Historical and Current 

 Distribution and Abundance of the Anadromous Alewife 

 (Alosa pseudoharengus) in the St Croix River 

A Report to the State of Maine 

Atlantic Salmon Commission 

161 Capitol Street 

 172 State House Station, Augusta, Maine 04333-0172 

- Lewis N. Flagg 

May 30, 2007
 Distribution and Abundance of Anadromous Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) 

 in the St Croix River 

 

 

 Introduction: The St Croix River is the largest river between the Penobscot and St 

John watersheds. The river drains an area of 1635 square miles of which approximately 

625 square miles of the river’s basin is in New Brunswick and 1010 square miles is in 

Maine. The east branch of the St Croix forms the easterly boundary of the Atlantic 

seaboard between the US and Canada. Historically, the St Croix river was noted for its 

large runs of anadromous fish, particularly Atlantic salmon, American shad, and alewife. 

Due to the international boundary formed by the St Croix river, the freshwater and 

anadromous fish resources of the main stem and East Branch are interjurisdictional 

resources under the joint management of state and federal US and provincial and federal 

Canadian fishery agencies (St Croix River Steering Committee). The St Croix River 

Steering Committee was established for the purpose of seeking mutual agreement on a 

course of action to rebuild the depleted fish stocks and for management strategies as the 

fisheries develop. A long term management plan was developed by the Steering 

Committee in 1988 and a subsequent five year management plan was developed in 1993. 

Due to continued fishway closures at Woodland and Grand Falls since 1995, the 1993 

plan was never fully implemented. 

 Overview: The upstream migration limit for anadromous species, particularly 

alewives (Gaspereaux) has been a center of controversy since the 1980’s when 

anadromous alewives were perceived to be the cause of substantial declines in 

smallmouth bass in the upper St Croix river. Prior to 1980, an old, inefficient, and limited 

capacity fishway at Milltown (constructed in 1960) allowed only limited passage of 

anadromous fish. Construction of a new fishway at Milltown in 1980, coupled with state 

of the art fishways constructed in 1964 at Woodland and Grand Falls, allowed alewives 

virtually unimpeded access nearly to the headwaters of the St Croix. Limited numbers of 

alewives had ascended the river above Woodland and Grand Falls as early as 1965 

because juvenile alewives were observed passing into the turbines at the Grand Falls 

powerhouse in the summer of that year by Fletcher (1965). By the mid to late 1980’s, 

smallmouth bass in Spednic Lake had apparently declined substantially. Following 

complaints of poor smallmouth bass fishing from local guides and sporting camps on 

Spednic Lake, the MDIF&W undertook a cooperative study with the New Brunswick 

DNR. After 10 years of investigative work at Spednic lake, that study concluded that the 

large influx from a natural run of alewives through the Vanceboro Dam fishway, coupled 

with a lake drawdown of 9-14 feet, resulted in the young bass fry becoming unprotected 

by the rocky shoreline habitat and forced to compete for food and habitat with young 

perch and alewife fry. The combination of the loss of protective habitat, through water 

drawdown, coupled with the excessive competition from other fish fry, was believed to 

have caused poor bass fry survival over several successive years. In response to the 

smallmouth bass decline, the St Croix River Steering committee agreed to block the 

Vanceboro fishway during the alewife run and requested that Georgia Pacific Company 

(Vanceboro Dam owner) revise its water management plan on the St Croix watershed to 
minimize the impacts of water drawdown on young bass. The Vanceboro fishway has 

been closed to alewife passage since 1988 with the exception of some limited passage in 

1991 when the fishway was not closed soon enough to prevent some limited alewife 

escapement. In spite of this proactive effort, in 1995 the Maine Legislature passed L.D. 

520, An Act to Stop the Alewives Restoration Program on the St Croix River, which 

resulted in unilateral closure of the Woodland and Grand falls fishways to the passage of 

alewives. This action, which was opposed by the fishery agencies of the state of Maine 

and Canada, caused the alewife run to decline from 2,600,000 in 1987 to 900 fish in 

2002. The Milltown Dam, owned by the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission and 

with a fishway and powerhouse located on the Canadian side of the river, was not subject 

to the Maine Legislature’s action. Alewives have continued to be released above the 

Milltown dam up to the present time. Because of recent dramatic declines in adult alewife 

returns, DFO Canada has been trucking alewives from the Milltown fishway to the 

Woodland impoundment since 2001. This has caused the alewife run to rebound from 

900 adult returns in 2002 to about 12,000 in 2006. 

 Smallmouth bass sportfishing guides and upriver camp owners allege that anadromous 

alewives historically had no access to the waters of the upper St Croix because of a 

natural falls (Salmon Falls) located at the head of tide. It is the purpose of this report to 

examine the history of early settlement of the area, archaeological information and 

historical fisheries records to determine the distribution and relative abundance of 

anadromous alewives in the St Croix watershed. 

 Historical Status of Anadromous Fish Runs.

 There are numerous references to the abundance of anadromous salmon, shad and 

alewife in the St Croix river. The first report (1867) of the Commissioners of Fisheries of 

the state of Maine had this to say about the St Croix River: “The St Croix was formerly 

very productive of salmon, shad, and alewives. Perley (1852), in his report of the 

fisheries of New Brunswick, states that the average catch of salmon at Salmon Falls, in 

Calais, was 18,000 annually. Gaspareaux, (alewives) came in such numbers that it 

supposed they could never be destroyed. The number of shad were almost incredible. The 

fisheries did not diminish up to 1825. Until that time there were fishways; but in that year 

the Union dam was built without a fishway, and the fisheries instantly fell off. We have 

the testimony of Mr. Ferdinand Tinker of Milltown, to the abundance of fish up to 1825. 

Perley says the whole number of salmon taken in 1851 was 200. Since that time they 

have remained the same until 1866, when 300 were caught. In 1867 there was a still 

further increase. Mr Treat of Eastport attributes this late increase of salmon to the 

influence of Porter’s stream, a tributary on the New Brunswick side of the river, to which 

they sometimes have access at the breeding season.” 

 Atkins (1887) reported: “The St Croix is remarkable, even among the rivers of Maine, 

for the great extent of the lake surface among its tributaries. These lakes afford 

breeding ground for great numbers of alewives, and, in the main river and its 

branches, here the salmon and there the shad found their favorite haunts. The exact limit 

of the upward migration of all these species is very naturally unknown with any degree of 

exactness, the entire upper portions of the basin being wilderness till long after the 

occupation of the lower banks and the erection of artificial obstructions; but the fact of 

their existence in great numbers in the river shows they must have passed the only 

serious obstacle to their ascent, the natural fall at Salmon Falls near the head of tide 
and found their breeding ground in the upper waters. From the early settlement of the 

country until 1825, there was annually a great abundance of salmon shad and alewives. 

.Vessels from Rhode Island, from 100 to 150 tons berthen, followed the fishing business 

on the river and were never known to leave without full cargoes. There were also several 

seines belonging to the inhabitants, which were worked in the tideway of the river, the 

owners of which put up annually 1,500 to 2,000 barrels of alewives for exportation. At 

the same time shad were caught in great numbers, often more than a hundred of them 

being caught in a small net in a single night.” 

 The St Croix River once supported large runs of anadromous species that ascended 

the river system nearly to its headwaters (Havey 1963). Keith Havey was the IF&W 

Regional fishery biologist for eastern Maine from the early 1950’ to the 1980’s. 

 In the late 1700’s, mill dams were built throughout the lower St Croix watershed, 

impounding tidal areas, streams, and sections of the mainstem between Baring/Upper 

Mills and Milltown. Fletcher (1982) reported that the early dams only partially blocked 

the river. They were built out from either shore obliquely upstream and did not meet at 

the center of the river, the opening serving as fish passage and as a vent for excess flows. 

While water ran around the open end of these dams, the retained water served as a log 

holding pond and insured a head of water to power the mills on shore. Fletcher also 

reported that the natural ledge barrier at Salmon Falls and the rapids at Milltown may 

have been a barrier to the anadromous fish runs at various water stages, particularly at 

low water flows. He further acknowledges that the construction of the Union Dam in 

1825 in Calais brought the taking of great quantities of salmon, shad, and gaspereau 

(alewives) to an end. This tidewater structure had no fishway. It is quite apparent that the 

lack of a fishway at the Union Dam virtually destroyed the anadromous fish runs of the St 

Croix. Fletcher surmised that the rapids immediately upstream of the Milltown dam and 

the rapids at Baring would be difficult for fish to pass at many water levels but at high 

flows, migratory fish would probably pass these areas successfully. 

Alewife Life History and Fisheries 

 The Maine Commissioners of Fisheries report of 1867 makes the following 

observations about alewives: “ The fishermen distinguish three separate schools or runs 

of different sizes of fish. The main body does not appear until late in May or in some 

rivers in June. Of the first run on the East Machias, 370 fill a barrel, of the second run, 

400, of the third run, 600.” ( It takes 120 alewives to fill a bushel, making a barrel of 

alewives equivalent to three bushels. If 2000 barrels were put up annually, this 

represents a minimum of 720,000 individual fish). 

 Collette and MacPhee (2002) Fishes of the Gulf of Maine 3rd edition provides the 

following description of alewife spawning habitat: “Alewives usually spawn in quiet 

waters of coves and ponds, including those behind barrier beaches (if there are openings 

to the sea, natural or artificial) and in sluggish sections of streams above the head of tide 

(Smith 1907; Belding 1921; Bigelow and Schroeder 1953; Marcy 1976B). Where further 

upstream migration is barred by dams, alewife will spawn in shore-bank eddies or deep 

pools (Loesch and Lund 1977). 

 During their spawning migration, alewife are much more successful than American 

shad in navigating fishways of suitable design. They do not generally jump over 

obstructions although they easily negotiate white water in rapids and fishways. 

Negotiating swift water apparently does not stress them because increases in blood lactic 
acid levels were not very great when tested during spawning runs in a fishway in the 

Gaspereaux river, N.S. (Dominy 1973). 

Adult alewives move up our rivers in May and June on spawning runs. They spawn 

mostly in lakes, but may choose slow-moving streams. The eggs are broadcast and there 

is no parental care. The young hatch in just a few days and spend part of their first 

summer in the waters in which they hatched, moving down to the sea between July and 

December of that first year. After three to five years they return to their home rivers to 

produce their own young. (Havey 1963) 

 Most alewife are believed to return to spawn in their stream of origin (Bigelow and 

Schroeder 1953; Loesch 1987). This theory is supported by meristic data (Messieh 1977), 

by establishment or reestablishment of spawning runs by stocking gravid adults (Belding 

1920, 1921; Bigelow and Schroeder 1953;Havey 1961) and by olfaction experiments 

(Thunberg 1971). 

 Alewife production in Maine is based on a production potential of 117.5 –235 adult 

returns per surface acre of spawning habitat. These very conservative production figures 

are derived as follows: Long term annual yield of alewives from the Damariscotta and St 

George Rivers (early 1950’s to early 1980’s) was 190 and 270 pounds per acre 

respectively. These figures do not include spawning escapement which is assumed to be 

15%, based on a one-day weekly closed period which was in effect at that time. More 

recently, harvests of alewives have dropped dramatically to between 50 to 100 pounds 

per acre. The average alewife weighs about 0.5 pounds, which translates to 100-200 

adults per acre yield. If 15% (a minimal % since current weekly closures have been 

increased from 24 to 72 hours) is added to this yield to account for spawning 

escapement, the production potential is 117.5 –235 returning adult fish per acre of 

spawning habitat. The following table shows the distribution of habitat and potential 

alewife production in the St Croix River drainage.( Acreages obtained from Five Year 

(1993-1997) Operational plan for the development and Management of the Diadromous 

Fishes of the St Croix River.) 

 Table 1 

 St Croix River Alewife Habitat/Production Above Milltown 

 River Reach Acreage % of Total Habitat Production @117.5 Production @ 235 

Milltowm to Woodland 131 0.1 15392 30,784 

Woodland to Grand Falls 1174 1.1 137,945 275,890 

Grand Falls Flowage 27,142 27.3 3,189,185 6,378,370 

Spednic Lake and above 36,209 36.5 4,254,557 8,509,114 

West Grand lake and above 34,549 34.8 4,059,507 8,119,015 

TOTAL 99,205 100.0 11,783,486 23,566,974 

Alewife habitat below Woodland represents only 0.1 % of the production 

potential of the drainage. There is virtually no alewife spawning habitat below the 

Milltown Dam (Lee Sochasky, personal communication), certainly no where near 

the habitat that exists between Milltown and Woodland. If we accept the theory 

that alewives never ascended above Salmon Falls where was the habitat that 

produced harvests in excess of 700,000 adults per year prior to 1825? Even the 
area from Salmon Falls (Milltown) to Woodland only provides a potential 

production of 15,000 fish. Moreover, the number returning in recent years as a 

result of stocking the Woodland impoundment is only about 12,000 fish 

annually). If production is doubled to replicate alewife yields in the 1950’s1980’s, the production is only 30,000 fish. Therefore alewives would have to have 

ascended above Grand Falls to produce runs of the magnitude mentioned in 

historical literature. Further evidence of alewife migration above Salmon Falls is 

provided by the following: 

Petition of Joseph Whitney et. al. for Removal of Obstructions in the St Croix 

River for the Passage of Fish, December 3, 1822 

“To the Honorable Senate & House of representatives of the state of Maine: 

We the undersigned, citizens of said state, respectfully represent that previous to 

existing obstructions, by mills and mill dams, on the St Croix or Schoodic River, 

great quantities of Salmon, Shad, and Alewives annually passed up and returned 

down said river to the great benefit and advantage of the community generally; 

and in an especial manner of the new settlements in the eastern part of the state— 

That said obstructions have rendered it almost impossible for the Shad and 

Alewives to pass above the town of Calais; whereas they used to pass from 

eighty to an hundred miles above; and they are now almost totally excluded 

from said River. 

 That it is confidently believed that if suitable fish ways should be provided and 

also suitable regulations for the taking of fish on said river, it would, as formerly, 

be abundantly supplied with fish and all the privileges and advantages of the 

proprietors of the mills and mill dams on said River remain unimpaired-- 

 

Wherefore, we pray, that such fishways and such regulations concerning the 

taking of fish on so much of said river and its branches as be within this state as 

may be deemed necessary to restore to its citizens their ancient privileges in this 

respect, may be provided by the Honourable House of representatives and as in 

duty bound we will ever pray. Joseph Whitney, Anson G. Chandler, Enoch 

Darling, William Smith, Andrew Tracy, Samuel Perkins, James Stuart, and John 

Harvey. 

 Not only did the petitioners believe that alewives ascended the river above 

Salmon Falls before the dams were built, but they also acknowledged that the 

alewife, shad, and salmon runs were depleted. as a result of the dams with no fish 

passages. If alewives never went above Salmon Falls, why did the run decline 

coincident with dam construction without fish passages? 
 Table 2 

 Adult Alewife Returns at Milltown 1981-2006 

Year Returns at Milltown Significant events 

1981 169,620 New pool & weir fishway at Milltown 

1982 233,102 

1983 151,952 

1984 152,900 

1985 368,900 

1986 1,984,720 

1987 2,624,700 

1988 2,590,750 Spednic Fishway closed to alewife 

1989 1,164,860 

1990 1,531,250 Grand falls Fishway blocked 

1991 586,910 Limited alewife escapes into Spednic 

1992 203,750 Limited escapes above Grand falls 

1993 297,720 Grand falls Fishway blocked 

1994 378,330 Grand falls Fishway blocked 

1995 223,133 Woodland & Grand Falls Fwys blocked 

1996 645,978 

1997 225,521 

1998 173,318 

1999 25,327 

2000 8,569 

2001 5,202 Woodland headpond stocked 

2002 900 Woodland headpond stocked 

2003 7,901 Woodland headpond stocked 

2004 1,299 Woodland headpond stocked 

2005 11,632 Woodland headpond stocked 

2006 11,829 Woodland headpond stocked 

Table 2 represents recent counts of adult alewife returns to the Milltown fishway. 

The majority of adults in the spawning run return after four to five years at sea. 

The 1988 closure of the Spednic lake fishway reduced the adult return from 

2,590,750 in 1988 to 203,750 in 1992; a ten fold reduction in the run over a span 

of four years. The 1990 closure of the Grand falls fishway resulted in a five fold 

reduction in adult returns in 1994. The 1995 closure of the Woodland and Grand 

falls fishways in 1995 reduced the adult return from 223,133 in 1995 to 25,327 in 

1999; an additional ten fold reduction over a four year period. The run further 
diminished to 900 returns in 2002 due to lack of access to alewife spawning 

habitat. Adult returns have increased only because DFO has been stocking the 

1174 acre Woodland impoundment since 2001. These data demonstrate 

conclusively that there is little habitat for alewife production below Salmon 

Falls and therefore alewives had to ascend the river above Salmon Falls and 

Grand falls to produce the historically abundant alewife run in the St Croix 

river. 

 Recent information received from Dr Arthur Spiess, Senior Archaeologist with 

the Maine Historic Preservation Commission, further demonstrates that alewives 

have been present in the upper portion of the St Croix watershed for at least 4000 

plus or minus 100 years. (See attachment A letter to Dr Spiess from Lewis Flagg 

and Attachment B response from Dr Spiess.). Following is a summary of Dr 

Spiess’ report: 

 “The Mud Lake stream site (BkDw 5) is located at the confluence of Mud lake 

Stream and Spednic Lake on the New Brunswick side. Excavated in 1983/4, the 

archaeologists recovered 17 alewife bones (representing multiple individual 

alewives-Dr Spiess personal communication 25May 07) from a hearth and/or a 

garbage pit (Figure 21). Charcoal from the pit was radiocarbon dated to 4000 plus 

or minus 100 years. As for specific identifications of animal bone, there are a 

few specialists who are quite good at the task, and we (I am included) use 

comparative collections as much as possible. When a bone is identified as 

“alewife” it is specifically differentiated from the larger shad on size. Native 

Americans of eastern Maine and western New Brunswick moved seasonally to be 

near food sources. The food animal bone, plant and shellfish remains (with one 

exception) from their sites seems appropriate to the local ecology. They did 

maintain long-distance trade networks, trading rocks, furs, and other high-value 

commodities. We do not have any evidence of trade in food stuffs. The one 

exception to the “food animal bone locally caught rule seems to be movement of 

bone that was used for tools and/or attached to pelts (such as in the form of 

medicine bags). the only fish bone that was used as a tool, and therefore moved 

across some distance, was swordfish sword. In short, we conclude that food was 

gathered within perhaps 1⁄2 day travel maximum, and often much less, from a 

camp site. ( 1⁄2 day travel by canoe is estimated by archaeologists to be no more 

than 10 miles. The distance from Calais or Meddybemps Lake to the Mud Lake 

site is between 60 and 65 miles so there is virtually no likelihood that alewives 

were carried to the Mud lake site from other known alewife sites.)We know from 

ethnographic records that camps were often made at good fishing locations, 

and the archeological record seems to support this pattern. In summary, the 

Mud Lake Stream site provided evidence of alewife above the head of tide on 

the St Croix 4000 years ago.” 

 It should be noted that Mud Lake Falls was reported by Mike Smith, IF&W 

biologist, to be impassable to anadromous alewives. Therefore, this was a logical 

place for native Americans to harvest alewives since they would naturally be 

backed up below the falls as is the case today when alewives encounter artificial 

and natural obstructions to passage. 
Summary and Conclusions 

 Therefore, I conclude that anadromous alewives historically ascended above 

Salmon Falls and Grand Falls based on the following evidence: 

1. There is not enough habitat below Salmon Falls and Grand falls to produce 

the historically large runs of alewives that were commercially exploited in the 

lower river. ( See Table 1.) 

2. Historical reports link the decline of alewives, shad, and salmon to the 

construction of dams at Salmon Falls and other sites on the lower river. If 

alewives never ascended the river above Salmon Falls, why did the alewife 

run decline dramatically coincident with dam construction on the lower river? 

I conclude that alewives did ascend the river above Salmon Falls and the 

decline in abundance of alewives, along with salmon and shad, was directly 

related to loss of access to upriver spawning and nursery habitat 

3. Since 1990 and 1995, when alewives were denied access to habitat above 

Grand Falls and Woodland respectively, adult returns declined dramatically 

from 2,600,000 adults to 900 and has shown no appreciable recovery up to the 

present. The habitat below Grand falls (Milltown and Woodland flowages) is 

producing a run of only about 12,000 adult alewives or approximately the 

number projected by DMR’s low range estimate in Table 1 for the river below 

Woodland. 

4. Archeological findings at the Mud Lake Stream site provide evidence of 

alewife above head of tide on the St Croix 4000 years ago. This was long 

before any fish passage modifications may have been made at Salmon Falls by 

European colonists. The Mud Lake site is 65 miles upstream of head of tide 

and the same distance from Meddybemps Lake and more than 65 miles 

upstream of the Devil’s Head site in the St Croix estuary, other known sites of 

alewife bones. These sites are much more than a 1⁄2 day travel maximum 

between where food was harvested and where it was consumed by native 

Americans. Therefore, I conclude that the alewives at the Mud Lake stream 

site were caught in Mud Lake stream or the immediate vicinity and therefore 

successfully passed upstream above Salmon Falls and Grand Falls. 

 

 Literature Cited 

Anon. 1988. Long-term management plan for the diadromous fisheries of 

 the St Croix River. Can. Ms Rep.Fish. Aquat. Sci. No.1969, 

 vii + 68 p. 

Anon. 1993. Five Year (1993-1997) Operational Plan for the Development 

 and Management of the Diadromous Fishes of the St Croix 

 River. 

Atkins, Charles G. 1889. The River Fisheries of Maine. In Fisheries and 

 Fishery Industries of the United States, 1887, Sec V, Vol. 1 pt. 

 XII, pp 637-728. 

Bigelow, Henry B. and William C. Schroeder 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. 

 2nd Edition 

Belding,D.L. 1920. The Preservation of the Alewife. Trans.Am.Fish.Soc. 49:92- 
 104 

Belding,D.L. 1921. A Report on the Alewife Fisheries of Massachusetts. 

 Div.Fish.Game, Dept.Cons.Mass Contrib.No 11. 135 pp. 

Collette, Bruce B. and Grace Klein-MacPhee 2002. Bigelow and Schroeder’s 

 Fishes of the Gulf of Maine 3rd edition 747 pp. 

Commissioners of Fisheries. 1867. First Report of the Commissioners of fisheries 

 of the state of Maine. 

Dominy,C.L. 1973. Effects of Entrance Pool Weir Elevation and fish density on 

 passage of alewives in a pool and weir fishway. 

 Trans.Am.Fish.Soc.102:398-404. 

Fletcher, J.S. 1965. Ltr from J. Fletcher to Larry Decker, IF&W Chief Engineer 

 concerning St Croix fishways. Sept 24, 1965. 

Fletcher, J.S. and A.L. Meister 1982. The St Croix River. An Atlantic Salmon 

 River Management Report. State of Maine Atlantic Salmon 

 Commission, Bangor, ME 

Havey, K.A. 1961. Restoration of anadromous alewives at Long Pond, Maine. 

 Trans.Am.Fish.Soc. 90:281-286. 

 Havey, K.A. 1963. St Croix River Fish Management and Restoration. Maine 

 Department of Inland Fisheries & Game and Atlantic salmon 

 Commission Machias, Maine.30p 

 Loesch,J.G. 1987 Overview of life history aspects of anadromous alewife and 

 blueback herring in freshwater habitats. Common Strategies 

 of Anadromous and Catadromous Fishes. Am. 

 Fish.Soc.Symp.1:89-103. 

Loesch, J.G. and W.A. Lund 1977 A Contribution to the life history of the 

 blueback herring. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.106:583-589. 

 Marcy, B.C. Jr. 1976B. Planktonic Fish Eggs and Larvae of the lower CT. river 

 and effects of the CT Yankee Plant including entrainment . 

 Am.Fish.Soc. Monogram No: 1:115-139. 

Messieh,S.N. 1977 Population structure and biology of alewives (Alosa 

 pseudoharengus) and blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) in 

 the St John River New Brunswick. Environ.Biol.Fishes 

 2:195-210. 

Perley, M.H. 1852. Reports on the sea and rivers fisheries of New Brunswick. 

 Repts. to the Legislatures of 1849, 1850, and 1851. J. 

 Simpson, Printer to the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, 

 Fredericton, N.B. 2nd edition, 294 p. 

Thunberg,B.E. 1971.Olfaction in parent stream selection by the alewife (Alosa 

 pseudoharengus). Anim.Beh. 19:217-225. 

Smith,H.M. 1907. The Fishes of North Carolina. N.C. Geol.Econ.Surv. 2:1-453. 

East 

Grand 

lake 

St Croix River Watershed
 

Maine and New Brunswick
 

Vanceboro dam (NB) I1"'P /",,$/1W-1Y 

NEW MA1NE BRUNSWICK 

~_~m ,'1A1P F,SHW"I Y 

_ d2m (ME or N8 /Uhwayjurisdiction notN for boundary dams) 

Passamaquoddy 

'0­
Arr/kH/I-I1f'/II T 8'. 

MAINE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
 

55 CAPITOL STREET
 

65 STATE HOUSE STATION
 

AUGUSTA, MAINE
 

04333
 

JOHN ELIAS BALDACCI EARLE G. SHETILEWORTH, JR. 

GOVERNOR DIRECTOR 

May 9, 2007 

Mr. Lewis N. Flagg 

34 Turkey Lane 

Winthrop, ME 04364 

Dear Mr. Flagg: 

1will try to answer your specific questions ofMay 3 about alewife presence in archaeological sites in 

and nearthe S1. Croix river within the body ofthis letter. To start with your last questions first, our office is 

the repository ofa copy ofmost archaeological reports generated in Maine, and we also have many from our 

colleagues in New Brunswick. Moreover, it is part of my job to be current in archaeological research that 

affects the understanding of archaeological sites in the region. Therefore, with reasonable assurance, the 

summary provided herein is complete, and you do not need to contact any other archaeologistsfor further data. 

The pre-ContaCt (pre-European Contact, or "prehistoric") Native Americans of eastern Maine and 

westernNewBrunswickwere hunter-tisher-gatherers, not agriculturalists. Theymoved seasonally, to be near 

food sources. The food animal bone, plant and shellfish remains (with one exception) from their sites always 

seems appropriate to the local ecology. They did maintain long-distance trade networks, trading rocks, furs 

and other high-value commodities. We do not have any evidence oftrade in food stuffs. The one exception 

to the "food animal bone locally caught" rule seems to be movement ofbone that was used for tools and/or 

attached to pelts (such as in the form of medicine bags). The only fish bone that was used as a tool, and 

therefore moved across some distance, was swordfish sword. 

Inshort, we conclude that food was gathered within perhaps day travel radius maximum, and often 

much less, from a camp site. We know from ethnographic records that camps were often made at good fishing 

locations, and the archaeological record seems to support this pattern. 

As for specific identifications ofanimal bone, there are a few specialists who are quite good at the task, 

andwe (I amincluded) use comparative collections as muchaspossible. When abone isidentified as "alewife" 

it is specifically differentiated from the larger shad on size. 

The number of archaeological sites with preserved food animal bone, and thus the amount of data 

relevant to your question, is rather low, because many sites on the S1. Croix above tide, and on the lakes, have 

been heavily damaged by erosion from water impoundment construction. Many sites on the tidal portions of 

the S1. Croix have been heavily eroded by an uncommonly rapid relative sea level rise over the last few 

thousand years. 

There are, in fact, only three archaeological sites with alewife bone that are relevant to your question, 

two on the St. Croix and one on the Dennys"i: 

The Mud Lake Stream site (BkDw 5) is located at the confluence ofMud Lake Stream and Spednic 

Lake on the New Brunswick side. Excavated in 1983/4, the archaeologists recovered 17 alewife bones from 

a hearth and/or garbage pit (Feature 21). Charcoal from the pit was radiocarbon dated to 4000 ± 100 years. 


 PHONE: (207) 287-2132 PRiNTED ON RECYClED PAPER FAX: (Z()7) ?Q7. .,.,'H 
MAINE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
 

55 CAPITOL STREET
 

65 STATE HOUSE STATION
 

AUGUSTA, MAINE
 

04333
 

JOHN ELIAS BALDACCI EARLE G. SHETTLEWORTH, JR. 

GOVERNOR DIRECTOR 

p2. Spiess to Flagg May 9, 2007 

The reference is: Michael Deal, 1985, Final Report on the 1983/4 Excavations at the Mud Lake Stream 

Site (BkDw 5), Southwestern New Brunswick. Manuscripts in Archaeology 15, New Brunswick Historical 

and Cultural Resources. 

The second site relevant to your questions is the Devil's Head site (97.10) on the tip ofthat landform 

in Calais. It is composed ofmultiple seemingly individual "wigwam" areas, with fire hearths and clam shell 

dump areas, both ofwhich yielded food animal bone. The associated artifacts date from as early as 1500 years 

to about 1800 A.D. Unidentified fish bone is the most common food animal bone category, and alewife is (by 

far) the most common bone identified to genus/species. I have enclosed the relevant pages from the report 

(Spiess and Cranmer 2005). Harvesting alewife was an important subsistence activity at this camp site. They 

were the most abundant species harvested, but specifying exact numbers is impossible. 

The third relevant site is the N'tolonapemk site (site 96.2), at the outlet ofMeddybemps Lake, on the 

Dennys River. This is the most important site so far discovered on an interior lake or river setting in Downeast 

Maine. The reference is: Michael S. Brigham et al., 2005, The Archaeology ofN'tolonapemk (96.02 ME), 

"Our Ancestor's Place": Phase ill Data Recovery at the Eastern Surplus Superfund Site, Meddybemps, 

Washington County, Maine. Archaeology Research Center, University of Maine at Farmington. 

Approximately 200 "features" (fire hearths, storage pits, and/or garbage pits) yielded a range ofradiocarbon 

dates (and appropriate artifact) from 8500 years to 550 years. This site covers nearly the entire range of 

cultural occupation in Maine. Over 70,000 fragments ofanimal bone from this site were examined, and about 

23;000 identified to class (mammal, bird, fish), family or genus/species. Throughout the sequence, the most 

common genus/species identification is alewife (906 bones), and fish (not further identified) numbers 9781 

bones. (Most ofthose were small fish that could be alewife.) The record of alewife anadramous behavior, 

reaching Meddybemps Lake on the Dennys River, over 8000 years, is quite clear. 

In summary, the Mud Lake Stream site provided evidence ofalewife above the head oftide on the S1. 

CroixfOOO years ago, and the Devil's Head site provides evidence ofalewife inshore intidal watersjustbelow 

Calais sometime between 1500 years ago and 1800 A.D. Site 95.2 at the outlet of Meddybemps Lake 

provides evidence that alewife harvesting was amajorseasonal activity for almost 8000 years atthe headwaters 

ofthe Dennys River. Unfortunately, no site ofthe quality of95.2 has been found on the S1. Croix drainage, 

but we presume that 95.2 can be used as a proxy statement that alewives have been a major anadramous fish 

presence in the downeast Maine rivers for millennia. 

S#l--~

Dr. Arthur Spiess 

Senior Archaeologist 

arthur.spiess@maine.gov 


 PHONE: (207) 287·2132 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER FAX: (207) 287·2335 
fI'rrA eNM Ii IV r rr 

E " 

DEVILS HEAD, CALAIS, AND SITE 97.10:
 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
 

FOR THE LAND FOR MAINE'S FUTURE BOARD
 

Arthur Spiess and Leon Cranmer
 

Maine Historic Preservation Commission
 

February, 2005
 
Devils Head Archaeological Survey, Calais 

1600. 

Fragments ofpearlware ceramic, manufactured from about 1785 to 1840, were recoveredin 

three testpits (tp 19, 20 and 28). Pearlware could, ofcourse, have been in use as "old" camp ware 

during or after the Civil War, but its presence in three testpits grouped in a 25 m area argues for 

more than one vessel and breakage/discard during the first halfofthe 19th century. 

AB mentioned in the history section, there is no historic indication of Emo-american 

constnlction at the site 97.10 area before the 20th century. Therefore. it is likely that these historic 

period artifacts reflect "camping" activity. Because these historic artifacts are widespread within 

the site area (T2 tp 5 to tp 20 being about 80% of the length of the site) we conclude that this 

"camping" occurred as small occupations that can not be easily separated from a similar Ceramic 

period pattern that preceded them. In the absence of specific evidence of use of this location by 

groups of Euro-americans, these historic artifacts must indicate continued use of the location by 

Native Americans through the 1 and 18th centuries. Ofcourse it is likely that these people were 

Etchemin, or ancestral Passamaquoddy-Maliseet, and (after the political alignment caused by the 

American Revolution) Passamaquoddy tribal members. This is one ofthe few archaeological sites 

in Maine to preserve archaeological evidence ofcontinuing use from the Ceramic period through 

the 18th century and perhaps into the 19th century. 

Faunal Remains 

Faunal remains from a shell midden fall into two primary categories: shell and vertebrate 

bone. The shell in the shell midden deposits at Devil's Head is 99.90IcrMya (soft shell clam). There 

are a few moon snail shells (a large univalve). 

The vertebrate bone occurs both in unburned and calcined (burned to a chalky white) states. 

Calcined bone is produced when fresh bone is exposed to a hot fire. The only fire hot enough to 

produce calcined bone at this site would have been hearth fires, and thus the calcined bone records 

discard of bone (or animal parts containing bone) directly into the fire. AB shown by the bone 

identifications (Appendix n), the calcined bone at this site is sub-sample ofthe unburnt bone, with 

the same range ofspecies represented. Because we did not excavate a large sample ofthe middens, 

and because we can not sort the samples into different age groups or "occupations" based on the 

small samples we do have from the site, the bone sample is summarized as a unit. Thus, we 

characterize the "Ceramic period" and "Contact period" use of the site as one economic focus, 

although future work might detect shifts in economic focus over time. 

The faunal sample is dominated (in numbers) by small fish bone, which is mostly alewife, 

with frequent flounder and sculpin. Sturgeon (scute or skin bone) is also common, although we can 

not directly compare the frequency ofsturgeon scute with other fish bones, because sturgeon do not 

have boney skeletons. The comparativeweightsindicate thatsturgeonwereperhapsthe secondmost 

important fish compared with alewife. Based on this species mix, perhaps fishing was being done 

with weirs or nets set in the intertidal zone. Three bones of(at least one individual) large cod fish 

are present, possibly indicating fishing further from shore and/or down the estuary. 

The identified mammal bone sample is dominated by moose in both count and weight, with 

beaver and deer second and third. A muskrat tooth is present, indicating that muskrat were also 

trapped (along with the beaver?). A large duck is represented by one bone (and possibly a second, 

51
 
Devils Head Archaeological Survey, Calais 

All ofthe moose bone could come from one individual moose. Three ofthe bones are hoof 

bones, and the two of those that can be identified from from a left fore-hoof. Five teeth and 

mandible parts are also present. The mandible part is an articular process fragment from a leftjaw, 

and all ofthe teeth are left teeth. The teeth include four deciduous upper molars (''baby teeth", or 

"?calfteeth") with their roots resorbing, and a premolar germ fragment (tooth still growing, not yet 

erupted). Thus these teeth document a moose about 15 to 18 months of age when the permanent 

premolars erupt and replace the deciduous molars. This specimen represents a summer to fall kill. 

These hoofbones come from Tl tp 20 and the teeth and mandIble part from Tl tp 27, about 35 m 

apart, so perhaps two moose are represented. The very large mammallongbone is almost certainly 

moose, as well. 

Fish bone constitutes 85% ofthe bone count atthe site, while moose, deer and large mammal 

bone constitutes 56% of the bone weight at the site. All the fishbone constitutes about 16% by 

weight ofthe bone. So, there are various ways to quantify diet contribution to the site. 

In sum, the diversity offaunal remains at the site is striking, probably representing multiple 

seasons ofoccupation and certainly representing a variety offishing and hunting techniques. The 

economic base was probably clam harvesting and intertidal fishing, supplemented by a diversity of 

hunting and trapping activities. 

53