Chesapeake Executive Council
903R91003
Chesapeake Bay
American Eel
Fishery Management Plan
Agreement Commitment Report
1991
TD
225
.C5A
E44
1991
Pjc'ec'.'.on Agency
iion Resource
Chesapeake Bay Program
i Printed on recycled paper
-------
,,._..wn Resource
Chesapeake Bay
American Eel
Fishery Management Plan
Chesapeake Bay Program
Agreement Commitment Report 1991
Produced under contract to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contract No. 68-WO-0043
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
ADOPTION STATEMENT
We, the undersigned, adopt the Chesapeake Bay American Eel Fishery Management Plan in
partial fulfillment of Living Resources Commitment Number 4 of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agree-
ment:
. by July to develop, adopt, and begin to implement a Bay-
wide management plan of oysters, blue crabs, and American Shad.
Plans for the other major commercially, recreationally and ecologi-
cally valuable species should be initiated by 1990."
The American Eel was designated a valuable species in the Schedule for Developing Baywide
Resource Management Strategies. In 1991, the American Eel plan was completed.
We agree to accept the plan as a guide to managing the American Eel stock in the Chesapeake Bay
and its tributaries for optimum ecological, social and economic benefits. We further agree to work together
to implement, by the dates set forth in the plan, management actions recommended to monitor the status
of the stocks, obtain catch and effort information from the bait fishery, address research and monitoring
needs, and develop the habitat and water quality criteria necessary for healthy American Eel populations.
We recognize the need to commit long-term, stable, financial support and human resources to the
task of managing the American Eel stock. In addition, we direct the Living Resources Subcommittee to
periodically review and update the plan and report on progress made in achieving the plan's management
recommendations.
Date December 18, 1992
For the Commonwealth of Virginia
For the State of Maryland
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 ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii
INTRODUCTION vi
SECTION 1. Biological Background 1
Life History 1
Biological Profile 3
The Fishery 4
Fishery Parameters 10
Economic Perspective 10
Resource Status 10
Habitat Issues 14
FMP Status and Management Unit 15
Laws and Regulations 15
Status of Traditional Fishery Management Approaches.... 16
Data and Analytical Needs 17
References 18
SECTION 2 . American Eel Management 21
A. Goal and Objectives 21
B. Problem Areas and Management Strategies
1. Stock Status 21
2 . American Eel Bait Fishery 23
3 . Research Needs 23
4. Habitat and Water Quality Issues 24
APPENDIX: American Eel Implementation Matrix 27
Figures
1. Estimated range of eel harvest used for bait by
Maryland trotliners 5
2. Estimated total eel harvest from Maryland 6
3. Reported commercial landings of American eel from
the Chesapeake Bay 8
4. Maryland commercial landings and dockside value of
American eels 11
5. Virginia commerical landings and dockside value of
American eels 12
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Chesapeake Bay American Eel Management Plan was developed
under the direction of the Fisheries Management Workgroup. Staff
from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Tidewater
Administration, Fisheries Division were responsible for writing the
plan and addressing comments on the draft versions. Support was
provided by staff from the Virginia Marine Resources Commission
(VMRC), Fisheries Management Division. Contributing MDNR staff
included Nancy Butowski and Harley Speir. VMRC staff included David
Boyd, Roy Insley, Sonya Knur, and Ellen Smoller. Thanks are due to
Verna Harrison and Ed Christoffers for guiding the plan through the
development and adoption process. Carin Bisland, from EPA's
Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office, assisted with production of title
pages and fact sheets, and with printing and distribution.
Finally, we express gratitude to members of other Chesapeake Bay
Program committees and workgroups and to the public who commented
on the plan.
Members of the Fisheries Management Workgroup were:
Mr. Mark Bundy, STAC Economic Advisory Group
Mr. K.A. Carpenter, Potomac River Fisheries Commission
Mr. Jeffrey S. Eutsler, Maryland Waterman
Mr. William Goldsborough, Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Mr. J. W. Gunther, Jr., Virginia Waterman
Mr. Robert Hesser, Pennsylvania Fish Commission
Dr. Edward Houde, UMCEES/Chesapeake Biological Laboratory
Ms. Linda Hurley, USFWS Bay Program
Mr. W. Pete Jensen, Chair, MD Department of Natural Resources
Dr. R. Jesien, Horn Point Environmental Lab
Mr. J. Claiborne Jones, Chesapeake Bay Commission
Dr. Ron Klauda, MDNR, Cheapeake Bay Research and Monitoring
Dr. Robert Lippson, NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service
Dr. Charles F. Lovell, Jr., M.D., Virginia
Mr. Richard Novotny, Maryland Saltwater Sportfishermen's Assoc.
Mr. Ed O'Brien, MD Charter Boat Association
Mr. Ira Palmer, D.C. Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs
Mr. James W. Sheffield, Atlantic Coast Conservation Assoc. of Va.
Mr. Larry Simns, MD Watermen's Association
Mr. Jack Travelstead, Virginia Marine Resources Commission
Ms. Mary Roe Walkup, Citizen's Advisory Committee
11
-------
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 American eel 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, baywide fishery management plans.
The workgroup is composed of members from government agencies, the
academic community, the fishing industry, and public interest
groups representing the District of Columbia, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, 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 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 is conducted under the auspices of
the Bay Program's Living Resources Subcommittee, to incorporate new
information and to update management strategies as needed.
111
-------
Goal of the American Eel Management Plan
The goal of the Chesapeake Bay American Eel Management Plan is
to manage the American eel harvest in the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries so that harvest does not exceed the reproductive
capacity of the population to maintain its size from year to year.
With this goal, optimum biological, economic, and social benefits
will be attained.
In order to meet this goal, a number of objectives must be
met. These objectives are incorporated into the problem areas and
management strategies discussed below.
Problem Areas and Management Strategies
Problem 1: Stock Status. The status of the American eel stock in
the Chesapeake Bay is unclear. Local watermen have reported
catching smaller eels and a decrease in the number of eels.
Biological data to characterize the stock is not current. There is
the potential to harvest large quantities of elvers which could
impact the local eel fishery.
Strategy 1: Stock Status. The jurisdictions will adopt a
conservative approach to managing American eels in the Bay until
stock assessment analyses have been completed. A minimum size of 6
inches will be adopted to protect elvers. A baywide minimum mesh
size for eel pots will be implemented.
Problem 2: American Eel Bait Fishery. The use of eels for crab
bait, especially in the Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay,
places additional fishing pressure on the population. The quantity
of "pencil eels" (eels larger than 6" and less than 10") used for
finfish bait by recreatioanl fishermen is unknown but has the
potential to increase. The harvest of eels for bait has not been
completely recorded in catch statistics. Accurate catch statistics
are necessary for assessing the status of eels in the Bay.
Strategy 2: American Eel Bait Fishery. Catch and effort information
from the American eel bait fishery is important for developing
management measures. Catch and effort statistics will be improved
by adding questions about the use of eel bait to the crab survey.
Problem 3: Research Needs. Basic stock assessment data is lacking
for American eels in the Chesapeake Bay. There is a limited amount
of fishery dependent data and fishery independent data. Very little
is known about the economic value of the bait eel fishery and how
it affects harvest practices. Lack of biological and socioeconomic
information hinders effective management practices.
IV
-------
Strategy 3: Research Needs. In order to increase the knowledge and
understanding of the American eel resource in the Chesapeake Bay,
research projects will be promoted to address the deficiencies in
biological and socioeconomic data.
Problem 4: Habitat and Water Quality Issues. American eels prefer
well-oxygenated areas and anoxic water probably affects
distribution and inhibits growth. The condition of bottom sediments
and substrates is also important since eels are bottom dwellers.
Long-term exposure to pollutants and toxic substances can interfere
with metabolic processes. American eel habitat is currently blocked
by dams and other obstructions.
Strategy 4 Habitat and Water Quality Issues: The Bay jurisdictions
will continue to set specific objectives for water quality goals
and review management programs established under the 1987
Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Efforts include identifying and
controlling nutrients, toxic materials, conventional pollutants,
and atmospheric inputs; protecting wetlands and submerged aguatic
vegetation; and managing population growth. In addition, the
jurisdictions have committed to providing upstream access for
migratory fishes.
-------
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 Bayvide Resource Management Strategies, a list of
priority species was formulated, with a timetable for completing
fishery management plans as follows:
0 oysters, blue crabs and American shad by July 1989;
0 striped bass, bluefish, weakfish and spotted seatrout by 1990;
0 croaker, spot, summer flounder and American eel by 1991;
° red and black drum by 1992; and
0 Spanish and king mackerel, tautog, black sea bass and freshwater
catfish by 1993.
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.
There is also a federal Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council,
which has management jurisdiction for offshore fisheries (3-200
miles), and a coastwide 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 the District of
Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, the Potomac River Fisheries
Commission, Virginia, and the federal government; the Bay area
academic community; the fishing industry; conservation groups; and
interested citizens. Establishing Chesapeake Bay FMPs, in addition
to coastal FMPs, creates a forum to specifically address problems
that are unique to the Chesapeake Bay. They also serve as the basis
for implementing regulations in the Bay jurisdictions.
VI
-------
WHAT IS A FISHERY MANAGEMENT FLAN?
A Chesapeake Bay fishery management plan provides a framework
for the Bay jurisdictions to take compatible, coordinated
management measures to conserve and utilize a fishery resource. A
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 includes defining a
fishery's problems, identifying potential solutions, and choosing
appropriate management strategies. Next, the chosen management
strategies are put into action or implemented. 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 PLANS
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 social considerations in order to be effective. Three
simply stated objectives to achieve this goal are:
° quantify biologically appropriate levels of harvest;
0 monitor current and future resource status to ensure harvest
levels are conserving the species while maintaining an
economically viable fishery; and
0 adjust resource use and other factors affecting resource
status, as needed, through management efforts.
These general objectives are incorporated with information on
a particular resource and the current status of management for that
resource, into specific objectives for a fishery management plan.
MANAGEMENT PLAN FORMAT
The background section of this management plan summarizes:
0 natural history and biological profile of the American eel;
0 American eel fishery and fishery parameters;
° economic perspective;
VII
-------
°resource status;
°habitat issues;
° FMP status and management unit;
°current laws and regulations in the Chesapeake Bay; and
°data and analytical needs.
The background information is partially derived 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 each of
the species.
The management section of the plan, which follows the
background, defines:
°the goal and objectives for management of the species;
°problem areas;
°management strategies to address each problem area; and
° action items, with a schedule for implementation, by the
appropriate management agency.
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM'S FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANNING PROCESS
The planning process starts with initial input by the
Fisheries Management Workgroup and development of a draft plan.
This is followed by a review of the management proposals by Bay
Program committees, other scientists and resource managers, and the
public. After a revised draft management plan is prepared, it must
be endorsed by the Chesapeake Bay Program's Living Resources
Subcommittee and Implementation and Principal Staff committees.
The plan is then sent to the Executive Committee for adoption.
Upon adoption by the Executive Committee, the appropriate
management agencies implement the plan. In 1990, the Maryland
legislature approved §4-215 of the Natural Resource Article giving
the Maryland Department of Natural Resources authority to regulate
a fishery once a FMP has been adopted by regulation. In Virginia,
FMP recommendations are pursued either by legislative changes or
through a public regulatory process conducted by the Commission.
A periodic review of each FMP is conducted by the Fisheries
Management Workgroup to incorporate new information and to update
management strategies as needed.
Vlll
-------
Section 1. Biological Background
Life History
The American eel (Anguilla rostrata), also known as the common
or freshwater eel, can be found in a variety of habitats across an
extensive geographic range. It probably has the broadest diversity
of habitats of any fish species in the world (Helfman et al. 1987) .
American eels occur in freshwater rivers and lakes, estuaries,
coastal areas, and open ocean from the southern tip of Greenland,
along the entire coast of North America, into the Gulf of Mexico,
and southward to the northeastern portion of South America (Van Den
Avyle 1984). In the Chesapeake Bay, American eels can be found in
the mainstem and all tributaries and streams (Hildebrand and
Schroeder 1927).
The general life history pattern of the American eel is
complex and not fully understood. It is a catadromous species, that
spends most of its life in rivers, lakes and estuaries, but
migrates to the ocean to spawn. Prior to beginning a fall
migration, maturing eels undergo a metamorphosis which includes a
change in color, fattening of the body and thickening of the skin,
enlargement of the eyes, and degeneration of the digestive tract
(Van Den Avyle 1984). Migrating adult eels are referred to as
silver eels and details of their migration are not well known
(Helfman et al. 1987). Spawning has never been directly observed,
but based on larval distribution, it is believed to occur during
winter and spring in the Sargasso Sea (east of the Bahamas and
south of Bermuda) at temperatures between 22 and 25°C (72-77°F)
(McCleave et al. 1987). Fecundity, the number of eggs per female,
is between 10 and 20 million (Fahay 1978). Current evidence
suggests that American eels spawn only once and then die. Results
from genetic studies indicate very little variation in eel
populations throughout their geographic range and support the
concept of a single, randomly breeding population (Helfman 1987).
The larval form or leptocephalus stage of the eel is so
different from the adult that it took over forty years to discover
the connection between it and the adult form. The leptocephalus
stage (characterized by a ribbon-like transparent body form)
usually lasts for one year but may be longer depending on latitude.
During this time, growth occurs and the larvae are dispersed by
ocean currents. Once they reach a certain size and physiological
state, they begin to metamorphose. The modifications in body form
include a reduction in size and weight, changes in the shape of the
head and jaw, and accelerated development of the digestive system
(Van Den Avyle 1984). After these changes occur, the larvae would
be recognized as a "typical" eel except that it is unpigmented and
more or less transparent. Eels at this stage are called "glass
eels" and migrate toward freshwater. The mechanisms that trigger
migration towards land and freshwater are not well understood.
Migration may involve active swimming, selective tidal-stream
-------
transport, and transport by Gulf Stream intrusions and long-shore
currents (Kleckner and McCleave 1985; Williams and Koehn 1984). As
glass eels move into coastal areas, pigmentation develops and the
body becomes uniformly dark brown. At this point, metamorphosis is
complete and the eel is now called an elver (Van Den Avyle 1984) .
Elvers generally move into estuarine and freshwater habitats
in late winter and early spring. They usually appear in the Bay
area during April and the run can last a few days or a month
(Schwartz 1961 as cited by Mowrer 1979). Young eels assume a
nocturnal lifestyle, active at night and resting in deep water
during the day. Typically, elvers are smaller and arrive earlier in
southern areas along the coast. Movement upstream appears to be
affected by tidal action and currents (Fahay 1978). Elvers can
range in size from 46 mm (1.8") to 127 mm (5") (Bigelow and
Schroeder 1953) . In the Chesapeake Bay, an eel less than 152 mm
(6") is generally referred to as an elver. When elvers stop
migrating, they undergo a. period of growth and differentiation and
are then known as yellow eels.
The yellow eel stage (also referred to as the juvenile or
subadult stage) can last from 8 to 24 years. Growth rates during
this time are highly variable and there is considerable overlap in
length, weight, and age. Predicting age from size is, therefore,
not reliable (Van Den Avyle 1984) . Growth rates for eels in the
upper Chesapeake Bay appear to differ by sex and age. Estimates of
eel growth rates from the South Altahama River, Georgia, based on
seasonal and long-term recapture methodology, were 57 and 62 mm/yr
(Helfman et al. 1984). The yellow eel stage is highly mobile which
accounts for their widespread distribution (Williams and Koehn
1984) . Studies suggest that eels living in river and lake habitats
have long distant seasonal movements and relatively large home
ranges (Gunning and Shoop 1962). Estuarine eels are more sedentary
with little evidence of seasonal movements and smaller home ranges
(Helfman et al. 1983). Tag return data from the upper Chesapeake
Bay support the concept of limited movement and discrete eel sub-
populations within tributaries (Foster and Brody 1981). There have
been conflicting reports on habitat preference by sex with females
preferring freshwater and males preferring brackish water. Foster
and Brody (1982) found female eels in estuarine areas in the Bay
and male eels in freshwater.
Prior to migrating to the sea, the yellow eel changes to a
silver or bronze eel, the final stage in its life history. This
stage generally lasts for one year and sexual maturity is reached
during this time. Since sexual maturity depends to some extent on
size, the variation in maximum and minimum lengths makes it
difficult to state the age or length at which an eel will mature
(Moriarty 1987). However, there appears to be a general trend in
age and size at maturity with location. Eels are older and reach a
larger size at maturity in northern locations. Age at maturity
for female eels from the Chesapeake Bay has been estimated at 10 to
-------
12 years at a minimum size of 470 mm (18.5") (Foster and Brody
1982).
The American eel feeds mostly at night. In the Chesapeake Bay,
crustaceans, bivalves and polychaetes make up the majority of their
diet. Food analyses suggest that the eel may be a significant
predator on blue crabs (Wenner and Musick 1975) . Anguillid eels are
considered dietary generalists, eating a broad diversity of food
items, limited only by the availability of a particular food item
(Tesch 1977). Leptocephali, glass eels, elvers, and small yellow
eels are consumed by a variety of predatory fish. Larger eels are
eaten by other species of eels and a number of bird species (Sinha
and Jones 1967).
Biological Profile
Natural mortality rate; Currently unknown.
Fecundity; 10 to 20 million eggs per female
Longevity; Up to 25 years.
Spawning and Larval Development
Spawning season: Not known with certainty, probably
winter and spring.
Spawning area: Warm side of a thermal front in the
Sargasso Sea (23-26°N, 69-74°W).
Spawning location: Spawning probably takes place above
the thermocline at depths of less
than 350 m. Leptocephali occur in
ocean waters. Glass eels occur in
offshore and coastal waters.
Salinity: 35 ppt.
Temperature: 22-25°C (72-77°F).
Elvers
Location: At sizes less than 150 mm (6") in
length, generally in shallow, near-
shore waters; larger individuals in
deeper waters.
Salinity: 0-35 ppt.
Dissolved Oxygen: Greater than 2.5 ppm.
-------
Juveniles
Location: Fresh, estuarine and marine waters.
Apparently prefer vegetated areas.
Salinity: 0-35 ppt.
Dissolved oxygen: Greater than 2.5 ppm.
Adults
Location: Initially in fresh, estuarine or
marine waters; as sexual maturity
progresses, migratory activity to
offshore spawning waters begins.
Salinity: 0-35 ppt.
Dissolved Oxygen: Greater than 2.5 ppm.
The Fishery
There are two distinct industries for eel, the crab trotline
bait market in which 0.5 - 1.0" (1.3 - 2.5 cm) diameter eels of
approximately 10 - 14" (25.5 -35.5 cm) lengths are used, and the
live-eel market where eels of at least 13" (33 cm) length are
preferred for export. Traditionally in the Chesapeake Bay region,
smaller eels were salted for crab trotline bait and, secondarily,
marketed for local consumption (Foster and Brody 1981). Presently,
the use of eels for crab trotline bait widely occurs in Maryland
waters. In Virginia, the number of eels used for crab bait is small
and mostly used by the recreational crabber. The number of eels
harvested for crab bait in the Chesapeake Bay is unknown and
generally goes unreported. An attempt has been made to calculate
the harvest of eels used for bait from the Maryland portion of the
Bay (Krauthamer, unpubl. manuscript). Estimates of annual eel
harvest were based on the ratio of eel bait to trotline crab catch
and multiplied by the total annual commercial trotline crab harvest
(Figure 1). Ratios of 1:10 (1 pound of eel bait to 10 pounds of
crabs harvested, the high value) and 1:17 (mid-value) were
determined from information gathered from crab fishermen
(Krauthamer, unpubl. manuscript). Since the price of eel bait has
increased and the price of other baits decreased, crab fishermen
have become more conservative with their bait usage. A lower ratio
of 1:25 appears more reasonable for the 80's (Jim Casey-MDNR, per
comm.) . Values from the raitio method of estimation increased total
eel harvest between 0.6 and 2.4 million pounds, depending on the
specific year in question (Figure 2).
Beginning in the mid 60's, the live-market industry developed
when air freight transportation made it possible to export live
-------
m
09
«•+
6'
CO
O
(0
a
(D
X
CO
00
CD
00
0)
CO
CO
o
Ol
O
O
r~
o
O
o
Ol
o
o
ro
o
o
o
ro
01
o
o
r~
CO
o
o
o
o
c
CO
0)
TJ
o
c
3
a.
CO
c
CO
8.®
CO
C
?. 3
CQ
-*• CD
3 ®
CD
CD
0)
-------
OJ
(D
CO
«•+
i'
&}
^+
(D
(0
CT
0)
0)
(D
0.
O
D
0)
•-*
O
0)
3
CL
(D
I
CD
CD
m
CO
l-»
i'
D)
r-t-
CD
CL
m
CD
nn
(Q*
c
CD
m
-------
eels to the European market. Since then, the live-eel market has
grown and it is from this industry that harvest statistics are
obtained. In 1990, 730,000 pounds were harvested from the
Chesapeake Bay, of which 577,000 pounds were landed in Virginia.
These values do not include eels harvested by the crab trotline
bait fishermen who are not required to report. The Potomac River
Fisheries Commission (PRFC) requires the reporting of all eels
caught from the Potomac River. The reported commercial eel harvest
from the Chesapeake Bay has been highly variable (Figure 3). The
difference in reported and estimated catch can be illustrated by
Foster and Brody's investigation of the eel fishery. In 1980,
Maryland DNR estimated total eel catch in Maryland at approximately
1.2 million pounds, yet the reported catch from Maryland was only
322,000 pounds.
Historically, the American eel populated the Susquehanna River
Basin from the mouth of the river to its headwaters. Although the
size of the historic population cannot be determined, the
Pennsylvania Fish Commission (PFC) estimates that over 900,000
pounds per year were taken for commercial resale and home
consumption at the turn-of-the-century. Although eels still exist
(PFC stocking program) in limited numbers in many basin tributaries
and the mainstem, construction of four hydropower dams on the lower
river in the early 1900s has blocked nearly 350 miles of river
habitat. Under the Fish Passage Workgroup, a plan has been adopted
to provide fish passage at dams and to remove stream blockages
wherever necessary. This strategic plan for reestablishing American
eels throughout their historic range, especially in the Susquehanna
River basin, is currently in progress.
Reported harvests from the Chesapeake Bay up until 1980, were
based on National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) statistical
surveys which relied on interviews from fishhouse managers only.
This method of collecting data probably contributes to the
variability in yearly harvests. Since 1980, harvests in Virginia
have been collected directly from live-market eel buyers and other
seafood buyers, which accounts for the majority of Virginia's eel
landings.
In 1990, Maryland DNR began including the catch of eels on
their mandatory finfish reporting forms. The harvest record should
be more accurate with this improvement in reporting, however,
obtaining accurate catch information on eels used for bait is still
a problem and will continue to hinder stock assessments of the eel
resource in the Chesapeake Bay. Crab licensees are allowed to use
up to 50 eel pots for personal use and are not required to report
their bait eel catch. The Potomac River Fisheries Commission (PRFC)
has had mandatory catch reporting for eels since 1964. The reports
indicate eels are sold for both the live and bait markets. Eel
landings from the Potomac have averaged over 300,000 pounds per
year and have ranged from 126,000 to 650,000 pounds. Approximately
80% of the Potomac harvest is landed in Virginia.
-------
CD CD
5' CO
cu
=J 33
Ef
0 O
9:
CD CQ
CO
8
-------
In the Chesapeake Bay, the eel pot is the major gear type for
capturing eels and has been responsible for between 80 and 98% of
the reported commercial harvest since 1929. Eel pots are baited
with a variety of fresh and frozen baits (soft clams, female
herring, carp roe, female horseshoe crabs, menhaden and small
female crabs) (Foster and Brody 1981). The traditional upper Bay
eel pot is cylindrical (8 to 12" in diameter, 24-36" long) with two
fabric funnels in one end and a closed, opposite end. It is
constructed of wire mesh with 1/3 X 1/3", 1/2 X 1/2", or 1/2 X 1"
size meshes. The minimum size eel retained by each mesh size is 230
mm (9"), 260 mm (10.2") and 320 mm (12.6"), respectively (Foster
and Brody 1982) . In Maryland, 1/3 X 1/3" mesh size is used in
approximately 15 to 20% of the eel pots with the two other mesh
sizes evenly divided across the remaining eel pots (Foster and
Brody 1982) . In Virginia, a square or rectangular pot (12-16" high,
18-24" long) with 1/2 X 1/2" or 1/2 X 1" wire mesh is more widely
used since the major portion of the catch is for live market eels.
Virginia currently has a 1/2 X 1/2" minimum mesh size limit and
requires two escape panels of 1/2 X 1" mesh in 1/2 X 1/2" mesh
pots. Pound and fyke nets are of minor importance in the fall,
catching silver eels as they migrate out of the Chesapeake Bay
(Foster and Brody 1981).
In Virginia, the eel pot fishery has historically been a
transitional type of fishery. Commercial watermen would generally
fish a few eel pots in between other fishing seasons, particularly
in the spring and fall. During the last few years with the decline
of the oyster, shad, and striped bass fisheries, more fishing
pressure has been exerted on the eel resource. There has been an
increase in the number of fishermen targeting eels and an increase
in the number of pots being fished per man. Over the last 10 years,
dockside price for eels to the fishermen has increased at a rate
greater than that for other finfish.
There is evidence that hook and line, or recreational fishing
for eels existed throughout the Susquehanna River basin. Presently,
rod and reel fishing occurs in the basin on eels remaining from eel
stocking above Conowingo Dam. Other active fisheries are on the
Octoraro and Elk Creeks in Lancaster and Delaware Counties. These
fisheries are not well documented.
Due to the vulnerability of elvers to overharvest, a
prohibition on the taking of elvers was established by Virginia in
1977. Waves of elvers (eels less than 6" long) enter the Bay and
its tributaries in the spring, converging at outfalls, as they
migrate toward freshwater. These large concentrations are easily
harvested. In addition to the overharvest potential at outfalls,
there is the potential to harvest elvers for the foreign eel
culture market. Harvesting large numbers of elvers could negatively
impact the Chesapeake Bay American eel stock.
-------
Small to medium sized eels are used as live bait by hook and
line fishermen targeting striped bass and cobia. When striped bass
stocks declined, this usage of eels diminished. Now that striped
bass stocks are recovering and limited fishing is allowed live eel
bait is preferred. In addition, cobia have been abundant in the
Bay. Consequently, a live-bait market for the recreational hook and
line finfish fishery has been reestablished.
Fishery Parameters
Status of exploitation: Unknown.
Long term potential catch: Currently unknown.
Importance of recreational Insignificant.
fishery:
Importance of commercial Significant, becoming increasingly
fishery: important.
Fishing mortality rates: Currently unknown.
Economic Perspective
Since commercial landings from the Chesapeake Bay are probably
under-reported, only a limited economic perspective can be
discerned based on dockside value. Based on the Maryland American
eel market, price per pound decreased from $0.85 in 1980 to $0.35
in 1983, and for Virginia, decreased from $0.94 to $0.46 during the
same time period. Since then, there has been a gradual increase in
price per pound (Figure 4 and 5). In Maryland, American eel sold
for its highest price ($1.72 per pound) in 1990 and ranked 4th
compared to other finfish species. In 1988, Virginia eels sold for
$1.72 per pound, its highest value since 1980. The average
wholesale price for eel during 1990 was $1.53 per pound and ranked
third compared to other finfish species. Almost all of the eels
bought for the live-market trade are exported to Europe, where
there is a high consumer demand for eels.
Resource Status
In the late 70's there was some concern about the eel fishery
in Maryland. Anecdotal comments suggested that eels were becoming
less abundant. In 1980, a study was conducted to characterize
Maryland's eel fishery. A number of eel fishermen and marketers
were interviewed to help define problems in the fishery. The main
problems expressed by the fishermen were that the average size eel
was decreasing, there were too many part-time eelers, too many
elvers and small eels were being harvested, cost of bait was
increasing, and there was a high rate of pot loss. Suggestions for
10
-------
(Q
(0
O
O
O
;r
CO
o!
CD
c
CD
0) (5
Q.
CD O
ll
CD 9.
O
w
13
0) (Q
0)
11
-------
(Q
CO
D
O
O
7?
CO
5!
(D
C
(D
31
(Q
8
CD
> 0
3 o
o
12
-------
improvement included the adoption of a commercial eel fishing
license, a minimum 6" size limit, and a minimum mesh size
restriction for eel pots (Foster and Brody 1982). The study also
analyzed eel catch by pot mesh size in the upper Chesapeake Bay.
With the smallest mesh size (1/3 X 1/3"), 80% of the eels were too
small for the live market fishery. There is a potential conflict
over optimum mesh size for the live market and the bait fishery
since each targets a different size eel. Presently, it is unknown
if restricting the harvest of small eels will benefit the harvest
of eels in following years.
Overfishing for eels and decreasing size of eels have also
been concerns for the Virginia eel industry. As a result of
pressure from Virginia eel fishermen and processors, a study on
optimum mesh size for eel pots was conducted in 1981. Results of
this study indicated that 61% of the eels caught in pots of 1/2 X
1/2" mesh were below the minimum live market size (13 - 14"
length), and on average, caught an eel 1.8" shorter and 1.7 ounces
lighter than the 1/2 X 1" mesh pots. In 1990, after a series of
meetings with eel industry representatives, Virginia passed a
regulation which established a 1/2 X 1/2" minimum mesh size for eel
pots and which required 1/2 X 1" mesh escape panels in 1/2 X 1/2"
mesh pots. The purpose of this regulation is to conserve the
Chesapeake Bay eel stock, to reduce the possibility of growth
overfishing, and to prevent the wastage of small eels. A similar
law was passed in North Carolina that same year. Virginia also
passed a regulation in 1990 which established procedures for the
setting, fishing, and marking of eel pots.
In 1983, the Potomac River Fishery Commission required a 1/2
X 1/2" minimum mesh size for eel pots. In 1985, the PRFC adopted a
1/2 X 1" minimum mesh size to become effective in 1987. However, it
was repealed before 1987, thereby, returning the 1/2 X 1/2" minimum
mesh size requirement. This illustrates the difficulty in changing
traditional methods and gear types. An investigation of the Potomac
River eel fishery was conducted in the fall of 1989. Again, the
perception of decreasing catch and smaller available eels, prompted
the investigation. The results indicated a significant increase in
fishing pressure during the previous five-year period, both in the
number of fishermen catching eels and the average number of eel
pots being fished. The average size of eels has declined which
could be an indication of growth overfishing (Smoller 1989). In
growth overfishing, fish are caught at too small a size to allow
realization of growth and yield potential.
American eel populations along the Atlantic coast appear
variable depending on the estuary or river in question. Even two
closely related systems may differ considerably in abundance and
biological characteristics. Computer simulations of larval drift
indicate a broad, uniform distribution of eels along the coast
(Helfman et al. 1987). In many ocean spawning fish species,
environmental factors are far more important in determining
13
-------
survival of eggs and young than are the number of parents. Whether
there is a relationship between number of adult eel spawners and
eventual number of elvers that enter Atlantic and Gulf Coast
streams is unknown. The spawning aggregation of eels in the
Atlantic is composed of eels from Greenland to South America. Even
if one or several river specific populations within the range were
subjected to intense fishing pressure, it is unlikely that
reproduction would be negatively affected (recruitment overfishing)
if the remainder of the habitats experienced only moderate fishing
pressure. There is some evidence that total American eel harvest
from the Canadian maritime provinces has declined due to local
growth overfishing. This situation has resulted in the development
and consideration of new management policies. These policies
include restrictions on the number of eel licenses, gear and area
restrictions, and a closed season (Jessop 1982). Other regions,
including the Chesapeake, have also exhibited signs of growth
overfishing and should be investigated further.
Habitat Issues
American eels are numerically dominant in a broad array of
habitats which includes small clear streams; large, turbid rivers;
blackwater swamps; springs and caves; clear and turbid, deep and
shallow, vegetated and barren lakes and ponds; and fresh, brackish,
and saltwater marshes (Helfman et al. 1987). Given this diversity
of habitats, the eel has relatively broad environmental tolerances.
Eels are considered a "hardy" species. From the available
literature, it appears that eels generally prefer well-oxygenated
areas (Hill 1969) . Anoxic water in the Chesapeake Bay probably
affects eel distribution and may contribute to slow growth rates.
Since eels are essentially bottom dwellers, the condition of bottom
sediments and substrates is important. Migrating elvers seek
shelter in bottom areas and adult and subadult eels, especially in
northern areas, use the bottom mud during winter (Van Den Avyle
1984). It would follow that disturbances to the bottom habitat,
such as physical alteration, chemical and metal pollution, would
affect American eels in the Bay.
The effects of pollutants on American eels have not been
extensively researched. High levels of chlordane have been found in
eels tested from Back River and Baltimore Harbor. These tests
resulted in a health advisory to limit the consumption of eels
caught in these two areas. Toxicity of aquaculture chemicals has
been investigated by Hinton and Eversole (1979) and results suggest
that tolerance increases with size and age. Permanent damage from
pollution occurs only if the pollutants produce long-term metabolic
effects (Tesch 1977). Sewage probably has an adverse effect on
elvers migrating upriver (Tesch 1977).
14
-------
Upstream habitat in many areas of the Bay is inaccessible to
migrating eels. In particular, young eels are impeded by structures
such as weirs and dams. Eel populations could be improved by
facilitating upstream passage (Tesch 1977).
FMP Status and Management Unit
There is no coastal management plan for American eels. The
1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement contains a commitment to develop,
adopt, and begin to implement this baywide FMP for American eels by
December 1991.
The management unit is defined as all American eels (Anguilla
rostrata) in Chesapeake Bay waters.
Laws and Regulations
Limited entry:
Minimum size limit:
Creel limit:
Harvest quotas:
By-catch restrictions:
Season:
Gear/Area restrictions:
Maryland's Delay of Application Process,
which went into effect September 1, 1989,
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 is not in
effect for Pennsylvania, the Potomac
River or Virginia.
None in Maryland, Pennsylvania, or the
Potomac River. In Virginia the taking or
catching of elvers is prohibited.
50 per person per day in Pennsylvania.
Not in effect in Maryland, Potomac River
or Virginia.
Not in effect in Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Potomac River or Virginia.
Not in effect in Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Potomac River or Virginia.
No closed season.
Maryland - No restrictions on eel pots.
Pennsylvania - No gear restrictions.
Potomac River - The use of spears, gig,
gig irons or dynamite are prohibited.
Minimum mesh size restrictions: pound and
15
-------
fyke nets - 1-1/2"; eel pots - 1/2 X
1/2"; bait pots - 1"; fish pots - 2";
fyke net -1.5". Length limitations on
fish pots - 10'; bait pots -2' cube.
Seasonal restrictions: pound nets - Feb.
15 through Dec. 15.
Virginia - Eel pots: 1/2 X 1/2" minimum
mesh size; rectangular or square pots of
1/2 X 1/2" mesh required to have two
unrestricted 1/2 X 1" mesh escape panels;
cylindrical pots of 1/2 X 1/2" mesh
required to have one unrestricted 1/2 X
1" mesh escape panel. Each single pot
must be marked with a buoy; for multiple
pots on a line, the eel pot line may not
exceed 1200' and must be buoyed at each
and; unlawful to set pots in a navigable
channel. It is unlawful to set, place or
fish a fixed fishing device within 300
yards of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge
Tunnel. Minimum stretch mesh size
restrictions: pound net 2", haul seine
3" (nets over 200 yards long) . No haul
seine can be longer than 1000 yards or
deeper than 40 meshes. Also, Sections
28.1-52 and 28.1-53 of the Code of
Virginia outline placement, total length
and distance requirements for fishing
structures.
Other prohibitions: Obstructing passage of fish and
dynamiting streams.
Status of Traditional Fishery Management Approaches
The following definitions have been adapted from the document,
"Status of the Fishery Resources Off the Northeastern United States
for 1989" (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-72). For a more
thorough review of fisheries terminology, refer to this document
under the section "Definition of Technical Terms."
Catch-Effort or (Catch per unit of effort)- Defined as the number
or weight of fish caught during a specific unit of fishing time and
considered a basic measure of abundance or stock density: Only
limited catch data exists for eels.
Estimates of mortality based on abundance- Instantaneous mortality
is defined as the rate at which fish are removed from a population
by death (Z). It can be represented mathematically by the natural
logarithm of a ratio of the number of fish alive at the end of a
unit of time, to the number alive at the beginning of the unit of
16
-------
time. It can also be expressed as a percentage of the population:
None available for eels in the Chesapeake Bay.
Yield-per-Recruit- A mathematical calculation of the theoretical
yield that would be obtained from a group of fish of one age if
they were harvested according to a certain exploitation pattern
over the life span of the fish: Unknown for eels.
Spawning Stock Biomass- The total weight of all sexually mature
fish in the population. This changes depending on the size of new
year classes, the growth rate of young fish, the age at sexual
maturity, the growth and natural mortality of older fish, and the
fishing mortality rate: Unknown for eels.
Spawning Stock Biomass Per Recruit (SSBR)- The spawning stock
biomass divided by the number of fish recruited to the stock at age
2. This number is in units of weight and measures the average or
expected contribution of any one young fish to the spawning stock
biomass over its lifetime: Unknown for eels
Stock-Recruitment- The relationship between the adult stock size
and subsequent recruitment (fish that reach a certain size or age
in a specific year). Unknown for eels.
Maximum Sustainable Yield- The number or weight of fish in a stock
that can be taken by fishing without reducing the stock's biomass
from year to year, assuming that environmental conditions remain
the same: Unknown for eels.
Virtual Population Analysis- Defined as an analysis of fish
catches from a given year class over its life in the fishery: Has
not been carried out for eels - no information on age specific
catch of eels.
Data and Analytical Needs
1. Collect biological information on the distribution, size, age
and sex composition of the catch in fresh, brackish, estuarine
and marine waters of Maryland and Virginia.
2. Collect data for estimating catch-per-unit-effort in the eel
pot fishery.
3. Improve annual estimates of total landings including eels
harvested for crab bait.
4. Determine the optimum minimum size for harvesting eels.
5. Determine natural and fishing mortality rates.
6. Determine economic characterizations of each major component
of the fishery.
17
-------
References
Bigelow, H.B., and W.C. Schroeder. 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of
Maine. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Fish. Bui. 53. 577pp.
Fahay, M.P. 1978. Biological and fisheries data on American
eel, Ancfuilla rostrata (LeSueur) . U.S. Dept. Commer. Natl.
Mar. Fish. Serv. Tech. Ser. Rep. No. 17, Northeast Fisheries
Center, Highlands, J.J. 82pp.
Foster, J.W.S., and R.W. Brody. 1982. Status report: the
American eel fishery in Maryland, 1982. Maryland Tidewater
Administration, Tidal Fisheries Division, Annapolis, Maryland.
Foster, J.W.S., and R.W. Brody. 1981. The American eel: a
situation report. Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
Annapolis, Md.
Gunning, G.E., and C.R. Shoop. 1962. Restricted movements of the
American eel, Anguilla rostrata (LeSueur), in freshwater
streams, with comments on growth rate. Tulane Studies in
Zoology 9:265-272.
Helfman, G.S., E.L. Bozeman, and E.B. Brothers. 1984. Comparison
of American eel growth rates from tag returns and length-age
analyses. Fish. Bull. Vol. 82, No. 3. pp 519-522.
Helfman, G.S., D.E. Facey, L.S. Hales, Jr., and E.L. Bozeman, Jr.
1987. Reproductive Ecology of the American Eel. Amer. Fish.
Soc. Symp. 1:42-56.
Helfman, G.S., D.L. Stoneburner, E.L. Bozeman, P.A. Christian, and
R. Whalen. 1983. Ultrasonic telemetry of American eel
movements in a tidal creek. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 112:105-
110.
Hildebrand, S.F. and W.C. Schroeder. 1927. Fishes of Chesapeake
Bay. Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish. 43(1):111-112.
Hill, L.J. 1969. Reactions of the American eel to dissolved
oxygen tensions. Tex. J. Sci. 20:305-313.
Jessop, B.M. 1982. A review of the status and management of
commercial fisheries for American eels (Anguilla rostrata) in
the maritime provinces. Ontario Fish. Tech. Rep. Series No.
4:28-32.
Kleckner, R.C., and J.D. McCleave. 1985. Spatial and temporal
distribution of American eel larvae in relation to North
Atlantic ocean current systems. Dana 4:67-92.
18
-------
McCleave, J.D., R.C. Kleckner, and M. Castonguay. 1987.
Reproductive Sympatry of American And European Eels and
Implications for Migration and Taxonomy. Amer. Fish. Soc.
Symp. 1:286-297.
Moriarty, C. 1987. Factors influencing recruitment of the
Atlantic species of anguillid eels. Amer. Fish. Soc.
Symp.1:483-491.
Mowrer, J.P. 1978. The occurrence and abundance of the American
eel in freshwater streams of Maryland. Maryland Dept. of
Natural Resources, Tidewater Administration, Final Rep. Mar.
1974-Oct. 1976. 92pp.
Sinha, V.R.P., and J.W. Jones. 1967. On the food of the
freshwater eels and their feeding relationship with salmonids.
J. Zool. (Lond.) 153:119-137.
Smoller, E.B. 1989. American eel fishery for the Potomac River
status report. Virginia Mar. Res. Comm., Newport News, Va.
19pp.
Stagg, Cluney. 1986. An evaluation of the information available
for managing Chesapeake Bay fisheries: preliminary stock
assessments, volume I and II. University of Maryland, Center
for Environmental and Estuarine Studies, Chesapeake Biological
Laboratory, UMCEES[CBL] Ref. No. 134-148.
Tesch, R.W. 1977. The eel: biology and management of anguillid
eels. Translated from German by J. Greenwood. Chapman and
Hall/John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York.
Van Den Avyle, M.J. 1984. Species Profiles: Life Histories and
Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates
(South Atlantic), American Eel. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,
Slidell, Louisianna.
Wenner, C.A. and J.A. Musick. 1975. Food habits and seasonal
abundance of the American eel, Anguilla rostrata. from the
lower Chesapeake Bay. Ches. Sci. 16:62-66.
Williams, G.C.. and R.K. Koehn. 1984. Population genetics of
North Atlantic catadromous eels (Anguilla). Pages 529-560 in
B.J. Turner, editor. Evolutionary Genetics of Fishes. Plenum,
New York, New York.
19
-------
Section 2. American Eel Management
Source documents for this plan (Foster and Brody 1982; Van Den
Avyle 1984; and Stagg 1986) discuss various aspects of the American
eel life history, fishing exploitation, and potential problems
associated with the fishery.
A. GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
The goal of this plan is to manage the American eel population in
the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries so that harvest does not
exceed the natural capacity of the population to maintain its size
from year to year. With this goal, optimum biological, economic,
and social benefits will be attained.
In order to achieve this goal, the following objectives must be
pursued:
1) Promote protection of the resource by maintaining a clear
distinction between conservation goals and harvest
regulations.
2) Restore self-sustaining populations of American eels to their
historical ranges.
3) Implement appropriate monitoring programs necessary for
collecting stock assessment data.
4) Provide for fair allocation of allowable harvest, consistent
with traditional uses, among the various components of the
fishery.
5) Promote studies to improve the understanding of economic,
social, and biological aspects of the fishery.
6) Continue to pursue and enforce standards of environmental
quality and habitat protection necessary to protect the
American eel population within the Bay and its tributaries.
B. PROBLEM AREAS AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Problem 1 - Stock Status: The current status of the American eel
stock in the Chesapeake Bay is unclear. It has been suggested
(Helfman) that the eel's long stay in freshwater may make it more
vulnerable to local exploitation. There is some anecdotal
information that eels in the Bay are smaller and less abundant than
in the past, but commercial landing statistics do not indicate any
stock trends. Biological data to characterize the stock is not
current. Harvesting large quantities of elvers when they enter the
Bay in dense numbers and foreign interests looking to obtain elvers
for culture could negatively impact the Chesapeake Bay American eel
21
-------
stock. American eel habitat is currently blocked by dams and other
obstructions which potentially limits stock abundance. Annual
recruitment of elvers is more affected by environmental factors
(offshore winds, currents) then abundance of spawning stock from
any one region.
Strategy 1 - Stock Status: Until stock assessment analyses are
available, the jurisdictions will adopt a conservative approach to
managing the eel stock in the Bay by reducing the possibility of
growth overfishing and by preventing the wastage of small eels.
Problem 1.1
The current status of the American eel stock in the Bay is
unclear and stock assessment data is unavailable. The harvest
of elvers has the potential to impact the Chesapeake Bay eel
fishery. Elver migration in the spring is blocked by dams and
other obstructions.
Strategy 1.1
The jurisdictions will adopt a conservative management
approach until stock assessment analyses have been
completed for American eels in the Bay.
Action 1.1
A) Maryland and the Potomac River Fisheries
Commission will adopt a minimum size limit of 6
inches for American eels in the Bay.
B) Virginia will continue its prohibition on the
taking of elvers and will adjust its definition to
correspond to a 6" minimum size limit.
Implementation 1.1
A) 1992 B) 1992
Action 1.2
A) Maryland will implement a 1/2 x 1/2" minimum
mesh size for eel pots.
B) Virginia and the Potomac River Fisheries
Commission will continue to enforce a 1/2 X 1/2"
minimum mesh size for eel pots. Virginia will
continue to enforce the escape panel requirements
in 1/2 X 1/2" mesh pots.
Implementation 1.2
A) 1992 B) Continue
Action 1.3
Upon restoration of American eels to the
Susquehanna River basin, the Pennsylvania Fish
Commission (PFC) will adopt regulations to prevent
the overharvest of small eels.
22
-------
Implementation 1.3
Dependent on restoration.
Problem 2 - American Eel Bait Fishery: In the Maryland portion of
the Chesapeake Bay, the use of eels for crab bait is a major source
of fishing pressure on the population. The harvest of American eels
for crab bait has not been completely recorded in catch statistics.
Estimates of eels harvested for bait and used by commercial crab
trotliners range between 700,000 and 1,700,000 pounds per year. The
quantity of "pencil eels" (eels larger than 6" and less than 10")
used for finfish bait by recreational fishermen is unknown but has
the potential to increase. Accurate catch statistics are necessary
for assessing the status of eels in the Chesapeake Bay.
Strategy 2 - American Eel Bait Fishery: Catch and effort
information from the American eel bait fishery is important for the
development of management measures for the eel stock in the Bay.
The jurisdictions will monitor the crab bait fishery to obtain
catch and effort data.
Problem 2.1
The American eel crab bait fishery in Maryland has been
estimated at three to five times that of the reported eel
harvest for the live-eel fishery but is not completely
reported in the catch statistics.
Strategy 2.1
Catch and effort statistics for the American eel crab
bait fishery will be obtained.
Action 2.1
Maryland will require the reporting of American
eels used for the crab bait fishery on their
mandatory finfish reporting forms.
Implementation 2.1
1992
Problem 3 - Research Needs: Basic stock assessment data is lacking
for American eels in the Chesapeake Bay. Size and age composition,
maturity, growth rates, mortality rates, and estimates of abundance
are not available. Currently, there is a limited amount of fishery
dependent and fishery independent data. The price of eels used for
bait has increased over the past few years, however, very little is
known about the economic value of the bait eel fishery and how it
affects harvest practices. Lack of biological and socioeconomic
information complicates effective management.
23
-------
Strategy 3 - Research Needs: In order to better understand the
American eel resource in the Chesapeake Bay, research projects will
be promoted to address the deficiencies in biological and
socioeconomic data.
Problem 3.1
There is a lack of basic biological and fisheries data
necessary for effective management of the American eel
resource in the Chesapeake Bay.
Strategy 3.1
The jurisdictions will increase their understanding of
the American eel resource in the Chesapeake Bay.
Important research topics include but are not limited to
the following: fishery independent estimates of
abundance; mortality rates; the effects of fishing
exploitation on growth; the factors that influence
recruitment in the Bay; and how economic aspects affect
the eel fishery.
Action 3.1
A) Maryland and Virginia will continue to collect
catch and effort data from the live-eel fishery and
begin monitoring the bait eel fishery.
B) PRFC will continue to collect catch and effort
data from their commercial fishery.
Implementation 3.1
A) Continue B) Continue
Action 3.2
Maryland, the Potomac River Fisheries Commission,
and Virginia will encourage research to collect
basic biological and socioeconomic information.
Implementation 3.2
1992
Problem 4 - Habitat and Water Quality Issues: American eels are
generally considered a "hardy" species since they inhabit a broad
array of habitats and occur over a wide range. Upstream habitat in
many areas of the Chesapeake Bay system is inaccessible to
migrating eels because of dams and other blockages. Eels prefer
well-oxygenated areas and are essentially bottom dwellers. Anoxic
water probably affects distribution and inhibits growth. The
condition of bottom sediments and substrates is important.
Disturbances to the bottom habitat will also affect eel
distribution. Tolerance to pollutants varies with different life
stages. Long-term exposure to pollutants and toxic substances can
interfere with metabolic processes.
24
-------
Strategy 4 - Habitat and Water Quality Issues: The jurisdictions
will continue their efforts to improve water quality, habitat, and
provide fish passage for living resources in the Bay.
Problem 4.1
Water quality and stream impediments impact the distribution
and abundance of finfish species in the Chesapeake Bay.
Strategy 4.1
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. In addition, the jurisdictions have committed
to providing upstream passage for migratory fishes.
Action 4.1
The jurisdictions will continue to provide for fish
passage at dams, and to remove stream blockages
wherever necessary.
Implementation 4.1
Continue
Action 4.2
The jurisdictions 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:
A) Developing habitat requirements and water
quality goals for various finfish species.
B) Developing and adopting basinwide nutrient
reduction strategies.
C) Developing and adopting basinwide plans for
the reduction and control of toxic substances.
D) Developing and adopting basinwide management
measures for conventional pollutants entering
the Bay from point and nonpoint sources.
E) Quantifying the impacts and identifying the
sources of atmospheric inputs on the Bay
system.
F) Developing management strategies to protect
and restore wetlands and submerged aquatic
vegetation.
25
-------
G) Managing population growth to minimize adverse
impacts to the Bay environment.
Implementation 4.1
Continue
26
-------
00 =
C/5
1
I
UJ
8
11
rs
JD
V
_!if:ii i
11
Pi
< CO O
ill
<
et
?< ? :•? r
i^ 1^
-------
UJ
8
u
3** Hi
o^isf
« I 5 8 1
•S frff •&
Slit*
7 • £ °; i
*%. Hoy
11^11
Q 2 D, D- >
------- |