.

Deuel, D.G. 1973. 1970 Saltwater angling survey. NOAA., Nat.
Mar. Fish. Serv., Current Fish. Stat. No. 6200. 54p.

Development Sciences, Inc. 1979. Fishing industry feasibility
study. Development Sciences, Inc. in association with C.E.
Maguire, Inc. submitted to Mr. Francis Driscoll, City
Manager, City of New London, New London, CT.

Donohue, J.J. and F.B. Tucker. 1970. Marine mineral identi-
fication survey of coastal Connecticut. Final Rept. United
Aircraft Research Laboratories, E. Hartford, CT. 317p.

Dowhan, J.J. and R.J. Craig. 1976. Rare and endangered species
of Connecticut and their habitats. State Geological and
Natural History Survey of Connecticut Report of
Investigations No. 6.

Edwards, R.L. 1968. Fishery resources of the North Atlantic
area. Pages 52-60 in Gilbert, D. (ed.). The future of the
fishing industry of the United States. Univ. Wash. Publ.
Fish., New Sci. 4.

Ellis, C.W. 1962. Marine sedimentary environments in the
vicinity of the Norwalk Islands, Connecticut. State Geol.
and Nat. Hist. Surv. of Conn. Bull. 94. 89p.

(EPA) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. Proceedings
of the conference in the matter of pollution of the
interstate waters of Long Island Sound and its tributaries--
Connecticut - New York. New Haven, Conn., April 13-14,
1971.

Fischler, K.J. and C.H. Walburg. 1962. Blue crab movement in
coastal South Carolina 1958-1959. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.
91:275-278.

Florence, B.M. 1980. Harvest of the northeastern coastal
striped bass stocks produced in the Chesapeake Bay. Pages
29-44 in Marine Recreational Fisheries 5. Sport Fishing
InstitiTt-e. Washington, D.C.

Folsom, W.D. 1979. An economic analysis of the Long Island
Sound oyster industry. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of
Connecticut. Storrs, CT.

Galtsoff, P. 1964. The American oyster, Crassostrea virginica
Gmelin. Fish. Bull. U.S. 64:1-430.

-230-

General Dynamics, Marine Sciences Section, Research and
Development Dept., Electric Boat Div. 1968. Study of means
to revitalize the Connecticut fisheries industry. Prepared
for the Conn. Research Commission under contract No. RSA-66-
8.

Gosner, K.L. 1979. A field guide to the Atlantic seashore.
Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston.

Green, J. 1968. The biology of estuarine animals. Sidgwick and
Jackson, London. 401p.

Grosslein, M.D. and T.R. Azarovitz. 1982. Fish distribution.
MESA New York Bight Atlas Monograph 15. New York Sea Grant
Institute. Albany, New York. 182p.

Gutsell, J.S. 1931. Natural history of the bay scallop. Bull.
U.S. Bur. Fish. (1930) 46:569-632.

Hanks, R.R. 1963. The soft-shell clam. U.S. Dept. of Interior,
Fish. Wildl. Serv. Circ. 162. 16p.

Hardy, C.D. 1972a. A hydrographic data report: Long Island
Sound - 1970. Part II. Marine Sciences Research Center,
State University of New York, Stony Brook. Tech. Rep. #13.

Hardy, C.D. 1972b. Movement and quality of Long Island Sound
waters. Marine Sciences Research Center, State University
of New York, Stony Brook. Tech. Rep. #17. 66p.

Hardy, C.D. 1970. Hydrographic data report; Long Island Sound-
1969. Marine Sciences Research Center, State University of
New York, Stony Brook. Tech. Rep. #4.

Hardy, C.D. and P.K. Weyl. 1971. Distribution of dissolved
oxygen in the waters of western Long Island Sound. Marine
Sciences Research Center, State University of New York,
Stony Brook. Tech. Rep. #11.

Harris, W. 1982. Remarks made at the Connecticut Marine
Fisheries Forum, March 27, 1982, University of Conn. Avery
Point Campus, Groton, Conn.

Henry, K.A. 1971. Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus):
resource and fishery - analysis of declini;-. U.S. Dept. of
Commerce, NOAA Tech. Rept., NMFS SSRF - 642.

Hughes, J.T. and G.C. Matthiessen. 1962. Observations on the
biology of the American lobster, Homerus americanus.
Limnol. and Oceanog. 7(3):414-421.

Infantino, M., Chairman, Branford Shellfish Commission. Personal
communication, 1982.

-231-

Jacklin, M. 1980. Pollution closes 75% of state's shellfish
beds. The Hartford Courant, August 31, 1980.

Jay, D.A. and M.J. Bowman. 1975. The physical oceanography and
water quality of New York Harbor and western Long Island
Sound. Marine Sciences Research Center, State University of
New York, Stony Brook. Tech. Rep. 423. 71p.

Jeffries, H.P. 1966. Internal condition of a diminishing blue
crab population (Callinectes sapidus). Chesapeake Sci.
7:164-170.

Judy, M.H. and D.L. Dudley. 1970. Movements of tagged blue
crabs in North Carolina waters. Comm. Fish. Rev. 32(11):
29-35.

Kester, D.R. and R.A. Courant. 1973. A summary of chemical
oceanographic conditions: Cape Hatteras to Nantucket
Shoals. Pages 2-1 to 2-36 in Coastal offshore environmental
inventory Cape Hatteras to 3-antucket Shoals. Marine
Publication Series No. 2. University of Rhode Island,
Kingston, Rhode Island.

Korringa, P. 1976. Farming the American Atlantic oyster
(Crassostrea virgi ica) in Long Island Sound, U.S.A. Pages
317-6-1 in Korringal P. Farming the cupped oysters of the
genus E-rassostrea. Elsevier Scientific Pub. Co., Amsterdam.
224p.

Krebs, O.A., Jr. 1963. The sediments of the southshore of Long
Island Sound--Lloyd Point to Crane Neck Point. M.S. Thesis.
New York University. 37p.

Lange, A.M.T. and M.P. Sissenwine. 1980. Biological
considerations relevant to the management of Squid (Loligo
pealei and Illex illecebrosus) of the Northwest Atlantic.
Mar. Fish. R-ev. 42(7-8):2T-_38.

Larkin, R.R. and G.A. Riley. 1967. A drift bottle study in Long
Island Sound. Bull. Bing. Oceanogr. Coll. 19(2):62-71.

Loosanoff, V.L. 1965. Maturation of gonads of oysters
Crassostrea virginica, of different geographical areas
subjected to relatively low temperatures. Veliger 11:153-
163.

Loosanoff, V.L. 1937a. Development of the primary gonad and
sexual phases in Venus mercenaria. Biol. Bull. 72:389-405.

Loosanoff, V.L. 1937b. Spawning of Venus mercenaria. Ecology
18:506-515.

-232-

Lund, W.A. and L.L. Stewart. 1970. Abundance and distribution
of larval lobsters, Homarus americanus off the coast of
Southern New England. Proceedings of the National
Shellfisheries Association. 60:40-49.

Lund, W.A., L.L. Stewart, and C.J. Rathbun. 1973. Investigation
on the lobster. Comm. Fisheries Res. and Dev. Act.
Connecticut Project No. 3-130-R. Final Rep.

Mackenzie, C.L., Jr. 1979. Biological and fisheries data on
sea scallop, Placopecten magellanicus. Sandy Hook
Laboratory, NMFS. Technical Series Report No. 19.

Mackenzie, C.L. 1970. oyster culture in Long Island Sound,
1966-69. Comm. Fish. Rev. 32:27-40.

Maco, J., Madison shellfish commission, Madison, Conn. Personal
communication, 1982.

(MAFMC) Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1978. Final
environmental impact statement/fishery management plan for
the squid fishery of the northwest Atlantic Ocean.
Supplement number 1.

Magalhaes, H. 1948. An ecological study of snails of the genus
Busycon at Beaufort, North Carolina. Ecol. monographs
18(3):379-409.

Maltezos, G.C., E.M. Smith, and F. Huntley. 1976. Size and age
distribution of the white perch population in the lower
Connecticut River. State of Conn. Dept. of Environmental
Protection, Marine Region.

Marchant, A. and A. Holmsen. 1975. Harvesting rock and jonah
crabs in Rhode Island: some technical and economic aspects.
Resource Economics/NOAA Sea Grant, University of Rhode Island
Marine Memorandum Number 35. Kingston, R.I.

McCrone, A.W., B.F. Ellis, and R. Charmatz. 1961. Preliminary
observations on Long Island Sound sediments. Trans. N.Y.
Acad. of Sci. 24(2)119-129.

McMahon, J.J. and W.C. Summers. 1971. Temperature effects on the
developmental rate of squid (Loligo pealei) embryos. Biol.
Bull. 141:561-567.

Merrill, A.S. and J.A. Posgay. 1967. Juvenile growth of the sea
scallop, Placopecten ma2ellanicus. Ann. Rep. for 1967 of the
Amer. Malacol. Union, 51-52.

Merrill, A.S. and J.W. Ropes. 1967. The general distribution of
the surf clam and ocean quahog. Proc. Nat. Shellfish Assoc.
59:40-45.

-233-

Merrill, A.S. and H.S. Tubiash. 1970. Molluscan resources of the
Atlantic and Gulf Coast of the United States. Proc. of the
Symposium on Mollusca - Part 111 1970, 925-948.

Mesnill B. 1977. Growth and life cycle of squid, Loligo pealei
and Illex illecebr08US, from the northwest Atlantic. Int.
Comm. Northwest Atl. Fish., Sel. Pap. 2:55-69.

Metzler, K., and R. Rosza. 1982. Vegetation of fresh and
brackish tidal marshes in Connecticut. Newsletter of the
Connecticut Botanical Society 10(l):1-3.

Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation, Inc. 1982.
Marketing a major regional initiative. Captain's Log 2(4).

Milkofsky, J., Old Saybrook town sanitarian and member of Old
Saybrook shellfish commission. Personal communication, 1982.

Miner, R.W. 1950. Field book of seashore life. G.P. Putnam's
Sons, New York. 888p.

Minta, P., S. Gephard, T. Becker, and R. Van Nostrand. 1982.
Operation and maintenance of Connecticut fishways and adult
Atlantic salmon holding facility. Federal Aid to Sport Fish
Restoration F50D2 Annual Performance Rept. Conn. Dept. of
Env. Prot., Marine Fisheries.

Morton, D.W. 1967. An intersector study of transactions in a
small fishing, farming, and summer recreational region. M.S.
Thesis. Cornell University.

New Haven City Plan Department. 1979. Commercial fisheries in
New Haven harbor: an analysis of development potentials.
Unpublished draft.

(NERBC) New England River Basins Commission. 1975. A plan for
Long Island Sound. Vol. 2. Supplement. New England River
Basins Commission. Boston, Mass. 224p.

(NERBC) New England River Basins Commissions. 1974. Ecological
studies. An interim report. Long Island Sound Regional
Study, New England River Basins Comm. New Haven, Conn.

Neves, R.J. and L. Depres. 1979. The oceanic migration of
American shad, Alosa sapidissima, along the Atlantic coast.
Fish. Bull. 77(l):199-212.

Niering, W.A. and R.M. Bowers. 1966. our disappearing tidal
marshes, their present status. Supplement. Second
reprinting, Connecticut's coastal marshes. A vanishing
resource. Conn. Arb. Bull. No. 12, 1961.

-234-

Niering, W.A., and R.S. Warren. 1974. Tidal marshes of
Connecticut:vegetation, micro-relief and environmental
impacts. In Niering, W.A. and R.C. Warren (eds.). Tidal
wetlands of-Connecticut; vegetation and associated animal
populations. Vol. I. Dept. of Env. Prot., State of Conn.

Niering, W.A., R.S. Warren and C.G. Weymouth. 1977. Our dynamic
tidal marshes: vegetation analysis as revealed by peat
analysis. Conn. Arboretum Bull. No. 22.

NMFS 1980. Marine recreational fishery statistics survey,
Atlantic and Gulf coasts, 1979. Current Fishery Statistics
Number 8063. National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Dept.
of Commerce, NOAA.

Oceanic Society 1983. The coastal ecosystem data base study,
Western Long Island Sound, Greenwich to the Housatonic River.
Connecticut Coastal Energy Impact Program.

OCZM 1980. State of Connecticut Coastal Management Program
and Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Office of
Coastal Zone Management and Connecticut Coastal Area
Management Program.

Olsen, S.B. and D.K. Stevenson. 1975. Commercial marine fish and
fisheries of Rhode Island. University of Rhode Island Marine
Technical Report 34.

Pellegrino, P.E. and W.H. Hubbard. 1983. Baseline shellfish data
for the assessment of potential environmental impacts
associated with energy activities in Connecticut's coastal
zone. Connecticut Coastal Energy Impact Program.

Popal J., Nameaug Seafood Market, Inc. New London, Conn.
Personal communication, 1982.

Porter, H.J. 1956. Delaware blue crab. Estuarine Bull., Univ.
Del. Mar. Lab. 2(2):3-5.

Porter, R., Chairman, Waterford/East Lyme Shellfish Commission.
Personal communication, 1982.

Posgay, J.A. 1957. The range of the sea scallop. Nautilus
71(2):55-57.

Pratt, D.M. 1953. Abundance and growth of Venus mercenaria and
Callocardia morrhuana in relation to the character of bottom
sediments. J. Mar. Res. 1V, 12(l):60-74.

(RAD, NEFC) Resource Assessment Division, Northeast Fisheries
Center. 1983. Status of the fishery resources off the
northeastern United States for 1982. U.S. Department of
Commerce, NOAA, NMFS, NEFC, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. 128p.

-235-

Reid, R.N., A.B. Frame, and A.F. Draxler. 1979. Environmental
baselines in Long Island Sound, 1972-73. NOAA Tech. Rep.
NMFS SSRF-738.

Rhoads, D.C., P.L. McCall, and J.Y. Yingst. 1978a. Disturbance
and production on the estuarine seafloor. Am. Sci. 66:577-
586.

Rhoads, D.C., J.Y. Yingst, and W.J. Ullman. 1978b. Seafloor
stability in central Long Island Sound. Part I. Temporal
changes in erodibility of fine-grained sediment. Pages 221-
224 In Wileg, M. (ed.). Estuarine interactions. Academic
Press, N.Y.

Riley, G.A. 1967. Transport and mixing processes in Long Island
Sound. Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Coll. 19(2):35-61.

Riley, G.A. 1961. Review of the oceanography of Long Island
Sound. Deep-Sea Res. Suppl. 3:224-238.

Riley, G.A. 1959. Oc eanography of Long Island Sound 1954-1955.
Bull. Bing. Oceanogr. Coll. 17 Art. 1:9-30.

Riley, G.A. 1956. Oceanography of Long Island Sound, 1952-1954.
Bull. Bing. Oceanogr. Coll. 15:9-61.

Riley, G.A. 1952. Hydrography of the Long Island and Block
Island Sounds. Bull. Bingham Oceanogr. Coll. 13(3):5-39.

Riley, G.A. and S.M. Conover. 1956. oceanography of Long Island
Sound, 1952-1954. 11. Chemical Oceanography. Bull. Bing.
Oceanogr. Coll. 15:47-61.

Riley, G.A. and H.M. Schurr. 1959. Transparency of Long Island
Sound waters. Bull. Bing. Oceanogr. Coll. 17 Art. 1:66-82.

Ropes, J.W. and A.P. Stickney. 1965. Reproductive cycle of Mya
arenaria in New England. Biol. Bull. 128(2):315-327.

Saila, S.D., J.M. Flowers, and M.T. Cannario. 1967. Factors
affecting the relative abundance of Mercenaria mercenaria in
the Providence River, Rhode Island. Proc. Nat. Shellfish.
Assoc. 57:83-89.

Saila, S.B. and S.D. Pratt. 1973. Mid-Atlantic bight fisheries.
In Coastal offshore environmental inventory, Cape Hatteras to
Nantucket Shoals. Univ. R.I. Mar. Pub. Series No. 2, Marine
Advisory Service, Univ. R.I., Kingston, R.I. 125p.

Sampson, R.F.r Jr., Marine Fisheries Biologist, Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection, Marine Fisheries
Office, Waterford, CT. Personal communication 1982.

-236-

Sampson, R.F., Jr. 1981. Connecticut marine recreational
fisheries survey. State of Connecticut Dept. of
Environmental Protection, Marine Fisheries.

Sampson, R. and R. MacLeod. 1982. Long Island Sound volunteer
angler survey 1979-1981. State of Conn. Dept. of
Environmental Protection, Marine Fisheries.

Sanders, H.L. 1956. Oceanography of Long Island Sound, 1952-
1954: X, The biology of marine bottom communities. Bing.
Oceanogr. Coll. Bull. 15:345-414.

Serafy, D.K., D.J. Harteband, M. Bowen. 1977. Aquatic disposal
field investigations, Eaton's Neck disposal site, Long Island
Sound, Appendix C: Predisposal baseline conditions of
benthic assemblages. DMRP Technical Reporrt D-77-6. U.S.
Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Shen, F. 1982. Eeling. The Hartford Courant. June 27, 1982.

Shute, M., Connecticut-Dept. of Health Services, Environmental
Health. Personal communications, 1982.

Sisson, R.T. 1972. Biological and commercial fisheries related
research on the channeled welk Busycon canaliculatum (Linne)
in Narragansett Bay. Rhode Island. M. hesis, I iv. R.I.,
Kingston, R.I. 68p.

Smith, E.M. 1977. Some aspects of catch/effort, biology, and the
economics of the Long Island Sound lobster fishery during
1976. Completion Report. NOAA, NMFS Comm. Fish. Res. Dev.
Act Project #3-253-R-1. State of Connecticut, Dept. Environ.
Protect.

Squires, H.J. 1957. Squid, Illex illecebrosus (LeSueur) in the
Newfoundland fishing area. J. Fish. Res. Board. Can. 14:693-
728.

Staplefeldt, C., President, Connecticut Commercial Fishermen's
Association. Personal communication, 1982.

Stewart, L. Regional Marine Extension Specialist, University of
Conn. Marine Advisory Service, Groton, Conn. Personal
communication, 1982.

Stewart, L.L. 1980. Chronological records of in-situ physical
and biological conditions obtained by diver survey at the
central Long Island Sound and New London disposal sites.
Presented at the Second International Ocean Dumping
Symposium, Woods Hole, Mass. Science Applications, Inc.
Contribution #9.

-237-

Stewart, L.L. 1972. The seasonal movements, population dynamics
and ecology of the lobster, 'Homarus americanus (Milne-
Edwards) off Ram Island, Connecticut. Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.

Summers, W.C. 1969. Winter population of Loligo pealei in the
mid-Atlantic Bight. Biol. Bull. (Woods Hole) 137:202-216.

Summers, W.C. 1968. The growth and size distribution of current
year class Loligo pealei. Biol. Bull. 135:366-377.

Thomson, K.S., W.M. Weed III, A.G. Taruski, and D.E. Simanek.
1978. Saltwater fishes of Connecticut. State Geol. and Nat.
Hist. Surv. of Conn. Bull. 105.

Tibbetts, A.M. 1977. Squid fisheries (Loligo pealei and Illex
illecebrosus) off the northeastern coast of the United States
of America 1963-1974. Int. Comm. Northwest Atl. Fish., Sel.
Pap. 2:85-109.

(U.S. ACE) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1982. Final
programmatic environmental impact statements for the disposal
of dredged material in the Long Island Sound region.
Appendix C. Economic analysis of future dredged material
disposal in Long Island Sound.

(U.S. ACE) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Div. 1980.
Interim report, dredged material containment in Long Island
Sound (with special emphasis on eastern New York waters).

(U.S. ACE) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Div. 1979.
Reconnaissance report: dredged material containment in Long
Island Sound.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1965. A supplementary report on
the coastal wetlands inventory of Connecticut. U.S. Dept. of
the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Div. of River Basin
Studies. Boston, Mass.

(USGS & NOAA) U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Div. and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1973.
Sources and movement of water. An interim report. Long
Island Sound Regional Study. New England River Basins Comm.
New Haven, Conn. 45p.

Valenti, R.J. and S. Peters. 1977. Aquatic field investigation,
Eaton's Neck disposal site, Long Island Sound. Appendix E:
Predisposal baseline conditions of demersal fish assemblages.
DMRP Technical Report D-77-6. Environmental Laboratory, U.S.
Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Van Engel, W.A. 1958. The blue crab and its fishery in
Chesapeake Bay. Part I. Reproduction, early development,
growth and migration. Comm. Fish. Rev. 20(6):6-17.

-238-

Visel, T. Regional Marine Resource Specialist, Cape Cod
Extension Service, University of Mass. Barnstable, Mass.
Personal communication, 1982.

Volk, J. Director, Aquaculture Division of the Connecticut
Department of Agriculture# Milford, CT. Personal
communication 1982.

Wheatland, S.B. 1956. oceanography of Long Island Sound, 1952-
1954. VII. Pelagic fish eggs and larvae. Bull. Bingham
Oceanogr. Coll. 15:233-247.

Weiss, H.M. 1970. The diet and feeding of the lobster Homarus
americanus, in Long Island Sound. Contribution No. 96,
Marine Research Laboratory, University of Conn., Noank, Conn.

Williams, K., former commercial fisherman, operator of Captain's
Cove Marina, Bridgeport, Conn. Personal communication, 1982.

Wood, R.S. 1979. Investigations on the conch fishery in
Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island. M.S. Thesis, Univ. R.I.,
Kingston, R.I. 60p.

Yingst, J.Y., and D.C. Rhoads. 1978. Seafloor stability in
central Long Island Sound: Part II. Biological interactions
and their potential importance for seafloor erodibility.
Pages 245-260 in Wiley, M. (ed.). Estuarine interactions.
Academic Press, N.Y.

-239-

Appendix I: Government agencies with marine resource management
responsibility in Connecticut and New England

Connecticut Department of Agriculture
Division of Aquaculture
23 Rogers Ave. P.O. Box 97
Milford, CT 06430
203-874-0696

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Division of Conservation and Preservation
Bureau of Fisheries
State Office Building
165 Capitol Ave.
Hartford, CT 06106
203-566-2287

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Division of Conservation and Preservation
Bureau of Fisheries
Marine Fisheries Office
P.O. Box 248
Waterford, CT 06385
203-443-0166

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Planning and Coastal Management
71 Capitol Ave
Hartford, CT 06106
203-566-7404

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
Room 2115 Federal Building
300 South New Street
Dover, DE 19901-6790
302-674-2331

New England Fishery Management Council
Suntaug Office Park
5 Broadway (Route 1)
Saugus, MA 01906
617-231-0422

Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
617-727-3194

New Hampshire Fish and Game Department
Division of Fisheries
34 Bridge St.
Concord, NH 03301
603@271-3421

-240-

New York Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Marine Resources
Bldg. 40
Stony Brook, NY 11794
516-751-7900

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
Washington County Government Center
Tower Hill Road
Wakefield, RI 02879
401-789-3094

U.S. Department of the Army
New England Division, Corps of Engineers
424 Trapelo Rd
Waltham, MA 02254
617-894-2400

U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
Northeast Fisheries Center
Water Street
Woods Hole, MA 02543
617-548-5123

U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
Northeast Fisheries Center - Milford Laboratory
23 Rogers Avenue
Milford, CT 06430
203-783-4200

U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
Northeast Regional Office
14 Elm St.
Gloucester, MA 01930
617-281-3600

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1 Gateway Corner
Newton Corner, MA 02158
617-965-5100

Vermont Agency of Environmental Conservation
Fish and Game Department
State Office Bldg.
5 Court St.
Montpelier, VT 05602
802-828-3371

-241-

Appendix II: Academic institutions with special interest in
Connecticut Marine Resources

University of Connecticut
Department of Marine Sciences
Avery Point Campus
Groton, CT 06340
203-446-1020 Ext. 211

University of Connecticut
Sea Grant Institute
Avery Point Campus
Groton, CT 06340
203-446-1020 Ext. 258

University of Connecticut
Sea Grant Institute
Marine Advisory Service
Avery Point Campus
Groton, CT 06340
203-445-8664

Connecticut College
Mohegan Avenue
New London, CT 06320

Southern Connecticut State College
501 Crescent Street
New Haven, CT

University of Bridgeport
380 University Avenue
Bridgeport, CT 06604

Yale University
Biology Dept.
Prospect Street
New Haven, CT

-242-

Appendix III: Private groups with special interest in Connecticut
Marine Resources
Commercial

3rd District Professional Boatmen's Association

Connecticut Commercial Fishermen's Association

Connecticut Marine Trades Association

Interstate Party Boat Owners and Operators Association

Long Island Sound Draggerman's Association

Southern New England Fishermen's Association

Recreational

Branford Bluefish, Inc.

Central Connecticut Striper Club, Inc.

Connecticut Cit izen Advisory Committee on Striped Bass Management

Connecticut Sportsman's Alliance

Connecticut Saltwater Flyrodder's Association

Fairfield County League of Sportsmen's Clubs

Groton Sportsmen's Club, Inc.

Guilford Sportsmen's Association

Hammonassett Fishing Association

Hartford Surf Fishing Club

Milford Striped Bass Club Inc.

New London County League of Sportsmen's Clubs

Norwich Striper Club

Salt Water Sports Association

Stonington Angler's Association

Waterbury Deep Sea Fishing

Westbrook Fishing Club

Westport Fish and Game Club, Inc.

Westport Striped Bass Club

-243-

Developm nt Foundations

Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation, Inc.
Suite 600, 2200 Somerville Rd.
Annapolis, MD 21401

New England Fisheries Development Foundation
1 Court St.
Boston, MA 02108

Research and Educational Programs

Little Harbor Laboratory
69 Andrews Rd.
Guilford, CT 06437

Oceanic Society
7 Magee Ave.
Stamford, CT 06902

Project Oceanology
University of Connecticut
Avery Point Campus
Groton, CT 06340

The Sound School and Schooner, Inc.
60 South Water St.
New Haven, CT 06519

-244-

3 6668 14101 2171