006
~ B&3 " R ~ 9£ "tfdhdssapeake Executive Council
Chesapeake Bay
Summer Flounder Fishery
Management Plan
Agreement Gommitment Report
1991
Chesapeake Bay Program
i Printed on recycled paper
-------
-------
Chesapeake Bay
Summer Flounder 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 Summer Flounder 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 Summer Flounder was designated a valuable species in the Schedule for Developing Bay wide
Resource Management Strategies. In 1991, the Summer Flounder plan was completed.
«ji
We agree to accept the plan as a guide to managing the Summer Flounder 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 Summer
Flounder populations.
We recognize the need to commit long-term, stable, financial support and human resources to the
task of managing the Summer Flounder 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 -^^^^^(jt^j^jj^
For the State of Maryland
For the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
1
For the United States of America
For the District of Columbia
For the Chesapeake Bay Commission
!»
*'
G
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FIGURES li:L
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ; • • • 1V
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v
INTRODUCTION viii
SECTION 1. BACKGROUND. V. ." - •'•'•' *
Life History • j-
FMP Status and Management Unit J
Fishery Parameters 3
Biological Profile 4
Habitat Issues ~
The Fisheries • • °
Economic Perspective |°
Resource Status j-°
Laws and Regulations ^
Status of Traditional Fishery Management Approaches 21
Data and Information Needs 23
References * •
Section 2 . SUMMER FLOUNDER MANAGEMENT 26
A. Goals and Objectives 26
B. Problem Areas and Management Strategies 27
1. Overfishing; 27
2. Stock Assessment and Research Needs 31
3 . Habitat Issues '. 3 3
APPENDIX: Implementation Plan Matrix
-------
FIGURES
1. Maryland's commercial summer flounder landings by area, 1973-
1990.
2. Virginia's commercial summer flounder landings by area, 1973-
1990.
3. Maryland commercial landings of summer flounder from 1930-
1990.
4. Virginia commercial landings of summer flounder from 1945-
1990.
5. Comparison of Maryland and Virginia commercial summer flounder
landings, 1945-1990.
6. Dockside value of Maryland's summer flounder landings, 1980-
1990.
7. Dockside value of Virginia's summer flounder landings, 1980-
1990.
8. Virginia's ocean commercial summer flounder landings, 1973-
1990.
9. Virginia's Chesapeake Bay commercial summer flounder landings,
1973-1990.
10. Mid-Atlantic recreational summer flounder catch, 1979-1989.
111
-------
ACKNOWLE DGEMENTS
The Chesapeake Bay Summer Flounder Management Plan was
developed under the direction of the Fisheries Management
Workgroup. Staff from the Virginia Marine Resources Commission
(VMRC), Plans and Statistics Department, Fisheries Management
Division were responsible for writing the plan and addressing
comments on the draft versions. Support was provided by staff
from the Maryland Department of- Natural Resources (MDNR),
Tidewater Administration, Fisheries Division. Contributing VMRC
staff included David Boyd, Roy Insley, Ellen Smoller and Sonya
Knur. MDNR staff included Nancy Butowski and Harley Speir. Thanks
are due to Verna Harrison and Ed Christoffers for guiding the
plan through the development and adoption process. Carin Bisland,
from the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Liason Office, assisted with
production of title pages and fact sheets, and with printing and
distribution. Finally, we express gratitude to members of various
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. Jeffery 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. Clairborne Jones, Chesapeake Bay Commission
Dr. Ron Klauda, MDNR, Chesapeake 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 Sport fishermen's Assoc.
Mr. Ed O'Brien, MD Charter Boat Association
Mr. Ira Palmer, D.C. Department of Consumer and 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
IV
-------
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, arid State of Maryland as
appropriate. Under a timetable adopted for completing management
plans for several important species, the summer flounder FMP was
scheduled for completion in December 1991.
A comprehensive approach to managing Chesapeake Bay
fisheries is needed because biological, physical, economic, and
social aspects of the fisheries are shared among the Bay's
jurisdictions. The Chesapeake Bay Program's Living Resources
Subcommittee formed a Fisheries Management Workgroup to address
the commitment in the Bay Agreement for comprehensive, bay-wide
fishery management plans. The workgroup is composed of members
from government agencies, the academic community, the fishing
industry, and public interest groups representing Pennsylvania,:
Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and the federal
government.
Development of Fishery Management Plans
An FMP prepared under the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement
serves as a framework for conserving and wisely using a fishery
resource of the Bay. Each management plan contains a summary of
the fishery under consideration, a discussion of problems and
issues that have arisen, and recommended management actions.
An implementation plan is included at the end of the FMP to
provide additional details on the actions that participating
jurisdictions will take and the mechanisms for taking these
actions.
Development of a fishery management plan is a dynamic,
ongoing process. The process starts with initial input by the
Fishery Management Workgroup, is followed by public and
scientific review of the management proposals, and then by
endorsement by the appropriate Chesapeake Bay Program committees.
A management plan is adopted when it is signed by the Chesapeake
Bay Program's Executive Committee. In some cases, regulatory and
legislative action will have to be initiated, while in others
additional funding and staffing may be required to fully
implement a management action. A periodic review of each FMP
will be conducted under the auspices of the Bay Program's Living
Resources Subcommittee, to incorporate new information and to
update management strategies as needed.
v
-------
Goal Statement
The goal of the Chesapeake Bay Summer Flounder Management
Plan is to enhance and perpetuate summer flounder stocks in the
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, and throughout their Atlantic
coast range, so as to generate optimum long-term ecological,
social and economic benefits from their commercial and
recreational harvest and utilization over time.
In order to meet this goal, a number of objectives must be
met. They include following the guidelines established by the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) and the Mid-
Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) for coastwide
management of the summer flounder fishery, providing for fair
allocation of the resource, promoting efficient harvesting
practices, promoting biological and economic research and
pursuing standards of environmental quality and habitat
protection. These objectives are incorporated into the problems
and management strategies discussed below.
Problem Areas and Management Strategies
Problem 1: overfishing. The summer flounder is an important
fishery resource along the Atlantic coast, particularly between
New York and North Carolina. Total coastwide landings by weight
have shown a decreasing trend since 1980. Recent stock
assessments indicate that summer flounder stocks along the entire
Atlantic coast are experiencing growth and recruitment
overfishing. The 1990 NEFC stock assessment workshop (llth SAW)
describes the summer flounder population as being overexploited
and seriously depleted; of the twelve species or groups of
species examined by the workshop, no other species was found to
be as depleted as summer flounder. Estimated fishing mortality
(F) was computed as greater than 1.4 and as high as 2.1. Thus,
current fishing mortality is at least six times the MAFMC target
level of 0.23. At this rate of fishing mortality, only 20 % of
all summer flounder alive now will be alive one year later. The
spawning stock of summer flounder is severely depleted. Flounder
are being caught at such a small size that each female flounder
is contributing only 2-3 % of the eggs which she is capable of
producing. The Mid-Atlantic summer flounder stock also shows
compression of age structure as measured by scientific research
surveys, historical length-frequency analyses of commercial catch
data and age composition data from the 1976-1990 NEFC surveys.
Summer flounder between the ages of five and eight were regularly
captured in NEFC surveys from 1976-1981; by 1990, the oldest fish
observed were three years of age. Compression of age structure is
considered a primary indicator of overexploitation in a stock.
Strategy 1: Bay jurisdictions will evaluate a number of
alternatives to control directed fishing mortality and improve
protection of summer flounder beyond age I. Management options
include higher minimum size limits, trawling bans, mesh size
restrict:ons and hook-and-line creel limits. Management agencies
VI
-------
will continue to participate in deliberations to protect small
flounder in other coastal states and in the Exclusive Economic
Zone.
Problem 2 - Stock Assessment and Research Needs: Currently,
fisheries managers lack some of the biological and fisheries data
necessary for effective management of the flounder resource.
Strategy 2 - Stock Assessment and Research Needs: Atlantic coast
databases are limited concerning harvest, fishing effort and
.biological characteristics .of .the harvest and fishery .independent
measures of summer flounder stocks. Specific research to address
these deficiencies will be identified.
Problem 3 - Habitat Issues: Estuarine areas are utilized by
summer flounder stocks for nursery and feeding grounds.
Increasing urbanization and industrial development of the
Atlantic coastal plain has resulted in a decrease in the
environmental guality of many estuarine communities. Estuarine
habitat loss and degradation in. Chesapeake Bay may contribute to
declines in summer flounder stocks.
Strategy 3 - Habitat Issues: The jurisdictions will continue
their efforts to improve water quality and define habitat
requirements for the living resources in the Chesapeake Bay.
VII
-------
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 Bavwide Resource Management Strategies, a
list of the priority species was formulated, with a timetable for
completing fishery management plans as .follows:
° oysters, blue crabs and American shad by July 1989;
•° striped bass, bluefish, weakfish and spotted seatrout by 1990;
° croaker, spot, summer flounder 'and American eel by 1991;
0 red and black drum by 1992; and
° Spanish mackerel, 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 (PRFC). There is also a federal Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council, which has management jurisdiction for
offshore fisheries (3-200 miles), and a coast-wide organization,
the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), which
coordinates the management of migratory species in state waters
(internal waters to 3 miles offshore) from Maine to Florida. The
state/federal Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee (CBSAC)
is responsible for developing a Baywide Stock Assessment Plan,
which includes collection and analysis of fisheries information,
but does not include the development of fishery management plans.
Consequently, a Fisheries Management Workgroup, under the
auspices of the Chesapeake Bay Program's Living Resources
Subcommittee, was formed to address the commitment in the Bay
Agreement for Baywide fishery management plans. The Fisheries
Management Workgroup is responsible for developing fishery
management plans with a broad-based view. The workgroup's
members represent fishe'ry management agencies from Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and the federal
government; the Potomac River Fisheries Commission; the Bay area
academic community; the fishing industry; conservation groups;
and interested citizens. Establishing Chesapeake Bay FMP's, in
addition to coastal FMP's, creates a format to specifically
address problems that are unique to the Chesapeake Bay. They
viii
-------
also serve as the basis for implementing regulations in the Bay
jurisdictions.
WHAT IS A FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN?
A Chesapeake Bay fishery management plan provides a
framework for the Bay jurisdictions to undertake compatible,
coordinated management measures to conserve and utilize 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 sociological considerations in order to be
effective. Three simply stated objectives to protect the
reproductive capabilities of the resource while allowing its
optimal use include:
quantify biologically appropriate levels of harvest;
monitor current and future resource status to ensure harvest
levels are conserving the species while maintaining an
economically viable fishery; and
adjust resource status if necessary, through management
efforts.
MANAGEMENT PLAN FORMAT
-,,.Tne background section of this management plan summarizes:
natural history and biological profile of summer flounder;
0 FMP status and management unit;
IX
-------
0 fishery parameters;
0 habitat issues;
0 historical fishery trends;
0 economic perspective;
° current resource status;
0 current laws arid regulations in the Chesapeake Bay; and
0 data and analytical needs.
The background information is derived primarily from the
document entitled, Chesapeake Bay Fisheries; Status, Trends,
Priorities and Data Needs and is supplemented with additional
data. Inclusion of this section as part of the management plan
provides historical background and basic biological information
for the species.
The management section of the plan, which follows the
background, defines:
0 the goal and objectives for the species;
0 problem areas for the species;
0 management strategies to address each problem area; and
0 action items with a schedule for implementation.
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 Resources Article
giving the Maryland Department of Natural Resources authority to
regulate a fishery once an'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.
x
-------
SECTION 1. BACKGROUND
Life History - Summer Flounder
The summer flounder, or fluke, Paralichthys dentatus
(Linnaeus), is a member of the lefteye flounder family, Bothidae.
As such, it is recognizable from the winter flounder, which has
its eyes on the right side of its body and is also found in
Chesapeake Bay waters and the yellowtail^ flounder, occasionally
• caught..in Maryland, and Virginia, offshore fisheries.. Other, members
of the various flatfish families found in the Chesapeake Bay are
generally too small to be of interest to commercial or
recreational fishermen or to present an identification problem,
with the rare exception of the Atlantic Halibut.
All flatfishes are bottom dwelling predators, relying on
their flattened shape and ability to change coloration and
pattern on the upper (eyed) side of their bodies to lie in ambush
for prey. Flounder are efficient predators with quick movements
and sharp teeth allowing them to capture the small fishes, squid,
seaworms, shrimp and other crustaceans which comprise the bulk of
their diet (Lux et. al., 1966).
The geographic range of summer flounder includes estuarine
and coastal waters from Nova Scotia to Florida (Liem and Scott,
1966). They are found in waters with salinities from 0 to 37 ppt.
and temperatures from 49 to 88°F (6.6 to 31.2 °C) , inhabiting
depths of 13 to 118 feet (4 to 36 m) in summer and 118 to 600
feet (36 to 183 m) in winter (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953).
Occurrence in Chesapeake Bay waters is largely restricted to
waters south of Annapolis (U.S.F.W.S., 1978), but they can
occasionally be found in the upper Bay. The center of abundance
for this species lies within the Mid-Atlantic Bight, with numbers
diminishing north of Cape Cod, Massachusetts and south of Cape
Fear, North Carolina (Grosslein and Azarovitz, 1982). Within
Chesapeake Bay, summer flounder range from marine waters of the
Territorial Sea to inland estuarine waters of the Eastern Shore
Seaside, Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.
Summer flounder generally inhabit coastal and estuarine
waters during warmer months and migrate to offshore waters (100
to 600 feet) during fall and winter (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953).
Offshore migration is presumably cued by decreasing water
temperatures and declining fall photoperiods (MAFMC, 1987).
Typically, adult summer flounder are scarce or absent in inland
waters during winter months. Winter NEFC bottom trawl surveys in
Northeast US continental shelf waters generally did not find
adult summer flounder at depths less than 230 feet (70 m) ;
prerecruits (fish less than or equal to 12 inches) were usually
found in less than 130 feet (40 m) and never greater than 200
feet (60 m) in depth. A mild winter can delay or alter offshore
movements resulting in some adult fish overwintering in the
Chesapeake Bay mouth and Territorial Sea.
-------
Spawning occurs in the fall and winter during offshore
migrations and at the wintering grounds. Migratory patterns vary
with latitude; northern populations move offshore and spawn
earlier, southern populations spawn closer inshore and later
(Smith, 1973). Off the coast of New Jersey and Delaware,
spawning occurs mostly at depths of 66 to 157 feet (20-48 m) and
14 to 38 miles (22-61 km) offshore; 40 miles (65 km) offshore of
Maryland and 6 to 12 miles (9-19 km) off North Carolina.
Winter spawning migrations from Chesapeake Bay waters begin
in October. Fish move, south .a.long.the. beach (nearshore area) from
October to December, gradually moving to an area approximately 20
miles east of Oregon Inlet in January-March. Samples taken
during a November 1988 cruise north of Currituck Beach, North
Carolina and approximately 1 1/2 miles offshore, found some
partially spent females (Musick, 1989). This is evidence that
some spawning is occurring during the early portion (October-
December) of the migration in close proximity to the beach.
North of Chesapeake Bay, the spawning season lasts from September
to December and south of Chesapeake Bay, from November to
February. Peak spawning activity off the Virginia Capes occurs
between October and November. Larvae and post-larvae drift and
migrate inshore, aided by prevailing water currents, entering
coastal and estuarine nursery areas between October and May
(Williams and Deubler, 1968). Movements of larval, transforming
and possibly juvenile flounder into estuaries occur over an
extended time period (Able et al., 1990).
Upon reaching the estuaries, larval flounder undergo a
metamorphosis to the post-larval stage which resembles the adult
fish. Larval flounder more closely resemble the larvae of other
fishes than adult flounder, with body symmetry and eyes on both
sides of their head. During metamorphosis, the eyes of the larval
flounder gradually migrate to the left side of the head and the
body takes on a flattened appearence, as in the adult fish (Lux
et. al., 1966). Once metamorphosis is complete the post-larval
flounder assumes the bottom dwelling lifestyle characteristic of
the adult fish (Smith, 1973).
The primary Atlantic Coast nursery grounds are Chesapeake
Bay, coastal Virginia and Maryland bays, and North Carolina
sounds (Poole, 1966). Some juveniles in the Chesapeake Bay region
migrate to offshore waters at the end of their first year, while
others remain in inshore nursery areas. Thus, fish of all ages
are vulnerable to exploitation by both the recreational and
commercial, inshore and offshore fisheries (Henderson, 1979).
Juvenile summer flounder abundance above Cape Hatteras is
greatest in the Chesapeake Bight area. Northeast summer flounder
stocks obtain some recruitment from the Delaware Bay, in addition
to the nursery grounds mentioned above. Recruitment success above
Delaware Bay is poor, primarily due to winter kills. However,
juveniles are found in estuarine waters from Massachusetts to
North Carolina during spring, summer and fall. In southern
waters, these young fish will overwinter in bays and sounds. In
-------
northern waters, juveniles may move offshore with adults,
however, juvenile fish will overwinter inshore. Bottom trawl
surveys conducted by the Applied Marine Research Laboratory
(AMRL) of Old Dominion University in the lower Chesapeake Bay,
Elizabeth and James Rivers, found young of the year summer
flounder in the Bay throughout the winter.
Analysis of summer flounder population structure from the
Middle and South Atlantic Bights resulted in the identification
of two summer flounder stocks (Smith, 1973; Gillikin et. al,
198,1; Desfosse et. .al., 1990). . Linear discriminant analysis of
morphometric and meristic data demonstrated a significant
difference in samples north and south of Cape Hatteras (Wilk et.
al., 1980). Middle Atlantic Bight samples were statistically
similar as were South Atlantic Bight samples, with population
intermixing most prevalent off North Carolina.
The ASMFC and MAFMC have used a unit stock in preparing
their management plans, based upon the best available scientific
data at the time of writing those plans. This plan will also use
a unit stock assumption for consistency with these plans.
FMP Status and Management Unit
The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) plan
was adopted in 1982 and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council (MAFMC) FMP was completed in October 1987 and approved by
the. National Marine Fisheries Service in September 1988. The
Virginia Summer Flounder Management Plan was completed and signed
into law in 1989. An ammendment (#1) to the MAFMC plan was
completed in September 1990, but was partially disapproved by the
Secretary of Commerce. A second ammendment is due for
consideration in 1991. The Chesapeake Bay FMP, consistent, with
the ASMFC, MAFMC and Virginia plans, will be completed by
December 1991.
The management unit is summer flounder (Paralichthys
dentatus) in U.S. waters from Maine to North Carolina.
Fishery Parameters
Status of exploitation: Overexploited and seriously
depleted.
Long-term potential
catch: There is no generally accepted
" • estimate of MSY, despite improved. ,
commercial and recreational data.
Importance of
recreational fishery: . Very significant.
Importance of commercial
fishery: • Very significant, especially in the.
-------
Exclusive Economic Zone (which
extends from 3-200 miles offshore
and is under the jurisdiction of the
Mid-Atlantic Council). Summer
flounder have traditionally, ranked
first in finfish value for species
landed in Virginia.
Fishing mortality rates:
Biological Profile
Natural mortality rate:
Fecundity:
Age/Size at maturity:
Annual rates for the Atlantic Coast
.population 70% both sexes combined.
(M = 0.20) during the late-1980s
(F= 1.0 or higher). More recent
estimates of F = 1.4 during 1982-1988
and F = 2.1, 1985-1989 (llth SAW).
Overfishing is defined by MAFMC as
F> 0.23. Total mortality in Virginia
for 1987-1989 is estimated at 78 %.
Approximately 18% a year (M- 0.2).
463,000 - 4,188,000 eggs/fish at
sizes of 14" to 27" (356-686mm) TL.
The length at which 50 percent of
the fish are mature is estimated at
11.0" (280mm) for males and 13.0"
(330mm) for females.
Longevity: 20 years.
Spawning and Larval Development
Spawning season:
Spawning area:
Location:
There is a seasonal progression in
spawning from north to south.
Spawning north of Chesapeake Bay
peaks in October, and spawning south
of Chesapeake Bay peaks in November.
Cape God, Massachusetts to Cape
Lookout, North Carolina.
Spawning occurs at depths of 65-160
feet as adults migrate towards, or
are on, the continental shelf. In
the Mid-Atlantic Bight, eggs occur
in greatest concentrations in an
area about 30-35 miles of.f the
coast. Eggs are most abundant in
surface waters. Larvae and
post-larvae drift and/or migrate
inshore, entering coastal nursery
areas from October through May.
-------
Salinity:
Temperature:
Optimal spawning salinity is 32 to
35 ppt; most larvae occur at
salinities greater than 8 ppt.
Adults inhabit water ranging from
49-88°F (6.6-31.2°C), optimal
spawning temperature is 53 to 66° F
(12-19° C).
Youna-of-Year
Location:
Salinity:
Temperature:
Subadults and Adults
Location:
Juveniles move into brackish or
estuarine waters shortly after
metamorphosis is complete. At sizes
of about 6" TL, they begin to move
back to marine water.
O to 37 ppt. Growth rate of post-
larvae is positively correlated with
increasing salinity.
36 to 88° F (2-31°C).
Shallow coastal and estuarine
waters during the warmer months of
the year; offshore in 120-600 feet
of water during fall and winter.
After age three, summer flounder
occur almost exclusively in coastal
waters.
O to 37 ppt.
43 to 88° F (6-31°C).
Salinity:
Temperature:
Habitat Issues
Coastal and estuarine areas are extremely important as
feeding and nursery areas for summer flounder. Consequently,
habitat modifications such as those resulting from dredging,
filling, coastal construction, energy development, sewage
effluent and ocean dumping pose potentially serious, but as yet
unquantified, threats to the summer flounder resource.
About 75% of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of
the coasts. Since U.S. population growth is expected to continue
well into the next century, the rate of degradation in Atlantic
estuarine and coastal habitat will accelerate in the future, if
current land and water use practices are not modified.
The coincidental timing of the offshore fall/winter flounder
-------
«<«-ration and attendant trawl fishery, and the seasonal
Selarture of sea turtles from temperate latitudes has recently
crated concern over the effects of flounder trawling off the
Southern Virginia and North Carolina coast. One species of sea
lurtle?the9Kemp's ridley, is considered endangered and is
therefore subject to inclusion for protection under the
Endangered Species Act. The NMFS Biological opinion on the Summer
Flounder Management Plan determined that "the continued
unrestricted oplration of this fishery jeopardizes the continued
existence of the Kemp's ridley population."
Discussions were held with the governing agencies and the
state of North Carolina to determine how to best comply with
measures designed to reduce mortality on sea turtle populations
in SSfloundlr trawl fishery. It was determined that increased
turtle mortality in recent years was largely attributable to
higher Tea surface temperatures off the Virginia/North Carolina
coast In order to reduce turtle mortality and better monitor the
effects of the fishery, it was decided to implement a program
jSoying observers/limited tow times and turtle excluder
devices (TEDS) in the Virginia/North Carolina flounder trawl
fishery from January 24 to March 5, 1992.
The Fisheries
Total Atlantic coast landings of summer flounder for 1990
were 11.5 million pounds. This figure represents a 46« decline
?rom 198? landings, a 60% decline from the 1980-1989 ten year
average and a 73% decline from the 1979 peak landings of 42.9
million pounds.
Summer flounder landed in Maryland and Virginia are
harvested primarily in offshore coastal waters by otter trawls
(FiSureS 1 I 2) . For example, during the period 1980-1989 about
81% of the Virginia commercial catch and 80% of the Maryland
commercial harvest were taken in the Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ). in 1990, over 90% of Virginia's flounder landings came
from the offshore fishery (Figure 2), despite the closure of
Virginia's Territorial Sea to trawling in 1989.
Maryland commercial flounder harvest for the Chesapeake Bay
and ocean fisheries combined generally increased from the 1930s
through 1958 (Figure 3), declined through the early 1970s, and
then increased to an all time high of 1.7 million pounds in 1979.
During the 1980s, the Maryland commercial harvest has declined
from 1.3 (1980) to 0.18 million pounds (1989) (Figures 3 & 5) ,
wi?£ an associated decline in the value of fish landed from
600,000 to 275,000 dollars (Figure 6). Preliminary 1990 landings
were 83,000 pounds.
The commercial harvest in Virginia has. historically been an
order of magnitude higher than the Maryland catch (Figure 5).The
Virginia harvest gradually increased from about 300,000 pounds a
year in the 1930s to about 2 million pounds a year in the early
-------
1970s (Figure 4). Landings then increased dramatically through
1979, when an all time high of 10 million pounds was recorded.
Virginia harvests in the 1980s have ranged from 3.6 million
pounds (1981 and 1989) to 9.6 million pounds (1984) (Fig-are 4),
with dockside value ranging between 2 and 8 million dollars
(Figure 7) . In 1989, Virginia prohibited all trawling in its
territorial waters as a specific effort to protect summer
flounder (VMRC, 1989b). Preliminary figures for 1990 indicate a
; harvest of approximately 2.1 million pounds.
. . ...... Separation of Virginia's summer flounder landings into ocean
and bay categories gives a clearer indication of trends in the
fishery (Figures 8 & 9) . The ocean fishery is comprised almost
entirely of trawl landings. Increasing capital investment, with
resultant increases in efficiency, in this segment of the fishery
since the early 1970's (Ross et al., 1990) allowed increased
catch rates initially and then helped slow the decline in
flounder landings (Figure 8). Attempts to maintain high landings
in this fishery have resulted in long term (VMRC, 1990; Ross et
al., 1990) and short term (Pearson, 1932; Ross et al. , 1990)
decreases in the average size of fish qaught and lower catch per
unit effort (Ross et al., 1990; 1991).
In contrast, the Chesapeake Bay fishery has remained
relatively unchanged in regards to gear type and efficiency
during the same time period, with the exception of a ban on
trawling in state waters enacted in July, 1989. Landings from
this segment of the fishery have declined from 450 thousand
pounds annually in the 1970's to 61 thousand pounds in 1990
(Figure 9). The majority of this decline in landings occurred
prior to the moratorium on trawling in state waters.
Recreational summer flounder landings on the Atlantic Coast
ranged from 5.0 (1989) to 54.5 (1983) million pounds a year in
the 1980s. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) catches accounted for 3%
to 20% of the total recreational harvest. In 1987 and 1988,
summer flounder were the most sought after species from the Mid-
Atlantic region and that region accounted for about 80% of the
Atlantic Coast recreational summer flounder catch (USDC, MRFSS
1979-1989). The annual catch of summer flounder from the Mid-
Atlantic region was about 18 million fish between 1979 and 1984;
from 1985-1989 the average catch dropped to 10 million fish and
the catch for 1989 was 1.5 million fish (Figure 10).The average
annual recreational harvests in Maryland and Virginia were 0.6
and 4.9 million pounds, respectively, between 1979 and 1985. In
1989, the recreational harvests dropped to 0.47 arid 0.61 million
pounds, respectively (Ron Essig, NMFS, pers. comm.).
-------
CO
CO
0 0
E co
CO .£3
CD
r~
10
_ o>
O)
in
00
§
""
CO
•o
c
=1
o
o,
CO
•o
c
cd
co
3
O
JC
cd
o
00
co
m
CO
c
cd
o
O
O
I
CO
r-
o>
ca
o.
CO
•o
8
-------
Figure 2. Virginia commercial
flounder landings by area
Millions of pounds
IV .>
0
N\._ ...-— .. — v
11
||
N^_. , , ^
li
Ni. ~— - x
a
N^, „ x
li
il
N\ N
li
f\ s
li
N.A.. "v
n
11
li
C^._ ., N
U
NX ..._ N
li
Kx S
[|
^2k,_. . , ... ^
IB
fOt... ~s
li
N^ _._., ^
11
O
_ 0>
o>
T-
U3
00
-§
-R
CO
~ o>
«••
ffl
CO
o
O
CO
o
O
CM
00
-------
CO
CD
C
""O
CO
-
E o
E LL-
_
O 0
•o I
il
o
CO
3
O)
•o
(0
•o
•o
c
C8
o
•o
o
o
•o
10
-------
O)
CO
"eg
-------
CO _
|2? cd
II
c
o>
E
=!
"
0
L
§
i
c
•o
c
s t
CD
CM
JB
5
o
o
O
•o
c
co
m
CO
•o
73
12
-------
(1)
TJ
i!
E 15
s>
to
^
>» o
fe °
CD
g>
LL
CO
-I
CO
TJ
C
3
O
o.
f
0)
•o
i
o
o
0
13
-------
o
LL.
§
CO 0
•il
'§8
0)
g>
LL
TO
c
td
40
•o
c
i
t
I
6
c
cd
CD
«
O
•a
14
-------
CB
CO
4->
(0
•o
O
oc
15
-------
o o
its
I ®
E co
o _
o.?
m>
I
CO CO
CD D)
Q. C
^ =5
CO
o
3 O
.^
LJL
o
o>
CD
to
00
OJ
O
00
O)
CO
0)
o
J=
0}
c_
T3
00
o>
16
-------
CO
O
CD
Ig
=3 .2
J2 O)
U_ CD
!_ cc
O i
G> T:
4*^6 m ^^^
•
O
CD
O)
LL.
I
cd
O
•»-
ffi
CO
•o
CO
£
CC
17
-------
Economic Perspective
Summer flounder has traditionally commanded the highest
price per pound and generated the greatest dollar value of all
finfish species taken in Virginia. Prices are similarly high in
Maryland, but the much smaller volume of landings is reflected in
flounder only being valued in the top ten species. The value of
commercial flounder landings surpassed the million dollar mark
for Virginia waters in 1976 and has ranged between two and four
million dollars annually during the 1980s (Figure 5). During the
same time period, the value of Virginia's flounder landings fell
to half its '1980 value despite doubling in price. Summer
flounder brought $ 0.78 per pound in 1980 and $ 1.54 per
pound during 1990 in the Virginia market. In 1990, Virginia's
flounder landings were valued at $ 3.3 million. The dockside
value of Maryland's summer flounder landings has not exceeded $
600,000 in the past ten years. Although total value fell to a
record low in 1986, price per pound has continued to increase.
Maryland's summer flounder landings were valued at $ 277 thousand
and $ 1.66 per pound in 1989 (Figure 4) and $ 137,000 in 1990.
The dollar value of the recreational summer flounder catch
probably far exceeds even the considerable value of the
commercial catch. Throughout most of the 1980s, the recreational
catch was 40% of the total flounder landings along the Atlantic
coast (MAFMC, 1990). As recently as 1988, summer flounder were
ranked as the most desirable species to catch by the MRFSS survey
(USDC, 1991), despite rapidly declining populations. By 1989, the
summer flounder population along the Mid-Atlantic section of the
east coast had fallen so low that the recreational catch of
flounder had declined to 13% of the total (MAFMC, 1991) and the
species was not ranked in the top three as a target species
(USDC, 1991).
Resource Status
Current estimates of the instantaneous fishing mortality
rate (F) are approximately six times the estimate of Fmax which
would produce the maximum yield per recruit for both sexes
combined. All indices of abundance, both commercial and
recreational, plummeted in 1989 relative to the rest of the
1980s. Based on the disparity in the reported values of F and
F x and the recent indices of abundance, it is unlikely that the
Atlantic coast summer flounder population will remain healthy in
the future unless current levels of fishing mortality are reduced
substantially. Maintaining current F levels will continue to
depress the stock and average yield of the fishery (NOAA\NMFS,
1990).
Compression of age structure in the Mid-Atlantic summer
flounder population is apparent from various independently
determined sources, including scientific research surveys
(Desfosse et al., 1990), the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
18
-------
Council (1987) , the eleventh New England Fisheries Council (NEFC)
stock assessment workshop (NOAA/NMFS, 1990) and historical
length-frequency analyses of commercial catch data (Pearson
1932; Eldridge, 1962; Ross et.'al., 1990).
NEFC surveys conducted from 1976-1981 captured fish from
five to eight years of age (24 to over 30 inches); in 1990, the
oldest fish observed were three years old (about 19 inches). A
monthly trawl survey by the Delaware Division of Fish and
Wildlife found that during the 1960's the majority of flounder
measured over .15.75 inches (40 cm.; about 2 years old); in the
1980's, most fish were under 15.75 inches (40 cm.)' and by 1990
almost all fish were one year old (11.6 inches). Compression of
age structure is considered a primary indicator of
overexploitation in a fishery.
Commercial landings of summer flounder along the Atlantic
coast have dropped to their lowest level in 15 years, while
the estimated recreational catch is lowest of the entire time
series (MAFMC, 1990).
The spawning stock biomass of the Atlantic coast flounder
population is currently about 2-3% of the unfished level. This
reduced spawning stock has led to concern over the possibility of
recruitment failure. In 1988, nearly every state conducting a
survey of young of the year flounder experienced poor recruitment
(MAFMC, 1990). The 1990 stock assessment workshop summer flounder
working group (lith SAW, WG # 21, 199Ob) developed a consensus
that recruitment between 1987 and 1990 was generally poorer than
from 1980-1986.
The only available predictor of summer flounder recruitment
which has shown agreement with population analysis estimates is
the VIMS young of the year (YOY) trawl survey (MAFMC, 1990). The
VIMS YOY index also shows decreased flounder recruitment in the
late 1980s relative to the early 1980s. However, the 1990 index
and preliminary estimates of 1991 recruitment indicate the
presence of more young flounder than any year since 1986 (MAFMC
1990; Bonzek, VIMS, 1991, pers. comm.). Surveys conducted in 1991
off Chincoteague, Virginia by the Marine Science Consortium found
over 90 % of the flounder caught to be less than or equal to 13
inches (331mm<) in length (Sloan, 1991, pers. comm.). Since a one
year old summer flounder averages 11.6 inches in length and
flounder from the 1990 year-class would have averaged one and a
half years old when these surveys were conducted, most of these
fish were likely from the 1990 and 1991 year-classes.
Laws and Regulations
Limited entry: Maryland's Delay of Application
Process, which went into effect
September 1, 1988, requires
previously unlicensed applicants to
wait two years after registering
, with MDNR before a license to
19
-------
Minimum size limit:
Creel limit:
Harvest quotas:
By-catch restrictions;
Season:
Gear - Area restrictions:
harvest finfish with commercial
fishing gears will be issued.
Limited or delayed entry are not in
effect in Virginia or Potomac River.
13" total length for Maryland,
Virginia and Potomac River.
Not in effect for Maryland or
Potomac River; 10 fish in Virginia.
Not in effect for Maryland, Virginia
or Potomac River.
Maryland - 5% sublegal (by number)
may be retained by licensed
commercial fishermen. Potomac River-
5% sublegal (by number) may be
retained. Virginia - 2 fish or 10%,
whichever is greater, under 13
inches.
No closed season for Maryland,
Virginia or Potomac River.
Maryland - Purse seines, otter
trawls, beam trawls, troll nets,
drag nets, trammel nets,
monofilament gill nets and gigs are
prohibited (otter and beam trawls
are legal on the Atlantic Coast cit
distances of one mile or more
offshore-) . Minimum stretch mesh
size restrictions: pound net,
1.5"; fyke and hoop net, 1.5"; haul
seine, 2.5".
Potomac River - Purse seines, otter
trawls, beam trawls, troll nets,
drag nets, trammel nets, drift gill
nets and gigs are prohibited.
Minimum stretch mesh size
restrictions: pound net, 1.5"; fyke
and hoop net, 1.5"; haul seine,
2.5"; gill net, 5" minimum and 7"
maximum. \
Virginia - Trawling prohibited. It
is illegal to alter flounder so that
total length cannot be determined.
It is unlawful to set, place or fish
a fixed fishing device of any type
within three hundred yards in either
direction from the Chesapeake Bay
20
-------
Bridge Tunnel. From April 1 "through
May 31 the spawning areas of the
James, Pamunkey, Mattaponi, and
Rappahannock Rivers are closed to
stake and anchor gill nets. Minimum
stretch mesh size restrictions:
pound net, 2"; haul seine, 3" (nets
over two hundred yards long). In
addition, no haul seine can be longer
than one thousand yards in length or
deeper than forty meshes; and the cod
or bunt end of a trawl net shall'have
a minimum of fifty meshes deep. Any
gill net, whether floating or
submerged, that is not assigned a
fixed location shall be set in a
straight line, have no greater depth
than 330" and shall be fished no
closer than 200 feet to any other
such gill net. Also, Sections 28.1-52
and 28.1-53 of the Code of Virginia
outline placement, total length and
distance requirements for fishing
structures.
Status of Traditional Fishery Management Approaches
The following definitions have been adapted from the documents,
"Status of the Fishery Resources Off the Northeastern United
States" for 1989 and 1990 (NOAA Technical Memoranda NMFS-F/NEC-72
and 81) , "Amendment 2 to the Fishery Management Plan for the
Summer Flounder Fishery" (MAFMC, 1991) and "The Atlantic Coast
Red Drum Fishery Management Plan" (SAFMC, 1990). .For a more
through review of fisheries terminology, refer to these documents
under the "definitions" section.
Catch-Effort or CPUE: 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.
Estimates of mortality; A mortality rate is the rate at which
fish die from natural causes or fishing. 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, while instantaneous rates cannot. The
instantaneous total mortality rate (Z) is the natural logarithm
of the ratio of the number of fish alive at the end of a period
of time to the number of fish alive at the beginning of the same
period of time. Fishing mortality is usually expressed in terms
of an instantaneous rate (F) , as is natural mortality (M) . For
example, 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
21
-------
not.
Yield-per-recruit (YPR); The theoretical yield that would be
obtained from a group of fish of one year-class if harvested
according to a certain exploitation rate over the lifespan of the
fish.
Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) and Spawning Stock Biomass per
Recruit fSSBR) : SSB is the weight of all adult females in the
population, calculated as the remaining number of individual
females in each year-classv times the .percent that are. mature
times their average weight. SSBR is the total contribution of a
cohort (year-class) to the SSB over its lifetime, determined by
summing its contribution at each age.
Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY): The largest average catch or
yield that can be continuously taken from a stock under existing
environmental conditions, while maintaining stock size.
Virtual Population Analysis CVPA): an analysis of the catches
from a given year-class over its life in the fishery.
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.
Catch-Effort or CPUE:
Estimates of mortality:
Historical commercial fisheries
statistics exist; however, they are
unreliable compared to data collected
since 1982. Catch per unit effort
(CPUE) exhibited a 75% decrease
during the two year stock assessment
survey conducted in Virginia waters
by VIMS 1987-1989.
Estimates of fishing mortality
rates based on the eleventh SAW
were greater than F = 1.4, 1982-1988
and F = 2.1 from 1985-1989. Natural
mortality (M) is estimated at 0.2,
giving a total mortality estimate
of Z - 1.6 or higher. Total
mortality in Virginia waters between
1987 and 1989 was 78 %, with a Z
value of 1.5.
Yield-per-Recruit:
At the current F of 2.1, yield-per-
recruit (YPR) for the Mid-Atlantic
stock is about 0.75 pounds and 12.7
inches. At the target F of 0.23, YPR
would be maximized at a harvest size
of 15 inches (1.3 Ibs) for both
22
-------
Stock-Recruitment:
MSY:
VPA Analysis:
SSB/SSBR:
sexes combined. Flounder are fully
recruited to the existing East coast
fishery at age 2.
No derived relationship.
A preliminary estimate of the
maximum sustainable yield for the
Atlantic Coast population is about
44 million pounds. This estimate
has not been used to make
management decisions because the
general belief is that summer
flounder abundance was very low
during the period of analyses (1967
- 1974). Also, good effort data is
lacking in recreational surveys
conducted prior to 1979.
The first accepted VPA was produced
at the llth SAW workshop (1990).
FBAR values for 1982-1989 show
fishing mortalities of F> 1.0 for
all fully recruited (age 2 or older)
year classes measured.
Current spawning stock is estimated
at about 2-3% of the unfished level.
SSB should be at least 20% to allow
the stock to sustain itself, based
on SSB analyses conducted on
other species.
Data and Information Needs
1. Annual estimates of catch and effort in the commercial and
recreational fisheries.
2. Annual estimates of the age, length and sex composition of the
commercial and recreational catch.
3. Information on discard levels in the commercial and
recreational fisheries.
4. Evaluation of the impact of different minimum legal size
limits and/or mesh regulations on the recreational and commercial
fisheries in the Chesapeake Bay.
5. Studies to investigate the principal environmental factors
affecting year class strength.
6. Stock identification work to establish whether more than one
summer flounder stock contributes to the Mid-Atlantic population
and if so, the relative contribution of each stock.
23
-------
References
Able K. W. , R. E. Matheson, W. W. Morse, M. P. Fahay and G.
Shepard. 1990. Patterns of summer flounder (Paralichthys
dentatus) early life history in the Mid-Atlantic Bight and New
Jersey estuaries. Fish Bull. 88(1): 1-12.
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1982. Fishery
management plan for summer flounder. Fisheries management report;
.Np. 3. , ..... ..-....-• -...-• .-.-•••• • ' •-. ••-• - ...-••
Bigelow, H. B. and W. C. Schroeder. 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of
Maine. US Fish Wildl. Serv. Fish. Bull. 53(74): 577 p.
Desfosse, J. C., J. A. Musick, A. D. Estes and P. Lyons. 1990.
Stock identification of summer flounder fParalichthys dentatus)
in the southern Mid-Atlantic Bight.
Eldridge, P. J. 1962. Observations on the winter trawl fishery
for summer flounder, Paralichthys dentatus. M. A. Thesis. Va.
Inst. Mar. Sci., College of William and Mary. 58 p.
Gillikin, J. W. , B. F. Holland, Jr., and Capt. R. O. Guthrie.
1981. Net mesh selectivity in North Carolina's winter trawl
fishery. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development. SSR No. 37. 65 p.
Grosslein, M. D. and T. R. Azarovitz. 1982. Fish distribution.
MESA New York Bight Atlas Monograph 15. 182 p.
Henderson, E. M. 1979. Summer flounder rParalichthvs dentatus) in
the northwest Atlantic. NOAA. NMFS Woods Hole Lab. Ref. No. 79-
31, 13 p.
Leim, A. H. and W. B. Scott. 1966. Fishes of the Atlantic coast
of Canada. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada. Bull. No. 155. 485 p.
Lux, F. E., P. E. Hamer and J. C. Poole. 1966. Summer flounder...
the middle Atlantic flatfish. Leaflet # 6, Marine resources of
the Atlantic coast, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1987. Fishery
management plan for the summer flounder fishery.
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1990. Amendment #1 to
the fishery management plan for the summer flounder fishery.
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1991. Amendment #2 to
the fishery management plan for the summer flounder fishery.
Musick, J. A. 1989. Trawl fishery closure in Virginia territorial
waters (< 3 miles) from Virginia Capes to North Carolina border.
VIMS Position paper. Va. Inst. Mar. Sci. 13 p.
24
-------
NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service. 199Oa. Report of the
eleventh NEFC stock assessment workshop.
NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service. 199Ob. Report of the
Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW), Summer Flounder Working Groun
(WG # 21) .
Pearson, J. C. 1932. Winter trawl fishery off the Virginia and
North Carolina coasts. Invest igational Rep. No. 10. U.S. Gov.
Print. Off. Washington, D. C. 30 p.
Poole, J. C. 1966. A review of research concerning summer
flounder and needs for further study. N. Y. Fish and Game
Journal. 13(2): 226-231.
Ross, J. L., J. H. Hawkins and D. A. DeVries. 1990. Assessment of
the North Carolina winter trawl fishery, September 1982- April
1985. N. C. Division of Marine Fisheries. SSR # 53. .
Ross, J. L. 1991. Assessment of the North Carolina Winter Trawl
Fishery, September 1985- April 1988. N. C. Division of Marine
Fisheries. SSR #54.
Scarlett, P. G. 1981. Fishery management plan for the summer
flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) fishery. NMFS contract #
03-78-D01-78.
Smith, W. G. 1973. The distribution of the summer flounder,
Paralichthys dentatus, eggs and larvae on the continental shelf
between Cape Cod and Cape Lookout, North Carolina, 1965-1966.
Fish. Bull. 71(2):527-548.
U. S. Department of Commerce. 1984. Marine Recreational Fishery
Statistics Survey, Atlantic and Gulf coasts, 1979(revised)
1980. Current Fishery Statistics No. 8322. Washington, DC. 239
pp.
U. S. Department of Commerce. 1985a. Marine Recreational Fishery
Statistics Survey, Atlantic and Gulf coasts, 1981 - 1982. Current
Fishery Statistics No. 8324. Washington, DC. 215 pp.
U. S. Department of Commerce. 1985b. Marine Recreational Fishery
Statistics Survey, Atlantic and Gulf coasts, 1983 - 1984. Current
Fishery Statistics No. 8326. Washington, DC. 222 pp.
U. S. Department of Commerce. 1986. Marine Recreational Fishery
Statistics Survey, Atlantic and Gulf coasts, 1985. Current
Fishery Statistics No. 8327. Washington, DC. 130 pp.
U. S. Department of Commerce. 19.87. Marine Recreational Fishery
Statistics Survey, Atlantic and Gulf coasts, 1986. Current
Fishery Statistics No. 8392,. Washington, DC. 127 pp.
U. S. Department of Commerce. 1991. Marine Recreational Fishery
Statistics Survey, Atlantic and Gulf coasts, 1987 - 1989. Current
25
-------
Fishery Statistics No. 8904. Washington, DC. 363 pp.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1978. Development of fishes of
the Mid-Atlantic Bight, Vol IV. pp. 157-163.
Virginia Marine Resources Commission. 1989a. Summer Flounder
Management Plan.
Virginia Marine Resources Commission. 1989b. Regulation 450-01-
0055.
Virginia Marine Resources''Commission. 1990". " Regulation 450-01-
0071.
Wilk, S. J., W. G. Smith, D. E. Ralph, and J. Sibunka. 1980.
Population structure of summer flounder between New York and
Florida based on linear discriminant analysis. Trans. Am. Fish.
Soc. 109.(2): 265-271.
Williams, A. B. and E. E. Deubler, Jr. 1968. Studies on
macroplanktonic crustaceans and ichthyoplankton of the Pamlico
Sound complex. North Carolina Department of Conservation and
Community Development. Spec. Sci. Rept. No. 13. 91 p.
Section 2. Summer Flounder Management
The source documents for this plan, the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission FMP (1982), the Mid-Atlantic
Fisheries Management Council FMP (1987), and the Virginia Summer
Flounder FMP (1989) contain current knowledge and discuss
management priorities for summer flounder stocks, information
from these documents has been supplemented and updated with
recent work published by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science
(1990), NOAA/NMFS (1990) and MAFMC (1990). Problems and
management strategies have been defined and grouped into specific
categories and serve as the basis for identifying the goals and
objectives of the plan. The management strategies and actions
will be implemented by the jurisdictions to protect and enhance
the stocks of summer flounder utilizing the Chesapeake Bay.
Existing regulations regarding the harvest of this species will
continue to be enforced except where otherwise indicated by the
plan.
A. GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
The goal of this plan is to:
Enhance and perpetuate summer flounder stocks in the Chesapeake
Bay and its tributaries, and throughout their Atlantic coast
range, so as to generate optimum long-term ecological, social and
economic benefits from their commercial and recreational harvest
and utilization over time.
26
-------
In order to meet this goal, the following objectives must be met:
1) Follow guidelines established by the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council for coastwide management of summer flounder stocks
and make Bay regulatory actions compatible where possible.
2) Promote protection of the resource by maintaining a clear
distinction between conservation goals and allocation
issues.
3) Maintain summer flounder spawning stocks at a size which
minimizes the possibility of recruitment failure and
determine the effects of environmental factors on year-class
strength.
4) Promote the cooperative interstate collection of economic,
social and biological data required to effectively monitor
and assess management efforts relative to the overall goal.
5) Improve collection of catch and standardized effort
statistics in the summer flounder fisheries.
6) Promote fair allocation of allowable harvest among various
components of the fishery.
7) Continue to provide guidance for the development of water
quality goals and habitat protection necessary to protect
the summer flounder population within the Bay and state
coastal waters.
B. PROBLEM AREAS AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Problem 1: Overfishing. The summer flounder is an important
fishery resource along the Atlantic coast, particularly between
New York and' North Carolina. Total coastwide landings by weight
have shown a decreasing trend since 1980. Recent stock
assessments indicate that summer flounder stocks along the entire
Atlantic coast are experiencing growth and recruitment
overfishing. The 1990 NEFC stock assessment workshop (llth SAW)
described the summer flounder population as being overexploited
and seriously depleted; of the twelve species or groups of
species examined by the workshop, no other species was found to
be as depleted as summer flounder. Estimated fishing mortality
(F) was computed as greater than 1.4 and as high as 2.1. Thus,
current fishing mortality is at least six times the MAFMC target
level of 0.23. At this rate of fishing mortality, only 20 % of
all summer flounder alive now will be alive one year later. The
spawning stock of summer flounder is severely depleted. Flounder
are being caught at such a small size that each female flounder
is contributing only 2-3 % of the eggs which she is capable of
producing. The Mid-Atlantic summer flounder stock also shows
compression of age structure as measured by scientific research
surveys, historical length-frequency analyses of commercial catch
data and age composition data from the 1976-1990 NEFC surveys.
27
-------
Summer flounder between the ages of five and eight were regularly
captured in NEFC surveys from 1976-1981; by 1990, the oldest fish
observed were three years of age. Compression of age structure is
considered a primary indicator of overexploitation in a stock.
Strategy 1: Bay jurisdictions will evaluate a number of
alternatives to control directed fishing mortality and improve
protection of summer flounder beyond age I. Management options
include higher minimum size limits, trawling bans, mesh size
restrictions and hook-and-line creel limits. Management agencies
will continue to participate in deliberations to" protect small
flounder in other coastal states and in the Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ).
PROBLEM 1.1
All estimates of stock abundance have continued to show a
declining trend in recent years, despite the institution of
a ban on trawling in Virginia's Territorial Sea and the
imposition of a 13" minimum size limit in all Bay
jurisdictions.
STRATEGY 1.1
Maryland, Virginia and the PRFC will propose changes in
minimum size regulations, creel limits and seasons in
the recreational fishery to conform to guidelines set
by MAFMC. Maryland and Virginia will comply with
commercial quotas, mesh sizes or other commercial
restrictions enacted by MAFMC. These recommendations
are intended to provide greater spawning stock biomass
from each flounder year-class and provide a greater
yield-per-recruit.
ACTION l.la: Maryland, the PRFC and Virginia
will propose an increase in their minimum size
limit for recreationally caught flounder from 13
inches to 14 inches.
IMPLEMENTATION l.la
1) 1992
ACTION l.lb:
Maryland, Virginia and the PRFC will propose creel
limits and seasonal restrictions in compliance
with MAFMC recommendations. A six fish creel
limit will be proposed as one measure to meet
these recommendations. A recreational fishing
season extending from May 15 - Sept. 30 may also
be required to reduce fishing mortality. Virginia
will continue to enforce its ten fish per day
limit until such time as MAFMC recommendations can
be implemented.
IMPLEMENTATION l.lb
1) 1992
28
-------
ACTION l.lc:
Commercial size limits will remain
at 13" for Virginia and Maryland in conformance
with MAFMC recommendations. The PRFC will propose
a 14" minimum commercial size limit for its
commercial flounder fisheries to provide parity
with the recreational fishery. A 5.5 inch diamond
or 6 inch square minimum cod end mesh size will be
implemented i'n all directed flounder trawl
fisheries.,
IMPLEMENTATION l.lc
1) 1992
ACTION l.ld:
Commercial fisheries will be subject to quotas
set by MAFMC and administered by the states. All
flounder landed by a vessel registered in a state
will be counted towards that state's quota,
without regard to the actual fishing location.
Commercial fisheries in each state will be closed
when that state's quota is reached. The PRFC will
propose a moratorium on its commercial flounder
fisheries from January through June, inclusive, to
complement the seasonal closure proposed for the
recreational fishery, in addition to conforming
with MAFMC quota closures.
IMPLEMENTATION l.ld
1) 1992
PROBLEM 1.2
The continuing catch of undersize flounder by trawl
fisheries, along with a total harvest far in excess of
sustainable levels, consitutes a principal reason for the
precipitous decline in summer flounder stocks. Culling of
undersize fish from the catch is not a viable alternative in
this fishery, as mortality of the culled catch is so high.
STRATEGY 1.2
Management agencies will continue to promote the
implementation of minimum mesh size in the directed
flounder trawl fisheries sufficient to allow escapement
of immature female flounder. Management agencies will
urge the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council to
enact a mesh size compatible with these goals in the
directed flounder trawl fisheries to complement the
mesh size requirements enacted through the Baywide Plan.
ACTION 1.2a
Virginia and Maryland will implement a
5.5 inch diamond or 6 inch square minimum cod end
mesh size in all directed flounder trawl fisheries
to allow escapement of immature female flounder.
29
-------
Virginia and the PRFC will continue their bans on
trawling in state waters.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.2 a
1) 1992
ACTION 1.2b
Virginia and Maryland will work with the Mid-
Atlantic Fisheries Management Council to adopt a
5.5 inch diamond or 6 inch square minimum cod end
. mesh size for the EEZ .flounder trawl fishery
consistent with the objectives of the Baywide Plan
and MAFMC's recommendations for conservation of
the resource.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.2b
1) Continue
PROBLEM 1.3
The incidental bycatch of small summer flounder in non-
directed fisheries impacts recruitment to the flounder
spawning stock. Nondirected fisheries include the
Chesapeake Bay's pound net fishery, Maryland's coastal trawl
fisheries and North Carolina's trawl, flynet, pound net,
long haul seine and beach seine fisheries for finfish and
shrimp.
STRATEGY 1.3
Virginia, Maryland and the Potomac River Fisheries
Commission will investigate the incidental bycatch of
small flounder in non-directed fisheries and
participate in coastal deliberations to protect small
flounder in other coastal states.
ACTION 1.3a
Maryland will collect information from its pound
net and ocean trawl fisheries to develop
management strategies for reducing the non-
directed bycatch of small flounder and other
species. Options for consideration include
minimum mesh sizes, season and area restrictions,
culling practices, escape panels and fishing
efficiency devices.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.3a
1) 1992; Continue
ACTION 1.3b
Virginia will continue to monitor the species
composition and biological characteristics of bait
harvested in its pound net fishery. The VMRC will
take action, as needed, to reduce the incidental
bycatch of small flounder in the bait fishery.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.3b
30
-------
1) Continue
ACTION 1.3C
Maryland, the PRFC and Virginia will work through
the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council and
the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to
encourage protection of immature flounder.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.3C
1) Continue
Problem 2 - stock Assessment and Research Needs: Currently,
fisheries managers lack some of the biological and fisheries data
necessary for effective management of the flounder resource.
Strategy 2 - Stock Assessment and Research Needs: Atlantic coast
databases are limited concerning harvest, fishing effort and
biological characteristics of the harvest and fishery independent
measures of summer flounder stocks. Specific research to address
these deficiencies will be identified.
PROBLEM 2.1
Atlantic coast summer flounder stock structures and the
extent of stock mixing are poorly understood. Stock
identification research will be continued and the summer
flounder population will be treated as a unit stock for
management purposes in the interim.
STRATEGY 2.1
Maryland, Virginia and the Potomac River Fisheries
Commission will continue to support stock
identification research to determine the extent of
stock mixing in the Chesapeake Bay flounder population.
ACTION 2.1
The jurisdictions will continue to support stock
identification research, particularly stock
composition tagging studies being conducted at
Virginia's Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) and
the University of Maryland. Coordinated studies on
the relative contribution of various estuaries,
including the Chesapeake Bay, to the coastal
flounder stock will be initiated.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.1
1) Continue
PROBLEM 2.2
Data for summer flounder size and age composition,
maturity schedules, growth rates, mortality rates and
estimates of abundance are inconsistent.
STRATEGY 2.2
Virginia will continue to support stock assessment work
31
-------
conducted by the VMRC and index of abundance research
performed by Virginia Institute of Marine Science
(VIMS) .
ACTION 2.2
VMRC's Stock Assessment Program will continue
to collect biological data (age, size, sex) from
commercial catches of summer flounder. VIMS will
continue to monitor abundance of juvenile flounder
through its young-of-the-year and juvenile
flounder survey trawl survey indices.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.2
1) Continue
PROBLEM 2.3
Catch and effort statistics for summer flounder
recreational fisheries need to be improved for fisheries
stock assessment.
STRATEGY 2.3
Maryland, Virginia and the Potomac River Fisheries
Commission will continue to support inter-
jurisdictional efforts to maintain a comprehensive data
base on coastwide level.
ACTION 2.3
Maryland, Virginia and the PRFC will continue
to collect fisheries landings data on summer
flounder as part of ongoing commercial fisheries
statistics programs. Virginia will continue to
pursue adoption and implementation of a limited
and/or delayed entry program and a mandatory
reporting system for commercial licensees.
Maryland and Virginia will continue to supplement
the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics
Survey to obtain more detailed catch statistics at
the state level. Through FISHMAP, Maryland will
begin a pound net sampling project to collect
information on summer flounder and other species.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.3
1) Continue
PROBLEM 2.4
Information relating to the stock-recruitment
relationship for summer flounder is lacking.
STRATEGY 2.4
Maryland and Virginia will continue their joint and
individual efforts in providing the information needed
to determine the relationship between abundances of
adult and juvenile flounder.
32
-------
ACTION 2.4
Maryland and Virginia will continue the Baywide
trawl survey of estuarine finfish species and
crabs to measure size, age, sex, distribution,
abundance and CPUE. Maryland will continue
seaside juvenile summer flounder studies utilizing
bottom trawls, beach seines and their
cooperative sampling of trawl fisheries.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.4
1) Continue
Problem 3 - Habitat Issues: Estuarine areas are utilized by
summer flounder stocks for nursery and feeding grounds.
Increasing urbanization and industrial development of the
Atlantic coastal plain has resulted in a decrease in the
environmental quality of many estuarine communities. Estuarine
habitat loss and degradation in Chesapeake Bay may contribute to
declines in summer flounder stocks.
Strategy 3 - Habitat Issues: The jurisdictions will continue
their efforts to improve water quality and define habitat
requirements for the living resources in the Chesapeake Bay.
PROBLEM 3.1
Water quality impacts the distribution and abundance of
finfish species in the Chesapeake Bay.
STRATEGY 3.1
The District of Columbia, Environmental Protection
Agency, Maryland, Pennsylvania, the Potomac River
Fisheries Commission, and Virginia will continue to
promote the commitments of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay
Agreement. The achievement of the Bay commitments will
lead to improved water quality and enhanced biological
production.
ACTION 3.1
The District of Columbia, Environmental Protection
Agency, Maryland, Pennsylvania, the Potomac River
Fisheries Commission, and Virginia will continue
to set specific objectives for water quality
goals and review management programs established
under the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
The Agreement and documents developed pursuant to
the Agreement call for:
1) Developing habitat requirements and water
quality goals for various finfish species.
2) Developing and adopting basinwide nutrient
reduction strategies.
3) Developing and adopting basinwide plans for
the reduction and control of toxic substances.
4) Developing and adopting basinwide management
measures for conventional pollutants entering
33
-------
the Bay from point and nonpoint sources.
5) Quantifying the impacts and identifying the
sources of atmospheric inputs on the Bay
system.
6) Developing management strategies to protect
and restore wetlands and submerged aquatic
vegetation.
7) Managing population growth to minimize adverse
impacts to the Bay environment.
IMPLEMENTATION 3.1
Continuing.
34
-------
w o
Q H
I ^
CO
>-l
w a
-P[ :pr]
< o
W <:
o
c/>
ul
0
1—
z
UI
o
CJ
§
03
CJ
Ul
Ul
m
Is
a. 3=
U) I—
UJ Ul
tx x:
UJ
t—
a
ACTION
Ul
§
m
o
o_
Oi n a.
c
«— 4J
O* c~
T- CJ
.C cu
*-> co •— XI ^:
tp c c o
CO C — • *"
•i • M- ^a-
o to v-
3E C C C-
CO O CU O
> CO CO 5 CO
O tD CO <1>
co a. «- -c
<— o o c_ o
• <- til O C
«- O. c- >•- "-
O)
CO
c_
0)
a
"~
a: a: of
• . .
ee o o
o z: a:
Z > Q.
3 c c -o 01 e-
ea •*- c •— » co
co 3 J3 D
4-< < •* o z> tr
•—>«-—• to co
E •<-
— i_ to eu =
— • o — ' J5 -o
S- (1) CO
• O CO •• ' t-
N 10 Q O — > O
— eu S. t- «-
tO f O CU 3 *D CU
U L. g CM
— • c a. E to Q •—
CO •— O CU E to
'o ro ^ ° 'Z. -2 x:
t. S . eu -a co
eu 3 •!-> .c _ g
E co cj E •— iri
O CO O 2 CO *^~
<- E •> N CO C
«- *- Z CO <-• •!-• E
-i
a: ocTo:
< «t <
. r i
a: cj cj
a z o:
z > a.
c
v 4-*
II
1.1d Commercial fisheries will
be subject to a quota system
administered by MAFMC. Each
state's fishery will close when
its quota is met.
_i
at a: ce
< t *f
, • ,
o: a.
c
***P
IS
1.2a VA, MD and the PRFC will
implement a 5.5" diamond or 6"
square minimum mesh size in all
directed flounder trawl
fisheries to allow the
escapement of immature flounder.
ee.
•ft
• •
en cj
11
c
**"T^
&s
«- CJ
1.2b VA and MD will promote,
through MAFMC, implementation of
a 5.5" diamond or 6" square
minimum mesh size in all EEZ
directed flounder trawl
fisheries.
<
•
02
i
C
***s
is
«- o
1.3a MD will collect information
from its pound net and ocean
trawl fisheries to develop
strategies for reducing bycatch
of undersized flounder and other
species.
_!_
ac
<"
i
CJ
i
c
• *»^
11
1.3b Va will monitor the species
composition. and biological
characteristics of its pound net
fishery and take steps to reduce
bycatch as needed.
-------
< *< * 63
CO
• 4>
CM 0£
^H *C
1 1
O f<
•«
s
*r->
1
inue collection of data
anercial catches
£§
o u
o
CM O
CO H-
,
«£
i
I
•J
S
*O
1
CO
o
c.
u
.?
'5
o>
g
«»—
I
K>
CO
. ..- CO - O
Co 4J C. CU 0
C_ O £ CU CO 1— D) C
O) 4-> .C ••- CO CO
O CO TO 4J 4-> CU T3
t- "0 C CO T3 - C
Q.CC04J4-* 't-CUD
ra c CO z N .5
en S 6 — ' co co
4-« 4-* a*-^ C CU C
co— ee-o Sifc0
•«— 35 S"- .c D "-
4-*O4-'O4-' 4-'CO4J
CO 3 CO CO CO CO 3
4J CO >. CU d) OJ -Q
CO C- CO O C- 3 H •*•
CU 4-> U C C-
COQ.cn CU •— O 4J
CU CCUCd 4-I4-IC011J
CU ^ cl •— C t- O O CJ
J=IQ4->— 0) >-
CO Q. C C_ O •C-OZCL CMGOCOCO
ote the objectives of
apeake Bay Agreement to
water quality
11 5
a. u o
c-
r«i $ —
CO
3
CO
CO
4-*
CO
15
CO
"
§
o
CO
CU
4J C.
4-1 M- 4-»
CO 4-* CO
c|«
ill
n n n
4-*
C
CO CU
C. D) 4->
ine Resources Commission
artment of Natural Resou
r Fisheries Commission
Colombia, Fisheries Mana;
nagement Advisory Commit
ies Advisory Committee
Fish Commission
ries Advisory Commission
i_ Q. CU CO C- CO CU
5; cu _> •£ z jj; •£ ^
Z OC CO CO CO ••-
<0 T3 4J CU -j- ^ "-
'P CO Q ••- t- X CO
.JZ — ' E C_ CU — 'CO 4J
rn>«O4-'x:COC C_
t"c-4->e/>coT3C o
.;: co o •—•—•— cu Q-
> Z Q. Q u- 1— O- C/>
II II II II II II II II
cjC£OZCJOCJ CJ
»ZU.LU<:<£U. <;
^oo£cjs:u-a. ci-
> s: o. Q u- i— w
"H
S"
— '
------- |