1996
Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coast
Black Sea Bass
Fishery Management Plan
October 1996
Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS
BACKGROUND
Chesapeake Bay Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) are prepared under the directive of the
1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement and serve as a framework for conserving and wisely using fishery
resources. Bay fisheries are traditionally managed separately by Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, the
Potomac River Fisheries Commission, and the District of Columbia A Chesapeake Bay FMP provides
a format for undertaking compatible, coordinated management measures among the jurisdictions. In
addition, it creates a forum to specifically address problems that are unique to Chesapeake Bay. This is
particularly important concerning habitat issues. The goal of Chesapeake Bay FMPs is to protect the
reproductive capability of a resource while allowing optimal harvest The ecological, economic and
sociological factors affecting the resource must be considered in the process. Objectives include:
quantifying biologically appropriate levels of harvest; identifying habitat requirements and
recommending protection and restoration measures; monitoring the status of the resource, including
fishery-dependent and independent surveys; and defining and enforcing management recommendations.
Development of a FMP is a dynamic, ongoing process. It begins with initial input by the FMP
Workgroup under the Living Resources Subcommittee (LRSc) of the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP).
The FMP Workgroup consists of resource managers, scientists, stakeholders, and conservationists.
They evaluate the biological, economic and social aspects of a particular resource; define problems
and/or potential problems; and recommend strategies and actions to address the problems. Throughout
development, FMPs undergo scientific and public review. The FMPs are adopted when signed by the
Chesapeake Executive Council, die policy-making body of the CBP. Upon adoption, the appropriate
management agencies begin implementing the recommended actions. In some cases, regulatory and
legislative action must be initiated to fully implement a management action. In other cases, additional
funding and staffing may be required. Progress of FMP implementation and status of the stock and
fishery are updated annually for each FMP species. As the status of a stock changes and management
strategies are changed accordingly, amendments and revisions may be recommended by the FMP
Workgroup.
Many important finfish species found in Chesapeake Bay also migrate along the Atlantic coast.
These fish stocks can be subject to fishing pressure by recreational and commercial fishermen from
other coastal states. The federal Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act of 1993 gave
the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) authority to specify conservation and
management actions needed by the States. The ASMFC is concerned with fishery resources within state
jurisdictions (0-3 miles offshore). The federal Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of
1976 provided exclusive management authority over fishery resources (except for tuna) within a fishery
conservation zone of 3 to 200 miles offshore (the Exclusive Economic Zone, EEZ). The Mid-Atlantic
Fisheries Management Council (MAFMC) is composed of representatives from NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD
and VA and is responsible for developing management and conservation measures in the EEZ. Both die
ASMFC and the MAFMC prepare and adopt FMPs that specify compliance requirements by the states,
but include a range of management options to meet the requirements. The states have the primary role
determining what options are best for their region and how the options will be implemented. The
Chesapeake Bay FMPs for coastal migratory species follow the guidelines established by the ASMFC
and the MAFMC and outline how the Bay jurisdictions will comply with coastal management
recommendations.
-------
1996
Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coast
Black Sea Bass
Fishery Management Plan
\
1 SF!'\ R, 1:11.1 !U
IfiiOAithSl
PlllUlclphi.i, 1>\ 1911)'
Prepared by the
Fishery Management Plan Workgroup
Living Resources Subcommittee
Chesapeake Bay Program
October 1996
Printed by the U.S, Environmental Protection Agency
for the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
CHESAPEAKE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
ADOPTION STATEMENT
BLACK SEA BASS FISHERY
MANAGEMENT PLAN
e, the undersigned, adopt the 7996 Chesapeake Bay and
Atlantic Coast Black Sea Bass Management Plan. We agree to accept the Plan as a guide to conserving and
protecting the black sea bass resource for long-term ecological, economic and social benefits. We further
agree to work together to implement, by the dates set forth in the Plan, the management actions recom-
mended to address overfishing, catch of undersized fish, stock assessment and research needs, and habitat
degradation.
We recognize the need to commit long-term, stable, financial support and human resources to the task of managing the
black sea bass stock and addressing important research needs. In addition, we direct the Living Resources
Subcommittee to periodically review and update the plan and report on progress made with achieving the plan's
management recommendations.
DATE OCTOBER 10. 1996
CHESAPEAKE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND
FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
I AS,
FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSION
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ADOPTION STATEMENT iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
LIST OF FIGURES v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vi
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES viii
SECTION 1. BACKGROUND 1
Life History 1
Spawning and larval development 1
Juvenile stage 2
Adults and reproduction 2
Biological Profile 4
The Fisheries 4
Fishery Parameters 5
Commercial fishery 5
Recreational fishery 7
Problems and Concerns 7
Development of a minimum size 7
Black sea bass habitat is degrading 8
Aquatic Reefs 8
Artifical Reefs 9
Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and Coastal Wetlands 10
Water quality 11
FMP Status and Management Unit 12
Status of the MAFMC Black Sea Bass FMP 12
Research Needs for Black Sea Bass 14
SECTION 2. BLACK SEA BASS MANAGEMENT 15
Problem Areas and Management Strategies 15
1. Overfishing 15
Mortality 15
Catch of undersized black sea bass 15
2. Stock Assessment and Research Needs 17
Sex-reversal 17
Missing data 18
Catch and effort statistics 18
3. Habitat Degradation 19
The destruction of aquatic reefs 20
The degradation of SAV 21
Wetland destruction and loss 23
Degradation of water quality 24
Table of Contents iv
-------
REFERENCES 26
APPENDIX A: Schedule for reviewing fishery management plans 32
APPENDIXB: Glossary of Terms and Acronyms 34
APPENDIX C: Laws and Regulations 38
APPENDIX D: PLAN DEVELOPERS 40
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Black Sea Bass Growth In Virginia Waters 41
2. Coastwide Commercial Landings of Black Sea Bass 1950-1994 42
3. Commercial Catch Black Sea Bass from 1950-1976 43
4. Virginia Black Sea Bass Commercial Landings and Dockside Value 44
5. Maryland Black Sea Bass Commercial Landings and Dockside Value 45
6. VA Commercial Sea Bass Landings by Gear Type 46
7. Percent of Sea Bass Landed in VA by Gear Type 47
8. Percent of Sea Bass Landed in MD by Gear Type 48
9. 1991-92 VA Commercial Hook & Line Landings 49
10. Recreational Harvest of Sea Bass from MD&VA 50
.11. VA Saltwater Fishing Tournament Sea Bass Citations: 1958-1994 51
12. Comparison of Studies on Frequency of Sexual Transformation by Length 52
13. Potential Black Sea Bass Habitat (map) 54
14. Potential Nursery Habitat for Black Sea Bass (map) 56
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Biological Profile 4
Table 2. Fishery Parameters 5
Table of Contents v
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The goal of the Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coast Black Sea Bass Fishery Management
Plan (FMP) is to: "enhance and perpetuate black sea bass stocks and their habitat in Chesapeake
Bay and its tributaries, and throughout the Atlantic coast, so as to generate optimum long-term
ecological, social and economic benefits from their commercial and recreational harvest and
utilization over time."
The black sea bass stock supports important recreational and commercial fisheries along
the Atlantic coast. Virginia and Maryland harvested approximately 34% of the total northeastern
Atlantic Coast commercial landings (1983-1994) and 31% of the recreational landings (1983-
1992). Over 84% of the commercial catch (1983-1994) and 79% of the recreational catch are
harvested from the federal Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ, 3-200 miles offshore). Even though
the majority of the black sea bass are harvested from federal waters, there is a significant coastal
fishery. The Chesapeake Bay serves as a vital nursery and feeding ground for young black sea
bass.
Recent stock assessment results indicate that black sea bass are overharvested. According
to a 1995 National Marine Fisheries Service Advisory Report, black sea bass in the Mid-Atlantic
region are overexploited and at a low level of abundance. This assessment is based on the
Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Review Committee's (20th SARC) determination that
estimated fishing mortality rates on black sea bass (1984-1993) are above F ^ or 0.29 (23%
annual exploitation). F max is one of the biological reference points used to define overfishing and
is the fishing mortality that maximizes the yield per recruit. In 1991, fishing mortality reached 2.0
(81% annual exploitation rate) but decreased to 1.05 (60% annual exploitation) in 1993. In
addition to high fishing mortality rates, black sea bass recruitment levels in 1992 and 1993 were
the lowest on record. Continued low recruitment, could result in a collapse of the fishery.
Recruitment during 1994, however, was above average (NEFSC 1995).
To begin immediate reduction in exploitation levels, to rebuild the spawning stock and to
promote uniform management between federal and state agencies, the Bay jurisdictions will
incorporate several fishery management measures pursuant to the Mid Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (MAFMC)/Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) Black
Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan. The Bay jurisdictions will reduce exploitation and improve
protection of the spawning stock in the Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic by:
1) implementing a 9 inch total length (TL) minimum size limit for the first two years
(1996, 1997) of the plan (After 1997, the size limit will be determined on an annual basis);
2) requiring a 4.0 inch minimum mesh size for trawlers harvesting more than 100 pounds
(increasing to 4.5 inch minimum mesh size in year 3); and
3) requiring all black sea bass pots to have escape vents (as recommended by the
MAFMC) as well as biodegradable hinges and fasteners.
Executive Summary vi
-------
The MAFMC/ASMFC plan, tentatively scheduled for completion in late 1996, reduces
overfishing of black sea bass over an eight-year time frame. The goal of the eight year plan is to
reach and sustain the fishing mortality rate that maximizes the yield per recruit. This rate (F ^ is
currently calculated at 0.29 or 23% annual exploitation. The 9 inch minimum size should result in
a 20% reduction in exploitation. Target exploitation rates are 48% in year 3, 37% in year 6 and
23% in year 8. Because the majority of the black sea bass harvest occurs in the EEZ (under
federal jurisdiction), the MAFMC/ASMFC Plan calls for additional gear restrictions, a limited
entry program (moratorium permit) and a coastwide quota beginning in year 3. This eight year
plan should allow for significant stock rebuilding and sustainable yields that exceed the current
landings.
In addition to the implementation of a size limit and gear restrictions, the Chesapeake Bay
Program will continue its commitments to restoring water quality and living resources in the
Chesapeake Bay. Special emphasis will be placed on the following specific habitat needs of black
sea bass: the restoration of aquatic reef systems, the restoration of baywide water quality, and the
restoration of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and wetlands.
Executive Summary vii
-------
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The goal of the Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coast Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan
(FMP) is to:
"Enhance and perpetuate black sea bass stocks and their habitat in Chesapeake Bay and
its tributaries, and throughout the Atlantic coast, so as to generate optimum long-term
ecological, social and economic benefits from their commercial and recreational harvest
and utilization over time."
To meet this goal, the following objectives must be met:
1. Reduce exploitation to an annual rate of 23% (F^ = 0.29). An exploitation rate in excess
of 23%, after year eight of the 1996 MAFMC's Black Sea Bass FMP implementation, will
be used as a trigger to implement further reduction measures.
2. Maintain black sea bass maximum spawning potential at 22% to 30% of the total mature
biomass to provide sufficient spawning biomass (Vaughan et al. 1992).
3. Improve yield-per-recruit (YPR) from the fishery.
4. Improve and promote the cooperative interstate collection of fundamental biological and
fishery data necessary to monitor and assess black sea bass management efforts. For
example, encourage the implementation of a standard, detailed, baywide fishery reporting
system and tagging studies to estimate mortality rates.
5. Continue to provide guidance for the development of water quality goals and habitat
protection necessary to protect the black sea bass population within the Bay and state
coastal waters.
6. Enact consistent state and federal management measures when possible. This objective is
necessary because the majority of black sea bass landed in the states of Virginia and
Maryland are harvested in federal EEZ waters.
7. Promote conservation of the resource and an equitable distribution of the burden of
resource conservation.
8. Promote protection of the resource by maintaining a clear distinction between
conservation goals and allocation issues.
9. Promote fair allocation of allowable harvest among various components of the fishery.
Goals and Objectives viii
-------
SECTION 1
BACKGROUND
The black sea bass, Centropristis striata (Linnaeus 1758), is a member of the family
Serranidae or true sea basses. Also known locally as "black will" or simply sea bass, they are year-
round inhabitants of the Mid- Atlantic Bight and Virginia waters. The range of black sea bass
extends from Maine to the Florida Keys and into the Gulf of Mexico (USFWS 1978). Along the
Atlantic coast, black sea bass are divided into two stocks for management purposes. The stock
north of Cape Hatteras is considered a separate stock from the stock south of the Cape. The
northern stock is also seasonally migratory; whereas, the southern stock is not. The Gulf coast
population is sometimes considered a separate subspecies. Sea basses are typically bottom
dwelling marine fishes. Most black sea bass are hermaphrodites and have the ability to change
sexes.
In Virginia and Maryland waters, black sea bass are usually not confused with other
species, as the occurrence offish with similar morphology is relatively uncommon. The rock sea
bass, Centropristis philadelphica, and the bank sea bass, Centropristis ocyurus, are closely
related but have different color patterns and are normally restricted to waters south of Virginia.
Black sea bass are considered a temperate reef fish. They inhabit areas of rough bottom,
associating with reefs, wrecks, oyster bars, outcroppings and manmade structure. They are
predaceous fishes, relying on swift rushes and large mouths to capture their prey. Although black
sea bass are not schooling fish, they can be found in large aggregations around structure or during
inshore-offshore migrations.
Currently, the MAFMC, in cooperation with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission (ASMFC) is in the final stages of developing a coastal management plan for black
sea bass. The tentative completion date for the plan is late 1996.
Life History
Spawning and larval development
Spawning in the Mid-Atlantic region takes place in continental shelf waters 59-148 feet
deep (18-45 m; Musick and Mercer 1977), from June through October, with a peak in July and
August off Virginia (Mercer 1978). In the cooler waters of Nantucket Sound, a spawning
aggregation was observed with running ripe fish in water as shallow as 20 feet (6 m). These fish
returned to the same spawning site on an annual basis (Kolek 1990). Spawning in the South
Atlantic occurs from February through May. Black sea bass produce pelagic eggs which are
buoyant and contain a single oil globule. Black sea bass two to five years old typically spawn
about 280,000 eggs each. Mercer (1978) reported a range of 191,000-369,500 eggs per fish.
Larval development takes place in coastal waters 2-50 miles (4-82 km) offshore; at depths up to
108 feet (0-33 m); at salinities of 30-35 parts per thousand (ppt); and temperatures of 58-82°F
(14.3-28.0°C, Kendall 1972).
Background 1
-------
Juvenile stage
Young black sea bass move inshore and assume a demersal estuarine existence when
about 0.5 (13 mm) inches in total length. Nursery grounds include estuaries, bays and sounds
along most of the Atlantic coast, especially from Cape Cod, Massachusetts to Cape Canaveral,
Florida. Upon reaching the estuaries, juvenile black sea bass find shelter in beds of submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV); oyster reefs; and among wharves, pilings and other structure found in
shallow inshore areas. Young black sea bass feed primarily on crustaceans, such as shrimp,
amphipods and isopods, while adults rely on crabs and fish for the major part of their diet
(Kendall 1977).
Data collected by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) indicate juvenile black
sea bass typically enter Chesapeake Bay waters during April and remain until December (Geer et
al. 1990; Bonzek et al. 1991, 1992). Large fish overwinter in depths of 60-650 feet (20-200 m;
USFWS 1978), although some young-of-the-year (YOY) may remain in Chesapeake Bay
throughout the winter. During the summer, peak abundance of black sea bass occurs at depths
less than 121 feet (37 m; Musick and Mercer 1977). Juvenile black sea bass occur in salinities
from 8 to 38 ppt. and temperatures between 46-86°F (7.8-30°C). In Chesapeake Bay, black sea
bass have been captured as far north as the mouth of the Chester River, but most fish encountered
near shore are juveniles (one to two-year-olds). Trawl surveys, conducted by VIMS, in the
Virginia portion of the Bay and its three major tributaries, indicate that YOY and yearling black
sea bass are rarely found in waters where the salinity is less than 12 ppt and are most common at
salinities above 18 ppt (Musick and Mercer 1977). The average size of black sea bass caught by
the VIMS juvenile finfish trawl survey in the Chesapeake Bay was 4.0 inches (101 mm) in 1989,
4.2 inches (107 mm) in 1990, and 4.0 inches (101 mm) in 1991 (Bonzek et al 1991, 1992). Black
sea bass have occasionally been caught in the Maryland Striped Bass Gill Net Survey during
winter. Data on length frequency indicate two and three-year-old fish overwinter north of the Bay
bridges [the ones near Annapolis].
North of Chesapeake Bay, juveniles leave nursery areas in the fall and return in the spring.
In the South Atlantic, juvenile fish remain in nursery areas year-round. Juveniles in Chesapeake
Bay probably move to deeper water, but may remain inshore year-round, especially during mild
winters. If the juveniles do move to deeper waters in the winter, they return to shallower, inshore
nursery areas during March, departing these areas again in December (Musick and Mercer 1977).
As the fish grow larger, they gradually move to deeper water, while remaining in close association
with structure. In addition, larger fish begin offshore migrations earlier than do smaller ones. Most
black sea bass permanently leave inshore waters for coastal and ocean habitats by the time they
reach a length of about ten inches (253 mm) and are approximately three years old.
Adults and reproduction
In waters north of Cape Hatteras, adult black sea bass migrate inshore and northward with
rising water temperatures in the spring. They return to coastal and ocean waters, moving
southward and offshore in the fall, as water temperatures drop below 46°F (8°C). This migration
pattern varies somewhat with age; larger, older fish venture farther offshore and smaller fish
remain closer to the estuaries. The northern stock typically overwinters along the 100-meter depth
contour off the Virginia and Maryland coast (NOAA 1993). In the warmer waters of the South
Background 2
-------
Atlantic, black sea bass do not extensively migrate. Annual mortality for the black sea bass
population north of Cape Hatteras, estimated from commercial pot and trawl data, was between
57% and 71% (Mercer 1978). Black sea bass length and age off Virginia averaged 3.7, 8.0, 10.3,
12.2, 13.9, and 15.7 inches at ages one through six, respectively (Figure 1). Growth rates vary
according to the sexual state of an individual fish (Shepherd and Idoine 1992), with male fish
growing faster than females (Mercer 1978, Lavenda 1949). Mercer (1978) found significantly
faster growth rates in black sea bass from the Mid-Atlantic Bight than those from the South
Atlantic. Black sea bass are thought to grow to a maximum of 24-25 inches in length (610-635
mm; Lavenda 1949, Mercer 1978) and 15-20 years of age (NMFS 1995, Lavenda 1949).
However, a sample of almost 3,000 fish taken from the Mid-Atlantic, between 1973 and 1975,
yielded a maximum age of only nine years, with few fish over six years old (Mercer 1978). This
depressed maximum age is probably the result of overfishing since the mid 1970s.
Fifty percent offish are sexually mature at 7.7 inches (19.6 cm) and two years old (NOAA
1993). A 1:1 ratio of male to female fish is not reached until the average total length of
individuals in a year class is approximately 13.3 inches (34 cm) or the average age is
approximately five years old (Mercer 1978). Black sea bass are protogynous hermaphrodites, with
individual fish functioning first as females, then later in life as males. Sex reversal may not occur in
all specimens, only 38% of the females in the Middle Atlantic and 23% in the South Atlantic were
observed to be hermaphroditic (Mercer 1978). The phenomenon of sex reversal in black sea bass
has been demonstrated through histological examination of gonadal tissue (Mercer 1978) and
through the recapture offish that had changed sex since being tagged (Kolek 1990).
In the Mid-Atlantic region, the average size at sex reversal is 9.4-13.3 inches (239-337
mm; MAFMC/ASMFC 1993, Mercer 1978); most fish below this size are females. The highest
frequency of transitional individuals occurs from August through April, indicating sex reversal is
probably a post-spawning event. Social interaction may play a role in sexual transformation, with
the removal of large male fish from a local population inducing one or more of the largest
remaining females to change sex and assume the male role. This process has been demonstrated
for other protogynous serranid hermaphrodites (Fichelson 1970), but has not been conclusively
shown in black sea bass.
Note: All lengths attributed to Mercer's work have been converted to total length (TL) from her
measurements taken in standard length (SL). A formula (TL=1.42(SL)-3Q.5, all measurements in
mm) provided by Dr. Chris Moore (pers. comm., 1993) and taken from measurements provided
by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC)
surveys was used for the conversion.
Background 3
-------
Table 1
Biological Profile
Location
Season
Salinity
Temperature
Larvae
2-50 mi (4-82 km)
off the coast from
N.C. to Delaware
(Kendall 1972)
June-October
(Mercer 1978)
30-35 ppt
(Kendall 1972)
58-82°F, (14-28° C)
(Kendall 1972)
YOY
Move into
Chesapeake Bay
(VIMS Trawl
Surveys 1989-1990)
April-December
(Geeretal. 1990 and
Eonzeketal. 1991,
1992)
8-38 ppt
(Cupkaetal. 1973)
46-86° F (8-30° C)
(Cupkaefa/. 1973)
Subadults/adults
Warmer months,
inshore waters; fall
and winter, offshore :
Northern stock
typically stays along
100-m contour
(NOAA 1993)
Varies with season
12-38 ppt; prefer
18ppt
(Musick and Mercer
1977)
42-86°F (6-30°C)
(Cupknetal. 1973)
The Fisheries
Black sea bass support important recreational and commercial fisheries along the Atlantic
coast. Black sea bass landings from the recreational fishery are slightly greater than those from the
commercial fishery. Recreational surveys conducted in 1960, 1965, and 1970 estimated that the
catch from the recreational fishery exceeded the commercial landings north and south of Cape
Hatteras, North Carolina during each survey period (Mercer 1978). Between 1983 and 1994, the
commercial portion of the northeastern Atlantic coast sea bass catch was 47% of the total catch;
53% of the catch is recreational. Average landings were 3.4 million pounds for the commercial
fishery and 3.8 million pounds for the recreational fishery (1983-1994). An average of 84% of the
commercial landings came from the EEZ (1983-1994). Between 1983-1992 the mid-Atlantic
region has harvested a wide range of percentages, from 49% to 86%, of the northeastern
commercial coastal catch. (MAFMC 1996).
Background 4
-------
Table 2
Fishery Parameters
Status of exploitation:
Long-term potential
Importance of
recreational fishery:
Importance of
commercial fishery:
Fishing mortality rates:
Overexploited (MAFMC 1991b).
Historical catches have been as high catch
as 21.8 million pounds coastwide (NOAA 1989).
Significant. The recreational landings of black sea bass are
slightly greater than the commercial landings.
Significant. Especially in the commercial
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which
extends from 3-200 miles offshore and
is under the jurisdiction of the MAFMC.
Black sea bass have traditionally brought a high price per pound
($1.22/lb., 1992 dockside value, VMRC data).
The average estimated fishing mortality rate was approximately
1.39 (70% exploitation rate) between 1984 and 1993. The
recommended rate is FmBt= 0.29 or 23% annual exploitation.
Commercial fishery
In 1952, over 21 million pounds of black sea bass were harvested from the Atlantic coast
(Figure 2), with Virginia landings comprising almost half of the record catch (Figure 3). Virginia
landings, as well as coastal landings, dropped slightly after 1952, but remained steady until the
mid-1960s, when both began to decline. In 1971, the record low coastal catch of 2.6 million
pounds was reached. Since the early 1970s, landings have increased slightly and are holding at a
fairly constant, but historically low, level. Maryland landings have been low but constant since the
1950s (Mercer 1978).
Annual landings of Virginia's commercial black sea bass averaged 868,000 pounds
(Figure 4) and Maryland's commercial landings averaged 355,000 pounds over the last 12 years
(Figure 5). Virginia ranked second among other Atlantic coast states (1983-1994), with 24% of
the total commercial black sea bass landings. Maryland's average commercial landings were about
10% of the coastal total. From 1983-1990, an average of 97% of Maryland's commercial black
sea bass harvest came from federal waters. In this same time period, an average of 96% of
Virginia's commercial black sea bass harvest also came from federal waters (MAFMC 1994).
Commercial fishing gear used to harvest black sea bass include trawls, pots (traps), and
hook and line. Coastwide, trawls accounted for about 64% of the total commercial black sea bass
landings during the 1960s and 1970s, with pots providing 35% of the total (Mercer 1978, Frame
and Pearce 1973). From 1983 through 1992, otter trawls caught about 56% of the total coastwide
commercial landings. Fish pots accounted for 33% of the commercial landings; hook and line
provided an additional 5% (Moore 1993). Black sea bass landed commercially in Virginia have
Background 5
-------
been harvested primarily by otter trawls (Figure 6; NMFS 1983-1992), often as bycatch. Large
numbers of black sea bass are traditionally caught by trawlers while the fish are migrating to and
from offshore wintering grounds. Their association with rough bottom makes them inaccessible
to traditional trawl gear at other times of the year. Historically, trawl landings are primarily a fall
and winter occurrence, coincidental with the summer flounder, scup and butterfish trawl fisheries
(Shepherd and Terceiro 1992). Associations have been demonstrated for black sea bass, summer
flounder and scup using fishery-independent data (Musick and Mercer 1977) and commercial
harvest data. Over 50% of commercial trawl trips that landed either black sea bass, summer
flounder or scup (1982-1990) also landed at least one of the other two species (Shepherd and
Terceiro 1992).
Other gear types used in Virginia included fish pots (7.7%) and hook and line (9.9%)
(Figure 7). Beginning in the late 1970s, there was a steady decline in the percentage of black sea
bass landed in Virginia by trawl. In addition to this general decline, in 1989, all trawling in
Virginia waters was prohibited. As the number of black sea bass landings from trawl boats
decreased, landings from other gear types, namely pots, wooden traps and hook/line increased
significantly. From 1983-1992, Maryland's commercial sea bass fishery consisted primarily of
landings from fish pots (90%), followed by otter trawls (9%) and hook and line (1%) (Figure 8).
A commercial pot fishery exists off Chincoteague and Virginia Beach, VA. Pot fishermen
in Maryland and New Jersey use a mesh-type or roller-type apparatus, commonly referred to as a
grader, to cull undersize fish from the catch. The extent of this practice in the Chesapeake Bay
region is unknown. The commercial black sea bass pot fishery off Ocean City, Maryland, usually
begins in mid-April and continues until the end of October. In 1995, there were six boats that
participated in the fishery. The pots are generally tended every four to ten days. Pots are mostly
constructed of wooden slat, but occasionally, wire pots are used. Escape vents, rings, or larger
spaces between slats are not used. A cull box with spacing to allow small bass to pass through is
used by at least two of the boats.
Most of the fishing in Maryland is conducted less than 30 miles offshore and in less than
30 fathoms of water (180 ft. or 55 m). Because structure is an important habitat for black sea
bass, fishing effort is concentrated around wrecks and reefs. Seven- to eight-inch bass is the
current minimum size accepted by the market. Smaller bass can be bought and are used for crab
bait. The number of pots fished during the season varies between 500 and 1500 per boat, with an
average of 700-800 per boat (A. Wesche, MDNR, pers. comm.)
A commercial hook and line fishery harvests black sea bass off Virginia Beach, VA. The
Virginia hook and line commercial fishery generated the majority of its 1991 and 1992 landings
from October to November, with a secondary peak from January through March (Figure 9).
The existence of a commercial hook and line fishery for black sea bass is testimony to their
value as a food fish. Black sea bass consistently command one of the highest dollar values of any
of Virginia's finfish. Larger fish are targeted in the hook and line fishery due to their higher value
per pound. Although Virginia's average price per pound in 1992 was $1.22, dockside prices
ranged from $0.50 for small fish up to $3.00-4.00 for jumbo grade fish (VMRC data). Maryland's
average price per pound in 1992 ranged from $0.45 for small black sea bass to $2.80 for the large
size. The average price per pound during 1992 was $0.92 (NMFS data). In 1993, the average
price per pound increased to $1.15 (NMFS data).
Background 6
-------
During the winter of 1992/93, some trawlers working off the northeastern coast (New
York-New Jersey) began targeting black sea bass with a new type of trawl gear, commonly named
the "rockhopper". Rockhoppers consist of trawls with rollers (cookies) added to the footrope, so
towing over naturally rough bottom was possible. Members of the MAFMC have expressed
concern over the potential impact of this new gear type on both black sea bass populations and
the bottom structure itself. Although live bottom reef habitat is virtually nonexistent off the
Virginia coast, it is common from southern North Carolina southward (Struhsaker 1969);
therefore, the potential impact of this gear type is not limited to the northeast. It is important to
again note, that in 1989 all trawling was prohibited in Virginia state waters.
Recreational fishery
. Approximately 35% of the Mid-Atlantic coast recreational black sea bass landings were
harvested from state waters, which includes bay waters out to 3 miles (1983-1994). From 1983
through 1994, an average of 95% of the recreational catch was caught from the mid-Atlantic
region, 1% from the North Carolina area (north of Cape Hatteras, NC), and 4% from New
England. Virginia's average annual recreational harvest of black sea bass from 1983-1992 was
916,906 pounds. Maryland's average annual recreational harvest for this same time period was
1,811,733 pounds (Figure 10). Since 1986, there has been a steady decline in the number of black
sea bass citations in Virginia (Figure 11). Citations are certificates which acknowledge that a
person has caught what that state considers a large fish for that particular species. In the mid-
Atlantic region, 74% of the black sea bass were caught by party or charter boats, 21% from
private boats and 1% from shore (Tables 11 & 12; MAFMC 1992). Black sea bass are the main
species caught over artificial reefs in the mid-Atlantic region.
Black sea bass are also the primary targeted species for headboats operating off Virginia
Beach and are one of the first fish encountered in the spring and the last pursued in the fall. Their
predictable occurrence on coastal wrecks, extended seasonal presence in nearshore waters, and
amenability to headboat fishing practices make them a favorite for this type of fishing. The
tendency of black sea bass to remain near cover often allows large catches to be made after
productive structure is located.
Problems and Concerns
Development of a minimum size
Over the last several years, the MAFMC black sea bass technical committee has
recommended several ways to reduce exploitation, including the implementation of a
minimum size limit. The MAFMC and ASMFC have approved a recovery strategy to
reduce black sea bass fishing mortality rate from 60% to 23% over an 8-year period. The
recommendations include the implementation of a 9 inch minimum size limit for the first
two years (1996-97). This is estimated to reduce exploitation by 20%. Beginning in year
three, the size limit will be determined annually, based on current estimates of stock status.
Commercial gear restrictions, such as minimum mesh sizes and minimum escape vents, are
also recommended.
Background 7
-------
inhabited reefs found in mid- to high-salinity waters in the middle and lower Bay regions.
The healthy reefs provided the fish with food and shelter. Reefs provide an abundance of
small invertebrates and shellfish, such as mussels and clams, which are important prey items
for finfish (Chesapeake Bay Program 1994b).
Oyster reefs are created by the vertical and horizontal colonization of oysters, which
use one another as a place for attachment. The three-dimensional nature of this community
provides increased surface area and allows for greater biotic diversity. In addition to
providing increased food and refuge for a variety of marine organisms, healthy reefs played
a vital role in maintaining Bay water quality. As filter feeders, oysters remove tremendous
quantities of algae and suspended particles from the water column, improving clarity and
circulation. Oysters also played a primary role in nutrient recycling. Researchers have
postulated that the downward shifts in water quality over the last several decades have
contributed to a loss of historical oyster reefs in the Bay (Chesapeake Bay Program 1994b).
Of the recorded 243,000 acres of public oyster grounds (Baylor Grounds) in
Virginia waters of Chesapeake Bay, less than 5% of this recorded acreage is still growing
and producing healthy oysters (Wesson, pers. comm. 1996). Additionally, these last
remaining oyster grounds are generally found in salinities below the minimum salinity
tolerance of black sea bass and are probably not inhabited by the bass. Pollution, disease,
harvesting pressure, and harvesting methods all contributed to the degraded status of oyster
populations. Although remaining shell structures from "dead" reefs still offer some shelter
and food to Bay finfish, the restoration of oyster reefs in Chesapeake Bay will provide ideal
habitat for finfish species and should help improve water quality in the Bay.
Both Virginia and Maryland have implemented an oyster reef repletion program.
New oyster shells are added to existing reefs and old shells are sometimes rearranged to
provide better substrate for new settlement. Virginia is also experimenting with a technique
for restoring the vertical profile to natural oyster reefs (Chesapeake Bay Program 1995).
Artificial Reefs
Reef habitat for juvenile and adult black sea bass has expanded through the use of
artificial reef structures in both Virginia and Maryland waters. Artificial reef structures
attract black sea bass, tautog, scup and other species offish by providing shelter. Finfish
may gather within days after shelter deployment. In addition to providing shelter, an overlay
of encrusting marine organisms subsequently develops on the artificial structure, serving as
the basis of the food chain around the reef. Artificial reef structures provide important
habitat for juvenile and adult black sea bass along the coast and nursery areas for juveniles
in Chesapeake Bay (See Figure 14).
Virginia's state-supported artificial reef program, a division under the Virginia
Marine Resources Commission (VMRC), began in the early 1970s as an outgrowth of
private efforts. Virginia now has a total of 11 sites extending from Gwynns Island , in the
Bay, to the Triangle Wreck site about 30 miles offshore. Of the 11 reef sites, seven sites are
located in bay waters and total 1,981.5 acres. Various materials have been used to
construct these reefs including Liberty Ships, tire-in-concrete units, donated bridge and
concrete pipe materials, and newer concrete structures designed specifically for the artificial
Background 9
-------
reef program. More stringent environmental standards have curtailed the use of junked
automobiles and wooden vessels.
The Maryland Reef Program supplements hard substrate habitats in Chesapeake Bay
and coastal Atlantic Ocean. The program provides policy and guidelines for rebuilding and
restoring reefs as habitat for oysters and other ecologically valuable aquatic species. The
objective of the reef program is to provide habitat enabling the colonization of benthic
communities and associated fish communities. The creation of reefs benefits the finfish
community, especially reef-dwelling fish such as the black sea bass. Artificial reefs
contribute to the abundance and diversity of filter-feeding organisms and increase the
diversity and complexity of aquatic plants and animals at the site.
Maryland has 5,700 acres allocated to 20 reefs within Chesapeake Bay. Seven
charted reef sites, between 1-18 miles offshore, stretch down Maryland's 33 miles of
Atlantic coastline. Hard substrate with a high profile is being used to restore the
substructure upon which the benthic epifauna, similar to the oyster reef community, can
attach. Four sites totaling 3,800 acres are under development in 1995-1996. Maryland will
continue to use the criteria for reef material, adopted by the ASMFC, during the
development of these sites.
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAY) and Coastal Wetlands
Young black sea bass move inshore and assume a demersal estuarine existence when
they are approximately 0.5 inches (13 mm) in total length. Nursery grounds include
estuaries, bays, and sounds along most of the Atlantic coast, where juvenile black sea bass
rely heavily on shallow inshore aquatic habitats. SAV and estuarine wetlands are among the
most productive of these shallow water environments. Vegetated areas generally yield
greater fish densities than nonvegetated areas (Chesapeake Executive Council 1994,
Funderburk 1991) because of food abundance and shelter from predation. Young black sea
bass feed primarily on crustaceans, such as shrimp, amphipods and isopods (Kendall 1977),
which are abundant on and among the SAV.
Data collected by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) indicate juvenile
black sea bass typically enter Chesapeake Bay waters during April and remain until
December (Geer et al. 1990; Bonzek et al. 1991, 1992). Trawl surveys, conducted by
VIMS, in the Virginia portion of the Bay and its three major tributaries, indicate that young-
of-the-year (YOY) and yearling black sea bass are occasionally found in waters where the
salinity is 8 ppt, but usually inhabit waters where the salinity is above 12 ppt. Studies
indicate that juvenile black sea bass are most common at salinities above 18 ppt (Musick
and Mercer 1977). With a minimum salinity tolerance of 12 ppt and a maximum tolerance of
38 ppt, juvenile black sea bass are most likely to inhabit species of SAV commonly found in
the middle to lower portions of the Bay and the lower portions of the major tributaries
(Figure 14).
Ruppia maritima (widgeon grass) and Zostera marina (eelgrass) are commonly
found in the black sea bass salinity regimes, including the mesohaline (5-18 ppt) and the
polyhaline (18-30 ppt) areas of the Bay. Spartina alterniflora (saltmarsh cordgrass) is often
the dominant plant in coastal marshes and is one of the most productive species in tidal
Background 10
-------
wetlands. The cordgrass community is an important nursery area for many juvenile finfish
including black sea bass.
In addition to providing vital nursery habitat to juvenile finfish, S AV and estuarine
wetlands play important roles in maintaining good water quality for all marine species in the
Bay. SAV and wetlands utilize nutrients and trap sediments entering the bay from
agricultural and urban runoff. Lower nutrient levels decrease the likelihood of destructive
algae blooms, which contribute to low dissolved oxygen levels and decreased water clarity
in the estuarine environment.
In Chesapeake Bay, SAV underwent a dramatic decline from the late 1960s though
the early 1980s. The decline was attributed, in part, to increased nutrient enrichment and
sedimentation as a result of human population growth and changes in land use in the
watershed (Kemp et al. 1983). Increased physical disturbance due to shoreline alterations,
unregulated dredging activities, and intense boat traffic contributed to the decline of SAV.
In 1976, the decline of SAV was chosen as one of the top three problems in the Bay by
regional scientists and resource managers.
Researchers believe that recent efforts to improve water quality, through nutrient
input reductions and managed shoreline development, have influenced the recovery of SAV
in Chesapeake Bay (Maryland Sea Grant 1994). SAV acreage has increased from a 1984
low of 37,000 acres to just under 60,000 acres in the Bay and its tributaries in 1995 (VIMS
data 1984-1995). Chesapeake Bay Program scientists estimate that historically 400,000 to
600,000 acres of SAV might have existed (Maryland Sea Grant College 1994).
Over several decades, wetland acreage has also significantly declined, as coastal
development and land use pressures continue to increase. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service reported that of the 1.7 million acres of wetlands in the Chesapeake watershed,
12% are estuarine wetlands. Between 1982 and 1989, net losses of Chesapeake Bay
estuarine wetlands averaged approximately 129 acres per year (Tiner 1994). This,
however, is a significant reduction over the annual loss rate of 2,800 acres per year prior to
actions to protect this resource throughout the Bay.
Water quality
The general decline in baywide water quality is directly and indirectly linked to the
decline of vital black sea bass habitats such as oyster reefs, SAV, and wetlands. As stated
above, increased nutrient inputs into the Bay from agriculture and urban runoff, as well as
increased urbanization, industrial development and shoreline alterations, have negatively
impacted water quality.
In 1987, efforts to improve water quality were assigned high priority by scientists
and resource managers. Under the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement (Chesapeake Bay
Program 1987), Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, the Chesapeake
Bay Commission, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency formally agreed to reduce
and control point and nonpoint source pollution to improve water quality in the Bay. Also
under that same agreement, the signatories committed to developing, adopting, and
beginning implementation of a basinwide strategy to achieve a reduction of toxics that
would ensure protection of human health and living resources. In 1992, the Tributary
Background 11
-------
decrease the catch of small fish. There is some concern that black sea bass behavior may
negate the use of escape vents. Black sea bass prefer dark, secure places to hide, like a pot
or trap, and may not efficiently use an escape vent. If escape vents do work in black sea
bass pots, requirements for escape vents in pots could significantly impact Maryland
fishermen, because 90% of the harvest is caught in pots. Bycatch in fisheries targeting other
species occurs in the ocean flynet fishery off North Carolina and shrimp trawl fisheries in
the South Atlantic states.
Strategy 1.2
Management agencies will require the use of escape panels, trawl efficiency devices,
selective mesh sizes, culling devices and/or other methods to promote gear efficiency and
reduce bycatch. For example, graders have been used in the Maryland and New Jersey pot
fishery to cull out undersize sea bass. Escape vents are proposed in the draft MAFMC plan
as a method to cull undersize sea bass in the pot fishery.
Action 1.2
A) Virginia, Maryland and the Potomac River Fisheries Commission (PRFC) will
investigate the potential for innovative devices designed to reduce the bycatch of
juvenile finfish in non-selective fisheries. Continued testing of these bycatch
reduction devices will be encouraged.
Implementation: Continue
B) Virginia and Maryland will work with the MAFMC/ASMFC to develop and
require the use of more efficient gear consistent with policies designed to reduce
bycatch and/or discards.
Implementation: Continue
C) Maryland will implement a mesh size of 4.0 inch diamond mesh for
trawl vessels harvesting more than 100 pounds of black sea bass per
trip. Changes in minimum mesh size will be implemented based on
MAFMC/ASMFC recommendations. Virginia will continue its ban on
trawling in state waters. PRFC will continue its ban on trawling in Potomac
River.
Implementation: 1996
D) Virginia and Maryland will require escape vents in black sea bass pots based on
the recommendations of MAFMC/ASMFC. The minimum size requirements will be
considered after the MAFMC completes its study on escape vents.
Implementation: The escape vent provision will be implemented at the start of the
first calendar year following the approval of the MAFMC Black Sea Bass FMP so
that fishermen will not be required to pull their pots and rebuild them in the middle
of the season.
Black Sea Bass Management 16
-------
Action 2.1
A) Research on the effects of hermaphrodism on yield, spawning stock and other
parameters will be encouraged. VMRCs stock assessment department, in
cooperation with VIMS, will attempt to determine the appropriate size at which sex-
reversal takes place for black sea bass in this region.
Implementation: Continue
B) Virginia will continue it's annual Virginia Institute of Marine Science Trawl
Survey, of estuarine finfish species and crabs found in Virginia Bay waters, to
measure size, age, sex, distribution, abundance and catch-per-unit- effort (CPUE).
Implementation: Continue
Problem 2.2: Missing data
Data on inshore-offshore migration of black sea bass is lacking. The use of inshore
areas (Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries) as nursery and juvenile habitat and offshore
(coastal and open ocean) as adult and spawning habitat complicates management. Migration
between these areas and how it affects mortality rates and stock estimates in each area is
poorly understood.
Strategy 2.2
The jurisdictions will promote research to define movements and mortality of black
sea bass between state and federal waters.
Action 2.2
A) VMRC's Stock Assessment Program will continue to collect biological data (age,
size, sex) from commercial catches of black sea bass.
Implementation: Continue
B) Research on migration of black sea bass between inshore and offshore areas will
be encouraged. Tagging experiments to provide data on black sea bass migration
may be funded from sales of Virginia saltwater fishing licenses.
Implementation: Continue
C) PRFC will collect information on black sea bass harvested and discarded in the
Potomac River pound net fishery as part of a two year pound net study funded by
the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (ACFCMA).
Implementation: 1996-1997
Problem 2.3: Catch and effort statistics
Catch and effort statistics for the recreational and commercial black sea bass
fisheries need to be improved for fisheries stock assessment.
Black Sea Bass Management 18
-------
Strategy 2.3
Maryland, Virginia and the PRFC will continue to support interjurisdictional efforts
to maintain a comprehensive database on a baywide level.
Action 2.3
(A) Maryland, Virginia and the PRFC will continue to collect fisheries landings data
on black sea bass as part of ongoing commercial fisheries statistics programs.
Implementation: Continue
B) Virginia will continue to supplement the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics
Survey to obtain more detailed catch statistics at the state level. Virginia's new
recreational saltwater fishing license may provide funding for more extensive
surveys of the state's recreational fishery.
Implementation: Continue
C) Maryland will require mandatory reporting for all black sea bass landed in
Maryland regardless of where they are harvested.
Implementation: 1997
Problem 3: Habitat degradation
Resource managers involved in habitat decisions should begin to recognize that, in
some cases, habitat loss and degradation has as an important effect on fisheries as
overfishing (Able and Kaiser 1994). This is especially true of species such as black sea bass
that inhabit estuarine and coastal areas during critical life stages. Coastal and estuarine
habitats, namely submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), tidal wetlands and natural oyster
reefs, provide shelter and food for both juvenile and adult black sea bass. In Chesapeake
Bay, these nearshore and inshore areas have substantially declined in both quality and
quantity over the past several decades. Increased nutrient loadings from agriculture and
urban runoff into the Bay, as well as increased urbanization, industrial development and
shoreline alterations have all contributed to the decline of SAV and wetlands, as well as the
decline in water quality. Decreased water quality, the invasion of oyster pathogens, and the
oyster harvest techniques have all contributed to the destruction of the natural oyster reef
system. The degradation of these vital habitats pose a serious threat to the health of the
black sea bass population.
Strategy 3
The jurisdictions will continue their ongoing commitment to develop: "guidelines for
the protection of habitats and water quality conditions necessary to support the living
resources found in the Chesapeake Bay system, and to use these guidelines in the
implementation of water quality and habitat protection programs" (Chesapeake Executive
Council 1987). They also will strive to develop and implement new and innovative habitat
restoration strategies to evaluate and supplement the progress of these programs. The
importance of coordinating and integrating these habitat restoration programs will also be
Black Sea Bass Management 19
-------
stressed. Integration will aid the effective management of the Bay's ecosystem (Chesapeake
Bay Program 1995).
Problem 3.1 The destruction of aquatic reefs
Oyster reefs, once plentiful in the Bay, have slowly been destroyed by oyster harvest
techniques, water pollution, and the spread of oyster pathogens. Reef structures are
important to both juvenile and adult black sea bass. They provide habitat for the dispersal
of young fish, thereby, reducing predation and competition. Healthy reef systems attract
large numbers of adult black sea bass, tautog, scup and other species offish, providing them
with food and shelter. Of the recorded 243,000 acres of public oyster grounds in Virginia
waters (Baylor Grounds), only about 3,000 acres are still capable of producing healthy
oysters (J. Wesson personal comm. 1996). At the same time that the aquatic reef programs
work toward the restoration of the Bay's reef systems, artificial reef programs are gaining
popularity. Artificial reefs provide manmade habitats for a variety of marine life that once
relied on the oyster reefs for food and shelter. Both Virginia and Maryland will continue to
increase available habitat for black sea bass through artificial reef programs.
Strategy 3. la
Restoration of aquatic reefs would lead to increased habitat for black sea bass.
Jurisdictions will continue to expand and improve their current oyster restoration programs
with periodic program evaluations to ensure maximum success. Specific attention should be
focused on aquatic reefs in the salinity range of the black sea bass (Figure 13 ).
Action 3, la
A) Maryland and Virginia will continue the implementation of the 1994 Oyster FMP
(Chesapeake Bay Program 1994b), which combines the recommendations of both
the Virginia Holton Plan and the Maryland Roundtable Action Plan. Strategies in
both Virginia and Maryland have recently taken a new focus as the programs
intensify efforts to manage around the devastating oyster diseases, Dermo and
MSX, currently infecting Chesapeake Bay oysters.
Implementation: Continued
B) Maryland and Virginia will continue the implementation of the Aquatic Reef
Habitat Plan (Chesapeake Bay Program 1994). 'The purpose of the Aquatic Reef
Habitat Plan is to guide the development and implementation of a regional program
to rebuild and restore reefs as habitat for oysters and other ecologically valuable
aquatic species."
Implementation: Continued
Strategy 3. Ib
The creation of new artificial reefs and the expansion and improvement of
preexisting reefs will provide additional habitat for the black sea bass population. Again,
Black Sea Bass Management 20
-------
when the decisions are made concerning new reef locations and monies are spent on their
development, the importance of this habitat to black sea bass should be considered.
Action 3. Ib
A) Jurisdictions will continue to maintain, expand, and improve their artificial reef
programs. In 1995, Virginia developed two new reefs within the Bay and expanded
two existing sites.
Implementation: Continued
B) Virginia has recently prohibited the use of all gear except recreational rod and
reel, hand-line, spear, or gig on four artificial reefs in state waters. The result of
this regulation is similar to the MAFMC/ASMFC Special Management Zones that
protect vital black sea bass habitat.
Implementation: Continued
Problem 3.2: The degradation ofSA V
Submerged aquatic vegetation (S AV) provides important food and shelter to
developing juvenile black sea bass. Vegetated areas generally yield greater fish densities
than nonvegetated areas (Funderburk 1991) because of food abundance and shelter from
predation. In Chesapeake Bay, SAV underwent a dramatic decline from the late 1960s
though the early 1980s. The decline was attributed, in part to increased nutrient enrichment
and sedimentation as a result of population growth and changes in land use in the watershed
(Kemp et al. 1983). Increased physical disturbance due to shoreline alterations, unregulated
dredging activities, and intense boat traffic also contributed to the decline of SAV. In 1976,
the decline of SAV was chosen as one of the top three problems in the Bay.
Researchers believe that recent efforts to improve water quality, though nutrient
input reductions and reduced shoreline development, have influenced the recovery of SAV
in Chesapeake Bay (Maryland Sea Grant 1994). SAV acreage has increased from a 1984
low of 37,000 acres to just under 60,000 acres in the Bay and its tributaries in 1995 (VIMS
data 1984-1995). Chesapeake Bay Program scientists estimate that historically 400,000 to
600,000 acres of SAV might have existed. In 1993 the Chesapeake Executive Council
adopted an "interim SAV restoration goal" of 114,000 acres Baywide. This goal
corresponds to the first of three target restoration goals established by the Chesapeake Bay
Program:
• Tier I. Restore SAV baywide to areas currently or previously inhabited by SAV as
mapped through aerial surveys conducted 1971-1990. If current recovery rates
continue, this goal (114,000 acres) will be achieved by the year 2005.
• Tier n. Restore SAV to all shallow water areas delineated as existing or potential
SAV habitat down to the one meter depth contour.
Black Sea Bass Management 21
-------
• Tier UL Restore SAV to all shallow water areas delineated as existing or potential
SAV habitat down to the two meter depth contour (611,000 acres) (Figure 14.).
Strategy 3.2
Jurisdictions will continue efforts to: "achieve a net gain in submerged aquatic
vegetation distribution, abundance, and species diversity in the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries over current populations" (Chesapeake Executive Council 1990) by the
following actions:
Action 3.2a
Protect existing SAV beds from further losses due to increased degradation of water
quality, physical damage to the plants, or disruption to the local sedimentary
environment as recommended by the Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation Policy Implementation Plan (Chesapeake Executive Council 1990).
The Guidance for Protecting Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in Chesapeake Bay
from Physical Disruption (Chesapeake Bay Program 1995) was developed in response to
the above action and should be used by agencies making decisions that influence SAV
survival in Chesapeake Bay. The following recommendations from the guidance
document should be strongly considered when making decisions that impact SAV, with
special emphasis on SAV that falls within the salinity range of juvenile black sea bass (see
Figure 14):
• Protect SAV and potential SAV habitat from physical disruption. Implement a
tiered approach to SAV protection, giving highest priority to protecting Tier I and
Tier II areas but also protecting Tier in areas from physical disruption.
• Avoid dredging, filling or construction activities that create turbidity sufficient to
impact nearby SAV beds during the SAV growing season.
• Establish an appropriate undisturbed buffer around SAV beds to minimize the
direct and indirect impacts on SAV from activities that significantly increase
turbidity.
• Preserve natural shorelines. Stabilize shorelines, when needed, with marsh
plantings as a first alternative. Use structures that cause the smallest increase in
local wave energy where planting vegetation is not feasible.
• Educate the public about the potential negative effects of recreational and
commercial boating on SAV and how to avoid or reduce them.
Implementation: Continue
Black Sea Bass Management 22
-------
Action 3.2b
Set and achieve regional water and habitat quality objectives that will result in
restoration of submerged aquatic vegetation through natural revegetation as
recommended by the Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Policy
Implementation Plan (Chesapeake Executive Council 1990).
Implementation: Continue
Action 3.2.c
Set regional submerged aquatic vegetation restoration goals in terms of acreage,
abundance, and species diversity considering historical distribution records and
estimates of potential habitat as recommended by the Chesapeake Bay Submerged
Aquatic Vegetation Policy Implementation Plan (Chesapeake Executive Council
1990).
Implementation: Continue
The Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Habitat Requirements and Restoration Targets:
A Technical Synthesis (Chesapeake Bay Program 1992), addressed the above two actions.
It established the quantitative levels of relevant water quality parameters necessary to
support continued survival, propagation and restoration of SAV, as well as established the
regional SAV restoration target goals defined earlier in this section.
When choices must be made in selecting SAV restoration projects, to fund and
support under the Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Policy Implementation
Plan (Chesapeake Executive Council 1990), specific attention should be given to action
items that lead to the protection and restoration of SAV found within the juvenile black sea
bass habitat range.
Problem 3.3 Wetland destruction and loss
Over the past forty years, wetlands have undergone a demise similar to SAV, as
coastal development and land use pressures in the Chesapeake watershed continue to
increase. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported that of the 1.7 million acres of
wetlands in the Chesapeake watershed, 12 % are estuarine wetlands. Between the 1950s
and 1970s, annual losses of Chesapeake Bay wetlands averaged over 2,800 acres (Tiner
1986). Although this average annual loss dropped to 129 acres from 1982 through 1989,
the no net loss goal of the Chesapeake Bay Wetlands Policy has not yet been achieved. As
coastal wetlands in Chesapeake Bay disappear so does vital black sea bass habitat;
therefore, the protection and restoration of estuarine wetlands in the salinity range of the
black sea bass, ie. the mesohaline and polyhaline range, should be given high priority in
management decision-making.
Strategy 3.3
In 1988, the Chesapeake Executive Council adopted the Chesapeake Bay Wetlands
Policy in recognition of the ecological and economic importance that wetlands play in the
Chesapeake Bay. The Wetlands Policy establishes an immediate goal of no net loss with a
Black Sea Bass Management 23
-------
long-term goal of a net resource gain for tidal and nontidal wetlands. (Chesapeake
Executive Council 1990). It identifies specific actions necessary to achieve both the short
term goal of the Policy, "no net loss" and the long term goal of "a net resource gain for tidal
and nontidal wetlands.
Action 3.3
The Jurisdictions should strive towards achieving the following, especially in the
salinity range of the black sea bass.
A) Define the resource through inventory and mapping activities.
B) Protect existing wetlands.
C) Rehabilitation, restoring and creating wetlands.
D) Improving Education
E) Further Research
Implementation: Continue
Problem 3.4: Degradation of water quality
Poor baywide water quality is partly to blame for the decline of estuarine and coastal
habitats. Therefore, improvements in baywide water quality are paramount to protect black
sea bass habitat.
Strategy 3.4
Jurisdictions will continue efforts to improve Baywide water quality through the
efforts of programs established under the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement (Chesapeake
Bay Program 1987). In addition, the jurisdictions will implement new strategies, based on
recent program reevaluations, to strengthen deficient areas.
Action 3.4
A) Based on 1992 baywide nutrient reduction plan reevaluation, the jurisdictions
will:
1. Expand program efforts to include the tributaries.
2. Intensify efforts to control nonpoint sources of pollution from agriculture
and developed areas.
3. Improve on current point and nonpoint source control technologies.
Implementation: Continue
B) Based on the 1994 Chesapeake Bay Program Toxics Reduction Strategy
Reevaluation Report (Chesapeake Bay Program, 1994a) the jurisdictions will
emphasize the following four areas:
1. Pollution Prevention: Target "Regions of Concern"
and "Areas of Emphasis".
2. Regulatory Program Implementation: Insure that revised strategies are
consistent with and supplement pre-existing regulatory mandates.
Black Sea Bass Management 24
-------
3. Regional Focus: Identify and classify regions according to the level of
contaminants.
4. Directed Toxics Assessment: Identify areas of low level contamination,
improve tracking and control of nonpoint sources.
Implementation: Continue
C) The jurisdictions will continue to develop, implement and monitor their tributary
strategies designed to improve bay water quality.
Implementation: Continue
Black Sea Bass Management 25
-------
REFERENCES
Able, KW. and S.C. Kaiser. 1994. Synthesis of summer flounder habitat parameters. U.S.
Department of Commerce, NOAA, Coastal Ocean Office, Silver Spring, MD.
Bonzek, C. F., P. Geer, J. Colvocoresses and R. Harris. 1991. Juvenile finfish and blue
crab stock assessment program bottom trawl survey annual report series - volume
1990. Va. Inst. Mar. Sci. Sp. Sci. Kept. No. 124 vol. 1990. 206p.
Bonzek, C. F., P. Geer, J. Colvocoresses and R. Harris. 1992. Juvenile finfish and blue
crab stock assessment program bottom trawl survey annual report series - volume
1991. Va. Inst. Mar. Sci. Sp. Sci. Rept. No. 124 vol. 1991. 213p.
Bugley, K. and G. Shepherd. 1991. Effects of catch-and-release angling on the survival of
black sea bass. N. Am. J. Fish. Mgt. 1991(11):468-471.
Chesapeake Bay Program. 1987. Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Chesapeake Bay Program
Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Annapolis, Maryland.
Chesapeake Bay Program. 1992a. Chesapeake Bay Agreement 1992 Amendments.
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Annapolis, Maryland.
Chesapeake Bay Program. 1992b. Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Habitat
Requirements and Restoration Targets: A Technical Synthesis. Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Annapolis, Maryland.
Chesapeake Bay Program. 1994a. Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy
Reevaluation Report. Chesapeake Bay Program Office, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Annapolis, Maryland. 254 pp.
Chesapeake Bay Program. 1994b. Chesapeake Bay Oyster Fishery Management Plan.
Chesapeake Bay Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Annapolis,
Maryland.
Chesapeake Bay Program. 1995. Guidance for Protecting Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
in Chesapeake Bay from Physical Disruption. Chesapeake Bay Program Office,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Annapolis, Maryland.
Chesapeake Bay Program. 1995. Chesapeake Bay Habitat Restoration: A Framework for
Action. Chesapeake Bay Program Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Annapolis, Maryland.
References 26
-------
Chesapeake Executive Council. 1988. Chesapeake Bay Wetlands Policy. Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Annapolis, Maryland.
Chesapeake Executive Council. 1989. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Policy for the
Chesapeake Bay and Tidal Tributaries. Chesapeake Bay Program Office, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Annapolis, Maryland.
Chesapeake Executive Council. 1990. Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Policy Implementation Plan. Chesapeake Bay Program Office, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Annapolis, Maryland.
Chesapeake Executive Council. 1990. Chesapeake Bay Wetlands Policy Implementation
Plan. Chesapeake Bay Program Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Annapolis, Maryland.
Chesapeake Executive Council. 1994. Chesapeake Bay Aquatic Reef 'Habitat Plan.
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Annapolis, Maryland.
Cupka, D.M., R.K. Dias, and J. Tucker. 1973. Aspects of the fishery for and Biology of
Centropristes striata in South Carolina waters. S.C. Dep. Wildl. Resour. Annu.
Rep. Proj. 2-138-R01, 64pp.
Deuel, B.C., and J.R. Clark. 1965. The saltwater angling survey. U.S. Dept. Int. Bur. Sport
Fishing & Wildl. Res. Pub., 67: 1-51.
Eklund, A. and T. Targett. 1990. Seasonality offish catch rates and species composition
from the hard bottom trap fishery in the Middle Atlantic Bight (U.S. east coast).
Fish Res. 12(1991) 1-22.
Fichelson. 1970. Protogynous sex reversal in fish Anthias squamipinnis
(Teleostei, Serranidae) regulated by the presence of a male fish. Nature 227: 90-91.
Frame, D.W. and S. Pearce. 1973. A survey of the sea bass fishery. Mar. Fish. Rev.
35(1-2): 19-26.
Funderburk, S.I., SJ. Jordan, J.A. Milhursky and D. Riley, (ed). 1991. Habitat
Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living Resources. Second Ed.
Geer, P. J., C. Bonzek, J. Colvocoresses and R. Harris, Jr. 1990. Juvenile finfish and blue
crab stock assessment program bottom trawl survey annual series - Volume 1989.
Va. Inst. Mar. Sci. Sp. Sci. Rept. No. 124 vol. 1989. 21 Ip.
References 27
-------
Kemp, W.M., W.R. Boyton, R.R. Twilley, J.C. Stevenson and J.C. Means. 1983. The
decline of submerged vascular plants in Chesapeake Bay: A summary of results
concerning possible causes. Marine Tech. Soc. Journal 17:78-89.
Kendall, A. W. 1972. Description of black sea bass, Centropristis striata (Linnaeus), larvae
and their occurrences north of Cape Lookout, North Carolina in 1966. Fish. Bull.
70(4): 1243-1258.
Kendall, A. W. 1977. Biological and fisheries data on black sea bass, Centropristis striata
(Linnaeus). NMFS/NOAA Tech. Ser. Kept. No. 7 29p.
Kolek, D. 1990. Homing of black sea bass, Centropristis striata. in Nantucket Sound with
comments on seasonal distribution, growth rates and fisheries of the species. Mass.
Div. Mar. Fish.
Lavenda, N. 1949. Sexual differences and normal protogynous hermaphroditism in Atlantic
sea bass, Centropristis striata. Copeia 1949(3): 185-194.
MAFMC. 1991. Amendment #2 FMPfor Summer Flounder.
MAFMC. 1992. Scup and sea bass management measures. Staff draft of proposed
management measures for the council plan.
MAFMC. 1992b. Demersal Committee Meeting. Jan. 8, 1991.
MAFMC/ASMFC. 1993. Scup/Sea Bass Tech Comm. Meeting, Sept. 8, 1993.
MAFMC. 1994. Fishery Management Plan For The Black Sea Bass Fishery.
Draft.
MAFMC. 1995. Fishery Management Plan For The Black Sea Bass Fishery.
Draft.
MAFMC. 1996. Technical Memo.
Maryland Sea Grant College, 1994. Underwater Grasses Increase 85% Since 1984.
Maryland Marine Notes, 12:5.
Mercer, L. P. 1978. The reproductive biology and population dynamics of the black sea
bass, Centropristis striata. Ph. D. Diss., College of William and Mary,
Williamsburg, VA 196pp.
References 28
-------
Moore, C. 1993. Per. Comm. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC).
Dover, Delaware.
Musick J. and L. Mercer. 1977. Seasonal distribution of black sea bass, Centropristis
striata, in the Mid-Atlantic Bight with comments on the ecology and fishery of the
species. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 106 (l):21-25.
NMFS. 1991. Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts,
1990-1991.
NOAA. Technical Memoranda NMFS - F/NEC - 72 & 81.
NOAA. 1989. Report of the Fall 1989 NEFC Stock Assessment Workshop (Ninth SAW).
NOAA. 1993. Technical Memo.
NOAA, NMFS. 1995. 20th SAW/SARC
Ricker, W. 1975. Computation and Interpretation of Biological Statistics of Fish
Populations. Bulletin of Fish. Res. Board of Can. 191. 382 pp.
SAFMC. 1990. The Atlantic Coast Red Drum FMP.
Shepherd, G.R. Pers. Comm. 1994. National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole, MA.
Shepherd, G. R. and J. Idoine. 1992. Length-based analyses of yield and spawning biomass
per recruit for black sea bass (Centropristis striata}. aprotogynous hermaphrodite.
NMFS/NEFC unpbl. doc. submitted to NOAA Tech. Rept. Ser.
Shepherd, G. R. andM. Terceiro. 1992. The summer flounder, scup and black sea bass
fishery of the Middle Atlantic Bight and southern New England. NMFS/NEFC
unpbl. doc. submitted to NOAA Tech. Rept. Ser.
SAFMC. 1995. Council to Develop Options for Selected Snapper-Grouper Species. South
Atlantic Update. March, 1995.
Struhasaker, R. 1969. Demersal fish resources: composition, distribution and commercial
potential of the continental shelf stocks off Southeastern United States. Fish. Ind.
Res., 4(7):261-300.
References 29
-------
Tiner, R.W., Jr. and J.T. Finn. 1986. Status and recent trends of wetlands in the mid-
Atlantic states. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Philadelphia, PA. Cooperative
publication.
USFWS. 1978. Development offish in mid-Atlantic bight.
Vaughan, D. S., M. Collins and D. Schmidt. 1992. Population characteristics of the U.S.
south Atlantic black sea bass Centropristis striata. NMFS/SEFC unpbl. doc.
VIMS Trawl Surveys. 1989-1990. Gloucester Pt., Virginia.
VMRC. 1992 unpublished data. Newport News, Virginia.
Weishe, A., 1995. pers. comm. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Annapolis,
MD.
Wesson, J., Pers. Comm. 1996. Virginia Marine Resources Commission, Newport
News, VA.
30
-------
V)
CS
WD
C8
e
CQ
•o js
o ,2
V
0)
"3
STATUS
H H
^ "^
go
|£
O
u
SPECIES
=
*
OT
15
00
7MP will be revised (Tentative date: Dec. 1997). Shad tar
ng 1996 and incorporated into new 1997 Alosid FMP.
The 1989 Alosid I
be completed duri
>n ON"
S^ ^
ON
1 Shad/Herring
Shad Targets
V)
1
a
^
U
<
VD
CQ
U
•o
1
o
1
u
t
8
Draft Blue Crab F
reviewed.
o-
•c*-
1
ON.
ON
OO
O
5
AP completed, Dec. 1994.
1 Revised Oyster Fl<
5
0
oo
to
o
. «
*_» r^*
Bass FMP will be amended to adopt ASMFC Amendmen
the Chesapeake Bay SBFMP is being developed (Tentatr
The 1989 Striped
Amendment #1 to
Dec 1996).
U"!
O
ON
OO
ON
Striped Bass
Q
&
ih/Spotted Seatrout FMP will be amended to include ASM
'Dec. 1996. A revision will be completed by Dec. 1997.
Thel990Weakfu
Amendment #3 by
NO
^^
O
ON
O
Weakfish/Sea
J
o *o
^ 4J
U O
med on the 1 990 Bluefish FMP pending the MAFMC revi
mendment to the 1990 Chesapeake Bay plan will be devel
review is completed.
Action was postpc
coastal plan. An ai
after the MAFMC
ON
r~-
o
ON
ON
Bluefish
NO
ON
ON
^^
O
ON
ON
|| Croaker/Spot
NO
o
ON
^^
0
ON
ON
|| American Eel
^
V fli C /***
«o TO
the 1991 Summer Flounder FMP which adds language to
lie commercial fishery, has been drafted. A final draft will
. 1 996. A second amendment will be developed to include
iection & updates on stock status (Tentative date: Dec. 19!
Amendment #1 to
limited entry into 1
developed by Dec
enhanced habitat s
o^ <*
— - ON
ON
ON
w
U
•n
c
_o
V)
t-
ON
ON
ON ON
ON ON
1 Black Drum
Red Drum
oo
ON
ON
ON
ON
II Mackerel
-------
CO
H
<:
CO
|B
|Q
/IPLETION
DATE
O
U
u
O
m
CL,
ON
ON
ON
ON
ON
£
2
U
8
•s
8
0
w
ON
ON
trt
tn
CB
CQ
CO
S
JB
s
8 £ cd
5 1 s
g S T3
.s e^
CO 60JS
. C O
^o 'C 6
ON 2 O
^ 1 «
vn g js
o\ c ^«
2 .s J
S" -^
in
0) Cft 4i
d. ^ ^
(U *^ C3
draft Catfish FMP was de'
lealthy stock and fishery a
/IP staff will recommend t!
J **-•*
•*C CB UH
j2
U
U
*» >> w. •&
|f|l
^* CD '^C o
S W • CO
§ ^ "§ *s
.^ ^ *A ^
cs eel ^ O
|-g| 2
r^ *^ E/5 ^
*~3 C 53 O
'S e "^ 3
? C t** cc
bD e § *"*
O O "Q^ *^
^3 ^ ^^
cd C ^^
b a§?
«« -c So -a
g a.<; '-o
*e3 3^ ^^ *g
I p i ."2
O > 33 CC
ie ASMFC is developing {
December 1996. The FM
/IP should not be develop*
nsideration, the Maryland
velopment of FMPs.
J"> r\ i ^« O O
H O U, 0 T3
00
ON
bC
0
S
cs
1
1
cs
I
1
I
-------
Appendix B
Glossary of Terms and Acronyms
Anoxia: No oxygen.
Benthos: Community of organisms associated with the bottom, such as clams that live in
the sediments.
Bivalve: Mollusk with two shells connected by a hinge (ex: clams, oysters).
Catchability coefficient (q): The average portion of a fish stock that a unit of gear (i.e.
one crab pot) is capable of catching. Catchability is a measure of the catch efficiency of the
gear.
Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE): CPUE is an indicator of stock abundance or stock density.
It is the number or -weight (biomass) offish caught by an amount of effort. Effort is a
combination of gear type, gear size, and length of time a gear is used. CPUE may be
influenced by changes in abundance. For example, higher CPUE may mean more black sea
bass are available to be caught.
CBP: Chesapeake Bay Program
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): The area in the ocean 3-200 miles offshore. Often called
"federal waters, " because the U.S. federal government has exclusive management authority
over fisheries resources (except for tuna) in this area. Formerly called the Fishery
Conservation Zone.
Exploitation (u): The fraction of a population at a given time that is removed by fishing
over the course of a year. Exploitation may also be expressed as a percentage of the
population.
Fmax: The level of fishing mortality (F) that maximizes the yield per recruit. Fmax is one of
the biological reference points used to define overfishing.
F10% : Fishing mortality rate that allows for at least 10% of the spawning stock to escape
the fishery to reproduce. F10% is measured as 10% of the estimated spawning stock under
unfinished conditions.
Fishery-dependent: Data obtained from commercial or recreational harvest.
Fishery-independent: Data collected from an independent survey rather than from
commercial or recreational harvest.
Appendix B 34
-------
Fishing mortality (F): a measure of the rate at which fish are removed from the
population by the fishing activities of man. If F is constant over time, harvest will be greater
during times of high abundance and less during times of low abundance. Mortality rates can
be expressed in terms of instantaneous or annual mortality. Instantaneous rates are used
extensively in fisheries management for ease of comparing the relative importance of
different sources of mortality. Annual mortality rates can be easily converted to
percentages, whereas, instantaneous rates cannot. Fishing mortality is usually expressed in
terms of an instantaneous rate (F), as is natural mortality (M). The instantaneous total
mortality rate (Z) is the natural logarithm of the ratio of the number offish alive at the end
of a period of time to the number offish alive at the beginning of the same period of time.
Instantaneous mortality rates are additive, but annual rates are not. (F= Z-M)
FMP: Fishery Management Plan
Ghost pots: Fish or pots lost to storms or left abandoned at the end of the fishing season.
Growth overfishing: When fishing pressure on smaller fish/crabs is too heavy to allow the
fishery to produce its maximum poundage. Growth overfishing, by itself, does not affect the
ability of a fish population to replace itself.
Hypoxia: Low oxygen.
Insemination rate: The proportion of females in the population that successfully mated
during their terminal molt.
Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY): The largest average catch or yield that can
continuously be taken from a stock under existing environmental conditions. The MSY for
Chesapeake Bay blue crabs is the greatest poundage of crabs that can be removed from the
Bay without reducing the capacity of the crabs to replenish the population to the same level
for harvest in future years.
MDNR: Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Mean fish mortality rate (FBAR): Represents an average value of fishing mortality for
fish of a given age. For example, the eleventh SAW measured fishing mortality for age 0
flounder between 1982 and 1988, derived a mean fishing mortality rate (FBAR) and applied
this value to the age 0 flounder born in 1989 to determine how many age 1 flounder would
be left in 1990.
Natural mortality (M): A mortality rate is the rate at which fish die from natural causes.
Mortality rates can be expressed in terms of instantaneous or annual mortality. M is an
instantaneous rate, which is used extensively in fisheries management for ease of comparing
Appendix B 35
-------
the relative importance of different sources of mortality. Instantaneous mortality rates are
additive, but annual rates are not.
Nominal fishing effort (f): Fishing effort measured in time (days fished) and number of
gear units (ie. number of pots).
Optimum yield (OY): A modified MSY that considers economic, social or ecological
issues. OY is frequently used as justification for harvest exceeding MSY.
Plankton: Small or microscopic algae and organisms associated with surface water and the
water column.
Post-release mortality: Death that occurs some time after a fish has been caught and
released (in this context, similar to catch and release mortality). Post-release mortality
could also refer to mortality after stocking efforts.
ppt: Parts per thousand.
PRFC: Potomac River Fisheries Commission
Recruitment: A measure of the number offish entering a class during some period of time.
Recruitment may be to a spawning class, age class, or size class.
Recruitment overfishing: The rate of fishing above which recruitment to the fishable stock
is reduced. Recruitment overfishing is characterized by a reduced spawning stock and
generally very low production of young year after year.
SAFMC: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council
SAV: Submerged Aquatic Vegetation. Also called grass beds.
Spawning stock: All females that survive natural and fishing mortality to reproduce.
Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB): SSB is the weight of all (mature) adult females in the
population, calculated as the number of individual females in each year-class times the
percent that are mature times their average weight. (The total weight of female fish in a
stock that are old enough to spawn)
Spawning Stock Biomass per Recruit (SSBR): SSBR is the total contribution of a
cohort (year-class) to the SSB over its lifetime, determined by summing its contribution at
each age, [divided by the number of recruits to the stock.]
Appendix B 36
-------
Static gear: Gear that requires the animal to enter voluntarily (as opposed to active gears)
such as trawls and dredges which must move to trap animals and prevent them from
escaping.
Total mortality (Z): The instantaneous total mortality rate (Z) is the natural logarithm of
the ratio of the number offish alive at the end of a period of time to the number offish alive
at the beginning of the same period of time. An instantaneous total mortality rate (Z) of 1.5
equals an annual mortality rate of 0.78 or 78 % annual total mortality. Instantaneous
mortality rates are additive, but annual rates are not.
Virtual Population Analysis (VPA): An analysis of the catches from a given year-class
over its life in the fishery.
VMRC: Virginia Marine Resources Commission
Yield-per-recruit (YPR): The theoretical yield that would be obtained from a group offish
of one year-class if harvested according to a certain exploitation rate over the lifespan of the
fish.
Appendix B 37
-------
Limited entry:
Appendix C
Laws and Regulations
Virginia's limited entry program, effective in 1992,
requires previously unlicensed applicants to wait two
years after registering with the respective state agency
before a license to harvest finfish with commercial
fishing gears will be issued. Maryland's limited entry
law, effective April 1, 1994, limits the number of
commercial tidal fish licenses available to individuals
who can commercially harvest finfish in Maryland
waters. Individuals who currently have licenses and
people who applied for licenses before April 1, 1994
can retain their licenses. Waiting lists will be used to
issue new licenses, but no new licenses will be issued
until the number of licenses is more in balance with
the harvestable resource.
Minimum size limit:
Not in effect for Maryland, Virginia or Potomac
River; however, such measures are currently under
consideration.
Creel limit:
Not in effect for Maryland, Virginia or Potomac
River; however, such measures are currently under
consideration.
Harvest quotas:
By-catch restrictions:
Not in effect for Maryland, Virginia or Potomac
River; however, such measures are currently under
consideration.
None in effect for Maryland, Virginia or Potomac
River.
Season:
Gear-Area restrictions:
No closed season for Maryland, Virginia or Potomac
River; however, such measures are currently under
consideration.
Maryland: Purse seines, trawls, trammel nets and
monofilament gill nets are prohibited (otter and beam
trawls are legal on the Atlantic Coast at distances of
one mile or more offshore). Prohibition on gill
netting
Appendix C 38
-------
in most areas of Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries
during the summer.
Virginia: Trawling is prohibited in Chesapeake Bay
and Territorial Sea. 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. Also, Sections 28.1-52 and 28.1-53 of
the Code of Virginia outline placement, total length
and distance requirements for fishing structures.
Potomac River: Current moratorium on any new gill
net, pound net, or hook and line licenses. The use of
a purse net, beam trawl, otter trawl or trammel net is
prohibited. Length restrictions for various gear types
exist. Gill nets are restricted to a mesh size of 5.0 to
7.0 inches. Seasonal restrictions for gill net also exist.
Appendix C 39
-------
APPENDIX D
Fishery Management Plan Workgroup Members
The 1996 Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coast Black Sea Bass Fishery Management
Plan was developed under the direction of the Fisheries Management Plan (FMP)
Workgroup, of the Living Resources Subcommittee, Chesapeake Bay Program. Habitat
recommendations were developed by the Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (S AV)
Workgroup, Aquatic Reef Habitat Workgroup, and the Habitat Objectives/Restoration
Workgroup, all of the Living Resources Subcommittee
Chairs:
Dorothy Leonard
Jack Travelstead
Nancy Butowski, Asst. Chair
Members:
Ernie Bowden
K.S. Carpenter
James Drummond
Jeffery S. Eutsler
William Goldsborough
Dave Goshom
Laura Grignano
Rick Hoopes
Edward Houde
Peter Jensen
Roman Jesien
Ron Klauda
Andy Loftus
David Martin
Michele Monti
Richard Novotny
Ed O'Brien
Ira Palmer
Larry Simns
Ellen Smoller
Lt. Thomas Turner
Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)
Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC)
MDNR
VMRC
Potomac River Fisheries Commission
Citizen
Maryland Waterman
Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF)
MDNR
VMRC
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PA FBC)
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory (CBL),
University of Maryland
MDNR
Horn Point Environmental Laboratory (HPEL),
University of Maryland
MDNR
Chesapeake Advisory Committee (CAC)
Maryland Seafood Dealer
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay (ACB)
Maryland Saltwater Sportmen's Association
Maryland Charterboat Association
D.C. Dept. of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
Maryland Watermen's Association
VMRC
MDNR Police
Appendix D 40
-------
0
O)
CO
CO
03
.Q
& "nb
0)
TJ
O
C
o
o
co
K
O)
0>
o
41
-------
Figure 2
Coastwide Commercial Landings
of Black Sea Bass
1950-1994
25
Millions of Ibs.
20
15
10
Illll
n
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Year
NOAA
42
-------
Figure 3
Commercial Catch - Black Sea Bass
From 1950-1976
12
Millions of Ibs.
10
8
50
L
55
60
65
70
I
75
Mercer 1978
Virginia
Maryland
43
-------
CO
'o
CO
cd
cd
-------
o
0
E 13
E 05
o >
0 o
CO "O
0
CO
o
O
C
OJ
CO
CO
O)
O)
>»
L.
co
E
"eo
V.
Q.
O)
O)
I
CO
u.
45
-------
VO
CO
CO
CO
-------
Figure 7
Percent of Sea Bass Landings
In Virginia by Gear Type
Pots/Traps
7.7
1983-1992 Combined
Unpublished NMFS General Canvass Data
47
-------
Figure 8
Percent of Sea Bass Landings
In Maryland by Gear Type
Pots/Traps
90.1
Line
0.8
1983-1992 Combined
Unpublished NMFS General Canvass Data
48
-------
N
'co
CO
•
C O
CO O
<
CO JZ
n cO
co I
CO Cl
o
z
O>
T-
I
o>
CO
D>
49
-------
PQ
K>
O
CQ
>
HH
HH
8
03
OJ
TJ
fl
I
m
3
§
•n
«
« 3 »
« w 4J
fl w^
•rt ei r*
sS|
53 8
OT ^ «
OT CQ rt
S 73
4) J
*> -
o j
4)
>
»i
-------
-p
ti
0)
a
ctf
M
•pH
03
CO
fa
-------
Figure 12
Comparison of Studies on Frequency
of Sexual Transformation by Length
0.16
Frequency of Transitions
0.14 -
0.02 -
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Length (SL) mm
Mercer
Mercer's data represents Mid-Atl Stock.
Shepherd's data is a combination of Mid.
Atl and South Atl Stock.
Shepherd
52
-------
CO
CO
CO
co
0
CO
DQ
1
+-•
CD
4-1
o
a.
to
co
o
Q 2
o
"
2 II *i
co cd oo«
o 5= 8
o
i
c o
S3 o <
CO ^^ Z
^S Q.i
54
-------
<3
55
-------
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
o
DL
56
-------
57
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
The Chesapeake Bay Program is a unique regional partnership leading
and directing restoration of Chesapeake Bay since 1983. The Chesapeake
Bay Program partners include the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and
Virginia; the District of Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay Commission, a
tri-state legislative body; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), which represents the federal government; and participating citizen
advisory groups.
In the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, Chesapeake Bay Program
partners set a goal to reduce the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus
entering the Bay by 40% by the year 2000. In the 7992 Amendments to
the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, partners agreed to maintain the 40%
goal beyond the year 2000 and to attack nutrients at their source—
upstream in the tributaries. The Chesapeake Executive Council, made up
of the governors of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; the mayor of
Washington, D.C.; the EPA administrator; and the chair of the
Chesapeake Bay Commission, guided the restoration effort in 1993 with
five directives addressing key areas of the restoration, including the
tributaries, toxics, underwater bay grasses, fish passages, and agricultural
nonpoint source pollution. In 1994, partners outlined initiatives for
habitat restoration of aquatic, riparian, and upland environments; nutrient
reduction in the Bay's tributaries; and toxics reductions, with an emphasis
on pollution prevention.
Since its inception, the Chesapeake Bay Program's highest priority has
been the restoration of the Bay's living resources—its finfish, shellfish, bay
grasses, and other aquatic life and wildlife. Improvements include
fisheries and habitat restoration, recovery of bay grasses, nutrient
reductions, and significant advances in estuarine science.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
410 Severn Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21403
1-800-YOUR BAY
http://www.epa.gov/r3chespk/
------- |