903R91001
Chesapeake Executive Council
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region III Information Resource
Center (3PM52)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
DRAFT
Chesapeake Bay
Summer Flounder
Fishery Management Plan
Chesapeake
Bay
Program
Agreement Commitment Report
TD
225
.C54
S855
1991
My 1991
-------
-------
DRAFT
Chesapeake Bay Summer Flounder
Fishery Management Plan
An Agreement Commitment Report from
the Chesapeake Executive Council
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region III Information Resource
Center (3PM52)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Annapolis, Maryland
July 1991
Printed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
for the
Chesapeake Bay Program
Printed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
One of the strategies for implementing the Living Resources
Commitments of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement is to develop
and adopt a series of baywide fishery management plans (FMPs) for
commercially, recreationally, and selected ecologically valuable
species. The FMPs are to be implemented by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, Commonwealth of Virginia, District of Columbia,
Potomac River Fisheries Commission, and State of Maryland as
appropriate. Under a timetable adopted for completing management
plans for several important species, the summer flounder FMP was
scheduled for completion in December 1991.
A comprehensive approach to managing Chesapeake Bay
fisheries is needed because biological, physical, economic, and
social aspects of the fisheries are shared among the Bay's
jurisdictions. The Chesapeake Bay Program's Living Resources
Subcommittee formed a Fisheries Management Workgroup to address
the commitment in the Bay Agreement for comprehensive, bay-wide
fishery management plans. The workgroup is composed of members
from government agencies, the academic community, the fishing
industry, and public interest groups representing Pennsylvania,
Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and the federal
government.
Development of Fishery Management Plans
An FMP prepared under the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement
serves as a framework for conserving and wisely using a fishery
resource of the Bay Each management plan contains a summary of
the fishery under consideration, a discussion of problems and
issues that have arisen, and recommended management actions.
An implementation plan is included at the end of the FMP to
provide additional details on the actions that participating
jurisdictions will take and the mechanisms for taking these
actions.
Development of a fishery management plan is a dynamic,
ongoing process. The process starts with initial input by the
Fishery Management Workgroup, is followed by public and
scientific review of the management proposals, and then by
endorsement by the appropriate Chesapeake Bay Program committees.
A management plan is adopted when it is signed by the Chesapeake
Bay Program's Executive Committee. In some cases, regulatory and
legislative action will have to be initiated, while in others,
additional funding and staffing may be required to fully
implement a management action. A periodic review of each FMP
will be conducted under the auspices of the Bay Program's Living
Resources Subcommittee, to incorporate new information and to
update management strategies as needed.
-------
Goal Statement
The goal of the Chesapeake Bay Summer Flounder Management
Plan is to enhance and perpetuate summer flounder stocks in the
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, and throughout their Atlantic
coast range, so as to generate optimum long-term ecological,
social and economic benefits from their commercial and
recreational harvest and utilization over time.
In order to meet this goal, a number of objectives must be
met. They include following the guidelines established by the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) and the Mid-
Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) for coastwide
management of the summer flounder fishery, providing for fair
allocation of the resource, promoting efficient harvesting
practices, promoting biological and economic research and
pursuing standards of environmental quality and habitat
protection. These objectives are incorporated into the problems
and management strategies discussed below.
Problem Areas and Management Strategies
Problem 1: Overfishing. The summer flounder is an important
fishery resource along the Atlantic coast, particularly between
New York and North Carolina. Total coastwide landings by weight
have shown a decreasing trend since 1980. Recent stock
assessments indicate that summer flounder stocks along the entire
Atlantic coast are experiencing growth and recruitment overfishing.
The 1990 NEFC stock assessment workshop (llth SAW) estimated
fishing mortality (F) as greater than 1.4. Thus, current fishing
mortality is about six times the MAFMC target level of 0.23. The
Mid-Atlantic summer flounder stock also shows compression of age
structure as measured by scientific research surveys, historical
length-frequency analyses of commercial catch data and age
composition data from the 1976-1990 NEFC surveys. Compression of
age structure is considered a primary indicator of
overexploitation in a stock.
Strategy 1: Bay jurisdictions will evaluate a number of
alternatives to control directed fishing mortality and improve
protection of summer flounder beyond age I. Management options
include higher minimum size limits, trawling bans, mesh size
restrictions and hook-and-line creel limits. Management agencies
will continue to participate in deliberations to protect small
flounder in other coastal states and in the Exclusive Economic
Zone.
Problem 2 - Stock Assessment and Research Needs: Currently,
fisheries managers lack some of the biological and fisheries data
necessary for effective management of the flounder resource.
Strategy 2 - Stock Assessment and Research Needs: Atlantic coast
databases are limited concerning harvest, fishing effort and
biological characteristics of the harvest and fishery independent
-------
measures of summer flounder stocks. Specific research to address
these deficiencies will be identified.
Problem 3 - Habitat Issues: Estuarine areas are utilized by
summer flounder stocks for nursery and feeding grounds.
Increasing urbanization and industrial development of the
Atlantic coastal plain has resulted in a decrease in the
environmental quality of many estuarine communities. Estuarine
habitat loss and degradation in Chesapeake Bay may contribute to
declines in summer flounder stocks.
Strategy 3 - Habitat Issues: The jurisdictions will continue
their efforts to improve water quality and define habitat
requirements for the living resources in the Chesapeake Bay.
-------
INTRODUCTION
MANAGEMENT PLAN BACKGROUND
As part of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement's commitment to
protect and manage the natural resources of the Chesapeake Bay,
the Bay jurisdictions are developing a series of fishery
management plans covering commercially, recreationally, and
selected ecologically valuable species. Under the agreement's
Schedule for Developing Baywide Resource Management Strategiesr a
list of the priority species was formulated, with a timetable for
completing fishery management plans as follows:
° oysters, blue crabs and American shad by July 1989;
° striped bass, bluefish, weakfish and spotted seatrout by 1990;
° croaker, spot, summer flounder and American eel by 1991; and
0 red and black drum by 1992
A comprehensive and coordinated approach by the various
local, state and federal groups in the Chesapeake Bay watershed
is central to successful fishery management. Bay fisheries are
traditionally managed separately by Pennsylvania, Maryland,
Virginia, the District of Columbia, and the Potomac River
Fisheries Commission (PRFC). There is also a federal Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council, which has management jurisdiction for
offshore fisheries (3-200 miles), and a coast-wide organization,
the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), which
coordinates the management of migratory species in state waters
(internal waters to 3 miles offshore) from Maine to Florida. The
state/federal Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee (CBSAC)
is responsible for developing a Baywide Stock Assessment Plan,
which includes collection and analysis of fisheries information,
but does not include the development of fishery management plans.
Consequently, a Fisheries Management Workgroup, under the
auspices of the Chesapeake Bay Program's Living Resources
Subcommittee, was formed to address the commitment in the Bay
Agreement for Baywide fishery management plans. The Fisheries
Management Workgroup is responsible for developing fishery
management plans with a broad-based view. The workgroup's
members represent fishery management agencies from Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and the federal
government; the Potomac River Fisheries Commission; the Bay area
academic community; the fishing industry; conservation groups;
and interested citizens. Establishing Chesapeake Bay FMP's, in
addition to coastal FMP's, creates a format to specifically
address problems that are unique to the Chesapeake Bay. ~ They
also serve as the basis for implementing regulations in the Bay
jurisdictions.
-------
WHAT IS A FI-'iERY MANAGEMENT PLAN?
A Chesapeake Bay fishery management plan provides a
framework for the Bay jurisdictions to undertake compatible,
coordinated management measures to conserve and utilize ^ fishery
resource. \ management plan includes pertinent background
information, lists management actions that need to be taken, the
jurisdictions responsible for implementation, and an
implementation timetable.
A fishery management plan is not an endpoint in the
management of a fishery; rather, it is part of a dynamic, ongoing
process consisting of several steps. The first step consists of
analyzing the complex biological, economic and social aspects of
a particular finfish or shellfish fishery. The second step
inr'udes defining a fishery's problems, identifying potential
sc .ons, and choosing appropriate management strategies. Next,
th ;hosen management strategies are put into action or
imj. ^mented. Finally, a plan must be regularly reviewed and
updated in order to respond to the most current information on
the fishery; this requires that a management plan be adaptive and
flexible.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR FISHERY MANAGEMENT FLANS
The goal of fisheries management is to protect the
reproductive capability of the resource while providing for its
optimal use by man. Fisheries management must include biological,
economic and sociological considerations in order to be
effective. Three simply stated objectives to protect the
reproductive capabilities of the resource while allowing its
optimal use include:
c quantify biologically appropriate levels of harvest;
° monitor current and future resource status to ensure harvest
levels are conserving the species while maintaining an
economically viable fishery; and
0 adjust resource status if necessary, through management
efforts.
MANAGEMENT PLAN FORMAT
The background section of this management plan summarizes:
° natural history and biological profile of summer flounder;
0 FMP status and management unit;
° fishery parameters;
-------
° habitat issues;
° historical fishery trends;
° economic perspective;
° current resource status;
0 current laws and regulations in the Chesapeake Bay; and
0 data and analytical needs.
The background information is derived primarily from the
document entitled, Chesapeake Bay Fisheries: Status. Trends.
Priorities and Data Needs and is supplemented with additional
data. Inclusion of this section as part of the management plan
provides historical background and basic biological information
for the species.
The management section of the plan, which follows the
background, defines:
0 the goal and objectives for the species;
° problem areas for the species;
° management strategies to address each problem area; and
° action items with a schedule for implementation.
Once the plan has been adopted by the Bay Program's
Executive Committee, appropriate administrative, regulatory and
legislative action will be initiated. A periodic review of the
management plan will be required to continually update management
strategies and actions. The Living Resources Subcommittee will be
responsible for this review.
-------
SECTION 1. BACKGROUND
Life History - Summer Flounder
The summer flounder, or fluke, Paralichthys dentatus
(Linnaeus), is a member of the lefteye flounder family, Bothidae.
As such, it is recognizable from the winter flounder, which has
its eyes on the right side of its body and is also found in
Chesapeake Bay waters and the yellowtail flounder, occasionally
caught in Maryland and Virginia offshore fisheries. Other members
of the various flatfish families found in the Chesapeake Bay are
generally too small to be of interest to commercial or
recreational fishermen or to present an identification problem,
with the rare exception of the Atlantic Halibut.
All flatfishes are bottom dwelling predators, relying on
their flattened shape and ability to change coloration and
pattern on the upper (eyed) side of their bodies to lie in ambush
for prey. Flounder are efficient predators with quick movements
and sharp teeth allowing them to capture the small fishes, squid,
seaworms, shrimp and other crustaceans which comprise the bulk of
their diet (Lux et. al., 1966). •
The geographic range of summer flounder includes estuarine
and coastal waters from Nova Scotia to Florida (Liem and Scott,
1966). They are found in waters with salinities from 0 to 37 ppt.
and temperatures from 49 to 88°F (6.6 to 31.2 °C) , inhabiting
depths of 13 to 118 feet (4 to 36 m) in summer and 118 to 600
feet (36 to 183 m) in winter (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953).
Occurrence in Chesapeake Bay waters is largely restricted to
waters south of Annapolis (U.S.F.W.S., 1978) . The center of
abundance for this species lies within the Mid-Atlantic Bight,
with numbers diminishing north of Cape Cod, Massachusetts and
south of Cape Fear, North Carolina (Grosslein and Azarovitz,
1982) . Within Chesapeake Bay, summer flounder range from marine
waters of the Territorial Sea to inland estuarine waters of the
Eastern Shore Seaside, Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.
Summer flounder generally inhabit coastal and estuarine
waters during warmer months and migrate to offshore waters (100
to 600 feet) during fall and winter (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953).
Offshore migration is presumably cued by decreasing water
temperatures and declining fall photoperiods (MAFMC, 1987).
Typically, adult summer flounder are scarce or absent in inland
waters during winter months. Winter NEFC bottom trawl surveys in
Northeast US continental shelf waters demonstrate no summer
flounder at depths less than 230 feet (70 m) ; prerecruits (fish
less than or equal to 12 inches) were usually found in less than
130 feet (40 m) and never greater than 200 feet (60 m) in depth.
A mild winter can delay or alter offshore movements resulting in
some adult fish overwintering in the Chesapeake Bay mouth and
Territorial Sea.
Spawning occurs in the fall and winter during offshore
migrations and at the wintering grounds. Migratory patterns vary
-------
with latitude; northern populations move offshore and spawn
earlier, southern populations spawn closer inshore and later
(Smith, 1973). Off the coast of New Jersey and Delaware,
spawning occurs mostly at depths of 66 to 157 feet (20-48 m) and
14 to 38 miles (22-61 km) offshore; 40 miles (65 km) offshore of
Maryland and 6 to 12 miles (9-19 km) off North Carolina.
Winter spawning migrations from Chesapeake Bay waters begin
in October. Fish move south along the beach (nearshore area) from
October to December, gradually moving to an area approximately 20
miles east of Oregon Inlet in January-March. Samples taken
during a November 1988 cruise north of Currituck Beach, North
Carolina and approximately 1 1/2 miles offshore, found some
partially spent females (Musick, 1989). This is evidence that
some spawning is occurring during the early portion (October-
December) of the migration in close proximity to the beach.
North of Chesapeake Bay, the spawning season lasts from September
to December and south of Chesapeake Bay, from November to
February. Peak spawning activity off the Virginia Capes occurs
between October and November. Larvae and post-larvae drift and
migrate inshore, aided by prevailing water currents, entering
coastal and estuarine nursery areas between October and May
(Williams and Deubler, 1968). Movements of larval, transforming
and possibly juvenile flounder into estuaries occur over an
extended time period (Able et al., 1990).
Upon reaching the estuaries, larval flounder undergo a
metamorphosis to the post-larval stage which resembles the adult
fish. Larval flounder more closely resemble the larvae of other
fishes than adult flounder, with body symmetry and eyes on both
sides of their head. During metamorphosis, the eyes of the larval
flounder gradually migrate to the left side of the head and the
body takes on a flattened appearance, as in the adult fish (Lux
et. al., 1966). Once metamorphosis is complete the post-larval
flounder assumes the bottom dwelling lifestyle characteristic of
the adult fish (Smith, 1973).
The primary Atlantic Coast nursery grounds are Chesapeake
Bay, coastal Virginia and Maryland bays, and North Carolina
sounds (Poole, 1966). Some juveniles in the Chesapeake Bay region
migrate to offshore waters at the end of their first year, while
others remain in inshore nursery areas. Thus, fish of all ages
are vulnerable to exploitation by both the recreational and
commercial, inshore and offshore fisheries (Henderson, 1979).
Juvenile summer flounder abundance above Cape Hatteras is
greatest in the Chesapeake Bight area. The Delmarva Peninsula,
Chesapeake Bay and Pamlico Sound serve as principal nursery
grounds for Northeast summer flounder stocks. Recruitment
success above Delaware Bay is poor, primarily due to winter
kills. However, juveniles are found in estuarine waters from
Massachusetts to North Carolina during spring, summer and~fall.
In southern waters, these young fish will overwinter in bays and
sounds. In northern waters, juveniles may move offshore with
adults, however, juvenile fish will overwinter inshore. Bottom
*»
8
-------
trawl surveys conducted by the Applied Marine Research Laboratory
(AMRL) of Old Dominion University in the lower Chesapeake Bay,
Elizabeth and James Rivers, found young of the year summer
flounder in the Bay throughout the winter.
Analysis of summer flounder population structure from the
Middle and South Atlantic Bights resulted in the identification
of two summer flounder stocks (Smith, 1973; Gillikin et. al,
1981; Desfosse et. al., 1990). Linear discriminant analysis of
morphometric and meristic data demonstrated a significant
difference in samples north and south of Cape Hatteras (Wilk et.
al., 1980). Middle Atlantic Bight samples were statistically
similar as were South Atlantic Bight samples, with population
intermixing most prevalent off North Carolina.
The ASMFC and MAFMC have used a unit stock in preparing their
management plans, based upon the best available scientific data
at the time of writing those plans. This plan will also use a
unit stock assumption for consistency with these plans.
FMF Status and Management Unit
The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) plan
was adopted in 1982 and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council (MAFMC) FMP was completed in October 1987 and approved by
the National Marine Fisheries Service in September 1988. The
Virginia Summer Flounder Management Plan was completed and signed
into law in 1989. An ammendment (#1) to the MAFMC plan was
completed in September 1990, but was partially disapproved by the
Secretary of Commerce. A second ammendment is due for
consideration in 1991. The Chesapeake Bay FMP, consistent with
the ASMFC, MAFMC and Virginia plans, will be completed by
December 1991.
The management unit is summer flounder fParalichthvs
dentatus) in U.S. waters from Maine to North Carolina.
Fishery Parameters
Status of exploitation: Overexploited.
Long-term potential catch: There is no generally accepted
estimate of MSY, despite improved
commercial and recreational data.
A major stock assessment due in
1992 may produce the first
accepted MSY.
Importance of recreational
fisherA : Significant.
Importance of commercial
fishery: Very significant, especially in the
Exclusive Economic Zone (which
-------
extends from 3-200 miles offshore
and is under the jurisdiction of the
Mid-Atlantic Council). Summer
flounder have traditionally ranked
first in finfish value for species
landed in Virginia.
Fishing mortality rates:
Biological Profile
Natural mortality rate:
Fecundity:
Age/Size at maturity:
Longevity:
Annual rates for the Atlantic Coast
population 70% both sexes combined
(M = 0.20) during the late-198Os
(F= 1.0 or higher). More recent
estimates of F are greater than 1.4
(llth SAW). Overfishing is defined
by MAFMC as F> 0.23. Total mortality
in Virginia for 1987-1989 is
estimated at 78 %.
Approximately 18% a year (M= 0.2).
463,000 - 4,188,000 eggs/fish at
sizes of 14" to 27" (356-686mm) TL.
The length at which 50 percent of
the fish are mature is estimated at
11.0" (280mm) for males and 13.0"
(330mm) for females.
20 years.
Spawning and Larval Development
Spawning season:
Spawning area:
Location:
There is a seasonal progression in
spawning from north to south.
Spawning north of Chesapeake Bay
peaks in October, and spawning south
of Chesapeake Bay peaks in November.
Cape Cod, Massachusetts to Cape
Lookout, North Carolina.
Spawning occurs at depths of 65-160
feet as adults migrate towards, or
are on, the continental shelf. In
the Mid-Atlantic Bight, eggs occur
in greatest concentrations in an
area about 30-35 miles off the
coast. Eggs are most abundant in
surface waters. Larvae and
post-larvae drift and/or migrate
inshore, entering coastal nursery
areas from October through May.
10
-------
Salinity:
Temperature;
Optimal spawning salinity is 32 to
35 ppt; most larvae occur at
salinities greater than 8 ppt.
Adults inhabit water ranging from
49-88°F (6.6-31.2°C), optimal
spawning temperature is 53 to 66° F
(12-19° C).
Youna-of-Year
Location:
Salinity:
Temperature:
Subadults and Adults
Location:
Salinity:
Temperature:
Habitat Issues
Juveniles move into brackish or
estuarine waters shortly after
metamorphosis is complete. At sizes
of about 6" TL, they begin to move
back to marine water.
0 to 37 ppt. Growth rate of post-
larvae is positively correlated with
increasing salinity.
36 to 88° F (2-31°C).
Shallow coastal and estuarine
waters during the warmer months of
the year; offshore in 120-600 feet
of water during fall and winter.
After age three, summer flounder
occur almost exclusively in coastal
waters.
0 to 37 ppt.
43 to 88° F (6-31°C).
Coastal and estuarine areas are extremely important as
feeding and nursery areas for summer flounder. Consequently,
habitat modifications such as those resulting from dredging,
filling, coastal construction, energy development, sewage
effluent and ocean dumping pose potentially serious, but as yet
unquantified, threats to the summer flounder resource.
About 75% of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of
the coasts. Since U.S. population growth is expected to continue
well into the next century, the rate of degradation in Atlantic
estuarine and coastal habitat will accelerate in the future, if
current land and water use practices are not modified;
11
-------
The Fisheries
Summer flounder support a very important recreational
fishery on the coasts of Maryland and Virginia, and in Chesapeake
Bay. The Maryland and Virginia commercial fisheries are most
extensive in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which extends
from 3-200 miles offshore.
Summer flounder landed in Maryland and Virginia are
harvested primarily in offshore coastal waters by otter trawls
(Figures 6 & 7) . For example, during the period 1980-1989 about
81% of the Virginia commercial catch and 80% of the Maryland
commercial harvest were taken in the Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ). In 1990, over 90% of Virginia's flounder landings came
from the offshore fishery (Figure 7) , despite the closure of
Virginia's Territorial Sea to trawling in 1989.
Combining data for Chesapeake Bay and the Coast reveals that
the Maryland commercial flounder harvest generally increased from
the 1930s through 1958 (Figure 1) , declined through the early
1970s, and then increased to an all time high of 1.7 million
pounds in 1979. During the 1980s, the commercial Maryland harvest
has declined from 1.3 (1980) to 0.18 million pounds (1989)
(Figure 4) .
The commercial harvest in Virginia has historically been an
order of magnitude higher than the Maryland catch (Figure 3). The
Virginia harvest gradually increased from about 300,000 pounds a
year in the 1930s to about 2 million pounds a year in the early
1970s (Figure 2) . Landings then increased dramatically through
1979, when an all time high of 10 million pounds was harvested.
Virginia harvests in the 1980s have ranged from 3.6 million
pounds (1981 and 1989) to 9.6 million pounds (1984)(Figure 5). In
1989, Virginia prohibited all trawling in its territorial waters
as a specific effort to protect summer flounder (VMRC, 1989b).
Preliminary figures for 1990 indicate a harvest of approximately
2.1 million pounds.
Recreational summer flounder landings on the Atlantic Coast
ranged from 5.0 (1989) to 54.5 (1983) million pounds a year in
the 1980s. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) catches accounted for 3%
to 20% of the total recreational harvest. The average annual
recreational harvests in Maryland and Virginia were 0.6 and 4.9
million pounds, respectively, between 1979 and 1985. In 1989, the
recreational harvests dropped to 0.47 and 0.61 million pounds,
respectively.
Resource status
Current estimates of the instantaneous fishing mortality
rate (F) are approximately six times the estimate of Fmax which
would produce the maximum yield per recruit for both'"sexes
combined. All indices of abundance, both commercial and
recreational, plummeted in 1989 relative to the rest of the
1980s. Based on the disparity in the reported values _pf F and
•*•
12
-------
CO
O)
c
TJ
CO
0
0)
E o
EU-
o ^
O
03
E
(
O)
co
2
TJ
O
•o
T3
O
O
•o
9
13
-------
CO
O)
c
T3
cd
CO CD
CD 3
E O
O u.
o
II
P)CO
CM
0>
O)
il
^•P"
-------
o
J E
0 8
C I
5 «J
o •
""'
El
§
(D
•o
o>
C3I
JC
•5
c
CO
o
o
O
•o
c
IB
CM
•o
9
"3
15
-------
CD
T5
.o
LL
0
ii
w.
O
CO Q
O)
ii
TJ
0)
T3
C
CO
_J
00
•o
C
a
o
D.
t
o
3
I
0)
P
'55
^i
o
o
O
16
-------
0
•o
,O
LL.
§
CO 0
.si
1C
0)
g>
LL
•o
c
03
CO
•o
c
3
O
CL
1 i
§ a
O c
o
O
•o
CD
«
O
17
-------
r
1
o
- 0>
CD
CO
CO
(D CD
E co
II
f
eo J2
II
II
II
00
CO
CO
•
CO
a>
O
CO
O
00
c
CO
0)
o
o
CD
SI
O)
O i
a i
CO
•o
c
CO
O
o
o
CM
O
O
10
u
I
U
I
i
o
o
0
1
v
r\ N
Q
U)
K
CO
_ K
O)
«•
i
O 0
o
u>
CO
o
o
O
I
£
4*
£
«
cd
a
18
-------
Figure 7. Virginia commercial
flounder landings by area
Millions of pounds
(
i\, .,, x
Q
K^ , ~_ x
II
r>\ ^
[i
|\ • x
0
^ik. .._ . x
1
i\ S. x
1
rci — . ._...., N
11
f^ ,., •>•
[1
N^ , .._.,. , N
1
t. .._,, ,, x
^^v ,. N
1
u
(1 '
IV X" N
U
K"v v
U
K~^~ N
1
o
- O)
O)
T-
iO
' 00
-§
-R
CO
" O)
«••
(0
CD
•
CO
0)
O
i
rt
o
D
co
o
CO
o
u
O
I
c
O
CM
CO
(O
^ CM
O
C
OB
IB
s
19
-------
Fmax and the recent indices of abundance, it is unlikely that the
Atlantic coast summer flounder population will remain healthy in
the future unless current levels of fishing mortality are reduced
substantially. Maintaining current F levels will continue to
depress the stock and average yield of the fishery (NOAA\NMFS,
1990).
Compression of age structure in the Mid-Atlantic summer
flounder population is apparent from various independently
determined sources, including scientific research surveys
(Desfosse et al., 1990), the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council (1987), the eleventh New England Fisheries Council (NEFC)
stock assessment workshop (NOAA/NMFS, 1990) and historical
length-frequency analyses of commercial catch data (Pearson,
1932; Eldridge, 1962; Ross et. al., 1990). Compression of age
structure is considered a primary indicator of overexploitation
in a fishery.
Commercial landings of summer flounder along the Atlantic
coast have dropped to their lowest level in 15 years, while
the estimated recreational catch is lowest of the entire time
series (MAFMC, 1990).
Laws and Regulations
Limited entry:
Minimum size limit:
Creel limit:
Harvest quotas:
By-catch restrictions:
Season:
Maryland's Delay of Application
Process, which went into effect
September 1, 1988, requires
previously unlicensed applicants to
wait two years after registering
with MDNR before a license to
harvest finfish with commercial
fishing gears will be issued.
Limited or delayed entry are not in
effect in Virginia or Potomac River.
13" total length for Maryland,
Virginia and Potomac River.
Not in effect for Maryland or
Potomac River; 10 fish in Virginia.
Not in effect for Maryland, Virginia
or Potomac River.
Maryland - 5% sublegal (by number)
may be retained by licensed
commercial fishermen. Potomac River-
5% sublegal (by number) may be
retained. Virginia - 2 fish or 10%,
whichever is greater, under 13
inches.
No closed season for Marylajid,
20
-------
Virginia or Potomac River.
Gear - Area restrictions: Maryland - Purse seines, otter
trawls, beam trawls, troll nets,
drag nets, trammel nets,
monofilament gill nets and gigs are
prohibited (otter and beam trawls
are legal on the Atlantic Coast at
distances of one mile or more
offshore). Minimum stretch mesh
size restrictions: pound net,
1.5"; fyke and hoop net, 1.5"; haul
seine, 2.5".
Potomac River - Purse seines, otter
trawls, beam trawls, troll nets,
irag nets, trammel nets, drift gill
nets and gigs are prohibited.
Minimum stretch mesh size
restrictions: pound net, 1.5"; fyke
and hoop net, 1.5"; haul seine,
2.5"; gill net, 5" minimum and 7"
maximum.
Virginia - Trawling prohibited. It
is illegal to alter flounder so that
total length cannot be determined.
It is unlawful to set, place or fish
a fixed fishing device of any type
within three hundred yards in either
direction from the Chesapeake Bay
Bridge Tunnel. From April 1 through
May 31 the spawning areas of the
James, Pamunkey, Mattaponi, and
Rappahannock Rivers are closed to
stake and anchor gill nets. Minimum
stretch mesh size restrictions:
pound net, 2"; haul seine, 3" (nets
over two hundred yards long). In
addition, no haul seine can be longer
than one thousand yards in length or
deeper than forty meshes; and the cod
or bunt end of a trawl net shall have
a minimum of fifty meshes deep. Any
gill net, whether floating or
submerged, that is not assigned a
fixed location shall be set in a
straight line, have no greater depth
than 330" and shall be fished no
closer than 200 feet to any other
such gill net. Also, Sections 28.1-52
and 28.1-53 of the Code of Virginia
outline placement, total length and
distance requirements for fishing
structures. .
21
-------
Status of Traditional Fishery Management Approaches
Catch-Effort:
Estimates of mortality:
Yield-per-Recruit:
Historical commercial fisheries
statistics exist; however, they are
unreliable compared to data collected
since 1982. Catch per unit effort
(CPUE) exhibited a 75% decrease
during the two year stock assessment
survey conducted in Virginia waters
by VIMS 1987-1989.
Estimates of fishing mortality
rates based on the eleventh SAW
were greater than F = 1.4. Natural
mortality (M) is estimated at 0.2,
giving a total mortality estimate
of Z = 1.6 or higher. Total
mortality in Virginia waters between
1987 and 1989 was 78 %, with a Z
value of 1.5.
At an F of 0.23, yield-per-recruit
(YPR) for the coast as a whole would
be maximized at a harvest size of
15 inches (1.3 Ibs) for both sexes
combined. Flounder are fully
recruited to the existing East coast
fishery at age 2.
Stock-Recruitment:
MSY:
VPA Analysis;
SSBR:
No derived relationship.
A preliminary estimate of the
maximum sustainable yield for the
Atlantic Coast population is about
44 million pounds. This estimate
has not been used to make
management decisions because the
general belief is that summer
flounder abundance was very low
during the period of analyses (1967
- 1974). Also, good effort data is
lacking in recreational surveys
conducted prior to 1979.
The first accepted VPA was produced
at the llth SAW workshop (1990).
FBAR values for 1982-1989 show
fishing mortalities of F> 1.0 for
all fully recruited (age 2 or older)
year classes measured.
Current spawning stock biomass per
recruit is estimated at about 3%
22
-------
of the unfished level. Probability
of recruitment failure is high when
SSBR is 10% or less.
Data and Information Needs
1. Annual estimates of catch and effort in the commercial and
recreational fisheries.
2. Annual estimates of the age, length and sex composition of the
commercial and recreational catch.
3. Information on discard levels in the commercial and
recreational fisheries.
4. Evaluation of the impact of different minimum legal size
limits and/or mesh regulations on the recreational and commercial
fisheries in the Chesapeake Bay.
5. Studies to investigate the principal environmental factors
affecting year class strength.
6. Stock identificaton work to establish whether more than one
summer flounder stock contributes to the Chesapeake Bay
population and if so, the relative contribution of each stock.
References
Able, K. W., R. E. Matheson, W. W. Morse, M. P. Fahay and G.
Shepard. 1990. Patterns of summer flounder (Paralichthys
dentatus) early life history in the Mid-Atlantic Bight and New
Jersey estuaries. Fish Bull. 88(1): 1-12.
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1982. Fishery
management plan for summer flounder. Fisheries management report;
No. 3.
Bigelow, H. B. and W. C. Schroeder. 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of
Maine. US Fish Wildl. Serv. Fish. Bull. 53(74): 577 p.
Desfosse, J. C., J. A. Musick, A. D. Estes and P. Lyons. 1990.
Stock identification of summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus)
in the southern Mid-Atlantic Bight.
Eldridge, P. J. 1962. Observations on the winter trawl fishery
for summer flounder, Paralichthys dentatus. M. A. Thesis. Va.
Inst. Mar. Sci., College of William and Mary. 58 p.
Gillikin, J. W., B. F. Holland, Jr., and Capt. R. 0. Guthrie.
1981. Net mesh selectivity in North Carolina's winter trawl
fishery. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development. SSR No. 37. 65 p.
Grosslein, M. D. and T. R. Azarovitz. 1982. Fish distribution.
MESA New York Bight Atlas Monograph 15. 182 p.
23
-------
Henderson, E. M. 1979. Summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) in
the northwest Atlantic. NOAA. NMFS Woods Hole Lab. Ref. No. 79-
31, 13 p.
Leim, A. H. and W. B. Scott. 1966. Fishes of the Atlantic coast
of Canada. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada. Bull. No. 155. 485 p.
Lux, F. E., P. E. Hamer and J. C. Poole. 1966. Summer flounder...
the middle Atlantic flatfish. Leaflet # 6, Marine resources of
the Atlantic coast, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1987. Fishery
management plan for the summer flounder fishery.
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1990. Amendment #1 to
the fishery management plan for the summer flounder fishery.
Musick, J. A. 1989. Trawl fishery closure in Virginia territorial
waters (< 3 miles) from Virginia Capes to North Carolina border.
VIMS Position paper. Va. Inst. Mar. Sci. 13 p.
NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service. 1990. Report of the
eleventh NEFC stock assessment workshop.
Pearson, J. C. 1932. Winter trawl fishery off the Virginia and
North Carolina coasts. Investigational Rep. No. 10. U.S. Gov.
Print. Off. Washington, D. C. 30 p.
Poole, J. C. 1966. A review of research concerning summer
flounder and needs for further study. N. Y. Fish and Game
Journal. 13(2): 226-231.
Ross, J. L., J. H. Hawkins and D. A. DeVries. 1990. Assessment of
the North Carolina winter trawl fishery, September 1982- April
1985. N. C. Division of Marine Fisheries. SSR # 53.
Scarlett, P. G. 1981. Fishery management plan for the summer
flounder f Para1ichthys dentatus) fishery. NMFS contract #
03-78-D01-78.
Smith, W. G. 1973. The distribution of the summer flounder,
Para1ichthys dentatus. eggs and larvae on the continental shelf
between Cape Cod and Cape Lookout, North Carolina, 1965-1966.
Fish. Bull. 71(2):527-548.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1978. Development of fishes of
the Mid-Atlantic Bight, Vol IV. pp. 157-163.
Virginia Marine Resources Commission. 1989a. Summer Flounder
Management Plan.
Virginia Marine Resources Commission. 1989b. Regulation 450-01-
0055.
24
-------
Virginia Marine Resources Commission. 1990. Regulation 450-01-
0071.
Wilk, S. J., W. G. Smith, D. E. Ralph, and J. Sibunka. 1980.
Population structure of summer flounder between New York and
Florida based on linear discriminant analysis. Trans. Am. Fish.
Soc. 109.(2): 265-271.
Williams, A. B. and E. E. Deubler, Jr. 1968. Studies on
macroplanktonic crustaceans and ichthyoplankton of the Pamlico
Sound complex. North Carolina Department of Conservation and
Community Development. Spec. Sci. Kept. No. 13. 91 p.
25
-------
Section 2. Summer Flounder Management
The source documents for this plan, the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission FMP (1982), the Mid-Atlantic
Fisheries Management Council FMP (1987), and the Virginia Summer
Flounder FMP (1989) contain current knowledge and discuss
management priorities for summer flounder stocks. Information
from these documents has been supplemented and updated with
recent work published by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science
(1990), NOAA/NMFS (1990) and MAFMC (1990). Problems and
management strategies have been defined and grouped into specific
categories and serve as the basis for identifying the goals and
objectives of the plan. The management strategies and actions
will be implemented by the jurisdictions to protect and enhance
the stocks of summer flounder utilizing the Chesapeake Bay.
Existing regulations regarding the harvest of this species will
continue to be enforced except where otherwise indicated by the
plan.
A. GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
The goal of this plan is to:
Enhance and perpetuate summer flounder stocks in the Chesapeake
Bay and its tributaries, and throughout their Atlantic coast
range, so as to generate optimum long-term ecological, social and
economic benefits from their commercial and recreational harvest
and utilization over time.
In order to meet this goal, the following objectives must be met:
1) Follow guidelines established by the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council for coastwide management of summer flounder stocks
and make Bay regulatory actions compatible where possible.
2) Promote protection of the resource by maintaining a clear
distinction between conservation goals and allocation
issues.
3) Maintain summer flounder spawning stocks at a size which
minimizes the possibility of recruitment failure and
determine the effects of environmental factors on year-class
strength.
4) Promote the cooperative interstate collection of economic,
social and biological data required to effectively monitor
and assess management efforts relative to the overall goal.
5) Improve collection of catch and standardized effort
statistics in the summer flounder fisheries.
6) Promote fair allocation of allowable harvest among various
components of the fishery.
26
-------
7) Cont^..ue to provide guidance for the development of water
quality goals and habitat protection necessary to protect
the summer flounder population within the Bay and state
coastal waters.
Problem 1: Overfishing. The summer flounder is an important
fishery resource along the Atlantic coast, particularly between
New York and North Carolina. Total coastwide landings by weight
have shown a decreasing trend since 1980. Recent stock
assessments indicate that summer flounder stocks along the entire
Atlantic coast are experiencing growth and recruitment
overfishing. The 1990 NEFC stock assessment workshop (llth SAW)
estimated fishing mortality (F) as greater than 1.4. Thus,
current fishing mortality is about six times the MAFMC target
level of 0.23. The Mid-Atlantic summer flounder stock also shows
compression of age structure as measured by scientific research
surveys, historical length-frequency analyses of commercial catch
data and age composition data from the 1976-1990 NEFC surveys.
Compression of age structure is considered a primary indicator of
overexploitation in a stock.
Strategy 1: Bay jurisdictions will evaluate a number of
alternatives to control directed fishing mortality and improve
protection of summer flounder beyond age I. Management options
include higher minimum size limits, trawling bans, mesh size
restrictions and hook-and-line creel limits. Management agencies
will continue to participate in deliberations to protect small
flounder in other coastal states and in the Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ).
PROBLEM 1.1
All estimates of stock abundance have continued to show a
declining trend in recent years, despite the institution of
a ban on trawling in Virginia's Territorial Sea and the
imposition of a 13" minimum size limit in all Bay
jurisdictions.
STRATEGY 1.1
Maryland, Virginia and the PRFC will propose changes in
minimum size regulations, creel limits and seasons in
the recreational fishery to conform to guidelines set
by MAFMC. Maryland and Virginia will comply with
commercial quotas, mesh sizes or other commercial
restrictions enacted by MAFMC. These recommendations
are intended to provide greater spawning stock biomass
from each flounder year-class and provide a greater
yield-per-recruit.
ACTION l.la: Maryland, the PRFC and Virginia
will propose an increase in their minimum size
limit for recreationally caught flounder from 13
inches to 14 inches.
27
-------
IMPLEMENTATION l.la
1) 1991; Continue
ACTION l.lb:
Maryland, Virginia and the PRFC will propose creel
limits and seasonal restrictions in compliance
with MAFMC recommendations. Examples include a 3
fish creel limit with no closed season, a 10 fish
limit with a closed season Jan.-June or a 5 fish
limit with a Jan.-May 15 closure. Virginia will
continue to enforce her ten fish per day limit
until such time as MAFMC recommendations can be
implemented.
IMPLEMENTATION l.lb
1) 1991; Continue
ACTION l.lc: Commercial size limits will remain
at 13" in conformance with MAFMC recommendations.
Commercial fisheries will be subject to mesh size
restrictions and a quota system administered
through MAFMC.
IMPLEMENTATION l.lc
1) 1991; Continue
PROBLEM 1.2
The continuing catch of undersize flounder by trawl
fisheries, along with a total harvest far in excess of
sustainable levels, consitutes a principal reason for the
precipitous decline in summer flounder stocks. Culling of
undersize fish from the catch is not a viable alternative in
this fishery, as mortality of the culled catch is so high.
STRATEGY 1.2
Management agencies will continue to promote the
implementation of a minimum mesh size in the directed
flounder trawl fisheries sufficient to allow escapement
of immature flounder. Management agencies will urge the
Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council to enact a
mesh size compatible with these goals in the directed
flounder trawl fisheries to complement the size and
creel limits enacted through the Baywide Plan.
ACTION 1.2a
Virginia, Maryland and the PRFC will implement a
minimum mesh size in all directed flounder
fisheries sufficient to allow the escapement of
immature flounder.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.2a
1) 1991; Continue
ACTION 1.2b
*
28
-------
Virginia and Maryland will work with the Mid-
Atlantic Fisheries Management Council to adopt a
mesh size requirement for the EEZ flounder trawl
fishery consistent with the objectives of the
Baywide Plan and MAFMC's recommendations for
conservation of the resource.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.2b
1) 1991; Continue
PROBLEM 1.3
The incidental bycatch of small summer flounder in non-
directed fisheries may impact recruitment to the flounder
spawning stock. Nondirected fisheries include the
Chesapeake Bay's pound net fishery, Maryland's coastal trawl
fisheries and North Carolina's trawl, flynet, pound net,
long haul seine and beach seine fisheries for finfish and
shrimp.
STRATEGY 1.3
Virginia, Maryland and the Potomac River Fisheries
Commission will investigate the incidental bycatch of
small flounder in non-directed fisheries and
participate in coastal deliberations to protect small
flounder in other coastal states.
ACTION 1.3a
Maryland will collect information from its pound
net and ocean trawl fisheries to develop
management strategies for reducing the non-
directed bycatch of small flounder and other
species. Options for consideration include
minimum mesh sizes, season and area restrictions,
culling practices and fishing efficiency devices.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.3a
1) 1991; Continue
ACTION 1.3b
Virginia will continue to monitor the species
composition and biological characteristics of bait
harvested in its pound net fishery. The VMRC will
take action, as needed, to reduce the incidental
bycatch of small flounder in the bait fishery.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.3b
1) 1991; Continue
ACTION 1.3C
Maryland, the PRFC a id Virginia will work through
the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council and
the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to
encourage protection of immature flounder.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.3C
29
-------
1) 1991; Continue
Problem 2 - Stock Assessment and Research Needs: Currently,
fisheries managers lack some of the biological and fisheries data
necessary for effective management of the flounder resource.
Strategy 2 - Stock Assessment and Research Needs: Atlantic coast
databases are limited concerning harvest, fishing effort and
biological characteristics of the harvest and fishery independent
measures of summer flounder stocks. Specific research to address
these deficiencies will be identified.
PROBLEM 2.1
Atlantic coast summer flounder stock structures and the
extent of stock mixing are poorly understood. Stock
identification research will be continued and the summer
flounder population will be treated as a unit stock for
management purposes in the interim.
STRATEGY 2.1
Maryland, Virginia and the Potomac River Fisheries
Commission will continue to support stock
identification research to determine the extent of
stock mixing in the Chesapeake Bay flounder population.
ACTION 2.1
The jurisdictions will continue to support stock
identification research, particularly stock
composition tagging studies being conducted at
Virginia's Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) and
the University of Maryland. Coordinated studies on
the relative contribution of various estuaries,
including the Chesapeake Bay, to the coastal
flounder stock will be initiated.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.1
1) 1991; Continue
PROBLEM 2.2
Data for summer flounder size and age composition,
maturity schedules, growth rates, mortality rates and
estimates of abundance are inconsistent.
STRATEGY 2.2
Virginia will continue to support stock assessment work
conducted by the VMRC and index of abundance research
performed by Virginia Institute of Marine Science
(VIMS).
ACTION 2.2
VMRC's Stock Assessment Program will continue
to collect biological data (age, size, sex) from
commercial catches of summer flounder. VIMS will
continue to monitor abundance of juvenile flounder
30
-------
through its young-of-the-year and juvenile
flounder survey trawl survey indices.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.2
1) 1991; Continue
PROBLEM 2.3
Catch and effort statistics for summer flounder
recreational fisheries need to be improved for fisheries
stock assessment.
STRATEGY 2.3
Maryland, Virginia and the Potomac River Fisheries
Commission will continue to support inter-
jurisdictional efforts to maintain a comprehensive data
base on coastwide level.
ACTION 2.3
Maryland, Virginia and the PRFC will continue
to collect fisheries landings data on summer
flounder as part of ongoing commercial fisheries
statistics programs. Virginia will continue to
pursue adoption and implementation of a limited
and/or delayed entry program and a mandatory
reporting system for commercial licensees.
Maryland and Virginia will continue to supplement
the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics
Survey to obtain more detailed catch statistics at
the state level. Through FISHMAP, Maryland will
begin a pound net sampling project to collect
information on summer flounder and other species.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.3
1) 1991; Continue
PROBLEM 2.4
Information relating to the stock-recruitment
relationship for summer flounder is lacking.
STRATEGY 2.4
Maryland and Virginia will continue their joint and
individual efforts in providing the information needed
to determine the relationship between abundances of
adult and juvenile flounder.
ACTION 2.4
Maryland and Virginia will continue the Baywide
trawl survey of estuarine finfish species and
crabs to measure size, age, sex, distribution,
abundance and CPUE. Maryland will continue
seaside juvenile summer flounder studies utilizing
bottom trawls, beach seines and their
cooperative sampling of trawl fisheries.
31
-------
IMPLEMENTATION 2.4
1) 1991; Continue
Problem 3 - Habitat Issues: Estuarine areas are utilized by
summer flounder stocks for nursery and feeding grounds.
Increasing urbanization and industrial development of the
Atlantic coastal plain has resulted in a decrease in the
environmental quality of many estuarine communities. Estuarine
habitat loss and degradation in Chesapeake Bay may contribute to
declines in summer flounder stocks.
Strategy 3 - Habitat Issues: The jurisdictions will continue
their efforts to improve water quality and define habitat
requirements for the living resources in the Chesapeake Bay.
PROBLEM 3.1
Water quality impacts the distribution and abundance of
finfish species in the Chesapeake Bay.
STRATEGY 3.1
The District of Columbia, Environmental Protection
Agency, Maryland, Pennsylvania, the Potomac River
Fisheries Commission, and Virginia will continue to
promote the commitments of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay
Agreement. The achievement of the Bay commitments will
lead to improved water quality and enhanced biological
production.
ACTION 3.1
The District of Columbia, Environmental Protection
Agency, Maryland, Pennsylvania, the Potomac River
Fisheries Commission, and Virginia will continue
to set specific objectives for water quality
goals and review management programs established
under the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
The Agreement and documents developed pursuant to
the Agreement call for:
1) Developing habitat requirements and water
quality goals for various finfish species.
2) Developing and adopting basinwide nutrient
reduction strategies.
3) Developing and adopting basinwide plans for
the reduction and control of toxic substances.
4) Developing and adopting basinwide management
measures for conventional pollutants entering
the Bay from point and nonpoint sources.
5) Quantifying the impacts and identifying the
sources of atmospheric inputs on the Bay
system.
6) Developing management strategies to protect
and restore wetlands and submerged aquatic
vegetation.
7) Managing population growth to minimize adverse
impacts to the Bay environment.
32
-------
IMPLEMENTATION 3.1
Continuing.
33
-------
g
UJ
_1
00
181
UJJU|
cj at o
oe z u-
f i£
o: u u
z oe u-
i? £
II
I!
I!
_> i_ ^- —•
§
E
U -D C
u. C —
ee a
4> W
N C 41
41 — T> CU t.
u CO 4) •- 3
Q 4-> O 4->
E .c o •»- a
O W 41 «#- E
41 c. 41 C. H- E
"* a B53-
3 <-• —> a H-
L. ^ 3 C o 5 —4) _«o
41 *• E 5 — 6 -^ £ H- — 41
w — 5 — E x<->oa~-w
— — J- O) — WWCO •OC--«~- C_-
U4-*C CO*--*^*1^ C*^1^- Q*>CC
_ ^,._ o J: «c OE OH- i o 5 — .
o 4> - - - » _ _ ..
eotz~-g UCC.J5
§** •»-
"~
co E 3 co _ _
to O co u cu
• L. t. *rf «*- U.
H- W CO O CO
i
(X
-------
1 1 1
cj a: cj
at x u-
l
£ |
*~"
O 01
4V L.
3
_> CJ 4V
5 in E
< •-
CJ
u. T3 «*-
oc c o
"•" K
"x-
4V Ik 4-1
-SZ2«!
1.3c MD, VA ar
work with tha
encourage prot
flounder.
it iii iii
cj ec uoeu uaeu
oez o: z u. oc z u.
x p xoee zoo:
> X > X 0. > X O.
J, JU Ol
C C v3
§** C "5
O CD 4-1
t> 0 > ~-
o co "to —
S -8 Six*
~ •<- e 2 o S oi
H- O E O) 4V f
— O O CD "D 4J
4V C CO 0 L- TO C
c 5 oi a c eg w
cu ~- £ o> s c
2 tii £8g5i
o> • o— co 8
j^ — * u a 4-> 4J •- —
o ^— C — '^SD
ca — a 3 co co
<» u oi 4-« co x
4-1 3C. 3COC.IOO
S "- B "• * O. O)
•6 e a ** " C ^
O O U o'C^'T'C
U CJ CJ 0) — C- —
»- c. CM o ro "Si a. c
rj 3 INJH. oj<«^>c.o
a
CD CO
S 8
CO 01
< z
w a
CO
• 01
CM at
1 1
u at
§i
g
4>
§
CJ
CO — •
U X
— a . oi
w ib oi c
« "D - g
"xil
1 itg
S ^.S.2
U C "u
Ol ~- O 4J
OC 4V 4V (0 LU
v i S X-D S
C c, u oi cj
"He? ^ i. x"-o
a c. • 3 Ol C
X CV CM U) CO CO
CJ Of CJ X CJ
§Z u. u. u.
o a: u a.
x a. o
01
1
a
o
4v
O 4V
i!
4V l_
U O) X
01 < 4V
i^
• •*
3.1 Promote tt
the Chesapeake
improve water
CO
CO
CO
**
4V
CD
•s
,
K1
o c S
l_ O •—
(o 4-> a
•*• ID ^^
.£•3.2
II II II
< a -i
. -
S3.a*
S -5
.;; « co u *v «-
"2il8c5.20
M CO U CO *^ (0 v*»
" •*- oi < o g co
£|2g|co>^ cu
g c. o a o> u- —-
.S 9 c. cj c — u
• Q. cu a u a oi
aOi><«-xoi~-v=
x o — o js c at
•^ oi « en eo —
(I'D 4V 01 ••- > U.
"?CBO'S'UU""XCO
.i: —• e c- oi — o) 4v
aiXO4vj=(oc c.
™c.4vla(a-oE o
•Z^CDO*^*^*^OI "
> x a- o u. >- a. co
H H II M U M II II
0 oe cj X cj cj o u
ttZU-UU< x a. a u- >- co
I
-------
------- |