903R88002 Chesapeake Executive Council
TD
225
.C54
S232
copy 2
Schedule for Developing
Baywide Resource
Management Strategies
''S E>i'.'irari?T>»it3i Protection Agency
r^'on MI ififoimstioR Resource
Chesapeake
Bay
Program
Agreement Commitment Report
July 1988
-------
-------
Schedule for Developing
Baywide Resource
Management Strategies
An Agreement Commitment Report from
the Chesapeake Executive Council
U.S. Environmantal Protection Agency
Region III Information Resource
Center (3PM52)
841 Chestnut Street
PMIadslphia, PA 19107
Annapolis, Maryland
July 1988
-------
ADOPTION STATEMENT
We, the undersigned, adopt the Schedule for Developing Bay- wide Resource Management
Strategies, in fulfillment of Living Resources Commitment Number 3 of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay
Agreement:
"...by July 1988, to adopt a schedule for the development of Bay-wide resource
management strategies for commercially, recreationally and selected ecologically
valuable species."
The schedule has been drafted to ensure that appropriate short- and long-term efforts for
restoration and protection are underway Bay- wide. It includes target dates for developing
resource management strategies for submerged aquatic vegetation, tidal and non-tidal wetlands,
waterfowl, finfish. shellfish, and other ecologically- valuable species. Regional resource manage-
ment strategies will be developed in the future to integrate components of all five categories of
resource management strategies for specific regions or tributaries of the Bay. We accept the
schedule as a guide to the restoration and protection of living resources of the Bay as stated in the
agreement.
We recognize the need to commit financial and human resources to the task of develop-
ing and implementing the resource management strategies. In addition, we direct the Living
Resources Subcommittee to update the schedule as required and to provide an annual report on
the progress made in achieving the schedule's goals.
.v-\l Ub--
For the Commonwealth of Virginia
For the State of Maryland
X3<^ s /L>7 "
For the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
For the United States of America
For the District of Columbia
For the Chesapeake Bay Commission
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements vii
Chapter I - Introduction 1
Chapter 2 - Approach for Developing Resource Management Strategies ... 3
Resource Management Strategies: Example of Components 4
Major Catagories of Living Resources 5
Resource Management Needs 5
Budget and Personnel Needs 7
Combined Schedule for Developing Resource Management Strategies 9
Chapter 3 - Schedules for Developing Resource Management Strategies .. 11
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 11
Wetlands 13
Waterfowl 15
Finfish and Shellfish 17
Other Ecologically Valuable Species 21
Regional Resource Management Strategies 24
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document was compiled by the Resource Management Workgroup
of the Living Resources Subcommittee. The Chairman of the Workgroup
would like to acknowledge the members of the Workgroup for their
assistance in drafting these schedules. In particular the following
members were instrumental in drafting specific schedules: Bert Brun
(Submerged Aquatic Vegetation), Charles Wheeler (Wetlands), Fairfax
Settle (Waterfowl), Ray Fritz (Other Ecologically-Valuable Species),
and Pete Jensen and Jack Travelstead of the Bay-wide Fisheries Management
Coordinating Committee (Finfish and Shellfish). Janet Norman is
especially thanked for her technical assistance and editing.
MEMBERS OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT WORKGROUP
Bess Gillelan (chair)
Jim Dunmyer
Charles Wheeler
Louis Rugolo
Bert Brun
Robert Batky
Ray Fritz
Clay Jones
Erik Barth
David Whitehurst
Fairfax Settle
Ted Coopwood
Robert Hesser
Larry Hindman
Steve Jordan
Bill Goldsborough
Scott Burns
NOAA Estuarine Programs Office
MD Department of Natural Resources, Water
Resources Administration
MD Department of Natural Resources, Water
Resources Administration
MD Department of Natural Resources, Water
Resources Administration
US Fish and Wildlife Service, Annapolis Field
Office
US Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA
US Fish and Wildlife Service, Annapolis Field
Office
Chesapeake Bay Commission
VA Marine Resources Commission
VA Department of Game and Inland Fish
VA Department of Game and Inland Fish
DC Dept. of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs,
Fisheries Division
PA Fish Commission
MD Department of Natural Resources, Forest,
Parks, and Wildlife Administration
MD Department of Natural Resources, Tidewater
Administration, Coastal Resources Division
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
University of Maryland Law School
Vll
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement contains a set of objectives
and commitments for restoring and protecting the living resources
Of the Chesapeake Bay. The overall goal of the Living Resources
section of the Agreement and its accompanying text frame the
Bay-wide, ecosystem approach for bringing back a living Chesapeake:
"GOAL: PROVIDE FOR THE RESTORATION AND PROTECTION
OF THE LIVING RESOURCES, THEIR HABITATS AND ECOLOGICAL
RELATIONSHIPS. The productivity, diversity and abundance
of living resources are the best ultimate measures of the
Chesapeake Bay's condition. These living resources are the
main focus of the restoration and protection efforts. Some
species of shellfish and finfish are of immense commercial
and recreational value to man. Others are valuable because
they are part of the vast array of plant and animal life
that make up the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem on which all
species depend. We recognize that the entire natural system
must be healthy and productive. We will determine the
essential elements of habitat and environmental quality
necessary to support living resources and will see that
these conditions are attained and maintained. We will also
manage the harvest of and monitor populations of commercially,
recreationally, and ecologically valuable species to ensure
sustained, viable stocks. We recognize that to be successful,
these actions must be carried out in an integrated and
coordinated manner across the whole Bay system."
This document responds to the following Living Resources commitment;
"by July 1988, to adopt a schedule for the development of
Bay-wide resource management strategies for commercially,
recreationally, and selected ecologically valuable species."
-------
CHAPTER 2
APPROACH FOR DEVELOPING RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
There are many existing activities throughout the Bay region for
managing the Chesapeake's living resources. Fisheries management is
probably the most familiar because it affects every recreational fisherman
and commercial waterman. Less recognized are the regulatory efforts of
local, state, and federal governments for protecting wetlands. Long-term
monitoring efforts are often the least visible activities required for
resource management. Government programs have been put into place to
manage certain segments of the Bay ecosystem, but few if any treat the
entire Chesapeake Bay watershed as one manageable unit. The development of
Bay-wide resource management strategies offers the opportunity to start an
effort to integrate resource management of the estuary.
A resource management strategy can be defined as a policy
or set of goals that is combined with an approach for restoring and
protecting living resources. A resource management strategy can
cover a single species which has unique habitat conditions. It can
include a group of related species with similar habitat requirements, or
it may be focused on other management measures which will protect or
restore living resources. In the context of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement,
a strategy is more than a policy but less than a management plan. A
resource management strategy is interpreted, therefore, as providing an
approach for carrying out a policy, and although such a strategy is not
required to include a detailed management plan, it certainly may contain
one or suggest that a management plan be developed.
The components of a resource management strategy include a statement
of the current status of a living resource, how far this status is from
some preferred level of abundance and distribution, a policy and/or a set
of goals for restoring and protecting the resources, and steps which could
be taken to achieve these goals, both Bay-wide and in critical habitats
within the Bay ecosystem. The following example is provided to illustrate
what a resource management strategy could contain.
-------
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES: EXAMPLE OF COMPONENTS
I. Problem Statement
An accounting of the disparity between the present
status of the resource and some improved condition
A description of how much restoration is needed to
reach this condition and what type of long-term
protection will be required
II. Strategy for Bay-wide Restoration and Protection
A. Policies and Goals
I. Example Policy for Protection
- Protection of existing populations
2. Example Goals for Restoration
- No net loss
- Restoration throughout historical range
- Compliance within three years
B. Approach for Implementation
1. Alternative steps for Bay-wide restoration
and protection, including the means of
achieving specified goals, such as:
- Development of a Bay-wide management plan
- Improved enforcement of water quality and
habitat conservation regulations
- Instituting more stringent water quality
standards and habitat conservation laws
- Development of condition indices, like a
a juvenile striped bass index, as measures
of abundance, and choosing a sustainable
level as long-term goal
2. Responsible organizations for implementing
strategy
3. Target Dates for implementing alternative
steps
-------
The approach laid out in this document for developing Bay-wide
resource management strategies is based on:
1) A recognition of the major categories of living resources,
2) An assessment of the resource management needs of each
category to ensure that appropriate short and long-term
efforts for restoration and protection are underway, and
3) Integration of the management needs of all categories of
living resources for unique regions of the Chesapeake.
MAJOR CATEGORIES OF LIVING RESOURCES
The living resources of the Chesapeake Bay can be grouped into
five major categories:
1. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)
2. Tidal and Non-tidal Wetlands
3. Waterfowl
4. Finfish and Shellfish
5. Other Ecologically Valuable Species
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NEEDS
For some of these categories, much progress has already been made
toward coordinating resource management at the Bay-wide level. Other
categories have satisfactory management at the state-wide level, while
some have traditionally been managed at the Atlantic coast-wide scale.
As a result, the development of resource management strategies will
require varying amounts of work. In summary,
- For SAV, a resource management strategy is already in draft
form, including detailed monitoring, research, protection,
restoration, and education objectives.
- A Bay-wide Wetland Policy is called for by December 1988 by
the Chesapeake Bay Agreement; the Wetlands Policy Work Group
of the Chesapeake Bay Program Living Resources Subcommittee
has begun to put together a policy combined with specific goals.
- Waterfowl have been managed for many years through Atlantic
Flyway management plans; plans that address Chesapeake Bay
concerns will be initiated as part of the waterfowl resource
management strategy.
-------
Fishery management plans for three species are specified by
the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, so the resource management
strategies for these three finfish and shellfish species and
other major ones requires that management plans be developed;
Planning efforts have already begun for major fish species.
Resource management strategies for ecologically-valuable
species are the least well-defined, and planning efforts
are just beginning. The approach will focus on habitat
management, monitoring, research, restoration, and education.
Regional resource management strategies will tie together
all of the species-specific strategies to produce one
comprehensive strategy for each area of the Bay, in terms
of salinity and circulation.
Chapter 3 includes a detailed schedule for developing resource
management strategies for each of these resource categories, as well
as a description of proposed or ongoing strategies for Bay-wide resource
management, a rationale for developing Bay-wide strategies, and the
species of concern in each category. Table I contains a summary schedule
for all the species categories.
It is important to note that for all cases in which a policy,
strategy, or management plan is planned for release, draft documents
will be available for public review and comment several months in advance.
These documents will be subject to approval by the Living Resources
Subcommittee and the Implementation Committee of the Chesapeake Bay
Program.
The schedule shown in Table 1 does not indicate any activity once
these documents are prepared only because their content and recommendations
are not known at present. This schedule is meant as a catalyst for the
development of resource management efforts. The Resource Management
Workgroup recommends that the schedule be updated annually to include
future plans for resource management as they are developed.
-------
BUDGET AND PERSONNEL NEEDS
The development of resource management strategies will require some
additional funds and personnel. The needs listed below should be viewed
as funding needs between July 1988 and December 1989. It is impossible
to project needs beyond 1989 because the actual strategies have not been
developed.
This list includes budget needs for which there is no source of
funding identified at present. It is not meant to reflect the total
financial and personnel costs for developing resource management
strategies. For most tasks existing resources will be sufficient
for the development of strategies. Once strategies are developed, the
implementation costs can be estimated.
Only in the case of SAV are the implementation costs clearly defined.
The annual aerial survey has been funded from a variety of state and
federal agencies in the past, but since there is no stable source of
long-term funding, the full cost of the annual survey is included.
Funds for two key components of the proposed SAV management strategy
enhancement and educationare not included in the list below since
funds are presently available for SAV planting projects (York
River and Susquehanna Flats) and for reprinting an SAV status report
written for the general public.
BUDGET PERSONNEL
(cost (FTE's))
1. SAV - Annual SAV Aerial Survey $160,000
Purchase of SPOT satellite data 10,000
Pilot watershed SAV enhancement and
protection: analysis component 10,000 (0.25)
Research 10,000
SAV Summary of Knowledge (printing) 5,000
Subtotal - $195,000
2. Wetlands - Personnel for each jurisdiction to 140,000 (3.5)
assemble implementation plan
Education, training, and publications 175,000
Subtotal - $315,000
3. Waterfowl - Personnel for assembling information,
analysis, and drafting. Part-time support 60,000 (1.5)
from several jurisdictions needed.
Research 40,000
Subtotal - $100,000
4. Finfish and Shellfish - no needs identified
5. Other Ecologically Valuable Species - 60,000 (1.5)
Personnel for assembling information,
-------
analysis, and drafting. Part-time
personnel support from several jurisdic-
tions, plus computer CIS support.
Subtotal - $60,000
6. Regional Strategies - no needs during the period
July 1988 to Dec. 1989.
$400,000$270,000
Total - $670,000
-------
W
H
H
<3
H
H
W
H
V)
H
BS
u
£
u
(S
B
2
X
H
U
g
O
W
H
M
U
K)
H
CM
S
M
>
U
Q
O
h
S
9
Q
U
W
u
M
a
W
B
H
M
C
0
u
r-l
4)
H
A
«
H
01
rH
XI
id
3
rH
id in
> Oi
H
>, U
rH 01
rH ft
a M
U
H
tn
o
rH
0
u
u
T>
B X
id in
H
J3 44
W rH
H rH
44 0)
B JS
H U)
[K
rH
S
0
Ll
01
4J
id
in
o
B
id
rH
4J
0)
u
H
4J
id
3 B
O1 0
< H
4J
O «
a> jj
LI tn
01 0>
6 >
XI
3
W
XJ
4J
C
0
X
K
rtj
U
-H
L?
4J o
E 4J
01 0 "0 B
B C rH 0) B 01
e us o -H « >
0 rH U O E
U ft< 0) 0> >i -rl
ft U
O >i in -H -a
a a 01 ^ 01 c
<8 O ,ii rH rH Id Id >
Q) B Q) Id Ll O Q)
PS O W > Q tn pi
t
ft
tn ft T3
in rH in C >i
in XI 0> id id u 0)
4J id -H o ro 0) 3
E LI o tn in J3 -O
o> u 0) LI a) tn
B 13 . ft O rt -H 4J
3 oi ro 4-J in 4J >w 4J t, u
u 3 XI tn o> HO
o H i/l 6 fi 6 in LiLift
Q XI 0* o o O1
C 44 Ll 44 > -H 44 £<
a> - ra o o o -H LI
U Ll O 44 4-1 ft in 4J
Ll 01 -H 4-> 4-J U 'OB
3 4J Li E U E 0> 01 01 01
tOr>lriO>EXI -rl!3a>
o < 01 -H 01 o 3 tn
4-> 4J XI 4J 1 Id Id
inL4T3idOid*O ^>i4-iB
H oc!4-'Li^B ididid
rJ44id»ftt/iid enQE
tn
H B
C «
C
id in
ft U tn
3 E
tJ id o
4J 3 4->
0) BO >i
3 O id U U
TJ C 3 Li H XI
.* 4J >l -H -0 rH 3
OrH -H U 0) O 3 fc S3
|£
UlrXO rH tnOI-HH
r>lO)OPl O T3UrH>
O4J-H ft ELIO01
HO)rH4J WLi
01 Ll Ll 0) -H -H 3 -H -H O
ISU'OiriUbri V1i4Q44
>t
tn
01 &
4-1 01 1
Id -! 0>
Ll t> 4J
4J 0) -H
W Li in
W
4-1 Li Ll C
tr o o id
g IM 4j -H
ft -O
> 0) in a)
dj rH E U -H
W 4J O H 44
Id -H 44 H
4-1 rH 4J -H 4-1
44 H « U B
it) 10 O 0) 0)
X4 t O ft 'O
Q id iJ in -H
4-1
rH U)
rl 01 >, 3 4J
Ll >1 B rH tP ft 4-1
ft id 3 3 3 0) U
03
03
OI
rH
U 0) -H
O1 ^ U1
4J 0)
4-> rl 44 4->
id LI o id
4J U Ll
H in 4J
XI * 3 in
id 4J
a m a u
0) 4-1 0
tn B in
B -rt tn 0)
H rH U1 O1 B
4J 0) « -H -H
tn TJ 0> U rH
H -H W 0) 4J 0)
X 3 in ft 33
o> tn idj tn o tJ
Ll
o 01
a
in
0> in
H 0)
01 U
id ft
u in
4J
W 01
t-l 01
ty r]
K *
rH
44 Id rH
O 4-1 > W -r4
4-> Id O 01 U
M Ll J5 B
>, W ft U 3
U ft O
H - id >i U
H tn xi
O rH Ll 01
o* id o B >
ft 44 O -H
4-1 -H -H 4J
H U 4-13
BBS ft U
XI -H B 0 0>
3 H O t) X
w ft u «< w
in 3
B ID
id -H
rH >
ft 01
Ll
01
4J Ll
H O
t/1 44
> 0)
,< rH
VI XI
id
4-) r-l
44 -H
id id
Ll >
Q n5
> (J
O 01
.3 P
n
B
H
44 tn
o o>
XI
4J
B tn
0) 0)
B H
ft tn
O 01
rH 4J
01 «
> u
« 4-1
Q in
B XI
id ai
i-) t.
en
03
01
rH
B -I
id XI
rH Id
X O U
in 0) -H
H ft rH
EK in XI
3
4J m ft
U4
Id Ll Ll
Ll O O
Q IW IW
0 U
4-> XI
3
in in
B
id in
rH 0)
ft U
Ll
JJ 3
44 O
id in
u o>
TJ «
4J tn
H E
e -H
XI >
3 H
to »-3
tp in
C r!<
H O 01
B 3 tn
C T> 0)
Id 01
rH tn O
ft B
B XI B
id id
E T3 O
-H
CTI L, rg
01 O C
-------
u c
4J di o
tn ft -H
S ui -u
rH Ul H B
6 a TJ tn
O rH C dl
U ft n> .o
e
o e
4J O
u
Ul
ft 4J
U)
4J
Rl U]
T> IB
ft
JJ -H
H U
g B
.a -H
3 H
Ul Bl
>!
J3 -H
-H
Ul U
a a
a 3
rH O
o,u
B X
O U
ft I
O '
O J
p
w
D
o
u
B
3
l-l
>i
rH
3
U
-rt
n) rH
S -0 J3
o ja
IH o « d)
0 S T3 ui
di
S u - «
di o ui o
H IH B
> « ffl
di ui 3 "d
H B ui *
a a
U rH ns flj
H ft H U
-H T)
J5 *J 6 T)
3 tT- 3 B
Q. S 4J n)
ft
O
O
W 3 4J
C rH O
IK O ft
rH Ul
P. ~X
Ul J3 d)
U W Ul 3
tP flj -H TJ
S ca <«
X tl
>itl « 3
u dl d) O
o a S "
JC H JJ
ui LI -a ni
H *J C d)
fc. W « U)
O<
C
H
B
E
a
rH Ul
ft X
u
P 3
B q
H -H
dl -H
(D T3
3
n
>
o
E:
B
H III
O H U
IH dl -H
Ul B dl
B 3 B
(0 Wl rfj
rH
o. »-a
^ B
U O id
n e -o 3
di x a n
J3 is 3
Ul O O rH
H Li rH dl
b. U b U
> U
d) 3
M -O
U D>
H C
rH -H
a >
3 -H
B
n) Ul
rH .X
P< U
3
ti a
dl -rt
4J >
O O
O
a
ui u
B «
ID rH
H (0
04
r)
4-> C
01 *
0 dl
tx 3 3
HUT)
d) P
jc e
Ul -O 3
H dl H
t. B! a
10
-------
CHAPTER 3
SCHEDULES FOR DEVELOPING RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
DESCRIPTION:
Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) is viewed as a type of
Chesapeake Bay shallow water habitat made up of one or
more of the species listed below. SAV serves several
important ecological functions: shelter and nursery for
small fishes and crabs; structural surface for various
invertebrates and epiphytes; food for certain waterfowl;
nutrient and possibly toxicant uptake from water and
sediments; settlement facilitator for sediments; absorber
of wave energy with consequent reduction in shore erosion;
and others not listed. Since the onset of the Chesapeake
Bay Program, SAV has been regarded as a key living resource
component, justifying funds for research, monitoring, and
restoration activities such as replanting.
A resource management strategy for SAV includes:
1) Completion of a management strategy dealing with
general management, protection, research, monitoring,
and education, and
2) Implementation of site-specific restoration and
enhancement efforts.
RATIONALE: The abundance of SAV in the Bay declined sharply in the
early 1970's, accelerating an earlier downward trend
observed since the early 1960's, when an estimated
40,470 hectares (1 hectare = 2.471 acres) of one species
alone, milfoil, were present Bay-wide. Photography and
mapping of SAV in 1984 yielded what is believed to be a
low point of 15,400 hectares for all species Bay-wide.
Some improvement occurred in 1985-1986, when just over
19,000 hectares were estimated to be present Bay-wide.
In view of the beneficial ecological functions provided by
SAV and because of its greatly reduced distribution and
abundance, a Bay-wide strategy is needed for protecting and
enhancing this group of plants, and the estuarine habitat
they create, to some level approaching their earlier
abundance. A Bay-wide SAV strategy provides the additional
benefit of being an indicator of progress toward restoration
in shallow waters by virtue of SAV's relationship to water
quality. In particular, it is closely linked to nutrient
concentrations, chlorophyll a and total suspended solids.
11
-------
As values for these parameters improve, so too can be
expected improvements in SAV. For these reasons, a Bay-wide
strategy whose goal will be the protection and enhancement of
SAV will be developed by July 1988, by the SAV Workgroup of
the Chesapeake Bay Program Monitoring Subcommittee.
SPECIES: The following are the principal Chesapeake Bay species of
SAV, listed in order of association with increasing
salinities (i.e., freshwater species first): water
stargrass, wild celery, southern naiad, coontail, hydrilla,
common waterweed, Eurasian watermilfoil, redheadgrass, sago
pondweed, horned pondweed, widgeongrass, and eelgrass.
Muskgrass, an algae, is often included in the collective term
SAV, and lesser, mostly freshwater species may also be
included.
SCHEDULE
Target Date
7/31/88
9/31/88
12/31/88
Activity
Draft Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Management Strategy
completed by the SAV Workgroup and available for public
review and comment.
Locations identified by the SAV Workgroup for site-
specific SAV protection and enhancement plans.
Draft site plans for SAV protection and enhancement in
three locations completed and available for public review.
12
-------
TIDAL AND NON-TIDAL WETLANDS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
DESCRIPTION:
The Tidal and Non-tidal Wetlands Management Strategy
establishes a framework for policy development and
local implementation of Bay-wide goals for wetlands
protection, enhancement and restoration.
RATIONALE: Both tidal and non-tidal wetlands are essential areas
for plant, fish, and wildlife habitat. They also perform
erosion, sediment and pollution control functions that
are vital to maintenance of the quality and productivity
of adjacent and downstream waters and provide flood
control, cultural, aesthetic and recreational benefits for
the entire Chesapeake Bay region. Recent surveys documen-
ting wetland losses have heightened awareness of the need
to protect, enhance and restore these vital functions.
SPECIES:
The Wetlands management strategy does not address
individual species. Rather, it sets forth habitat
preservation goals utilizing the following categories:
1. Impacts
2. Education
3. Incentives
A. Protection Standards
5. Mitigation
6. Monitoring
7. Research.
8. Planning and Land Acquisition
13
-------
SCHEDULE
Target Date
2/23/88
3/11/88
4/5/88
4/26/88
5/17/88
8/1/88
9/20/88
10/1/88
11/88
12/88
Activity
First meeting - Reviewed existing programs; developed
working outline; identified issues, goals.
Members submitted written program descriptions;
existing policies; monitoring assessment and
management priorities and needs; comments and
suggestions for Charge.
Workgroup support staff prepared and distributed
first draft of policy.
Second meeting - Reviewed first draft.
Workgroup support staff prepared and distributed
second draft to Workgroup.
Final Meeting - Review final draft and finalize
policy.
Submit Workgroup's Wetlands Policy to Living Resources
Subcommittee for approval.
Distribute for public review and comment.
Principle Staff Committee approval.
Executive Council adoption.
14
-------
WATERFOWL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
DESCRIPTION:
Goals for waterfowl management in the Chesapeake Bay
region will be developed along with strategies to
achieve specific objectives needed to move toward
these goals. A set of four management plans will be
formulated. These plans will cover basic waterfowl
groups: dabbling ducks, wood duck, diving ducks,
and geese/swan. The strategies will be designed to
restore, protect, and enhance waterfowl habitat and
populations. The plans will address species require-
ments, population and habitat monitoring needs,
research needs, educational needs, habitat protection
and enhancement incentives, water quality improvement,
and harvest management. Improvement in general Bay
health should result in improvement in all natural
elements of the ecosystem. Care must be taken to
integrate management techniques to minimize
adverse effects on non-target resource categories.
RATIONALE:
SPECIES:
Historically, the Chesapeake Bay has been renowned
for ample and diverse populations of waterfowl.
Significant aesthetic and economic values are
associated with this important natural resource.
With some exceptions, the number of ducks utilizing
the Bay area has decreased over the past three decades,
It is generally accepted that habitat loss and
degradation are the primary factors causing the
reduction in waterfowl numbers.
It is desirable to reverse or, at the very least,
halt the negative trend in waterfowl numbers.
The term "waterfowl" refers to any member of the
biological Family Anatidae. As used in this
document, "waterfowl" includes broad categories
such as dabbling (puddle) ducks, wood ducks, diving
ducks (including river/bay ducks, sea ducks, and
fish ducks), geese and swan. Waterfowl species
that are common to the Chesapeake Bay include:
Mallard
Northern Pintail
Black Duck
Gadwall
American Wigeon
American Green-
Winged Teal
Blue-Winged Teal
Northern Shoveler
Anas platyrhynchos platyrhynchos
Anas acuta acuta
Anas rubripes
Anas strepera
Anas americana
Anas crecca carolinensis
Anas discors
Anas clypeata
15
-------
Wood Duck
Aix sponsa
Redhead
Canvasback
Ring-Necked Duck
Lesser Scaup
Greater Scaup
Bufflehead
Common Goldeneye
Ruddy Duck
Oldsquaw
Black Scoter
Surf Scoter
White-Winged Scoter
Hooded Merganser
Red-Breasted
Merganser
Common Merganser
Canada Goose
Greater Snow Goose
Atlantic Brant
Tundra Swan
Aythya americana
Aythya valisineria
Aythya collaris
Aythya affinis
Aythya marila mariloides
Bucephala albeola
Bucephala clangula americana
Oxyura jamaicensis rubida
Clangula hyemalis
Melanitta nigra americana
Melanitta perspicillata
Melanitta fusca deglandi
Mergus cucullatus
Mergus serrator
Mergus merganser americanus
Branta canadensis
Anser caerulescens atlantica
Branta bernicla hrota
Cygnus columbianus
SCHEDULE
Target Date
August 1988
June 1989
March 1990
July 1990
March 1991
July 1991
Activity
Begin development of Bay-wide management plans for
wood ducks and tundra swans.
Begin development of Bay-wide management plans for
dabbling ducks and Canada geese.
Draft Bay-wide Management Plans released for public review
and comment for the following waterfowl:
1. Wood Ducks
2. Tundra Swans
3. Dabbling Ducks
4. Canada Geese
Final Bay-wide Management Plans due for these four
waterfowl groups.
Draft Bay-wide Management Plan for Diving Ducks
released for public review and comment.
Final Bay-wide Diving Duck Management Plan due.
16
-------
FINFISH AND SHELLFISH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
DESCRIPTION:
The Chesapeake Bay Agreement contains a commitment that
calls for fishery management plans for three species
(oysters, blue crabs, and American Shad) by July 1989.
The same commitment requires that management plans
be initiated by 1990 for other major commercially,
recreationally, and selected ecologically-valuable
species. The finfish and shellfish category of
resource management strategies will address the two
requirements of this commitment.
A schedule for developing resource management strategies
for finfish and shellfish will include target dates
for completing fishery management plans for oysters,
blue crabs, and American shad (by July 1989) as well as
a schedule for initiating the development of management
plans for other major species. The development of
management plans for other major species will be initiated
ahead of schedule (by July 1988) with the completion of
a report that will identify the status of Bay-wide
fisheries, management priorities, and data needs for at
least ten species (see below). Management plans for these
ten species will be completed between 1990 and 1992.
Bay-wide plans will be concise summaries which include
problem statements, management goals and objectives, and
Bay-wide management strategies, similar in format to the
recent Maryland Yellow Perch management plan. There will
be jurisdictional components in each plan, specifying how
each jurisdiction proposes to meet the management goals
and objectives. Regulations associated with a management
plan would be subject to public hearings and legislative
approval, in some jurisdictions, after the plan is adopted
officially by the Chesapeake Executive Council.
RATIONALE: Bay fisheries are managed separately by the States of
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, the District of
Columbia, and the Potomac River Fisheries Commission,
although three multi-jurisdictional organizations do
coordinate fishery assessment and management to some
extent in the Chesapeake region. There is a federal
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) which
has jurisdiction for management planning over offshore
fisheries (3-200 miles), and there is a coast-wide
organization, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission (ASMFC), which coordinates the preparation
of plans for the management of fisheries in state coastal
waters from Maine to Florida. The state/federal
Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee (CBSAC) is
responsible for developing a Bay-wide Stock Assessment
17
-------
Plan, which includes Bay-wide collection and analysis of
fisheries information, but CBSAC was not set up to
develop fishery management plans.
No organization has existed, therefore, for initiating
management plans for Chesapeake Bay fish and shellfish
stocks before the signing of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement
of 1987. A Bay-wide Fisheries Management group, under
the Living Resources Subcommittee of the Chesapeake Bay
Program, has been formed to address the commitment in the
Bay Agreement for management plans. The group has deter-
mined that for some species in the Bay, management plans
developed by the MAFMC or ASMFC may be satisfactory for
addressing Chesapeake Bay fisheries management issues,
but for others (identified below), the development of
coordinated Bay-wide fishery management plans is needed.
SPECIES: Management plans for three species (oysters, blue crabs,
and American shad) are required by July 1989. Management
plans for four other major Chesapeake Bay species are
scheduled for completion by 1990 (striped bass, bluefish,
weakfish, and speckled trout), four more species by 1991
(croaker, spot, summer flounder, and American eel), and
two in 1992 (red and black drum). No management plans
will be initiated by 1990 for any species in the "ecolo-
gically-valuable" category because the immediate management
needs are greatest for the ten species above, and resource
management strategies will be developed for ecologically-
valuable species separately, focusing on habitat conservation
and water quality restoration and protection.
SCHEDULE
1. By July 1989, Develop, Adopt, and Begin to Implement Bay-wide
Management Plans for Oysters, Blue Crabs, and American Shad.
Target Date Activity
May 1, 1988 Listing of source documents for use in developing
the three management plans due.
May 15, 1988 Statement of Bay-wide and State-wide Problems for
each species due.
June 1, 1988 Statement of Management Goals and Objectives for
each species due.
Dec. 31, 1988 Description of Bay-wide Management Strategies for
each species due.
18
-------
March 15, 1989 Draft Bay-wide Fishery Management Plan for each
species due for public review.
July 31, 1989 Adoption by the Chesapeake Executive Council
Apr. 31, 1990 Proposed regulations become law (date subject to
public hearing schedules and legislative process).
2. By 1990, Initiate the Development of Bay-wide Management Plans
for Other Major Commercially, Recreationally, and Ecologically
Valuable Species.
Target Date Activity
Aug. 1, 1988 Report on Bay-wide Priorities and Data Needs for
Fisheries Management completed.
3. Complete Bay-wide Management Plans for Other Major
Species to be implemented by Maryland, the District of
Columbia, Virginia, the Potomac River Fisheries Commis-
sion, and Pennsylvania within their jurisdiction. (NOTE:
1. There is no deadline in the Chesapeake Bay Agreement for
completion of plans for species other than oysters, blue
crabs, and American Shad, and 2. Public review of each
draft plan is required prior to completion of final plan).
Target Date Activity
1990 Completion of Bay-wide Management Plan for Striped Bass
1990 Completion of Bay-wide Management Plan for Bluefish
1990 Completion of Bay-wide Management Plan for Weakfish and
Spotted Seatrout
1991 Completion of Bay-wide Management Plan for Croaker and
Spot
1991 Completion of Bay-wide Management Plan for Summer Flounder
1991 Completion of Bay-wide Management Plan for American Eel
1992 Completion of Bay-wide Management Plan for Red Drum and
Black Drum
19
-------
FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS:
COMPLETED, IN PROGRESS OR
LISTED FOR DEVELOPMENT
SPECIES
ASMFC
MAFMC
MD
VA
Striped Bass
Bluefish
Weakfish
Spotted Seatrout
Summer Flounder
Atlantic Menhaden
American Shad/
River Herring
Red Drum
Black Drum
Croaker
Spot
White Perch
Yellow Perch
Sturgeon
American Eel
Winter Flounder
Oyster
Blue Crab
Hard Clam (1" min.
size resolution)
Soft Shell Clam
Interstate Shellfish
Transport
1981 Plan Under Revision
In Progress
Completed (1985)
Completed (1984)
Completed (1982)
Completed (1981)
Completed (1985)
Completed (1984)
Listed for Development
Completed (1987)
Completed (1987)
Listed for Development
Listed for Development
Listed for Development
Completed (1986)
In Progress
In Progress
In Progress
Spanish Mackerel
Lobster
Northern Shrimp
Surf Clam/Ocean Quahog
Squid/Mackerel/Butterfish
In Progress
Completed (1985)
Completed (1985)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X - State Plans In Progress or Proposed
20
-------
OTHER ECOLOGICALLY-VALUABLE SPECIES RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
DESCRIPTION:
The Chesapeake Bay Agreement specified that resource
management strategies for "selected ecologically
valuable species" be included in the development of
a schedule for resource management strategies along
with commercial and recreational species. Since
commercial and recreational species are also valuable
ecologically, this category of species is referred to
as "Other Ecologically-valuable Species."
A resource management strategy needs to be
developed for key species within this category of
living resources. The strategy could 1) ensure
long-term monitoring to determine the status and
trends of species representative of major trophic
levels, 2) support research to improve understan-
ding of ecosystem processes, such as the interaction
between water-column and sediment chemical processes
and the spatial/temporal distribution and abundance
of living resources, 3) protect the habitat
conditions required by key species, described in the
Habitat Requirements document, and protect species
themselves if threatened or endangered, 4) restore
habitat conditions required by key species in order
to improve the overall quality of the estuarine
ecosystem, and 5) supplement efforts to improve
the public's understanding of the Bay system
through education, outreach, and other activities.
RATIONALE: The long-term survival and relative abundance of
ecologically valuable species is essential in
ensuring sustainable commercial and recreational
stocks. In even more basic terms, however, and
independent of sustainable fishery yields, the
survival and abundance of ecologically valuable
species is critical for maintaining the complexity
of ecological communities that gives the Bay its
natural resiliency. The presence or absence of
some of these species is linked directly to the
water quality conditions of the bay and is
responsible for many invisible processes
controlling the environmental quality of the Bay.
The commercial and recreational species receive
a great deal more attention by resource management
agencies, even though the harvested species of the
Bay depend on a variety of living resources for
food and shelter. "Management" in the sense of
restricting the taking of resources from the
21
-------
estuary for some direct use, such as for food,
recreational enjoyment, does not apply to the
management of this category of living resources,
with the exception of furbearing species.
Management of the habitat upon which ecologically
valuable species depend is the focus of the
strategy for "managing" these species. The
habitat guidelines provided in the Habitat Require-
ments document provide the framework for managing
the Bay's habitats. The primary goal of resource
management strategies for this category of species
then is to achieve compliance with these habitat
guidelines.
Another goal of resource management strategies
for ecologically valuable species is to track
the abundance and distribution of key species
representing the major communities of ecologically
valuable species as a way of measuring the status
and trends of the Bay and their response to
Bay-wide restoration and protection efforts.
SPECIES: Key species will be selected from the following
estuarine communities:
1. Plankton
2. Benthos
3. Finfish
A. Furbearing species
5. Shorebirds
6. Raptors
Submerged aquatic vegetation and wetland plant
communities are excluded from this list since
there are individual schedules for resource
management strategies for both of these
communities.
22
-------
SCHEDULE
Target Date
5/15/88
8/15/88
9/15/88
10/7/88
11/15/88
12/15/88
Activity
Review monitoring plan for living resources to insure
that long-term data will be available for assessment.
Select key species from each category of species
Decide on a policy and set of goals for each
component of a resource management strategy, by
species.
Review habitat requirements and other documents to
ensure that adequate protective criteria are
included for the species selected.
Assess the status of resource problems associated
with key species and their respective habitats and
decide on the components for detailed restoration
and protection management planning.
Outline for resource management strategies due.
1/89 - 12/89 1.
2.
3.
Development of Restoration and Protection
Plans for selected ecologically valuable species.
Begin implementation of plans and strategies.
Develop periodic review and reporting system.
23
-------
REGIONAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
DESCRIPTION:
Regional resource management strategies are strategies
for restoring and protection the living resources
of specific regions of the Bay which share similar
habitats, salinity regimes, water depth, or other
factors naturally controlling distribution and
abundance of Chesapeake Bay living resources.
These could be used as the basic management unit
upon which coordinated, Bay-wide, restoration and
protection efforts are based.
RATIONALE:
SPECIES:
Bay-vide management of all components of the estuarine
ecosystem should be conducted in a way that takes into
account the natural variability of living resources
distribution, abundance, and requirements for food,
light, freshwater, and habitat. Resource management
strategies in the five categories above should be
integrated so that Bay management needs (including
natural resource management, water quality and quantity
management, and land use management) can be compiled in
one source document to improve their usefulness to local,
state, and federal managers. In addition, these stra-
tegies could resolve conflicting management objectives
among the many species needing restoration or protection.
The species contained in these regional strategies would
depend on which species, identified in the five individual
resource management strategies, inhabit each region.
SCHEDULE
Target Date
8/88
Activity
Identify Regions of the Bay for which Resource Management
Strategies for SAV, wetlands, waterfowl, finfish and
shellfish, and other ecologically-valuable species should
be integrated. Options include:
a) The Chesapeake Bay Program Segmentation Scheme:
- Tidal Fresh (fresh-oligohaline)
- Riverine-Estuarine Transition (oligo-mesohaline)
- Lower Estuarine portions of major tributaries and
Mainstem Bay segments below Pooles Island (meso-
polyhaline)
- Minor Western Shore tributaries, South R., north
to the Bush R. (fresh-mesohaline)
- Eastern Shore tributaries (fresh-mesohaline)
24
-------
- Eastern and Western Shore Embayments (Eastern Bay,
mouth of the Choptank R., Tangier/Pocomoke Sound,
and Mobjack Bay, all meso-polyhaline).
b) More general areas of salinity zones: fresh, oligo-
haline, and polyhaline.
c) A combination of a) or b) above with zonation by depth,
according to that broken down by the Habitat Require-
ments document (shoreline, intertidal, 0-3 m, and deep
water >3 m).
9/88 List the species and their habitat requirements in each
region of the Bay (to be completed in association with the
Living Resources Subcommittee Habitat Objectives Work Group).
10/88 Outline of Regional Resource Management Strategies due.
* Draft Resource Management Strategies for each region,
combining the strategies for SAV, wetlands, waterfowl,
finfish and shellfish, and other ecologically valuable species
when available.
Complete final set of Regional Resource Management Strategies
for public review.
Update Regional Strategies annually.
* These future activities are subject to completion of the other
categories of resource management strategies.
25
------- |