Search Results

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and cloud computing has triggered a rapid expansion of data centers across the United States. According to the industry database, Data Center Map, there are at least 4,000 data centers across the U.S., with already 126 in New England states.² These facilities “use or [are] able to use twenty megawatts or more of power and [are] engaged in providing data processing, hosting, and related services as described under code 518210 of the 2022 North American Industry Classification System.”⁵ They are also often framed as engines of economic growth. However, a largely overlooked cost is the strain on our water systems, especially rivers and local watersheds. Data centers run twenty-four hours a day, generating enormous heat that must be constantly managed.⁴ Most facilities rely on water-intensive cooling systems, consuming anywhere from 300,000 to 500,000 gallons per day.⁴ The largest “hyperscale” centers can use up to five million gallons daily, roughly equivalent to the water consumption of a small city such as Concord, NH.³ This water is often drawn from the same public supplies that serve residents, farmers, and local ecosystems, many of which are directly connected to nearby rivers and watersheds.⁴ In many cases, it is not returned to the watershed, as much of it evaporates during the cooling process.³ The impact does not stop there. A report from Ceres found that indirect water use, primarily from power generation to meet massive energy needs, has an even greater impact than data centers’ direct on-site water use.¹ Power plants (especially those fueled by coal, gas, or nuclear energy) require vast quantities of water for cooling and steam generation.⁴ In 2022 alone, 40% of total U.S. water withdrawals, or about 48.5 trillion gallons, were made by coal and gas power plants.⁴ As demand for data centers continues to surge, so too will the hidden water footprint tied to their electricity consumption. Equally concerning is water quality. Data centers often use chemical treatments such as biocides and corrosion inhibitors in their cooling systems.⁴ These substances, along with trace heavy metals, can enter water systems.⁴ Evaporative cooling can also release salt particles into the air, which eventually settle into nearby soils and waterways.⁴ This increases salinity and harms aquatic life. Impacts like these compound existing environmental stressors and threaten long-term ecosystem health. Ceres states, “[d]ata center growth could increase water stress in already strained basins by up to 17% annually, with even higher spikes in peak seasons.”¹ Some prominent bills regarding data centers have been introduced in a few New England states: In Connecticut, SB245 is an act that would eliminate certain tax incentives for data centers. Currently, Connecticut has in place a Data Center Tax Incentive Program that allows the State to provide tax exemptions to eligible data centers within the state and make a minimum investment.⁷ In New Hampshire, SB439 was passed by the Senate and would authorize municipalities to regulate data centers in commercial and industrial zones. In Maine, LD 307 is an act “to establish the Maine Data Center Coordination Council and place a temporary limitation on certain data centers.” This bill places a moratorium on data centers with a load of twenty megawatts or more. LD 307 passed in both the House and Senate. Maine has officially become the first state with a data center ban.⁶ In Massachusetts, H83 would establish a special legislative commission to investigate and study the increasing electricity load caused by AI and data centers. In Vermont, H.727 is an act relating to sustainable data center deployment. The purpose of the bill is “to establish a regulatory framework that ensures responsible growth of an emerging industry in a manner that protects existing electric ratepayers from unwarranted costs and promotes sustainable climate, environmental, community, and equity outcomes consistent with State policies.”⁵ States across the Connecticut River region and beyond must adopt policies to reduce dire impacts to our waterways and environment. Without thoughtful planning and regulation, data center expansion risks quietly draining the very resources communities rely on most. Water is finite, local, and essential. As states compete to attract data centers, they must ensure that short-term economic gains do not come at the long-term expense of rivers, ecosystems, and public trust. ¹Ceres; ²Data Center Map; ³Lincoln Institute of Land Policy; ⁴Nature Forward; ⁵VT H.727 ⁶Maine Morning Star ⁷CT.gov

Cyanobacteria bloom at Nashawannuck Pond in July 2025 Program Overview Connecticut River Conservancy (CRC) began monitoring cyanobacteria in Hampshire County, Massachusetts in 2023 and has since increased the number of sample sites and sampling frequency. This program was started due to concern from community members about potential cyanobacteria blooms at existing aquatic invasive species removal sites. Monitoring as of June 2025 includes 13 sample locations at eight water bodies, and each site is monitored on a biweekly basis from May through October. All results are emailed to interested stakeholders following sampling events. Additionally, town health departments are notified if a public water body tests positive for a bloom. CRC is not responsible for any cyanobacteria-related signage at water bodies and does not have the authority to enforce regulations regarding water usage. Please consult with local town governments for issuing or lifting advisories related to cyanobacteria blooms and water usage. What is Cyanobacteria? Cyanobacteria is a phylum of photosynthetic bacteria that produce chlorophyll as well as another pigment called phycocyanin. Some cyanobacteria also produce cyanotoxins. Cyanotoxins can have a wide range of health effects on humans and animals dependent on species and concentration. A ‘bloom’ is said to occur when the ratio of chlorophyll to phycocyanin reaches a certain threshold. Anthropogenic climate change may increase the frequency and duration of blooms, and this may lead to increased health risks. The presence of a bloom does not necessarily indicate the presence of cyanotoxins, and additional testing is needed to determine the presence of toxins and the species of cyanobacteria present. Different species may emit different toxins that are harmful at different concentrations and have different health impacts. Additionally, a cyanobacteria bloom does not always have a particular appearance, smell, or other indicator. As a result of these varied possibilities, it is best practice to avoid a water body with a confirmed or suspected cyanobacteria bloom. Monitoring Results This cyanobacteria monitoring project is still in its early phases, so the results presented below are not definitive. We now have data from two complete monitoring seasons, 2024 and 2025. Both years were hot and dry, with drought conditions observed late in the season. Collecting data for complete seasons under a variety of conditions will help to build a more complete picture about each individual water body as well as any impacts that land use or mitigation strategies have on cyanobacteria blooms. A total of 356 data observations were made across the three years and the various water bodies sampled: 2023 had 48 observations, 2024 had 143 observations, and 2025 had 165 observations. Based on the information collected, this program has grown substantially since the first year of data collection. Data from these three years at the sites do not show any clear trends. This is a small-scale study in a limited geographic region and may not be representative of larger data trends. Temperature, eutrophication, and other factors impact the likelihood and frequency of blooms seen in recent years (WHOI 2019). Additionally, increasing reports may be indicative of increased bloom occurrence, increased awareness of cyanobacteria blooms, and/or increased reporting capacity. Blooms Detected by Site and Year In 2023, blooms were only detected in Swimming Pond and Kayak Pond. In 2024, blooms were detected in Swimming Pond, Kayak Pond, Lower Great Pond, Triangle Pond, Rubber Thread Pond, and at Pine Island Lake (sampling location 1). In 2025, blooms were detected at Swimming Pond, Kayak Pond, and at all three sampling locations on Nashawannuck Pond. In the figures below, blooms by sampling site are shown in green (bloom detected) vs. blue (bloom not detected). Blooms Detected by Month and Year In 2023, blooms were only detected in July and August. In 2024, blooms were detected in July, September, and October. In 2025, blooms were detected in June, July, and August. In the figures below, blooms by month are shown in green (bloom detected) vs. blue (bloom not detected). Data by Site Group and Land Use Hockanum Road Ponds The Hockanum Road Ponds group is comprised of two small ponds on private property in Hadley called Kayak Pond and Swimming Pond (named by the landowner). This is the smallest watershed in the project at 0.11 square miles. Due to its small size, the entirety of the watershed is considered forested by the National Land Cover Database (NLCD). At a finer resolution than we can calculate, there is some development (housing) and open green space (lawn) within the watershed. Lake Warner Lake Warner is an impoundment near the mouth of the Mill River in Hadley. It is the largest watershed in this project at 31.7 square miles. The Mill River watershed has a large variety of land uses. In addition to a significant amount of forest, primarily in the headwaters, it also includes significant agricultural use, and most of the University of Massachusetts Amherst campus. Lake Warner is preserved by the nonprofit Friends of Lake Warner and the Mill River. Great Pond Great Pond, located in Hatfield, is divided into two sections which we informally call “Upper Great Pond” and “Lower Great Pond.” Water flows out of lower Great Pond into Cow Bridge Brook and then into the Connecticut River. The 2.91 square mile watershed is primarily agricultural land use followed by wetlands and forests. Northampton Ponds Triangle Pond and Magnolia Pond are two hydrologically connected ponds just off the Oxbow and the Connecticut River within the Silvio O. Conte National Wildlife Refuge in Northampton. They are frequented by paddlers and anglers. This is a small watershed at 0.22 square miles that is split nearly equally between open water, wetland, and agricultural use. Nashawannuck Pond Nashawannuck Pond is in the center of Easthampton. It has a 10.2 square mile watershed which includes Rubber Thread Pond, and it is part of the Manhan River watershed. The watershed is about half forested and a little over a quarter developed. It is preserved by the Nashawannuck Pond Steering Committee, an all-volunteer group of Easthampton residents. Rubber Thread Pond Rubber Thread Pond is a small pond located to the west of Nashawannuck Pond in Easthampton. Its watershed is a 1.25 square mile subsection of the Nashawannuck Pond watershed. This portion of the watershed is nearly half developed and only about one-quarter forested. Compared to Nashawannuck Pond, Rubber Thread Pond is more immediately affected by urban runoff. Pine Island Lake Pine Island Lake is located in Westhampton, as part of the Manhan River watershed. It is within and has a small, mostly forested 0.72 square mile watershed. It is also within the Manhan River watershed. It is privately owned and preserved by the Pine Island Lake Association and has strict controls in place to prevent the introduction of invasive aquatic species. Discussion Factors impacting blooms include temperature, nutrient abundance (particularly phosphorus in freshwater systems), wind and weather, past and present land use, and more. Anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change exacerbates risk factors for cyanobacteria blooms. In particular, higher temperatures and increased nutrient inputs may contribute to trends in blooms. Land uses that contribute to higher nutrient inputs may generally pose greater risks for blooms; however, this does not appear to be the case at the locations tested. A group of concerned community members organize barley straw deployment to help manage cyanobacteria blooms. Barley straw is being studied as a cyanobacteria bloom mitigation strategy that may reduce the time for which a bloom is present. As it decomposes, barley straw slowly releases a low dose of compounds (the exact chemical pathway is not entirely clear) that interrupt the reproductive cycle of the cyanobacteria. For this reason, barley straw is considered a bacteriostat as it does not kill the cyanobacteria. Barley straw has been deployed in Nashawannuck Pond, Pine Island Lake, Hadley Swimming Pond, and Hadley Kayak Pond. The volume of barley straw deployed at each site has differed depending on the monitoring year but is generally calculated based on the surface area of the water body. Overall, land use and barley straw presence do not show clear impacts on the presence of blooms. Hadley Kayak and Hadley Swimming Ponds have had blooms in each monitoring year, but the presence of blooms at other sites has differed year to year. More data is needed to better understand the factors contributing to blooms at these sites. Cyanobacteria bloom at Hockanum Road Ponds in July 2025 Data use and next steps CRC submitted all 2025 observations to the Environmental Protection Agency’s water quality database (WQX) in December 2025. This data is now available to the public through the EPA’s water quality portal. These data are preapproved by the EPA due to CRC’s Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) designed for this monitoring project. CRC plans to continue cyanobacteria monitoring at the same sites from May-October 2026 and, as of March 2026, has received funding from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) for the 2026 season to continue this work. A note from Melissa (Water Quality Program Manager) and Jodie (Water Quality Monitoring Assistant) We had a blast this year out on the water! We spotted whirligig beetles, water striders, great blue herons, double-crested cormorants, kingfishers, a green heron, dozens of painted turtles and red eared sliders, eastern newts, frogs, grackles, ducks, bald eagles, dragonflies and damselflies (including a dragonfly larva clinging to a twig!), aquatic snails, and more! We both saw our first beaver paddling on Magnolia Pond, lots of bryozoan (a colonial invertebrate reminiscent of coral) that we were able to look at under a microscope, and a new-to-us insect called a woolly alder aphid. We are so grateful to everyone involved in this program and everyone who supports CRC. Most of all, we are grateful for our stunning watershed and the many creatures and treasures within it. Putting our feet up in the middle of a busy monitoring day at Triangle Pond Support the Water Quality Monitoring Program

Aquatic invasive plants are reshaping our rivers and waterbodies across the region. In this Live Stream webinar, we explore the Connecticut River’s aquatic invasive plants with a focused look at water chestnut and hydrilla. We discuss how to recognize them, mechanisms that result in their spreading, and the short- and long-term impacts they have on our native ecosystems. We also cover practical ways you can get involved, from adding intention to your own recreational equipment management practices to hand pulling opportunities throughout the watershed. Our lead speaker is Kelly Beerman, the Connecticut River Conservancy’s (CRC) Aquatic Invasive Species Program Manager. Kelly is responsible for directing, coordinating, and executing CRC’s work regarding hydrilla, water chestnut, and all aquatic invasives throughout the Connecticut River watershed. This includes current community education & outreach initiatives as well as designing and implementing future projects. We were also joined by Toni Stewart and Jim Straub from the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Lakes and Ponds Program . Recorded on 04/15/2026 _____________________ About Live Stream : CRC brings your rivers to you! Join CRC staff and partners for a series of live lunchtime presentations, on select Wednesdays from Noon-1pm. You get to learn more about the rivers you love, ask questions, and interact with a river-loving community all from the comfort and safety of your home (or wherever you may be). LiveStream will be hosted via Zoom. Please register for each presentation to receive meeting information.

Film still from Between Moon Tides, one of the films that will will be shown at the Wild & Scenic Film Festival in Bellows Falls, VT on April 30, 2026. A CELEBRATION OF OUR ENVIRONMENT! The Connecticut River Conservancy (CRC) is excited to once again host the Wild & Scenic Film Festival at the Bellows Falls Opera House on Thursday, April 30 th .   The tour event will feature a range of river-focused environmental films from across the globe, including one made by CRC right here in the Connecticut River watershed. The film selection will cover a range of topics with a common thread of human connection and stewardship of the natural world. These films highlight inspiring stories of resilience, research, and community. In addition to the films, the event will include speakers and raffle prizes. "The Wild and Scenic Film Festival is a great opportunity to reflect on our place in the natural world and dream about the adventures that warmer weather can bring,” says Kathy Urffer, Director of Policy and Advocacy, and Vermont River Steward. “The films inspire you to get out there to connect with life and protect what sustains and nourishes us - our planet." This will be the second year of the Conservancy’s hosting of the Wild and Scenic Film Festival in Bellows Falls, with a turnout of over 100 guests at last year’s event. Similar events occur in other parts of the watershed, but with each organization hosting a unique selection of films—and CRC contributing an original short film this year related to migratory fish research—no two Film Festival events are ever the same.   The Festival is a natural extension of CRC’s work to restore and advocate for clean water, healthy habitats, and resilient communities throughout the region. Attendees will learn about upcoming river restoration projects, and opportunities to get involved with community science, river cleanups, and more. CRC is hosting the Wild & Scenic Film Festival event in hopes that guests will leave with a renewed interest in the natural world just as spring begins to bloom. Local sponsors for the event include the Savings Bank of Walpole, 802 Credit Union, Chroma, Ottauquechee Natural Resources Conservation District, Lawson’s Finest Liquors, Reuter Foundation Repairs, Northern Woodlands Magazine, and many others listed on the event page here. The Connecticut River Conservancy is looking forward to seeing you at the Wild & Scenic Film Festival!    EVENT DETAILS:  Date: Thursday, April 30 th , 2026 Time: Doors open at 6:00pm and films start at 6:30pm  Ticket Prices: $10 for children, $12 for adults, $15 at the door  Tickets can be purchased in advance or at the door. For more information, visit www.ctriver.org/wild-scenic-films .   About the Connecticut River Conservancy: The Connecticut River Conservancy (CRC) restores and advocates for clean water, healthy habitats, and resilient communities to support a diverse and thriving watershed. Through collaborative partnerships in New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, CRC leads and supports science-based efforts for natural and life-filled rivers from source to sea. Learn more at  ctriver.org . About the Wild & Scenic Film Festival: The Wild & Scenic Film Festival was started by the watershed advocacy group, the South Yuba River Citizens League (SYRCL) in 2003. The festival’s namesake is in celebration of SYRCL’s landmark victory to receive “Wild & Scenic” status for 39 miles of the South Yuba River in 1999. Proceeds from the flagship festival each year go directly to fostering the science, advocacy, activism and education that are crucial to keeping their river healthy and beautiful. Learn more at wildandscenicfilmfestival.org .

Connecticut River in Northfield, MA In February 2026, the Connecticut River Conservancy (CRC) submitted comments to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) on proposed updates to the state’s Surface Water Quality Standards (314 CMR 4.0). These standards are a cornerstone of clean water protections under the federal Clean Water Act and determine how clean rivers, lakes, and coastal waters must be to support uses such as drinking water, swimming, boating, and aquatic life. CRC supports many of MassDEP’s proposed improvements, including stronger recreational protections and the removal of outdated classifications. However, we also recommended several important changes to ensure the standards reflect today’s environmental challenges and provide stronger protection for Massachusetts waters. One key recommendation is to protect water quantity alongside water quality. Low river flows, caused by drought or excessive withdrawals, can concentrate pollution, raise water temperatures, and increase harmful algal blooms. Neighboring states, such as Vermont and Connecticut, already include requirements to maintain adequate flows to protect water quality. CRC urged MassDEP to adopt similar language, apply standards to hydrologic changes such as dams and water withdrawals, and use the most recent thirty years of hydrologic data when determining low-flow conditions. CRC also called on the state to adopt numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus. Nutrient pollution fuels algae blooms that degrade lakes, rivers, and estuaries. Massachusetts currently lags behind other New England states in establishing statewide numeric limits. CRC recommends adopting EPA nutrient criteria for lakes and reservoirs now and developing criteria for rivers, streams, and estuaries during the next review cycle. Another priority is establishing water quality standards for PFAS and cyanobacteria. Both are considered toxic pollutants and are growing concerns for public health and aquatic ecosystems. CRC recommended adopting EPA cyanobacteria criteria and developing PFAS standards aligned with federal guidance so that communities have enforceable protections rather than advisories alone. CRC also recommended strengthening bacteria monitoring requirements. MassDEP proposes using a 30-day assessment window for bathing beaches but a 90-day window for other waters. CRC urged the state to apply a consistent 30-day window for all waters, consistent with EPA guidance, to better capture short-term contamination spikes that pose risks to swimmers and boaters. Additional recommendations include strengthening coldwater fisheries protections, clarifying and actively designating Special Resource Waters, and improving public engagement and transparency during the triennial review process. Surface Water Quality Standards determine whether it is safe to swim, whether fish populations thrive, and how resilient our rivers are to climate change. As drought intensifies and emerging contaminants spread, Massachusetts must ensure its standards remain modern, science-based, and protective. CRC remains committed to working with MassDEP, municipalities, and community partners to safeguard clean water for current and future generations. You can read the proposed amendments here !

Aerial view of Jacobs Brook project area after large wood installation and riverbank terracing (but before buffer planting). [Press Release] The Connecticut River Conservancy's (CRC) work to reduce erosion and restore floodplains continues this fall with several implementation projects in New Hampshire thanks to funding from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation. After several years of completing the necessary engineering design and permitting work, construction has begun for a biostabilization project on Jacobs Brook in Orford, NH. CRC hired a local engineer and contractor who specialize in this style of stream restoration work to design and implement the project. The effort will install large wood (the roots and bottom 20' of large trees) along the river’s edge and lower and terrace the riverbank behind the root wads. The root wads and terraces serve to slow the brook’s flow during storm events and give floodwaters more room to spread out.   A 50’ wide riparian buffer will be planted with native trees and shrubs after the root wads are secured and construction is completed. These roots help hold the soil in place and trap sediment, flood debris, and ice for years to come. The native vegetation will also help to cool river temperatures and provide riparian habitat.   During severe flooding in July 2017, many roadways and riverbanks along Jacobs Brook were damaged. Over the next several years, while roadway and bridge repair and improvement projects were completed, the destabilized streambanks have continually eroded. Property owner Shawn Washburn observed worsening impacts to the habitat in the stream with each passing storm as over 30 lateral feet of farmland were lost—land that had been in his family for seven generations. Without intervention, these streambanks would only continue to erode further.   Unsure of where to turn, Shawn reached out to NRCS for help, who connected him with the restoration team at CRC. CRC was able to help by applying for funds, obtaining the engineering design and permits, and coordinating the construction.   Lauren Zielinski, CRC's Stream Restoration Specialist, has been leading the project.   "CRC, NRCS, and the landowner have been in the planning phase of this project for the past two years and we are excited to finally break ground. This will have lasting benefits to the Jacobs Brook watershed and improve critical coldwater habitat in the region."     The goal of this project is to fix the severe erosion and use natural materials (rootwads and native vegetation) to dissipate the river’s energy, thereby reducing the potential for future erosion. An added benefit is that these natural materials also improve instream and riparian habitats. Once completed, this effort will have multiple benefits, including:   Lowering sediment and nitrogen inputs into Jacobs Brook, thereby improving water quality and brook trout habitat; Increasing the amount of native vegetation on and around the streambank, providing long-term stabilization and increasing habitat for fish, birds, insects, and other wildlife; and Preserving historic farmland in the Connecticut River Valley.   “I’ve been so impressed by the organization and professionalism of everyone involved. I’m very thankful that so many people came together on a project that will help the community, improve the habitat in the brook, and protect our 7th generation family farm here in Orford,”  said Shawn Washburn. “Without CRC and NRCS, we wouldn’t be able to do this.”   This project was funded by the NRCS Regional Conservation Partnership Program and the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation’s Upper Connecticut River Mitigation and Enhancement Fund. Start of river restoration work on Jacobs Brook in Orford, NH. Left photo: A close up of a rootwads before being placed into the ground. A rootwad is a tree that has been removed from the ground with the roots still attached, limbs removed, and the trunk trimmed to 20-25 feet long. Right photo: Rootwads after they have been installed along the streambank. This project will use about 20 rootwads to protect 170' feet of eroding bank. This is just one of several that CRC and partners are implementing in New Hampshire, with additional projects recently completed or in the works in Walpole, Piermont, and Pittsburg. Over the years, CRC has implemented nearly two dozen of these large wood restoration projects throughout the Connecticut River watershed in NH, VT, MA, and CT. March 2026 update : Spring runoff and we're seeing the intended result. The rootwads are deflecting the fast flows towards the center of the stream while slowing down the flows between the rootwads and the streambank to prevent erosion. Learn more about Connecticut River Conservancy's restoration projects here .   For questions about this announcement:   Lauren Zielinski Stream Restoration Specialist Connecticut River Conservancy (603) 325-7022 | lzielinski@ctriver.org Ron Rhodes Director of Programs Connecticut River Conservancy (413) 768-4994 | Rrhodes@ctriver.org

Fish passage is a critical component of river health and resilience. Connecticut River Conservancy (CRC) hosted a webinar exploring fish passage on the Connecticut River. Speakers dug deep into the importance of fish passage in our watershed, the intricacies of proper design, and what it takes to get it right. This webinar discusses how effective design restores migratory pathways and meets evolving regulatory requirements. Speakers included: Ken Sprankle , United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Restoration Coordinator for the Connecticut River Migratory Fish Restoration Cooperative Jesus Morales , USFWS Hydraulic Engineer for Fish Passage Engineering Kate Buckman , CRC Aquatic Ecologist Recorded 3/18/2026 _____________________ About Live Stream : CRC brings your rivers to you! Join CRC staff and partners for a series of live lunchtime presentations, on select Wednesdays from Noon-1pm. You get to learn more about the rivers you love, ask questions, and interact with a river-loving community all from the comfort and safety of your home (or wherever you may be). Live Stream will be hosted via Zoom. Please register for each presentation to receive meeting information. Find out more about upcoming events at ctriver.org/events

Winters in the Connecticut River watershed are evolving as our climate continues to change. Join the Connecticut River Conservancy (CRC) and guest speakers Matt Devine (CT DEEP) and Jamie Shanley (USGS) for this hour-long Live Stream  webinar, “Understanding our Winter Watershed.”  During this Live Stream , we take a deeper look below our winter river’s surface and at our watershed’s holistic dynamics. We learn about the shifts in our river's ecology throughout the colder winter months. We get curious about how a changing climate leads to a changing snowpack and this impact on the watershed. Finally, CRC's Lab and Monitoring Coordinator, Melissa Langley , helps us anchor into CRC water quality and chloride monitoring program efforts. Whether you’re a paddler, angler, scientist, student, winter lover, or simply curious about the natural world, this LiveStream webinar offers a fresh look at winter as an active and essential season for our rivers that can also tell us a lot about change.  Resources:   USGS Sleepers River Research Watershed   USGS Gauges and Water Data (Find more targeted Sleepers River & Connecticut River gauge links at the end of the email)  CT DEEP Habitat Conservation Enhancement   CT DEEP Fishing   CRC Is It Clean? Water Quality Data     Chloride Monitoring & Road Salt Information:   Salt Watch   Salt Watch’s Guide to Salting    CRC Chloride Monitoring Signup   2026 Vermont Environment Common Agenda   New Hampshire’s Green SnowPro Certification   Connecticut’s Green SnowPro Certification     Stay Connected:   SIGN UP for our eNewsletter. You can select the news you want to hear about – volunteering, hydropower, the Source to Sea Cleanup, or river news by state.  ATTEND our next LiveStream or an upcoming event.  VISIT the CRC website for all your river news and info.  SUPPORT   CRC’s efforts to monitor, cleanup, advocate, educate, and restore the health of our rivers.  Recorded on 2/25/2026 _____________________ About Live Stream :  CRC brings your rivers to you! Join CRC staff and partners for a series of live lunchtime presentations, on select Wednesdays from Noon-1pm. You get to learn more about the rivers you love, ask questions, and interact with a river-loving community all from the comfort and safety of your home (or wherever you may be). Live Stream  will be hosted via Zoom. Please register for each presentation to receive meeting information.    See past, present and future events in our Live Stream  playlist  on YouTube. Check out CRC's Events Calendar  to learn about other upcoming events.  Please contact Amanda Major, Outreach & Events Coordinator, at amajor [at] ctriver [dot] org at CRC if you have any follow up questions.

Partners including the Connecticut River Conservancy and Trout Unlimited on site during the Jack's Brook dam removal in Dover, VT. The Connecticut River Conservancy (CRC) is happy to share the completion of 20 river restoration projects in 15 towns throughout the watershed in NH, VT, & MA in 2025.  These projects have helped increase flood resiliency in local communities, and improved water quality and access to spawning grounds for fish and other organisms. Funding for the projects came from federal and state agencies, foundations, and CRC donors, and were implemented with the support of dedicated project partners listed below.  Completed Restoration Projects:   2 dam removals in Dover and Springfield (VT), opening 4 miles of stream habitat for aquatic organism passage   2 biostabilization projects in Orford and Acworth (NH), restoring 450 linear feet of eroding banks  4 strategic wood additions on 13 streams in Vershire and Strafford (VT), affecting 6.2 miles of river habitat 12 riparian buffer plantings with 7,722 trees planted over 16.3 acres in NH, VT, and MA  “These restoration projects make a tangible and lasting difference for our rivers, habitats, fish, and communities” said Rebecca Todd, Executive Director at CRC. “It takes a village of fantastic partners, landowners, and community members to make these projects happen!"  River restoration efforts are essential to caring for the Connecticut River and its many tributaries. As the watershed faces new pressures—from increasingly frequent flooding to long‑standing obstacles like aging dams, habitat fragmentation, and ongoing erosion—CRC and partners employ a wide range of environmental strategies to strengthen the river system. Alongside CRC’s broader work in advocacy , water quality monitoring , and community science , these restoration projects deliver visible, on‑the‑ground benefits, creating more connected habitat for fish and helping build safer, more resilient river communities.      Dam Removal   There are over 3,000 dams in the Connecticut River watershed, many of which are obsolete. An additional 44,000 stream crossings (bridges and culverts) are undersized. Not only are these obstructions no longer serving their intended purpose or being maintained, but they also prevent fish passage and habitat connectivity for wildlife, and result in lower water quality downstream.    In 2025, CRC worked with local , state and federal partners to remove two old dams that were blocking fish passage for native species (brook trout and sea lamprey) in Vermont. These projects will restore water quality, reconnect native fish habitat, and lower flood elevation levels to protect local communities from the risks of severe flooding. You can read more about   Jack’s Brook dam removal and the Valley Street Dam removal.    We were also proud to recognize the Trout Unlimited Northeast Coldwater Habitat Restoration Program as our Restoration Partner of the Year in recognition of their excellent partnership in the Jack’s Brook dam removal project.   Biostabilization    Biostabilization projects help stabilize eroding banks caused by flooding or improper land use. Instead of using riprap or “hard protections” which cause erosion problems downstream, biostabilization uses natural materials to reduce erosion by improving the strength of the riverbank and slowing down the flowing water, reducing the capacity of flood waters to cause erosion. Often, rootwads (the roots and stem of a tree) are placed in a streambank, covered in soil, and native vegetation is planted on top. The rootwads provide bank protection while the vegetation continues to grow and strengthen the bank over time. In addition, these projects help reduce nitrogen and sediment loading in our waterways, improve riparian and instream habitats, and provide shade and protection for fish and other aquatic organisms.    You can read more about the Jacobs Brook biostabilization project in Orford, NH.   Strategic Wood Addition   CRC works with Redstart Inc. and landowners in the greater Upper Valley area (VT/NH) to create habitat and improve water quality in small headwater streams in the Connecticut River watershed. Felled trees are secured in place at specific intervals and groupings based on state and federal guidelines. Previous projects have resulted in a three-fold increase in brook trout populations!   In 2025, CRC and Redstart implemented four strategic wood addition projects throughout 13 streams and 6.2 miles of native brook trout (and other aquatic organism) habitat in Vershire and Strafford, VT. We even know exactly how many wood pieces were used this year: 1,311!   CRC staff, Board of Trustees, partners, and volunteers in front of CRC's 100,000th tree (a paper birch) planted in the Connecticut River watershed near the site of the former Blake Higgins dam in Bellows Falls, VT. Riparian Buffer Plantings    Buffer projects involve planting native trees and shrubs to create a vegetation zone between developed land and waterways, thereby helping to control erosion and slow the flow of water during flood events. In 2025, CRC and partners continued to restore floodplain forests and forested riparian buffers by planting 7,722 native trees and shrubs on 16.3 acres in 11 towns in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts.   These projects raised CRC's total number of trees and shrubs planted since 2011 to 104,908 stems. To mark this important milestone, we planted the 100,000th tree at the former site of the Blake & Higgins Dam in Westminster, Vermont . Towns in Vermont that included buffer plantings were Westminster, Plymouth, Bridgewater, Woodstock, Norwich, and Newbury. Towns in New Hampshire included Acworth, Orford, and North Stratford. Towns in Massachusetts included Holyoke and Amherst.   Here is a summary of just one of these planting projects:  In October 2025, CRC, Town of Amherst staff and community volunteers planted 210 trees and shrubs along approximately 500 feet of the Fort River at the former Hickory Ridge Golf Course in Amherst, MA. The retired golf course is now conservation land owned by the town, and the buffer planting is part of an ongoing restoration effort at the site. Trees and shrubs were selected to add species diversity and wildlife value including red maple, red oak, sycamore, paper birch, river birch, alder, black cherry, red osier dogwood, spice bush, arrow wood, and American cranberrybush.  Thanks to funding from John T. and Jane A. Wiederhold Foundation for helping to make this planting happen.  Monitoring   In 2025, we also expanded our quantitative monitoring to 24 sites, including 9 new sites, planted during 2017-2024. Both growth and survival were good or better at 13 sites. However, we did observe high mortality due to voles and bindweed at 2 sites and due to drought at another 1.5 sites. Based on the 2024 monitoring, we replanted two sites in the fall and removed bindweed at a third site over the summer. We plan to conduct additional monitoring and maintenance in 2026. We also continued to explore alternative strategies for improving the success of our floodplain restoration work, including the addition of forest soils to our plantings and the response of planted trees to the invasive Japanese knotweed.     River Restoration Partnerships   CRC’s work would not be possible without the help of many federal, state and local agencies, local businesses and landowners, and other non-profit organizations who help make these projects a success.  In 2025, we partnered with Intervale Conservation Nursery, Mt. Ascutney Regional Commission, New England Wetland Plants, Northwoods Stewardship Center, The Orianne Society, Passumpsic Valley Land Trust, Redstart Inc., The Town of Amherst, Trout Unlimited, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as well as private landowners, local businesses, engineering firms, and project contractors.  In addition, CRC's funders include our generous donors, John T. and Jane A. Wiederhold Foundation, a supporting organization of Northwest CT Community Foundation, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, New Hampshire Charitable Foundation, PUR, The Davis Conservation Foundation, The Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/National Fish Passage Program, U.S. Forest Service, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, and Watersheds United Vermont.     To learn more, you can visit our river restoration  and dam removal   pages, or sign up for email updates  to hear about new projects in the upcoming field season!

Wild Ammonoosuc Dam in Landaff, New Hampshire. The White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) is proposing to issue a permit to dismantle and remove the Wild Ammonoosuc Dam, and restore the natural floodplain. The project is expected to be completed in 2026. Project Overview   The Wild Ammonoosuc River Dam, owned by the Woodsville Water and Light Department, blocks fish passage to 71 miles of cold-water habitat and disrupts natural riverine processes. The ten-foot-high concrete dam and associated water system previously served as a water supply but has not been used for decades. Rehabilitation of the dam for water supply purposes would be prohibitively expensive, so owners wish to pursue removal to alleviate the cost, maintenance, and liability burden. The project will include removal of structures and impounded sediment, and restoration of the adjacent floodplain. The project is located in a designated brook trout catchment within the White Mountain National Forest. Removal of the dam will reconnect approximately 71 miles of mainstem and tributary streams benefiting eastern brook trout. Currently, the Ammonoosuc River is suitable for wild, self-sustaining populations of brook trout (NH Fish and Game) and the area is identified as capable of sustaining brook trout populations under predicted climate conditions. Barrier removal will increase access to tributaries for spawning, increase genetic diversity, and provide thermal refuge allowing brook trout to persist and maintain healthy populations. The project will also plant native ripa rian tree and shrub s pecies at the site, providing shade and further enhancing water quality for brook trout.  The dam facility includes a straight gravity dam built on ledge, an intake structure, a north/right abutment set into ledge, and a south/left abutment. A wood-framed gatehouse sits above the south abutment, next to the intake, and the abutment extends to the south as an underground dike. There is also a pedestrian bridge above the dam, providing access from the parking area to the gatehouse.  Project Partners   Project partners include the Woodsville Water & Light Department/Owner (“WWL”), Connecticut River Conservancy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NHDES Dam Removal and River Restoration Program, NH Fish and Game, American Rivers, and the U.S. Forest Service.     Habitat Benefits   Dam removal has an immediate benefit to the river system by permanently returning the Ammonoosuc River to its free-flowing state and improving sediment transport, oxygen levels, and temperatures which all contribute to ecosystem health and resilience. The vast majority of the Wild Ammonoosuc River and its tributaries are located within the White Mountain National Forest and are mapped as the highest-ranking habitat in the state by NH Fish and Game. The removal of this dam will reconnect 71 miles of cold-water stream for eastern brook trout. According to the NH Fish & Game, the Ammonoosuc River is suitable for wild, self-sustaining populations of brook trout.   Brook trout are one of the most highly sought fish in New Hampshire and are included in the NH Wildlife Action Plan as a “Species of Greatest Conservation Need” (Ammonoosuc River Local Advisory Committee Corridor Management Plan, 2013). Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture (EBTJV) notes the area as high priority habitat, and the Northeast CPA Map tool for Brook Trout Climate Persistence lists the watershed as 90-100%. USGS EcoSheds model shows this catchment is predicted to have 88% likelihood of brook trout occupancy given an air temperature increase of 2 degrees Celsius. Other species of conservation concern will also benefit from management actions that improve the overall health and connectivity of the river. Streams in northern New Hampshire are and will continue to be a stronghold against climate-related disruption for these and other cold water native species. Additionally, the project will restore scenic views along the Lost River Road and improve recreational access and safety at this site.  1929 sign at north bridge support tower. History and Signage   The dam was built in 1929 as part of a water works system for the village of Woodsville in the town of Haverhill under a permit issued by the WMNF. The dam has been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The dam has distinctive engineering and characteristics of an early 20th century waterworks complex. The dam is located adjacent to Route 112 in the town of Landaff, about 11 miles west of the village of Woodsville in Grafton County, New Hampshire.  The WMNF is issuing this public notice as a part of its responsibilities under 36 CFR Part 800, the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. Section 106 consultation under the NHPA requires federal agencies, including the USDA Forest Service, to identify and consider the potential effects of their actions on historic properties through a collaborative framework for seeking, discussing, and considering the views of the public on addressing adverse effects to historic properties resulting from proposed Federal action. The removal of the Wild Ammonoosuc Dam will result in the loss of all characteristics that qualify it for eligibility in the National Register, and the WMNF has determined in consultation with the New Hampshire’s State Historic Preservation Office that this will be an adverse effect.   As mitigation for the adverse effect, the WMNF and project proponents, including the Connecticut River Conservancy and the Woodsville Water & Light Department, are proposing to preserve the history of the dam through public information describing the dam and its history, potentially as a sign panel or on the internet. In addition, the dam has been documented with recent photographs, and its history is captured in the New Hampshire Division of Historic Resources evaluation document. The original 1929 design drawings will be maintained in the permanent files of the WMNF.   For a full description of the dam's features, history, and historic significance, including maps, photos, and drawings, please see the historical documentation here.    If you would like to comment on the proposed mitigation measures or receive more information, please contact Sarah Jordan, White Mountain National Forest Heritage Program Manager, at sarah.jordan@usda.gov or 603-536-6240 by February 5, 2026. Comments may also be sent by mail to Sarah Jordan, 71 White Mountain Dr., Campton, NH 03223.

An American eel ( Anguilla rostrata ). Photo by Kayt Jonsson/USFWS. A Storybook Sleuth on a Slippery Trail When I learned that 6,481 juvenile American eels had passed through the eel ramps at the Holyoke Dam fishway in 2025, I wanted to understand what that meant for the Connecticut River population. It seemed like a straightforward question, but the more I learned about eels, the more I started to feel like a storybook sleuth on a slippery trail. For starters, there are not many fishes more elusive than the American eel. You might very well have eels in a river near you, but they’re hiding under cover during the day and hunting at night, so you’re not likely to meet one. When I finally tracked one down at an aquarium exhibit, I looked into her huge blue eyes—and I found it really hard to look away. American eel (silver phase) at ECHO Leahy Center for Lake Champlain (photo by Jill DeVito). This individual was a silver phase eel—an adult American eel at the final stage of its epic life cycle. The sinuous body of a silver eel has changed from yellow-brown to mostly gray. And its eyes have grown from ordinary size to enormous, in preparation for navigating the dark ocean depths ahead on its harrowing journey. If this one were swimming in a river instead of a tank, she would be on her way downstream toward the Sargasso Sea in search of the mysterious place where the life of every American eel begins (and the life of the hardiest and luckiest among them will end).  Illustration by Salvor Gissurardottir via WikiMedia Commons. The Sargasso Sea is a two million square mile swath of the eastern North Atlantic Ocean bounded by ocean currents rather than land. Scientists have been unable to identify the exact spawning location of the American eel (or that of its close cousin, the European eel, which also spawns there) despite more than a century of searching the Sargasso Sea. What we do know is that both of these species are catadromous – that’s the opposite of the anadromous life cycle you may be familiar with in salmon, sea lamprey , and other migratory fishes that spawn in rivers and grow large in the ocean. Instead, catadromous species like the American eel spawn in marine systems and migrate to fresh water to feed and grow for the majority of their life. When eel eggs hatch in the Sargasso Sea, the resulting larvae are tiny, transparent, and flat (think: flat like an angelfish  rather than flat like a stingray ). They are called leptocephali, and they drift on ocean currents and feed on the organic particles they encounter there, until finally their bodies take on a more familiar tubular, eel-like shape. These “glass eels” are still nearly transparent, but they’re large enough to swim toward their next destination. For the American eel, that could be an estuary or river mouth anywhere from Guyana to Greenland. Glass and elver phase eels photos by Creative Commons. When it reaches coastal habitat and begins to feed, it takes on a brownish body color; the now-earthworm-sized eel is called an elver. In places like the Connecticut River system, juvenile eels will make their way upstream in search of the slow-moving, soft-bottomed habitats where they’ll grow for years (or sometimes decades) as “yellow eels” before their transformation to the reproductively mature and migratory silver phase. Onward and Upward (the Upstream Obstacle Course) As you might imagine, eels face challenges to their survival at every turn along this vast migration route. If a larval eel survives running the gauntlet of predators and other hazards (such as climate change altering conditions and productivity) in the open ocean, it may gather with other glass eels on their way toward a river mouth. At this point, they are vulnerable to commercial harvesting for human consumption. Locally, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission  has measured dramatic declines in glass eel stocks. As a result, they’ve banned fishing for this life stage in all New England states except for Maine (but even there, quotas have been reduced in recent years).  The eels that make it into freshwater as elvers won’t just be swimming against the current; they’ll find their path obstructed by dams of all sizes. These one-to-three-year-old juveniles are surprisingly good climbers, so they’ll crawl over smaller dams on warm, wet nights from spring through fall. Sooner or later, though, they’ll come to a substantial barrier like the Holyoke Dam where those 6,481 elvers were counted this year. So how do these very small fish find their way to the other side of a very big dam?  A few juvenile eels somehow  wriggle around or climb over large dams without help; and they may swim through fish ladders and lifts designed for other species. But for elvers to pass upstream in significant numbers, a barrier must be fitted with ramps for eels to climb. The climbing ramps come in many designs, but in general imagine a Rube Goldberg style pegboard made of rubber and tilted like a ramp; the elvers wind their bodies around the pegs and slither over. From there they fall into a tank (the “trap”) where they can be counted before being released upstream of the dam. Left: a ramp designed to help eels over barriers like dams. Center: a juvenile eel climbs a wetted ramp. Right: Alex Haro works with American eel in the lab (source: Alex Haro,  US Geological Survey). You can’t see these eel ramps as a visitor to the public viewing areas at the Holyoke fishway, so I asked an eel expert for help understanding them. Dr. Alex Haro is a scientist emeritus at the USGS Conte Anadromous Fish Research Laboratory in Turners Falls, Massachusetts. And he’s enthusiastic about sharing what he’s learned over the course of more than forty years spent studying his favorite “forgotten fish.” About twenty years ago, Alex was involved with the complicated process of trying to figure out how to pass elvers effectively at Holyoke. Finally, after almost a decade of improving the functionality of the ramps and figuring out the best places to put them, the facility passed up to 50,000 elvers in a single year.  Annual American eel ramp/trap counts reported by Holyoke Gas and Electric, at Holyoke Dam, for the period 2003-2024 (Ken Sprankle, US Fish and Wildlife Service Connecticut River Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office). Fish biologists like Alex hoped the number of elvers passed at Holyoke would continue to trend upward over time, leading to a healthy population of yellow eels growing large in the northern portion of the Connecticut River system—and the potential for an increasing number of silvers to make their way back to the ocean. But the upstream passage counts over the past decade have fluctuated from year to year in a trend that has been generally downward. A low count year could result from local flooding events that force a temporary shutdown of the passage facility. Or there could be fewer elvers arriving at the dam due to environmental factors that affect larvae and glass eels in the ocean, before they enter the river. Even year to year variation in Atlantic Ocean currents can affect larval survival—or it could simply redirect larvae to other river systems across the Eastern Seaboard.  One thing Alex Haro is careful to explain is that the annual fish count at Holyoke only tells us how many eels passed the dam . We don’t know how many showed up  below the dam trying to make it upstream in the first place because to determine that would require a “massive mark recapture study over five to ten years.” In science speak, massive  translates to labor intensive and expensive. Finding funding and multi-year commitments for science research is generally difficult; it’s even harder when the study is massive  and the subject is a forgotten fish . Until then, we just won’t know what proportion of the juvenile population is able to make it north of Holyoke, or the subsequent barriers at Turners Falls/Great Falls, Vernon, Bellows Falls, Wilder, and onwards. Historically, American eel were found all the way to the Connecticut Lakes in northern NH, but getting there now requires a much more challenging journey, often without dedicated eel ramps like those at Holyoke. Yellow phase American eel spend five to fifteen years growing larger in freshwater habitats like the Connecticut River (source: Ken Sprankle, US Fish and Wildlife Service). Double Jeopardy (the Downstream Obstacle Course) Once they’ve taken up residence in the Connecticut River and its tributaries, yellow eels will spend roughly five to twenty years foraging and growing; sometimes reaching lengths of more than three feet. But their biggest challenge may still be ahead of them. Eels that have made it this far in life don’t face as many dangers as they did when they were young but they won’t contribute to the future population unless they transform into silver eels and find their way back to the Sargasso Sea.  To do this, first, they have to pass through every barrier they climbed as juveniles again ; this time in the downstream direction. At Holyoke, Alex Haro explains, there are several routes they can take. A silver eel may spill over the dam (at Holyoke, that’s a thirty-foot drop). A plunge pool at the foot of the dam increases the chances that a fish will survive the fall. Or an eel may pass through the intake to the spinning turbines that generate power. Since this has the potential to result in injury or death, some facilities (like Holyoke) have reduced the spacing between bars intended to prevent large objects and animals from being sucked into the turbines. But some eels still manage to wriggle between the bars, putting them at risk. Finally, an eel that finds its way into the adjacent Holyoke power canal may be diverted through a special downstream fish bypass, away from the intakes of several smaller turbine units that draw water from the canal. From the bypass eels are transported via a pipe to the pool below the dam and released to continue their journey downstream. The Hidden Life of a Forgotten Fish Alex Haro explains that there’s no single program in place for collecting eels throughout the watershed to study how many there are (or how fast they grow, or even where they live). “Counting all of them or even developing an accurate habitat-wide estimate is virtually impossible because there’s so much habitat.” At present, eels occupy virtually all the freshwater habitat in Connecticut, the mainstem and larger tributaries in Massachusetts, and the mainstem and lower portions of the larger tributaries in Vermont and New Hampshire, a total area of about 4,000 to 6,000 square miles. As a result, he’s had to be creative about using the upstream elver count at Holyoke to predict how many yellow eels are swimming around the northern portion of the watershed, and how many of those will turn into departing silvers like the ones that can be sampled at the power canal filter. He's produced a model that incorporates the Holyoke passage counts with survivorship information from other eel populations where scientists have documented how many elvers make it to adulthood. Using the model, Alex estimates there are 50,000 eels upstream of Holyoke. At 25 eels per square mile across 2,000 square miles of occupied habitat, that’s quite a low density for a fish that was once abundant. One thing that improves the accuracy of this population model is knowing at what age our local eels are coming and going at Holyoke. Alex has gleaned some of that information from the otoliths (ear bones) of elver and silver specimens collected at the fishway in past years. But wait, how does a scientist figure out the age of an eel from ear bones? I recently visited the USFWS Connecticut River Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office to find out. Dr. Corey Eddy, a fish biologist, explained that his more recent collection of elver and silver specimens from Holyoke would beef up the data set Alex Haro is using in his model. “You know how you can cut a tree to see how old it is? We can do the same thing with otoliths.” Because, like trees, fish ear bones have annual growth rings. First, however, the ear bones extracted from each specimen need to be prepared for viewing under a microscope—and this is a painstaking task. Fortunately, the project is able to move forward with the help of a local volunteer through Veterans Affairs named John McLaurin. John has taken over the processing of the otoliths; first he embeds them in epoxy resin, then he cuts a thin section to mount on a microscope slide. Finally, he adds a blue stain that makes the rings more visible. Then he’s ready to estimate the age that eel had reached when it was collected at the dam.  USFWS biologist Corey Eddy (left) and volunteer John McLaurin, Jr. (right) count microscopic growth rings on ear bones to estimate age in American eels (photos by Jill DeVito). “We’re aging American eel,” Corey explains, “so we can begin to understand the relationship between age and size. We’re going to take that data and give it to Alex so he can put it into his population assessment model, which will give us an estimate of how many American eel there are above the Holyoke Dam.” This should help scientists use future annual counts at Holyoke to estimate the total eel population above the dam, so they can make more informed management decisions, including improving passage at upstream dams. “Today there are substantially more barriers to American eel migration than in pre-colonial times," notes Kate Buckman, the Connecticut River Conservancy's Aquatic Ecologist. "There is dedicated upstream eel passage at Holyoke, but between Holyoke and the Connecticut Lakes there are ten hydroelectric dams on the mainstem, none of which have passage facilities designed for eels. The research being conducted helps us to better understand how many eels there are, where they are, and what they are doing currently. Yet impediments to habitat access will continue to negatively impact survival and reproduction, and prevent us from reaching population targets outlined in management goals. Working to require the installation of both upstream and downstream eel passage is a critical component of rebuilding the population of American eel in the Connecticut River and something that both CRC and the Connecticut River Migratory Fish Restoration Cooperative are actively addressing.” I, for one, would love to see people care enough about the fate of the American eel to advocate for its conservation. But I’ve learned firsthand that inspiring affection for this forgotten fish  can be a challenge. When I told a family member they might have eels in the small river that runs behind her backyard (fully expecting her to be delighted), her response was “eew.” As Alex Haro points out, “They’re slimy, they’re ugly, and nobody around here eats them, so why should we care about them?” American eels are a vital keystone species that enhance aquatic ecosystems, act as a crucial link in nutrient cycling between oceans and freshwaters, and provide food for predators such as birds and otters. “Appreciating eels isn’t hard once you know more about them,” says Alex. Perhaps, after learning more about the epic adventure that is the life of the American eel, you might agree? This article was the third in a series related to documenting 2025 fish migration in the Connecticut River. You can also read the first article about sea lamprey and American shad , or the second about alewife and blueback herring.

Sea Lamprey in the Saxtons River, a tributary of the Connecticut River, in June 2025 by Jill DeVito. When CRC Aquatic Ecologist Dr. Kate Buckman led a sea lamprey nest survey of the Ashuelot River in southern New Hampshire toward the end of July 2025, she explained to the gathered volunteers and CRC staff that the cobble constructions she had seen in Massachusetts tributaries were not quite up to the lamprey’s typical building standard. Beyond that, she had seen lampreys still spawning during the late June and early July surveys—which were intended to happen after the nesting season. Our group of community scientists didn’t end up seeing any live lampreys, as it turned out, that day on the Ashuelot. But we found very few freshly built nests compared to previous years, and that made us curious. Was 2025 a “bad year” for sea lampreys in the Connecticut River Valley? If so, why might that be? And how did other migratory fish species fare? The answer, it turns out, is pretty complex. So I asked Ken Sprankle, the USFWS Connecticut River Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office project leader, to help tease apart what happened this spring and early summer. Ken compiles the fish counts reported at each of a dozen fishways designed to allow passage beyond hydro dams on the main stem and major tributaries of the Connecticut River. And he noted that overall, 2025 was actually a pretty good year for our migratory fish. But there were a few exceptions (including the sea lamprey), so we’ll come back to that later. Spring 2025 Was Cold and Wet The region experienced abundant rainfall during key points in the spring migration season, which decreased water temperature and increased river flow levels. As Lael Will, a Fisheries Biologist at the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, explains, “This is not a bad thing for fish, as water, and cold water are a good thing as opposed to drought years.” Ken Sprankle agrees that a cold, wet spring like this one may prolong the nesting season, which might even help some migratory species. This year, for example, American shad had a pretty good run.  Better Than Average For American Shad More than 324,000 American shad passed through the Holyoke Fish Lift in 2025. That may not come close to last year’s banner year over 437,500, but it’s above the long-term average of 320,500 over the past four decades. Those that made it all the way into New Hampshire and Vermont started passing through the Vernon fishway in the middle of May, about a week later than they did last year. We’re looking forward to finding out how many fish ultimately made it past the Vernon Hydro Dam, where the count is still being tallied for shad—as well as for the sea lamprey we searched for in the annual CRC lamprey nest surveys. A Strange Year For Sea Lamprey Last year in the Ashuelot, CRC volunteers tallied over 150 lamprey nests, including multiple large community nests. Kate reports that while she is still finalizing the data, this year’s excursion resulted in far fewer, with a preliminary estimate of just over 20 that could be confidently identified as new nests. “Based on our observations of late, messy nests in the MA and CT rivers we survey annually, as well as the reduced number of nests in NH, I am curious as to whether the spring rains and higher flows delayed lamprey enough that they were running out of energy and just didn’t travel as far, or if there were just a lot less lamprey in this year’s migration.” says Kate, “Passage numbers and dates can help tease out some of those year to year patterns as well.”  Fewer than 16,700 sea lamprey were counted at the Holyoke fish lift this year. That’s roughly half the long-term average of almost 32,000, and it’s a dramatic drop from last year’s remarkable total over 53,600. So what’s going on here? We’re not quite sure. One thing we do know is the lampreys that made it past the Vernon fishway arrived about two weeks later than they did in 2024. Lael Will notes that “when we have high flows,” it can be “harder for the fish to find the entrance to the ladder.” But she also points out that “sea lamprey numbers are highly variable and can be influenced by both instream and ocean conditions as well as how the fish ladders perform under varying flows.”  Ocean studies of sea lamprey are few and far between, but the population size in a given year may be influenced at least as much by other factors (for example, the availability of host fish species they feed on in the ocean) as by the conditions in the river when they head upstream to spawn. Not only that, but the lampreys that start their lives in the Connecticut River might end up spawning anywhere else along the Atlantic Coast of North America; and in turn, the lampreys that come here to spawn each year could have been hatched in any other East Coast watershed, making predictions of yearly returns more challenging.  Sea lamprey building a nest below the Wiley-Russell Dam in Greenfield, MA. To Be Continued A large number of ecological factors influence the population size of each generation of a migratory species – from the condition of juvenile habitat to the availability of food in the ocean, to the obstacles we humans throw into their path. In fact, it’s worth noting the same hydro dams that make the upstream (and for some species, downstream) river passage more challenging for our migratory fish provide us with the best opportunity for counting them as they funnel through each fishway. So we take advantage of this opportunity to keep our finger on the pulse of migratory populations. And we’ll be back with more information about how our other migratory species fared this year – the alewife herring, blueback herring, American eel, and shortnose sturgeon.  This article was the first in a series related to documenting 2025 fish migration in the Connecticut River. You can also read the second article about alewife and blueback herring or the third about American eel.