Bates CollegeSCARAB

Community Engaged Research Reports Environmental Studies

12-12-2013

Alewives on the Little Androscoggin: AnIntersection of Politics and EcologyJordan J. Buetow

Ashleen O'Brien

Benjamin James McCormack

Hallie Grossman

Follow this and additional works at: http://scarab.bates.edu/community_engaged_research

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Environmental Studies at SCARAB. It has been accepted for inclusion in CommunityEngaged Research Reports by an authorized administrator of SCARAB. For more information, please contact batesscarab@bates.edu.

Recommended CitationBuetow, Jordan J.; O'Brien, Ashleen; McCormack, Benjamin James; and Grossman, Hallie, "Alewives on the Little Androscoggin: AnIntersection of Politics and Ecology" (2013). Community Engaged Research Reports. 5.http://scarab.bates.edu/community_engaged_research/5

  1  

       

                 

Alewives  on  the  Little  Androscoggin:    An  Intersection  of  Politics  and  Ecology  

   

Jordan  Buetow,  Ashleen  O’Brien,  Ben  McCormack,  Hallie  Grossman  

ENVR  417  12/12/13  

                                         

  2  

Executive  Summary     In  cooperation  with  the  Androscoggin  River  Alliance  (ARA)  our  capstone  group  undertook  an  assignment  to  work  towards  restoring  alewives  to  the  Little  Androscoggin  watershed.  In  1995,  due  to  the  concern  of  negative  impacts  to  the  economically  important  bass  fishery,  a  state  law  was  passed  that  banned  the  stocking  of  alewives  in  Hogan  and  Whitney  Ponds.  In  2019  the  first  two  dams  on  the  Little  Androscoggin  River,  Lower  and  Upper  Barker  Dams,  will  be  up  for  relicensing  by  the  Federal  Energy  Regulatory  Commission  (FERC)  and  fish  passages  will  likely  be  installed  to  allow  Atlantic  salmon  to  migrate  upstream.  Since  alewives  will  be  able  to  pass  the  dams  as  well  and  enter  the  Little  Androscoggin  watershed,  it  is  necessary  to  overturn  the  anti-­‐alewife  legislation  to  prevent  any  conflict.  To  aid  the  ARA  in  these  efforts  various  research  regarding  the  issue  was  conducted.  The  legislative  history  of  the  1995  alewife  bill  and  a  similar  anti-­‐alewife  case  on  the  St.  Croix  River  were  gathered  from  the  Maine  State  Law  and  Legislative  Library.  Detailed  research  was  also  done  on  the  ecological,  economic,  and  historical  values  of  alewives  through  review  of  primary  literature,  and  interviews  with  biologists  and  fisheries  specialists  to  be  summarized  in  an  education  pamphlet  for  distribution  in  Oxford  County.  Landowner  information  for  plots  on  Hogan  and  Whitney  Ponds  was  gathered  so  pamphlets  could  be  mailed  to  the  owners.  Research  revealed  that  alewives  have  no  negative  impact  on  water  quality  or  bass  fisheries.  They  are  actually  beneficial  to  water  quality  and  critical  species  to  the  food  chain  and  many  ecosystem  functions,  such  as  restoring  the  depleted  marine  groundfish  fisheries.  They  also  are  a  historically  important  fish  to  the  state  of  maine  and  have  the  potential  to  create  a  profitable  industry  if  restored.  In  the  legislative  histories  for  the  Hogan  and  Whitney  Pond  case  of  1995  and  St.  Croix  River  case  of  2013,  the  1995  case  showed  what  ideas  and  evidence  the  ARA  must  combat  to  overturn  the  legislation.  The  2013  case  provided  scientific  evidence  that  shows  alewives  do  not  harm  the  ecosystem  or  bass  fisheries.  The  finding  of  this  research  suggest  that  if  planned  well,  there  should  be  enough  scientific  and  historical  data  to  change  the  minds  of  alewife  antagonists.  Looking  ahead,  the  ARA  plans  to  spend  the  next  two  years  focusing  on  educating  elected  officials  and  the  public  about  alewives  as  much  as  possible  so  that  overturning  the  legislation  can  be  as  fast  and  possible  and  be  met  with  minimal  resistance.  Some  more  scientific  research  to  investigate  is  the  effects  of  a  fully  restored  population  of  alewives  on  zooplankton  communities,  which  are  responsible  for  the  uptake  of  phosphorus  in  lakes.  This  is  important  information  to  know  before  making  claims  that  alewives  will  reduce  phosphorus  loading  and  algal  blooms  in  the  Little  Androscoggin  watershed.  Eventually,  a  bill  will  be  proposed  that  will  hopefully  overturn  the  current  legislation,  and  when  fish  ladders  are  installed  in  the  dams  on  the  Little  Androscoggin  River  the  watershed  will  once  again  support  a  robust  population  of  alewives  whose  benefits  will  be  widespread  through  the  ecosystem  and  community.              

  3  

Table  of  Contents    

Executive  Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………...2  

Separate  Lists  of  Tables  and  Figures……………………………………………………………………..3  

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………….......4  

Methodological  Approach……………………………………………………………………………………  6  

Results  and  Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………………7  

Outcomes  and  Implications………………………………………………………………………………...20  

Future  Steps………………………………………………………………………………………………...…….21  

Appendices………………………………………………………………………………………………………..26  

Literature  Review  ……………………………………………………………………………………………...26  

Detailed  Methods  ………………………………………………………………………………………………36  

Graphs  ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………40  

Map  …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..42  

Informational  Brochure  …………………………………………………………………………………..…43  

Legislative  Summaries  ………………………………………………………………………………………  44  

Landowner  Database  ……………..…………………………………………………………………….……55    

 

Separate  List  of  Tables  and  Figures  (Appendix  C)    

Figure  1.  Land  use  of  properties  surrounding  Hogan  and  Whitney  Ponds…………….40  

Figure  2.  State  residency  of  plot  owners…………………………………………………………….40  

Figure  3.  Full  time  residents  on  property  ………………………………………………………….41  

Figure  4.  Map  of  Hogan  and  Whitney  Pond  Landowners.  ……………………………………42  

 

  4  

Introduction  

In  2019  two  of  the  lower  dams  on  the  Little  Androscoggin  River,  upper  and  

lower  Barker  Dams,  are  up  for  relicensing  by  the  Federal  Energy  Regulatory  

Commission  (FERC).  Part  of  the  FERC  relicensing  project  will  likely  include  

discussion  of  fish  passage,  because  neither  of  these  hydroelectric  dams  currently  

allow  for  fish  passage.  On  the  federal  level,  fish  passage  will  likely  be  required  at  

these  dams  because  Atlantic  salmon,  which  are  listed  under  the  Endangered  Species  

Act,  have  been  tracked  spending  significant  amounts  of  time  at  the  base  of  Lower  

Barker  Dam  (Ward,  personal  communication  12/10/13).  This  behavior  is  evidence  

of  a  desire  for  the  salmon  to  move  upstream  and  demands  the  installation  of  a  fish  

passage  by  the  Endangered  Species  Act  (Ward,  personal  communication  12/10/13).  

The  problem  is  that  the  waters  of  the  Little  Androscoggin  are  connected  to  the  

waters  of  Hogan,  Whitney,  and  Tripp  Ponds  in  Oxford,  Maine.  In  1995,  state  

legislation  was  passed  which  banned  the  stocking  of  alewives  in  these  ponds  and  

their  adjacent  waters,  but  a  fish  passage  would  allow  all  types  of  fish  to  swim  up  the  

Little  Androscoggin.  This  poses  a  conflict  of  state  and  federal  laws.  

  To  combat  this  problem,  the  Androscoggin  River  Alliance  (ARA)  hopes  to  

overturn  the  Maine  state  legislation  disallowing  reintroduction  of  alewives  in  Hogan  

and  Whitney  ponds,  with  the  goal  of  preventing  conflicting  laws  from  impeding  a  

swift  process  of  dam  relicensing  and  fish  passageway  construction.  This  is  part  of  

the  ARA’s  larger  goal  of  ecosystem  restoration  in  the  Androscoggin.  It  is  important  

to  eliminate  this  legislative  conflict  and  to  engage  the  community  in  a  discussion  

about  the  restoration  of  alewives  for  three  main  reasons.  The  first  is  ecological  -­‐  as  a  

  5  

buffer  species,  a  net  exporter  of  phosphorous,  and  a  source  of  food  for  larger  species  

(Townsend  2013),  alewives  are  an  integral  piece  of  restoring  a  functioning  

Androscoggin  ecosystem  to  the  same  level  that  existed  before  the  large-­‐scale  

development  of  mills.  The  restoration  of  the  ecosystem  is  in  the  best  interest  of  the  

river  itself,  the  people  living  around  the  river,  and  the  functioning  of  the  connected  

marine  ecosystem.  The  second  reason  is  economic,  as  alewives  have  the  potential  to  

be  a  small  though  profitable  industry  for  Androscoggin  fishermen  (Brown  et  al.  

2010).  The  third  has  to  do  with  engaging  the  community  in  environmental  issues  

that  impact  them.  By  providing  the  resources  to  educate    community  members  and  

take  a  political  stance  on  the  restoration  of  alewives,  our  work  with  the  ARA  will  

have  the  effect  of  creating  a  dialogue  among  stakeholders  about  the  possibilities  of  

native  species  restoration  as  a  whole.  This  will  encourage  individuals  to  consider  

their  relationship  to  their  environment  (specifically  their  river)  in  a  political  and  

ecological  sense.  

  As  a  group,  we  undertook  a  series  of  research  and  product-­‐oriented  tasks  to  

address  the  goal  of  educating  landowners  about  the  importance  of  alewives  in  the  

Androscoggin  watershed.  In  order  to  educate  these  landowners,  we  undertook  three  

main  projects:  gathering  and  summarizing  legislative  documents  (see  appendix  F)  

creating  a  landowner  database  (see  appendix  G),  and  creating  educational  materials  

for  landowners  (see  appendix  E).  The  final  goal  for  the  dissemination  of  this  

information  is  to  overturn  the  law  which  bans  alewives  from  Hogan  and  Whitney  

ponds,  which  carries  vast  implications  that  touch  on  the  education  of  the  

community,  ecosystem  health,  and  economic  increase.      

  6  

Methodological  Approach  

  To  create  the  database  for  landowner  information  around  Hogan  and  

Whitney  Ponds  we  had  to  take  a  couple  trips  to  the  Oxford  town  office.  There  we  

began  by  finding  the  maps  of  Hogan  and  Whitney  Ponds  with  the  property  lots  

labeled.  Each  waterfront  property  parcel  was  looked  up  in  a  book  and  data  was  

recorded  for  map  number,  lot  number,  landowner  name,  property  address,  land  use,  

owner’s  primary  mailing  address,  date  of  last  transfer,  assessed  land  value,  total  

property  value,  and  taxes  paid  on  the  property.  All  data  was  compiled  in  an  Excel  

spreadsheet.  To  analyze  the  data,  graphs  were  made  looking  at  what  percentage  of  

people  live  on  the  land  year-­‐round,  as  well  what  proportion  of  plot  owners  were  

from  Oxford,  in-­‐state,  or  out-­‐of-­‐state  (see  appendix  C).  Lastly,  using  ArcGIS  a  map  

was  made  that  coded  each  plot  by  its  land  use  (see  appendix  D).  These  were  created  

as  means  for  both  our  group  and  Neil  to  better  understand  the  landowner  data  we  

collected.  

To  create  extensive  and  accurate  informational  materials,  we  had  two  main  

methodological  processes.  First,  we  contacted  local  alewife  specialists  Claire  

Enterline,  Naomi  Schalit,  Michael  Brown,  and  John  Lichter.  We  developed  interview  

questions  for  these  individuals.  We  asked  a  broad  set  of  questions  to  all,  then  asked  

questions  specific  to  each  individuals’  speciality.  Second,  we  researched  primary  

literature  on  the  importance  of  alewives  in  three  main  categories:  ecological,  

economic,  and  historical.  We  then  synthesized  this  information  to  extract  the  most  

important  points  to  include  in  our  informational  pamphlet.  The  informational  

materials  are  a  combination  of  information  we  gathered  from  Enterline  and  from  

  7  

our  independent  research.  To  supplement  both  our  knowledge  and  the  brochure,  we  

attended  two  educational  talks  at  Bates,  one  by  Steve  Shepard,  about  FERC  and  the  

relicensing  process,  and  one  by    Colin  Apse  and  Dave  Owen  about  the  ecology,  

politics,  and  legality  behind  dam  removal.    

To  create  our  legislative  histories,  we  contacted  the  Maine  State  Law  and  

Legislative  Reference  Library,  who  emailed  and  snail  mailed  the  legislation  and  

testimony  to  us.  We  examined  the  documents  and  created  summary  materials  for  

each  set  of  law.  In  our  summaries,  we  state  the  language  of  the  bill  then  list  the  

testifiers,  a  brief  summary  of  the  testimony,  and,  if  possible,  whether  they  are  an  

opponent  or  proponent  of  the  bill  in  question.          

 

Results  and  Discussion    

                     The  pamphlet  we  created  is  intended  to  serve  as  informational  material  for  the  

landowners  of  the  plots  around  Hogan  and  Whitney  Ponds  as  well  as  other  Oxford  

community  members.  Those  who  own  land  surrounding  the  ponds  that  the  

legislation  concerns  will  not  only  be  able  to  testify  for  the  bill  to  reverse  the  anti-­‐

alewife  legislation  is  put  forward,  but  are  also  the  people  most  likely  to  have  a  

vested  interest  in  the  pond  ecosystems.  This  may  prompt  them  to  create  a  more  

organized  community  of  stakeholders  who  want  to  act  to  achieve  alewife  

restoration.  If  the  landowner  resides  on  his/her  plot,  he/she  may  be  motivated  to  

take  political  action  on  behalf  of  alewife  restoration  because  they  likely  place  some  

value  on  the  health  of  the  environment  they  live  around,  as  they  interact  with  it  on  a  

daily  basis.  For  those  who  own  vacant  plots,  they  too  likely  have  some  interest  in  the  

  8  

health  of  the  ponds  because  elements  of  surrounding  environment  can  have  an  

effect  on  the  real-­‐estate  value  of  the  land.  To  appeal  to  these  two  groups,  we  

designed  the  pamphlet  with  the  goal  of  illustrating  why  alewives  are  important  

specifically  in  freshwater  ponds  and  in  the  Androscoggin.  

                Deciding  on  what  content  to  include  in  the  pamphlet  was  the  part  of  the  

process  that  took  the  most  thought.  A  crucial  decision  we  had  to  make  was  whether  

or  not  to  include  information  about  the  legislation  that  exists  banning  alewives  from  

Hogan  and  Whitney  or  the  ARA’s  plans  to  bring  forward  a  bill  to  overturn  the  

current  law.  Including  this  information  would  have  the  benefit  of  helping  readers  to  

understand  the  status  of  the  fish  population  in  their  area,  and  provide  them  with  

more  incentive  and  a  more  defined  course  of  action  if  they  desire  to  become  

involved  in  restoration  efforts.  However,  it  would  also  mean  that  we  would  have  less  

space  to  provide  factual  information  about  alewives  and  that  we  may  run  the  risk  of  

overloading  readers  with  small  sections  with  different  types  of  information.  

Moreover,  Neil  expressed  concern  that  including  information  about  the  legislation  

may  alert  bass  fisherman  and  other  oppositional  groups  to  the  intention  of  the  ARA.  

If  the  ARA  decides  to  send  out  the  informational  materials  with  legislative  

information  before  their  bill  has  been  proposed,  this  may  give  opposition  groups  a  

chance  to  organize  to  fight  the  ARA’s  efforts.  Because  of  Neil’s  concerns  and  our  

desire  to  keep  the  content  of  the  pamphlet  cohesive  and  accessible,  we  decided  not  

to  include  information  about  the  legislation.  

We  decided  to  convey  the  importance  of  alewives  through  three  interrelated  

sections;  their  historical,  political,  and  economic  value  to  the  area.  In  each  of  these  

  9  

sections,  we  had  to  summarize  a  larger  body  of  research  we  had  examined  and  

condense  it  into  a  small  blurb.  For  the  section  on  the  economic  value  of  alewives,  we  

wanted  to  emphasize  the  specific  profit  that  could  be  derived  from  a  restored  

alewife  population.  These  numbers  could  be  important  for  community  members  

interested  in  the  fishing  industry,  or  fishermen  looking  to  expand  their  business,  or  

those  who  are  simply  economically  oriented.  We  also  sought  to  convey  that  alewife  

restoration  has  positive  economic  benefits  for  other  fisheries,  as  alewives  are  both  a  

buffer  species  and  prey  for  larger  fish  species.  This  is  an  additional  piece  of  data  that  

may  appeal  to  fishermen  beyond  those  with  a  desire  to  become  directly  involved  

with  alewives,  as  well  as  consumers  and  those  who  care  about  the  pond  ecosystems.  

For  the  section  on  ecological  value,  we  wanted  to  stress  that  alewives  are  not  

only  valuable  in  and  of  themselves,  but  that  they  contribute  to  the  survival  and  

prosperity  of  other  species.  We  also  wanted  to  make  mention  of  recent  studies  that  

have  been  conducted  on  the  St.  Croix  river  so  that  readers  are  clear  about  the  fact  

that  alewives  do  not  have  pernicious  effects  on  smallmouth  bass.  The  landowners  

that  have  owned  their  plots  since  the  time  of  the  original  legislation  may  be  aware  of  

the  reservations  expressed  by  both  the  bass  and  trout  fishing  communities  in  Maine.  

The  St.  Croix  study  contains  important  supporting  evidence  about  the  lack  of  

validity  of  the  bass  and  trout  communities  claims.  Additionally,  we  provided  

information  about  how  alewives  can  have  positive  impacts  on  water  quality  by  

exporting  phosphorous  and  thereby  decreasing  the  potential  for  algal  bloom,  as  

algae  problems  are  common  in  many  freshwater  bodies  in  Maine.  

  10  

We  included  a  section  about  the  historical  role  alewives  have  played  in  the  

Androscoggin  and  in  the  state  of  Maine  in  order  to  convey  to  readers  how  different  

peoples  have  interacted  with  the  species,  and  thus  the  different  potentials  for  their  

human  use.  We  also  wanted  to  illustrate  how  the  decline  of  alewives  in  Maine  has  

been  a  direct  result  of  human  activity,  and  thus  hope  to  inspire  community  members  

to  consider  how  river  and  freshwater  development  is  impacting  their  local  

ecosystem,  economy,  and  culture.  We  included  a  visual  timeline  of  events  relating  to  

decline  of  the  alewife  in  Maine  and  to  their  restoration  in  the  Androscoggin  

watershed.  We  did  this  in  part  because  our  research  on  effective  brochure-­‐making  

revealed  that  readers  are  attracted  to  visual  representations  of  information  and  can  

absorb  information  better  when  it  is  organized  graphically.  

In  addition  to  sections  about  the  different  ways  alewives  are  valuable,  we  

also  had  small  blurbs  informing  readers  about  what  alewives  are,  how  citizens  can  

participate  in  restoration  efforts,  and  where  to  find  more  in-­‐depth  information  

about  the  issue.  We  included  the  blurb  defining  alewives  in  order  to  make  the  

pamphlet  accessible  to  all  readers.  The  suggestions  for  further  reading  section  will  

provide  opportunities  for  those  seeking  a  more  in-­‐depth  or  scientific  understanding  

of  alewives.  We  included  the  section  about  how  community  members  can  help  to  

encourage  political  action  for  alewife  restoration,  and  to  provide  outlets  for  them  to  

do  so.    

The  database  that  we  created  will  provide  the  Androscoggin  River  Alliance  

(ARA)  with  information  about  the  people  who  own  residences  or  land  on  the  shore  

of  Hogan  and  Whitney  Pond.    These  owners  are  an  immediate  group  of  stakeholders  

  11  

in  the  situation  and  therefore  it  would  be  helpful  for  the  ARA  to  be  able  to  contact  

them  about  their  plans  for  alewife  restoration.    The  ARA  would  like  to  have  

community  support  with  their  efforts  and  engaging  those  who  live  or  own  property  

on  the  ponds  is  the  first  step  to  this  approach.    The  database  holds  information  that  

includes  the  name,  pond  residence  address,  and  primary  residence  of  the  owners  of  

land  on  the  ponds.    We  also  gathered  information  about  the  last  date  of  sale  which  

will  allow  the  ARA  to  see  if  the  current  owners  of  the  plots  of  land  were  proprietors  

during  the  time  that  the  legislation  which  banned  alewives  occurred.    In  addition,  

we  also  gathered  data  about  the  property  taxes  for  the  plots  of  land  which  signifies  

how  much  each  parcel  is  worth  and  may  provide  insight  as  to  the  economic  status  of  

the  owner.  

With  the  information  gathered  from  the  database  we  were  able  to  create  a  

map  using  GIS  as  well  as  varying  graphs  that  summarize  different  aspects  of  the  

collected  data.    The  map  focuses  on  the  area  of  Oxford,  Maine  that  includes  both  

Hogan  and  Whitney  Ponds  and  is  layered  with  the  plots  of  land  that  are  established  

in  the  town.    The  map  only  displays  the  plots  of  land  that  border  the  

waterfront.    Each  plot  is  color  coded  depending  on  three  different  categories  of  land  

status:  vacant,  primary  residency,  or  non-­‐primary  residency.    This  will  help  

synthesize  the  information  from  the  database  into  a  visual  demonstration  that  will  

be  easier  to  comprehend  and  hopefully  be  more  effective  for  the  ARA  compared  to  

looking  at  raw  data.    This  visual  aid  will  allow  the  ARA  to  see  exactly  what  the  use  of  

each  plot  of  land  is.    It  will  be  a  helpful  guide  to  see  which  plots  of  land  are  home  to  

primary  residences  as  these  inhabitants  are  the  most  likely  to  take  an  interest  in  the  

  12  

happenings  of  the  Ponds  and  Oxford  Maine.    The  map  will  also  show  the  last  name  of  

the  plot  owner  which  will  enable  the  ARA  to  efficiently  match  up  the  alphabetical  

database  information  with  the  visual  plots  of  land  and  determine  information  like  

plot  address  and  tax  data.  

The  graphs  will  also  be  an  effective  visual  tool  for  the  ARA  as  it  summarizes  

various  aspects  of  the  database  information  and  provides  demographic  information  

about  the  landowners  on  Hogan  and  Whitney  Ponds.    The  graphs  synthesize  the  

information  in  an  efficient  manner  that  allows  the  ARA  to  comprehend  the  data  in  a  

concrete  manner.    For  instance,  it  is  significant  that  80%  of  plot  owners  do  not  

actually  live  on  the  land  for  this  would  seem  to  imply  that  they  may  not  have  as  

much  of  a  stake  in  a  possible  alewife  restoration  process  (Figure  3).  However,  when  

the  graph  displaying  the  state  residency  of  the  plot  owners  is  taken  into  context,  one  

can  see  that  only  about  30%  of  the  plot  owners  actually  live  out  of  state,  with  70%  of  

the  owners  living  outside  of  Oxford  in  the  state  of  Maine  (Figure  2).  Since  the  

legislature  banning  alewife  reintroduction  into  the  ponds  in  Oxford  is  state  

legislature  and  most  of  the  proprietors  live  in  Maine,  this  means  that  these  owners  

will  presumably  have  a  higher  potential  to  desire  to  get  involved  in  the  process  and  

will  be  possibly  still  be  able  to  come  to  meetings  or  discussions  about  the  

issue.    Another  significant  finding  is  the  graph  that  exhibits  information  about  land  

use  on  the  pond  plots.    It  shows  that  about  80%  of  the  plots  are  residential  

compared  to  just  15%  that  are  vacant  (Figure  1).  Since  the  majority  of  the  plots  on  

the  lake  exist  for  human  use  this  will  make  it  easier  for  the  ARA  to  contact  and  

engage  the  residents  about  their  goals  for  alewife  reintroduction  in  the  future.    

  13  

In  order  to  better  understand  why  stocking  alewives  is  banned  in  Hogan,  

Whitney,  and  Tripp  Ponds,  we  looked  at  the  legislative  history  for  this  law,  passed  in  

1997  by  the  118th  Maine  State  Legislature.  We  hoped  this  would  provide  us  with  

critical  information  about  who  supported  and  opposed  the  law  and  for  what  

reasons.  This  is  important  because  it  crafts  a  jumping  off  point  for  Neil  to  make  

further  headway  in  the  project  by  connecting  with  these  lawmakers.  By  collecting  

the  legislative  history,  we  were  able  to  procure  the  names  of  those  who  supported  

and  opposed  the  law.  We  also  gathered  testimony  from  the  hearing  of  the  bill  so  we  

are  able  to  understand  individual  reasons  for  and  against  the  proposed  legislation.  

The  piece  of  law  is  called  “An  Act  to  Prohibit  the  Stocking  of  Alewives  in  

Tripp  Lake,”  presented  by  Representative  Underwood  of  Oxford,  and  Cosponsored  

by  Senator  Hall  of  Piscataquis,  Senator  Bennett  of  Oxford,  and  Representatives  

Snowe-­‐  Mello  of  Poland.  There  were  eleven  testifiers  at  the  legislative  meeting  on  

March  12,  1997.    Seven  testified  in  favor  of  the  bill,  while  three  testified  against  it.  

The  Department  of  Marine  Resources  (DMR)  provides  a  narrative  about  

alewives  in  the  Androscoggin  River,  and  concludes  that  “based  on  current  

knowledge  of  alewife  stocking  densities  and  follow  up  surveys  of  effects  on  

freshwater  fisheries,  there  was  no  impact  from  the  introduction  of  six  alewives  per  

acre  on  freshwater  fisheries  and/or  water  quality  (LD  993  1997:  7).    The  study  

conducted  by  Kircheis  et  al.  in  2004  on  Lake  George  arrives  at  the  same  conclusion:  

that  alewives  in  these  areas  create  no  negative  impact  on  water  quality.  Instead,  

they  discern  that  total  phosphorous  levels  were  lower  in  the  years  that  alewives  

were  stocked,  which  is  a  benefit  to  the  water  quality.  

  14  

A  fishery  research  biologist  from  Maine,  Frederick  Kircheis,  testified  that  

based  on  his  research.  He  admits  that  bass  fishing  may  have  been  less  productive  in  

the  previous  years  in  Hogan  and  Whitney  Ponds,  but  he  suggests  that  there  are  

other  factors  at  play  beside  the  stocking  of  alewives,  such  as  the  limited  habitat  in  

the  ponds  and  the  increased  fishing  (LD  993:17).  His  testimony  is  presumably  

reliable  because  it  is  based  in  scientific  fact.    

A  paper  titled  “Predation  by  Alewives  in  Lake  Trout  Fry  in  Lake  Ontario:  Role  

of  an  Exotic  Species  in  Preventing  Restoration  of  a  Native  Species”  is  presented  as  

testimony  (LD  993  1997:  24).  This  is  rather  irrelevant  evidence  to  provide  because  

alewives  are  native  to  the  Androscoggin  river,whereas  they  are  not  in  Lake  Ontario,  

making  this  study  not  overly  applicable  due  to  the  geographic  disparities.  The  

results  of  the  study  found  that  alewife  predation  may  have  caused  “substantial  

mortality  to  lake  trout  fry  from  spawning  areas  in  Lake  Ontario  where  alewives  

were  abundant”  as  well  as  in  other  areas  in  Lakes  Michigan  and  Huron  (LD  993  

1997:  24).  Two  subsequent  articles  detail  vitamin  deficiencies  that  cause  salmon  

and  trout  reproductive  failure  because  their  diets  are  made  up  of  alewives.  Once  

again,  these  studies  are  from  other  areas,  including  Lake  Ontario  and  Lake  Erie  (LD  

993  1997:  34-­‐37).  

One  piece  of  testimony  is  presented  which  discusses  public  precedent  and  

public  policy  in  regards  to  future  anadromous  fish  stocking  procedure  (LD  993  

1997:  50).  This  is  presented  by  the  executive  director  of  Coastal  Conservation  

Association-­‐Maine,  Pat  Keliher,  who  provides  scientific  studies  that  proves  that  

there  are  no  adverse  effects  from  alewife  stocking  and  rather  that  alewives  benefit  

  15  

the  health  of  freshwater  specifies.  Keliher  discusses  alewives  and  their  economic  

benefit  to  the  state  of  Maine.  This  testimony  is  presented  by  Trout  Unlimited  of  

Maine  (LD  993  1997:  53).  In  addition  to  addressing  the  misunderstanding  of  

alewives,  it  discusses  the  commercial  value  of  alewives  and  concludes  with  a  plea  to  

allow  a  native  species  to  be  reintroduced  into  its  native  territory  (LD  993  1997:  53).    

One  of  the  cosponsors  of  the  bill,  Lois  Snowe-­‐Mello,  bases  her  testimony  on  

research  done  in  a  non-­‐matching  context:  where  alewives  are  non-­‐native  species  

and  the  location  is  the  Midwest,  which  seems  to  decrease  the  some  of  the  legitimacy  

of  this  testimony.  It  is  concerning  that  Representative  Snowe-­‐  Mello  is  a  cosponsor  

of  this  bill,  yet  does  not  cite  research  that  is  done  in  the  ponds  she  is  testifying  

about.  

A  piece  of  testimony  that  is  provided  by  an  Oxford  resident  provides  

blatantly  incorrect  information,  calling  alewives  an  “exotic  species”  in  the  ponds  in  

more  than  one  instance  (LD  993  1997:  54,  55).  He  claims  that  the  reintroduction  of  

alewives  is  cause  to  a  diminishing  amount  of  “native”  species  in  the  ponds  because  “I  

haven’t  seen  the  numbers  of  perch  fins  as  the  feed  on  the  water  surface  in  the  

evening”  (LD  993  1997:  54).  He  provides  further  egregious  facts  about  native  and  

nonnative  species,  as  well  as  cites  studies  from  geographically  disparate  habitats  

(LD  993  1997:  54).    This  testifier  believes  that  alewives  “are  a  huge  part  of  our  

native  fish  diminishing  in  numbers  and  a  real  threat  to  the  future  existence  of  our  

entire  fisheries”  (LD  993  1997:  55).  These  claims  have  been  discredited  by  research  

conducted  Dr.  Theo  Willis.  He  found  that  there  was  change  in  the  size  or  growth  of  

smallmouth  bass  in  years  that  alewives  were  present,  in  fact,  growth  was  higher  in  

  16  

some  cases  (Willis  2006).  Research  shows  that  alewives  are  not  predators  of  bass  

because  the  alewife  diet  is  primarily  zooplankton  and  benthic  amphipods  (Scott  and  

Crossman  1973,  Willis  2006).  Additionally,  Kircheis  et  al.  found  no  change  in  size  or  

growth  of  bass  or  other  major  or  minor  sport  fish  when  alewives  were  stocked  in  

Lake  George  (2004).  This  literature  works  to  disprove  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Varney.  

It  concerns  us  that  if  other  in  attendance  had  not  done  their  own  research  and  

believed  what  Mr.  Varney  said  to  be  correct.  Hopefully,  these  incorrect  

observational  claims  are  not  pervasive  in  the  community,  but  if  they  are  it  may  

provide  some  explanation  for  large  support  in  passing  the  bill  to  disallow  alewife  

stocking.    

There  is  a  piece  of  testimony  which  appeals  to  the  fact  that  alewives  have  a  

long  standing  history  on  the  Androscoggin.  In  his  testimony,  Lewis  Flagg,  director  of  

the  Anadromous  Fish  Division,  writes  about  evidence  of  alewives  on  the  

Androscoggin  as  early  as  1809.  This  information  is  supported  by  Shalit’s  report  that  

discusses  the  plentiful  amount  of  alewives  in  the  1800s  along  the  river  (Shalit  et  al.  

2003).    

One  piece  of  testimony  that  reports  on  research  done  in  Lake  George  

concludes  that  “what  [has  been]  examined  so  far  has  shown  no  difference  between  

before  and  after  alewife  stocking”  but  cautions  that  more  analysis  must  be  done  (LD  

993  1997:  59).  The  legislative  history  concludes  with  the  final  draft  of  the  bill  being  

passed  into  action,  to  disallow  alewife  stocking  in  Hogan  and  Whitney  Ponds.  

To  conclude  our  discussion  of  the  Androscoggin  River  legislation  of  the  mid  

1990s,  we  suggest  that  there  are  vast  array  of  opinions  regarding  alewives  in  Maine  

  17  

watersheds.  Some  opinions  are  based  in  science,  while  others  are  based  on  

emotional  and  observational  claims.  We  must  be  skeptical  as  we  read  the  testimony,  

for  not  everything  presented  at  the  hearing  was  correct.  It  concerns  us  that  

fallacious  information  was  presented.  Having  this  knowledge  in  our  arsenal  makes  

us,  and  the  ARA,  more  prepared  in  overturning  this  legislation,  because  we  now  

know  where  weaknesses  may  lie.  

   We  gathered  the  St.  Croix  legislation  for  several  reasons.  First,  it  shows  that  

progress  can  be  made  in  the  realm  of  alewives  and  the  ARA  is  embarking  on  is  

attainable  mission.  The  St.  Croix  case  demonstrates  a  legal  battle  that  was  won  in  

favor  of  the  alewives.  Second,  the  St.  Croix  case  provides  us  with  critical  scientific  

information.  The  testimony  is  rife  with  research  scientific  evidence  citing  the  

importance  of  alewives  in  the  St  Croix  River.  

Similar  to  some  of  the  Androscoggin  testimonies,  there  are  some  pieces  of  

testimony  based  on  hearsay  that  lack  scientific  or  true  observational  backing.  These  

speeches  are  concerning  if  they  are  capable  of  swaying  people’s  emotions  and  votes.  

Representative  Turner  claims  that  “the  proponents  haven’t  proven  their  case  that  

the  alewives  were  there  or  that  it  wouldn’t  hurt  the  economy  in  northern  

Washington  County  so  will  always  err  on  the  side  of  caution”  (LD  72  2013:  11).    

Representative  Doak  spoke  briefly  on  the  alewife  issue,  citing  emotional  

connections  in  a  positive  light.  He  worked  to  prove  the  long  history  of  alewives  in  

the  watershed  by  harkening  back  to  his  days  as  a  child  on  the  Passagassawakeag,  

where  he  “speared  and  dipped  alewives”  (LD  72  2013:  12).  He  urges  others  to  vote  

for  the  passage  of  the  bill  for  the  future  of  the  alewives  and  the  “additional  revenue  

  18  

because  of  bait  for  lobster  fishermen”  (LD  72  2013:  12).  This  raises  the  question  of  

the  extent  to  which  emotional  and  historical  claims  should  be  given  credence  in  

native  species  restoration.    

The  next  testifier  spoke  about  science  reported  by  the  DMR  about  the  

evidence  demonstrating  that  “the  presence  of  alewives  in  the  St.  Croix  River  will  not  

harm  the  smallmouth  bass  fishery,  and,  in  fact,  there  was  some  evidence  showing  

that  it  might  actually  be  enhanced  by  some  kind  of  ecological  magic”  (LD  72  2013:  

11).  This  testimony  presents  information  about  the  historic  presence  of  alewife  runs  

in  the  St.  Croix  River  and  the  Gulf  of  Maine.    It  speaks  to  the  economic  importance  of  

alewives  as  lobster  bait  and  as  a  food  source  for  other  species  in  the  Gulf  of  Maine.  

This  “ecological  magic”  may  be  referencing  alewives  ability  to  function  as  

improvers  of  water  quality.  Once  again,  the  research  by  Kircheis  et  al.  pertaining  to  

alewives  having  the  ability  to  lower  phosphorus  levels  (2004).  The  mechanism  for  

this  is  in  the  development  of  young  alewives.  As  the  juveniles  grow  they  incorporate  

phosphorus  into  their  bodies,  which  they  then  carry  with  them  as  they  return  to  the  

ocean.  Since  a  major  cause  of  algal  blooms  and  eutrophication  is  phosphorus  loading  

(Schindler  1977),  Enterline  and  Gray  (2013)  and  West  et  al.  (2010)  view  alewives  as  

having  the  potential  to  mitigate  these  problems  in  freshwater  systems.  

Representative  Soctomah  of  the  Passamaquoddy  Tribe  also  spoke  to  the  

historic  presence  of  alewives  on  the  St  Croix.  She  first  presents  evidence  of  alewives  

in  Maine  more  than  4000  years  ago,  based  on  archeological  work.  There  is  

numerical  evidence  about  alewives  dating  back  before  1825,  when  they  were  so  

abundant  that  they  were  harvested  in  excess  of  700,000  adults  per  year  (LD  72  

  19  

2013:  12).  Representative  Soctomah  testified  to  the  ecological  importance  of  

alewives  and  their  role  as  a  keystone  species.  They  are  important  in  freshwater,  

estuarine,  and  marine  environments  (LD  72  2013:  12).  She  eschews  popular  

misconceptions  about  alewives  being  detrimental  to  smallmouth  bass  population.  

Her  testimony  seems  reliable  because  it  is  grounded  in  science  and  she  presents  the  

reports  from  which  the  evidence  is  derived.  It  is  out  of  hope  that  constituents  are  

more  likely  to  believe  this  sort  of  information  as  opposed  to  information  that  is  

grounded  in  erroneous  emotional  and  observational  claims.  

The  final  piece  of  testimony  is  interesting  because  it  is  presented  on  behalf  of  

an  individual  who  played  a  crucial  role  in  damming  the  St.  Croix  in  1995.  He  wishes  

to  rescind  his  wrongful  support  of  prior  legislation  that  prevented  fish  passage.  

   The  St.  Croix  legislation  is  important  to  our  work  and  the  ARA’s  work  

because  it  examines  another  case  of  successful  alewife  passage.  The  timeline  of  

events  chronicled  through  newspapers  articles  which  we  accessed  through  the  

Maine  State  Law  and  Legislative  Library,  because  this  provide  some  ideas  for  one  

option  for  a  course  of  action  for  the  ARA.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  20  

Outcomes  and  Implications  

The  work  that  we  have  done  for  Neil  is  the  beginning  of  what  we  hope  will  be  

a  strong  concerted  effort  by  the  ARA  to  help  restore  alewives  to  the  Little  

Androscoggin  watershed.  Our  project  deliverables  will  contribute  to  the  community  

outreach  portion  of  the  ARA’s  goal.  The  legislative  information  we  collected  and  

summarized  will  give  the  ARA  a  better  idea  of  the  types  of  ideas  that  exist  in  the  

legislature  and  the  community.  This  gives  the  organization  a  better  idea  of  what  

type  of  research  is  necessary  to  fill  any  information  gap  that  exists.  The  landowner  

database  and  different  analyses  we  did  of  the  landowner  statistics  will  provide  the  

ARA  with  the  information  they  need  to  send  educational  materials  out,  as  well  as  

how  to  structure  educational  programs  that  best  engage  the  different  demographics  

(i.e.  residents  vs.  non-­‐residents).  Lastly,  the  informational  pamphlet  can  be  sent  out  

and  distributed  to  different  parties.  The  accompanying  body  of  research  we  

compiled  in  order  to  create  the  pamphlet  can  also  be  drawn  upon  to  create  more  

educational  materials  for  more  targeted  demographics,  and  can  be  used  to  identify  

areas  that  need  to  be  investigated  further.  On  a  broad  scale,  the  fact  that  we  were  

able  to  compile  as  much  information  as  we  did  about  the  legislation  and  ecology  

surrounding  alewife  restoration  in  Maine  implies  that  the  foundation  has  been  laid  

for  the  ARA’s  goal  of  community  involvement  and  engagement  in  the  issue  of  alewife  

restoration.  If  the  ARA  is  successful  in  prompting  the  necessary  ecological  research  

on  the  Little  Androscoggin  and  engaging  community  members  as  well  as  the  

scientific  community  in  a  discussion,  the  repealing  of  this  legislation  is  definitely  

feasible,  as  evidenced  by  the  St.  Croix  case.    

  21  

Future  Steps  

                To  address  what  we  have  identified  as  the  implications  of  our  project,  a  

number  of  steps  should  be  taken  by  Neil,  the  ARA,  and  the  intern  they  have  hired  to  

continue  our  outreach  work.  In  the  legislative  arena,  it  will  be  beneficial  to  identify  

the  individuals  that  are  still  in  office  that  testified  for  or  against  the  alewife  

legislation.  This  will  help  educate  the  ARA  in  more  depth  about  why  the  law  was  

passed.  The  ARA  can  see  if  these  individuals  still  hold  the  same  views  about  

alewives  and  the  Androscoggin  River.  In  addition,  the  ARA  should  meet  with  current  

representatives  to  discuss  their  views  on  alewife  restoration.  The  ARA  can  provide  

educational  materials  and  sessions  to  teach  lawmakers  about  the  importance  of  

alewives,  or  get  them  in  touch  with  experts  in  the  field  of  alewife  restoration.  

Through  this  process,  the  ARA  may  ultimately  be  able  to  find  a  sponsor  for  a  new  bill  

to  overturn  the  current  legislation.  

In  order  for  our  educational  brochure  to  have  an  effect,  it  must  be  put  into  

action.  It  must  be  mailed  to  the  landowners  around  Hogan  and  Whitney  ponds.  

Additionally,  the  education  materials  could  perhaps  be  left  at  a  view  locations  in  

Oxford  for  other  residents  to  peruse  while  passing  through.    These  locations  may  

include  the  Town  Office,  the  Freeland  Holmes  Library,  the  Oxford  Plains  Speedway,  

and  the  Irving  gas  station  on  Main  Street.  The  gas  station  and  Speedway  seem  like  

high  traffic  areas,  while  the  Town  Office  and  Library  are  appealing  because  they  are  

places  people  go  in  search  of  information.    

Another  useful  next  step  may  include  a  survey  for  landowners  around  Hogan  

and  Whitney  ponds,  and  even  landowners  on  other  parts  of  the  Little  Androscoggin  

  22  

that  would  experience  the  effects  of  alewife  restoration.  This  survey  would  be  useful  

in  gauging  the  interest  and  knowledge  of  the  residents  in  relationship  to  alewives.  It  

could  ask  landowners  a  variety  of  questions  including:  Are  you  a  full  time  resident?  

If  not,  where  else  do  you  live?  Do  you  use  the  pond  you  live  on?  If  so,  for  what?  

recreation?  fishing?  relaxing  on  the  water’s  edge?  excercise?  other  uses?  This  survey  

could  help  the  ARA  target  later  informational  materials.    

                As  per  the  discussion  at  the  conclusion  of  our  presentation,  more  research  

should  be  conducted  about  the  ecological  implications  of  alewife  restoration.  When  

the  bill  to  overturn  existing  legislation  is  actually  put  forward,  it  will  be  necessary  to  

either  use  previously  developed  models  or  conduct  site-­‐specific  research  in  the  

Little  Androscoggin  in  order  to  gain  a  more  exact  understanding  of  how  the  

reintroduction  of  alewives  would  affect  the  ecosystem  functioning  as  a  whole.  

Specifically,  studies  should  be  conducted  to  determine  what  the  relationship  of  

alewives  would  be  to  the  levels  of  phosphorous  and  other  elements  of  water  quality  

as  well  as  to  the  populations  of  groundfish  in  the  freshwater  ponds  on  the  little  

Androscoggin.  Holly  brought  up  the  point  that  both  of  these  impacts  are  hard  to  

generalize  among  all  locations,  and  depend  on  different  circumstances  that  vary  

based  on  a  number  of  factors.  Even  though  alewife  reintroduction  may  be  beneficial  

to  the  St.  Croix,  Sebasticook,  and  Lake  George  ecosystems,  it  is  not  sufficient  to  use  

this  fact  to  say  that  because  this  is  the  case  they  will  also  be  beneficial  to  Hogan,  

Whitney,  and  Tripp  Pond.  Additionally,  a  stronger  argument  could  be  made  for  

alewife  reintroduction  if  enough  further  research  is  done  to  assign  a  monetary  value  

  23  

to  the  total  benefit  of  alewives  in  the  Androscoggin  watershed,  which  would  include  

alewives  benefit  to  other  fisheries  and  the  ecosystem  as  a  whole.          

 

References  Cited  

Brown,  Michael  E.,  Vaughn  Crandall,  and  Lewis  Flagg.  “Androscoggin  River            

Anadromous  Fish  Restoration  Program.”  Maine  Department  of  Marine  

Resources:  Bureau  of  Sea  Run  Fisheries  &  Habitat,  Augusta,  ME,  (2010).  

Clinton  ,  Townsend.  "Restoration  of  the  Alewife."  Natural  History  Magazine  (2013).  

Enterline,  Claire,  e-­‐mail  communication,  November  19th,  2013.  

Enterline,  Claire,  and  Nate  Gray.  Restoring  River  Herring  Runs:  Kennebec  River  

Milestones.  State  of  Maine,  USFWS  (2013).  

Flagg,  Lewis  N.  "Historical  and  current  distribution  and  abundance  of  the  

anadromous  alewife  (Alosa  pseudoharengus)  in  the  St  Croix  River."  Atlantic  

Salmon  Commission.  14  May  2012,  (2007).  

Gurevitch,  J.  and  Padilla  D.  K.  Are  Invasive  Species  a  Major  Cause  of  

Extinctions?    Trends  in  Ecology  and  Evolution  19,  (2004):    470-­‐474.  

Hanson,  S.  Dale,  and  R.  Allen  Curry.  "Effects  of  size  structure  on  trophic  interactions  

between  age-­‐0  smallmouth  bass  and  juvenile  anadromous  alewives."  

Transactions  of  the  American  Fisheries  Society  134.2  (2005):  356-­‐368.  

Harvey,  Harold,  and  Paul  Fleming.  "The  Readability  and  Audience  Acceptance  of  

Printed  Health  Promotion  Materials  Used  by  Environmental  Health  

Departments."  Journal  of  Environmental  Health.  no.  6  (2005):  22-­‐28.  

  24  

Nedeau,  Ethan.  The  Amazing  Alewife.  Gulf  of  Maine  Times,  Science  Insights,  7(3)  

(2003).  

Kircheis,  F.  W.,  Trial,  J.  G.,  Boucher,  D.  P.,  Mower,  B.,  Squires,  T.,  Gray,  N.,  ...  &  

Stahlnecker,  J.  Analysis  of  impacts  related  to  the  introduction  of  

anadromous  alewives  into  a  small  freshwater  lake  in  central  Maine,  USA.  

Maine  Department  of  Marine  Resources,  Maine  Department  of  Inland  Fisheries  

and  Wildlife,  Maine  Department  of  Environmental  Protection,  Interagency  

Report  Series,  (2002):  02-­‐1.  

Kotowski,  Michael,  Sandi  Smith,  Patti  Johnstone,  and  Erin  Pritt.  "Using  the  Extended  

Parallel  Process  Model  to  create  and  evaluate  the  effectiveness  of  brochures  

to  reduce  the  risk  for  noise-­‐  induced  hearing  loss  in  college  students."  Noise  

and  Health.  no.  53  (2011):  261-­‐271.  

Lipsey,  M.  K.,  and  Child,  M.  F.  Combining  the  Fields  of  Reintroduction  Biology  and  

Restoration  Ecology.    Conservation  Biology  21  (2007):  1387-­‐1388.  

Larson,  B.  M.  H.  The  War  of  the  Roses:  Demilitarizing  Invasion  Biology.    Frontiers  in  

the  Ecology  and  the  Environment  3  (2005):  495-­‐500.  

Loreau,  M.  et  al.  Biodiversity  and  Ecosystem  Functioning:  current  knowledge  and  

future  challenges.  Science  294  (2001):  804-­‐808  

Parker,  I.  M.,  Et  al.      Impact  :  Toward  a  Framework  For  Understanding  the  Ecological  

Effects  of  invaders.    Biological  Invasion  1:  3-­‐19  

Polak,  Tal  and  Saltz,  David.    2011.    Reintroduction  As  an  Ecosystem  Restoration  

Technique.    Conservation  Biology  25  (1999):  424  

  25  

Saunders,  Rory,  Michael  A.  Hachey,  and  Clem  W.  Fay.  "Maine's  diadromous  fish  

community:  past,  present,  and  implications  for  Atlantic  salmon  

recovery."Fisheries  31.11  (2006):  537-­‐547.  

Schindler,  D.  W.  "Evolution  of  phosphorus  limitation  in  lakes."  Science  195,  no.  4275  

(1977):  260-­‐262.  

Schlaepfer,  Martin  et  al.      The  Potential  Conservation  Value  of  Non-­‐Native  

Species.    Conservation  Biology  25  (2011):  428-­‐437  

Schmitt,  Catherine.  University  of  Maine,  "Alewives:  Feast  of  the  Season."  (2008).  

Scott,  W.  B.,  &  Crossman,  E.  J.  Freshwater  fishes  of  Canada.Fisheries  Research  Board  

of  Canada  Bulletin  184  (1973).  

Schalit,  Naomi,  Lois  Winter,  and  Gail  Wippelhauser.  Maine  Department  of  Marine  

Resources,  "All  About  Alewives."  (2003).  

Seddon,  Philip  J.,  Armstrong,  Doug  P.,  and  Maloney,  Richard  F.  Developing  Science  of  

Reintroduction  Biology.    Conservation  Biology  21  (2001):  303-­‐312  

Slobodkin,  L.  B.,The  Good,  The  Bad,  and  The  Reified.    Evolutionary  Ecology  Research  

3  (2001):1-­‐13.  

Strenski,  James.  "Public  Relations  Programs  Help  Safeguard  the  World's  Water  

Supply."  Public  Relations  Quarterly.  (1996):  33-­‐35.  

 

Svenning,  M-­‐A.,  et  al.  The  impact  of  marine  fish  predation  on  Atlantic  salmon  smolts  

(Salmo  salar)  in  the  Tana  estuary,  North  Norway,  in  the  presence  of  an  

alternative  prey,  lesser  sandeel  (Ammodytes  marinus).  Fisheries  research  

76.3  (2005):  466-­‐474.  

  26  

Stromberg,  J.  C.  et  al.    Changing  Perceptions  of  Change  :  the  role  of  scientists  in  

Tamarix  and  river  management.    Restoration  Ecology  17  (2009):  177-­‐186.  

Ward,  Neil,  personal  communication,  September  13th,  2013.  

West,  D.  C.,  Walters,  A.  W.,  Gephard,  S.,  &  Post,  D.  M.  Nutrient  loading  by  anadromous    

alewife  (Alosa  pseudoharengus):  contemporary  patterns  and  predictions  for    

restoration  efforts.  Canadian  journal  of  fisheries  and  aquatic  sciences,  67(8)  

(2010):  1211-­‐1220.  

Viggers,  K.  L.,  Lindenmayer,  D.  B.,  and  Spratt,  D.  M.  The  Importance  of  Disease  in  

Reintroduction  Programs.    Wildlife  Research  20  (1993):  687-­‐698  

Willis,  T.  V.,  P.  Bentzen,  and  I.  G.  Paterson.  "Two  Reports  on  Alewives  in  the  St.  Croix  

River."  (2006).  

Young,  Charlotte,  and  John  Witter.  "Developing  Effective  Brochures  for  Increasing  

Knowledge  of  Environmental  Problems:  The  case  of  the  Gypsy  Moth."  

Journal  of  Environmental  Education.  (1994):  27-­‐34.  

 

Appendices  

 

APPENDIX  A:  Literature  Review    

Economic  and  Historical  Information  

Alewives  have  been  an  important  fixture  of  life  on  the  Androscoggin  River  

since  the  surrounding  land  was  occupied  by  Native  American  peoples.  Alewives  

were  a  main  source  of  nutrition  in  the  indigenous  peoples’  diet;  their  bones  have  

been  found  in  Maine  that  date  back  4,000  years.  Alewives  were  consumed  fresh  and  

  27  

smoked  and  were  used  for  trade  with  Canadians  (Townsend  2013).  They  were  also  

very  valuable  to  colonial  and  post-­‐colonial  settlers  on  the  Androscoggin.  One  history  

of  the  towns  of  Gardiner  and  Pittston,  written  in  1852,  claims  that  “alewives  were  so  

plentiful  there  at  the  time  the  country  was  settled  that  bears,  and  later  swine,  fed  on  

them  in  the  water”  and  that  “they  were  crowded  ashore  by  the  thousands”  (Schalit  

et  al.  2003).  However,  since  the  turn  of  the  20th  century,  the  effects  of  overfishing,  

the  creation  of  dams  lacking  fish  passages,  and  water  pollution  have  resulted  in  

alewives  not  being  able  to  reproduce  and  the  populations  in  Maine  becoming  

severely  depleted.  The  Maine  DMR  has  been  engaged  in  restoration  efforts  for  over  

forty  years,  which  has  proved  to  be  a  controversial  process  (Brown  et  al.  2010).  

The  restoration  of  alewives  to  their  historical  levels  would  create  the  

potential  for  a  small  but  significant  fishery  industry  on  the  Androscoggin  and  in  the  

state  of  Maine.  Since  the  mid-­‐2000s,  the  Maine  Department  of  Marine  Resources  has  

routinely  conducted  studies  estimating  the  potential  economic  value  of  the  alewife  

industry  in  the  Androscoggin  watershed.  These  estimates  are  based  off  the  number  

of  alewives  that  would  exist  were  the  species  to  be  restored  to  its  optimal  capacity  

within  its  historical  habitat.  Using  data  on  average  size  and  market  value,  the  DMR’s  

most  recent  prediction  is  that  the  total  economic  value  of  the  industry  would  be  

between  $160,740  and  $177,660  (Enterline  2013).  This  estimate  refers  to  the  

alewife  industry  alone,  and  does  not  reflect  the  economic  benefits  of  alewives  as  

population-­‐boosters  for  other  commercially  fished  species.  The  specific  value  of  

alewives  as  population-­‐boosters  in  both  the  Androscoggin  and  the  ocean  would  be  

  28  

difficult  to  measure,  but  is  likely  substantial  as  native  species  restoration  typically  

improves  the  functioning  of  an  entire  ecosystem.  

Presently  alewives  are  primarily  used  as  lobster  bait  due  to  the  fact  that  they  

are  inexpensive  and  last  a  long  time  in  traps.  They  are  also  used  to  make  fish  meal  

and  fish  oil,  and  as  an  ingredient  in  certain  pet  foods  (Townsend  2013,  Schmitt  

2008).  Although  there  is  not  currently  a  large  industry  for  alewives  as  a  food  for  

people,  this  could  be  a  valuable  industry  in  the  future.  Alewives  are  inexpensive  and  

have  high  fat  and  omega-­‐3  content.  They  can  be  a  valuable  source  of  nutrients  when  

other  food  sources  are  low.  For  these  reasons,  communities  in  New  England  

historically  have  provided  alewife  meat  to  poor  and  elderly  populations  (Townsend  

2013).    

Ecology  of  Maine  Alewives  

 As  anadromous  fish,  alewives  tie  together  the  ocean,  rivers,  and  lakes,  

providing  nutrients  and  forage  to  support  a  healthy  watershed.  There  is  therefore  

tremendous  ecological  value  in  restoring  a  healthy  population.  (Maine  DMR  River  

Herring  Fact  Sheet  2008).  Numerous  studies  and  reports  note  the  significance  that  

alewives  have  in  the  food  chain  and  as  a  Gulf  of  Maine  Times  issue  states,  essentially  

everything  eats  alewives  (Nedeau  2003).  Fish,  birds,  and  mammals  prey  on  them  in  

different  ecosystems  and  at  different  times  of  the  year  in  accordance  with  the  

migration  of  the  alewives.  In  their  River  Herring  Fact  Sheet  the  Maine  DMR  actually  

provides  a  list  of  the  many  predators  of  alewives  which  includes  striped  bass,  

bluefish,  tuna,  cod,  haddock,  American  eel,  brook  trout,  rainbow  trout,  brown  trout,  

salmon,  smallmouth  bass,  largemouth  bass,  pickerel,  pike,  white  and  yellow  perch,  

  29  

seabirds,  bald  eagle,  osprey,  great  blue  heron,  gulls,  terns,  cormorants,  seals,  whales,  

otter,  mink,  fox,  raccoon,  skunk,  weasel,  fisher,  and  turtles  (2008).  

                Of  particular  importance  is  the  relationship  between  alewives  and  marine  

groundfish.  Cod,  haddock,  and  striped  bass  rely  heavily  on  alewives  as  forage.  

Nedeau  (2003)  reports  that  many  scientists  speculate  that  alewife  population  

decline  from  river  damming  was  a  large  contributor  to  the  decline  of  these  

important  marine  fisheries.  The  Maine  DMR  (2008)  also  recognizes  this  and  states  

that  the  recovery  of  these  species  depends  on  restored  populations  of  alewives.  

Hanson  and  Curry  (2005)  cite  alewives’  important  ecological  role  as  members  at  the  

bottom  of  the  food  chain  as  potential  to  help  restore  countless  other  species  to  the  

Androscoggin  (Hanson  and  Curry  2005).  

Alewife  predation  is  of  course  very  important  to  predators  as  a  source  of  

nutrition,  but  it  is  also  of  great  importance  to  other  species  of  prey,  especially  the  

Atlantic  salmon.  Saunders  et  al.  (2006)  write  that  during  a  few  different  time  

periods  in  a  salmon’s  life,  alewives  serve  as  an  alternative  source  of  food  for  the  

numerous  opportunistic  birds  that  prey  upon  migrating  fish.  In  congruence,  the  

Maine  DMR  reports  that  alewives  serve  as  a  buffer  species  for  salmon  in  the  

springtime  when  alewives  are  swimming  upstream  to  spawn  and  salmon  smolt  are  

traveling  out  to  sea.  The  same  prey  buffering  occurs  again  in  the  fall  when  adult  

alewives  are  traveling  back  down  river  and  mature  salmon  are  swimming  up  to  

spawn  (DMR  2008).  Analogous  interactions  have  been  observed  by  Svenning  et  al.  

(2005)  in  Norway  where  lesser  sandeel  was  suspected  to  serve  as  an  alternative  

food  source  for  groundfish,  reducing  the  mortality  of  Atlantic  salmon.  The  study  

  30  

identified  the  stomach  contents  of  cod,  haddock,  and  several  other  potential  

predators  of  salmon  during  and  after  the  smolt  run  to  identify  the  primary  prey  

during  this  time.  In  our  research  we  have  not  found  any  similar  studies  in  Maine  that  

directly  investigate  interactions  between  alewives,  salmon,  and  predators,  but  it  

could  be  useful  to  prove  the  value  of  alewives  in  restoring  Atlantic  salmon  

populations.  

                 Another  documented  ecosystem  function  of  alewives  is  in  the  cycling  of  

nutrients  between  freshwater  and  marine  sources.  The  Gulf  of  Maine  Times  reports  

that  spawning  alewives  provide  an  influx  of  marine-­‐derived  nutrients  to  freshwater  

ecosystems  in  the  form  of  eggs,  sperm,  and  their  dead  bodies  (Nedeau  2003).  

Zooplankton,  insect  larvae,  bryozoans,  and  various  scavengers  can  then  utilize  these  

materials  for  growth.  While  the  supply  of  nutrients  to  freshwater  systems  is  

important,  an  increasingly  valuable  function  is  what  alewives  are  capable  of  

removing.  

There  has  been  some  concern  on  the  impact  that  reintroducing  alewives  

could  have  on  water  quality.  Multiple  studies  have  been  conducted  in  the  state  of  

Maine  on  this  and  none  have  found  any  negative  impacts  to  overall  water  quality  

after  reintroducing  alewives  (Kircheis  it  al.  2004,  Maine  DMR  2008).  In  fact,  Kircheis  

et  al.  (2004)  found  that  total  phosphorous  levels  were  lower  in  the  years  that  

alewives  were  stocked  than  either  before  or  after  they  were  present.  The  

mechanism  for  this  is  in  the  development  of  young  alewives.  As  the  juveniles  grow  

they  incorporate  phosphorus  into  their  bodies,  which  they  then  carry  with  them  as  

they  return  to  the  ocean.  Since  a  major  cause  of  algal  blooms  and  eutrophication  is  

  31  

phosphorus  loading  (Schindler  1977),  Enterline  and  Gray  (2013)  and  West  et  al.  

(2010)  view  alewives  as  having  the  potential  to  mitigate  these  problems  in  

freshwater  systems.  

Another  concern  of  reestablishing  alewives  in  Maine  is  the  effect  that  they  

would  have  on  the  economically  critical  smallmouth  bass  fishery.  To  address  this  

concern,  Maine  Rivers  sponsored  a  study  conducted  by  Dr.  Theo  Willis  on  the  

interaction  between  smallmouth  bass  and  alewives.  By  stocking  several  lakes  with  

alewives  for  3  years  and  studying  both  species  of  fish,  Willis  (2006)  reported  the  

following  findings:  There  was  no  difference  in  the  size  or  growth  of  young-­‐of-­‐year  

(YOY)  or  adult  smallmouths  during  the  years  when  alewives  were  present.  Growth  

was  actually  slightly  higher  in  some  cases.  In  freshwater,  alewives  consume  less  

than  0.15%  of  fish  for  food  so  alewives  were  not  significant  predators  of  bass.  This  is  

consistent  with  Scott  and  Crossman  (1973)  who  identify  the  diet  of  alewives  to  

consist  of  primarily  zooplankton  and  benthic  amphipods,  while  occasionally  

consuming  small  fish  or  fish  eggs  during  the  time  when  they  are  spawning.  Findings  

of  both  Hanson  and  Curry  (2005)  and  Willis  (2006)  also  included  that  YOY  alewives  

and  bass  had  insignificant  diet  overlap  so  they  were  not  competing  for  food.  Lastly,  

smallmouth  bass  fishing  tournaments  generated  similar  returns  from  lakes  with  and  

without  alewives,  indicating  no  significant  difference  in  the  quality  of  sport  fishing  

in  lakes  with,  or  without  alewives  (Willis  2006).  

The  Kircheis  et  al.  (2004)  report  also  found  no  change  in  size  or  growth  of  

bass  or  other  major  or  minor  sportfish  when  alewives  were  stocked  in  Lake  George.  

In  one  instance,  YOY  rainbow  trout  grew  significantly  faster  when  alewives  were  

  32  

present  in  the  lake,  which  clearly  denotes  a  beneficial  species  interaction.  These  

comprehensive  studies  strongly  indicate  that  reintroducing  alewives  will  not  

negatively  impact  the  smallmouth  bass  population  as  feared,  nor  any  other  sport  

fisheries.  

Outreach  Material  Creation  

Since  one  of  the  main  products  of  this  project  was  an  informational  

pamphlet,  we  researched  the  merits  of  brochures  what  makes  an  effective  one.  

Made  primarily  for  the  purpose  of  educating  people,  brochures  and  other  written  

materials  have  been  deemed  useful  methods  for  the  dissemination  of  information  

(Harvey  et  al  2003  Young  et  al.  1994,  Strengski  2001,  Kotowski  et  al.  2011).  

Brochures  have  been  found  to  have  the  potential  to  promote  environmentally  

responsible  behavior  because  they  increase  knowledge  about  environmental  

problems  (Young  et  al.  1994).  In  a  large  corporation,  it  is  often  the  role  of  the  public  

relations  department  to  develop  effective  communication  and  educational  materials  

(Strenski  2001).  It  is  not  enough  to  simply  present  information;  it  must  be  done  in  a  

tactful  that  optimizes  absorption  of  the  information  and  encourages  future  action  

(Young  et  al.  1994).  There  are  some  general  guidelines  for  pamphlet  creation:  

Endres  et  al.  (2002)  states  that  information  should  be  written  between  the  fourth  

and  sixth  grade  level,  so  it  is  accessible  to  all.  This  allows  information  to  be  

understood  by  the  broadest  possible  range  of  readers.  The  research  by  Young  et  al.  

(1994)  about  developing  effective  brochures  for  increasing  knowledge  of  

environmental  problems  found  that  length,  or  the  amount  of  words  in  the  brochure,  

did  not  seem  to  greatly  change  its  effectiveness.  What  they  found  to  be  important  to  

  33  

facilitate  learning  was  to  make  the  brochures  highly  mysterious  by  promising  new  

information  (Young  et  al.  1994).  This  method  keeps  readers  engaged  with  the  

information  because  they  are  not  sure  what  is  coming  next.  Young  et  al.  (1994)  and  

Harvey  et  al.  (2005)  state  that  brochures  should  be  free  of  jargon,  written  clearly  

and  concisely,  and  s  for  greatest  effects  have  a  section  that  explains  what  people  can  

do  to  help  the  situation.  This  is  connected  to  the  discussion  by  Kotokski  et  al.  (2011)  

on  perceived  efficacy,  which  creates  the  perception  that  a  situation  can  be  avoided  

or  ameliorated  by  performing  a  task.  Young  et  al.  (1994)  show  that  headings  and  

subheadings  are  important  for  brochure  comprehension,  as  are  keys,  photographs,  

and  charts  .  Once  we  were  assured  of  the  legitimacy  and  effectiveness  of  a  brochure,  

we  proceeded  to  learn  how  to  make  such  a  product.    

Native  Species  Restoration  

Research  and  papers  about  the  reintroduction  of  native  species  have  

continuously  been  on  the  rise  since  the  early  1990s.    As  more  non-­‐native  species  

infiltrate  ecosystems  and  certain  species  are  lost  due  to  human  involvement,  

scientists  have  become  more  involved  in  projects  that  deal  with  these  

issues.    However,  animal  reintroductions  are  still  typically  focused  on  restoring  the  

population  of  one  species  instead  of  improving  an  ecosystem  as  a  whole  (Seddon  et  

al.  2007).    Species  reintroduction  is  a  complex  process  that  requires  extensive  

research  because  the  introduction  of  any  species  can  have  rippling  effects  on  other  

species  and  aspects  of  ecosystems  (Lipsey  and  Child  2007).    Information  on  the  

effect  of  a  species  loss  in  an  ecosystem  is  difficult  to  obtain  because  there  usually  is  

not  any  data  gathered  prior  to  the  loss  of  the  species  (Loreau  et  al.  

  34  

2001).    Therefore,  it  is  imperative  not  to  assume  that  the  reintroduction  of  a  species  

is  inherently  positive  as  there  are  multiple  issues  that  could  arise  with  the  efforts  to  

bring  a  species  back  into  a  system  that  has  adapted  to  its  absence.    There  are  several  

prominent  issues  that  warrant  discussion.    One  issue  that  needs  to  be  acknowledged  

is  the  possible  transmission  of  diseases  to  local  species  that  would  not  otherwise  be  

exposed  to  such  viruses  (Viggers  et  al.  1993).    A  second  major  issue  that  needs  to  be  

investigated  is  the  interactions  of  the  introduced  species  with  other  local  species  

and  any  potential  resource  competition  between  the  species.    In  addition,  the  

reintroduced  species  can  actively  predate  on  other  local  species  as  well  as  change  

the  general  ecology  of  the  systems  they  are  introduced  to.    These  could  all  have  

major  implications  for  ecosystems  and  therefore  require  in-­‐depth  examination  

(Carrera  et  al.  2008).  

It  is  important  to  acknowledge  that  species  reintroduction  research  may  be  

biased.      As  Schlaepfer  et  al.  (2011)  note,  several  authors  have  discussed  the  issue  

that  despite  the  effort  of  scientists  to  present  bias-­‐free  work,  a  bias  against  non-­‐

native  species  can  permeate  their  work  as  part  of  a  broader  cultural  prejudice  

(Slobodkin  2001;  Gurevitch  and  Padilla  2004;  Stromber  et  al.  2009).    These  biases  

are  often  apparent  in  the  expectations  about  the  “fundamental  values  of  nonnative  

species,  the  language  used  to  describe  them,  and  the  types  of  studies  conducted”  in  

general  (Schlaepfer  et  al.  2011).    One  example  that  Schlaepfer  et  al.  (2011)  discuss  is  

a  landmark  study  in  which  the  response  of  “biological  diversity  to  several  natural  

and  anthropogenic  drivers  were  predicted  and  non-­‐native  species  were  only  

considered  as  potential  threats”,  not  as  contributors  to  an  area’s  abundance  of  

  35  

life.    This  can  also  be  seen  in  studies  when  an  “index  of  biotic  integrity”  is  used  and  

the  presence  of  non-­‐native  species  lowers  the  index,  even  when  they  have  little  or  

no  measurable  ecological  effect  (Parker  et  al.  1999).    Even  vocabulary  used  to  

describe  non-­‐native  species  in  scientific  literature  is  regularly  dispersed  with  

military  words  like  “invasive”  (Larson  2005).    It  is  not  necessarily  clear  what  effects  

these  biases  could  have  but  it  can  be  assumed  that  as  a  result  there  is  more  research  

aimed  at  proving  the  negative  effects  of  non-­‐native  species  than  the  potential  

economic  or  ecological  benefits  they  could  have.  As  Polak  and  Saltz  (2001)  state,  

“we  believe  a  systematic  approach  to  examining  the  effects  of  reintroductions  on  

ecosystem  functions  is  no  less  important  than  conserving  the  reintroduced  species”.  

Seddon  et  al.  (2007)  discuss  how  there  is  space  to  improve  reintroduction  biology  

through  increased  use  of  modeling  and  experiments.    They  cite  several  examples  as  

to  how  to  improve  approaches  to  reintroduction  such  as  research  that  includes  

experimental  studies  of  captive-­‐bred  animals  as  well  as  simulation  and  spatial  

models  that  help  isolate  factors  affecting  the  success  of  reintroduced  

populations.    Seddon  et  al.  (2007)  recommend  that  researchers  who  are  anticipating  

reintroducing  species  in  the  future  need  to  “carefully  determine  prior  goals,  overall  

ecological  purpose,  and  inherent  technical  and  biological  limitations  of  a  given  

reintroduction  and  that  the  evaluation  processes  incorporate  both  experimental  and  

modeling  approaches”.    They  also  suggest  that  interdisciplinary  work  will  allow  the  

most  progress  to  be  made  as  resource  managers,  communities,  and  scientists  

collaborate  together  for  the  best  results  (Seddon  et  al.  2007).    

 

  36  

APPENDIX  B:  Detailed  Methods  

Interviews-­‐    

We  reached  out  to  a  number  of  local  specialists  to  discuss  with  them  their  

thoughts  alewives,  as  pertaining  to  their  field  of  knowledge.  Unfortunately,  we  were  

not  overwhelmingly  successful  in  getting  responses  to  our  questions.  We  tried  to  

contact  Claire  Enterline,  Naomi  Schalit,  Michael  Brown,  and  John  Lichter.  We  made  

these  contacts  based  on  recommendations  both  other  individuals,  primarily  Neil.  

This  speaks  to  the  importance  of  making  and  keeping  connections  in  the  world  of  

work  and  research.  

When  reaching  out  to  community  members,  we  first  introduced  our  project  

and  ourselves.  We  stated  that  we  are  a  group  of  Environmental  Studies  students  

from  Bates  College  working  on  a  Community  Engaged  Research  Project.  We  

explained  that  we  are  working  with  the  Androscoggin  River  Alliance  and  Neil  Ward  

to  learn  more  about  alewives  in  Maine,  especially  pertaining  to  their  reintroduction.  

We  never  explicitly  stated  that  we  were  working  to  provide  the  ARA  with  

information  to  eventually  overturn  the  legislation.  We  gave  experts  the  option  to  

communicate  with  us  by  phone,  email,  or  in  person.  

 

The  following  questions  are  what  we  initially  asked  to  each  specialist,  and  were  then  

followed  by  questions  more  pertinent  to  their  field.  

1.  Do  you  know  the  impetus  behind  the  1995  legislation  involving  Hogan  and  

Whitney  Pond?  

2.  What  do  you  think  would  be  the  effect  of  alewife  restoration  on  water  quality?  

  37  

3.  Do  you  think  there  is  any  relationship  among  the  bass  population  and  bass  

fisheries  and  alewives?  

4.  What  do  you  think  the  biggest  positive  and  negative  effects  of  alewife  

reintroduction  are  on  the  ecosystem?  On  the  economy?  

5.  Who  do  you  think  the  main  stakeholders  are  in  the  alewife  reintroduction  issue?  

And  opponents  of  change?  

6.  Can  you  provide  us  with  any  studies  done  on  the  St.  Croix  river?  

7.  Is  there  any  relevant  information  that  you  can  recommend  for  our  research?  

 

Other  information  sources  

As  a  group,  we  also  attended  several  information  sessions  that  directly  or  indirectly  

related  to  our  project,  in  order  to  expand  our  knowledge.  

We  all  attended  a  discussion  with  Steve  Shepard  of  the  US  Fish  and  Wildlife  Service  

(FWS),  related  to  FERC  licensing.  On  November  13,  2013.  Below  are  the  main  points  

we  discussed.  

                -­‐St.  Croix  river  history:  alewives,  bass,  bass  fishermen,  dams,  dam  removal  

                -­‐  the  politics  of  legislation  regarding  natural  issues  

                -­‐Dams  on  Little  Androscoggin-­‐  regulations,  exemptions,  settlements  

                -­‐Presumscot  River,  Sebasticook  Lake,  Gulf  Island  Pond  

                -­‐Cost  of  fish  passage  in  a  dam  

                -­‐Ecosystem  based  management  vs.  Endangered  Species  Act  

  38  

Two  of  us  attended  a  talk  by  Colin  Apse  and  Dave  Owen  called  “The  Penobscot  River  

Restoration  Project  and  the  Future  of  Hydropower  Policy  and  Law”  on  November  

11,  2013.  Below  are  the  main  points  of  the  talk  as  related  to  our  project.  

                -­‐dam  removal  on  the  Penobscot-­‐success  

                -­‐  alewives  as  critical  for  lobster  bait  in  the  spring  

-­‐overall,  provided  pertinent  information  about  dam  removal  in  ecological,  

political,  and  legal  realms.  

Landowner  Information  

In  order  to  gather  landowner  information,  we  made  two  trips  to  the  Oxford  Town  

office  on  October  30  and  November  1,  2013.  The  Oxford  Code  Enforcer,  Rodney  

Smith,  was  crucial  in  gathering  this  information  because  he  showed  us  how  to  

gather  the  information  and  answered  our  questions.  Below  is  our  gathering  process.  

1.          Look  at  large  map  to  discern  which  sections  border  Hogan  and  Whitney  ponds-­‐  

U19-­‐U23,  U27-­‐U31.  

2.          Look  at  smaller  map,  connect  parcel  number  to  landowner  information  in  

Landowner  Binder  and  record  information  on  spreadsheet.  See  Figure  1.  

3.          Connect  landowner  name  to  tax  information.  Record  information  on  

spreadsheet.  

4.          Compile  final  spreadsheet.  See  appendix  G  

5.          The  information  recorded  is:  

a.          Landowner  name  

b.          Property  address  

c.            Vacant  or  residential  

  39  

d.          Owner’s  primary  address  

e.          Data  of  last  transfer  of  ownership  

f.            Assessed  land  value  

g.          Assessed  total  value  

h.          Tax  value  

Legislation  

In  order  to  gather  the  exact  legislation  and  testimony,  we  contacted  the  Maine  State  

Law  and  Legislative  Reference  Library.  They  gave  us  information  about  the  

Androscoggin  and  St.  Croix  Legislation.  There  was  too  much  information  to  email  for  

the  Androscoggin  legislation,  so  it  was  sent  to  us  through  the  mail  on  a  CD.  

See  Appendix  F  for  summaries  of  legislation  and  testimonies.  

                                               

  40  

APPENDIX  C:  Graphs    

 Figure  1  shows  the  percentage  of  properties  around  Hogan  and  Whitney  Ponds  that  are  vacant  relative  to  those  that  are  residential.  Over  three  quarters  of  the  land  is  residential.      

 Figure  2  shows  the  percentage  of  properties  around  Hogan  and  Whitney  Ponds  that  are  owned  by  Maine  residents  relative  to  the  percentage  that  are  owned  by  out-­‐of-­‐staters.  Over  two  thirds  of  the  plots  are  owned  by  Mainers.    

  41  

 Figure  3  illustrates  the  percentage  of  landowners  that  live  on  their  land  relative  to  the  percentage  of  landowners  that  live  elsewhere.  The  orange  section  of  the  chart  represents  the  percentage  of  people  whose  residential  address  was  not  listed,  but  have  an  Oxford  PO  box.  We  are  making  the  assumption  that  this  group  of  people  lives  on  the  land.  Even  considering  this  group,  the  number  of  landowners  who  live  on  their  land  year  round  is  less  than  25%.                                        

  42  

APPENDIX  D,  Figure  4.  Map      

       

  43  

     APPENDIX  E:  Pamphlet  

 

What is an alewife?

Alewives are an anadramous species of river herring. Maine alewives spend the majority of their lives in the Atlantic Ocean, but return to fresh waters as adults to spawn in the same lakes and ponds where they were born. They feed primarily on small invertebrate zooplankton and do not tend to grow longer than twelve inches. Males generally reach maturity at four years old and females at five.

How you can help

To voice support for alewife restoration, contact your local state representative or senator. To become involved in efforts in your community, contact the Androscoggin River Alliance via their website: http://www.cleanandroscoggin.org/

Further Reading

To learn more about the importance of alewives in Maine, visit these websites: http://www.seagrant.umaine.edu/files/pdf-global/08CSalewivesMBHH.pdf http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/perspectives/262286/restoration-of-the-alewife http://www.maine.gov/dmr/searunfish/alewife/

Land

owne

r O

xfor

d M

E

O

AR

A

Nei

l War

d Le

eds,

ME

[Tel

epho

ne]

Fax

[Fax

]

The Importance of Alewives

Androscoggin River Watershed

Getting to know your river

  44  

   APPENDIX  F:  Legislative  Summaries    Summary  Androscoggin  Alewife  Legislation  1. Language  of  the  proposed  amendment:  “alewives  may  not  be  stocked  in  Hogan  

Pond  or  Whitney  Pond  in  the  Town  of  Oxford.”    Additionally,  alewives  may  not  be  stocked  in  any  waters  that  drain  into  Hogan  Pond,  Whitney  Pond,  or  Tripp  Pond,  into  the  brook  that  goes  into  these  ponds,  or  in  the  Little  Androscoggin  upstream  of  Welchville  Dam.    

2. Testimony  Sign-­‐  In    Name   Affiliation   Proponent  or  

Opponent  Rep  Underwood   Sponsor   Proponent  Rep  Snowe-­‐  Mello   Co  sponsor   Proponent  Glen  Steves    Smulter  (moderately  

illegible)  Proponent  

Ken  Record   Norway,  ME   Proponent  Norm  Staples   Oxford,  ME   Proponent  Richard  Varney   2  lakes  camping  Oxford  

ME  Proponent  

Miriam  Foster   Oxford,  ME   Proponent  Pat  Kelliher   CCA   Opponent  Lewis  Flagg   Scientist  DMR   Opponent  

Economic value

Since the mid-2000s, the Maine Department of Marine Resources has routinely conducted studies estimating the potential economic value of the alewife industry in the Androscoggin watershed. These estimates are based on the number of alewives that would exist were the species to be restored to its optimal capacity within its historical habitat. Using data on average size and market value, the DMR’s most recent prediction is that the total economic value of the industry would be between $160,740 and $177,660. This estimate refers to the alewife industry alone, and does not reflect the economic benefits of alewives as population-boosters for other species.

Ecological value

Relationships with other species

Alewives are an important buffer species. That is, when alewives are present in large numbers, predators such as osprey, eagles, and gulls will prey on them. This makes it less likely that predators will have a significant effect on populations of other species, such as salmon, trout, and bass.

Alewives are also an important forage species. They are preyed on by larger groundfish. Bass fishermen have expressed some concern that alewives prey on juvenile smallmouth bass. However, recent investigations in the St. Croix river show that at no stage in their development do alewives prey on smallmouth bass, and in fact smallmouth bass prey on alewives throughout their lifecycle.

Impacts on water quality

Studies conducted in the St. Croix River, Lake George, and Sebasticook Lake reveal that alewives have no negative affect on water quality. Alewives are net exporters of phosphorous. Phosphorous loading in lakes and ponds can lead to algal blooms and eutrophication. The presence of alewives can work to mitigate threats in areas with high phosphorous levels, which can lead to algal blooms and compromise ecosystem health.

Historical role

As a native species, alewives have been an important fixture of Androscoggin life since before the Colonial Era. Alewives have a high fat and omega-3 content, and were a crucial food source for settlers in the spring months when other food stocks were low. Since this time, industrialization has taken a toll on the alewife population in the Androscoggin, especially with water pollution and the construction of dams. Fortunately though, as a result of increasing regulations such as the Clean Water Act of 1972, the potential now exists for alewives to be restored to their native habitat. Presently, alewives are primarily used as lobster bait because they are inexpensive and last a long time in traps. They are also used in some pet foods and to make fish meal and fish oil.

Alewives in Maine

Alewives in the St. Croix River: photo taken in 2012 by John Burrows

  45  

Matt  Scott   IFW  deputy  commissioner  

Opponent    

The  following  sections  are  testimony.  To  the  best  of  our  abilities,  we  have  tried  to  indicate  whether  the  testimony  is  for,  against,  or  neutral  to  the  legislation.    3. History  of  DMR  alewife  research.  Concludes  with  “Based  on  current  knowledge  

of  alewife  stocking  densities  and  follow-­‐up  surveys  on  effects  on  fresh  water  fisheries,  there  was  no  impact  from  the  introduction  of  six  alewives  per  acre  on  fresh  water  fisheries  and/  or  water  quality.”  Includes  map  of  ponds  and  scientific  data  

a. Opponent  of  legislation  4. Letter  to  Lewis  Staples  from  John  Boland,  Regional  Fishery  Biologist.    

a. Does  not  attribute  decreased  large  bass  population  alewife  stocking,  but  adds  that  there  is  not  enough  data  to  provide  a  wholly  accurate  picture  of  all  fish  populations  in  these  waters  

i. Opponent  of  legislation  5. The  fisheries  and  fishery  industries  in  the  United  States    

a. Provides  alewife  information  specific  to  Maine  waterways.  i. Neutral  to  legislation  

6. Informational  page  about  alewives-­‐  with  names  and  contact  information  handwritten  in    

a. Neutral  7. “Predation  by  Alewives  on  Lake  Trout  Fry  in  Lake  Ontario.  Role  of  Exotic  Species  

in  Preventing  Restoration  of  a  Native  Species”  a. Research  that  shows  alewives  inhibit  Lake  Trout  restoration.  The  two  

contexts  to  no  match  because  alewives  are  native  to  the  Androscoggin  and  not  to  Lake  Ontario.      

i. Proponent  of  legislation    8. “Naturally  Occurring  Thiamine  Deficiency  Causing  Reproductive  Failure  in  

Finger  Lakes  Atlantic  Salmon  and  Great  Lakes  Lake  Trout”  a. research  that  shows  a  vitamin  deficiency  causes  complete  reproduction  

failure  of  an  animal  population,  presumably  because  this  population  eats  alewives,  which  are  non  native  forage  fishes  that  exhibit  high  thiaminase  activity.    

i. Proponent  of  legislation  9. “Effect  of  B-­‐  Vitamins  on  a  Swim-­‐  Up  Syndrome  in  Lake  Ontario  Lake  Trout”  

a. Presence  of  swim-­‐up  syndrome  in  Lake  Trout  is  related  to  presence  of  alewives  who  have  ahigh  thiaminase  content  in  their  diet.  Discusses  Lake  Trout  reproductive  failure.    

i. Proponent  of  legislation  10. “A  Tale  from  the  Boneyard”  

a. Article  from  Field  and  Stream  about  abundance  of  salmon  i. Neutral  to  legislation  

11. Amendment  to  LD  993  Offered  by  Representative  Underwood  March  12,  19967  a. Proposes  ideas  on  allowing  restocking  of  alewives  in  Ponds  with  very  

specific  stipulations:  by  February  1st  of  each  year,  must  submit  report  to  

  46  

Department  of  Inland  Fisheries  and  Wildlife  about  pond  name,  number  of  alewives  proposed,  purpose  of  stocking,  and  biological  justification  

i. Proponent  of  legislation  12. Testimony  by  Pat  Keliher,  executive  director  of  Coastal  Conservation  Association    

a. Opponent  of  legislation  b. Sets  bad  precedent  for  prohibition  of  future  anadramous  fish  stocking  

programs    c. Attached  studies  that  show  no  adverse  effects  of  alewives,  only  benefits.  

Need  to  do  work  based  on  science,  not  misunderstanding  i. Opponent  of  legislation    

13. Testimony  by  Representative  Lois  Snowe-­‐  Mello  a. Believes  the  legislation  should  be  enacted  to  “preserve  the  health  and  to  

protect  other  fish  that  are  in  danger  because  of  alewives”    b. Provides  some  scientific  backing  

i. Proponent  of  legislation    14. Testimony  by  Trout  Unlimited  State  Council  Chairman,  Sean  McCormick  

a. Discusses  lack  of  understanding  of  issue  by  individuals  that  proposed  the  bill,  cites  study  from  Lake  George,  speaks  to  commercial  value,  and  importance  of  reintroducing  a  native  species.    

i. Opponent  of  legislation  15. Testimony  by  Oxford  resident:  Richard  Varney  

a. Speaks  primarily  emotional  and  observational  experience    i. Proponent  of  legislation    

16. Information  by  Lewis  Flagg,  Director  of  Anadromous  Fish  Division    a. Provides  historical  evidence  of  alewives  in  Hogan  Pond  

i. Opponent  of  legislation  17. Information  from  Frederick  Kircheis,  Fishery  Research  Biologist    

a. Report  on  alewife  introduction  study  from  Lake  George  b. Preliminary  results  that  state  alewives  have  no  effect  on  water  quality,  

but  more  analysis  of  results  must  be  done.    i. Opponent  of  legislation    

18. Committee  Amendment  that  “prohibits  the  stocking  of  alewives  in  Tripp  Pond  in  Poland,  in  Hogan  Pond  and  Whitney  Pond  in  Oxford,  in  an  waters  that  drain  into  those  ponds,  in  the  brook  the  drains  those  ponds  and  in  the  Little  Androscoggin  River  upstream  of  the  Welchville  dam.”  

19. Committee  Voting  Tally  Sheet  a. Ought  to  pass  as  amended  March  26,  1007  

Name   Vote  in  favor?   Absent?  Sen  Kilkelly   X    Sen  Ruhlin     X  Sen  Hall     X  Rep  Paul   X    Rep  Clark   X    Rep  Chick   X    Rep  Dunlap   X    

  47  

Rep  Underwood   X    Rep  True     X  Rep  Usher   X    Rep  Goodwin     X  Rep  Cross   X    Rep  Perkins   X    TOTALS   9   4        

20. Decision:  Ought  to  pass  as  amended  by  Committee  Amendment      Summary  St.  Croix  Legislation  Summary  of  St.  Croix  Alewife  Legislation-­‐  

1.  Language  of  the  proposed  amendment:      LD-­‐0072-­‐    “By  May  1,  2013,  the  commissioner  and  the  Commissioner  of  Inland  Fisheries  and  Wildlife  shall  ensure  that  the  fishways  on  the  Woodland  Dam  and  the  Grand  Falls  Dam  located  on  the  St.  Croix  River  are  configured  or  operated  in  a  manner  that  allows  the  unconstrained  passage  of  river  herring”  

2.  Bill  presented  by  Representative  Soctomah  of  the  Passamaquoddy  Tribe.  

Cosponsored  by  Senators  Jackson  of  Aroostook,    Dutremble  of  York  and  Representatives:  Ayotte  of  Caswell,  Bear  of  the  Houlton  Band  of  Maliseet  Indians,  Beaudoin  of  Biddeford,  Berry  of  Bowdoinham,  Doak  of  Columbia  Falls,  Mitchell  of  the  Penobscot  Nation,  Parry  of  Arundel,  

3. Testimony  Sign-­‐In-­‐  Name  or  Organization   Affiliation   Proponent  or  Opponent  Rep  Madonna  Soctomah   sponsor   Proponent  Senator  David  C.  Burns   District  29   Neither  Rep  Katherine  Cassidy   District  32   Proponent  Rep  Bruce  MacDonald   District  61   Proponent  Rep  Beth  Turner   Joint  Standing  Committee  

on  Marine  Resources  Opponent  

Tribal  Rep  Henry  John  Bear  

Cosponsor/  Band  of  Maliseet  Indians  

Proponent  

Dennis  Damon   Trenton   Proponent  Roger  Wheeler     Director  of  Friends  of  

Sebago  Lake  Proponent  

Government  of  Canada   Canada   Proponent  

Lana  Pollack   United  Sates  Chair  in  Fish  and  wildlife  Services  

Proponent  

Richard  Behr   Smallmouth  Bass  Guide   Proponent  Paul  Laney   owner  of  Laney’s  Guide  

Service  Opponent  

  48  

Don  Kleiner   Executive  Director  of  Maine  Professional  Guides  Association  

Opponent  

Alicia  Heyburn   citizen   Proponent  Patrice  McCarron   Executive  Director    of  

Maine  Lobsterman’s  Association    

Proponent  

Andrew  Cadot   citizen   Proponent  Maine  Coast  Heritage  Trust   Maine  Coast  Heritage  

Trust  Proponent  

Natural  Resources  Council  of  Maine  

Natural  Resources  Council  of  Maine  

Proponent  

Landis  Hudson   Executive  Director  of  Maine  Rivers  

Proponent  

Sheila  Dassat     Executive  Director  of  Downeast  Lobsterman’s  Association  

Proponent  

Conservation  Law  Foundation  

Conservation  Law  Foundation  

Proponent  

The  Nature  Conservancy   The  Nature  Conservancy   Proponent  Peter  Roberts   Chairman  of  Phippsburg  

Center  Pond  Alewife  Committee  

Proponent  

Harry  Bailey   owner  of  Bailey’s  Camp   Opponent  Jamie  Lewey   Maine  Indian  Tribal  state  

Commission  Chair  Proponent  

Diane  Cowen   Senior  scientist  for  the  Lobster  Conservancy  

Proponent  

Dr.  Theodore  Willis   USM  Environmental  Science  Professor  

Proponent  

Edward  Bassett   member  of  the  Passamaquoddy  Tribe  

Proponent  

Ben  Martens    

Executive  Director  of  Maine  Coast  Fisherman’s  Association  

Proponent  

George  Lapointe   12  Years  as  Commissioner  of  Marine  Resources  

Proponent  

Jeffrey  Pierce   alewife  fisherman   Proponent  Anne  Burt   Director  of  Maine  Council  

of  Churches  Proponent  

Dale  Tobey   Vice  President  of  Maine  Professional  Guide  Association  

Opponent  

  49  

John  Burrows    

Director  of  the  New  Brunswick  Programs  for  the  Atlantic  Salmon  Federation  

Proponent  

Macauley  Lord   registered  fishing  guide   Proponent  Brenda  Commander   Tribal  Chief  of  Houlton  

Band  of  Maliseet  Indians  Proponent  

4.    Testimony  of  Passamaquoddy  Tribal  Rep.  Madonna  Soctomah  A. Proponent  B. River  herring  have  held  importance  for  her  people  for  hundreds  of  years.      C. River  herring  don’t  interfere  with  small  mouth  bass  populations  and  the  

misguided  legislation  blocks  them  from  98%  of  their  spawning  ground.  5. Testimony  of  Senator  David  C.  Burns  

A. Neither  for  nor  against  but  acknowledges  that  the  issue  is  extremely  complex  and  has  many  sides.  

6. Testimony  of  Rep.  Katherine  Cassidy  A.  Proponent  B. Was  asked  to  reconsider  position  on  bill  by  Maine  fishing  guides  and  

sports  camps.    She  is  still  for  it  and  thinks  the  economic  benefits  will  out  way  the  costs  for  the  fishing  guide  industry  

7.  Testimony  of  Rep.  Bruce  MacDonald  A. Proponent  B. Many  scientific  studies  show  that  sea-­‐run  alewives  do  not  pose  a  threat  to  

sport  fish  like  the  small  mouth  bass.    It  is  important  to  restore  the  ecology  of  the  river  and  numerous  native  bird  and  mammal  species  depend  on  the  alewife  as  a  food  source.  

8.  Map  of  St.  Croix  watershed  9.  Testimony  of  Rep.  Beth  Turner  from  the  Joint  Standing  Committee  on  Marine  

Resources    A.  Opponent  B. Argues  that  the  benefits  of  alewife  restoration  will  not  outweigh  the  

potential  damage  that  could  happen.      C. Commercial  Sporting  Camps  and  the  Guiding  industry  are  vital  for  the  

economic  stability  of  the  region.    Could  possibly  spread  the  VEN  virus  to  local  fisheries  and  economically  damage  the  sporting  industries.  

10.  Picture  of  fly  fishing  on  the  river  11.  Testimony  of  Tribal  representative  Henry  John  Bear,  Houlton  Band  of  

Maliseet  Indians  A.  Proponent  

  50  

B. Describes  the  historical  and  cultural  importance  of  alewives  to  the  Maliseet  Indians  as  well  as  the  description  the  Commissioner  of  Fisheries  gave  about  the  population  plummet  of  anadromous  fish  in  the  1800s  as  dams  were  constructed  on  the  river.      

C. Says  colonial  government  policy  was  to  build  dams  so  that  the  Wabanki  peoples  would  be  pushed  to  a  more  settle  dependent  way  of  life.      

12.  Testimony  of  Dennis  Damon  from  Trenton,  Maine  A. Proponent  B. Member  of  the  Maine  Sea  Coast  Mission  and  the  Penobscot  East  Resource  

Center  but  speaking  as  a  concerned  citizen.    The  St  Croix  has  the  potential  to  host  22  million  alewives  and  there  is  no  scientific  proof  that  they  negatively  affect  other  fish  populations  

13.  Testimony  of  Roger  Wheeler  Director  of  Friends  of  Sebago  Lake  A. Proponent  B. Blasts  the  findings  that  alewives  damage  ecosystems  because  they  are  a  

native  species.  Discusses  the  importance  of  alewives  on  diatoms  because  as  bigger  fish  chase  them  they  stir  up  silica  which  the  diatoms  need.      

14.  Letter  from  the  Government  of  Canada  A. Proponent  B. Has  long  wanted  the  St  Croix  waters  to  be  reopened  for  alewives  and  

thinks  it  would  benefit  both  countries.    Says  both  American  and  Canadian  research  has  shown  that  alewives  play  important  role  in  ecology  of  water  for  both  nutrients  and  food.      

15.  Cap  Log  Group  report  on  economic  benefits  of  alewives  to  bait  fisheries  from  direct  sale  and  cost  savings  to  lobsterman.    Improves  ground  fisheries,  bird  watching,  and  alewife  runs  could  become  attraction  themselves.    Lowers  the  risk  of  introducing  diseases  and  pathogens  by  not  having  to  import  bait.    Bait  sales  from  optimal  alewife  population  could  be  $1.8  million.      

16.  An  Engineer’s  Report  by  Steven  J.  Whitman.    P.E./P.L.S.  A.  Reports  about  the  St.  Croix  River,  the  falls,  and  the  dams.    Determining  

the  velocity  of  the  water  throughout  history  by  looking  at  old  pictures  and  reports.      

B. Says  that  if  there  were  anadromous  alewives  above  Grand  falls  before  the  dams  were  built  then  there  would  be  an  established  landlocked  population  in  lakes,  like  in  the  Great  Lakes  after  canal  construction.      

17.  Appendix  A  –  lists  several  pages  of  information  about  the  lakes  on  the  river/watershed  such  as  depth  and  temperature.  

18.  Testimony  of  Lana  Pollack,  United  Sates  Chair  in  Fish  and  wildlife  Services,  United  States  Department  of  the  Interior  

  51  

A.  Proponent  of  unfettered  access  for  alewives  as  there  is  no  scientific  data  to  date  that  proves  alewives  have  a  negative  impact  on  water  quality,  zooplankton  populations,  or  smallmouth  bass  populations.      

19.  Richard  Behr  from  Vassalboro,  Maine  A.  Proponent    B. He  is  a  smallmouth  bass  guide  who  does  not  think  that  alewives  inhibit  

bass  fisheries  but  actually  enhance  them.      20.  Testimony  of  Paul  Laney,  owner  of  Laney’s  Guide  Service  

A.  Opponent  B. Alewives  eat  all  the  plankton  so  that  rainbow  smelt  get  outcompeted  and  

then  the  salmon  fisheries  decline  in  landlocked  lakes  21.  Testimony  of  Don  Kleiner,    Maine  Professional  guides  Association  Executive  

Director  A. Opponent  B. Even  if  alewives  are  historically  native  the  habitat  and  ecosystem  has  

changed  so  that  it  won’t  be  able  to  support  the  population  of  alewives  that  will  exceed  anything  possible  in  the  past.    Worried  about  new  diseases  and  drastically  changing  the  stable  ecosystem.  

22.  Alicia  Heyburn,  citizen  A. Proponent  B. They  are  valuable  both  culturally/historically  and  for  the  ecology  and  

economy  of  Maine  23.  Testimony  of  Patrice  McCarron,  Executive  Director  of  Maine  Lobsterman’s  

Association    A.  Proponent  B. The  primary  source  of  bait  for  lobsterman  is  herring  and  menhaden  

whose  fishing  quotas  have  been  cut  in  half.    Lobster  industry  generates  about  a  billion  dollars  in  economic  activity  for  Maine.    Will  hurt  lobsterman  industry  if  not  enacted.  

24.  Andrew  Cadot,  citizen  A. Proponent  B. Osprey  and  eagle  populations  have  soared  where  other  Maine  rivers  have  

been  opened  for  alewives.      25. Maine  Coast  Heritage  Trust-­‐  proponent  26.  Natural  Resources  Council  of  Maine  

A. Proponent  B. Fish  passageways  are  already  there  and  just  need  to  be  opened.    Would  

benefit  lobsterman  and  has  native  tribal  support  

  52  

Attachment  A:  International  Joint  Commission  discussed  decline  of  eagle  and  osprey  populations  after  law  banning  alewives  Attachment  B:  IFW  eagle  biologist  Charlie  Todd  describes  the  eagle  and  osprey  populations  are  soaring  in  the  Sebasticook  River  where  alewives  are  recovering  Attachment  C:    IFW  survey  of  Weber  Pond  in  Bremen.    Alewives  exist  with  a  health  smallmouth  bass  population  Attachment  D:  Portland  Press  Herald  Article  backing  up  the  legislation  Attachment  E:  An  opponent  of  alewife  restoration,  Don  Kleiner  who  is  Executive  Director  of  Maine  Professional  Guides  Association,  is  quoted  as  saying  the  alewives  in  St  George  River  watershed  help  his  small  mouth  bass  guiding  business  

27.  Testimony  of  Landis  Hudson,  Executive  Driector  of  Maine  Rivers  A. Proponent  B. Alewives  are  a  keystone  species  and  the  comparisons  of  these  alewives  to  

the  Great  Lake  alewife  populations  are  not  relevant  as  they  are  distinct  species.  

28.  Testimony  of  Sheila  Dassat,  Executive  Director  of  Downeast  Lobsterman’s  Association  A. Proponent  B. They  think  that  sport  fishing  should  not  stand  in  the  way  of  alewife  

introduction.    Historically  alewives  would  have  been  able  to  go  past  Grand  falls  because  it  was  shallow  waters  that  did  not  have  a  steep  rise.      

29.  Conservation  Law  Foundation  A. Proponent    B. The  original  decision  to  ban  alewives  was  made  by  fear,  bad  management,  

and  bad  science.  30.  The  Nature  Conservancy  

A. Proponent  B. Restoring  native  habitat  for  sea-­‐running  fish  is  one  of  their  top  priorities.    

They  provide  their  scientific  opinion  that  the  bill  will  ensure  compatibility  in  the  ecosystem  

31.  Testimony  of  Peter  Roberts,  Chairman  of  Phippsburg  Center  Pond  Alewife  Committee  A. Proponent  B. Alewives  have  ecological  and  anthropological  importance  and  the  EPA  

dictated  that  the  river  needed  to  be  opened  to  river  herring.      32.  Testimony  of  Harry  Bailey,  owner  of  Bailey’s  Camp  on  Big  Lake  

A. Opponent  says  the  fishery  increased  after  the  dams  were  built  and  blocked  alewives  so  its  proof  that  alewives  have  a  negative  effect.    Describes  alewives  as  nonnative  species  

  53  

33.  Jamie  Lewey,  Maine  Indian  Tribal  state  Commission  Chair  A. Proponent  

34.  Diane  Cowen,  Senior  scientist  for  the  Lobster  Conservancy  A. Proponent  

35.  Dr.  Theodore  Willis,  USM  Environmental  Science  Professor    A. Proponent  B. Argues  that  It  made  sense  to  close  passageways  to  alewives  as  a  

precautionary  measure  but  in  the  multiple  decades  since  there  has  been  enough  science  to  warrant  a  reopening  

C. Present  many  graphs  and  scientific  data  36.  Handout  titled  The  Amazing  Alewife  37. Testimony  of  Edward  Bassett,  member  of  the  Passamaquoddy  Tribe  

A.  Proponent  B. Discusses  his  tales  of  fishing  for  Pollock  with  his  Dad  and  his  beliefs  that  

alewives  could  help  restore  the  Pollock  population  38.  Maps  of  the  Passamaquoddy  tribal  land  and  information  about  their  history  39. Testimony  of  Ben  Martens,  Executive  Director  of  Maine  Coast  Fisherman’s  

Association  A. Proponent  B. Describes  his  belief  that  the  restoration  of  alewives  will  be  beneficial  for  

ground  fisheries  and  help  the  fishing  industry  40.  Testimony  of  George  Lapointe,  12  Years  as  Commissioner  of  Marine  

Resources  A. Proponent  B. The  original  decrease  in  bass  populations  was  due  to  a  draw  in  the  lake  

that  limited  fry  habitat  41.  Testimony  of  Jeffrey  Pierce,  alewife  fisherman  

A. Proponent  B. Distinguishes  between  landlocked  alewives  and  sea  run  alewives  which  

he  argues  are  completely  different  42.  Testimony  of  Anne  Burt,  Director  of  Maine  Council  of  Churches  

A. Proponent  B.  The  Council  runs  a  Fish  and  Loaves  program  which  engages  communities  

and  offers  them  opportunities  to  have  affordable  food  sources  that  also  help  the  local  economies  of  communities.    They  believe  that  alewives  could  be  a  healthy  addition  

43. Testimony  of  Dale  Tobey,  Vice  President  of  Maine  Professional  Guide  Association  A. Opponent  B. Argues  that  alewives  will  hurt  the  fisheries  but  doesn’t  have  any  evidence  

  54  

44. Testimony  of  John  Burrows,  Director  of  the  New  Brunswick  Programs  for  the  Atlantic  Salmon  Federation  A. Proponent  B. Discusses  the  history  of  alewives  and  their  potential  to  reach  up  to  20  

million  fish  in  the  watershed  C. Alewives  will  help  the  Salmon  population  

45. Testimony  of  Macauley  Lord,  registered  fishing  guide  A. Proponent  B. The  Kennebec  and  Sebasticook  Rivers  have  an  extremely  healthy  

smallmouth  bass  populations  and  these  are  also  places  where  alewives  have  been  able  to  recover  

46.  Letters  from  NOAA  regional  directors  A. They  are  an  advocate  for  unfettered  passage  of  river  herring  

47.  Letter  from  the  Wabanaki  Chiefs  asking  Governor  LePage  to  support  the  bill  48. Testimony  of  Brenda  Commander,  Tribal  Chief  of  Houlton  Band  of  Maliseet  

Indians  A. Proponent  B. Describes  her  tribe’s  belief  that  everything  is  connected  and  we  need  to  

be  stewards  of  the  earth  and  therefore  restore  the  ecosystem  49.  A  letter  from  the  EPA  proclaiming  it’s  support  that  passageway  for  river  

herring  be  uninterrupted  as  there  is  no  science  that  warrants  the  blockage  of  passage  

50. A  list  summarizing  the  points  made  by  proponents  and  opponents  of  the  bill  51. Maine  river  herring  fact  sheet  52. Graphs  detailing  different  marine  species  landings  over  time  53. Decision:    Bill  Enacted  

A.    Received  an  affirmative  vote  of  33  Members  of  the  Senate,  with  no  Senators  voting  in  the  negative  

B. The  House  voted  123-­‐24  in  favor  of  it  C.  Governor  Lepage  did  not  sign  the  bill  

APPENDIX  G:  Landowner  Database    

  55  

       

!"#$%&

'"(

)*&

*+%$#,%"'$

"--#$..

)"%-,/.$

/.$,#$.0-$%12'"0),"--#$..

&#"%.3$#

)"%-,4")/$

&*&"),4")/$

&"5$.

6789::;9:::

6978

;<"#2=!")'

$#

:4"1"%&=)"%-

4"1"%&

!>=?>@=A;B=>53*#-=<

C=:D778:

;AEF::

;AEF::

;G8HDF

6789::79:::

6978

7I2%%=J/''0%K.=!2L$

FF:=M"NN0&=O"))$2=MP

#$.0-$%&0")

(#0'"#2

!>=?>@=7;7=>53*#-E=<C=:D78:

;AGEA::

7:QE;::

7EA7DH8F

6789::F9:::

6978

FR0))0"'=P/%%

:=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%-

#$.0-$%&0")

(#0'"#2

7:G=M"NN0&=O"))$2=MP=>53*#-=<

C=:D78:

;D;EG::

7:7EB::T

6789::D9:::

6978

DR0))0"'=P/%%

:=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

(#0'"#2

7:G=M"NN0&=O"))$2=MP=>53*#-=<

C=:D78:

;D;ED::

;GFEB::

6789::D9::U

6978

DU

U)"%=I$?)"%1

:4"1"%&

4"1"%&

7A=!"K*'"=I"%$=I$+0.&*%E=<C=:D7D:

BED::

BED::

;;AH;A

6789::A9:::

6978

AR0))0"'=P/%%

:4"1"%&=)"%-

4"1"%&

7:G=M"NN0&=O"))$=M-=>53*#-=<

C=:D78:

77E7::

7FEB::

6789::Q9:::

6978

QR0))0"'=P/%%

:#$.0-$%&0")

(#0'"#2

7:G=M"NN0&=O"))$2=MP=>53*#-=<

C=:D78:

8BE;::

;:AEQ::

6789::89:::

6978

8(#0'"#2

6789::G9:::

6978

GR0))0"'=P/%%

:#$.0-$%&0")

(#0'"#2

7:G=M"NN0&=O"))$2=MP=>53*#-=<

C=:D78:

A8EB::

;:DED::

6789::B9:::

6978

BR0))0"'=P/%%

:#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

MM;=?*5=7Q7=V$+=W)*/1$.&$#E=<

C=:D7Q:

QGEB::

BDE:::

6789:;:9:::

6978

;:R0))0"'=P/%%

:#$.0-$%&0")

(#0'"#2

7:G=M"NN0&=O"))$2=MP=>53*#-=<

C=:D78:

B7E:::

B7E:::

6789:;;9:::

6978

;;R0))0"'=P/%%

:#$.0-$%&0")

(#0'"#2

7:G=M"NN0&=O"))$2=MP=>53*#-=<

C=:D78:

B7E:::

;FGE;::

6789:;79:::

6978

;7R0))0"'=P/%%

:#$.0-$%&0")

(#0'"#2

7:G=M"NN0&=O"))$2=MP=>53*#-=<

C=:D78:

QAEA::

BQEA::

6789:;F9:::

6978

;FR0))0"'=P/%%

:#$.0-$%&0")

(#0'"#2

7:G=M"NN0&=O"))$2=MP=>53*#-=<

C=:D78:

G8EQ::

;;:EG::

6789:;D9:::

6978

;DR0))0"'=P/%%

:#$.0-$%&0")

(#0'"#2

7:G=M"NN0&=O"))$2=MP=>53*#-=<

C=:D78:

Q8EF::

B7EB::

6789:;A9:::

6978

;AM01L2=C.&$.

DQ=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

(#0'"#2

!>=?*5==;FF=>53*#-E=<C=:D7D8:

B7E:::

;F8EG::

;EAQAHAA

6789:;Q9:::

6978

;QX&$4$%=I"1$2E=M*N$#&=J)"#L.*%

A7=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%-

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

F:=?/1L'"%=X&=C4$#$&&E=<U=:7;DB

BBEB::

;ABE;::

;EBDGHBG

6789:;89:::

6978

;8S$%#2=U%-$#.*%

AD=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

Q8F=W#"%-=M"(0-.=?)4-=V"()$.E=YI=FD;7:

;7BEB::

7D7ED::

7BG;HQA

6789:;G9:::

6978

;GM*N$#&=?*/1Z"#-

AG=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

7F=M"2'*%&=J&E=W$*#K$&*+%E=<U=:;GFF

;;AEQ::

;8:E:::

7:G7HA

6789:;B9:::

6978

;BM*N$#&=?*+2$#

Q7=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

;A=1*/%&#2=1)/N=P#=U/N/#%E=<C=:D7;:

;;:E7::

;QDED::

7:;FHB

6789:7:9:::

6978

7:X1*&&="%-=X&$3"%0$=<

0))$#8:=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

(#0'"#2

."'$

;7[7Q[;7

;F;EG::

7A8E:::

F78:H8A

6789:7;9:::

6978

7;R0))0"'=U%-#$+.

G:=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

;;F=V*#&Z=U4$=<

$1Z"%01=Y")).E=<C=:D7AQ

;;8E;::

;8DEB::

7;D7HAF

6789:779:::

6978

77X/."%=X+$$&

GQ=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

87=P"40.=U4$=U/N/#%E=<C=:D7;:

;:DED::

;DAEQ::

;8GFHQ

6789:7F9:::

6978

7FP*%")-=I$+0.

:4"1"%&=)"%-

4"1"%&

7B8=J*%1*#-=M-=?$-3*#-=<

U=:;8F:

F8EA::

F8EA::

DABHFG

6789:7D9:::

6978

7DR0))0"'=P/%%

F8=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

(#0'"#2

7:G=M"NN0&=O"))$2=MP=>53*#-=<

C=:D78:

;A7E8::

77BED::

6789:7A9:::

6978

7A\0'

*&Z2=S"##0%K&*%

:4"1"%&=)"%-

4"1"%&

;F::=>1$"%.0-$=I%=I$"K/$=J0&2E=\@=88A8F

;QEQ::

;QEQ::

7:FHFA

6789:7Q9:::

6978

7Q]/-0&Z=P/%%=4=JZ"#0&"N)$=\#/.&=W$*#K$=Y0$)-=\#/.&$$

F=X(#0%K=I"%$

%["

%*%=(#0'"#2

DQB=S"#-.1#"NN)$=M-=!*)"%-=<

C=:D78D

;AEF::

A7EF::

QD:HQG

6789:789:::

6978

78R0))0"'=P/%%

:#$.0-$%&0")

(#0'"#2

7:G=M"NN0&=O"))$2=MP=>53*#-=<

C=:D78:

7FE;::

A;EQ::

6789:7G9:::

6978

7GC#0%="%-=<

"&&Z$+=S"))FAQ=M"NN0&=O"))$2=M-=^TTT_

#$.0-$%&0")

(#0'"#2

."'$

;;[7[;7

7BED::

;QGEB::

7:QBH:F

6789:7B9:::

6978

7B]*Z%=!")'

$#

AD=J")-+$))=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

(#0'"#2

!>=?>@=A;B=>53*#-=<

C=:D78:

FGGE7::

8BFEG::

BA7GH:A

67G9::;9:::

697G

;S"#*)-="%-=JZ#0.&0%$=!"0%$

BF=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

(#0'"#2

BF=S*K"%=!*%-=M-=>53*#-=<

C=:D78:

G:ED::

;BFEB::

7F8AH7G

67G9::79:::

697G

7U'%$=!"#.*%.

BB=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

!*=?*5=A78=X&*/KZ&*%=<

U=:7:87

;:DED::

;ADEA::

;GB7HQF

67G9::F9:::

697G

FW"#2=\$&#$"/)&

;:;=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

;A=S"`$)=X&=U/N/#%=<

C=:D7;:

8AE:::

;:GEA::

;F7BH;F

67G9::D9:::

697G

DM01Z"#-=X"+2$#

;:G=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

(#0'"#2

."'$

87E;::

;8:EQ::

7:GBHGA

67G9::A9::Q

697G

AW#"1$=J*/)*'N$

;;Q=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

;A=X/%#0.$=P#04$=X*/&Z=!"#0.=<

C=:D7G;

8[77[:B

BBE:::

;7AEA::

;AF8HFG

67G9::A9::U

697G

Q]*%"&Z"%=P"40.

;;7=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

7G7=<

"0%=X&=a"#'

*/&Z=<

C=:7Q8A

BDE;::

;7DE:::

;A;B

67G9::89:::

697G

8!"'$)"=?"#%Z"#-&

;7:=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

DA;7:=SRa=8B=bA7Q

;;:E7::

;7GE7::

;A8:HDA

67G9::G9:::

697G

G<"#0*=P"1/%Z"

;7D=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

FB=?#**L+**-=P#=R$.&(*#&=<

U=:78B:

;:7EQ::

;87EB::

7;;GH:F

67G9::B9:::

697G

BM01Z"#-=\"2'"%

;7G=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

;;=Z$')*1L=I"%$=W#"2=<

C=:D:FB

;::EG::

;Q7EF::

7:;AH;F

67G9:;:9:::

697G

;:<"&&Z$+="%-=c"#$%=R

Z")$%

;F:=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

7B=Y#"%L)0%=U4$=d/0%12=<

U=:7;8:

BBEB::

;F8EB::

;QGBH7G

67G9:;;9:::

697G

;;<"/#01$=\$##0))

;FQ=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

;;=W#*4$#=X&=I2%%=<

U=:;B:7

;:;E8::

;FDEB::

;QA7HAF

67G9:;79:::

697G

;7

%*%=(#0'"#2

67G9:;F9:::

697G

;F]*.$(Z=?0&$&&0

;D:=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

(#0'"#2

."'$

BBEB::

;ABED::

;GF:H;A

67G9:;D9:::

697G

;D!$&$#=I*+$

;DD=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

!>=?*5=A88=W#"2=<

C=:D:FB

B:EB::

;FFEG::

;QFBH:A

  56  

 

67G9:;A9:::

697G

;AC)$"%*#=W/"#%$#0

;DG=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

;:A=>"L.0-$=P#=X'0&Z&*+%=Va=;;8G8

B:EB::

;;DEQ::

;D:FHGA

67G9:;Q9:::

697G

;QM01Z"#-=\"2'"%

;A:=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

;;=Z$')*1L=I"%$=W#"2=<

C=:D:FB

G8EQ::

;:8EA::

;F7BH;F

67G9:;89:::

697G

;8\Z*'".=P*%*4"%

;AD=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

8=S0)).=X&=M"%-*)(Z=<

"=:7FQG

B:EB::

;AGEQ::

;88:H;F

67G9:;G9:::

697G

;G]*"%=a*/%K

;AG=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

Q=\*+%$=I"%$=\*(.30$)-=<

U=:;BGF

GDE;::

;FFEF::

;QF7HBF

67G9:;B9:::

697G

;B\0'

*&Z2=W#$%0$#

;Q:=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

4"1"%&=)"%-

4"1"%&

!>=?*5=Q;:=>53*#-=<

C=:D78:

QAEA::

8AE8::

B78HFF

67G9:7:9:::

697G

7:X/."%=X+0.Z$#

;AB=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

7D7=C".&=S"#-.1#"NN)$=M-=U/N/#%=<

C=:D7;:

;QE;::

Q;EB::

8AGH7G

67G9:7;9:::

697G

7;\0'

*&Z2=W#$%0$#

;Q7=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

(#0'"#2

!>=?*5=Q;:=>53*#-=<

C=:D78:

Q8EF::

;A7EG::

;G8;HG

67G9:779:::

697G

77\Z*'".=S*(L0%.

;QD=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

;:=?"0)$2=M-=\$+L.N/#2=<

U=:;G8Q

8AE:::

;:FEQ::

;7QBH;

67B9::;9:::

697B

;<01Z"$)=R0.$

;QD=J")-+$))=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

;GFA=J"'0%*=!")'

$#*=U4$=I*.=U%K$)$.=JU=B::DQ

;[7[:G

FG;EG::

A;AE8::

QF;8HFF

67B9::79:::

697B

7c"&Z#2%=]"1L.*%

:=J")-+$))=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

QD:=\*)$-*=P#=S$'$&=JU=B7ADA

;GEA::

;GEA::

77QHQF

67B9::F9:::

697B

Fc"&Z#2%=]"1L.*%

;88=J")-+$))=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

QD:=\*)$-*=P#=S$'$&=JU=B7ADA

;D:E7::

;A:EA::

;GDFHQQ

67B9::D9:::

697B

DR"2%$=c0%K

;GG=J")-+$))=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

;B=U0%.)$2=X&=P*#1Z$.&$#=<U=:7;77

;7QEB::

;FQEG::

;Q8AHG

67B9::A9:::

697B

AV*#'

"%=\/#%$#

;GB=J")-+$)=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

(#0'"#2

;GF=Y*#$=X&=>53*#-=<

C=:D78:

G8EA::

;:QEF::

;F:7H;G

67B9::Q9:::

697B

QJZ#0.&*(Z$#=Y#"%L

;BF=J")-+$))=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

F7Q=<

0))"2=M-=?*+-*0%Z"'=<

C=:D::G

8;E8::

G;EQ::

BBBHQ

67B9::89:::

697B

8S$0#.=*3=]*Z%=<

"#&0%

:4"1"%&=)"%-

4"1"%&

!>=?*5=;D7=>53*#-=<

C=:D78:

;8E;::

;8E;::

7:BHDG

67B9::G9:::

697B

GJZ#0.&*(Z$#=Y#"%L

:4"1"%&=)"%-

4"1"%&

F7Q=<

0))"2=M-=?*+-*0%Z"'=<

C=:D::G

7:E7::

7:E7::

7F7H8A

67B9::B9:::

697B

B]*.$(Z=M$K*

;QQ=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

7:8=<

*/.$=<

0))=M-=R

$.&(*.&=<

U=:78B:

8FEQ::

;B;ED::

7FDDHQA

67B9:;:9:::

697B

;:]"'$.=S"#'

*%

;QG=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

!>=?*5=;:QFD=!*#&)"%-=<

C=:D;:;

Q:E:::

GFE;::

;:;8HBG

67B9:;;9:::

697B

;;JZ#0.&0%"=W"#-%$#

;8:=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

(#0'"#2

D78=<

"0%=X&=>53*#-=<

C=:D78:

Q:E:::

8QEQ::

BFGHFA

67B9:;;9::U

697B

;;"

JZ#0.&0%"=I=W"#-%$#

:=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

;;A=?$%%$&&=U4$=U/N/#%=<

C=:D7;:

;E:::

;E:::

;7H7A

67B9:;79:::

697B

;7!Z0)0(="%-=]$"%=!/).03$#;87=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

;GB=XZ"L$#=M-=W#"2=<

C=:D:FB

G7EB::

;7;E;::

;DGFHDG

67B9:;79::U

697B

;7"

M*11*=J*%.")4*

;8A=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

."'$

F:EA::

;DQEG::

;8BGHF

67B9:;F9:::

697B

;F!"/)="%-=I*##"0%$=J"##$#";8D=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

;=<

"23)*+$#=P#=X1"#N*#*/KZ=<

C=:D:8D

QAEA::

;78E7::

;AAGH7

67B9:;D9:::

697B

;DI0`"%%$=J#*&$"/

;8G=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

F7G=S"4$#Z0))=X&=VH=M$"-0%K=<

U=:;GQD

G:ED::

;;:EF::

;FA;H;G

67B9:;A9:::

697B

;AC-+"#-=c$$%"%

;G7=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

7;=Y*##$.&$#=X&=X")$'=<

U=:;B8:

GAEF::

;FQEQ::

;Q8FHFA

67B9:;Q9:::

697B

;QM01Z"#-=U/#$%

;GD=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

87=!*#&.'

*/&Z=X&=J*%1*#-=VS

8BE;::

;D7E8::

;8DGH:G

67B9:;89:::

697B

;8M*N$#&=<

/%.*%

;GQ=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

;D;D=R

$.&=?#**L=X&=!*#&)"%-=<

C=:D;:7

BAE;::

;DE8::T

&"5=0%3*

]*Z%=W*+$))=\#/.&$$

;GQ=S*K"%=!*%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

AQ=X"1*=X&#$$&=X1"#N*#*/KZ=<

C=:D:8D

BAE;::

;DE8::

;G::H8A

67B9:;G9:::

697B

;GM*N$#&=S/%&

7;A=J"'(K#*/%-=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

(#0'"#2

!>=?*5=7:Q=>53*#-=<

C=:D78:

F8FEQ::

QD:EG::

8GDBHG

67B9:;B9:::

697B

;B\0'

*&Z2=a"#%0.Z

FB=?#$&*%=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

(#0'"#2

!>=?*5=Q7Q=>53*#-=<

C=:D78:

GBEB::

787EF::

F77AHDF

67B9:7:9:::

697B

7:\Z$*-*#$=Y*/#%0$#

FF=?#$&*%=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

(#0'"#2

!>=?*5=DBA=>53*#-=<

C=:D78:

;D:EF::

7QAE7::

F7DGH8

67B9:7;9:::

697B

7;I/10$%="%-=V"%12=?#$&*%7A=?#$&*%=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

(#0'"#2

!>=?*5=;GD=>53*#-=<

C=:D78:

;;AEQ::

7F:E;::

7G;GH8F

67B9:779:::

697B

77]*Z%="%-=I*#0=X&$&.*%

8G=!$%)$2=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

(#0'"#2

."'$

;;[7[:8

7BEG::

;D7EQ::

;AA:HGA

67B9:779::?

697B

7FI/&Z$#=\Z/#)*+

7;=?#$&*%=)"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

DA8=R

Z0&$=>"L=S0))=M-=!*)"%-=<

C=:D78D

;:[F[;7

;7BEB::

;QBE;::

7:8;HDG

67B9:7F9:::

697B

7D]$#*'$=P$&`$)

BA=!$%)$2=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

(#0'"#2

!>=?*5=8G8=>53*#-=<

C=:D78:

G;E8::

;AFEF::

;8AAHDF

67B9:7D9:::

697B

7A]*Z%=X&$&.*%

BF=!$%)$2=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

(#0'"#2

!>=?*5=B;=>53*#-=<

C=:D78:

G;E8::

7:QE8::

7D:BHAG

6F:9::;9:::

69F:

;Y#$-=W$#"#-0%*

7;;=J")-+$))=M-

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

Q8=XR=;;D&Z=\$#=J*#")=X(#0%K.=YI=FF:8;

;7;EG::

;A7EF::

;GQAHQG

6F:9::79:::

69F:

7R0)Z*=c*'/)"0%$%

7;G=J")-+$))=M-

#$.0-$%&0")

(#0'"#2

FG8=M"NN0&=O"))$2=M-=>53*#-=<

C=:D78:

;:[7:[:B

;;FE:::

;7;E7::

;DGDH8

&"5=0%3*

X&$(Z$%=M"2="%-=I"/#0$=C0)$$%=\$#(

7;G=J")-+$))=M-

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

QQF=C".&=X&#$$&=R")(*)$=<

U=:7:G;

;;FE:::

;7;E7::

7:QAHFQ

6F:9::F9:::

69F:

FP+0KZ&=P*/1$&&$

77D=J")-+$))=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

;8Q=S")0-*%=M-=R

$.&N#**L=<

C=:D:B7

;DAE8::

;QGEQ::T

6F:9::D9:::

69F:

DJZ#0.&*(Z$#=Y#"%L

:4"1"%&=)"%-

4"1"%&

F7Q=<

0))"2=M-=?*+-*0%Z"'=<

C=:D::G

;GE:::

;GE:::

7:DHAG

6F:9::A9:::

69F:

AM*N$#&*=>#)"%-*="%-=P"%0$)=X(/#)0%K

7A8=J")-+$))=I"%$

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

;G:=V*#&Z=M"'*%-=M-=W#"2=<

C=:D:FB

;DQEF::

;8GED::

7;GAHD

&"5=0%3*

]/-0&Z=U2&$.

7QF=J")-+$))=M-

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

7:;=U/&/'%=\#"0)=!*#&=>#"%K$=YI=F7;7B

;Q:8H7

6F:9::Q9:::

69F:

QP"40-=\*-$.1Z0%0=1[*=]/)0$=V$).*%E=Y0-/10"#2

7QF=J")-+$))=M-

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

F;=X*/&Z=C-K$+**-=M-=V0"%&01=J\=:QFA8

7[;Q[:8

;:AEG::

;F;E7::T

6F:9::89:::

69F:

8S$0#.=*3=Y#"%L=!Z0)N#**L7QG=J")-+$))=M-

#$.0-$%&0")

%*%=(#0'"#2

1[*=XZ"#*%=X*/12=!>=?*5=;A7A=U/N/#%=<

C=:D7;;

8QEA::

8QEA::

BF8H;F

  57  

 

6F:9::G9:::

69F:

G\Z$)'"=\Z*'

(.*%

7G:=J")-+$))=I"%$

#$.0-

$%&0"

)%*

%=(#0'

"#2

GD=R

$.&$#%=U4$=U/N

/#%=<C=:D

7;:

;:FEB:

:;;

AED:

:;D

;FHQA

6F:9::B9:::

69F:

BM*

N$#&="%-

=M01Z"#-=R

0)).GB=!$%

)$2=I"%$

#$.0-

$%&0"

)%*

%=(#0'

"#2

;;=W#"2=I*-K$=M-

=c0&&$#2=<C=:F

B:D

B[;D[;7

;;FEF:

:;F

DED:

:;Q

DQHD

6F:9:;:9:::

69F:

;:M01Z"#-=R0)).

;Q=?*).&$#=I"%$

#$.0-

$%&0"

)%*

%=(#0'

"#2

F7:=W*

*-+0%=M-=C)0*&=<

C=:F

B:F

BBEB::

;;BE;:

:;D

AGHBG

6F:9:;;9:::

69F:

;;I$.&$#=J*N

N7:=?*).&$#=I"%$

#$.0-

$%&0"

)%*

%=(#0'

"#2

;:=I2%-*

%=R"2=c0&&$#2=<C=:F

B:D

GAEF::

;7AED:

:;A

FQH;A

6F:9:;79:::

69F:

;7U)3#$-

=JZ01L

77=?*).&$#=I"%$

#$.0-

$%&0"

)%*

%=(#0'

"#2

7F=P$%

%$&&=M-=c0&&$#2=<C=:F

B:D

B7E:::

;7AE8:

:;A

FBHGF

6F:9:;F9:::

69F:

;FM*

N$#&=C'$#2

7Q=?*).&$#=I"%$

#$.0-

$%&0"

)%*

%=(#0'

"#2

FA7=S"

)$2=M-

=c0&&$#2=!*

0%&=<

C=:F

B:A

BGE:::

7;;E::

:7A

BDH8A

&"5=0%3*

]$"%=C'$#2

7Q=?*).&$#=I"%$

#$.0-

$%&0"

)%*

%=(#0'

"#2

D;=?"#&)$

&&=M-=c0&&$#2=!*

0%&=<

C=:F

B:A

6F:9:;D9:::

69F:

;D\"%2"=I*+$))

FG=?*).&$#=I"%$

#$.0-

$%&0"

)%*

%=(#0'

"#2

G=M*

2=X&=I2'

"%=<

C=:D

::7

;78ED:

:;F

BE7:

:;8

:AH7

6F:9:;A9:::

69F:

;AXZ"1L)$2="%-

=J"#*%

E=IIJD:=?*).&$#=I"%$

#$.0-

$%&0"

)%*

%=(#0'

"#2

;F:=W#"2=M-=J/

'N$

#)"%-

=<C=:D

:7;

BAE:::

;8GEF:

:7;

GDH;G

6F:9:;Q9:::

69F:

;QC-

+0%=\Z"2$#

AD=?*).&$#=I"%$

#$.0-

$%&0"

)(#0'

"#2

!>=?*5=D8:

=>53*#-=<C=:D

78:

;FFEQ:

:F:

:E8:

:FA

Q;H:G

6F:9:;89:::

69F:

;8I$+0.=X&"()$.

Q7=?*).&$#=)"%$

#$.0-

$%&0"

)(#0'

"#2

!>=?*5=78A

=>53*#-=<C=:D

78:

;F8EA:

:;D

AE7:

:;A

G7H8

6F:9:;89::U

69F:

;8"

!Z0)0(=]"1L.*%

AG=?*).&$#=I"%$

#$.0-

$%&0"

)%*

%=(#0'

"#2

;Q=X'0&Z

=X&=S

"##0.*%

=<C=:D

:D:

;ADEQ:

:F:

GE8:

:F8

G;HAG

6F:9:;G9:::

69F:

;G!#0.1

0))"=\Z/#)*+

:4"1"%&=)"%-

4"1"%&

;;B=<"0%=X&=>53*#-=<C=:D

78:

;DAEF:

:;D

AEF:

:;8

8BHBF

6F:9:;B9:::

69F:

;BI$.&$#=J*N

N:4"1"%&=)"%-

4"1"%&

;:=I2%-*

%=R"2=c0&&$#2=<C=:F

B:D

7EB:

:7EB:

:FA

HAF

6F:9:;B9::U

69F:

;B"

M*N$

#&=C'$#2

:4"1"%&=)"%-

4"1"%&

!>=?*5=8GA

=>53*#-=<C=:D

78:

7;E7::

7;E7::

7ABH8

]$"%=C'$#2

:4"1"%&=)"%-

D;=?"#&)$

..=M-=c0&&$#2=!*

0%&=<

C=:F

B:A

6F;9::;9:::

69F;

;C#0L=c%/

-.*%

7B8=J")-+$))=I"%$

#$.0-

$%&0"

)%*

%=(#0'

"#2

;DB=<*##0))=M-=J"%&$#N/

#2E=V

S=:F

77D

;;AEA:

:;7

QEQ:

:;A

A:HGA

6F;9::79:::

69F;

7C#0L=c%/

-.*%

F;:=J")-+$))=I"%$

#$.0-

$%&0"

)%*

%=(#0'

"#2

;DB=<*##0))=M-=J"%&$#N/

#2E=V

S=:F

77D

;DQEB:

:;Q

;E;:

:;B

8FHDG

6F;9::F9:::

69F;

FJZ

"#)$.=M

"%L0%

F7B=J")-+$))=I"%$

#$.0-

$%&0"

)%*

%=(#0'

"#2

B87=JZ

01L"-$

$=M-

=O$%

01$=YI=:F7

GA;A

:E8:

:;Q

AE::

:7:

7;H7A

6F;9::D9:::

69F;

DM01Z"#-=J2#

FDQ=J")-+$))=I"%$

#$.0-

$%&0"

)%*

%=(#0'

"#2

;D=C.&Z$

#=U4$=C))0%K&*%=J\

=:Q:

7B;:

BED:

:;;

GEB:

:;D

AQHAF

6F;9::A9:::

69F;

AM01Z"#-=J2#

FF8=J")-+$))=I"%$

#$.0-

$%&0"

)%*

%=(#0'

"#2

;D=C.&Z$

#=U4$=C))0%K&*%=J\

=:Q:

7B;;

QEF:

:;D

:E;:

:;8

;QH7F

6F;9::Q9:::

69F;

Q\Z$=M"

%-"))=<

=S*-

.*%=M$

1*4"N)$

FA;=J")-+$))=I"%$

#$.0-

$%&0"

)%*

%=(#0'

"#2

D=\+

0%=?#**L=P#04

$=P$

##2=VS=:F

:FB

;8FE8:

:7D

7E7:

:7D

DAH;

6F;9::Q9::U

69F;

Q"P"

40-=I2*%

FQD=J")-+$))=I"%$

#$.0-

$%&0"

)%*

%=(#0'

"#2

;G:=M*

1L0%KZ"'

=M-=R0%-Z

"'=VS=:F

:G8

;87E8:

:77

:E8:

:78

:FHAG

6;B9::D9:::

69;B

eeeD

M"2'

*%-=J*

)N2=^M"2'*%

-="%-=<"#0)2%$

_:O

4"1"%&

;BB=<$1Z"%01=Y")).=M*"-=>53*#-E=<

C=:D

78:

V[U

;:EA::

;:EA::

;Q:HFD

6;B9::D9::C

M"2'

*%-=J*

)N2=^M"2'*%

-="%-=<"#0)2%$

_M

%*%=(#0'

"#2

;BB=<$1Z"%01=Y")).=M*"-=>53*#-E=<

C=:D

78:

6;B9::D9::Y

M"2'

*%-=J*

)N2=^M"2'*%

-="%-=<"#0)2%$

_M

%*%=(#0'

"#2

;BB=<$1Z"%01=Y")).=M*"-=>53*#-E=<

C=:D

78:

6;B9::D9::W

M"2'

*%-=J*

)N2=^M"2'*%

-="%-=<"#0)2%$

_M

%*%=(#0'

"#2

;BB=<$1Z"%01=Y")).=M*"-=>53*#-E=<

C=:D

78:

6;B9::F9:::

69;B

FY#$-

=X"+

2$#

:M

%*%=(#0'

"#2

;D7=J*

&&"K$=U4

$=!*

#&.'

*/&ZE=M

f=:7G

8;V[U

;D:EB:

:;8

BE8:

:7E7:

;HFF

67:9::A9:::

697:

eeA

C)0`"

N$&Z=g=!$&$#=R

/*#0F;=<"##=I"%$=>53*#-

M(#0'

"#2

7GB=S$

N#*%

=M-=>53*#-E=<

CG[;:[;7

QGEB::

GQE7::

;E:A

AHBA

67:9::Q9:::

697:

Q?$

&Z=<

1")0.$#

Q=\+

0&1Z$

))=I"%$

=>53*#-E=<

C=:D78

:M

(#0'

"#2

."'$

D[7A[:8

8AE:::

;AFEB:

:;G

GAH7G

67:9::89:::

697:

8]=<

1<*##*+

A=\+

0&1Z$

))=I"%$

=>53*#-E=<

C=:D78

:M

%*%=(#0'

"#2

!>=?*5=DAA

=?#/%.+01LE=<

C=:D

:;;

V[U

;;;EG:

:7;

FEQ:

:T

&"5=0%3*

C-'/%

-=X/1L*+

;8:=]"1L"..=U

%%0$=M-=<0%*&E=<

C=:D

7AG

7EQ7

QHQ:

67:9::G9:::

697:

GJ"#)*

.=g=P$N

*#"Z=W"#10"QQ

=<"##=I"%$=>53*#-

M%*

%=(#0'

"#2

7D;=Y*+)$#=M

-H=J"($=C)0`"

N$&ZE=<

C=:D

;:Q

;:[;A[:8

;:7EQ:

:;Q

AEB:

:7E:F

7H7G

67:9::F9::?

697:

FYW"

0)=J"#40))$

:=<"##=I%

O4"1"%&

!>=?*5=A;D

=\/#%$

#E=<C=:D

7G7

D[7:[;:

F:E:::

F:E:::

FQ8HA

67:9::B9:::

697:

BW"

0)=J"#40))$

G7=<

"##=I"%$=>53*#-

M%*

%=(#0'

"#2

!>=?*5=A;D

=\/#%$

#E=<C=:D

7G7

V[U

;:QEG:

:;7

GEQ:

:;EA8

AHFA

67:9:;:9:::

697:

;:M01Z"#-=?$

%%$&&

GQ=<

"##=I"%$=>53*#-

M%*

%=(#0'

"#2

J[>=V*#'"%=I$'

0$/5=;AQ

=<"0%=X&=U(&=b7:G=U/

N/#%E=<

C=:D

7D:

V[U

BAE;::

;8DEG:

:7E;D

;HF:

67:9::79:::

697:

7>53*#-=\0'N$

#)"%-

.:O

4"1"%&

!>=?*5=;Q7=>53*#-

V[U

;D8EGG

D;D

8EGG

D;EG;

;HAG

67:9:;;9:::

697:

;;]"'$.=<

"))*2

;F=?0#1Z+

**-=I"%$

M%*

%=(#0'

"#2

G7=O$##0))=M-=!*

)"%-

E=<C=:D

78F

V[U

88EG::

;;:E8:

:;EFA

QH:G

67:9:;79:::

697:

;7V$")=P

*+=g=V"%12=I$$

8=?0#1Z+

**-=I"%$

M%*

%=(#0'

"#2

A8=!0%$=S0))=M-

=J".1*E=<

C=:D

:;A

7[;7[BB

BBEB::

;FFED:

:;EQF

DH;A

67:9:;D9:::

697:

;DXZ0#)$2=S0)&*%

=^]=g=Y#"%L)0%=S0)&*%

_F=?0#1Z+

**-=I"%$

M%*

%=(#0'

"#2

BD:=X"%-

2=M04$#=M

-H=V*##0-

K$+*1LE=<

C=:DBA

8V[U

GGE8::

BDEG::

;E;Q

;HF:

67:9:;F9:::

697:

;F!"/)=I2-*%

:=?0#1Z+

**-=I"%$

M%*

%=(#0'

"#2

DQ=I040%K.&*%=X&H=?

$4$#)2E=<

U=:;

B:A

V[U

G:ED::

GAEF::

;E:D

DHBF

67;9::;9:::

697;

;R")&$#=<

*.Z$

#GD=M"NN0&=O

"))$2=M-

=>53*#-

M(#0'

"#2

."'$

V[U

;ABEA:

:7G

;EA:

:FE7A

7HFG

67;9::F9:::

697;

F<"/#01$=<$#10$#

8G=>"L=I%=>53*#-

M%*

%=(#0'

"#2

FQ;D

=X&H=Y#"%10.=P

#H=R0)'

0%K&*%

E=VJ=7G

D:B

V[U

BAE;::

;FAE7:

:;EQA

QH7:

67;9::D9:::

697;

DP"

40-=g=U'2=UN

$)8Q=>"L=I%

M(#0'

"#2

."'$

B[G[;;

BAE;::

;FGEB:

:;E8:

;HAF

67;9::A9:::

697;

A!"&#01L=g=c"&Z$

#0%$=<*2%0Z"%

8D=>"L=I%

M(#0'

"#2

."'$

B[;F[;;

G:ED::

;FAE8:

:;EQQ

7HFF

  58  

 

67;9::Q9:::

697;

QX/."%=?*

/1Z"#-

87=>"L=I%

M%*

%=(#0'

"#2

!>=?*5=7DQ

:=X*/&Z=!*

#&)"%-

E=<C=:D;;

QV[U

G:ED::

F7BE8:

:DE:F

GHGF

67;9::89:::

697;

8M/

&Z=J)"#L

8:=>"L=I%

M%*

%=(#0'

"#2

!>=?*5=FA;=X/##2E=O

U=7FGGF

V[U

G:ED::

;;:E8:

:;EFA

QH:G

67;9::G9:::

697;

G!"&#010"=I"'

*&&

QG=>"L=I%

M%*

%=(#0'

"#2

J[>=R

0))0"'=I$-

/1=ff=;=C)0`"N$&Z=X&H=M

*1Z$

.&$#E=V

S=:FGQ8

V[U

B7E:::

;7FE7:

:;EA:

BH7:

67;9::B9:::

697;

BX/%.$&=!#*($

#&0$.

QQ=>"L=I%

M%*

%=(#0'

"#2

;FG=<"0%=X&#$$&=V*#+"2E=<

C=:D

7QG

V[U

;QE;::

A8E;::

QBBHDG

67;9:;:9:::

697;

;:I*#$&&"=U/.N/

#K$#

QD=>"L=I%

M%*

%=(#0'

"#2

;F8=>)-=R

0))0'

"%&01=M*"-=J*

/)/'

N0"E=J\=:Q7F

8V[U

B7E:::

;:BEA:

:;EFD

;HFG

67;9:;;9:::

697;

;;!"/)0%$=c$

%%0.*%

=^J[>

=\Z*

'".=c$%

%0.*%_

Q7=>"L=I%

M(#0'

"#2

;A=J"%"-"=S0))=XZ*

#$.=>53*#-E=<

C=:D

78:

V[U

BAE;::

;DQE8:

:T

%"'$=*%

=&"5=.Z$$&=^7;

9;;_

P"40-=>1*%%

*#Q7=>"L=I%

MFQ

=P/%

-$$=M-

=U#)0%K&*%

E=<U=:7D

8QT

BAE;::

;DQE8:

:;E8B

8H:G

67;9:;79:::

697;

;7M01Z"#-=M$

")0&2

=\#/.&

Q:=>"L=I%

M%*

%=(#0'

"#2

B=?"

..$&&=U

4$=?/#)0%K&*%

E=<U=:;G

:FV[U

;7DE8:

:;A

:ED:

:;EGD

7HD:

67;9:;F9:::

697;

;F\$#$."=]*

%$.

AG=>"L=I%

M%*

%=(#0'

"#2

J[>=<

01Z$

))$=X'"))=!>=?*5=8Q=M*

))0%.3*#-E=V

S=:FG

QBV[U

BAE;::

;F7E8:

:;EQ7

AHAG

67;9:;D9:::

697;

;DC))0.=?$"%

AQ=>"L=I%

M%*

%=(#0'

"#2

;B=R

$.&$#%=U4$=X*/

&Z=!"#0.E=<

C=:D

7G;

V[U

G8EQ::

;;DE8:

:;ED:

AH:G

67;9:;G9:::

697;

;GX&"%)$2=!"#.*%

.AA=d/0'N2=I"%$

M%*

%=(#0'

"#2

!>=?*5=7:B

=V*#+"2E=<

C=:D

7QG

V[U

G8EQ::

;78EB:

:;EAQ

QH8G

67;9:;B9:::

697;

;BX&"%)$2=!"#.*%

.A8=d/0'N2=I"%$

M%*

%=(#0'

"#2

!>=?*5=7:B

=V*#+"2E=<

C=:D

7QB

V[U

G8EQ::

B:EQ::

;E;:

BHGA

67;9:7:9:::

697;

7:M"

%-"))=JZ0)-

:O

4"1"%&

D7=!Z0))0(.=M*"-=X*/&Z=!"#0.E=<

C=:D

7G;

V[U

GQEA::

GQEA::

;E:8

FH;:

67;9:7;9:::

697;

7;U%0&"=!"&$%

$"/-

$QQ=!"#&#0-K$=I"%$

M(#0'

"#2

7Q=M"NN0&=O

"))$2=M*

"-=>53*#-E=<

C=:D

78:

V[U

;;8E;:

:;A

7E;:

:;EGQ

FH7F

67;9:779:::

697;

77<"#h2=X$..0*%

.QD=!"#&#0-K$=I"%$

M%*

%=(#0'

"#2

;AB=!0L$.=S0))=M*"-=V*#+"2E=<

C=:D

7QG

V[U

B8E:::

;77EG:

:;EA:

DHF:

67;9:7F9:::

697;

7FR"2%$

=\0$#%"%

Q7=!"#&#0-K$=I"%$

M%*

%=(#0'

"#2

;;QQ

=J*)$'

"%=M*"-=JZ

$.0#$E=J\=:Q

D;:

V[U

;;:E7:

:7;

QE8:

:7EQA

DHAG

6779::;9:::

6977

;]"'$.=U)-$%

D8=!$#Z"'=I"%$

M%*

%=(#0'

"#2

8B=R

**-)"+

%=U4H$=U/N

/#%E=<

C=:D

7;:

V[U

G:ED::

;;:E8:

:;EFA

QH:G

6779::79:::

6977

7W/2=S"#&

DA=!$#Z"'=I"%$

M%*

%=(#0'

"#2

!>=?*5=DA=C".&=!*)"%-E=<

C=:D

7F:

V[U

88EG::

;78EB:

:;EAQ

QH8G

6779::F9:::

6977

FP*%

")-=M*

K$#.

FB=!$#Z"'=I"%$

M%*

%=(#0'

"#2

B=V".Z40))$=M*

"-=U(&=;U=?$&Z$

)E=J\

=:QG:;

V[U

G:ED::

BBED::

;E7;

8HQA

6779::D9:::

6977

D]*Z%

=]$%%

$..

F8=!$#Z"'=I"%$

M%*

%=(#0'

"#2

7F=<

"#L$&=X

i/"#$=X*/&Z=!"#0.E=<

C=:D

7G;

V[U

B8E:::

;7QEA:

:;EAD

BHQF

6779::A9:::

6977

A]*Z%

=X0'

(.*%

FA=!$#Z"'=I"%$

M%*

%=(#0'

"#2

D7F=I/-)*+

=X&H=!*#&)"

%-E=<

C=:D

;:7

V[U

BAE;::

;:GE;:

:;EF7

DH7F

6779::Q9:::

6977

8M*

.L*=!$

#Z"'

F;=!$#Z"'=I"%$

M(#0'

"#2

!>=?*5=Q:;

=>53*#-E=<

C=:D

78:

V[U

;7GEQ7

G7:

DE77

G7EA:

;H8B

6779:;89:::

6977

;8P"40-=I$N

)*%-

DD=W#$$%

=?"%L.=I"%$

M%*

%=(#0'

"#2

BB:=W*#$=M-

H=>&0.30$

)-E=<

C=:D

78:

V[U

;F;E;:

:;D

BE7:

:;EG7

8H8:

6779:;G9:::

6977

;GR")&$#=J/

#&0.

D7=W#$$-

=?"%L.=I"%$

M(#0'

"#2

!>=?*5=D7Q

=>53*#-E=<

C=:D

78:

V[U

;;8EG:

:;F

GED:

:;EQB

AHD:

6779:;B9:::

6977

;BJZ

#0.=\"%%

$#:O

4"1"%&

!>=?*5=D;F

=>53*#-E=<

C=:D

78:

V[U

AE8:

:AE8:

:QB

HGF

6779:7:9:::

69:77

7:JZ

#0.=\"%%

$#:O

4"1"%&

!>=?*5=D;F

=>53*#-E=<

C=:D

78:

V[U

AE8:

:AE8:

:QB

HGF

6779:7;9:::

69:77

7;JZ

#0.=\"%%

$#:O

4"1"%&

!>=?*5=D;F

=>53*#-E=<

C=:D

78:

V[U

AE8:

:AE8:

:QB

HGF

6779:779::?

6977

779?

M01Z"#-=\"2'

"%:O

4"1"%&

;;=S$'

)*1L=W#"2E=<

C=:D

:FB

V[U

DE;:

:DE;:

:A:

H7F

6779:7F9:::

6977

7FM01Z"#-=\"2'

"%:O

4"1"%&

7;=W#$$%

N"%L.=I"%$

E=>53*#-E=<

C=:D78

:V[U

AE8:

:AE8:

:QB

HGF

6779:7D9:::

6977

7D!$

&$#=<*##0.*%

:O

4"1"%&

!>=?*5=A;D

=>53*#-E=<

C=:D

78:

V[U

8ED:

:8ED:

:B:

HQA

6779:7A9:::

69:77

7A!$

&$#=<*##0.*%

:O

4"1"%&

!>=?*5=A;D

=>53*#-E=<

C=:D

78:

V[U

8ED:

:8ED:

:B:

HQA

6779:7Q9:::

6977

7QS$"&Z$#=<

"10.""1

:O

4"1"%&

;DQ=W#$$%

+**

-=M-

H=V*#+"2E=<

C=:D

7QG

V[U

AE8:

:AE8:

:QB

HGF

6779:789:::

6977

78R")&$#=J/

#&0.

:O

4"1"%&

!>=?*5=D7Q

=>53*#-E=<

C=:D

78:

V[U

AE7:

:AE7:

:QF

H86779:7G9:::

6977

7GU)"%=<"2

:O

4"1"%&

D:=W#$$%

N"%L.=I"%$

=>53*#-E=<

C=:D

78:

V[U

AE8:

:AE8:

:QB

HGF

6779:7B9:::

6977

7Bc$

%%$&Z=J*

#%$))

:O

4"1"%&

!>=?*5=8A=>53*#-E=<

C=:D

78:

V[U

AE8:

:AE8:

:QB

HGF

6779:

6977

M[R

:O

4"1"%&

V[U

6779:D79:::

6977

D7X&$(

Z$%=g=]*

)0%$=I"&&$#2DF

=RZ0&%$2=I"%$

M%*

%=(#0'

"#2

77;=?)**

'0%K-")$=M-

H=d/"L$#=S0))E=J\=:Q

F8A

8[;;[;7

;:8E::

:7;

FEG:

:7EQ;

BH:A

6779:D;9:::

6977

D;U)N$#&=?

"`0%$&

D;=R

Z0&%$2=I"%$

M%*

%=(#0'

"#2

778=<$##*+=M-H=U/N

/#%E=<

C=:D

7;:

V[U

;:8E::

:;A

8E8:

:;EBF

;HGF

6779:D:9:::

6977

D:U)N$#&=?

"`0%$&

FB=R

Z0&%$2=I"%$

M%*

%=(#0'

"#2

77G=<$##*+=M-H=U/N

/#%E=<

C=:D

7;:

V[U

;:7EQ:

:;7

QEA:

:;EAD

BHQF

6779:F;9:::

6977

F;]*.$(Z

=?/#L$

FF=R

Z0&%$2=I"%$

M%*

%=(#0'

"#2

D;=C'$#.*%=X&H=M

$"-0%KE=<

U=:;G

Q8V[U

;DFE7:

:;A

GE7:

:;EBF

BH;G

6779:FB9:::

6977

FBJ#"0K=M$

2%*)-.=^1*%

.$#4"&*#_

7B=R

Z0&%$2=I"%$

M%*

%=(#0'

"#2

7BF=R$.&=\

*--=X&#$$&=S"'

-$%E=J\=:Q

A;G

V[U

GGE8::

;FBEB:

:;E8;

FH8G

6779:F79::U

6977

F79U

C#01=?#*+%

78=R

Z0&%$2=I"%$

M%*

%=(#0'

"#2

Q=O0))"=R"2E=V

*#&Z=U&&)$N*

#*E=<

U=:78

Q:V[U

GGE8::

;;FEA:

:T

&"5=0%3*

W"#2=W**

-+0%

;AFA

=\#$"&=U4$=X"%=Y#"%10.1*E=JU=BD;;:

;EFB

:HFG

6779:FG9:::

6977

FGM01L2=c0'N"))

7A=R

Z0&%$2=I"%$

M(#0'

"#2

B:;=<"0%$

=X&#$$&E=>53*#-E=<

C=:D

78:

V[U

B:EB::

7AGEB:

:FE;8

;HAF

6779:F89:::

6977

F8?"

#N"#"=<"1P*%

")-

;B=R

Z0&%$2=I"%$

M%*

%=(#0'

"#2

DA=P*+

%.=U4$H=W

#$$%

)"%-

E=VS=:FG

D:V[U

;:;E8:

:;Q

AEF:

:7E:7

DHBF

  59  

     

6779:

6977

M[R

:O

4"1"%&

6779:FQ9::?

6977

FQ9?

Y#$-$#01L=M$2%*)-.

;A=R

Z0&%$2=I"%$

M(#0'"#2

."'$

V[U

;D:EB::

F8QE:::

DEQ:QH::

6779:FQ9:::

6977

FQ]"'$.=X&#01L)"%-

;QQ=M"NN0&=O"))$2=M-

M%*%=(#0'"#2

F8=V*#&Z=<

"0%=X&H=<

$1Z"%01=Y")).E=<C=:D7AQV[U

;DQEG::

;BDEA::

7EFG7HQF

67F9::;9:::

697F

;f#$%$=X(0%%$2

;8:=M"NN0&=O"))$2=M-

M%*%=(#0'"#2

DB=<

"%.*%=M-H=c0&&$#2E=<C=:FB:D

V[U

;D7EF::

;QGE8::

7E:QQHAG

67F9::79:::

697F

7<$)N"=R

"))"1$

;87=M"NN0&=O"))$2=M-

M%*%=(#0'"#2

A=R

"))"1$=I%=>#*%*E=<C=:DD8F

V[U

;7;ED::

;G;EQ::

7E77DHQ:

67F9::F9:::

697F

F\0'

*&Z2=W*#-*%

;8Q=M"NN0&=O"))$2=M-

M%*%=(#0'"#2

;8=S0KZ)"%-=U4$H=<$1Z"%01=Y")).E=<C=:D7AQ

V[U

;D8EB::

7Q7EQ::

FE:BDHFA

67F9::D9:::

697F

DM/..$))=?$$K"%

;G:=M"NN0&=O"))$2=M-

M%*%=(#0'"#2

;8=<

$"-*+=X+$$&=M-H=R$.&=V$+N/#2E=<U=:;BGA

V[U

;;:E7::

7:GE8::

7EAAQHAG

67F9::A9:::

697F

AW$#")-0%$=<

1J"#&Z2

;GG=M"NN0&=O"))$2=M-

M%*%=(#0'"#2

;B=S"2)*3&=I%H=<"#.Z30$)-E=<U=:7:A:

V[U

;D:E:::

;BAE;::

7EFGBHBG

67F9::Q9:::

697F

QP"%0$)=]*Z"%.$%

;B7=M"NN0&=O"))$2=M-

M(#0'"#2

."'$

V[U

;;QEF::

7;GE8::T

&"5=0%3*

M0&"=UL."'0&

."'$

V[U

;;QEF::

7:7E8::

7EDGFH:G

67F9::89:::

697F

8I0%-."2=V0)$.

;BQ=M"NN0&=O"))$2=M-

M%*%=(#0'"#2

Q7=Y*#.0-$=M-H=Y")'

*/&ZE=<C=:D;:A

V[U

;F;E;::

;QBE7::

7E:87H8:

67F9::G9:::

697F

G]/-0&Z=P/%%=JZ"#0&"N)$=\#/.&=^W$*#K$=Y0$)-=\#/.&$$_

7:7=M"NN0&=O"))$2=M-

M%*%=(#0'"#2

DQB=S"#-.1#"NN)$=M-H=!*)"%-E=<C=:D78D

V[U

;A8EA::

7;DEF::

7EQ7AH;G

67F9::B9:::

697F

B]/-0&Z=P/%%=^W$*#K$=Y0$)-=\#/.&$$_

77=P/%%=I"%$

M%*%=(#0'"#2

DQB=S"#-.1#"NN)$=M-H=!*)"%-E=<C=:D78D

V[U

;;FEF::

;D8E;::

;EG:;HBG

67F9:;:9:::

697F

;:R0))0"'=P/%%

:O

4"1"%&

7:G=M"NN0&=O"))$2=M-H=>53*#-E=<C=:D78:

V[U

;Q;EF::

;Q;EF::V[U

67F9:;;9:::

697F

;;]/-0&Z=P/%%=^W$*#K$=Y0$)-=\#/.&$$_

7D=X(#0%K=I"%$

M%*%=(#0'"#2

DQB=S"#-.1#"NN)$=M-H=!*)"%-E=<C=:D78D

8[;[;F

;AQEG::

;B;E;::

7EFD:HBG

67F9:;79:::

697F

;7R0))0"'=P/%%

:O

4"1"%&

MM7=?*5=FA8:=>53*#-E=<C=:D78:

V[U

;QDE;::

;QDE;::V[U

67F9:;F9:::

697F

;FM*N0%=!"("`

7G=P/%%=I"%$

M%*%=(#0'"#2

7=U1*#%=I"%$=J/'N$#)"%-=J$%&$#E=<

C=:D:7;V[U

;DGEB::

;8GED::

7E;GAHD:

67F9:;D9:::

697F

;D?#/1$=R

0).*%

FQ=P/%%=I"%$

M%*%=(#0'"#2

;;=I0%-$%=U4$=<

$#1Z"%&40))$E=V]=:G;:B

V[U

;7QEQ::

77:ED::

7EQBBHB:

67F9:;A9:::

697F

;A?#/1$=c%*+)&*%

FG=P/%%=I"%$

M%*%=(#0'"#2

QF=Y$##2=M-=X")0.N/#2E=<U=:;BA7

;:[7:[:G

;QBEG::

7;:E8::

7EAG;H:G