State of Connecticut marine resources management plan

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

State of Connecticut
Marine Resources Management Plan

Part One: A description of marine resources
and their users

Connecticut

Island Sound
\.Oncj

QC Department of Environmental Protection
1021
-C8 Bureau of Fisheries
B63@ Marine Fisheries Office
1985

October 31, 1982

State oT Connecticut

Marine Resources Management Plan

Part One

I.J

prepared b/

Mark M. Blake, Marine Bio logist
Marine Fisheries Program

Eric M. Smith, Assistant Director
Bureau o-F Fisheries
Marine Fisheries

October 31, 1982

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Several people have been instrumental in providing
background information during the preparation of Part One.
Joe and Ralph Accabo, Norm Bender, Ed Costa, Vic Crecco,
Michael Infantino, Charles Johnson, Joe Maco, John McNeely,
Jack Milkofsky, Peter Minta, John Popa, Bob Sampson, Chris
Staplefeldt, Lance Stewart, Whitney Tilt, Tim Visel, Kaye
Williams, and many members of Town Shellfish Commissions and
Town Clerk's Offices all provided valuable insight into the
specifics of marine resources, their users, and the ways in
which they are used in Connecticut.

In particular, we thank John Volk, Director of the
.Division of Aguaulture, Department of Agriculture and
Malcolm Shute of the Department of Health Set-vices for their
assistance with sections pertaining to shellfisheries.

We thank Donna Kramer and Nancy Van Ness for their word
processing work, and Doug Moffatt for assistance in the
preparation of figures.

Funding Tor this activity is being provided by the
Office of Coastal Zone Management, U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as
part of the Connecticut Coastal Area Management Program.

Table of Contents
Page

Acknowledgements .............................. i
Table of Contents ............................. ii
List of Figures ............................... v
List of Tables ................................ viii
List of Appendices ............................. ix

1.0 Introduction .................................. I

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

2.1 State Government ................... 3

2.2 Federal Government .................... ..... 7

2.3 Local qovernment ............................ 9
2.4 Relationships within the Marine Resource
Management Community in Connecticut ......... Io

3.0 Scientific Information ......................... 13

4.0 -Marine Resources of Connecticut ................ 15

4.1 Description of Long Island Sound ............ 15
4.1.1 Geomorphology ........................... 15
4.1.2 Sources of Fresh Water ... 15
4.1.3 Physicochemical characteristics 17
4.1.4 Sedimentary Characteristcs .............. 19

4.2 Habitats Supporting Marine Species .......... 20
4.2.1 Pelagic .................................. 20
4.2.2 Estuaries ................................ 20
4.2.3 Eelgrass Beds ........................... 21
4.2.4 Rocky Shore ............................. 21
4.2.5 Reefs ................................... 22
4.2.2 Sand and,Mud Bottom ...................... 22
4.2.7 Tidal Marshes ........................... 23
4.2.8 Beachfront .............................. 24

4.3 Living Marine Resources ..................... 25
4.3.1 Introduction ............................ 25
4.3.2 Finfish ................................. 28
4.3.2.1 Blackfish ........................... 28
4.3.2.2 Bluefish ............................ 31
4.3.2.3 Butterfish .......................... 34
4.3.2.4 Cod .................................. 36
4.3.2.5 American eel ........................ 38
4.3.2.6 Winter flounder 40
4.3.2.7 Fluke ............................... 42
4.3.2.8 Yellowtail flounder ................. 45
4.3.2.9 Mackerel 47
4.3.2.10 Menhaden 49
4.3.2.11 River herring ....................... 52
4.3.2.12 Scup ................................ 55

4.3.2.13 American shad ....................... 57
4.3.2.14 Striped bass ........................ 60
4.3.2.15 Weakfish ............................ 63
4.3.2.16 White perch ......................... 66
4.3.2.17'Whitin-3 ............................. 68
4.3.2.18 Other @Fin-vish ....................... 70

4.3.3 Crustacean shellTish .................... 76
4.3.3.1 American lobster .................... 76
4.3.3.2 Blue crab ........................... 79
4.3.3.3 Other crustacean shellTish .......... 81

4.3.4 Molluscan shell-Fish ..................... 82
4.3.4.1 Hard clam ........................... 82
4.3.4.2 Soft clam ......................... 0. 84
4.3.4.3 Conch ............................... 86
4.3.4.4 American oyster ..................... 88
4.3.4.5 Bay scallop .... as ........o .......... 91
4.3.4-6 Sea scallop ......................... 93
4.3.4.7 Long-Finned sjuid ................... 94
4.3.4.8 Other molluscan shellTish ........... 97

4.3.5 Species that are Endangered or
Being Restored ......................... 98

4.3.6 Mat@ine Mammals .......................... 99

.5.0 Marine Resource Users in Connecticut .......... 100

5.1 The Commercial Fisheries .................... 100
5.1.1 Introduction ..................... 0 ...... 100
5.1.2 The Oyster and Hard Clam Industry ....... 102
5.1.3 The Lobster Fishery ..................... 108
5.1. 4 The Otter Trawl Fishery ................. 112
5.1.5 The Sea Scallop Fishery ................. . t15
5.1.6 The Connecticut River Shad Fishery ...... 116
[email protected] The Conch FisherX ....................... 118
5.1.8 Natural Growth Seed Oyster Harvesting ... 120
5.1.9 The Hook and Line Fis'herX ............... 122
5.1.16 The Eel Pot Fishery ..................... 125
5.1.11,The Gill Net-and Haul Seine Fisheries ... 127
5.1.12 The Menhaden Purse Seine Fishery ........ 128

5.2 The Recreational Fisheries .................. 129
5.2.1 Recreational Finfishing ................. . 1.29
5.2.2 Recreational Shell-Fishing ............... 132
5.2.3 Personal Use Lobster Fishing ............ 135
5.2.4 -Recreational Blue Crabbing .............. 136--

5.3 The Part/ and Charter 5 t ry ......... .t37

6.0 The Economics o@F Marine Resource Use
in Connecticut .............................. 139

6.1 Marketing ......... * ................. 139
6.1.1 Fin-Fish and Squid ....................... 139
6.1.2 Molluscan Shell@Fish ..................... 140
6.1.3 Lobster ................................. 142

6.2 Processing ................................... . 143

6.3 Consumer Pre-Ferences ......................... JL43

6.4 International Trade ........................... . t44

6.5 Industry*Support ............................ 145
6.5.1 Support to Commercial Fishing ........... 145
6.5.2 Support to Recreational Fishing ......... . t49
6.5.3 Dredging Needs .......................... . t5-t

6.6 Economic Comparison among Connecticut's
Commercial and Recreation,al Fishing
Industries ................................ 154

7.0 Groups with Special Interest in Marine
Resources ................................... 155

8.0 Problems, Issues, and Opportunities ........... 156

8.1 Introduction ................................ 156
8.2 Man's In*luence on the Long Island Sound
Ecosystem .................................. 157
8.3 Scienti-Fic In-Formation ...................... 162@
8.4 Fishery Statistics .......................... 164
8.5 Commercial Fishing .......................... 165
8.6 Recreational Fishing ........................ 166
8.7 Marketing ................................... . t68
8.8 Law En-Forcement Needs ....................... . W9
8.9 Management .................................. J-70

REFERENCES ........................ x ........... x .... 17j-
Appendix I .......................................... J-83

Appendix II ......................................... 186

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

I Long Island Sound and its environs .......... 16

2 Connecticut commercial blackfish landings,
1939-1981 ................................... 30

3 Catch per effort of blaCkfish caught by
Connecticut licensed trawlers, 1977-1981 .... 30

4 Connecticut commercial bluefish landings,
1939-1981 ................................... 33

5 Catch per effort of bluefish caught by
Connecticut licensed trawlers, 1977-1981 .... 33

6 Connecticut commercial butterfish landings,
1887-1981 ................................... 35

7 Catch per effort of butterfish caught by
Connecticut licensed trawlers, 1977-1981 35

8 Connecticut commercial cod landings, 1880-1981 37

9 Catch per effort of cod caught by
Connecticut licensed trawlers, 1977-1981 .... 37

10 Connecticut commercial eel landings, 1939-1981 39

11 Connecticut commercial winter flounder
landings, 1939-1981 ......................... 41

12 Catch per effort of winter flounder caught
by Connecticut licensed trawlers, 1977-1981 41

13 Connecticut commercial fluke landings,
1939-1981 . .................................... 44

14 Catch per effort of fluke caught by
Connecticut licensed trawlers, 1977-1981 . ..... 44

15 Connecticut commercial yellowtail flounder
landings, 19391981 . .......................... 46

16 Catch-per effort of yellowtail flounder
caught by Connecticut licensed trawlers,
1977-1981 .................................... 46

17 Connecticut commercial mackerel landings,
1880-1981 .................................... 48

18 Connecticut commercial menhaden landings,
1880-1981 .................................... 51

19 Connecticut commercial river herring landings,
1880-1981 .................................... 54

20 Connecticut commercial scup landings, 1880-1981 56

21 Catch per effort of scup caught by
Connecticut licensed trawlers, 1977-1981 ..... 56

22 Connecticut commercial shad landings, 1939-1981 59

23 Connecticut commercial striped bass landings,
1939-1981 .................................... 62

24 Connecticut commercial weakfish landings,
1939-1981 .................................... 65

25 Catch per effort of weakfish caught by
Connecticut licensed trawlers, 1977-1981 ..... 65

26 Connecticut commercial white perch landings,
1939-1982 ..................................... 67

27 Connecticut commercial whiting landings,
18 8 7 - 1981............................ 69

28 Catch per effort of whiting caught by
Connecticut licensed trawlers, 1977-1981 ..... 69

29 Connecticut commercial lobster landings,.
1880-1981 .................................... 78

30 Catch per effort -- pounds per trap and pounds
per trap haul set-over day (THSOD) -- of
lobster caught by Connecticut-licensed
lobstermen, 1975-1981 ........................ 78

31 Connecticut commercial blue crab landings,
1939-1981 .................................... . 80

32 Connecticut commercial hard clam landings,
1880-1981 .................................... 83

33 Connecticut 'commercial soft clam landings,
1939-1981 .................................... 85

34 Connecticut commercial conch landings,
1939-1981 .................................... 87

35 Connecticut commercial oyster landings,
1880-1981 .................................... 90

36 Connecticut commercial bay scallop landings,
1887-1981 .................................... 92

37 Connecticut commercial squid landings,
1987-1981 .................................... 96

38 Catch per effort of squid caught by
Connecticut licensed trawlers, 1977-1981 ..... 96

39 Connecticut landings and value of Finfish
and squid, 1939-1981 . ......................... 101

40 Connecticut landings of crustacean and
molluscan (excluding squid) shellfish,
1939-1981 . ..................... ............... 101

41 Connecticut oyster dredge landings and value,
1939-1981 .................................... 107

42 Connecticut clam dredge landings and value,
1939-1981 .................................... 107

43 Connecticut hand tong landings and value of
hard clams, 1939-1981 107

44 Connecticut hand tong landings and value of
hard clams, 1939-1981 ........................ 107

45 connecticut otter trawl lobster landings and
value 1939-1981 lobster trap landings and
value 1939-1981, and catch of Connecticut
lobstermen 1977-1981; number of traps fished
1939-1981, and trap haul set-over days (THSOD's)
.1975-1981 .................................... 1ll

46 Connecticut otter trawl landings and value,
1939-1981 .................................... . 114

47 Connecticut commercial shad landings and
value by gear type, 1939-1981 ................ . 117

48 Connecticut conch pot landings, value, and
number of pots fished,.1939-1981 ............. 119

49 Connecticut hand line landings, value, and
number of lines and hooks fished, 1939-1981 .. 124

50 Connecticut eel pot landings, value, and
number of pots fished, 1939-1981 . ............. . 126

51 Areas closed to Shellfishing in Connecticut
waters ........................................ 160

Vi i

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

I Conservation measures regulating the commercial
and recreational harvest of marine species
in Connecticut ................................ 27

2 Comparison between the Connecticut recreational
and Connecticut-licensed commercial catch of
finfish species, 1979 ......................... . 13.1

3 Acres of ground under town jurisdictions that
are open to shellfishing ...................... . t34

4 Connecticut part/ and charter boat catch, 1981. 138

5 Projected federal maintenance dredging most
probable future scenario, JL985-2035 ........... 153

6 Key to abbreviations used in Figure 51 ........ 161

Viii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Page

Appendix I ........................................... 183

Appendix 11 ......................................... 186

1. 0 INTRODUCTION

The marine fishery resources of Connecticut exist in a
diverse and unique assemblage of finfish, shellfish, and
crustacea. The 1ocation of Long Island Sound in
m i d - temperate latitudes, its protected, relatively shallow
geomorphology, and its high nutrient load, seasonally mild
temperature, and low 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.

Management of coastal resources in Connecticut by a
variety of state agencies has been increasingly active in
recent years. The earliest activities required
implementation of legislation by the Connecticut General
Assembly while initial agency activities began with the
development of a marine -Fisheries program in 1954 under the
auspices of the former Connecticut Board of Fisheries and
Game . Subsequent program developemnts 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
Aguaculture 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.

While there has been much attention given to marine
resources during the past twenty-five years, actions
relating to the central issue of this document - management
of marine resources - have often been fragmented. In many
cases, the, importance of Connecticuts marine resources, the
characteristics of their users, and a description of the
ever-changing management community has eluded efforts to be
documented in one volume.

The purpose of the present effort is. to prepare a
Marine Resources Management Plan For Connecticut which will
serve as a comprehensive strategy for intelligent planning
of coastal resource use. It is intended to provide planners
with a single source of in-Formation about Connecticut's
valuable marine resources, to indicate which of its citizens
have art interest in those resources, and to illustrate who
in the management community are responsible For- ensuring the
wise use of our resources. More importantly, however, the
plan will become a policy document for use by managers in

planning for future development and use of Connecticut's
coastal resources.

The plan will be developed in two parts. Part One is a
description of Long Island Sound (LIS), its resources and
users, the economics of marine resource use, and the
resource management community at the state, local and
federal levels. It is intended that Part One provide an
informative documentation of fact to assist citizens and
planners in their management,efforts.

Part Two will present goals and objectives For marine
resource use and will detail policies for management that
evolve through review by other agencies and' the general
public. Policies will relate principally to the use of
resources 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 Two will be -considered as a final
product, that is, incapable of being changed. Resources as
well as management strategies are dynamic in their
performance; inflexibility in management planning will' cause
a failure in the process and we hope to avoid such pitfalls
by avoiding in-Flexible approaches to management problems.

Development of the Connecticut Marine Resources
Management Plan is being funded for a two-year period by the
Connecticut Coastal Area Management Program. Responsibility
for development of Part One rests with the DEP-Bureau of
Fisheries, Marine Fisheries Program. Development of Part
Two will be a joint effort of the DEP-Bureau of Fisheries,
the DEP-Planning & Coastal Management Unit, and the
Department of Agriculture, Division of Aquaculture.

2.0 The Resource Management Community

2.1 State Government

There are two principle agencies responsible for the
manegement of Connecticut's marine resources Within the
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the Planning
and Coastal Management Unit, based in Hartford, excercises
broad authority over the use and development of the
shoreline and man's activities there which may affect marine
resources. This authority is excercised in cooperation with
coastal communities upon development of community coastal
area use plans.

The DEP Bureau of Fisheries is responsible for the
management of finfish, lobster, squid, and crab resources
living within the waters of the State. The Bureau's main
office is located in Hartford, Cr 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 research and management
activities of the Department and the marine conservation law
enforcement program, and serves as the operations and
maintenance facility For marine program activities. The
headquarters houses seven fisheries biologists, seven
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, Division of
Aquaculture located in Milford, CT. The Division manages
all molluscan shellfish resouces (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 excercises certain
controls over the harvesting, processing, and distribution
of oysters and clam species t0 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 regulation is necessary for, the
conservation, preservation and management 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 may be jeopordized.

Licensing of fishing activities i n Connecticut is
authorized by the Connecticut General Statutes (CGS). All
commercial fishing activities are covered by license, permit
or registration. The DEP issues 11 types of commercial
fishing licenses and registrations, a lobster- dealer
license, and a party and charter vessel registration with
-Fees ranging from $5 to $500 (Sec. 26-142a).

In contrast, virtually all recreational fishing
activities are unlicensed. 'The exception to this generality
is the "personal u se " (non-commercial) lobster license
issued by the DEP For a fee of ten dollars, and man/ of the
municipal shellfish harvest programs for oyster, bay
scallop, and softshell or hardshell clams. Programs
administered by municipalities will be addressed in Section
2.3.

The Division of Aquaculture leases waters under the
jurisdiction of the State to private persons or firms, for
periods up to ten years at a time, for the purpose of
planting and cultivating shellfish (Sec. 26-194) . In
addition, three licenses are issued. which govern use of
oyster vessels (Sec. 26-2.12), taking oysters from natural
beds (Sec.26-213), and taking "conch (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
commercial shellfishing licenses; permits for harvesting in
closed areas (Sec. 19-59), and certificates for harvesting in
.From open waters, and for processing and distribution (Sec.
19-53).

The DEP requires submission of catch and effort
statistics from all holders of marinee fishing licenses,
permits, and registrations. Depending on the type of
license, however, this requirement can be extensive or
almost non-existant. Resident and non-resident commercial
lobstermen, and trawler- operators, non-resident lobstermen
who only land in Connecticut, lobster dealers, purse seine
vessel operators, commercial shad fisher-men, 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 provided 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 a n n u a 1 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 Tor cultivation and harvest of oysters. The
Department of Health Services requires that natural growth
seed oyster harvesters, who harvest 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;
Sec. 26-159a CGS) granted the Department of Environmental
Protection regulatory authority over a broad range of
Fishing 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, mesh size and other gear restrictions. However,
certain other management responsibilities continue to be
authorized by statute. Chief among these are authority over
the lobster resource (sec. 26-157a) and several
site-specific area closures implemented during past /ears
For a variety of social as well as conservation
reasons (Sec. 26-154, 26-154a, 26-169 through 26-185).

The regulator*/ process requires a" maximum of Four
months to complete-arid consists of drafting and Departmental
review, public hearing, redrafting if appropriate, and
submission Tor 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
required that public hearings be held in coastal communities
which might be impacted by the proposed changes.

Management authority over shell-Fisheries also is
vested in Title 26 of the general statutes. Sections 26-192
through 26-237 govern leasing of shellfish grounds,
permissable 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 shell-Fish spawning beds (Sec. 26-220), taking
oysters from the Housatonic River (Sec. 26-233a), and
setting daily limits on the take of oysters (Sec. 26-234a).

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 whichinclude conservation law
enForcement activities such as checking for species less
than some- prescribed minimum size, or For violations oF
season, area, 'and gear restrictions. Ancillary but
imoportant duties include boating safety patrols,
investigation of boating violations, and cooperative law
enforcement activities with the National Marine Fisheries
Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and municipal
and state police Forces within Connecticut and from
adjoining states.

The Commissioner oF Agriculture may appoint shell-Fish
wardens in coastal town s (Sec. 26-205) and shellFish
policemen upon application oF commercial shell-Fishing
interests (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 management responsibilities are vested in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for marine species
including marine mammals and endangered species and,
in cooperation with the NMFS, the US 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, that is, the area of the
contiguous oceans and continental shelf seaward of the
States-' territorial seas and to a point 200 miles From the
baseline used to define the territorial sea.

The Act called for cooperative fisheries management to
be implemented by the NMFS based on -Fishery management plans
developed by one or more of the eight Fishery Management
Councils authorized by the Act. Connecticut is a member of
the New England Fishery's Management Council.
Appointed memberships on the Councils of persons qualified
in fisheries matters are deter-mined by the 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 Regional
Director of the U.S. Fish & wildlife Service, a n d
representatives oF the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission, 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.

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 the NMFS along with an environmental impact statement
(mandator/) and a draft of proposed regulatory language.
Plan review under the National Environmental Policy Act and
NOAA/NMFS guidelines, and implementation of regulations by
NMFS have often taken in excess of a year; however-, recent
eFForts to improve the process will hopefully shorten this
interval.

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
example, in man/ 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 states regulatory process.

Another- example of a cooperative, interjurisdictional
management effort is the Connecticut River Anadromous Fish
Restoration Program. The program is a joint effort of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine
Fisheries Service, and each oF the Connecticut River basin
states (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and
Vermont) . Program participants are structured into a
Technical Committee and a Policy Committee and have
responsibilities for development 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.

2.3 Local Government

Resource management by municipalities is exercised
exclusively over shellfish in beds under town jurisdiction
with the exception of some areas in the towns of West Haven,
New Haven, Milford, and Westport (Sec. 26-238 and 26-257
CGS). Municipalities are granted broad authority by Sec.
26-257a(b) of the statutes to regulate shellFisheries and
shell-Fish grounds when such authority is not granted to
other parties and when such grounds are not under the
jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Agriculture. However,
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 softshell
and hardshell clams.

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

Management by the towns is through appointed shellfish
commissions empowered to enact regulations on seasons,
quantities to be taken, 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 have
developed shell-Fish 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 shell-Fishing. The town of
Branford also operates a similar program.

The process For enacting or amending town shellfish
regulations varies between communities. Generally,
proposals may be made by the Commission, or, t0 the
commission by interested 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 activites 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.
Generally, 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 Fishery
Conservation Zone. 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.

Two examples oF successFul, interjurisdictional
management programs are the Connecticut River Anadromous
Fisheries Program, and the Interstate Fisheries Management
Program (ISFMP) administered by the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission.

Anadromous Fisheries management in the Connecticut
River basin is accomplished largely through a cooperative
eFFort between the basin states and both the U.S. Fish
and WildliFe Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service. Since the mid 196O'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. Again, 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.

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 the
preparation oF Fishery management plans For inshore 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.

To date, the ISFMP and its predecessor program (the
NMFS State/Federal Fisheries Management Program) have
developed FMP's For American lobster, Atlantic menhaden,
summer flounder, striped bass, and northern shrimp.
Additional program activites include the coordination of
regional, interstate activities in the collection,
processing, and dissemination of coastal fisheries
statistics. With one exception, plans developed under the
interstate program have then been presented to each of the
ASMFC member- states for implementation under that states
regulatory authority. Inherent in this statement lies both
the weakness of the ISFMP and its strength in promoting
cooperative management efforts between the states.

The interstate program, in itself, has no authority to
implement a plan. 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 the Commission which
become force of law for each of the designating member
states. At the present time, the northern shrimp in the
Gulf oF Maine is 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 such plan is approved by the Commission. In
practice, 'this does not always occur since the pressures
brought to bear within a state during the public- hearing
process often overcome the initial inclinations of state
representatives to the Commission during development 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 have been unwilling to relegate management-
responsibilities to a central -Fisheries management authority
which would then have authority over those fisheries and
resources within a state's territorial sea.

Cooperative town shell-Fish management programs include
those where a water body may represent the boundary between

two towns such as the Ni~antic River between Water-Ford and
East Lyme. Also, coastal towns with similar management
philosophies often cooperate to manage beds in each of th~qe
towns. A~n example ~0qo~qf this type o~qf program is in the towns
o~qf Clinton, Madison and Guil~qf~ord which annually sp~qons~er a
joint she~ql~ql~qfis~2qWc~qommissi~qon meeting.

The Division o~qf A~qqu~acultur~e h~as recently ~qw~qor ke d
closely with the New York Department ~qo~qf Environmental
Cons~'~ervati~qon ~qon shellfish management issues. The situation
in Connecticut is an interesting one in that much o~qf the
~qo~q/st~er harvest from Connecticut is transported t~qo New York
for d~ePur~ati~qon~. As a result, there is perhaps a greater
motivation for cooperative discussions between the two
states regarding shellfish management. Finally, the
Division is looking -Forward to an increase in cooperative
management efforts with Rhode Island in n~e~arsh~qore eastern
Connecticut areas.

Within~'r~elated state and federal jurisdictions,
potential for conflict exists in the cooperative ~an~a~qdr~qom~qous
fisheries management programs however, in reality, such
conflicts d~qo not occur. 'The Connecticut River, program
serves as t~qhe model ~qf~qor a successful~', long-term, cooperative
management effort.

3.0 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 196O's by G. A.Riley and
his associates at the Bingham Oceanographic Laboratory o f
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
Technica1 Report Series of the Marine Science Research
Center of the State University of New York (Hardy 1970, 1972
a, b; Hard/ and Weyl 1971; Jay and Bowman 1975).

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); Michael (1976); McCall (1977);
and Rhoades 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 or i gins, d i s tr i b u t i on, 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).

ScientiFic information on biota that are of comercial,
recreational, and ecological resource importance is
available in Thomson et al. (1978) Bigelow and Shroeder
(1953); Technical Series Reports of the NMFS Sandy Hook
Laboratory; FAO Fisheries Synopses, final and draft 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 Water-ford, CT . I n
addition, the most useful scientific journals, in which
results of recent investigations on the population dynamics,
migratory habits,, and other information vital to the
management 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.

The Connecticut DEP Marine Fisheries Information System
provides valuable data on commercial catches and fishing
effort. Presently, the relative stock abundance of the

lobster- resource and FinFish species most effectively caught
by otter trawl can be monitored by relating catches
and associated fishing effort derived -From the system.

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
square nautical 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
(Figure 1) . Maximum depths of about 328 ft occur in the
eastern end, which decrease to about 1.15 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 i S
'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 278 miles of shoreline that
directly -Fronts on LIS, 14.2% consists of sandy beach, _11.3%
is glacial drift, 8.2% is artificial -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 outcropping to wooded and settled islands with
dwellings. Large shoals lie off Stratford and Old Saybrook-
(NERBC 1975).

4.1.2 Sources of Fresh Water

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

1) The Connecticut River basin with a drainage area of
11,250 sq mi.

0
0

cc
Con nacticu t

Nbw York

IDI(

so
nd Sound
Cri a

Long Island, NY

Atlantic Ocean

Figure 1. Long Island So,'Und and its environs.

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 (93.2 sq mi) (USGS & NOAA 1973).

The aver-age annual freshwater inflow is approximately
6,200 billion gallons, equal to 37 percent of total volume.
Most of this in-Flow (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,
preceeded 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 estuarine characteristics in
the western and central parts and embayment characteristics
in the eastern third. Estuarine properties are repeated on
a smaller scale in the mouths of rivers flowing into the
Sound.

Minimum tidal range and maximum tidal currents occur at
the eastern end, while the maximum tidal range and minimum
tidal currents occur at the western end. Circulation or
movement of water within LIS and the adjacent estuarine
streams is controlled principally 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. Surface tidal current patterns in the central
and eastern Sound are elliptical and counter-clockwise in
direction. 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". Af
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).

Long Island Sound has been classified as a moderately I
stratified estuary (Bumpus et al. 1973) because ocean and
fresh waters do not mix completely. The well-oxyqenated,

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, *r-om
inland sources tend to be flushed out to sea while
nutrient-rich bottom waters circulate to surface layers.
The sediment distribution within the Sound is also affected
by circulation patterns (NERBC 1'975; USGS and NOAA 1973).

Vertical and horizontal variation of the Sound's
chemical parameters are influenced by its bath/metry 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 vert 'ical gradients Wester and Courant 1973).
A general east-west gradient in salinity occurs whereby the
salinity of the western end is 3-5%., lower than the eastern
end in which the surface salinity rahges from 31-32%. except
during perio.dic T loo d i n -3 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.- Sur-Face water temperature ranges from
about 34-66OF in the eastern end, and 32-73'IF in the western
end. A slight vertical temperature gradient occurs during
the summer with surface temperatures ranging from 68 OF in
the western part and 64 OF in the eastern part of the Sound
to bottom temperatures of 63 0 F and 61 0 F, respectively.
Maximum differences between surface and bottom -temperatures
are about 9 OF in central LIS (Riley 1'959).

Super'saturation of ox)(gen in surface waters occurs
during the spring bloom of ph/toplankton, 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 distribution indicates that production of
oxygen in the surface layer- b;r ph/toplankton 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 ver-tical 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 Wester 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 -ft. 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 responsible 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,
stability, wind, and tidal speed, all of which might be
expected to influence 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.

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).

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 predominantly 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 subse-juent to initial
deposition (Donahue and Tucker 1970).

Estuarine currents superimposed o n tidal currents
produce a net wes tward 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 theinner 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. The muddy
central basin is covered with a layer of fecal pellets
approximately 0.2 in. thick (CAM 1977).

During every tidal cycle, a layer of sediment
approx imatel/ 1/16 in. . thick is eroded and redistributed
within the central basin. Throughout LIS, tidal streams
re-suspend and re-depos i t more than 7 million tons of
sediment daily. Because of this activity, fine silt is
accumulatiri,3 "in the central and western basins at a rate Of
slightly less-t.han I/1E. in. per year (CAM 1977).

4.2 Habitats Supporting Marine Species

4.2.1 Pe lagic-

The pelagic 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 concentrat ions
differ spatially and temporally within LIS and its adjacent
estuaries. This influences the distribution and seasonal
occur-rence 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
significant dilution of the Sound by its freshwater
tributaries. However, especially in the eastern part of the
Sound, pelagic and benthic habitats are more representative
of those oceanic habitats occurring on the continental shelf
of New Englan-d. The estuarine classification becomes more
specific and accurate for areas near the mouths and in

estuarine reaches of rivers tributar/ to the Sound.

The confinement of estuaries provides shelter from wave
action, permits.' the retention of plankton, and enables
plants to root and shell-Fish 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 a I low the
growth of marsh plants and tide.Flat ' b iot a, and a 1 low @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 1 ow
salinity and encourages estuarine forms which can.
Freshwater flow, tidal energy, and salinity together create
a two-la;@-er water movement system, benefi-cial 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 c@,clinq 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 shall ":-,I w a t e r swhere 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 bottom
sediments by collec-ting and holding suspended particles
that settle from the water column as tidal currents slow
(Clark 1974).

4.2.4 Rocky Shore

The shallow depths of subtidal rock)( shorelines (30 ft
or less) permit light penetration sufficient for algal
primary productivity and an associated food- chain. The
r-ock;r 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 rocf(y inter-tidal shore is a habitat of@hiqh stress
resulting from wave action, alternating exposure and

inundation from tidal action, and temperature and salinity
extremes in tidep~qo~qols which have ~qf ~qor~- me d at low tide.
Larval a~nd juvenile stages o~qf crustaceans and -fish receive
some protection from large predators under. a~nd among r~c~, c k s
in this habitat; snails such as Li~qtt~qo~rina litt~qorea are
usually ~abund~an~qi. Generally, the rocky int~ertidal zone is
not a habitat from which species a~qre commercially or
recr~eation~all~2qy harvested, although some bait species max be
available.

4.2.5 Reefs

~8qSu~qbtidal rocky r~e~e-~qFs offer habitat c~qt~k~ar~act~eristic~s
similar to ~qt ~hose ~qo~qf s~qq~qbtid~al rocky shore areas. ~_~_~Ne~arsh~qor~e
rocky reefs such as Bart l~qe~- tt (Waterford), and P~en~qf i~e 1 d
(Bridgeport) and ~qo~qf~~qfsh~qore reefs such as Stratford Shoal in
t~qhe middle o~qf the Sound are productive sp~qort~-~qFishin~qg and/or
l~qobst~erin~qg areas. 'The same shallow rocky habitat
characteristics are -Found at man-made breakwaters such as
the St~cnin~qgton and Duck Island breakwaters which make them
productive ~ql~qobst~erin~qg and fishing areas.

4.2.6 Sand and M~ud Bottom

Su~qbtidall~qy, a flat bottom com~'~qp~qos~ed ~qo~qf sand or mud, or
a combination of both, is the predominant ~qb~enthic habitat in
LIS and its Burr-owing deposit feeders such as
p~qol~8qychaet~e worms and small crustaceans (i.e. ~amphip~qods,
is~op~qods) feed on d~etritus, bacteria, and unicellular algae
at th~e base o~qf the food chain. Bivalve molluscs filter feed
~qon ph~qy~qt~qopl~ankt~qon suspended in the water near the bottom.
Epi~-~qF~aun~al animals such as crabs, lobsters, a~nd snails feed
~qon the in~qfa~qun~al species. ~2qB~qott~qom-~qf~e~edin~qg fish o~qf resource
importance such as flounder and scup -Feed ~qon the in~qfa~una and
epi~qf~auna ~qo~qf this habitat.

Dredged material disposal sites in LIS become quick~*l~4qX
colonized ~qb~qy in~qfaun~al species which are followed by
~epi~-~qFaun~al species in search ~qo~qf food and potential shelter.
Disposal sit~es were originally chosen in areas considered to
be ~qo~qf low habitat value. Species such as lobster and
~qfin~qfish are attracted by the "feature" aspect of the mound
on an otherwise featureless bottom in addition to the food
~qS ~q4~q:~q1~q1~q1~q1 -c~qe provided by the initial c~2qol~qe~q-~q,nizin~8qg i n ~12qf a u n a . Fine
grained silts and cl~qa~2qxs are manipulated by crabs and
lobsters and, due to their cohesiveness, easily formed into
protective burrows.

Tidal marshes usually extend into unve~2qg~qetated expanses
o~8qf m~qud ~2qor~q- sand. These flats ma~8qy extend above the low-ti~4qd~2qe
mark and thus create a tide~8qflat shoreline, where the
tidelands area is unfavorable to the growth o~8qf grasses
because ~8qo~2qf heavy tidal scouring or other factors. Mud and
sand flats arc- often rich sources of basic nutrients for th~qe

~q7~-

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 mud-Flat area
which is vital to the stability and the continued existence
of both systems(Clark 1977).

4.2.7 Tidal Marshes

The tidal marshes of Connecticut represent a very
limited but valuable resource totalling 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, a -Finer and
shorter saltmeadow cordgrass (sparting patens)forms a
matrix within which occur "Islands" of short S.
alterniflora blackgrass (Juncus gerardi) spikegrass
(Distichlis spicata) 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 (Phragimites
commins) and switchgrass (Panicum virqatum) 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,
brackish, and -Fresh marshes, with dissimilarities in aquatic
vegetation correlated to variations in salinity. Generally,
areas with salinities greater- than 15%. and less than 0.5%
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 marshl~ands serve as a vehicle ~q*~qo~r~- the storage and
tr an ~s~qf~er ~qo~qf nutr i~ents -From upland sources which are
partially used and recycled within the marsh system, b~ut
ultimately transported into coastal waters t~qo provide basic
nutrient ~qf~qor~- the ~qT~qo~qod w~e~qb system. Vegetation plays a ~qke~qy
r ~qo I ~e in 1: ~qo n v~e r t i n ~43 i ~n~qor~- g a n i c c ~qo mp~qo ~u n d ~s ( n ~u t r i ~e n t s a n d
sunlight into the stored ~en~er~-~qg~8qy of plant tissue. When dead
leaves and stems of plants enter th~e water and are b r ~qo ~qk~e n
down by bacteria, they leave the storage component of the
energy cycle and, as small particles of ~c~qw~- ~q9 a n i c d ~e tr i t ~u s,
they be-come the food o~qf fiddler crabs, worms, snails,
~qmu ~s ~s ~e I ~S~, and larval stages of ~qf i ~sh and she I l~qf i sh in
estuarine waters. About one h a I ~qf o~qf the p 1 ant tissue-
cr~eat~ed-in tidal salt marshes is ~qf I ush~ed ~qou t i n t~qo th~e
~e~stu~ar~q@~- to suppp~qor~qt life there (Clark 1974).

Tidal creeks that tr~ans~ect salt marshes provide a way
~qfor various fishes a~nd invertebrates to move into marshes to
feed, t~qo spawn, or t~qo seek sanctuary. Some species, such as
t~qhe blue crab and various -fishes, actively move in and out
of these tide marshes while others, such as c~qop~ep~qod~s and
larvae o~qf fish and invertebrates, are passively' carri~-~ed in
and o~ut with th~e tide.

Tidal marsh systems per-form a valuable function in
pollution ~q*i~ql~4q@~qt~qr~ati~qon b~qy oxidizing organic waste an~qd b~qy
serving as a nutrient "sink", thus reducing the pollution
load entering the Sound and th~e resulting algal blooms a~nd
~e~untr~qophicati~qon (NERBC 1974). As sediment ~accr~et~qors, tidal
marshes also act as depositories . ~qf~qor sediments, therefore
reducing the frequency of dredging needed for navigation.
This, in turn, reduces the potential ~8qf~qo r smothering
shellfish a~7nd other bottom estuarine invertebrates. Marshes
also are important in erosion control . During severe
storms, extensive mats ~qo~qf marsh PC-at exhibit great
resiliency, a~nd thereby serve to buffer the shore I i n~e and
provide t~qhe upland with an added degree o~qf protection
(Ni~erin~qg and Warren 1~'~q974)~.

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 ~qen~qerg~28q/ storage unit ~8qfor the
ecosystem (Clark 1~20q974)~q.

4.2.8 B~qe~qa~qch~2qfr~2qont

Th~qe b~qe~qach~2qfr~qont is a harsh, unstable environment and
n~8qo t a permanent habitat ~8qf~2qor~q- species ~8qo~q@~8qF major resource
importance . It can provide productive ~qsp~2qort~2qfishin~8qg ~08qfor
~8qg~qam~qe~4qfish as the/ prey upon schools ~2qo~8qf b~qai~8qt~8qfish such as sand
l~qa~qunce which~qi~q:~12q4t~qen occur there.

4.3 Living Marine Resources

4.3.1 Introduction

The amount oF inFormation available that pertains to
Connecticut's l1ving marine resources varies considerably
among the individual species. Some liFe history in inFormation
such as geographic range, migratory habits, preferred
habitat, Food habits, and reproduction has been established
and is brieFly summarized in this section based on the
existing literature. Occurence and distribution in Long
Island Sound is known Tor major- commercial and recreational
species, but is unclear For others which may be less
important to fishermen but oF considerable ecologi Cal
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), and Olsen and Stevenson
(1975). Sources oF similar information on molluscan and
crustacean shell-Fish are reFerenced individually -For each
species.

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 in making
decisions based only on the commercial landings data
contained herein.

Prior to 1981 Connecticut commercial landings
statistics were compiled by the National Marine Fisheries
Service in part-From the total catches recorded *or certain
species by DEP Marine Fisheries staFF and their predecessors
-From commercial -Fishing reports. Landings of species were
published annually in "Fisheries Statistics of the United
States" -From 1939 to 1976. although, in 1941, no data were
collected in Connecticut. For the years 1977-79,
Preliminary data were obtained -From NMFS, which will
eventually be published in the same publication. Data
compiled by NMFS *or 1980 were not completed at the time oF
this writing.
In 1981, DEP Marine Fisheries staFF through a contract
with NMFS, assumed -Full responsibility for the collection
and compilation of commercial landings statistics. The
Connecticut landings oF species caught by offshore trawlers
that do not fish in Connecticut waters -- and thus are not
required to obtain a Connecticut license or to submit a
report oF catch and landings to Connecticut were derived

from dealer inter-views and integrated into the total annual
landings of each species. Because the 1981 landings of
species trawled from offshore grounds such as yellowtail
flounder, butterfish, haddock, hakes, bluefish, and cod show
dramatic increases over those from 1976-79, and because of
differences used to collect these statistics, landings
obtained by NMFS prior to 1981 are not directly comparable
to 1981 landings. It is widely believed that the figures
reported prior to 1981 are underestimates of the true
performance of the southern New England fleet landing in
eastern Connecticut. Since there is such a disparity in the
the magnitude of some landings as well as both the method
and collection agency used to derive the -figures, dotted
lines have been utilized to illustrate the differences and
to continually remind the reader of those differences.

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 practices have been imposed on
commercial and recreational harvesters. These restrictions
are presented in Table 1.

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

Fin-Fish - taken commercially

minimum legal minimum legal
lengths (inches, lengths (inches,
total length) total length)
------------------- ------------------

blackfish 12 winter flounder 8*
black sea bass 8 fluke 14*
bluefish 9 mackerel 9
butterfish 6 scup 7*
cod 17 tomcod 7
weakfish 12 striped bass 16**

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

Tor fish taken recreationally as well as commercially.

creel limit - 4 fish per -day between 16-24 inches fork
length, no limit on fish> 24 inches fork length.

Crustacean shellfish - taken commercially and
recreationally.

Lobster 3-3/16 inches minimum carapace length; no egg-
bearing females may, be taken; no lobster parts
other than those Tor 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 I 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.

Oyster,
soft clam Creel limits differ among towns.

4.3.2 Finfish

4.3.2.1 Blackfish (Tautoga onitis), tautog

Description: Black-Fish are stout-bodied with thick lips,
blunt nose, stout con i cal teeth, and are enlarged
anteriorly. They are a dark mottled color with adults
bearing a prominent white spot on the chin. Black-fish
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 1ay
dormant, returning to shallower- waters as they warm in the
spring. The/ are found mostly inshore around breakwaters,
ledges, piers and docks, over boulder strewn bottoms and on
mussel beds predominately 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. Their diet
also includes crabs, sand dollars, amphipods,shrimps,
isopods, and lobsters. Spawning occurs in late spring and
early summer in LIS.

Fishery and conditin of Stocks:

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

1977 10,000 0.3 0.2
1978 12,000 0.3 0.2
1979 12,900 0.4 0.2
1981 21,335 0.4 0.3

Blackfish contribute a low percentage to total
commercial finfish landings and landings of all species
including shell-Fish in Connecticut. They are harvested
primarily by trawl (82% and 48% of annual blackfish landings
in 1979 and 1981, -respectively) and hand line (40% in
1981). Smaller amounts of the annual blaCkfish landings are
taken by' gill net (9% and 4% in 1979 and 1981
respectively). Commercial landings have generally ranged
from 10,000-40,000 pounds since 1939, except for 1948 when a
record 150,000 pounds was landed (Figure 2).

From 1977-1981, Connecticut-licensed trawlers reported
catching blaCkfish mostly in central LIS (60%-80% of annual

blackFish catches). Small percentages were caught in
eastern (5-20%) and western LIS. Essentially none
were caught in Block Island Sound and waters -Farther
oFf shore. It should not be inferred that blackfish are more
abundant in Central LIS than the eastern and western ends
because the/ are a by-catch species of trawlers seeking scup
or Flounder and those vessels concentrate their effort in
central LIS.

In 1979, 423,000 black-Fish were reported caught by
recreational anglers (NMFS 1980), ranking this species sixth
by number caught and third by estimated total pounds caught
(Table 2). This catch was 49 times greater than the
reported catch oF Connecticut-licensed commercial Fishermen
that year (Table 2). In 1981, 24,500 pounds of blaCk-Fish
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 Iabundance of blaCkFish as indicated by catch
per commercial trawl hour increased 91% From 1978 to 1979
and has remained at the- higher level since then (Figure 3).

]so

140

120

300
Ln (n
M In
7:z
cc: --')
Ln C> 80
=) a-
CD,
:r LI
C>
60
25

m
40 LiD
n-0 20
in
C3 _j
20 z x
=1 Cr 15
af

0 10
1935 1945 J955 19G5 1975 1985 1977 1979 1981

Fi,gure 2. Cc-, ri n e c t i c u t Figure 3. Catch per effort of
commercial blackfish blackfish caught b;r Connecticut
larr,dings, 1939-1981.. licensed trawlers, 1,377-1981.

4.3.2.2 Blue-Fish (Pomatomus saltatrix), snapper (young)

Description: Bluefish are an elongate, power-Tully built
fish, with a somewhat compressed body, a 1arge 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 weight 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
remaining into the fall. Bluefish migrate seasonally in
response 'to warmer temperatures. Small bluefish move
southward along the coast during late fall while adults
exhibit an inshore-offshore movement. Bluefish are pelagic,
preferring warmer waters, and are seldom found in waters
below 58-60 F. 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, although 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)
mid-Atlantic bight over the Continental shelf in summer.
Preferred spawning temperatures range from 64 to 79 F.

Fishery and Condition oF Stocks:

Percent oF Percent of total
Commercial total commercial commercial landings
landings finfish-landings of all species
Year (Lbs) (includes squid) (includes shell-Fish)
-----------------------------------------------------------

1977 12,800 0.4 0.2
1978 54,800 1 .3 0.8
1979 52,500 1.4 1.0
1981 311,969* 5. 6 3.8
*See 4.3.1

Landings of bluefish from 1977-79 indicate that this
species contributed a low percentage to total commercial
finfish landings as well as landings of all species
including shell-Fish. However, the 1981 figure suggests that
bluefish contribute a significant percentage to total
landings.

Landings are divided about equally between the otter
trawl and commercial angler fisheries. An insignificant
amount per year is also taken by gill net. Bluefish are the
mainstay of the hook and line fishery and constitute
approximately 50% of all commercial angler landings.
Historical peak landings of about 90,000 lbs. occurred in
1952 and from 1969-1974. Recent landings have increased
during 1977-79. The 1981 landings of 312,000 lbs is a
record, however, because of the new statistics collection
method,- it is uncertain whether this value represents a true
increase in landings or-, more likely, whether previous
values were underestimates (Figure 4).

Resident commercial trawlers report catching bluefish
mostly in central LIS (60-70 % of annual bluefish catches), a
small amount in western LIS (10-20,%) and Block Island Sound
(2-8%), and essentialy none in eastern LIS. Commercial
anglers probably catch most bluefish in major bluefish
sportfishing areas such as the Race, and similar areas in
western and central LIS.

The 1.979 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 blue-Fish
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 blue-Fish
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 2).

In 1981, 1,074,200 pounds of bluefish were caught from
Connecticut's party and charter boats, accounting Tor 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, which includes landings of vessels not licensed by
Connecticut (312,000 pounds) by a factor of three.

The relative abundance of bluefish in LIS and adjacent
nearshore waters, as indicated by catch per commercial trawl
hour, has steadily increased approximately 90% -From
1977-1981 (Figure 5.

350

300

25b

200
z z

C, 150
40

.100
E'L 8 30
Ln
rm -j
z _:x
50 :D (r 20
C> m

0
10
1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 29B5 1977 1979 19bi

Figure 4. Connect icut Figure 5. C.atch-per effort of
commercial blue-Fish blue-Fish caught bX Connecti 'cut
landings, 19:39-1981. licensed trawlers-, 1977-1981.

:2.3

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 riot
exceeding 30 -Fathoms. They are pelagic feeders,
concentrating on nektonic or planktonic organisms. Their
diet includes small fish, squid, amphipods, copepods,
shrimps and annelid worms. Spawning occurs in spring and
summer (June to August in New England) a few miles out to
sea. Post-spawning individuals return to coastal waters.

Fishery and Condition of Stocks:

Percent of Percent of total
Commercial total commercial commercial landings
landings finfish landings of all species
Year (Lbs) (includes squid) (includes shellFish)

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

1977 28,200 0.8 0.5
1978 66, 000 1.0 1.6
1979 25,900 0.7 0.5
1981 510, 435* 9.1 6.2
See 4.3.1

Landings of butterfish from 1977-79 indicate that this
species contributed a low percentage to total commercial
finfish landings and landings of all species including
shellfish.However, the 1981 landings, which include
prefiously unreported offshore landings., suggest that
butterfish contribute a significant percentage to those
categories. The/ are harvested primarily by trawl (greater
than 80% of annual butterfish landings) with small amounts
taken by hook and line ('about 10%) and gill net .(less than
5%).

Historical landings increased from less than 100,000
pounds prior to the 1940's to a record I million pounds in
1947, after which they dropped to less than 20,000 pounds in
the early 1970's Landings have since increased to over
20,000 pounds (Figure 6).

From 1977-79, Connecticut-licensed trawlers reported
catching butterfish mostly in central LIS (47-84% oF annual
butterFish catches), Block Island Sound (10-20%), and waters
-Further. oFFshore (17-54%). Very little is reported caught
by trawl in eastern (2-3%) and western (2-6%) LIS.

No butterfish were reported caught by recreational
anglers in 1979 (NMF 1980). Thus, they are not an
important sportFish, although available to anglers, since
1-3 thousand pounds are 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 decreased 69% From 1978 to 1979
and has remained at the lower level since then (Figure 7).

1100

1000

900

800

70e

GOO

00
0

30e

50
200 m

0 1 1977 1

Figure 6. Connecticut Figqure 7. Catch per eFFort oF
commercial butterfish butterFish caught by
landings, 1887-1981. Connecticut licensed trawlers,

4.3.2.4 Cod (Gadus morhua), scrod (juvenile)

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. They
are -round in the northwest Atlantic 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 a nd broken shell. The/ are
found at temperatures between 32 and 55F, 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. Peak spawning occurs from
January to mid-September, depending upon location, in
temperatures ranging from 30 to 54 F, usually at depths
between 5-25 fathoms.

Fishery and Condition of Stocks:

Percent of Percent of total
Commercial tota1 commercial commercial landings
landings finfish landings Of all species
Year (Lbs) (includes squid) (includes shellfish)
-------------------------------------------------------------

1977 49,400 1.4 0.9
1978 55,200 1.3 0.8
1979 19, 200 0.5 0.4
1981 504,800* 9.0 6.1
See 4.3.1

Landings of cod from 1977-79 indicate that this species
contributed a low percentage to tota1 commercial finfish
landings as well as to landings of all species including
shell-Fish. However, the 1981 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 remained near,--
or less than 400,000 pounds since then (Figure 8). Resident
commercial trawlers report catching cod mostly in Block
Island Sound (78-94% of annual cod catches) and offshore
grounds (2-20%). Essentially none are reported from LIS
except For about 100 pounds per year -From eastern 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.
Recreational landings exceed the 1977-79 commercial landings
approximately two-fold; again 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 decreased 75% From 1978-1980 and
remained low in 1981 (Figure 9).

3
30

_qj

0 0

1 197 1979 1981

Figure 8. Connecticut Figure 9. Catch per. eFFort oF
commercial cod landings cod caught by Connecticut
1880-1981. licensed trawlers, 1977-1981.

4.3.2.5 American eel (Anquilla 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 aver-age 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 environemntal 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:

Percent of Percent of total
Commercial total commercial commercial landings
landings finfish landings of all species
Year (Lbs) (includes squid) (includes shell-Fish)

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

1977 34,2OO 0.1 0.6
1978 26, 400 O.6 0.4
1979 27,600 0.8 0.5
1981 27,335 0.5 0.3

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 hand lines
(less than 1%). Commercial landings have generally ranged
from 10,000-50,000 pounds since 1939. The 1950's and 1960's
were a period of consistently low landings between 10,000
and-25,000 pounds (Figure 10). -

In less than 30,000 eels were reported caught by
recreational anglers (NMFS l98O), 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 a delicacy.

The condition of Connecticut eel stocks is thought to
be stable. However, some commercial eel fishermen believe
that catches are declining while fishing effort is
increasing (Shen 1982). No scientific data is available to
determine the condition of stocks.

1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Figure 10. Connecticut commercial eel landings,
1939-1981

4.3.2.6 Winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus),
blaCkback flounder, lemon sole

Description: 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 Day. It is a permanent
resident of LIS, completing its 1ife cycle here. 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 /ear in estuarine waters. soft,
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 53-60 IF, 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 bottoms, often in water as shallow as 6-18 feet.

Fishery and condition of stocks:

Percent of Percent of total
Commercial total commercial commercial landings
landings finfish landings 0F all species
Year (Lbs) (includes squid) (includes shellfish)
7 -------------------------------------------------------

1977 609, 000 17.7 11.6
1978 804,000 19 . 5 12.4
1979 529,400 14.4 10.2
1981 1,161,000* 20.8 14.1
*See 4.3.1

.Among Connecticut commercial finfish landings, only
unclassified baitfish landings exceed those of winter
flounder, which can be classified as Connecticut's most
important commercial foodfish species. Essentially all (99%
of annual landings) of the winter flounder landed by
commercial vessels in Connecticut are caught by otter trawl.
Small quantities are also commercially taken by haul seine,
gill net, and angling.

The greatest commercial winter flounder landings,
between 3-5 million pounds, were recorded annually from
1940-1950. Landings have remained less than or near I
million pounds since then, although-very low landings (less

than 200,000 pounds) occurred in 1972, 1973 and 1975
(Figure 11)

Resident trawlers report catching winter flounder
mostly in Block Island Sound (50-60% of annual winter
-Flounder catches). Eastern LIS yield is low (5-20%), and
the catch in western LIS is insignificant.

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 2). 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 from all gear types by 17%
(Table 2).

Although abundance, as indicated by catch per
commercial trawl hour, decreased 28% -From 1979-80, it
increased 19% from 1980-81 and appears to have remained
relatively steady over the entire period (Figure 12).

120

0 80
1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1977 1979 1961

Figure 11. Connecticut Figure 12. Catch per effort of
commercial winter winter flounder caught by
I
flounder landings, Connecticut licensed trawlers,
1939-1981.

4.3.2.7 Fluke: (Paralichthys dentatus), summer flounder

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
pounds, although larger
caught. Fluke occur on the continental shelf from Maine to
South Carolina. They. occur- seasonally in LIS during summer
months in bays, harbors, and mouths of estuaries. Fluke
move inshore to shallow coastal water in the earl/ summer,
and migrate offshore in the fall to over-winter. 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 the ir lives on the bottom
preferring sand or mud, but will rise into the water column
when chasing pre/. Fluke consume primarily small fish,
squid, crabs, shrimp, molluscs, worms, and sand dollars.
They spawn in off shore waters during fal1, winter, and
spring.

Fishery and condition of Stocks:

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

1977 63,500 1.8 1.2
1978 110,800 2.7 1.7
1979 30,700 0.8 0.6
1981 81,343* 1.4 1.0
*See 4.3.1

Fluke contribute a low percentage to total commercial
finfish landings and landings of all species including
shell-Fish in Connecticut as indicated by reported catch and
landings. The/ are harvested primarily by trawl (greater
than 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 occurred from
1944-1959- Landings dropped to less -- -than _100, 000- - pounds-
from 1965-1977, but increased from less than 25,000 to
111,000 pounds during 1972-78 (Figure 13).

From 1977-1981, Connecticut-licensed trawlers reported
the greatest catches. of fluke in Block Island Sound and
offshore grounds, and central LIS.- The combined catch from

these areas amounted to about 90% of annual fluke catches.
No finer definition of consistant trends in catch by area is
apparent except that low fluke catches were reported from
eastern (5-9%) and western (1-4%) LIS.

In 1979, 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 2). 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 2). In 1981, 7,600 pounds of fluke were
cauqht From Connecticut party' and charter boats.

Although the relative abundance of -Fluke as indicated
by catch per commercial trawl hour fluctuated between 20-35
pounds from 1977-1981 this difference is not believed to
represent a large variation in abundance (Figure 14).

goo

800

700

600

En U)
1@1 C3 500
z z
Ccn
M 0
:3 IL
C) 400

300 40

a_ CD,
200 LJ ::)
Ln 30
rM -i
z :K
100 =3 CI:
le
I--

0 20
1935 194 5 3 955 1965 1975 -1985 1977 1979 1981

Figure 13. Connecticut Figure 14. Catch per effort of
commercial *luke *Iuke caught by Connecticut
landings, 1939-1981. licensed trawlers, 1'977-1981.

144

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 I to 2 pounds. Yellowtail range
from the Gulf of St. Lawrence 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. Yellowtail do not make significant migrations although
the/ may undertake local movements of probably not more than
50 miles. 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 33 to 540F. A demersal fish
with a small mouth, yellowtail feed mainly on amphipods,
shrimps, mysids and small shellfish as well as on worms.
Small fish are consumed when available. Spawning takes
place -From mid-March to September with peaks in April to
June in New England.

Fishery and Condition of Stocks:
Percent of Percent of total
Commercial total commercial commercial landings
landings finfish landings of all species
Year, (Lbs) (includes squid) (includes shellfish)
-----------------------------------------------------------
1977 384,300 11.2 7.3
1978 307, 600 7.4 4.8
1979 346,300 9.4 6.6
1981 - 1,502,416* 26.8 17.8
See 4.3.1

Landings of yellowtail flounder from 1977-79 indicate
that this species contributed a substantial percentage to
total commercial fin-Fish 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; in that year, scup was second to winter flounder.
However, the 1981 landings, which include unreported
offshore landings, indicate that yellowtail flounder is the
most -important commercial finfish, winter flounder being
second.

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. The

increased level of landings in 1981 over that recorded for
1977-79 is believed to be a result of an improvement in the
method of collecting statistics. Therefore, landings from
the late 1970's are likely to be underestimated. However,
the 1981 landings are still low compared to those of 1974
and 1975 (Figure 15).

From 1977-79, Connecticut licensed trawlers reported
catching yellowtail mostly offshore of Block Island Sound
(37-68% of annual yellowtail catches) and in Block Island
Sound (37-58%). Reports of catches made at the extreme
eastern end of Long Island Sound occasionally account for
about 2% of landings.

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 decreased 59%
from 1977 to 1981 (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. Research survey data on the
southern New England stock indicated a pronounced decline in
abundance between the late 1960's and mid 1970's, which has
leveled off since then (NEFMC 1981). It is unknown whether
the Connecticut commercial catch/effort data reflects a
further decline in stock abundance.

3
150

50
1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1977 1979 1981

Figure 15. Connecticut Figure 16. Catch per eFfort of
commercial yellowtail yellowtail flounder caught by
-Flounder- landings, -Connecticut licensed trawlers,
1977-1981.

4.3.2.9 Mackerel (Scomber scombrus)

Description: Mackerel have a streamlined body with a roar-row
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 the GulF oF St. Lawrence to Cape Hatteras
out to the edge oF the continental shelf. The mackerel is
an early slimmer visitor to LIS, leaving in the Fall. LIS
may be an important nursery area For young mackerel. Each
Tall, mackerel move out oF LIS and overwinter oFf the
southern New England coast near the edge of the continental
shlF. 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 cope p o d s, crustaceans and small Fish.
Spawning occurs during the spring and summer over the entire
continental shelf (June in southern New England). The most
productive spawning occurs south of Cape Cod, but there are
.no speciFic spawning grounds.

Fishery and condition of Stocks:

Percent of Percent oF total
Commercial total commercial commercial landings
landings Finfish landings 0f all species
Year (Lbs) (includes squid) (includes shellFish)
------------------------ -----------------------------------

1977 32,800 1.0 6.6
1978 15,600 0.4 0.2
1979 12,200 0.3 0.2
1981 86, 228* 1.5 1.0
See 4.3.1

Landings of mackerel From 1977-1981 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 quantities (6-9%) are taken by commercial
anglers.

Landings oF 1.3 million pounds in 1880 decreased to
less than 300,000 pounds until the late 1920's - early
1930's 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 1940's, aFter which
landings have remained less than 100,000 pounds (Figure 17).

In 1979, 254,000 mackerel were reported caught by
recreational anglers (NMFS 1980), ranking this species
eighth by number caught and seventh by estimated total
pounds caught (Table 2). 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 (one or
two weekends per year), 50% or more oF the boat-based
-Fishing eFFort 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 pounds oF Mackerel were reported caught by
Connecticut party and charter boats.

The spawning stock oF mackerel declined steadily From
about 2.4 million metric tons in 1969 to 525,000 metric tons
in 1977. NMFS bottom trawl catch-per-tow data indicated a
decline in overall Mackerel abundance during this period
(MAFMC 1978).

I B 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980

Figure 17. Connecticut commercial mackerel landings,
1880-1981.

4.3.2.10 Menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), bunker

Description: Menhaden are deep-bodied with a deeply forked
tail, dark blue to. blue gray above, with silver/ 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
They are
drainage systems where food is most abundant.
rarely -Found in water below 50 IF. 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
Commerccial total commercial commercial landings
landings finfish landings of all species
Year (Lbs) (includes squid) (includes shellfish)
-------------------------------------------------------- 7-

1977 106,6OO 3.1 2.0
1978 85,100 2.1 1.3
1979 100,200 2.7 1.9
1981 151,349 2.7 1.8

Menhaden contribute a moderately low percentage to
total commercial finfish landings and- landings of all
species including shell-Fish 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 I mill-ion pounds were landed from 1977-79.
Menhaden landed in Connecticut are 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%).

Record historical landings exceeding 40 million
pounds occurred in the 1880's. 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 occur-red. From
1970 to the present, landings have generally ranged between
100,000-600,000 pounds (Figure 18). The early landings from
1880-1930 reflect the magnitude of Connecticut's Tormer
menhaden industry.

Processing plants serving purse seine boats
fishing in Long Island Sound operated in Connect i cut f rom
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, they
land their catches in New Jersey where a processing plant
currently operates (see Section 5.1.11). Thus, the actual
catch of menhaden from LIS is much greater than iandings
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 on I/
represent that menhaden which is used for bait by
Connecticut lobster-men and anglers.

No menhaden were reported , caught by Connecticut
recreational anglers in 1979 (NMFS '1980). However-, anqler-s
probably did I- take considerable numbers using snag hooks to
-1
use as bait for bluefish and striped bass.

All menhaden along the Atlantic coast be-long 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 con-dition of the stock may be stable.
However-, n@- scientific data is available on the population
dynamics of that portion of the Atlantic menhaden stock
entering Long Island-Sound.

50
f.n
IM
z
M
CL 40

En
C@ 30

IGBO 1900 1920 1940 1960 19BO

Figure 18. Connecticut commercial menhaden
landings, 1880-1981.

4.3.2.11 River herring: alewife (Alosa Pseudoharengus),
blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), glut
herring.

Description: The bodies of river herring arestrongly
compressed laterally and are deeper than in sea herring
(about 1 1/3 times as long as deep). 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 Labrador to Cape Hatter-as,
and are less abundant south of Cape Cod. Bluebacks are more
southern species, most abundant from southern New England to
Florida but occurring north to Nova Scotia. 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. Little is known about migrations in the ocean where
most growth occurs. There is evidence that both species are
schooling fish in,-.-' the ocean. The bluebaCk may move out far
from land (more than 100 miles) and may pass the winter. near
the bottom. 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. They
also eat small -fish. 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 areas of relatively slow flow and
temperatures of 55-60 F; bluebacks prefer areas of
relatively fast flow and later spring temperatures of 70-750
F.

Fishery and condition of Stocks:

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

Percent of Percent of total
Commercial total commercial commercial landings
landings Tin-Fish landings of all species
Year (Lbs) (includes squid) (includes shellfish)
--------------- 7--------------------------------------------

1977 61,300 1.8 1.2
1978 39,900 1.0. 0.6
1979 62,700 1.7 1.2
1981 52,816 0.9 0.6

"Alewives" contribute a low percentage to total
commercial finfish landings and landings of all species
including shellFish in Connecticut. The/ are hat-vested
primarily by haul seine (90-95% of annual "alewife"
landings) with 2-6% taken by gill net. Commercial -Fishing
Tor 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 I million pounds -From
1977-79.

Two peak periods in the recorded historical landings
occurred from 1892-1908 and 1950-55. 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 Tor recreational
anglers fishing for striped bass and blueFish. - 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 Tact, 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.

1.5

Ln
M
z
M
(D
Q-

C>
Ln
z
2

1880 1900 1920 19 4 0 3960 1980

Figure 19,;- Connecticut commercial river herring
landings, 1880-1981.

4.3.2.12 Scup (Stenotomus chrysops), porgy

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,
the/ again under-take 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 45 IF determines how far offshore they
move in winter. Scup are bottom and near-bottom feeders.
Their prey includes small crustacea, 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
Commercial total commercial commercial landings
landings finfish landings oF all species
Year (Lbs) (includes squid) (includes shellFish)
-----------------------------------------------------------

1977 256., 200 7.4 4.9
1978 379,700 9.2 5.9
1979 174, GOO 4.8 3.4
1981 97,999 1.8 1. 2

Scup contribute a moderate percentage to total
commercial finfish landings and landings of all species
including shellfish in Connecticut. They are commercially
harvested primarily by trawl (87-98% of annual scup
landings) with smal 1 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-with-a record of 3.4 million -pounds -in 1955.
Landings declined in the 1960's and have remained at less
than 500,000 pounds since (Figure 20).

From 1977-1981, connecticut-licensed trawlers reported
the greatest catches of scup in central LIS (48-69% of
annual scup catches), lesser amounts in western LIS

(15-24%), Block Island Sound and further offshore (5-33%),
and small catches in eastern LIS (2-6%).

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 2). 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 -Fisher/. A peak of 180
scup per 100 hours occur-red during September for the boat
fisher/ (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 connecticut-licensed
commercial Fishermen that year (Table 2).

The relative abundance of scup as indicated by catch
per commercial trawl hour decreased 68% from 1978 to 1980
and remained at the lower level in 1981 (Figure 21)..

3.5

2.5

1.5
200
j

170

_ 1

0
50

Figure 20. Connecticut Figure 21. Catch per effort of
commercial scup scup caught by Connecticut
landings, 1880-1981. licensed trawlers, 1977-1981.

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 f or k e d
tail, and large,scales. They are bluish or greenish ' above
which gradually shades into bright s i 1 ver sides. Adult
males weigh up to 6 pounds and females up to 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 sp awn from early April through
mid-June. They are present in eastern LIS as they migrate
from the ocean to the Connectilit River and back again a f te r
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 spawn, 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 so u t h 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 coasta'l waters, while south
Atlantic populations migrate southward to their natal rivers
(Neves and b'C'__1i;;es 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, @ut are seldom
seen during ' the winter. The/ have been trawled from depths
of 50 fathoms off Nova Scotia in March, and at 26 t o 68
fathoms off southern New England in May. Shad are primarily
plankton feeders, like other herrings. In the sea, adult
shad Teed on copepods and m/sid shrimp. They take little or
no -Food in fresh water during the spawning migration. Most
spawning in the Connecticut River presently occurs between
the Enfierd Dam, Connecticut and the base of the Turners
Falls Dam, Massachusetts from mid-MaX through mid-Jul/ 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 considera-b-le energy and weight loss during
migration and sp'awning; therefore, post-spawning mortality
is believed to be high. Surviving shad will-leave the river
shortly after spawning, endure an unknown rate OT oceanic
mortality, and return to the river in the following year as
repeat spawners. Due to the high rate of post-spawning
mortality, shad will rarely spawn more than twice in their.
lifetime.

Fishery and Condition of Stocks:

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

1977 332,400 9.7 6.3
1978 306,300 7.4 4.7
1979 206,800 5.6 4.0
1981 324,600 5.8 4.0

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 1977-81. 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 1942-49, during which landings peaked at I
million pounds in 1946, annual landings have generally
fluctuated between 200,000-400,000 pounds (Figure 22).

Shad th t swim upriver past the commercial gill netting
areas in the lower Connecticut River, are then subject to
being caught in a substantial sportfishery 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.

1200

1100

1000

900

800

cn En 2oe

m C> 600
:3 a.
8
500

400

300

200

100

1935 1945 J955 1965 1975 19B5

Figure 22. Connecticut commercial shad landings,

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. Although small groups may overwinter in LIS, the
majority of fish are seasonal migrants. They appear, in
early spring traveling northward and return in *all 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 46-70 F
are preferred. They are a voracious predator Feeding
primarily on fish but also worms, squid, clams, lobsters and
crabs. The 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 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
(55-73 F). 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:

Percent of Percent of total
Commercial total commercial commercial landings
,landings Finfish landings of all species
Year (Lbs) (includes squid) (includes shellfish)

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

1977 57,700 1.7 1.1
1978 25, 600
0.6 0.4
1979 44,600 1.2 0.9
1981 4,900 0.1 0. 1

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, legal Connecticut striped bass landings are of
fish taken mainly From New York and Rhode Island waters.
Striped bass contribute a low percentage to total commercial
finfish landings and landings of all species including
shellfish in Connecticut. They are commercially harvested

entirely by angling. Generally, landings were less than
30,000 pounds from 1939-1968. From 1965-1975 no landings
were reported; then in 1973, a record 63,000 pounds were
landed. Landings have generally decreased since 1973
(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 2). 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 Connecticut DEP.
Most were taken from western LIS as a result of 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% of these -Fishermen 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 /ear 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 Lieber-man 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 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 /ear 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

fishing mortality on that StOCk.is 27X and it is estimated
that Connecticut anglers account -For about 9% c4 that 27%
(Florence 1980; Sampson and Macleod 1981).

En (n
C3 LM 10
:z :z
Cr :3
Ln 6
C3
L@ 30
0

1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Figure 23. Connecticut commercial striped bass
landings, 1939-1981.

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 Tins. They are greenish above
with purple and bronze metallic reflections, and s i 1 very
below. Weak-Fish 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 coo l i n g.
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 70 OF.

Fishery and Condition of Stocks:

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

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

1977 7,300 0.2 0.1
1978 7,700 0.4 0.3
1979 33,800 0.9 0.6
1981 28, 500 0.5 0.4

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 (57-89% of annual weakfish
landings) with lesser amounts taken by angling (5-26%) and
gill-net (6-12%). Commercial landings were highest in the
1940's, during which a record 150,000 pounds were landed in
1946. Landings dropped to 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, decreasing slightly to 28, 000 pounds in 1981
(Figure 24).

From 1977-1981, Connecticut-licensed trawlers reported
catching weakfish mostly in central LIS (65%-9O% of annual
weak-Fish catches) with lesser amounts taken in western LIS
(7-12%) and waters outside of LIS (3-19%). Essentially none
were caught in eastern LIS.

In 1979, less than 30,000 weak-fish 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 1981). In this report, a catch of 30,000 was
assigned to weakfish to compensate for the underestimation
of the 1979 angler catch (Table 2). It is-unknown how much
greater the actual weakfish catch may have been that year.
In 1981, 7,400 pounds of weak-fish 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 weakefish as indicated by catch
per commercial trawl hour appears to have declined slightly
(40%) over the entire period 1977-1981; except for 1979,
when a peak occurred (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).

150

125

100

Ln Ln
M M
:Z z
Ln 0 75
(L

50 50

LjM
a- (D 40
25 cn
z :K
M(E 30
C>
M

0 20
1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1965 19-77 1979 1981

Figures 24. Connecticut Figure 25. Catch per effort of
commercial weakfish weakTish caught by Connecticut
landings, 193'-:;-1981. licensed trawlers, 1977-1'381.

4.3.2.16 White perch (Morone americana)

Description: The white perch is similar to its larger
reltive, 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
Commercial total commercial commercial landing's
landings finfish landing's of all species
Year (Lbs (includes squid) (includes shellfish)

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

1977 12,600 0.4 0.2
1978 6,000 0.2 0.1
1979 24,600 0.7 0.5
1981 14,860 0.3 0.2

White' perch contribute a low percentage to total
commercial finfish landings and landings of all species
including shell-Fish 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 between 5,000 and 30,000 pounds (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.

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 2).

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).

1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Figure 26. Connecticut commercial white perch
landings, 1939-1981.

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 bell/, usually about 14 inches long,
reaching a maximum of 2 1/2 feet and 5 pounds. Whiting
range from the Newfoundland Banks to South Carol in a. 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. It is believed that whiting
move offshore and southward during the winter,. temperature
being the major factor influencing their movement. They arc-
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 64 F. They are
extremely voracious predators on the young of any species of
fish as well as a variety of invertebrates. Whiting
reproduce throughout their range at water temperatures from
45 to 55 F or warmer, predominantly in July and August.

Fishery and Condition of Stocks:

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

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

1977 97, 900 2.8 1. 9
1978 168,400 4.1 2.6
1979 147,500 4.0 2.8
1981 103,112 1.8 1.3

Whiting contribute a moderate percentage to total
commercial fin fish landings and landings of all species
including shellfish in Connecticut. They are one of the
five most important foodfish species in terms of annual
weight landed. Whiting 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 farther offshore.

No whiting were reported caught by recreational

fishermen in 1979 (NMFS 1980). They are not considered to
be a sport fish although they will readily take a baited
hook.

Relative abundance of whiting as indicated by catch per
commercial trawl hour increased 153% from 1977-78 and
decreased 61% over the period 1978-81 (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
t he currently low level of landings, whiting must b e
classified as an underutilized species (Anderson et al
1980).

1.5

150

100

0 50
1880 1900 1920 194 0 1960 1980
1977 1979 1981

Figure 27. Connecticut Figure 28. Catch per effort of
commercial whiting whiting caught by Connecticut
landings, 1887-1981. licensed trawlers, 1977-1981.

4.3.2.18 Other

A number of finish 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 these
states.

The American plaice (Hippogssoiqdes), or
dab, is a right-handed flounder (eyes on the right side of
the body) distributed on both sides the Atlantic from
Greenland south to Rhode Island. The most consistent
Connecticut landings occur-red 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 (Melangangrammus aeglefinus) is a member of
the cod family that prefer cold, deep water. They are most
abundant north of Cape Cod, although they range from the
Grand Banks to New Jersey a long the Atlantic coast.
Substantial Connecticut haddock landings of 200,000-300,000
pounds occurred in the late 1880's and early 1900's and, in
1932, a record 4 million pounds were landed. Haddock was
landed consistently from 1940-1965, after which no landings
were reported until 1978. In 1981, 50,000 pounds were
landed in Connecticut.

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. In 1981, 17,500 pounds were landed.

The white hake (Urophycis tenuis) is similar in
appearance and habits to the red 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 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. The black sea bass
is valuable as a food and game fish 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 and 1981 when 65, 000 pounds and 26,000
pounds were landed, respectively.

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 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 Tar north as the St. Lawrence. It
is an oceanic fish that prefers temperatures of 61 F 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 5,000 pounds annually, except for
1981, 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 occurred, 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.

The bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) is a large, oceanic
fish occurring throughout the 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 1949. 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, tehre have been essentially no tuna commercially
landed in Connecticut, although in 1981, 1,000 pounds were
landed. Tuna are a popular recreational species sought by
Connecticut anglers; 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 Canada, 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 1960-69. A
record 27,000 pounds were landed in 1880. Since 1931,
landings have been less than 5, 000 pounds per year. During
the 1970's, the only commercial landings reported were 300
pounds in 1979.

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
under-utilized 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), goosefish, or
monkfish, 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 1978-81.
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. In recent
years,- the tailmeat of monkfish has been marketed as a
"substitute" for lobster meat because of its sweet 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, (Tautogolabrus adspersus) is closely
related to the blackfish, similar in 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 since they frequently steal bait (Sampson
1981).

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 of LIS. Ocean pout were first 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 residents 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 consistantly 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. 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 glauca)
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 (Raja 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 landings ranged to 270,000 pounds. They have
since remained at generally less than 20,000 pounds, except
for 1979, when 65,000 pounds were landed.

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
food, the meat of the "wings", or modified pectoral fins, is
considered to be of good quality by some people.

The windowpane flounder (Scopthalmus aquosus), or
brill, ranges from the Gulf of St. awrence to South
Carolina, being more common south of Cape Cod. It is a
permanent resident of LIS, abundant,. and prefers sandy
bottom areas. From _V377-1981, Connecticut-licensed trawlers
caught 3,000-19,000 pounds annually, mostly in Block Island
Sound. 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 spec ies are of ecological
importance as Connecticut living marine resources for the
role they pla,/ as forage species for larger commercially and
recreationally important *infish 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 m.itchilli) is a schooling
species, -round mostly along sandy shores and the mouths of
rivers, but sometimes in muddy coves and into freshwater
rivers.

Four species of killifish (Fundulus s-p.) and the
related sheepshead minnow (C4pninodon varieqatus) are
schooling jForage species found in protected waters of all
salinities.

The American sandlance (AmmodXtes ay)ericanus) travels
in large schools over sandy bottoms, both inshore in LIS and
on the offshore banks. The-y 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.

4.3.3 Crustacean shellfish

4.3.3.1 American lobster (Homarus americanus)
------- ----------

Descriptio T@
n je lobster's body is divided into a combined
@eaTanT@Tjorax (cephalor-thorax), and a segmented 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 St,,CCkS through migration.
A seasonal movement to nearshore waters which occurs in the
spring, and to deeper mid-Sound waters in late summer is
`@onal changes in water temperatures. Lobsters
related to sea
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 temp.orary 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 borrows excavated
directly under mussel (M)@tilqs edulis) beds and the sulfur
sponge (Cliona) occur to some degree in eastern LIS (Stewart
J-972). Lobsters occupy depths from the low tide mark to the
continental slope, as -great as 400 fathoms. Their
temperature range is 29-75 F. They are generally inactive
below 40 F and are seldom found where salinities are lower
than 25%. Adults feed-mainl;r on crabs (especially Cgrp-gC
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 or*9anisms. They are primarily active
predators, ingesting living prey, but obtain food by
scavenging whenever dead organisms--are available--(Wei.ss..-
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 Conne'cticut and z-New York. Males mature at a
smaller size than 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 mont.h 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 J-980). Females are
impregnated immediatel/ 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
Commercial total commercial commercial landings
landings shellfish landings of all species
Year (Lbs)___1 (excludes squid) (includes finfish)

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

1977 638,400 35.14 12.14
.1378 798,500 34.27 12.36
1979 807,700 52.09 15.49
1981- 11 0101-.800 35.54 11.97

In 1977, 1978, and 1981, lobster ranked from second to
fourth in terms of weight contributed to total annual
landings of all species in Connecticut. 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, in 1981, due to the inclusion of previously
unreported offshore catches, lobster was first in shellfish
landings. Historical landings arc- 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 d,ay from 1978-1!381, appears

to be stable after an apparent increase from 1975-78 (Figure
30).

The effect of future increases in fishing effort on the
apparently stable population abundance is uncertain. There
is relatively widespread concern that the coastwide lobster
population 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.

2 .8

1.5
.6

.5 POUNDS PER TRAP

POUNDS PER THSOD

.5 .2

.0
0

1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 1975 1977 1979 1981

Figure 29. Connecticut Figure 30. Catch per effort--
commercial lobster pounds per trap and pounds per
landings, 1880-1981. trap haul set-over day (THSOD)
-- of lobster caught by
Connecticut-licensed
lobster-men, 1975-1981.

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 freshwater 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 Connecticut, mating
occurs between June and October (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 matin g 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 "spong-like" egg mass.

Fishery and Condition of Stocks: Blue crabs have not been
commercially landed in Connecticut since 1971. They have
never been 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 400 pounds
in the 1960's and early 1970's (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 Tor 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.

4
Ln tn
M M
:;_Iz
Cr =)
Ln c)
(L 3

0
1935 1945 3955 19G5 1975 1985

Figure 31. Connecticut commercial blue crab- landings,-

4.3.3.3 Other crustacean shellfish

The rock crab (Cancer irroratus) ranges from Labrador
to South Carolina; the Jonah crab (C. borealis) ranges from
Nova Scotia to just south of the Dry Tortugas 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 harvesting, processing,
and marketing techniques and strategies for Cancer crabs in
Rhode Island and Connecticut (Marchant and Holmsen 1975;
Stewart L., pers. comm.).

The green crab (Carcinus maenas) is the most common
crab inhabiting rocky shorelines, tidal mudflats, salt
marshes, and estuaries 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 Tor
blackfish angling. In 1969 and 1970, 4,000 and 3,000
pounds, respectively, of green crabs were reported in annual
landings statistics. Green crabs are not reported
separately in the present DEP statistics collection system,
but are included under "other crabs", of which 3,000-6,000
pounds were landed annually from 1977-1981.

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 of horseshoe crabs were reported in
annual Connecticut landings of fish and shellfish.

4.3.4 Molluscan shellfish

4.3.4.2.1 Hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria) round
clam, quahog, 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
arc-as 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 depths of about 18 meters (Gosner
1979). They are principally estuarine, and populations
flourish best in bays at salinities of 18-26% (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 68 F (Loosanoff 1937a, 1937).
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 that produce sperm in their first year
later develop into females in a given stock, no sex
reversals take place after their second summer (Loosanoff
1937b).

Fishery and Condition of Stocks:

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

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

1977 180,000 9.91 3.42
1978 180,000 7.73 2.79
1979 300,000 19.35 5.75
1981 360,000 12.66 4.26

Hard clams contribute a moderate percentage to total
annual commercial landings of all species in Connecticut.
Among Connecticut's landings of molluscan (excluding squid)
and crustacean shellfish, they ranked from second to fourth
in terms of pounds landed from 1977-81. 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.

500

400

300

200

100

1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980

Figure 32. Connecticut commercial hard clam
landings, 1880-1981.

4.3.4.2 Soft clam (Mya arenaria) steamer

Desription: Soft clams are thin-shelled, usually whitish
with dark mar-kings, 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% (Green 1968). A
suspension 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 was commercially landed in 1880 after which annual
landings declined to less than 50,000 pounds in the 1940's.
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.

Lrj
CL a

tn i@k)
THOUSANDS
F- OF POUNDS
co to w b Ln m
G G M
1.0

.............. ....

co rk

rv m

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 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 commerical 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 moluscs 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 occur's 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:

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

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

1977 52,700 2.90 1.00
1978 88,000 3.78 1.36
1979 163,600 10.55 3.14
1981 472,500 16.61 5.60

Conch contribute a moderate percentage to total annual
commercial landings of all species in Connecticut. Among
Connecticut's landings of molluscan (excluding squid) and
crustacean shellfish, they ranked from third to fifth in
terms of pounds landed from 1977-1981. Recent landings show
an increasing trend, especially from 1979-1981. However, in

1981, commercial landings were estimated by asking dealers
how much conch they purchased that year from Connecticut
-Fishermen. It is unknown how previous landings -Figures were
obtained. Historical landings are presented in Figure 34.
The history of Connecticut's conch landings and fisher;r, 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 ef@fect it would have
on the population,. because knowledge of the species' biology
and population dynamics in LIS are unknown.

500

400

Ln 300
SZ)
zz
Er Z3
Ln (D
C"
200

100

1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Figure 34. -Connecticut commercial conch landings,

4.3.4.4 American oyster (Crassostrea virginica)

Description: The two valves of the oyster's shell are
attached by the left 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 arceas already
inhabited by other oysters (Galtsoff 1964). Shifting sand
and soft mud are unsuitable substrates. Oysters are
euryhaline, and can survive salinities from 3%. to almost
40%. as adults. Their temperature range is from 34-86 F
over their entire 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 June to late
August (Loosanoff 1965) at temperatures above 68 OF
(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.

Fishery and Condition of Stocks:

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

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

1977 852,000 46.89 16.2
1978 1, 058, 300 45.43 16.38
1979 174,800 11.27 3.35
1981 947,100 33.30 11.22

In 1977 and 1978, oysters contributed a higher
percentage to total annual commercial landings of all
species in Connecticut than any other individual species.
Unclassified baitfish landings were greater, but are
comprised of seyeral species. Apparently 1979 was not a
good year for oysters, and their landings represented only a
small percentage of total landings of all species. In 1981,
because landings from offshore fisheries were accounted
for, oysters ranked -Fourth in terms of pounds of all species
landed, yellowtail, winter flounder and lobster being first,
second, and third, respectively. It is obvious that a great
volume of o/sters 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 ehormous compared to
other individual species. Given this fact, oysters clearly
rank first in landed weight of all species landed in
Connecticut by commercial-*ishermen. Historical landings
are presented in Figure 35. Record landings of 10-15
million pounds 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 o/ster landings and industry, as well as their
present characteristics, are descri@ed 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
recreatior;al shellfishing. Programs to enhance recreational
oystering are presently being conducted by these towns and
-are described in Section 6.2.2.

13
Ln

0
1680 1900 3920 1940 1960 1980

Figure-35. Connecticut- commer-cial oyster -landirigs,-

4.3.4.5 Bay scallop (Aquipecten (Argopecten) 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
1910; 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).

Fishery and 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 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.). 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 landings
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 1950's and early
1960's was the peak period 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 shell-fish

laboratory in Milford, Connecticut, the UCONN Marine
Advisory Service, and the towns with scallop resources such
as Waterford, East Lyme, Groton, and Stonington.

400

300

Ln Ln
9=3 9:zI
z z
cn c:> 2eo
=1 Q.

C:>

100

1880 19 00 3 920 1940 1960 1980

Figure 36. Connecticut commercial bay scallop
landings, 1887-198.1.

4.3.4.6 Sea scallop (Placo-ecten m
E

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
rangs from the Gul@F c-@F 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 earl/ fall (Merrill and Tubiash
1970) .

FisherZ and @@.2ndition of Stocks:

Percent of Percent of total
Commer,c ia 1 total commercial commercial landings
landings shellfish landings of all species
Year (Lbs of meats) (excludes squid) (includes fin-Fish)

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

1977 93,800 5.16 1.78
1978 1981000 8.50 3.06
1979 198, 300 6.34 1.89
.t981 50,000 1.76 0.59

Sea scallops contribute a moderately low percentage to
annual commercial landings of all species in Connecticut.
Among crustacean and molluscan (excluding squid) shell-Fish,
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

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, especiall;r for the
Georges Bank beds (Saila and Pratt 1973).

4.3.4.7 Long-finned squid (Loligo pealei),

Description: The body of Loligo 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 46 F (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 rise, 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
1978b). Squid are a pelagic species. A strong correlation
exists between abundance and bottom temperatures over 46 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 mailed sculpin (Squires 1957). L.
pealei usually spawn in shallow waters between Delaware and
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 progency,
those spawned in late slimmer, 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 1978b).

Fishery and Condition of Stocks:

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

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

1977 37,600 1.09 0.72
1978 37,000 0.90 0.57
1979 23,200 0.63 0.44
1981 24,900 0.45 0.30

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 in
Connecticut. 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 or 1969 when 269,000 pounds were landed
(Figure 37).

From 1978-81, 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
(0.17%) and western 1-7%) LIS.

Relative abundance of squid as indicated by reported
catch per commercial trawl hour increased 44% from 1979-81
(Figure 38).

600

500

400

tp Ln
IM Q
z z
Cr D
Ln 0 300
5 a-

2oe 40

CL 0
100 Ln 30
j
C:
C> w
IL
0 A 20
1880 1900 1920 194 0 1960 1980 1�77 1979 1981

Figure 37. Connecticut Figure Catch per- effort of
commercial squid laridings, squid caught by-Connecticut
licensed trawlers, 1977-1981.

4.3.4.8 Other molluscan shellfish

The blue mussel (.OZtilus 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
J-949, a record 96,000 pounds of meats were landed. Landings
from 1953-58 were less-than 500 pounds per year, after which
mussels were landed only in JL971 (< 500 pounds) and J-974
(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 i.slandica) is an oceanic
species most.common at depths between GO and 90 feet, It is
riot found In Long Island Sound but does occur in large
concentrations in the Rhode Island a@nd Block Island !Founds
where it supports a substantial fishery -in Rhode Island.
This species W@s commercially landed in Connecticut from
1969-1972 and in 197G. Annual landings ranged from 7,000
pounds to a record 532,000 pounds in 1971.

4.3.5 Species that are endangered or being restored

The only Connecticut marine resource species classified
as "Endangered" is the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser
brevirostum), 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 highly 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 Connecticut 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. ;rear 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 (Sec. 26-159a CGS).

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 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).

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 phocena) 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 physalus) beached itself in Groton
(CAM 1977).

5.0 Marine Resource Users in Connecticut

5.1 The Commercial Fisheries

5.1.1 Introduction

Of the fivLz coastal New England states (Maine, New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connect icut),
Connecticut ranks fourth behind Rhode Island and ahead of
New Hampshire in terms of annual commercial landings and
value of fin-Fish and shellfish (Fish-ery Statis.tics of the
U.S.). The -following subsections describe -Fisheries and
their respective ex-vessel values to Connecticut. Figures
respresenting landings are in solid lines with dotted lines
used to indicate periods @For which no data are available.
Values of fisher;r landings are represented b;r dashed lines.

From 1'939 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 comprised
of flounder species. Since then, annual finfish landings
have remained at 2-5 million pounds. The v a I ue of
Connecticut's- finfish landings peaked at 1.3 million
dollars 'in 1948, and has generally ranged from $500,000 to
$1 million since then (Figure 39).

Connecticut landings of mol luscan 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 I and 2 million pounds in
the 1940's. Landings rose to near 4 million pounds in 1949
and 1950, then dropped to levels near 1 million pounds until
196G. Molluscan and crustacean shellfish landings have
fluctuated between 1 and 2 million pounds since then (Figure
40). T-tie reason *or 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
which- they subsequently declined. In 1961, lobster
landings began to increase and dominated the landings of
molluscan and crustacean shellfish until the late 1970's,
when oyster landings increased again to a level about equal
to those of lobster.

From -1939_to the present, the value of the landings of
Connecti@cut`s' molluscan and crustacean shell-Fish industries
has increased dramatically, from less than :V1 million during-

100

1940-1960, to a record $7.5 million in 1981 (Figure 40).
Relative to finfish, molluscan and crustacean shellfish are
high value products, often- 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.

22 POUNDS POUNDS
20 VALUE ---- 7 VALUE ----
18
6
16
14 5
12 4

10
8 3
6
2
4

2 1
0
0
1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Fiqure 39. Connecticut Figure 40. Connecticut
landings and value of landings and value of
finfish and squid, crustacean and molluscan
1939-1981. (excluding squid) shellfish,
1939-1981.

101

5.1.2 The Oyster and Hard Clam Industry

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 one of those based
on the harvest of living marine resources. In J-977, J-978,
and 1981, it was responsible for 48% of the total annual
revenue generated from such harvests. Oyster dredge
landings accounted for 35-45X, and clam dredge landings,
3-13% of the revenue generated during each of the three
In 1979, the harvest of oyster dredges was small and
years. L
only earned 12X. 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
r'ecord 5.2 million pounds in 1939 to between 500,000 pounds
and 1.4 million pounds in the 1940's. In 1949 and 1950,
landings jumped to 3 and 3.6 million pounds, respectively;
then dropped and remained at between J-00,000 and 500,000
pounds through the 1950's and 1960's. In the 1970's
landings fluctuated between a high of I million pounds in
1978 and lows, of less than 200,000 pou n d s (Fi gure 41) .
From 1939 to 1'957, 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 were taken by oyster dredge from
public grounds in 1943, after which annual landings
fluctuated between zero and 31,000 pounds until 1957 when
landings -FrQm public grounds ceased. Connecticut oyster
landings have been entirely from privately leased 1011
Tranchised grounds since 1958.

The principal hard clam dredge fishery began in 1951
although occasionally intermittant landings of low magnitude
were made in prior years. Clam dredge landings increased to
460,000 pounds 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 1975, and have since been
increasing-to 360,000 pounds in 1981 (Figure 42). Prior to
i'360, essentially all of the hard clams landed were
harvested fr.om public grounds. After 1960, developments by
t6e private shellf'ish 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 wer e commercially harvested -From
public beds by, hand tong until 1974. Annual hand tong
land-in-3s of oysters decreased from 43,000 pounds 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).

Prior to 1951, essentially all hard clams were
harvested -From public beds by hand tong. A record of
105,000 pounds of hard clams 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 1@-:450`s and remained
at less than 2,000 pounds until 1974, after which they
ceased (Figure 44). Hard clams were also. commercially
harvested with clam rakes from public beds from 1939 to
1956. A record 64,000 pounds were landed in -t939, after
which rake landings decreased and then ceased-in 1956.

The decline of the commercial hand tong and clam rake
fisheries 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, i-n contrast to the maricultural strategies of
seeding and predator control employed on private beds.

The operation of one of the two major oyster companies
working in Long Island Sound was described in detail by
Korringa (1976) for the period 1971-72.- 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 Connecticut (now the Department Of
Agriculture, Division of Aquaculture), and in addition, 357
acres under lease, partly from towns and 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 (Kor'ringa 1976). The company has since increased its
acreage of franchised and leased shellfish grounds.

Seed oysters to be planted on growing beds are-
purchased bythe 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 andpartly composed of shells o-v----
dead oysters collected when dredging for marketab-le oysters.
When the oysters spawn and conditions are -Favorable for the
settlement of the pelagic larvae, 1,500-2,000 bushels of
cultch per ac'r;e 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

103

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
system 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 the growing grounds, which are categorized 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. Those
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 50 F 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, starfish are removed from the oyster beds by
weekly 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

104

used to successfully control oyster drills, but is no longer
in use. Drills are presentlX removed from the beds when the
oysters are dredged during the transplanting process. Other
minor o;(ster 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 oXsters. There-fore, the harvesting of oysters
and hard clams are complementary aspects of the shellfishing
business. In 1971-72, one company operating in LIS earned
approximately 66% of its annual income -From sales of hard
clams, the rest being -From oysters (Korringa 1'976).

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, 6 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.

Hard clams are dredged by the shellfish companies from
public natur-'aJ. beds and private beds leased -From the State
for the purpose o-F hard clam farming. Seed clams have been
dred,3ed 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 depending on the size of the
clams. As is the case for ox'sters, hard clams must also
remain in certified unpolluted water for at least two weeks
during which the water temperature is 50 F or above, before
the/ can be marketed.

The other of the two major shell-Fish companies
operating in LIS leases natural oyster setting grounds in
New Haven Harbor from the State of Connecticut to produ-ce
seed oysters. Most ct@F the growth -o-F this company's oysters
takes place on leased beds in Connecticut waters. Howe-Ver,
all oysters are transplanted to fattening and depuration
beds leased in unpolluted New York waters on the northern
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- Korrinqa----(1976)-
estimated that approximately 5,X of their- annual income was
earned from sales of hard clams in 1971-72.

Two other companies harvest and land oysters and hard
clams in Connecticut, although in small rjuantitX compared to
the two major/ shellfish companies previously mentioned. In
1981, the shell-Fish companies that harvest market oysters

105

and hard clams from Connecticut waters and land them in
Connec t i cut, collectively e mp I o;r- e dapproximately 23
full-time and 13 part-time workers. A total of 11 boats
were operated by the shellfish companies landing their
harvest in Connecticut in 1981. Approximately 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
shell-Fishing industry and recreational shellfisheries. Most
shell-Fish grounds owned by the commercial harve-sters that
are accessible 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.

106

6 1.2
POUNDS POUNDS
5 VALUE 1 VALUE

4 .8

3 .6

2 .4

1 .2

0 0

1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Figure 41. Connecticut Figure 42. Connecticut clam
oyster dredge landings dredge landings and value,
and value, 1939-1981. 1939-1981.

110
50 100
POUNDS 90 POUNDS
40 VALUE 80 VALUE
70
30 60
50
20 40
30
10 20
10
0 0

1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Figure 43. Connecticut Figure 44. Connecticut hand
hand tong lands and tong landings value of
value of oysters, hard clams, 1939-1981.
1939-1981.

107

5.1.3 'The Lobster Fishery

The lobster fishery is second to the oyster industry in
economic value, earning 29-44% of the total annual revenue
generated by the harvest of all living marine resources from
1977-1981. However, as a true fishery, relying strictly on
the harvest of a "wild" resource, it is the most valuable of
Connecticut'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. 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 1960's, trap landings
increased, and combined trap and trawl landings of about
900,000 pounds were reported. Annual trap landings of
500,000 -1,000,000 pounds in the early 1970's increased to
800,000 - 1,000,000 pounds in recent years (Figure 45) now
accounting for 10-15% of Connecticut's total annual landings
of all fish and shellfish.

The catch of Connecticut-licensed lobstermen from
1976-1981 was 14-17% higher than the amount of lobster
landed in Connecticut due to the landing of the balance at
out-of-state ports (Figure 45).

The traditional wooden lobster trap is the main gear
currently employed, however, lobster were also commercially
taken with otter trawls from 1951-1972 with substantial
landings between 200,000 - 400,000 pounds during 1962-1968,
when landings were divided about equally between these two
gear types. In 1962, trawl landings exceeded trap landings
by 52%. Significant trawl landings ended in 1970 (Figure
45) and lobster for commercial purposes has since been taken
almost entirely trap.

Landings appear to be roughly correlated with the
number of traps reportedly fished each year (Figure 45).
However, the best indicator available of the effort expended
by the 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.
Lobster fishing effort based on the THSOD has been
increasing in recent years, 48% from 1975-1980, with a
slight decrease (4%) from 1980-81 (Figure 45).

The number of commercial lobster fishermen in recent
years has increased from 390 in 1976 to 567 and 517 in 1980
and 1981, respectively. An estimated 14% of all commercial
lobstermen (72 in 1981) derive 50% or more of their income

108

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. Over 3,000
such licenses are issued each year (Sec. 5.2.3).

From 1977-79, about 60% of Connecticut's landings of
lobster were divided about equally between New London
(28-36%) and Fair-Field (23-33%) Counties. In 1980 and 1981,
however, New London County reported a higher percentage of
these landings, 45% in 1981; while 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 distribution of landings among counties is
reflected by the distribution of the number of lobster boats
among the counties. From 1977-79 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 Count/
harbored 16-26%., and Middlesex, 7-12% of Connecticut's total
lobster boats during 1977-1981.

Smith (1977) examined the vessel characteristics of
Connecticut'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-timers lobstermen 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 lobstermens' 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 as opposed to 13% Tor full-timers.
This is reflected by the differences in vessel
characteristics noted above.

A conflict occurs between the commercial lobster
fishery and the personal use loster fishery that has to do
with experience in the fishery and simple gear competition.
An unlimited number of personal use license holders are
allowed to each use 10 or less-traps to catch lobsters for
their own consumption but not for sale. Inexperienced
personal use lobstermen may set their traps in the same
areas as commercial fishermen, in effect simply following
the commercial lobsterman and setting where he sets. This
causes pot saturation in productive areas, and the resultant
decline in catch per pot thereby reduces the catch of each
fishermen.

Commercial fishermen are also plagued by unscrupulous
boaters and some scuba divers who illegally steal lobsters

109

-From their traps. *The extent of this theft is unknown, but
arrests by conservation officers are made each year for this
activity and a large number of complaints which do. riot
result in arrests are received annually.

Gear conflicts@occur between the lobster trap and otter
trawl fisheries. When traps are set in desirable trawling
areas, they are subject to physical damage and loss due to
trawling activity. Gear conflicts also occur among
commercial lobstermen themselves, who are often
"terr i tor i a I PP in personally claiming desirable lobster
fishing areas.

110

OTTER TRAWL LOBSTER
LANDINGS
VALUE

1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

LOBSTER TRAP
2.5 LANDINGS
VALUE
CATCH OF CONNECTICUT
2 LOBSTERMEN

1.5

1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

NUMBER OF TRAPS
NUMBER OF THSOD'S

1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Figure 45. Connecticut otter trawl lobster landings and
value 1939-1981; lboster trap landings and value 1939-
1981, and catch of Connecticut lobstermen 1977-1981;
number of traps fished 1939-1981, and trap haul set-over
days (THSOD's) 1975-1981. Sources: NMFS, Fishery
Statistics of the U.S. and Connecticut DEP Marine
Fisheries Information System.

111

5.1.4 The Otter Trawl Fishery

The otter trawl fishery is Connecticut's third most
economically valuable commercial fishing industry. From
1979-1981, 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% annual finfish landings)
than any other gear, the otter trawl fishery is
Connecticut's number one finfish fishery in 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 -46).
Otter trawl catch statistics 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 1977-79,
Connecticut-licensed otter trawlers landed only 43-56% of
the total Connecticut otter trawl landings. In 1981, they
landed only 10%. The remainder of the total otter trawl
landings are believed to be those of offshore trawlers that
are registered in other states, do not fish in Connecticut
waters, and thus are not required to possess a Connecticut
commercial fishing license or to report their catch and
landings to the Connecticut DEP Marine Fisheries Office.

From 1977-1981, annual Connecticut landings of otter
trawlers licensed by Connecticut have decreased from near
1.5 million pounds during 1977-79 to 0.5 million pounds
during 1980-81. This is not only because the catch of the
Connecticut licensed fleet has decreased from 1978 to 1981,
but also because much of their 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%.. Point Judith, R.I., New
York City, Northport and Oyster Bay, Long Island and, to a
small extent, Fisher's Island, N.Y., receive some landings
of Connecticut licensed trawlers. The price received for
the catch as well as travel time from fishing grounds to a
landing port largely determines where the catch will be
landed.

Winter flounder and scup are the two principle species
taken by Connecticut-licensed commercial otter trawlers,
together accounting for 42-52% of their annual catch from
1977-1981. The importance of winter- flounder to the otter
trawl fishery has been increasing over this period, from 24%
of the catch in 1977, to 37% in 1981. Conversely, the
percentage of scup in annual catches has decreased from 30%
in 1978 to 15% in 1981. Species classified as lobster bait
are third in importance, making up 2-11% of annual catches
from 1977-1981. Other species which individually do not

112

usually account for more than 5%. of annual Connecticut
licensed trawl catches include Weakfish, squid, fluke,
bluefish, butterfish, her r in 9, dogf i sh, blackfish, and
skate. In combination, however, these species accounted for
17-29% of the annual trawl catches from 1978-1981.

In 1981, a total of 79 otter trawlers operated in
Connecticut. Of these-, 41 were less than 5 gross
registered (GRT) tons (classified as "boats"), ranging from
13-27 feet, and 38 were greater than 5 GRT ("vessels"),
ranging from 28-81 feet. Forty-two of the total trawlers
(53%) were used for lobstering as well as trawling -- 26
(33%) of the boats, and 16 (20%) of the vessels. The number
of Connecticut's otter trawlers has increased since 1'9 7 6
when there were only 18 boats and 12 vessels.

In 1981, 40 trawlers (51%) reported their home county
to be New London County; 19 (24::,.), New Haven County; 9
(11%), Fairfield Count/; 6 (8%0, Middlesex County. The home
port of the remaining 5% were undetermined.

At least 155 fisher-men were involved in Connecticut's
otter trawl fishery in 1981, assuming that one man operates
each boat (< 5 GRT) and 3 men operat ,e each vessel (> 5 GRT).
Practically all otter trawl fishermen are full-time
fishermen, e-a1r-*n i frig 50%* or more of their income from fishing.
However, only@about half the fishermen earn their living
solely from trawling. The other half may trawl mainly to
catch lobster bait, or earn money by trawling and lobstering
in combination.

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 fish
in Block Island Sound are also day boats. A few of the
largest trawlers may mak .e trips to offshore grounds that
last several days.

Otter trawling is not permitted in Connecticut
estuaries. A special line that is generally not more than
1/4 mile from shore has been designated, north of which
trawling is illegal (Sec. 26-154). This law aids in * the
conservation of the young of many species that utilize
estuaries as nursery habitat. Gear conflicts occur between
the otter trawl and lobster trap fisheries when traps are
set in productive traditional tr'awling areas.

113

POUNDS
VALUE
15

1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Figure 46. Connecticut otter trawl landings and
value for finfish and squid. 1939-1981.

114

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. Although only a small fishery, it is ranked
fourth in economic value among all Connecticut commercial
fishing industries, earning 2-7% of the total annual revenue
generated by these industries from 1977-1981. This ranking
is due to the generally high D$2.00 per pound) 4x-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 dredge, the scallops are shucked,
washed,-weighed, packaged in plastic bags, and frozen on
board the fishing vessel. Catches are usually landed at
Stonington.

No gear'-'(7'onflicts are known to be related to the sea
scallop fishery.

115

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 J-977-1981.
.It is the second most valuable commercial fin-Fish fishery in
Connecticut, 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 except for peak landings of about 550,000 pounds
occurring in the 1940's. 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. - Stationary' 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 1'-%7
stationary gill net shad landings of J-45,000 pounds were a
record. 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 occur-red (Figure 47).

From 1977-1981, the number of dri*t gill nets employed
decreased slightly from 59 to 45. The same is true of the
number of boats used in the fishery since each boat uses one
gill net. Hl',@@_ver, the number of licensed fishermen has
increased from 109 to 1-53 during the same @eriod, indicating
that the size of the crew working each boat is increasing.
All shad.*isherman including assistants are required to be
licensed. Commonly, a crew of 2-4 men operate in each boat
which, typically, are small (less than 20 ft) outboard
powered, open workboats. Most (63-75X) commercial shad
fishermen report their home port as Middlesex County.
Hartford and New London Counties each account *or 10-26% of
the fishermen. The same distribution applies to boats in
the fishery. Middlesex County receives most of the shad
landed t59-75%), while New London County receives 15-28X.,
and Hartford County rece-ives 10-30%.

There is an open season for shad fishing which extends
from April 1. to June 15 each year. Shad fishermen are
prohibited from using mono-Filament gill nets. This results
in the fishery being conducted principally at night with
multifilament nets which are visible to the shad during
daylight hours. The exception to this rule is during
periods of turbid water when fishermen are able to 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.

Gear cori'flicts often occur between shad f i sherme n.
Certain sections of the river are "claimed" by one or more

groups o~qf ~qf ish~erm~en~. In these areas, other fishermen may be
h~arr~assed if they attempt to fish ~qf ~qor shad. I n c e r~. t a i n
areas where only ~qone ~n~et can e~qf~q*~ectiv~el~qy fish at a time, the
-Fishermen must agree ~qon a t im~e schedule or an order- of
rotation in order to set and tend their nets with a minimum
~qo~qf conflict.

DRIFT GILL NET

~600
POUNDS
~L~n VALUE
Of
a: 500
c~l ~_~_~J~j
C~> 400
~I~M
~C~3
~z300
~C~E~qM
E~n C~r
200
~z
~:~n
~C~D~. 100

1~935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

~I~x HAUL SEINE
~C~r
~L~@ ~_~j
~C~S ~_~j 300
C~>
~L~n ~C~n
~M200
~z~M
a-_~z
~Ln ~a~z~,~@ 100
~n
~C~) ~C~n
~'~M
~- 0
a. 1935 1945 1~q@~55 ~19~65 19~?5 1985

ANCHOR, SET OR STAKE
200
a: GILL NET
~_~j
~0~_~j
~S
~Ln ~I~M
~C~3
~:~c~z~r ~r~-~1 ~100
~M
~L~n ~C~r
~0~L~n
~M
~M
~=~3
~(~D 0
~C~L
1935 1945 1~955 1965 ~1~975 1985

~E~n
~W POUND NET
~M
~L~_ ~_~j ~60
C~) ~_~j
~C~3
~t.~n ~r~M
~qC~qM ~40
~q=~q9~qM
Cc ~qz~q:
20
~qC~q@~6qM
~qI~qM
0
~qC~q> ~q1~q935 1945 1~q955 1965 1975 1985
~qC~qL

Figure 4-~q7. Connecticut commercial shad landings
And value by gear type, 1~q'~4q93~24q9~6q-1~24q9~28q81.

117

5.1.7 The Conch Fishery

Connecticut's conch fishery is small but rapidly
growing. It is the sixth most valuable commercial fishing
industry in the state. From 1977-1981, its earni.ngs
increased from 1% to 5% of the total annual revenue
generated by these industries. The 1981 landings were
estimated to be 472,000 pounds of meats and appear to be the
highest on record, however, the method of estimating these
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. It is unknown how the information was. obtained in
previous years,

Conch pot landings have increased with fluctuations
from < 50,000 lbs in the 1-940-'s to progressively higher
peaks of 75,000, J-50,000, and 200,000 lbs in 1955, 1967, and
1972, respectively. 'From _V3776-1981, landings have increased
ten fold (Figure 48).

Conch pots (or winkle traps) baited with horseshoe crab
or shark (usually dog-Fish) are the gear used. The/ resemble
square wooden lobster traps with a c@ompletely open top and a
line tied around the inside margin of the top approximately
I inch from -th,= inside edge. Conch climb up the side, Tall
in, and are pri__vented from climbing back out since, "having
only one foot, they can't step over the line" (Anonymous
recollection.of.an old-time winkle fisherman).

As the best indicator of fishing effort available, the
number of pots used each year appears to be correlated with
the size of.annual landings (Fi-gure 48), 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 'conc-h -fisherman, 100 traps per- licensed fisherman
was estimated for calculating the number of pots used. This
probably @,ielded an underestimate of the total number. It
was learne 'd 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.

The number of commercial conch licenses issued from
1977-1981 has fluctuated between 6 and 22. Thirteen
licenses were issue'd in 1982. It is assumed that all
licensed conchmen are full-timers. It is thought that a
large number of unlicensed part-timers tend conch pots and
take more than 5 bushels per day although this level of
activity requires a license. Thus, the landings figures may
be gross underestimates of the amount of conch taken
annually.

Boats used by conch fishermen are small, usually 25

feet ~q0 ~qr less, outboard powered open Work boats or
sp~qort~qfishin~qg boats. Conch fishing does n~qo t require much
equipment, t~qhe traps are relatively small and can b~e hauled
b~qy hand, thus on~e (ban alone can operate ~e~qf~qTici~entl~qy. Each
licensed fisherman operates his own boat, there-Fore th~e
number o~8qf boats involved in the fishery is the same as the
number o~qf fishermen.

All licensed conch -Fishermen operate n~ear~sh~qore in
central LIS. In 1981, seven fishermen docked their b~qo a t ~s
and landed their catch in New Haven Co., and four in
Middlesex ~qC~qo~.

T he ~qon I ~qy gear conflict identified was between
experienced c~qonchm~en and inexperienced p~art-tim~er~s who set
their pots in the same area as experienced m~en, thus
competing Tor the resource in. a limited area by not taking
time to find their own productive fishing grounds. Conch
pots ar~e usually set near to shore and ~z~) v ~e r muddy b ~qo t ~qt~qo m,
which avoids conflicts with the lobster ~qTish~er~q/.

500

450 POUNDS
V~RLUE ------

400

~Ln 350
~W
a:
~-~1 300
~0 ~0
~Ln ~c~a
~z ~z 250
~C~r ~1~1 ~z
in
~n
200

C~)
150

100

1935 1945 1955 ~19~65 19~?5 1985

~2000

~q,~qn
C~q)
0~q-

C~q> ~q1000

~qM

~qz

~q0
1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Figure 4~24q8~q.~. Connecticut conch pot landings, value,
and number, of pots ~8qTished, 1939~0q-1981.

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 Tor
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 0.8-3X of -the total annual revenue generated by all
such industries. It is a unique fishing industry because
the catch is not landed Tor marketing. Instead, seed
oysters are -,sold to Connecticut's private shellfish
companies, who then transplant them to their leased grounds
before marketing,-either Tor depuration, or- for depuration
and further growth.depending on the size of the oysters.

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

1976-77 34,985 bushels
1978-79 20,000 bushels
1980-81 8,847 bushels

For 1980-81 this information was derived from catch
reports of ti@@ seed oyster harvesters submitted to the
Department of Health Services, otherwise the in-Formation
was provided by NMFS._ If the methods of data collection
were at all similar, it appears that the annual seed oyster
harvest.has decreased in the last five years.

The gear used is an oyster dredge weighing 30 pounds or
less with a chain bag having rings of gr-eater than 3/4 inch
in diameter-, whi,ch is hauled b;r hand into the boat used Tor
towing (Sec. 26-21.5, 26-217 CGS). Tongs may also be used.
However, because of their inefficiency 'compared to
hand-hauled dredges, very few areused each Xe'ar. In 1981,
only one seed oysterman used tongs.

In*1977, 64 fishermen were licensed to harvest seed
oysters. -In 19791-and J-981, there were 42 and 49 -fishermen,
respectively. In 1977, 42 dredges were used, 34 were used
in 1979, and.41 in 1981. Because one dredge is used. per
boat, the number *-;@ boats in the fishery are the same 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, Nor-walk,
Westport, 'Fair-Field, 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

120,

oystering as regulated by town shell-Fish management plans
(See Section 6.5.2).

To assure the continued productivity of the state's
natural oyster beds, the A-juaculture Division of the
Department of Agriculture, the nat 'ural growth harvesters,
and the private shell-fish company to whom most seed oysters
are sold have participated in a variety of- cooperative
programs. These include the planting of cultch to provide
habitat for settling larvae, cultivation of the bottom. to
remove silt from shells (thereby making them more suitable
for collecting spat), and predator control (Folsom 1979).

Because only hand power may be used to haul dredges on
natural beds, conflicts are avoided between the -natural
growth harvesters and private shellfish companies using-
large dredges and hydraulic haulers. ]:@F 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.

1.21

5.1.9 The Hook and Line Fishery

The hook and line (or handline) 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 industries. Therefore, it
ranked eighth among all such industries. However, it is the
third most economically valuable finfish fishery, the otter
trawl and Connecticut River shad fisheries being first and
second, respectively.
Record handline landings of 250,000 300,000 pounds
were reported during 1946-47. Landings were generally below
100,000 pounds in the 1950's and 1960's. In the early
1970's, between 150,000 and 200,000 pounds were landed which
decreased to less than 100,000 pounds from- 1976-79. In
1981, 150,000 pounds were landed (Figure 49).

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 1961-68, 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 49). 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 1960's.

From 1977-1981, between 84-141 fishermen participated
annually in this fishery. Less than 10 were full-time
fishermen, who earned over 50% of their livelihood from
fishing. Most of these men fished out of Middlesex County
ports. The rest were casual participants.

From 1977-79, 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.

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

122

hook 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 provide the license requirement if any of
the catch is sold, however infrequently such sale might
occur.

Commercial hook fishermen are likely to have the same
complaint as recreational fishermen about the purse seining
of menhaden and the supposed resulting depletion of that
species which attracts and provides food for gamefish such
as bluefish and striped bass.

123

300

250

Ln
(if 200
a:
L, -i
C) -j
Ln cm
M
z c3 150
m m
Ln Cr
o Ln
fm
Z
Z3 100

0
1935 1945 1955 1965 1975.1985

300

LINES
HOOKS
250

Ln 200
C>
L, C>
C> ZE
fxM
U1z 150
'M Cr
:3 Ln
M Li

-j 100

0
1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

Figure 49. Connecticut hand line landings, value,
and numbe'r o-F lines and hooks @Fished, 1939-1981.

124

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 1977-1981.
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 fluctuations -From /ear to year were as great as
20,000 pounds (Figure 50).

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 fishermen -to sell for
fishing bait, Approximately 2,000 -pounds of green crabs
were reported taken in eel pots in 1981. The number of eel
pots reportedly fished each year does not appear to be
correlated with.the size of landings and thus does not serve
as a useful indicator of fishing effort (Figure 50).

From 1977-79, 4-7 full-time and 10-16 casual
commercial eel fishermen operated in Connecticut waters.
New London Co. harbored the greatest number of eelmen (9-13)
most of whom operated in the Thames and Connecticut Rivers.
Middlesex Co. harbored about 5 eelmen who operated mainly in
the Connecticut River. New Haven and Fairfield Counties
each harbored.
less than 5 fisherman. Most eel fishermen
operate from small (< 20 ft) outboard-powered,open sk iff s.
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 eel caught with eel
pots (50-70%) was landed in.New London - County. Middlesex
County received 20-30%, and New Haven and Fairfield Counties
each received 2-13%.

No conflicts are apparent between the eel pot fishery
and other commercial and recreational fisheries.

125

3000

Ln
C)
IL 2eoo

LLJ 1000
m

1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985

POU;:DS--
VF',I-tJE

Lr)
Lim
C'. -j
-j 30
C>
Ln. C3
M
M kn

!S35 1945 1955 1965 1975 ISS',

Figure 50. Connecticut eel pot landings, value,
and number r4 pots @Fished, 1933-1981.

12E;

5.1.11 The Gill Net and Haul Seine Fisheries

Excluding the Connecticut River shad fishery, gill net
and haul seine fisheries in the state are primarily
directed towards 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 ma rine resources.

The drift gill net fishery operates in LIS and the
Connecticut River. 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 which, 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.

A record haul seine landing of 2 million pounds of
finfish, almost all of which was river herring, occur-red 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 Hart-Ford County and also in Middlesex and New
London Counties.

127

5.1.12 The Menhaden Purse Seine Fishery

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

Early in 1982, Seacoast Products, Inc., a comp a ny
operating menhaden seiners, announced it would not fish in
New England for a period OT two years. (1982-83),
however company officials have -expressed' the desire to
return to.fishing in Long Island Sound in future years.

Schools of menhaden are spotted at the surface of the
water from the 70-80 Toot 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 Teet long. The
bottom of the net is then drawn together so that the school
is completely enclosed (pursed) by the net. 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-t@icild by a large pump.

Menhaden purse seining is not allowed north of a line
-From buoy to buoy which is one-halT to one mile 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.

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

128

5.2 The Recreational Fisheries

5.2.1 Recreational Fin-Fishing

The Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey,
Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, 1979 (NMFS 1980), estimated that
304,000 resident and 78,000 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 198.1). On
-weekend days between July and November, '1979, aerial
observations indicated that as many a's 1,500-2,000 anglers
per day were fishing at any given time.

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.
Four different types of fishing sites were surveyed. The
types of sites, or "modes", are listed in section
6.5.2. Briefly, they include natural sites, man-made sites,
private boats, and party/charter vessels.

Private and'-r-,ental boat sites were most numerous 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 b*
all species were caught by anglers fishing in Connecticut
during J-979 (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, black*ish 423,000 and mackerel 254,000 (NMFS 1980).
Cunner are riot 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
DER interv,j-6wers asked anglers, "Are you fishing for
anything in particular?", the most frequently reported
respr@nse was, "winter Tlounder".* It is sought year-round

129

despite seasonal changes in availabilityi In the spring and
fall, a great deal of effort and success is recorded f or
this species. The high quality flesh and easy catchability
makes flounder a very desirable fish.

When DEP interviewers asked anglers, "Are you fishing
Tor an/thing in particular?", the second most frequently
reported response was "No species in particular",- or
"Anything we can catch." The remaining annual ranking of
species in order of. directed fishing effort was bluefish,
blackfish, striped bass, scup, fluke, tomcod, snapper
bluefish, mackerel, weakfish, and cod. Fish such as snapper
bluefish and mackerel ranked relatively low -due only to
-their extremely short seasonal availability. Pressure on
these species is intense, however it exists only for a few
months each year.(S,ampson 1981).

The impact of Connecticut's marine recreational
finfishery on the Tinfish resources of LIS is considerable
relative to that of the commercial fisheries. When the
numbers of Tish 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 'I of the LIS *infish resource than do commercial
fishermen (T.able 2-) Aver-age weights were calculated from
data obtained`@by DEP interviewers and the observations of
DEP biologists involved with the recreational f i s h ery
survey. Most-are consideredto be underestimates.

Notable examples of target species 'where the 1'979
recreational catch exceeded the commercial catch and by what
factor they.were exceeded are: black-Fi5h or tautog (49
times greater ), mackerel (35 times), adult bluefish (31
times), cod (6 times), scup (2 times). The recreational
catch of winter -flounder, fluke, 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 o-9 Connecticut's
marine recreational fishery on these resources.

130

Table 2. Comparison between t.he Connecticut recreational
and C~qonn~ecticut-lic~ens~ed commercial catch o~qf
~8qfin~qTish species, 1979.
1979 Reported
Commercial Catch,
All Gear
1979 Recreational Catch Types

----------
---------------
Nu er nv~ersi~qon Weight Weight
o~qf Fish ~2qObs/~qfish) (L~qbs) (L~qbs)

~4qSc~u~qp 1,9~4q84,000 ~4q0~.~8q7 1~1~4q3~4q88~,~8q800 629,700
Snapper bluefish 1, 511~, 250 0.2 302,250
Flounder 1, 377, 000 O.~8qG~8qe 908,820~' 777,900
Cunn~qer 705,000 0.5 352,500
Bluefish (Adult) 503,750 E~..~8q9 3,475,875 ~2q111, ~2q604
Black~2qfish 42~8q3,000 3.2 1, 353, ~8q606 27,900
Other 25~8q6,000 0.5 128,000
Mackerel 254,000 1. 8 45~q7~@,200 1~8q3~1 _too
Sea robins 159,000 ~8q0.~8q8 127,200 2, ~8q600
T~omc~qod ~8q1~8q19~,00~2q0 0.25 29, 750
Her-rings 113,000 0.5 56,500 149,500 c
Windowpane
~flounder ~8q8~8q6~,000 0.3~, 25,800 ~_~qt~8q8~' 000
Striped bass 65,000 14.9 9~8q6~8q8, 500
Fluke 39,000 1. 5 ~.~2q5~8q8~1~-~4q500 51, 600
Mackerel & Tunas 39,000 d 15.0 585,000
D~qo~qg~qfish 39,0~4q00 2.0 78,000 58,800
Skates ~8q3~8q9~,000 ~2q1.0 39,000 ~8q6~8q8~10~8q69
White perch 31, 000 0.5 15, 500 23,700
W~eak~qTish 30,000 a 5.0 150,000 125,800
Cod 15,000 ~qb 6.0 ~8q90~,000 15,700
Eel 15 ~' 000 b 0.9 13,500 ~.27,~4q600
Pollock 15,000 ~qb 4.0 ~8q60~,000
Puffers 15, 000 ~qb 0.3 4,500
T~qoad~2qfish 15, 000 ~qb 0.7 ~-~qt~4qo~, 500

Total ~'~q9, ~8q8~4q63, 000 ~q10~,~8q6~4q79~,~2q295

Sources: NMFS (1980); Sampson ~q(1~'~4q981); Connecticut DEP
Marine Fisheries Information System

a) Less than 30,000 according to NMF~4qS (1980), which is an
underestimate (Sampson 1~q,~28q9~28q81~8q)~8q; 30,000 assigned
arbitrarily

b) Less than 30,000 according to NMFS (1980); 15,000
assigned arbitraril~28qX

c) Includes sea herring and alewives

d) Assumed ~4qt~q.~qc~q, be mostly tuna since there is a s~qepar-a.te
m~qac~8qk~qer~2qel~q/cat~qeg~2qor~32qy

~32q13.~8q1

5.2.2 Recreational Shellfishing

In 1981, approximately 5,000 permits were issued by
Connecticut 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 approximately 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.

The recreational shell-Fish permitting process- varies
greatly from town to town. The towns of Old Lyme, Old
Saybrook, Westbrook, Clinton, Milford, and Fairfield have a
harvestable shellfish resource in unpolluted waters but do
not issue permits, although shell-Fishing is allowed in open
areas. Permits are issued by Stonington, Groton,
Waterford-East Lyme, Madison, 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
shell-Fishing. 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, or hard clams or soft clams, or a
combination of the three, in 1981 (a desireable quantity for
a few hours of shellfishing), at least 5000 bushels were
harvested in 1981. 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
shellfishing 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 taken was known.
An estimated 9,052 bushels of scallops were taken in 1981
from Stonington and the Niantic River.

The major impediment to recreational shellfishing in
Connecticut 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). Most
towns, however, do have clean water areas that could be

132

utilized to depurate contaminated shellfish transplanted
from productive closed areas in those towns (Table 3).
Also, as sources of contamination become eliminated through
the efforts of town and state health departments, some areas
that arc- 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 thepotential for success.

133

Table 3. Acres ~qo~2qf ground tinder town jurisdictions that are
open to shell~qfishin~qg.

Town Acres Acres c~qonditi~qon~all;~qr Total
open opened

Madison ~8q6~10~8q60 0 ~q6~,0~,~q6~.0
E.~L~8qym~e ~4q12 7 0 3, ~8q127
Westport 75~2q6 ~8q1~, 612 2, 3~8q68
St~qonin~qgton 1,940, 0 1,940
Westbrook 1~18~8q60. 0 1~1~8q8~8q60
Branford 1,798 0 1,798
Milford 1, 7~2q6~8q8 0 1, 7~8q6~2q8
Norwalk 0 1, 3~2q34 1,334
Old Saybrook 1,274, 200 1,474
Guilford 907, ~2q69 976
Stamford 745 222 ~8q9~8q67
Clinton 91~8q3 0 91~8q3
Groton ~8q895~, 0 895
Waterford ~q(~q314 0 614
Fair-Field 5~8q89 0 589
Darien 523 44 5~8q67
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 2~4q7, ~4q695

Sources: 1) Connecticut State Department ~qo~qf Health,
June, 1980 --List ~qo-~qf restricted shell-Fish areas
in Connecticut where closure lines have been
definitely established by the Departm~en~-t o~qf
Health Services.
2) A~4qqu~acul~qture Division, Connecticut Department
o~8qf Agriculture, maps of shellfish grounds in
Long Island Sound under state jur-isdiction~.-
Acreages were determined using scales ~8qon maps.

Condition~qa~8ql~8ql~4q)~qe o~q'p~qened means opened to shell-Fishing
depending on rainfall conditions an~8qd concentrations of
coli~08qform bacteria in the water as tested by local or
state health department officials.

Towns where shellfish resources are under t~8qhe state
jurisdic~2qt ~q"ion of the A~8qquacultur~qe Division ~2qo~64qf the
Connecticut Department of Agriculture~q.~q*

.134

5.2.3 Personal Use Lobster Fishing

From 1977-1981, the number of Connecticut personal use
lobster- license holders has increased from 2,227 to 3,304.
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 11Y. took
lobsters using scuba. Twent/-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 collectively made
approx imate 1/ 159, 88Z trap hauls in 1'9 7 6 (DEP Marine
Fisheries Statistics). A socio-economic survey of the
personal use lobster harvesting force 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 6 were
fished at one time; the mean age of individuals was 42 /ears
old; an aver-age 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 E-2,422 in 1977 to
between 80,000-90,000 pounds in 1977, 1978, 1979, to 98,754.
pounds in 1980 1. The amounts reported by personal u s e.
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. -- 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 -Fisherman caught just less
than 2 legal sized lobsters per day fished, and scuba
divers, just less than 4 (Smith, E. unpublished data).

135

5.2.4 Recreational Blue Crabbing

Taking blue crabs for personal use is a fairly popular
recreational fishing activity in Connecticut in ;(e a r s when
blue crabs are abundant. However, nothing definite is known
about the numbers of people involved or how many crabs are
harvested because the activity is unregulated except for
prohibitions on taking egg bearing females, hard shell crabs
less than 5 inches, and soft shell crabs less than 3-1/2
inches measured from tip to tip -o-f the shell Spikes.
Popular blue crabbing areas include virtually all salt water
coves and the mouths of rivers in the eastern two-thirds of
the state.

5.3 The Party and Charter Boat Industry

In contrast to commercial fisheries, whose primary
purpose is to catch and sell fish, the purpose of the part;r
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 Tish.

A total of five party fishing boats, or headboats,
operate in Connecticut; three in New London County and two
in Fairfield Count@- (Sampson 1981). Including-the captain,
-a crew of about 4-6 assist the customers and maintain the
vessels which range from E-0-80 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 Tish for cod, pollock, winter
flounder, fluke, mackerel, blackfish, or scup. When the
bluefish season begins in June, they operate daily until
about October and Tish Tot, bluefish almost exclusively.. The
New London County boats specialize in, cod, pollock and
blue-Fish, often traveling to Block Island Sound, while the
Fairfield County boats are known as ' porgy (scup) boats and
usuallX fish within LIS largely -for scup, but also Tor
winter floun-d,er-, blackfish, mackerel, and bluefish. The
capacity of Connecticut's party boats ranges from about 70
to 100 passengers. During bluefish season, the vessels make
two 6 hour trips daily.

Charter boats are smaller (35-50 Teet in length) than
party boats and accomodate from 1-6 passengers. In 1979,
thirty charter boats were located in New London County,
three in Mi(fdlesex County, one in New Haven County, and two
in Fairfield County (Sampson 1981). These figures have
increased slightly since then (Sampson, R., pers. comm.).
Char-ter boats generally Tish Tor the same species as party
boats but in addition, because the/ are Taster and more
flexible i,n making special trips to meet the desires of
customers, they may also travel to offshore areas to fish
for larger oceanic gameTish such as tuna and sharks.

In 1981, the first year that party and charter boat
catch statistics were reported, blue-Fish accounted Tor 81%
of Connecticuts party and charter boat catch. Cod,
-Flounder, bluefin funa, blackfish, Pollock, mackerel, and
scup, each accounted Tor 1-4% of the total catch (Table 4).
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 Tor any other fishing
mode--i.e., beach/bank, man-made structures, and
private/renta L boats (Sampson 1981).

137

Table 4. Connecticut party and charter boat catch, 1981

f--pecies Weight (lbs) Percent of total
Rc-- is b t
Bluefish 1,074,208 81 .3
Cod 58,484 4.4
Flounder 33,949 2.6
Tuna, blue-Fin 25,984 2.0
Black-Fish 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
weak-Fish -7,388 .0.6
Bonito 3, 021 0.2
Marlin 71-5 0.1
Menhaden 80 <0.1
River herring 30
Total 1, 320, 856

6.0 The Economics of Marine Resource Use in Connecticut

6.1 Marketing
6.1.1 Finfish and Squid

All Connecticut landings of finfish and squid caught
offshore, as well as the majority taken in Connecticut
waters are landed at the port of Stonington. Fair weighouts
and reasonable prices per pound, which are sometimes higher
than those offered at major ports in Rhode Island and
Massachusetts, are offered to trawlers by the principle
buyer located at the dock. These factors often attract
non-resident vessels which trawl offshore.

Stonington is principally a flounder port; over 60% of
the total 1981 landings there were comprised of blackback,
yellowtail, and summer flounder. All fish, landed in
Stonington are 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 offered at other Southern New
England ports. The Stonington buyer then either re-sells
fish through previous agreements and orders from local
wholesalers and retailers, exports it, or trucks it to major
markets, mainly the Fulton fish market in New York City.
Approximately '50% of the flounder species landed in
Stonington are trucked to the Fulton market. Smaller
blackback flounder, and most yellowtail, constituting about
40% of the total flounder landings, are trucked to New
Bedford, where smaller flounders are processed on filleting
machines and yellowtail are marketed. The remaining 10%,
mainly the larger flounders, are sold to Connecticut
wholesalers and a filleting company in Stonington. Most
butterfish and all whiting are sold at the Fulton and
Philadelphia markets. Fulton is the principle market for
either species landed in Stonington including cod, blue-fish,
tautog, scup, weakfish, squid, anglerfish and others.

Fulton is also the major market for the trawlers
fishing in LIS. Small amounts of their catch occasionally
may be sold to Connecticut wholesale and retail markets
especially when certain species such as scup and bluefish
are in season. Generally, however, it is 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 attempting to
market his catch in several small quantities to small
Connecticut markets, after which he might still have to pack
and ship the remainder to the Fulton market. Arrangements
are made with a wholesaler who, for a fee, transports the
catch of one or more fishermen at a time to the Fulton
market where the prevailing price is paid, with variations
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 seasorial catches which 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
Connecticut 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 pastsat 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
several small filleting hou,ses usual ly 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 to
only those -wtio a -re associated with the individual
businesses. The wholesale value of boned shad is
ex-vessel value.
approximately four times greater than the
The ex-vessel price paid for female shad is usually twice
that for males because of the value of the roe. The boned
shad fillets and roe are distribute(i to Connecticut retail
markets and restaurants where the)r are regarded as a
seasonal del.icacy. They are also trucked to major New York
and Philadephia markets.

6.1.2 Molluscan Shellfish

One major shell-Fish company in Connecticut shucks only
about 10X of its oysters, the remaining 90,% being shipped in
the shell. These are predominantly of the "medium" category
with some 20% in-the "half-shell" category. 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 places in the
northeastern U.S., especially ih the states of Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, and also
to. eastern.. Canada_ (Korringa. 1976).. The company also
operates an oXster shucking -and packing plant in Port
Wirris, 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 shell-Fish 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 proc'essed -- invol-ving sorting
to size, washing, and packing in water-resistant cardboard
boxes of various sizes. The company's oyster's are
distributed in refrigerated trucks as Fresh, unshucked
product to the major New York, Boston, Los Angeles, and
Chicago markets. Sma 11 er, orders are also filled for
specific New England and Mid-Atlantic wholesalers 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 Day 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 i.nvolved. The certificate holders are responsible
for record keeping, proper storagel handling, and tagging o-F
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-
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.-. Certif icate holders involved with interstate
transport- - are included on the..,- "Inter-state - 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 -o-F shellfish by individuals or firms not
appearing on/either o@F these two lists 1) are of unknown
origin, 2) would not be considered an approved Food source

141

by the State Department of Health Services, or the other
certifying states and countries appearing on the federal
list and, 3) should not be found in food establishments
(Shute, M., pers. comm.).

Conch landed by Connecticut *ishermen 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 proces5ors. Other fishermen, who periodically
harvest small amounts, will sell their catch to certain
wholesale sea-Food dealers for less than the going 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 efficiently processed 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 Stc@ninqton 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 allof 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
lobster-men feel that wholesalers are not paying fair prices.
Recently wholesalers paying $2.10 per pound --- to the
lobstermen reportedly wolfld get up to $4.50 per pound on
resale. Some lobstermen have expressed interest in forming
a cooperative to increase' their market power and get a
better price (New Haven Ci-ty Plan Dept. 1'379).

The supply of lobsters created by the Connecticut catch
cannot-meet-Ic-cal.dc-mand----.As a result, live lobsters are
imported primarily from Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and
Maine. Such imports tend to depress the prices paid to
local lobster-men during periods of low abundance or
seasonally low, local supply. Conversely, they are
important in (haintaining stability in retail prices. On the
other hand, some landings of--lobster from Connecticut, other

.142

state, or offshore waters may be exported from Connecticut
if suitable prices and marketing arrangements can be made.

6.2 Processing

Two companies are known to process fishery products in
Connecticut. The Blue Ocean Fillet Co. in Stonington
processes whole -fish into fillets for eventual entry into
the retail marketing system. Abbotts Seafood, Inc is the
other Connecticut processing company. It_ prepares seafood
enhancements and concentrates in a New London County plant
and markets them nationally in canned form.

A final part of the_processing sector would include
the fresh fish filleting that is done by individual
retailers or fishermen, however, since these activities
relate to the activities of catches or marketers, they are
addressed elsewhere in this report.

6.3 Consumer Preferences

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 other
meats such as beef and poultry.

There is evidence that the consumption of seafoods has
increased in 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 ) . Connecticut per capita consumption figures are
likely to be much higher than the national averages. The
increase in the number of, Connecticut retail seafood outlets
in operation in the last 10 years is also evidence of the
trend towards a greater per' capita consumption of seafood
(Costa, E., pers. comm.).

The general distribution of New England seafood to the
ultimate consumer--65% to restaurants, 5% to service
operations, 30% to the home illustrates the need to
increase the home consumption 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 are taking up the trend to eat what they
believe to be fresh, more healthful foods. This situation

143

.is favorable -For the seafood industry (Harris 1982).

Fresh sea-foods, -Finfish in particular, have the
potential to become *a major source of meat prote in in the
diets of people.,who are increasingly aware of their health,
and who want to avoid the cholesterol and *at 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 retail -quality and display.
Several Connecticut retailers have conducted public seafood
education seminars 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 protein source (Popa, J. per.s. comm.).

Organizations that are instrumental in promoting the
seafood industry include the New England Fisheries
IN--velopment Foundation which is dedicated to product
development a-rid marketing programs that build demand for New
England sea-Food products in both domestic and export
markets. The Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation
has conducted extensive marketing campaigns with the theme
of health, nutrition, fitness, and balanced diet through
eating seafood. Seminar's, workshops, and media blitzes have
been conducted using the logos "CATCH AMERICA".in 1981 and
"ceafood USA... a better choice" in 1982 on all posters and
literature, as a trademark of the 9overnment/industr;r
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).

6.4. Inter-national Trade

Butter-Fish, -Fluke, angler*ish, sword-Fish, and blue-Fin
tuna landed in Connecticut have been exported to J,ap an i n
the recent past through contracts, made by a large
wholesaler and -a fish brokerage, both located i-n-New-- London
County. Japanese buyers have also express.ed interest in
purchasing squid. However, no long term exporting contracts
Tor fish landed in Connecticut have yet been developed
because the supply of the desired species has been unsteady.

144

6.5 Industry Support

6.5.1 Support to Commercial Fishing

Stonington is Connecticut's major commercial fishing
port, 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 be-Fore 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 (Birmingham, R. 1982).
Three new steel vessels in the 70 Tt. class have been added
to the fleet during 1980-81.

In the past two years, over $400,000 in funding hais
been provided te, repair and develop the Stonington town
dock. An initial grant o-F $50,000 was provided by the
Connecticut Department of Economic Development For -mer ency
dock repairs. Other funds were obtained from the Community
Block Grant Program of the U. S. Depgtrtment of Housing and
Urban Development and the Industrial Development Grant
Program of th.q Farmer's Home Administration. An addition
was also buillt@@to expand the existing ice house at the dock
(Birmingham 1982).

The town, with the assistance of the University of
Connecticut Marine Advisor/ Service and the New England
Innovation Group, submitted a proposal for financial
assistance 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 infrastructure developments
included dock extensions, expansion of ice and fuel
capacity, and the establishment of a small fillet operation.
It was alsc, proposed- to obtain technical assistance for
developing management and training activities, 2mproving
utilization and transfer of new -Fisheries technology,
improving capital-and'minority business access to Stonington
fisheries, and to increase- awareness and utilization of
public and private fisheries development programs. It. was
estimated that J-00--new jobs at sea and on shore would result
soon after the proposed plan was implemented. Those
concerned with the -revitalization project have expressed
enthusiasm towards continuing these efTor'ts-. Stonin@ton 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 stead/
supply of fis.h of particular species is required, and
cooperation must occur between the harvesters and processors
(Birmingham 1982).

I ACZ

In the Mystic River harbor, mainly at Noank, two
moderately-sized lobster wholesale establishments, one with
an associated restaurant, provide unloading and fuel
facilities forseveral. 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 chat-ter
vessels also operate from the New London side.

From time to time cc,mmercial trawlers also land their
catch at the New London City pier. Recently the owner of a
1-28 ft steel trawler began docking the vessel i.n 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 according to the city's Marine Commerce and
Development Committee (Cray 1982). 1

The city of New London prepared a feasibility study in
1979 for the development of a major commercial fisheries
facility. The analyses indi-cated 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 produce an annual throughput of at least 15 million
pounds of r-,cu-rii'd (whole) @Fish under aharvest strategy of
40Y. whiting, 40% squid, and 20% mixed groundfish to obtain a
reasonable return on investment. It was assumed that the
ownership and operation of the facility would lie with
private entrepreneurs, and that the harvest strategy
selected would be b'ased 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 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 dinect 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, where several lobster
boats, two party fishing boats, and about 15 char-ter vessels
are harbored in the'Niantic River. Many Connecticut River
towns such as Old Llme and Old Saybrook are home to several
small-@--scale- commercial--'Iobstermen and eel fisher-men in
addition to commercial shad fishermen. Further north, shad
fishermen also fish out of Haddam, Portland, Rocky Hill, and
other Connecticut River towns.

Commerci-@l fishermen are harbored in the Patchogue
River in Westbrook, and in Clinton where 6 slips and 100 ft

146

of doc k space are available for commerc i a I -Fishermen.
Several oyster boats along with-several other fishing boats
provide the total commercial activity of Guilford Harbor.
In Stony Creek, Branford, the primary commercial commodity
is fresh fish, including shellfish; in all of these harbors,
lobster boats go out almost daily in season (CEM 1981).

Facilities in New Haven Harbor support 6-11 boats of
the two major oyster companies on LIS and about 10 other
boats.; two use small otter trawls, several are engaged in
both lobstering and trawling, and several in lobstering only
(New Haven City Plan Eleptw 1979).

In 1'980, the city of New Haven applied to the NMFS
Resear-ch and Development Grant Program for a grant to study
the feasibility of establishing commercial fisheries
facilities in New Haven Harbor. A preliminary document
which accompanied the proposal 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. -I* a modern fisheries
facility and a buyer offering attractive ex-vessel prices
for fish were, located in New Haven, it was expected that 5
offshore 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. Assuming a
multiplier of 2.0, another 50-60 jobs would be generated in
the local economy as a result of the processing operation.
Several sites considered 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 million.

Approximately 5-6 lobster boats operate out of the
Bridgeport,area. -A commercial fishing facility is presently
being privately financed and built in Black Rock Harbor. A
dock with 6000 s-q ft deck space and berths for about 10
vessels, an ic6- house, fueling facility, retail seafood
market, and a small, "take out" seafood stand are under
construction.. It is expected to attract (:lose -to six
trawlers, being mainly designed for those operating in LIS
that are presently docked at deteriorated facilities and
recreational. marinas along - the.- centr-al and- western
Connecticut coast. It is also hoped that boats trawling
near Block Island and further offshore will use the
facility. A tourist attraction atmosphere will be developed
through the sale of "fresh off the boat" seafood at the
small restaurant. The retail market will feature fresh
seafood cauqh@ in Long Island Sound by local fishermen at
prices that will probably tend to be lower than at other

147

markets because there will be no transporta t ion costs
involved. A larger restaurant may also be built in the
-future. A Co-op atmosphere will be promoted for the
-Fishermen. The main method of marketing the -fish will be to
truck it to the,Fulton fish market in New York City although
sales to local wholesalers and retailers will be encouraged
(Williams, K. pers. comm.).

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
Nor-walk. Most commercial fishing boats are docked in
recreational marinas at which dockage -Fees. are quite
expensive. Moreover, there are no shoreside 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. They also
rent dock space at this site to several lobstermen.

The city of Norwalk has recently developed plans to
construct a multi-million dollar "Norwalk Seaport" which
would include a much needed commercial fishing dock Tor Xear
round use. However, it is believed that the city plans to
develop the facility and turn it over to a private investor
which would presumably keep the docking prices high. For
such a faciliV the needs of commercial fishermen,
@y to meet
it is -felt that,the city would have to own and operate it to
keep prices low.

Other harbors in Darien, Stamford and Greenwich also
provide limite*d opportunities Tor commercial fishermen to
dock and unload their catches. Compexition for dock space
in predominantly recreational boating marinas often
increases costs of operation beyond what might be
experienced if commercial space were available and some
fishermen avoid these costs by mooring their boats and using
a skiff to travel to and from the boat. -

It is 'important to realize that many small harbors have
one or a few vessels which Tish daily on a seasonal basis
Tor lobsters and finfish. A listing of these -ports would
'include every navigable harbor in the sate and is therefore
not presented.

J-48

6.5.2 Support to Recreational Fishing

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

1) Beach and bank Ti.shing 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 Tor sailboats,
power yachts, and smaller power boats such as are used for
sportfishing. There are 2.5 major boat -launch sites along
the coast, all of which are state-owned.

New London and Fair-Field counties have the highest
tota I numben,. of angling sites, with 196 and 156
respectively, however they averaged 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 Tewer sites.
For example, towns such as Greenwich, Darien, Westport,
Guil-Ford, 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, Bridg-eport, Strat-ford, New Haven, and New London
have man/ more sites per coastal mile (Sampson 1'381).

While many sites in these areas are in private
ownership, some are industrial areas in which relatively
open fishingmay occur without objection from- the land
owners. Harbors heavily developed for boating rather than
industry such as Milford, Westbrook, and Clinton have the
same relative number of fishing- sites per mile -as- other
commercially developed areas (Sampson 1981).

A survey of the telephone books of coastal Connecticut
towns indicated that there are at least (30 shops that sell
bait and tacAle to Connecticut marine recreational
fishermen. M'ar-ine fishing tackle alone may be purchased at
these 60 shops in addition to a large number of department

JL49

and sporting goods stores throughout Connecticut. These
stores also sell clam rakes, tongs and other equipment to
support recreational shellfishing.

Several Towns have developed programs to enhance
recrational shellfishing activity. These programs are based
upon the transplanting of contaminated shell-Fish from
polluted beds todepuration areas in certified clean water
where recreational harvesting is allowed after the required
depuration period - two weeks in water of 52 F. In the
towns of Madison and Old Saybrook, the programs were the
result of comprehensive Shellf-ish Management Plans prep ared
at no charge to the towns by Timothy Visel,. a graduate
student at the Universitl 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) genet-ate revenue from commercial harvesting to
spen.d on improving the yield and quality of
shell4:ish on existing beds.

The plans call For making the best use of shell-Fish
populations, particularily oysters, that are overcrowded,
slow-growing, and dying in potentially productive habitats.
These resources cannot be legally harvested for market or
consumption because the/ 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 these 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.
commi--). 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 closed. The oysters could not
be found the 'iFollowing spring probably because currents
washed them ou't 04: the area or buried them, causing high
mortality (Milkofsky, J., pers. comm.). A similar oyster

150

and hard clam transplanting program is being conducted by
the Branford Shell-Fish Commission in cooperation with a
commercial harvester who will transplant 30% to recreational
grounds and 70% to his priyatel/-leased beds (Infantino, M.,
pers. comm.).

The Waterford-East Lyme Shellfish Commission recently
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, they
will eventually be available for recreational harvest.
Scallop seeding has been undertaken in Stonington, the
Poquonnock River in Groton, and the Niantic River with the
assistance, of the UCCINN 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 1-982). The number of times each harbor req .uires
dredging and the amounts of material to be dredged during
this period are presented based o6 a "most probable .-future
scenario" (Table 5). Stoningtop harbor, supporting
Connecticut-s major commercial fishing fleet, requires no
dredging of i-ts main channel due to its natural depths.
However, in tt@i@e area of @he town dock, - especially on the
north side, vessels with drafts greater than ten feet have
limited access because of a,s.ilting 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). New Haven and Norwalk harbors, where
commercial @Fish landing facilities have been proposed, will
require substantial future dredging. New London harbor will
re.quire a moderate amount of dredging, however, while this
activity would mainly support naval submarine navigation,
the benefits would be accrued by 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 Tor 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-wou-ld-not be eligib-le-Tor--federal- maintenance--
dredging such as harbors which support only recreational
boating traffic. Considerable discussion has been
stimulated lately by the need to dredge these small harbors
so that-even the very shallow draft recreational vessels
will have acc@-ss to Long Island Sound.

151

One proposal for disposal of dredge spoils is to create
containment 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,
the/ would be impermeable structures in which spoils would
be deposi-co,-J ard then capped with relatively clean sediment
for later uses, such as recreation areas. Such proposals
are thought provoking and bear review. However potential
impacts related to endeavors of such magnitude must be
addressed in an equally careful manner.

152

Table 5. Pr~qoj~e~c~,t~ed federal maintenance dredging
most probable future scenario - 198~2q5~q-2035

Average
Volume Average ~6q50~q-~6qy~ear
Coastal Number ~qo~2qf Per Annual Cumulative
Area Project Projects Project Volume ~2qQu~antit~q@~,
(Cubic yards ~qo~qf dredged material)

---------------~-~--------------------------------------------

Western Greenwich Hr~qb~r 2 ~.~4q50~,000 2,000 100~,000
Coastal ~'Mi~anus River 2 35,000 1,400 70,000
Area Stamford Hrbr 2 100~,000 5,000 200,000
W~qe~stc~qott Cove ~2q3 20,000 1,200 ~8q60~,000
Fiv~emil~e River 2 70,000 4,200 140,000
Norwalk H~rbr 9 1~8q5~2q0~,~8q0~8q0~2q0 21~,000 1,~8q350,000
Westport Hrbr &
Saugatuck River 2 35,000 2~,1~8q0~2q0 70,000
Southport Hrbr ~4q3 50,000 ~8q3~,000 150,000
Bridgeport H~qrbr 9 275,000 55~,000 2,475,000
Housatonic River 5 200,000 20,000 1,000,000

-------------~-~---------------------- -----------------------

C~e ntr a I Mi~ql~,~,~4qF~qord H~rbr ~4q6 40,000 4,800 ~40,000
Coastal New Haven Hrbr 22 225,000 99,000 4,950,000
Area Branford H~qrbr 5 100~,000 10~,000 500,000
Stony Cr~q@~-~ek Hrbr 2 35,000 2,100 ~8q70~,000
Guilford H~qrbr ~8q3 ~8q80~,000 ~4q6,400 240,000
Clinton ~8qH~-~-br ~8q6 30,000 4,200 ~4q1~8q80~,000
Duck Island Hrbr 2 100~,000 4,000 200,000
Patchogue River 7 50,000 7,000. ~8q350,000
Connecticut River
(below Hartford) 28 200,000 1~8q0~2q0~,000 5,600,000
Total ~q-~8q2~8q4~q-~2q1~q-~q-~,5~q-~q-0~0q6 1~0qE~q-~1~q-~8q3~q-~2q3~q-0~q-~1~q-~8q0~q-~2q0~q-~8q0

-----------~-~----------------------------------------------~q-~q--
Eastern ~6q@i~anti~qc Bay
Coastal & Harbor 2 40,000 2,400 ~4q80~,000
Area Thames River ~8q6 200,000 1~8q6, 000 ~2q1, 200, 000
New London Hrbr 2 100~,000 ~8q10~,000 200~,000
Mystic River 2 ~24q25~q1~q-~24q0~24q0~24q0 ~28q1~q,000 ~28q50~q,000
St~6qonin~8qgt~2qon H~qr~q-br 0 ~4q-~0q- ~4q-~0q- ~4q-~4q-
Pawcat~ql~q.~qlCk~q'Riv~qer 4 25,000 2,000 100~q,000

------ ---------
31,400~- -- 1, 630, 000

----------------------------------------------------------
urc~qe: U.S. ACE (1982)

153

6.6 Economic Comparison Among Connecticuts Commercial
and Recreational Fishing Industries

In section 5.1, "The Commercial Fisheries",
Connecticut's commercial fishing industries have been ranked
in order of their economic value, and the percentage of the
-total annual revenue generated from the harvest of living
marine resources that each fishery earned from 1977-1981 is
presented.

In terms of economic value to the harvestors, the total
value of the finfish catch of Connecticut licensed
commercial -Fishermen in 1979 ($893,000) is considerably less
than the total value of finfish caught 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, the value of commercial finfish
landings to the economy of Connecticut due to the multiplier
(or "ripple") effect of 2.0 for marine fishery products
approaches 1.8 million dollars.

In 1979, 88,000 pounds of lobster were harvested by
personal use lobster license holders. IT a conservative
retail value of $3.50 per pound is applied, this lobster was
worth approximately $308,000 to its harvesters. This amount
represents 13% of the value of lobster harvested 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 value of these
commercial lobster landings to Connecticut approaches 5.0
million dollars.

Because precise information on the recreational harvest
of oysters and hard clams is lacking, a quantitative
comparison of commercial and recreational shell-Fishing
cannot be made. Qualitatively, however, it may be said that
the economic value of the commercial harvest of
Connecticut's private shellfish companies far exceeds the
value of shellfish that is harvested recreationally.

154

7.0 Groups with Special Interest in Marine Resources

Many groups, 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 citize.ns are interested in marine
resources as Tood, as a source of recreation, and Tor their
intrinsic aesthetic value.

Appendix I! provides an annotated list of the principle
organ i z at ions and interest groups involved with marine
resources in Connecticut. These organizations do not include
resource management agencies; those agencies are identified
in Section 2.0. However, government-supported programs and
services which influence the use of marine resources are
included in this section. Examples of such groups are the
Sea Grant-Marine Advisory Service and the various university
research programs. The list generally is composed of
commercial and recreational fishing organizations,
conservationists, development foundations, trade
associations, educational services, and universities
conducting ma-rine research investigations. The reader should
",71 J1
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.
.-Interested groups may.be categorized broadly as 'those
which contribute to management programs and those which
benefit from such programs. Examples of the former group
are the many fisher-men organizations active in Connecticut
while the latter group includes marine retailing and trade
associations, marine oriented businesses, and consumers.
Some organizations obviously belong in both groups (Tishing
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 nonethele'ss recognize the advantage of
having those resources available include commerce and
planning committee's looking Tor ways Of diversifying
community- developments. - -Examples- -are- __ the...- efforts- - Of
waterfront commissions in several communities which, within-
the past few years, have explored the potential Tor
development of fish piers along presently unused water
frontage. Such activities generally are not related to
government activities but rather, relate to the ad hoc
designation o* committees, by government, Tor the purpose of
exploring development potential in the'coastal area.

J-55

8.0 Problems, Issues, and Opportunities

8.1 -Introduction

The relationship of Connecticut's citizens to Long
Island Sound is diverse and complex. Conflicts arise
between commercial and recreational *ishermen, between
different types c4 commercial or recreational -Fishermen,
between fishermen and other boating tra*ic,. and between
competing users of the environment such as those who take
fish or shellfish -For Tun and pro-fit, and those 'Who use Long
Island Sound as a repository @For dredge spoils, municipal
sewage and industrial waste. Resolution of such con@Flicts-
without prohibiting any one type of user from traditional. or
legitimate, new use of the Sound is the challenge ;acing
marine resource managers.

The -Following sections document 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. Part Two of the Marine Resources
Management Plan will provide a comprehensive set of issues
which pose problems to managers of living marine resources.
The following subsections are intended solely to address
problems, issues, and opportunities that have been provoked
during preparation of Part One.

8.2 Man's Influence on the Long Island Sound Ecosystem

Major sources of pollution affecting Long Island Sound
include: inade,quatel;r treated municipal and industr ,ial
wastes, over-Flows from combined sanitary-storm sewers,
non-point sources, 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, dredging and dredge spoil disposal, and
both sediment and other substances flowing into the Sound
from rivers. The relative significance of man-made sources
of water pollution is complicated by the fact that
contaminants often enter the water in complex. mixtures of
specific chemical "@ies are
many substances whose identif
largely unknown, and by the fact that LIS has a complex
water circulation pattern (NERBC 19-75).

.,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 Riverwhich flow 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 loc,,ks 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 essential estuarine
characteristics of western LIS would also be changed to
those of a coastal emba/ment; salinity would increase by
about 4X.. The study noted that the implementation of such
a project would have many political, socio-economic,
ecological, sedimentary, navigational, engineering and
hXdrogr-aphic ramifications, 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 generally 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. An attendant problem
is a general lowering of the aesthetic and recreational
values of thewater. Long term effects include an increased
rate of aging of .the body of water, 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 main-taining the LIS ecosystem at a high level of
productivity. / Much of the natural nutrient input that was
once provided by Connecticut's extensive tidal marshes (many

157

of which were subsequently eliminated during this century by
shoreline development) is now derived -from the organic
discharge of municipal sewage systems. Unfortunately, this
type of "compensatory" nutrient enrichment is, not purely
organic, since heavy metals and other toxic substances often
accompany this input (Stewart, L. pers. comm.).

Connecticut's tidal marshlands and shell-Fish beds are
the two most ecologically and economically important
habitats to suffer because of man's influence. By 1965,
shoreline development activity in Connecticut had destroyed
or altered the ecology of more than 50% of the tidal
marshland existing in 1914 (Niering and Bowers 1966).
Causes of tidal marshland loss and the percentage 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
shellfish grounds are closed to the harvest of shellfish for
consumption (Figure 51) 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 levels of coliform indicator organisms greater
than 70 total coliform per 100ml or more than 10%
of the samples taken have levels above 230 total
coliform per 100ml.

It might be noted that most of the closures in both the
western and eastern ends of LIS are in the shallower bays
and harbors that are most accessible to the recreational
shellfishqerman. In the western half particularly, this is
also the area of greatest population and greatest
shellfishing demand. It must be understood, however, that
population density is the factor that has contributed
significantly to the detrimental environmental impact on the
Sound's waters and it is unlikely that this negative impact

158

can be entirely eliminated (NERBC 1975).

Periodic historic use of Long Island Sound as a "dump"
Tor 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 in certain areas make bottom
trawling virtually impossible (Staplefeldt, C. pers. comm.).

159

4D
610

Closed areas
!f 0

IPA
Figure 51. At-eas closed to shel 1-Fi sh). rig in Corinec:ti@cut
wAters (See Table E; wFor- key to abbr-eviations) . 'PA
04,

Table 6. Key to abbreviations used in Figure 51.

GRNW
STAM
DAR
NRWK
WSPT
FF
BPT
STR
MLFD
WH
NH
EH
BRFD
GLFD
MDSN
CLTN
WSBK
OSBK
OLYM
ELYM
WTFD
NL
GRTN
STON
CT
RI
NY

Greenwich
Stamford
Darien
Norwalk
Westport
Fairfield
Bridgeport
Stratford
Milford
West Haven
New Haven
East Haven
Branford
Guilford
Madison
Clinton
Westbrook
Old Saybrook
Old Lyme
East Lyme
Waterford
New London
Groton
Stonington
Connecticut
Rhode Island
New York

161

8.3 Scientific Information

Although basic life history information is available
for essentially all-species of importance found in Long
Tsland Sound, this information usually is not, specific to
the species as they occur in the Sound. Variability in such
parameters 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
harvest of that population are compatible with optimum
sustainable yields as determined by interjurisdictional
management plans. Important migratory species that are
harvested when seasonally present in LIS are bluefish,
butterfish, fluke, mackerel, menhaden, scup, weakfish,
striped bass, and sjuid. Spawning populations of the
anadromous American shad and river herring are also
1mPortant migratory fishery resources in Connecti'cut.

For resident species, in addition to standard-- stock
assessments that evaluate population size, growth rates, and
X
mortality rates, early life history'studies are needed that
will determi-ne the recruitment process and factors that
affect recruitment to'the population so that, through annual
monitoring programs, predictions can be made as to the
relative success and eventual abundance of each year class
of a species. Ideally, such i.nformation might help reduce
the chances of stock declines caused by recruitment
over-Fishing. Important resident resource species are
black-Fish, winter flounder, eels, white perch, lobster, blue
crabs, oysters, hard.-clams, soft clams, bay scall.ops, and
conch.

There is clear need for comprehensive and detailed
surveys of molluscan shellfish habitats and populations.
Some of the most productive natural oyster and clam beds in
Connecticu@t are unusable because they are located in
polluted waters. The extent of these beds and their
potential productively should be determined. Through
utilization -of existing methods and technology for
transplantation, depuration, and aquaculture, many of these
resources could provide productive shellfishing
6pportunities for Connecticut's citizens.

The type of 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
hap-pen in th4 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
Tor such endeavors is of short duration and is, in Tact,
made available only because of a real or perceived resource
emergency. Such funding strategies eTf ectively eliminate
the ability of the manager to monitor the condition of
resources in a consistent manner, over time. While "after
the fact" funding allows one to perform a post-mortem on a
fishery that has collapsed, the long term in-Formation needed
Tor effective management may always be lacking.

8.4 Fisher/ Statistics

A serious problem in managing resources has always been
the lack of sound fisher/ statistics with which to document
the utilization,and condition of Connecticut*s living marine
resources. * With the implementation of the DEP Marine
Fisheries Information System in 1975, considerable progress
was made in resolving this problem. Hr.,wever, 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. The relationship of catch
to mFishinq e-F-Fort may be used as one indicator of relative
stock abundance or the "condition" of the resource.
Currently, information of value is obtained only for the
lobster pot, bottom trawl and shad gillnet fisheries. Other
fisheries of importance Tor which annual catch statistics
are available but less than acceptable are those conducted
by hook, gillnet, and -eelpot. Fisheries for which virtually
no timely harvest and effort statistics are available are
the oyster, hard clam, and conch -Fisheries.

In 198.ti-.through a contract with NMFS, the DEP Marine
Fisheries Office collected commercial landings statistics on
all Tinfish and shellfish species landed in Connecticut. In
addition to landings of each species by Sear type and
county, information on operating units -- the number of
fishermen employed in each fishery and the number of boats
and @Fishinq gear used -- was supplied to the Resource
Statistics Division of NMFS. A number of important problem
areas needing resolution were encountered in 1981.

A review of the current statistics program, the
relationship of the Connecticut program to those of
adjoining states and the National Marine Fisheries
Service, and the opportunities and disadvantages posed b.-@-
such programs is a necessary requirement of @Future marine
fisheries planning activities.

164

8.5 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
c-4 Connecticut's commercial fishing industry. Ef-Forts to
expand facilities and'revitalize the industry, as described
in Section 6.5.1, "Industry Support to Commercial Fishing",'
should be continued.

The harvest strategy proposed in the New London
-Fisheries facility feasibility study (Development Sciences
1979) appears to have potential.-For -an offshore fleet based
in Connecticut, although not necessarily in New London. By
concentrating on the harvest of whiting and s-luid, two
underutilized species, a Connecticut offshore fleet and a
port designed to support such a fleet would not be competing
with traditional, well-established groundfish fleets as
those at New Bedford and Pt. Judith. Development of in-port
processing facilities, and contracts for domestic and export
marketing of the landings is the most important factor in.
the success owF such a fleet.

Other considerations include a continuation of attempts
to provide a-r!'aPpropri ate tax and business climate to the
commercial fi shing industry similar to that provided in
other states and to the agricultural industry in
Connecticut. Also, some pr-ovision for exempting commercial
vessels from competition with recreational boaters and other-
harbor users for dock space is necessary and justifiable if
Connecticut is to retain a Tood-producing industry in
coastal -communities. Such diversification in community
development is considered highly desirable.

1E.5

8.6 Recreational Fishing

Other than the five coastal state parks, occasional
town parks and docks, and some privately owned commercial
sites, there are few recr-eational fishing sites on the
Connecticut coa@t 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 198.1).

Sampson (1981) recommended that marine, recreational
angling-sites should be procured and developed by the-State,-
particularly-in the shore-based modes. 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.

a.) Launch improvement

i. increase parking
ii. install loading docks i'n state launch areas
to improve the ease and speed of transferring
boats to and from the water.
.iii. i@mprove approach channels.

b) Redevelopment of existing, high quality fishing
structures

c) Construction of fishing piers and barges

i. large "pay to fish" piers are a costly but
viable method of improving angler fishing
opportunities. Preliminar/ informal surveys
ind-icate such a project would be well received
by the fishing public. Other methods, such as
construction of offshore anchored fishing
barges have pi-oven successful in other states.
ii. fishing walkways on coastal bridges will
improve angler- opportunities, however the legal
and procedural difficulties in accomplishing
this task may be prohibitiv-e. Such development
would be an inexpensive way- of creating
additi-onal fishing sites. For example, a 50
foot walkway leading to and circling --- the- f irst -
abutment on the 1-95 bridge in Groton, CT would
provide a safe and productive fishing site for
40 to 50 anglers.

J-66

iii. development of small, inshore fishing sites in
bays and estuaries would provide areas that
would.be utilized by anglers throughout the
year. The almost constant availability of
either winter flounder, tomcod, or snapper
bluefish would provide the stimulus *or heavy
use of these sites.

Potential exists for re-establishing recreational
shellfishing 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 programs. 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 shell-Fish
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
state review by the Department of Agriculture, Division of
Aquaculture. It must be realized that shell-Fish beds in
polluted waters can be utilized if , transplanting programs
are developed. Revenues earned from the sale of commercial
and recreat-ional harvesting permits should be used to
purcKase and spread oyster cultch to enhance the success of
larval settlement and recruitment to the population.
However, cultch is -quite 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 Tr-cqn the present $50.00 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 solicitied for this purpose (Visel, T. pers. comm.).

167

8.7 Marketing

With over 60% of the seafood consumed in this country
being imported, the U. S. seafood industry must obtain a
larger share of,the existing market, as well as develop new
markets, if it is to flourish. This means that the industry
must collectively increase exports and decrease dependence
on imports to help reduce the balance of trade deficit.
Marketing, both domestic and export, is the single most
important factor- within the sea-Food industry that must. be
addressed if the industry is to develop to its fullest
potential (Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation,
1982).

A significant problem with marketing sea-food in
Connecticut is that the majority of local landings are
transported to out-of-state markets due to considerations of
price and stability in demand. It was -found that the
majority of Connecticut wholesale and retail fish markets,
especially those in western Connecticut, purchase most or
all of their stock from out-.of-state major markets such as
Fulton. The problem created by this marketing System is
that seafood sold to Connecticut consumers is priced
higher than it could be if sea@Food, landed in Connecticut
were sold in this state. Simply removing the cost of
transportat i-o", could significantly reduce cost to consumers.
Reasons for st-'ipping to 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 w,ill be -greater to them,
and prices of fresh seafood will be lower for the consumer.

8.8 Law Enforcement Needs

One of the most common complaints of -Fishermen relates-
to their perceived lack of law enforcement coverage on Long
Island Sound. Qonservation law enforcement is difficult due
to the large area of coverage, the high visibility of
officers on the water, enormous numbers of users, and
frequent bad weather which precludes small boat-operations.

A staff- of seven conservation officers and one
supervisor is . responsible for the enforcement Of
conservation laws and regulations in the area south of
Inter-state 95 in Connecticut. In this zone, one finds the
most densely populated areas of the state which increases
the level Of impacts between resources and their users.
Imaginative -and innovative planning will be required in
future years. in order to provide effective coverage of the
Sound and protection of the States marine resources for all
of its citizens.

-169

8.9 Management

0-F all the issues raised so far, none is more complex
than management itself since it encompasses all elements of
resource related activities. Rese.arch, law enforcement,
education, public relations, health, and the maintenance of
opportunities in an equitable fashion for each user all must
be assimilated into the activities of managers to yield
effective management of the marine resources of the state.

To address all management issues at this point would
lessen the importance of the previous sections which are
intended to be descriptive. Rather, Part Two o-F the Marine
Resources Management-Plan will include a full treatment of
the problems, issues and opportunities facing managers as an
introduction to the intended purpose of Part Two which is to--
provide a compnehen s i ve statement of the pol icies and
priorities of Connecticut marine resource managers as they
plan for future use of the state's living marine resources.

170

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.

Belding, D.L. 1910. The growth and habits of the sea clam
(Mactra solidissima). Rep. Comm. Fish. Game (1909)
-------------

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.

171

Briggs, P.T. and F.M. Mushacke. 1979. The American lobster
in Western Long Island Sound. N.Y. Fish and Game Jour.
26(l):

Bumpus, D.F.,R.E. Lynde, and D.M. Shaw. 1973. Physical
oceanography. In Coastal and offshore environmental
inventory. Marine Publication Series No. 2.
University of Rhode Island, Kingston, R.I.

(CAM) Coastal Area Management. 1979. Shoreline erosion
analysis and recommended planning process. State of
Conn. Dept. of Environmental Protection, Coastal Area
Management Program.

(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 inventor/. 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. Nw 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.

172

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
Progams, 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.

Deuel, D.G. 1973. 1970 Saltwater angling survey. NOAA.,
Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv., Current Fish. Stat. No. 6200.
54p.

Donohue, J.J. and F.B. Tucker. 1970. Marine mineral
identification 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 ndustry 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 Institute. Washington, D.C.

173

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.

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 seashorse.
Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston.

Green, J. 1968. The biology of estuarine animals.
Sidgwick and Jackson, London. 401p.

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. 1972. A Hydrographic data report: Long
Island Sound - 1970. Part II. Marine Sciences
Research Center, State University of New York. 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. Mar. Sci. Res. Center. State Univ.
N.Y., Stony Brook, New York. Tech. Rept. #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. Tech. Rep. #11.

Harr i s, 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 (Brevootia tyrannus):
resource and fishery - analysis of decline. 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

174

americanus. Limnqol. and Oceanog. 7(3):414-421.

Infantino, M., Chairman, Branford Shellfish Commission.
Personal communication, 1982.

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. Tech. Rep. #23. 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 Nantucket
Shoals. Marine Publication Series No. 2. University
of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island.

Korringa, P. 1976. Farming the American Atlantic oyster
(Crassostrea virginica) in Long Island Sound, U.S.A.
Pages 33-61 In Korringa, P. Farming the cupped oysters
of the genus Crassostrea. Elsevier Scientific Pub.
Co., Amsterdam. 224p.

Krebs, O.A., Jr. 1903. 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. Rev. 42(7-8):23-38.

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.

175

72:389-405.

Loosanoff, V.L. 1937b. Spawning of Venus mercenaria.
Ecology 18:506-515.

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- Rept.

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 shell-Fish commission, Madison, Conn.
Personal communication, 1982.

(MAFMC) Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1978a.
Final environmental impact statement/fishery
management plan for the Atlantic mackerel fishery of
the northwest Atlantic Ocean. Supplement number 1.

(MAFMC) Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1978b.
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.

176

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 magellanicus 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.

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 III 1970,
925-948.

Mesnil, B. 1977. Growth and life cycle of squid, Loligo
illecebrosus, 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.

New Haven City Plan Department. 1979. Commercial fisheries
in New Haven harbor:-an analysis of development
potentials.- Unpublished draft.

(NEFMC) New England Fishery Management Council. 1981.
Interim management plan for Atlantic groundfish.

(NERBC) New England River Basins Commission. 1975. A plan
Tor Lon' Island Sound. Vol. 2. Supplement. New
England River Basins Commission. Boston, Mass. 224p.

177

(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(1): 199-212.

Niering, W.A. and R.M. Bowers. 1960. Our disappearing
tidal marshes, their present status. Supplement.
Second reprinting, Connecticut's Coastal Marshes. A
vanishing resource. Conn. Arb. Bull. Now 12, 1961.

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) National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Dept. of
Commerce, NOAA. 1980. Marine recreational fishery
statistics survey, Atlantic and Gulf coasts, 1979.
Current Fishery Statistics Number 8063.

(OCZM and CAM) U.S. Office of Coastal Zone Management and
Connecticut Coastal Area Management Program. 198 0.
State-of Connecticut coastal management program and
final environmental impact statement.

Olsen, S.B. and D.K. Stevenson. 1975. Commercial marine
fish and fisheries of Rhode Island. University of
Rhode Island Marine Technical Report 34.

Popa, J., Nameaug Seafood Market, Inc. New London, Cohn.
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 Shell-Fish
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(1):60-74.

178

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 221-244 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. Oceanography 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, T.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.

179

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.

Scrafy, 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 Report 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 communication, 1982.

Sisson, R.T 1972 Biological and commercial fisheries
related research on the channeled Welk Busycon
canaliculatum (Linne) in Narragansett Bay. Rhode
Island. M.S. Thesis, Univ. 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 (Le Sueur)
in the Newfoundland fishinq area. J. Fish. Res. Board.
Can. 14:693-728.

Staplefeldt, C., President, Connecticut Commercial
Fisher-men'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 found and New London
disposal sites. Presented at-the Second-International
Ocean Dumping Symposium, Woods Hole, Mass. Science
Applications, Inc. Contribution #9.

I-so

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. Arm/ Corps of Engineers. 1982. Final
programmatic environmental impact statement 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 inventor/ 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

181

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.

Visel, T. Regional Marine Resource Specialist, Cape Cod
Extension Service, University of Mass. Barnstable,
Mass. Personal communication, 1982.

Weiss, H.M. I970. 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., commercial -Fisherman, 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. Sea-Floor stability
in central Long Island Sound: Part II. Biological
interactions and their potential importance Tor
seafloor erodibility. Pages 245-260 ID Wiley, M.
(ed.). Estuarine interactions. Academic Press, N.Y.

182

Appendix I: Government agencies responsible *or the
management of marine fisheries resources

Connecticut Department of Agriculture
Division of Aquaculture
23 Rogers Ave. P.O. Box 97 John Volk, Director
Milford, CT 06430
203-874-0696

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Division of Conservation and Preservation
Bureau of Fisheries Robert A. Jones, Director
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 Eric M. Smith, Assistant Director
P.O. Box 248
Waterford, CT 06385
203-443-0166

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Planning and Coastal Management Arthur J. Rocque, Director
71 Capitol Ave
Hart-Ford, CT 06106
203-566-7404

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
Room 2115 Federal Building John C. Bryson,
300 South New Street Executive Director
Dover, DE, 19901-6790
302-674-2331

New England Fishery Management Council
Suntaug Office Park Douglas G. Marshall,
5 Broadway (Route 1) Executive Director
Saugus, MA 01906

New Hampshire Fish and Game Department
Division of Fisheries
34 Bridge St.
Concord, NH 03301
603-271-3421

183

New York Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Marine Resources
Bldg. 40
Stony Brook, NY 11794
512-751-7900

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
Washington County Government Center
Tower Hill Road
Wake-Field, 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 Set-vice
Northeast Regional Office Allen E. Peterson, Jr.,, Director
14 Elm St.
Gloucester, MA 01930
617-281-3600

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 the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Ecological Services
Northeast Regional Office

University of Connecticut
Department of Marine Sciences Dr. S.Y. Feng, Chairman
Aver/ Point Campus
Groton, CT 06340
203-446-1020 Ext. 211

University of Connecticut
Sea Grant Institute Dr. Victor Scottron, Director
Avery Point Campus
Groton, CT 06340
203-446-1020 Ext. 258

184

University Connecticut
Sea Grant Institute Dr. Lance L. Stewart,
Marine Advisory Service Program Leader
Avery Point Campus
Groton, CT 06340
203-445-8664

Department of Fish and Game
Vermont Agency of Environmental Conservation
Fish and Game Department
State Office Bldg.
5 Court St.
Montpelier, VT 05602
802-828-3371

185

Appendix II: Groups with Special Interest in Marine
Resources

Commercial

Southern New England Fishermen's-Association
Front St.
Stonington, CT O6378

Connecticut Commercial Fishermen's Association
P.O. Box 84
Fairfield, CT 06430

Interstate Party Boat Owners and Operators Association
3rd District Professional Boatsmen's Association
P.O. Box 90
Niantic, CT 06357

Recreational

Branford Bluefish, Inc.
William Brown
51 Stevens St.
East Haven, 06512

Central Conn. Striper Club, Inc.
Raymond R. Campion
697 Allen Ave.
Meriden, CT 06450

Connecticut Citizen's Advisory Committee
on Striped Bass Management
Pat Carrol
91 Henderson Rd.
Fairfield, CT 06403

Conn. Saltwater Flyrodder's Assn.
Mr. Tabory
77 Clapboard Hill Rd.
Green Farms, CT 06436

Connecticut Sportsmans Alliance
P.O. Box 315
Niantic, CT 06357

Fairfield County League of Sportsmen's Clubs
Don Grosner
79 Everett St.
Stratford, CT 06497

186

Groton Sportsmen's Club, Inc.
RR 2, Box 76
Al Harvey Rd.
Stonington, CT 06378

Guilford Sportsmen's Assn.
Robert C. Janesky
481 Durham Rd.
Guilford, CT 06437

Hammonassett Fishing Assn.
Wilbur G. Downs
10 Halstead Lane
Branford, CT O6450

Hartford Surf Fishing Club
Agnes E. Smith
36 Hanlock Rd.
Granby, CT 00035

Milford Striped Bass Club Inc.
Main P.O. Box 103
Milford, CT 06460

New London County League of Sportsmen's Clubs
George W. Bloom
Kate Downing
Plainfield, CT 06374

Norwich Striper Club
Thomas Gionet
556 Boswell Ave.
Norwich, CT. 06360

Salt Water Sports Assn.
Dr. John Gray
72 Park Ave.
Bridgeport, CT

Stonington Anglers Assn.
Edwin Browning
25 Water St.
Stonington, CT 06378

Waterbury Deep Sea Fishing
Donald McKennernery
73 Overlook Ave.
Waterbury, CT

Westbrook Fishing Club
Harold Dahl
20 East Town St.
Norwich, CT 06360

187

Westport Fish and Game Club, Inc.
Leroy McElwee
15 Powers Court
Westport, CT 06880

Westport Striped Bass Club
Westport, CT

Universities

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

University of Connecticut
Dept. of Marine Sciences
Avery Point
Groton, CT 06340

Yale University
Biology Dept.
Prospect St.
New Haven, CT

Development Foundations

Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation, Inc.
Suite 600, 2200 Somerville Rd.
Annapolis, MD 21401

New England Fisheries Development Foundation
I Court St.
Boston, MA 02108

Research Programs

University of Connecticut
Marine Sciences Institute
Avery Point Campus
Groton, CT 06340

188

University of Connecticut
Marine Research Laboratory
Main St.
Noank, CT 06340

Little Harbor Laboratory
69 Andrews Rd.
Guilford, CT 06437

Educational Programs

Oceanic Society
7 Magee Ave.
Stamford, CT 06902

Project Oceanology
UCONN
Avery Point
Groton, CT 06340

Schooner, Inc.
60 South Water St.
New Haven, CT 06519

University of Connecticut
Sea Grant Institute
Avery Point Campus
Groton, CT 06340

189

loll
3 6668 14109 1233