summary of maine alewife harvester focus groups, january 2013

Summary of Maine Alewife Harvester Focus Groups, January 2013

Jamie Cournane, PhD and Christopher Glass, PhD, University of New Hampshire

March 2014

Harvesting alewife. Photo: Jamie M. Cournane, Dresden, ME, 2012.

Alewife Harvester Focus Groups, January 2013

1 | P a g e

March 2014

Intentionally left blank


2 | P a g e

March 2014

Table of Contents

1. Overview ................................................................................................................................. 3

2. Purpose .................................................................................................................................... 3

3. Approach ................................................................................................................................. 3

4. Focus Group Questions ........................................................................................................... 4

5. Focus Group Summaries ......................................................................................................... 5

5.1. East Machias ........................................................................................................................ 5

5.1.1. Past Experiences ....................................................................................................... 5

5.1.2. Research .................................................................................................................... 7

5.1.3. Immediate Needs ...................................................................................................... 8

5.1.4. Future Role of The Alewife Harvesters of Maine .................................................... 8

5.2. Eastbrook .............................................................................................................................. 9

5.2.1. Past Experiences ....................................................................................................... 9

5.2.2. Research .................................................................................................................. 11

5.2.3. Immediate Needs .................................................................................................... 11

5.2.4. Future Role of The Alewife Harvesters of Maine .................................................. 12

5.3. Warren ................................................................................................................................ 13

5.3.1. Past Experiences ..................................................................................................... 13

5.3.2. Research .................................................................................................................. 15

5.3.3. Immediate Needs .................................................................................................... 17

5.3.4. Future Role of The Alewife Harvesters of Maine .................................................. 17

6. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 18

7. Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... 19

8. Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 20

8.1. Invitation Letter .................................................................................................................. 20

8.2. Informed Consent Form ..................................................................................................... 21

8.3. Focus Group Agenda- East Machias .................................................................................. 23

8.4. Focus Group Agenda- Eastbrook ....................................................................................... 24

8.5. Focus Group Agenda- Warren ........................................................................................... 25


3 | P a g e

March 2014

1. Overview

Alewife, Alosa pseudoharengus, and blueback herring, Alosa aestivalis, collectively river

herring, are caught in-river as adults during their spawning migration in the spring and early

summer. They provide an important seasonal bait supply to local fisheries (e.g. lobster, Homarus

americanus, fishery) and are occasionally consumed as smoked fish (Figure 1). Recent attention

on the conservation status of alewife and blueback herring led to University of New Hampshire

(UNH) researchers and the Alewife Harvesters of Maine (AHM) Board of Directors

collaborating to collect information on the alewife fisheries in Maine, as they are considered

examples of effective community-based approaches to natural resource management.

AHM1 is a non-profit group of fishers, conservation commissioners, biologists, environmental

advocates, and other concerned citizens. The group has two principal goals “to conserve

alewives and to preserve the river-fishing heritage of Maine”. The group promotes sustainable

fisheries practices, scientific research, and advocates on behalf of its membership. The group

holds an annual all member meeting at The Maine Fishermen’s Forum (early March of each

year) to conduct general business and share experiences from past fishing seasons.

Maine has a rich history of using and managing river herring resources. For over 100 years,

municipalities place requests to harvest river herring from the state. If given permission,

municipalities place the right to fish for river herring up for bid. Each municipality has a slightly

different process in place some to promote stewardship (i.e., five year contract to harvest river

herring) while others valuing revenue (i.e., highest bidder on a yearly basis).

Current fishers deploy different gear types depending on fishing locations (i.e. river, dam). Gears

include seines and traps. Most fisheries target alewife, however blueback herring does mix

within several river specific fisheries. Fishers must possess a pelagic license to fish, which is

administered by the State of Maine. Catch reporting includes daily logbooks. All fishers

participate in scale sampling throughout the fishing season. This information is used by Maine

Department of Marine Resources (DMR) to assess the condition (i.e., evidence of repeat

spawners, gender ratios) of each river- specific stock.

2. Purpose

The purpose of the focus group meetings was to collect participants’ knowledge in order to

provide an important baseline understanding of alewife fisheries in Maine. The benefit to the

community of these meetings is the collective wisdom and experiences of the participants. In

addition, results from focus group meetings may be useful to AHM for planning purposes.

3. Approach

Focus Group

A facilitated focus group approach was used to encourage discussion between Maine’s alewife

harvesters on topics of common interest. An invitation letter was primarily sent to permit holders

1 Additional information on AHM can be found at http://www.alewifeharvesters.org/.


4 | P a g e

March 2014

in the AHM database, to towns with an alewife fishery, and to towns/individuals seeking to start

an alewife fishery in the future (see Section 8.1). Participation in the focus group was voluntary.

Participants

Participants included past and present alewife harvesters, town officials, fish wardens, educators,

conservationists, and interested public. Throughout this summary, the term “harvester”

represents someone who fishes or has fished in the past for alewife and/or blueback herring.

Locations

Three locations were chosen for the focus group meetings based on the geographic scope of

Maine’s alewife fishery in the Mid-Coast and Downeast regions. These locations included East

Machias, Eastbrook, and Warren, Maine. All the focus group meetings were held in public

facilities.

Dates

Focus group meetings were held on three Saturdays in January 2013, in advance of the spring

2013 alewife fishery (Table 1). These dates were selected to increase participation in the focus

groups, since many potential participants could be actively fishing or working on other projects

at other times during the year. The focus group meeting in Warren was extended by an hour to

accommodate anticipated high attendance.

Table 1- Maine alewife harvester focus group meeting locations, dates, and times.

Focus Group Meeting Locations and Times

Saturday, January 12

1-4 PM

East Machias Town Office

32 Cutler Road

East Machias, ME 04630


1-4 PM

Charlie L. Yeo East Brook

Community Center

959 East Brook Road

East Brook, ME 04634


1-5 PM

Town of Warren Office

167 Western Road

Warren, ME 04864

(near the Fire Station and

Public Works)

Informed Consent

To participate in the focus group, all participants voluntarily signed the informed consent form

which provided an overview of the roles of the participant and the researcher (see Section 8.2).

Participants’ questions about the forms and the study were addressed at each focus group

meeting prior to initiating the focus group.

Confidentiality

Individual confidentiality was preserved in the writing of this summary. Participants are not

identified by name, but rather by their role as a stakeholder such “harvester” and “town official”

or in most cases “participant”.

4. Focus Group Questions

Each focus group discussed the same set of questions (see below). Participants received these

questions in advance of the focus group meetings within the invitation letter and as a hand-out


5 | P a g e

March 2014

during the meetings (see Sections 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5). Each participant was encouraged to provide

information on his/her experiences and opinions.

Focus Group Questions

1. What happened at your alewife run this year? Have you seen any changes in the run?

2. Are you involved in any research projects? If so, do you have any project updates?

3. In your opinion, what are your most immediate needs for your run?

4. In your opinion, what do you think The Alewife Harvesters of Maine should be doing?

5. Focus Group Summaries

For each of the three focus groups, the summary is provided in the same order as the focus group

questions. The summary should not be considered a transcript of each of the focus group

meetings, but rather it serves as an overview of the general discussion separated by topics that

each focus group deemed important.

5.1. East Machias

The focus group included 1 harvester, 2 town officials, and 2 members of a fish conservation

group.

5.1.1. Past Experiences

The 2012 Alewife Run

The focus group noted that the 2012 alewife run was exceptional compared to recent years and

more similar to strong runs observed many years ago. The harvester stated the 2012 alewife run

on the Machias River was excellent with many large fish. Another participant noted that the fish

were much larger than in previous years. Another observation by a harvester was that toward the

end of the run, the sizes of the alewives were relatively smaller than at the start of the run.

Figure 1 - Example of an alewife catch. Photo: Jamie M. Cournane, 2012.


6 | P a g e

March 2014

Relative to recent years, the fishing was good for the harvester, but the 2012 season was

considered to be exceptional. The harvester remarked that it was reminiscent of what the fishing

was like when the harvester was a kid. The harvester noted that runs in nearby towns like

Ellsworth were also relatively good. Another participant and life-long resident of the area noted

that the participant’s uncle and grandfather were harvesters. Based on the participant’s

observations, the 2012 run was a very good run. Another participant noted that lobster fishing

started early than usual and had an extended season. At one point in the 2012 season, there were

too many alewives for the lobsterman. The harvester noted that many customers were going to

Ellsworth because the alewives were so plentiful and prices were relatively lower than what the

harvester could offer in Machias.

The group discussed possible contributing factors for the strong 2012 alewife run including

favorable environmental conditions, ecosystem considerations, and the role of management.

Environment Conditions

When considering environmental conditions, the harvester indicated that water temperatures in

the river and ocean were higher than normal in the spring and summer. The harvester also

remarked that the early rainy spring could have increased water flow and contributed to the runs

being stronger. Another participant suggested that data could be compiled from a data logger that

the Atlantic Salmon Federation keeps in the river. The participant noted that ice in the river

retreated earlier than usual in 2012. The group also discussed observations on the daily timing of

the alewife runs. In the Machias area, the fish seemed to run throughout the day at the lake and

back off in the evening. The harvester also noted that the fish aggregate around midnight, and

then about one hour before day break, the fish begin to run again.

Ecosystem Considerations

The participants discussed habitat conditions and predation. One participant thought that the

sliminess of the bottom habitat is essential for getting alewives into the stream. In 2012 with no

ice pack and warm temperatures, the participant speculated that conditions caused the plankton

to grow, made the rocks slimy, and served as trigger for the run. Another participant noted that

alewife ocean survival may have been higher in 2012 than in the past due to the collapse of the

groundfish stocks in the Downeast region of Maine (i.e., loss of ocean predators leading to

increased alewife survival and thus increases in the alewife runs).

Management Practices

The focus group discussed how management practices have changed over time. One participant

harvested alewives in years past in downtown East Machias at the dam. The participant noted

that, during the 1990s, the runs were smaller than the present. The participant was concerned

that in the past, the State of Maine allowed a contractor to harvest for alewives in an area along

the river that the town argued was under its authority. The participant felt the fish would have

been better managed in the town’s sustainable harvest plan. There was also concern that

poaching was a problem in the past. The participants discussed the condition of the fish ladder,

which is under the authority of the State of Maine. All were concerned about its ability to pass

fish when not properly maintained.


7 | P a g e

March 2014

There was also a discussion about the number of days open to alewife fishing and its influence

on the 2012 alewife run. In the past, the fishery was open 6 out of 7 days, then 5, and currently 3

days. The group discussed that, perhaps, longer closure times have resulted in improved runs.

The harvester also noted that state biologists indicated that the Machias River harvest in 2012

was estimated to be about 10% of the total alewife run.

Another participant suggested alewife harvesting should occur at different locations from season

to season (e.g., Hadley Lake branch one year and Gardner Lake branch the next year) instead of

at the same locations every year. The participant remarked that this type of management

approach could be established under the town’s sustainable harvest plan.

5.1.2. Research

Many of the participants in the East Machias focus group were involved in biological sampling.

The group also had many suggestions for future research needs including estimating alewife

population size, addressing problems with fish passage, exploring alternative fishing practices,

and holding a management plan review.

Biological Sampling

Focus group participants noted that they collect scale samples and measure during the fishing

season fish under the State of Maine’s fishery sampling program (i.e., 25 fish sampled a week for

4 weeks).

Population Estimate

The participants suggested that a current research need is to determine the size of the alewife run

including the main stem and the branches of the Machias River. One participant suggested

sampling with a fish counter to help determine that number.

Fish Passage

The group suggested that a major research need was how to improve fish passage. One

participant explained that there are two ways for alewives to access Gardner Lake (where the

alewives spawn). Each way has impediments to passing fish depending on water level, logs, and

human activities. For one way, the fishway into Gardner Lake can become seasonally dry. One

participant suggested that a potential solution when the fishway becomes dry could be improving

passage, at the other way entrance, by installing a temporary device that could enable alewives to

access the lake. Another participant explained that Atlantic salmon do not use the fishway, but

eels do use it. One participant noted that the Downeast Salmon Federation is advocating for

Pokey Dam to be repaired. The salmon hatchery just completed a project to increase salmon in

the river by releasing smolts in the fall and has an interest in improving fish passage on the

Machias River.

The group also discussed a culvert that floods with too much water to allow for fish passage. The

group discussed developing a device to mitigate the passage issue and that would be fish

friendly.


8 | P a g e

March 2014

Fishing Practices

Some participants also felt that alternative fishing locations should be explored and the potential

impact on the alewife run size of changing fishing practices. The group thought that research

could be conducted on alternative harvest sites.

Management Plan Review

Another suggestion was that the sustainable harvest plan should be reviewed, and suggestions

should be made on how to improve it. One participant suggested that this management plan

reviewer should return to see the locations discussed during the focus group including the

impediments to fish passage and to experience the alewife runs at their peak.

5.1.3. Immediate Needs

Improved Fish Passage

The focus group felt that improved fish passage was their most immediate need. One participant

suggested that salmon will not increase substantially without a healthy alewife run. To this

participant, the immediate need is to keep the alewife runs healthy and running. The group

identified the areas with the biggest problems: Pokey Dam (needs repairs), the fishway at

Gardner Lake (needs to be maintained to prevent it from filling with sand), and a culvert that

washes out (four foot culvert completely full of water with alewives “stacked like cord wood”

below the culvert and unable to pass). One participant suggested that the Department of

Transportation (DOT) could install fish-friendly culverts. Another participant thought that a gate

at the lake end of culvert could be installed for spring alewife management.

5.1.4. Future Role of The Alewife Harvesters of Maine

The East Machias focus group recognized the important role of AHM and suggested that current

efforts by the organization continue. Specifically, the group was interested in how AHM can

assist with improving fish passage, help revise the sustainable harvest plan, and conduct more

outreach.

Fish Passage

The East Machias focus group discussed the potential benefits of opening up passage on more

rivers for alewife runs. The group felt that structural changes and maintenance issues needed to

be addressed in a nearby run such as putting in a culvert and making sure the fish ladder is clear

of debris. There were also discussions over whom or what entity had the control or authority to

make these types of decisions.

Sustainable Harvest Plan

The East Machias focus group suggested that assistance with revising the sustainable harvest

plan was needed. The group discussed how fish passage concerns mentioned above might be part

of such a plan.

Outreach

In addition, some in the group commented that AHM should conduct additional outreach with

town government to ensure that towns know about the organization. Some participants had


9 | P a g e

March 2014

questions about what would happen if a town lost their permit and how it may restore the permit

if it was lost. This led to a discussion about the need for data collection in order to restore the

permit, and the potential role of researchers and local universities and colleges to assist with that

data collection. It was suggested that AHM can help people connect with university and college

researchers and resources, if communities are interested.

5.2. Eastbrook

The focus group included 4 harvesters and 1 fish warden.



The Eastbrook focus group discussed the 2012 alewife run noting that runs in the area were

earlier than usual and that water levels were high. For one harvester’s run, the State of Maine

installed a new ladder while rebuilding a bridge. The harvester noted that there will be a 5-year

study to count and sample the alewives to see how the fish are making it up the ladder. At this

location, the runs started the last week in April (but normally the runs do not begin until May 5).

The first fish started showing up April 15 and then heavier runs by April 20.

Another harvester noted that the one of the harveter’s fishing sites was shut down because the

scale samples run by the State of Maine did not identify enough old fish. The group discussed the

protocol for scale sampling during the run.

Another harvester noted that at the Grist Mill site, the harvester observed the most fish to date.

At another site in Surry, the harvester is trying to get a fishway installed. The harvester noted

that the town cannot afford one, so the town committee built one. The fishway is portable but

needs a few more adjustments. The harvester agreed to not fish the site until the town finishes its

modifications. The portable wooden home-made fishway will cost about $250 instead of about

$50,000 for a permanent fishway. In Surry according to the harvester, the fish were right on-

time. However at another run in Franklin, the fish were 1-2 weeks early.

Another participant noted that the Ellsworth alewife run historically starts after May 5 each year.

However in 2012, Ellsworth noticed fish on April 23 – which was the earliest of record for the

past 31 years. The participant remarked that “it almost seems the bigger the run, the earlier it is”.

In the past, the participants noted that there had been a problem with the pump that runs the

fishway so they could not start running until May 1. The participant described that, “the season

started unusually fast and started right out” and remained steady with lots of big fish, and the run

seemed to end around the same date in years previous. The only difference was that when it

ended, “it didn't taper, it just stopped.” The participant stated that “fishing was easy in 2012.”

The participant explained the history of the Ellsworth alewife run. The fishway was built in

1972. At the time, they started trapping some fish that were getting stuck in the fishway and

trucked these to Graham Lake, but the fish died. The Salmon Commission stopped stocking

salmon and the salmon declined. The river went from a salmon river to an alewife river. The dam

was constructed in 1907. The hydropower company would not support putting in a fishway


10 | P a g e

March 2014

arguing that alewives are not in the river. The company wanted proof that the fish would return.

So instead, the company supported a trap and truck system to move the fish above the dam.

Another harvester noted that supposedly before they built the dam there was good salmon fishing

at that site too.

Another harvester observed that 2012 was also the earliest alewife run that harvester had

experienced. The first fish arrived on March 28th

, when normally the fish would usually arrive

around April 19-21 of each year. The harvester noted that there was no snow and no icepack

above the fishing site so the river warmed up quickly. There was rain April 20-May 6 which

shut down the fishing because there was too much water. Once the water subsided, the harvester

noted that they had a banner year. They had 1,000 bushels which was considered extraordinary,

since they usually harvest about 890 bushels (from a run that is 235 acres). The harvester

described the fish as healthy, noting that their biggest alewife was 16 1/4”. Scale samples

indicated that it had spawned 5 times and was an 8 year old fish. The run ended at the usual time

and then it trickled down. They removed their gear on June 1. The harvester also noted that the

alewives may spawn in the river like the blueback herring.

Timing of runs

The focus group discussed the timing of the runs. One harvester noted that in 2012 the alewives

ran up the river after midnight and were done running by 4 AM. In the previous year at the same

site, the fish ran from 6 AM – 10 AM and 2 years ago the fish came in during the day. Another

harvester noted that a different location, the fish do not enter the fishway after 8 PM, but at the

Grist Mill the fish run midnight to dawn with the tides.

Spawning Locations

The harvesters discussed alewife spawning locations in 2012. One harvester noted that fish pass

through Donnell Pond, Card Mill Brook, and Great Pond, and spawn in the river that dumps into

the ponds. Another harvester noted that in the Narraguagus River, the alewives spawn in Betton

Pond and/or Bogg Pond. The harvester noted that they have a long way to go above the

impoundment at the dam to reach the spawning grounds.

Maintaining Runs

The harvesters discussed how they maintain their runs (e.g., cleaning up debris, logs, and beaver

dams). Several harvesters noted that they walk their runs throughout the spring to ensure clear

fish passage. Some have permits to remove beavers.

Market

The harvesters discussed that in 2012 some of the harvesters were fortunate to start harvesting

alewives earlier than at Ellsworth. Harvesters on smaller brooks were trying to sell 10 bushels,

but in Ellsworth “you back up your dump truck”.

Poaching

Some harvesters mentioned that alewife poaching had been a problem in the past. Others noted

that enforcement had been good recently.


11 | P a g e

March 2014

5.2.2. Research

Many of the participants in the Eastbrook focus group were involved in biological sampling. The

group also discussed other studies in the areas of interest and made recommendations for future

research projects to improve understanding of alewife populations.

Biological Sampling

The focus group discussed the random scale sampling conducted by DMR and the harvester

sampling program. The group discussed how best to sample their runs over the course of the

season. One harvester suggested sampling throughout the entire run to ensure the sample is

representative. For example, the harvester explained that the first fish are always big fish (“the

scouts”) and towards the end of the run smaller fish dominate the run, including blueback

herring. If sampling is conducted over a short period of time instead of throughout the run, the

results will not accurately capture the run composition. Some harvesters mentioned that they

sample once a week during the run. Another harvester samples on the first day, the last day, and

several times in between. The harvester suggested scale sampling a few fish a day, which should

better capture age structure and the male to female ratio. The harvester also measures every

sampled fish and records the water temperature associated with when the fish was caught.

Other Studies

One harvester mentioned that researchers at the College of the Atlantic were conducting a study

on the alewife runs in the area including examining their history. The focus group also discussed

a genetics study of alewife that suggests that the fish in Maine are closely related to fish in the

Canadian provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

Future Research Projects

In general, the group was interested in alewife migration patterns after the fish spawn. They also

were interested in learning more about repeat spawning in the runs. One harvester suggested that

the loss of groundfish stocks in the Downeast region was related to blocked fish passage on the

St. Croix River, suggesting a potential loss of millions of alewives that might have been

supplying food for groundfish species. The group discussed that if more fish are provided with

the opportunity to migrate to the Gulf of Maine, then the focus group would expect that more

fish will return to spawn in the rivers.


Improved Reporting

The reporting system had recently changed from voluntary reporting through the towns to

mandatory daily reporting. The focus groups discussed their concerns about the current reporting

requirements and suggested ways that the reporting could be improved. One participant thought

that if the information was so important to the State then the harvesters should be involved in

revising the form.

One harvester explained that there are many entities requesting information, much of which is

duplicated through multiple forms. The harvester thought this process could be streamlined,

especially with how the landings reports are completed. In addition, some of the reporting


12 | P a g e

March 2014

requirements for the new pelagic fishing license in Maine state waters does not apply to how the

harvester catch alewife (i.e., recording location data, the depth of the water, the fishing zone,

soak/set times for gear ). Another participant pointed out this type of information makes sense

for the marine fishery, but not when fishing from shore in a river fishery. There was a discussion

as to whether there could be an alewife specific license for the river-specific fishery. There was

also a discussion that submitting all the landings information from the prior year was a condition

of obtaining a license. There was also concern about sending in the fishing reports when no

actually fishing occurred.

Data Collection

One harvester mentioned that recording the scale sampling data can be difficult during busy

fishing times and when selling bait. The harvester wanted held with scale sampling. There was a

discussion that people who are coming in to buy fish can help with collecting scale samples. One

harvester suggested that once the fish are on the dock, anyone can help with data collection (even

those without a license to fish).


The Eastbrook focus group recognized the important role of AHM and suggested that current

efforts by the organization continue. Specifically, the group was interested in how AHM can

work to create flexibility in harvest plans, engage in more outreach, remain active in advocacy,

assist with scale sampling, and market their product.

Sustainable Harvest Plans

A harvester expressed interest in gaining flexibility in harvest plans and thought perhaps that

AHM could be part of that discussion. One suggestion was that permits should be given to the

same individual or group of individuals for at least 5 years, with a preference of 10 years. The

harvester expressed concerns about ability of a harvest plan to remain sustainable if stewardship

is not a factor, and a longer term for the permit would create an incentive for the harvester to

conserve future alewife runs. Furthermore, there was a discussion about the disparity in how

different towns and harvesters approach the permitting process (i.e., to the highest bidder, the

same individuals, and deeded rights). The harvester expressed concern that variations in the

approach to permitting may lead to a lack of stewardship in some cases. On the other hand, some

participants felt that if there was more standardization in the permitting process then that would

deviate from the current community-based management approach to the fishery.

Outreach

A harvester expressed concern that some town officials are not interested in having a harvest of

their alewife runs. The harvester believes that this might be an education and outreach

opportunity for AHM to present the benefits to the community of an active and well-managed

alewife run with a sustainable harvest plan.

Advocacy

The focus group also discussed the political landscape from multiple levels. In particular, the

group was concerned about top-down control such as the dual role of the State of Maine in

protecting alewife and promoting alewife fisheries, the impact of decisions through the Atlantic


13 | P a g e

March 2014

States Marine Fisheries Commission (i.e., Amendment 2 to the Shad and River Herring fishery

management plan), the threat of an endangered species listing (i.e., petition to list alewife and

blueback herring through part of its range being considered by the National Marine Fisheries

Service), and international disputes (i.e., closing of the St. Croix River fish ladder, in which the

river forms the border between Maine and New Brunswick, Canada). The focus group wanted

AHM to continue to be an active voice in these high-level discussions that impact individuals

and communities in Maine.

Sampling

One harvester expressed an interest in connecting with volunteers via AHM to help with scale

sampling. The harvester also thought additional education was needed on the appropriate

techniques to use when sampling the fish. For example if the harvester creates a bias in the data

(i.e., selects all large fish or all small fish to sample), the results of the scale sampling work to

understand the run composition could be skewed. There was also a discussion that the state

examines the harvester collected scale sampling data alongside its own samples to determine

indicators of the status of the run and whether it will remain open to harvesting for the

subsequent season.

Marketing

One harvester expressed interest in having a better way for price discovery for a tote of alewife.

The harvester also suggested that when the catch rates are high in the large runs, it is difficult to

get the fish to buyers from the harvester’s smaller runs. The harvester suggested that AHM assist

with marketing the product for both small and large runs.

5.3. Warren

The focus group included 9 harvesters, 3 fish wardens, and 9 interested public working on

restoration.



The Warren focus group experienced some strong alewife runs in 2012, while other runs were

described as typical.

One harvester explained that the alewife runs seem to follow a four year cycle to rebuild the

stock. The 2012 runs in Jefferson, Benton at the hydro dam, and Webber Pond in Vasselboro

seem to follow this cycle.

Another harvester explained that the fish had more than doubled from 2011 to 2012 in the run.

The harvest in 2012 was just over 200 bushels. The harvester thought the run was in a big

rebuilding phase.

Another participant said that the 2012 run returned three years after some major in-stream

improvements at Sewall Pound. The fish counts went from 1,200 to 13,000 fish during this

period.


14 | P a g e

March 2014

Another participant noted that they did not count fish in 2012 because the water conditions did

not allow the counting systems to function properly. For the past five year of data collection,

alewives passing along the counter have fluctuated between 30,000 and 122,000 fish. The current

focus is to bring Washington Pond into the restoration strategy, which has 1.5 times the acreage

than the rest of the restoration ponds.

Another participant noted that Center Pond is a dammed up estuary, with an alewife run there for

many years. In 1981, the town voted to raise and appropriate $20,000 to improve fish passage.

Two years later a DMR approved fishway was built and the run has been in the restoration phase

including stocking every since, and harvest ended for some time and then reopened. In 2012, the

run was closed in the spring, but for the 2013 season they got permission to fish 7 days a week.

In 2012, they counted 8,200 fish and the oldest was 7 years old and had been back 4 times to

spawn.

One participant noted that the juvenile fish were smaller in 2012. There was concern that the fish

ladder may not be working efficiently too. The participant wondered what the carrying capacity

might be, since not as many fish reached the top of the ladder. Another participant suggested that

there was over 124 fish per acre. Another participant noted that the juvenile fish leaving a

different pond left too early and were 2 inches long instead of their usual 3 inches.

Another participant noted that their run left early too.

Another participant explained that the run was a “monstrous flow” then it would back off

followed by another big flow. There did not seem to be a pattern to how this occurred.

A harvester noted that in Searsmont, the fish arrived on 13th

instead of 17th

and the water was too

deep to count them. The harvest also noted that for the first time the harvester observed fish

leaving when the pre-spawners were still coming up to spawn.

A harvest noted that Vasselboro is a great place to see the fish returning, the adult fish school

and, “once one goes over they all do” and they go “tail first”.

In Benton, one harvester noted that the harvesting has been fairly steady, but from year to year

no harvest is alike. For the spring 2013 season, it will have been 4 years since 1.4 million adults

were lifted above the Halifax Dam. The harvester also mentioned that the harvester’s interest is

much broader in the Sebasticook Watershed, noting that there are critical areas and ponds

upstream at Moose Lake and others that would be good alewife habitat. The participant also

noted there was a NOAA grant to reestablish alewives in China Lake.

One harvest noted that 21,000 bushels were harvested at a run in 2012.

Another harvester noted that 2012 was an average year, but dipping was difficult during high

water flows.

Another participant discussed restoration projects that the participant is involved in around

Webber Pond for the past 10 years. Current impediments to fish passage include problem


15 | P a g e

March 2014

culverts. 2012 was a good year with the most returning adults at about 10,000 fish. The

participant was not sure when the juveniles left the pond. The participant noted that the run was

earlier than usual by a few weeks.

Another participant noted that there was evidence at a run that it was somewhat earlier, but

everything including lobsters and everything else was earlier than usual in 2012.

The group discussed the timing of their runs. One harvester noted that the fish only ran after

midnight and not earlier and stopped by dawn. Another participant noted that the fish come at

dusk under a railway bridge.

Another participant noted that Camden Harbor in 2012 was solid with alewives that first week of

July. The harbor had alewives ranging in size from 4.5-5 to 10-11” adults. The participant

observed they were schooling in groups based on similar size. The participant observed them

feeding and schooling, at the mouth of a brook off the Megunicook River as it opens out to

Camden harbor.

Another participant from North Haven noted that they have stocked alewives for 2 years and are

expecting fish to return in 2015.

5.3.2. Research

Several of the Warren focus group participants were concerned that once research projects end

the researchers do not continue to follow-up with them. The harvesters and other stakeholders

remain, but the researchers tend to leave (e.g., researchers move to other projects, students

complete their studies). The group discussed how this has caused some of them to become

critical of working on research projects.

Most of the participants in the Warren focus group were involved in biological sampling. The

group also discussed other studies in the area of interest to the group and made recommendations

for future research projects to improve the understanding of the carrying capacity of alewife

populations.

Biological Sampling

The group discussed their involvement in the scale sampling program through the State of

Maine. Some participants suggested that temperature and water conditions should be recorded

with the harvesters’ records of fish caught.

Several harvesters had also been involved in tagging projects. One harvester explained that in

2011 they tagged 100 fish and none of the tagged fish were counted going into the lake. They do

not know where these fish went, but they do not think that predators ate them. Another harvester

noted that in a different tagging study, after the fish were tagged, they went out into the estuary

for a while before they came up the river.

One harvester thought of the harvester’s run as the “test case for the state”. The harvester helped

develop the scale sampling program and has been sampling scales since 2007. The harvester had


16 | P a g e

March 2014

also been involved in a tagging project with University of Southern Maine that began in 2006.

The harvester and researcher were interested in where the fish were going and how often they

spawned. The fish were tagged in Dresden, ME but some of the tags were found in Orland and

other locations. The study showed that the fish will migrate to other runs to spawn.

Carrying Capacity

Another participant wanted to see a study of the carrying capacity of a spawning site. The group

discussed how the study would benefit restoration project and fish passage projects. Some felt

that such a study should be conducted for ponds of different sizes and varying environmental

conditions.

Community Involvement

One participant explained that the Damariscotta restoration project is essentially a long-term

research project that involves the community. Another participant described that in Waldoboro,

fish counting is conducted through a volunteer citizen science program. The program has a

coordinator to run the data collection and maintain the volunteer base, often talking to high

schools and lake associations. The participant explained that many people become very

involved, and it takes good coordination to keep people coming back each year to count the

alewife runs. Another participant noted that working with property owners on the benefits of

opening fish passage requires much outreach efforts. The participant had received grant

assistance to help with that effort.

Freshwater Studies

One participant wanted to see research on the positive effects of alewives in the freshwater

system. The participant believes that much of the positive impacts have been speculative and

research should address what, if any, these benefits are. The group discussed that studies in other

locations suggest that alewives improve water quality.

One participant noted that in Arrowsic the Conservation Commission wants to reduce the

phosphorous loading. The Commission is in the middle of a longitudinal study to monitor the

phosphorous level in Sewall Pond. The group monitors chlorophyll, water conductivity, pH, and

phosphorous, and samples zooplankton and juvenile fish. In 2011, the participant summarized

the data to test if more alewives lead to less phosphorous. The participant explained that the

results are inconclusive, but water quality is improving in Sewall Pond. However, a study of the

St. George River comparing conditions in the 1980’s and 2001 demonstrated that alewives are

net exporters of phosphorous. The participant noted that improving water quality is expensive.

The participant suggested that the Commission would like to look at pond sediment, and had

tried unsuccessfully in the past to collect sediment data.

Historical Presence of Alewife

The participant wanted to see more watersheds documented for their historical presence of

alewives in order to demonstrate their need for restoration. The participant would like to see a

research project that extracts core samples from several locations in multiple watersheds. The

samples could be used to detect if the site has a history of alewives.


17 | P a g e

March 2014


Restoration and Improved Fish Passage

Many of the Warren focus group participants were involved in restoration projects and

improving fish passage. One participant described the work ahead to continue to improve fish

passage at the Damariscotta Fish Ladder, which included digging a big trench and having at least

9 working pools in the fish ladder by April 15, 2013. Another participant felt that a new culvert

was needed in North Haven before 2015 to ensure fish passage. Another participant needed

resources to survey barriers to fish passage to allow for the opening of the entire Medomak River

watershed. Another participant thought knowing more about the environmental conditions

necessary for sustainable runs could be informative in restoration efforts (i.e., how to plan for

environmental changes). One participant felt that the mechanism for moving fish from the stream

to the truck at Benton needed be improved. The participants also explained another problem is

that if the juvenile alewives come over the spillway at Benton, they land on the rocks. One

solution would be to put 2 by10’s on the spillway to help direct the juveniles away from the

rocks, which would create contoured ground to help the fish.

Weather

Many of the participants discussed the impact of weather on their restoration projects and the

ability for fish ladders to function properly due to water availability. The participants felt that

favorable weather was their most immediate need. Some harvesters noticed that the “runbacks”

only leave when the tide is high. The group was curious as to how that occurs.

Access to Resources

Many participants explained that time and money was needed to complete restoration projects

and improve fish passage. Another participant explained that knowing what grants are available

and how to access these grants would be beneficial.


The Warren focus group recognized the important role of AHM and suggested that current

efforts by the organization continue. Specifically, the group was interested in how the

organization can help open more runs to harvest, improve education and outreach, advocacy, and

market their product.

Opening Runs to Harvest

The Warren focus group was particularly interested in opening more runs to harvest. The group

would like AHM’s assistance to improve understanding of the data collection necessary and the

overall process to open a run and sustain the run once opened. Many participants discussed their

ongoing efforts to open new or reopen old runs. The group as a whole was very active in this

area and wished for further guidance on best practices.

Outreach

The Warren focus group was particularly interested in communication tools that could assist with

outreach and education activities by AHM. One participant suggested a video might be helpful,

such as a YouTube video where the link could be distributed to the public, landowners, town


18 | P a g e

March 2014

government, and legislators. The group suggested that AHM lead a website that would be a

clearing house for information on research projects, other studies, and legislation; datasheets for

run specific data; and list grant sources and grant examples. Another participant offered that one

alternative to expanding the current AHM website could be using social media like Facebook.

The benefits of using Facebook over having a website would be that it could be self-updating,

provide a good location for sharing pictures, a place for collaborative management, and could

link to grants. The group discussed that accessible information on alewives relies on the

community sharing in that responsibility.

The focus group also felt that AHM should be encouraging membership from other groups such

as lobstermen and other fishers, hosting a booth at the annual Damariscotta Alewife Festival, and

hanging a sign at the annual Maine Fisherman’s Forum requesting membership. The group

discussed that donations could be money and/or time and that both were important to spread

information about the alewife and the harvesters. The focus group participants also suggested

that AHM promote more opportunities, like the focus group meetings and the annual AHM pig

roast, to gather, learn from each other, share knowledge, and get to know each other in the

fishery.

Advocacy

The Warren focus group felt that continued participation of AHM in the management process

(e.g. DMR, DMR Commissioner, Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, and legislators) as an advocate

for the harvesters was important, so that management can hear directly from the harvesters and

better understand the fishery from harvesters’ perspectives. The group also expressed concerns

about the status of the St. Croix River fish ladder being closed to migratory fish.

Marketing

The focus group was interested in expanding the current market to include new consumers.

Furthermore, the harvesters wanted specific assistance from AHM on storage, handling, and

supply problems. In particular, some harvesters wanted advice on the proper storage techniques

(e.g. salting, freezing) due to the occurrence of larger runs. With the frequency of large runs

increasing (i.e., due to restoration efforts), the market becomes flooded at peak season. The

harvesters were interested in how to extend their product beyond the short season.

6. Conclusions

In general, participants in the focus groups would like to see continued increases in Maine’s

alewife populations. The focus group participants are actively engaged in alewife habitat

restoration projects, community-based alewife fishery management, research projects to

understand the characteristics of the alewife runs, and projects to improve fish passage.

The focus groups provided a forum for information sharing and group learning. At the end of

each focus group, the participants were given the opportunity to provide feedback on their

experiences. In all cases, the participants thought their experience was positive and in some cases

helped them work through difficult challenges. Likewise, many of the participants thought

having future focus group meetings would provide an opportunity to learn from each others’

experiences.


19 | P a g e

March 2014

7. Acknowledgements

The study was conducted by University of New Hampshire researchers Dr. Jamie Cournane and

Dr. Christopher Glass in collaboration with Executive Director Jeffery Pierce and the Alewife

Harvesters of Maine Board of Directors.

The authors wish to thank the Towns of Machias, Eastbrook, and Warren and our hosts, The

Alewife Harvesters of Maine Board of Directors, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Foreign

Affairs Canada, Broad Reach Foundation, Dr. Karen Hutchins (University of Maine), Robin

Alden (Penobscot East Research Center), Dr. Jake Kritzer (Environmental Defense Fund), Dr.

Theo Willis (University of Southern Maine), and the best alewife catcher ever (Figure 2).

Figure 2 – Helping out during the harvest. Photo: Jamie M. Cournane, Dresden, ME, 2012.


20 | P a g e

March 2014

8. Appendices

8.1. Invitation Letter

January 3, 2012

Dear Alewife Harvester-

We are researchers at The University of New Hampshire (UNH). Our research includes collecting information

from alewife fishers in the US and Canada. The title of our research study is: Designing a Trans-boundary Co-

Management Strategy for the River Herring/Gaspereau Fishery.

For this part of our study, we are focusing on understanding the alewife fisheries in Maine. To do so, we are

working together with Jeffrey Pierce, Executive Director, of The Alewife Harvesters of Maine (AHM), and

AHM’s Board of Directors in this process.

Your participation is vital to our success. The direct benefit of this research will be the collection of your

knowledge in order to provide an important baseline understanding of alewife fisheries in Maine. The

benefit to the community will be the collective wisdom and experiences of the harvesters. In addition,

results from focus group meetings may be useful for planning purposes by AHM.

The focus group meetings will center on four questions/areas:




4. In your opinion, what do you think AHM should be doing?

Focus Group Meeting Locations and Times


1-4 PM

East Machias Town Office

32 Cutler Road

East Machias, ME 04630


1-4 PM

Charlie L. Yeo Eastbrook

Community Center

959 Eastbrook Road

Eastbrook, ME 04634


1-5 PM

Town of Warren Office

167 Western Road

Warren, ME 04864

(near the Fire Station and

Public Works)

If you have any questions pertaining to the research you can contact us directly to discuss:

Jamie Marie Cournane, PhD

Research Scientist

University of New Hampshire

603-862-2376

[email protected]

Jeffrey Pierce

Executive Director of the Board of Directors

The Alewife Harvesters of Maine

207-441-3006

[email protected]


21 | P a g e

March 2014

8.2. Informed Consent Form

CONSENT FORM FOR PARTICIPATION IN A RESEARCH STUDY

TITLE OF RESEARCH STUDY The title of our research study is: Designing a Trans-boundary Co-Management Strategy for the River Herring/Gaspereau Fishery, which includes collecting information from fishers in the US and Canada. For this part of our study, we are focusing on understanding the alewife fisheries in Maine. We are researchers at the University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire and are working together with the Board of Directors of the Alewife Harvesters of Maine, Dresden, Maine for the Maine portion of the project. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY? The purpose of this study is to conduct focus groups with river herring (alewife and blueback) fishers on their experiences in these fisheries. We will be facilitating three focus groups in Maine (Machias, East Brook, and Warren) with 5-20 participants in each group. WHAT DOES YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS STUDY INVOLVE? You will be asked to provide your knowledge of history, major changes, status, and future directions for the fishery. You will be participating in focus group to convey this knowledge. The expected length of time of your involvement is 3-4 hours. The focus group may be audio recorded, with permission. WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE RISKS OF PARTICIPATING IN THIS STUDY? If during the interview process you provide details of illegal activities (such as but not limited to illegal fishing activities), confidentiality cannot be guaranteed. WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE BENEFITS OF PARTICIPATING IN THIS STUDY? The direct benefit of this research will be the collection of your knowledge in order to provide an important baseline understanding of river herring fisheries. We will use this information to write summary of focus group meeting findings and a manuscript exploring best practices for river herring locally based conservation and sustainable fisheries. The benefit to the community will be the collective wisdom and experiences of fishers. IF YOU CHOOSE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS STUDY, WILL IT COST YOU ANYTHING? No. WILL YOU RECEIVE ANY COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATING IN THIS STUDY? No. WHAT OTHER OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO TAKE PART IN THIS STUDY? You understand that your consent to participate in this research is entirely voluntary, and that your refusal to participate will involve no prejudice, penalty or loss of benefits to which you would otherwise be entitled. CAN YOU WITHDRAW FROM THIS STUDY? If you consent to participate in this study, you are free to stop your participation in the study at any time without prejudice, penalty, or loss of benefits to which you would otherwise be entitled


22 | P a g e

March 2014

HOW WILL THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF YOUR RECORDS BE PROTECTED? The researchers seek to maintain the confidentiality of all data and records associated with your participation in this research. You should understand, however, there are rare instances when the researchers are required to share personally-identifiable information (e.g., according to policy, contract, and regulation). For example, in response to a complaint about the research, officials at the University of New Hampshire, designees of the sponsor(s), and/or regulatory and oversight government agencies may access research data. Data will be secured in a locked file cabinet in the researchers’ offices. Results will be reported both anonymously and aggregated. The researchers will audio-record subjects in order to review and correct interview notes. Subjects will be given the opportunity to review their audio-recordings before inclusion in the final data compilation. Requests to edit a subject from a presentation will be honored. At the end of the study, audio recordings will be saved for future research. Data and results will be used in publications and presentations. UNH and the Board of Directors of AHM will both have access to the data, through a data sharing agreement. WHOM TO CONTACT IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS STUDY If you have any questions pertaining to the research you can contact us directly to discuss:

Jamie Marie Cournane, PhD Research Scientist

University of New Hampshire Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space

OPAL/Morse Hall 8 College Road

Durham, NH 03824

603-862-2376 [email protected]

Christopher Glass, PhD

Director of the Northeast Consortium and Research Professor

University of New Hampshire Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space

OPAL/Morse Hall 8 College Road

Durham, NH 03824 603-862-0122

[email protected]

If you have questions about your rights as a research subject you can contact Julie Simpson in the

UNH Research Integrity Services, 603-862-2003 or [email protected] to discuss them.

You may choose to verbalize or sign consent to participation in this research study.

I, CONSENT/AGREE to participate in this research study

Signature of Subject Date


23 | P a g e

March 2014

8.3. Focus Group Agenda- East Machias

Alewife Harvesters Focus Group Meeting East Machias Town Office, 32 Cutler Road, East Machias, ME 04630


Agenda

1:00-1:30 Introductions, Overview, and Answer Questions

1:30-2:00 Discussion: Question 1

2:00-2:10 Break

2:10-3:10 Discussion: Questions 2 and 3

3:10-3:20 Break


3:50-4:00 Evaluation of Meeting

Discussion Questions






24 | P a g e

March 2014

8.4. Focus Group Agenda- Eastbrook

Alewife Harvesters Focus Group Meeting Charlie L. Yeo Eastbrook Community Center, 959 Eastbrook Road, Eastbrook, ME 04634

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Agenda



2:00-2:10 Break


3:10-3:20 Break









25 | P a g e

March 2014

8.5. Focus Group Agenda- Warren

Alewife Harvesters Focus Group Meeting Town of Warren Office, 167 Western Road, Warren, ME 04864

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Agenda



2:00-2:10 Break


3:30-3:40 Break








summary of maine alewife harvester focus groups, january 2013

Documents