Chesapeake Executive Council
Chesapeake Bay
Atlantic Croaker
and Spot Fishery
Management Plan
Agreement Commitment Report
1991
Chesapeake Bay Program
i Prlnled-on recycled paper
-------
-------
Chesapeake Bay
Atlantic Croaker
and Spot 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 Atlantic Croaker and Spot Fishery Manage-
ment Plan in partial fulfillment of Living Resources Commitment Number 4 of the 1987 Chesapeake
Bay Agreement:
f
. 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 Atlantic Croaker and Spot were designated valuable species in the Schedule for Developing
Bay wide Resource Management Strategies. In 1991, the Atlantic Croaker and Spot plan was completed.
We agree to accept the plan as a guide to managing the Atlantic Croaker and Spot 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
Atlantic Croaker and Spot populations.
We recognize the need to commit long-term, stable, financial support and human resources to the
task of managing the Atlantic Croaker and Spot stock. In addition, we direct the Living Resources
Subcommittee to periodically review and update the plan and report on progress made in achieving the
plan's management recommendations.
Date December 18,1992
For the Commonwealth of Virginia
For the State of Maryland
For the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
For the United States of America
For the District of Columbia
For the Chesapeake Bay Commission
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
' • . . . . , Ill
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ^r
• •••••••••••••••(,•,•«»,,»,» 1V
INTRODUCTION vii
SECTION 1. Biological Background !
Life History - Atlantic Croaker !!!!!!!!!!!!! 1
Biological Profile - Atlantic Croaker !!!!!!!!!!!!! 2
' Life History - Spot. 3
Biological Profile - Spot. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 4
The Fishery - Atlantic Croaker !!!!!!!! 5
Fishery Parameters - Atlantic Croaker 10
The Fishery - Spot 10
Fishery Parmeters - Spot !!!!!!!!!!.! 13
Economic Perspective !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!."!! 13
Habitat Issues !!!!!!!!!!!!!!** 17
FMP Status and Management Unit !!!!!!!!!!!! 17
Resource Status - Atlantic Croaker 18
Resource Status - Spot ..!!!!!!!! is
Laws and Regulations !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! is
Status of Traditional Fishery Management Approaches!!!! 20
Data and Analytical Needs 23
References !!!!!! 23
SECTION 2. Atlantic Croaker and Spot Management. . 27
A. Goal and Objectives ! ! ! ! ! 27
B. Problem Areas and Management Strategies. . ! ! ! ! 28
1. Stock Status ...!!!!!!! 28
2. Harvest of small Croaker and Spot 29
3 . Research and Monitoring Needs ! 30
4. Habitat and Water Quality Issues !!!!! 31
APPENDIX: Atlantic Croaker and Spot Implementation Matrix... 33
Figures
1. Croaker commercial landings from the Atlantic coast 6
2a. Commercial landings for Atlantic Croaker from the
Chesapeake Bay 7
2b. Maryland commercial landings for Atlantic"Croaker!!!!!! 7
2c. Virginia commercial landings for Atlantic Croaker 7
3. Atlantic Croaker caught by recreational anglers
Mid-Atlantic T ...".! 9
4. Spot commercial landings from the Atlantic'coast!!!!!!! n
5a. Commercial landings for spot from the Chesapeake Bay. 12
5b. Maryland commercial landings for Spot 12
-------
5c. Virginia commercial landings for Spot 12
6. Spot caught by recreational anglers, Mid-Atlantic
region 14
7. Spot caught by the commercial fishery, Mid-Atlantic
region „ 14
8. Maryland dockside value for croaker 15
9. Maryland dockside value for spot. 15
10. Virginia dockside value for Atlantic croaker 16
11. Virginia dockside value for spot 16
11
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Chesapeake Bay Atlantic Croaker and Spot Management Plan
was developed under the direction of the Fisheries Management
Workgroup. Staff from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR), Tidewater Administration, Fisheries Division were
responsible for writing the plan and addressing comments on the
draft versions. Support was provided by staff from the Virginia
Marine Resources Commission (VMRC), Fisheries Management Division.
Contributing MDNR staff included Nancy Butowski and Harley Speir.
VMRC staff included David Boyd, Roy Insley, Sonya Knur, and Ellen
Smoller. Thanks are due to Verna Harrison and Ed Christoffers for
guiding the plan through the development and adoption process.
Carin Bisland, from EPA's Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office, assisted
with production of title pages and fact sheets, and with printing
and distribution. Finally, we express gratitude to members of
other Chesapeake Bay Program committees and workgroups and to the
public who commented on the plan.
Members of the Fisheries Management Workgroup were:
Mr. Mark Bundy, STAC Economic Advisory Group
Mr. K.A. Carpenter, Potomac River Fisheries Commission
Mr. Jeffrey S. Eutsler, Maryland Waterman
Mr. William Goldsborough, Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Mr. J. W. Gunther, Jr., Virginia Waterman
Mr. Robert Hesser, Pennsylvania Fish Commission
Dr. Edward Houde, UMCEES/Chesapeake Biological Laboratory
Ms. Linda Hurley, USFWS Bay Program
Mr. W. Pete Jensen, Chair, MD Department of Natural Resources
Dr. Roman Jesien, Horn Point Environmental Lab
Mr. J. Claiborne Jones, Chesapeake Bay Commission
Dr. Ron Klauda, MDNR, Cheapeake Bay Research and Monitoring
Dr. Robert Lippson, NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service
Dr. Charles F. Lovell, Jr., M.D., Virginia
Mr. Richard Novotny, Maryland Saltwater Sportfishermen's Assoc.
Mr. Ed O'Brien, MD Charter Boat Association
Mr. Ira Palmer, D.C. Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs
Mr. James W. Sheffield, Atlantic Coast Conservation Assoc. of Va.
Mr. Larry Simns, MD Watermen's Association
Mr. Jack Travelstead, Virginia Marine Resources Commission
Ms. Mary Roe Wa'lkup, Citizen's Advisory Committee
111
-------
Introduction
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
^ of the strategies for implementing the Living Resources
Commitments of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement is to develop and
adopt a series of baywide fishery management plans (FMPs) for
commercially, recreationally, and selected ecologically valuable
species. The FMPs are to be implemented by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, Commonwealth of Virginia, District of Columbia,
Potomac River Fisheries Commission, and State of Maryland as
appropriate. Under a timetable adopted for completing management
plans for several important species, the Atlantic Croaker and Spot
FMP was scheduled for completion in December 1991.
A comprehensive approach to managing Chesapeake Bay fisheries
is needed because biological, physical, economic, and social
aspects of the fisheries are shared among the Bay's jurisdictions.
The Chesapeake Bay Program's Living Resources Subcommittee formed
a Fisheries Management Workgroup to address the commitment in the
Bay Agreement for comprehensive, baywide fishery management plans.
The workgroup is composed of members from government agencies, the
academic community, the fishing industry, and public interest
groups representing the District of Columbia, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the federal government.
Development of Fishery Management Plans
An FMP prepared under the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement serves
as a framework for conserving and wisely using a fishery resource
of the Bay.^ Each management plan contains a summary of the fishery
under consideration, a discussion of problems and issues that have
arisen, and recommended management actions. An implementation plan
is included at the end of the FMP to provide additional details on
the actions that participating jurisdictions will take and the
mechanisms for taking these actions.
Development of a fishery management plan is a dynamic process.
The process starts with initial input by the Fishery Management
Workgroup, is followed by public and scientific review of the
management proposals, and then by endorsement by the appropriate
Chesapeake Bay Program committees. A management plan is adopted
when^ it is signed by the Chesapeake Bay Program's Executive
Committee. In some cases, regulatory and legislative action will
have to be initiated, while in others, additional funding and
staffing may be required to fully implement a management action.
A periodic review of each FMP is conducted under the auspices of
the Bay Program's Living Resources Subcommittee, to incorporate new
information and to update management strategies as needed.
IV
-------
Goal of the Atlantic Croaker and Spot Management Plan
The goal of the Chesapeake Bay Atlantic Croaker and Spot
Management Plan is to protect the croaker and spot resource in the
Chesapeake Bay, its tributaries, and coastal waters, while
providing the greatest long-term ecological, economic, and social
benefits from their usage over time.
In order to meet this goal, a number of objectives must be
met. These objectives are incorporated into the problem areas and
management strategies discussed below.
Problem Areas and Management Strategies
Problem 1: Stock Status. Recent commercial landings of Atlantic
croaker have been approximately half of the historical landings.
Although effort data is lacking, the decline in catch most likely
represents a real decrease in abundance. Spot landings have been
highly variable from year-to-year. Fluctuations in croaker and spot
landings may be related to environmental factors, changes in
fishing effort, and the degradation of estuarine habitats. Fishing
is generally directed at one year class and yield per recruit has
not been maximized.
Strategy 1: Stock Status. The jurisdictions will continue to
monitor the Atlantic croaker and spot populations in the Bay and
cooperate with the Atlantic States'Marine Fisheries Commission to
manage stocks along the coast. Increases in yield per recruit will
be promoted.
Problem 2: Harvest of Small Croaker and Spot. The magnitude of the
scrap catch, incidental bycatch and discard mortality of small
croaker and spot has not been determined in the Chesapeake Bay but
may significantly impact croaker and spot stocks,,
Strategy 2: Harvest of Small Croaker and Spot. The jurisdictions
will reduce the harvest of small croaker and spot in the directed
and non-directed .fisheries by promoting bycatch reduction devices
(BRDs) in the southern shrimp fishery and the use of fish
separators in the finfish trawl fishery. Each jurisdiction will
continue its minimum mesh size restrictions for gill netting as a
means of reducing bycatch.
Problem 3: Research and Monitoring Needs: There is a lack of stock
assessment data and socioeconomic information for both the Atlantic
croaker and spot stocks in the Chesapeake Bay and along the
Atlantic coast. Information on recruitment, age, size, sex
composition, and migratory patterns along the coast is lacking.
Improved catch and effort data are needed from the recreational and
commercial fisheries to assess the impact of fishing activities.
v
-------
Strategy 3: Research and Monitoring Needs. The jurisdictions will
promote research on the biology and socioeconomic factors that
affect croaker and spot stocks in the Chesapeake Bay.
Problem 4: Habitat and Water Quality Issues. Atlantic croaker and
spot are dependent on the Chesapeake Bay for nursery grounds.
Habitat alterations within the Bay affect croaker and spot stocks.
Low dissolved oxygen limits their distribution through behavioral
avoidance of areas with stressful oxygen concentrations and by
limiting their prey distribution.
Strategy 4 Habitat and Water Quality Issues: The jurisdictions
will continue their efforts to improve water guality and define
habitat requirements for living resources in the Bay. Efforts
include identifying and controlling nutrients, toxic materials,
conventional pollutants, and atmospheric inputs; protecting
wetlands and submerged aquatic vegetation; and managing population
growth.
VI
-------
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 thesagreement's Schedule for
Developing Bavwide Resource Management Strategiesr a list of
priority species was formulated, with a timetable for completing
fishery management plans as follows:
0 oysters, blue crabs and American shad by July 1989;
0 striped bass, bluefish, weakfish and spotted seatrout by 1990;
croaker, spot, summer flounder and American eel by 1991;
0 red and black drum by 1992; and
0 Spanish and king mackerel, tautog, black sea bass and freshwater
catfish by 1993.
A comprehensive and coordinated approach by the various local,
state and federal groups in the Chesapeake Bay watershed is central
to successful fishery management. Bay fisheries are traditionally
managed separately by Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, the
District of Columbia, and the Potomac River Fisheries Commission.
There is also a federal Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council,
which has management jurisdiction for offshore fisheries (3-200
miles), and a coastwide organization, the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), which coordinates the management of
migratory species in state waters (internal waters to 3 miles
offshore) from Maine to Florida. The state/federal Chesapeake Bay
Stock Assessment Committee (CBSAC) is responsible for developing a
Baywide Stock Assessment Plan, which includes collection and
analysis of fisheries information, but does not include the
development of fishery management plans.
Consequently, a Fisheries Management Workgroup, under the
auspices of the Chesapeake Bay Program's Living Resources
Subcommittee, was formed to address the commitment in the Bay
Agreement for baywide fishery management plans. The Fisheries
Management Workgroup is responsible for developing fishery
management plans with a broad-based view. The workgroup's members
represent fishery management agencies from the District of
Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, the Potomac River Fisheries
Commission, Virginia, and the federal government; the Bay area
academic community; the fishing industry; conservation groups; and
interested citizens. Establishing Chesapeake Bay FMPs, in addition
to coastal FMPs, creates a forum to specifically address problems
that are unique to the Chesapeake Bay. They also serve as the basis
for implementing regulations in the Bay jurisdictions.
vn
-------
WHAT IS A FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN?
A Chesapeake Bay fishery management plan provides a framework
for the Bay jurisdictions to take compatible, coordinated
management measures to conserve and utilize a fishery resource. A
management plan includes pertinent background information, lists
management actions that need to be taken, the jurisdictions
responsible for implementation, and an implementation timetable.
A fishery management plan is not an endpoint in the management
of a fishery; rather, it is part of a dynamic, ongoing process
consisting of several steps. The first step consists of analyzing
the complex biological, economic and social aspects of a particular
finfish or shellfish fishery. The second step includes defining a
fishery's problems, identifying potential solutions, and choosing
appropriate management strategies. Next, the chosen management
strategies are put into action or implemented. Finally, a plan must
be regularly reviewed and updated in order to respond to the most
current information on the fishery; this requires that a management
plan be adaptive and flexible.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS
The goal of fisheries management is to protect the
reproductive capability of the resource while providing for its
optimal use by man. Fisheries management must include biological,
economic and social considerations in order to be effective. Three
simply stated objectives to achieve this goal are:
0 quantify biologically appropriate levels of harvest;
0 monitor current and future resource status to ensure harvest
levels are conserving the species while maintaining an
economically viable fishery; and
0 adjust resource use and other factors affecting resource
status, as needed, through management efforts.
These general objectives are incorporated with information on
a particular resource and the current status of management for that
resource, into specific objectives for a fishery management plan.
MANAGEMENT PLAN FORMAT
The background section of this management plan summarizes:
0 life history and biological profile for each species;
0 Atlantic croaker and spot fisheries and fishery parameters;
°economic perspective;
viii
-------
° resource status;
°habitat issues;
0 FMP status and management unit;
0 Current laws and regulations in the Chesapeake Bay; and
0 data and analytical needs.
The background information is partially derived from the
document entitled, Chesapeake Bay Fisheries: Status. Trends.
Priorities and Data Needs and is supplemented with additional data.
Inclusion of this section as part of the management plan provides
historical background and basic biological infomicition for each of
the species.
The management section of the plan, which follows the
background, defines:
0 the goal and objectives for management of the species;
0 problem areas;
°management strategies to address each problem area; and
0 action items, with a schedule for implementation, by the
appropriate management agency.
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM'S FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANNING PROCESS
The planning process starts with initial, input by the
Fisheries Management Workgroup and development of a draft plan.
This is followed by a review of the management proposals by Bay
Program committees, other scientists and resource managers, and the
public. After a revised draft management plan is prepared, it must
be endorsed by the Chesapeake Bay Program's Living Resources
Subcommittee and Implementation and Principal Staff committees.
The plan is then sent to the Executive Committee for adoption.
Upon adoption by the Executive Committee, the appropriate
management agencies implement the plan. In 1990, the Maryland
legislature approved §4-215 of the Natural Resource Article giving
the Maryland Department of Natural Resources authority to regulate
a fishery once a FMP has been adopted by regulation. In Virginia,
FMP recommendations are pursued either by legislative changes or
through a public regulatory process conducted by the Commission. A
periodic review of each FMP is conducted by the Fisheries
Management Workgroup to incorporate new information and to update
management strategies as needed.
IX
-------
-------
Section 1. Biological Background
The Atlantic croaker (Micropoqonias undulatus^ and spot
(Leiostomus xanthurus^ belong to the family of fishes called
Sciaenidae. Members of this family comprise an important inshore
bottom fishery resource along the Atlantic coast (Cowan and
Birdsong 1985). The croakers and drums characteristically produce
a drumming sound by vibrating their swim bladder with special
muscles.
Life History - Atlantic Croaker
The Atlantic croaker can be found along the coast from Cape
Cod, Massachusetts to Campeche Bank, Mexico (Welsh and Breder
1923) . It is one of the most abundant inshore fish species,
especially in the southeast Atlantic and northern Gulf of Mexico
(Chittenden and McEachran 1976). Croaker are also known by the
common name, hardhead. Differences in life history patterns have
been noted between croaker populations found north and south of
Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Generally, northern populations
spawn earlier in the season, reach maturity later, are larger in
size, and live longer than southern populations (White and
Chittenden 1977). The differences between populations have been
attributed to dissimilar temperature conditions and not to genetic
origin.
Adult croaker generally spend the . spring and summer in
estuaries and move offshore and south along.the Atlantic coast in
the fall. In the Chesapeake Bay, croaker migrate up-river and up-
bay in the spring, randomly move around during the summer, and then
swim down-river and down-bay in the fall (Haven 1957). Adult
croaker can be found in the Bay from March to October, with peak
abundance from May through August (Stagg 1986). Mature croaker
spawn over shelf waters during an extended fall-winter spawning
season. Fecundity, number of eggs per female, ranges from 100,800
to 1,742,000 eggs/female for fish 196 to 390 mm TL (7.7-15.4 inches
TL) (Morse 1980) . Size and age at maturity vary according to
location. Female croaker from Chesapeake Bay; generally reach
maturity at age III while 45% of male croaker reach maturity at age
II (Wallace 1940). Length at which 50% of the fish are mature has
been calculated by Morse (1980) and ranges from 185 mm TL to 233 mm
TL (7.3-9.2 inches TL).
The fall-winter spawning period can begin as early as
September and continue through December. It occurs over a broad
area and includes the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay (Haven 1957).
Young-of-the-year croaker have been collected in coastal estuaries
off the Virginia coast from October to February (Cowan and Birdsong
1985). They are known to move into the York River in May (Chao and
Musick 1977) . Juvenile croaker prefer low salinity habitats and
-------
open-water rather than submerged vegetation areas. Immature croaker
stay in the Bay until the water temperature decreases in late
summer and fall, then migrate to coastal areas.
Atlantic croaker are opportunistic bottom-feeders that consume
a variety of invertebrates and occasionally fish. They prefer muddy
bottoms and generally inhabit depths less than 120 m. They are
considered a euryhaline species and have been collected coastwide
in salinities between 0 and 75 o/oo. Adults have been collected
from water temperatures between 10°C and 34°C (50-93°F). Maximum
life span reported for croaker is 8 years. Predators of croaker
include striped bass, flounder, shark, spotted seatrout, croaker,
bluefish, and weakfish (Mercer 1987a).
Biological Profile - Atlantic Croaker
Natural mortality rate; Estimates range from 39-63% a year.
Fecundity; 100,800 to 1,742,000 eggs/fish at
sizes ranging from 196-390 mm TL
(7.7 -15.4" TL).
Longevity; 7-8 years.
Age/size at maturity; 2-3 years; males at 140-220 mm TL
(5.5-8.7"), females at 185-233 mm TL
(7.1-9.1" TL).
Spawning and Larval Development
Spawning season: August - December (north of Cape
Hatteras); peak spawning occurs in
October.
Spawning area: Cape May, New Jersey to Gulf of
Mexico, includes the mouth of the
Chesapeake Bay.
Location: 25 to 265 feet deep.
Salinity: 30 ppt.
Dissolved oxygen: At least 5.0 ppm.
Youncr-of-Year
Location: Post-larvae move into estuarine
waters in late summer and early fall
where they develop into juveniles.
-------
Salinity:
Temperature:
Dissolved oxygen:
Subadults and Adults
Location:
Salinity:
Temperature:
Dissolved oxygen:
0-30 ppt.
Collected at 0-24°C (32-758F) in the
upper Chesapeake Bay.
At least 5.0 ppm.
Shallow coastal and estuarine waters
in summer; deep, offshore waters in
fall.
Euryhaline, most frequently found in
5-30 ppt.
8-34°C (46-93°F) on the Atlantic
Coast.
At least 5.0 ppm.
Life History - Spot
Spot can be found along the coast and in estuarine waters from
the Gulf of Maine to the Bay of Campeche, Mexico. The area of
greatest abundance occurs from Chesapeake Bay to South Carolina
(Bigelow and Schroeder 1953). They have been collected from the
mainstem and all tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay and have one of
the most extensive distributions of any marine-estuarine fish
species in the Bay. Spot are considered one of the major regulators
of benthic invertebrate communities in the muddy, shallow (<10m or
32.5') zones of the Bay (Homer and Mihursky 1991). They are an
important food source for other species in the Bay. Predators
include striped bass, bluefish, weakfish, shark, and flounder
(Mercer 1987b).
Adult spot migrate into estuarine areas in the spring but are
not as widely distributed as young spot. They are generally found
in the Chesapeake Bay from April through October. Spot are
euryhaline and salinity does not appear to affect distribution.
They are tolerant of a wide range of temperatures and have been
collected in waters from 1.2°C to 36.7°C (34-98°F). Although they
can tolerate low temperatures, extended periods of low temperatures
can result in mortality. They are relatively short-lived, with age
V fish a rarity. Ages 0 to II dominate the catch from populations
along the Atlantic coast (as cited, by Mercer 1987b) . Spot reach
sexual maturity at age II and III. Minimum size at maturity ranges
from 186 to 214 mm TL (7.3-8.4") (Mercer 1987b) . Fecundity
estimates are available from a small sample (n=2, Dawson 1958) and
it is not known if they are representative of fully ripe fish.
-------
When the water temperature starts to decrease in the fall,
adult spot move offshore to spawn. The spawning season extends from
late fall to 'early spring. Spawning occurs over a broad area and
data indicate that they use areas further offshore and in deeper
waters than other sciaenids (Mercer 1987b). Larvae move into
estuarine areas as early as December. In the Chesapeake Bay, spot
larvae have been collected during January and February (Welsh and
Breder 1923). Low salinity areas of bays and tidal creeks comprise
the primary nursery habitat for spot. They are also associated with
eelgrass communities (Orth and Heck 1980).
Young-of-the-year spot generally reside in tidal creeks and
shallow, estuarine areas during the summer. When the water
temperature begins to decrease in the fall they move to deeper
estuarine waters or the ocean. There is some evidence that juvenile
spot overwinter in Chesapeake Bay in deep water (Mercer 1987b).
Juvenile spot are similar to adults in their ability to tolerate a
wide range of salinities and temperatures.
Like croaker, spot are opportunistic bottom feeders that eat
polychaetes, crustaceans, mollusks, and detritus (as cited by
Mercer 1987). Although both spot and croaker have similar diet and
habitat, a life history study in the York River Estuary, Virginia
concluded that they are able to coexist without directly competing
with one another because of spatial and temporal differences (Chao
and Musick 1977).
Biological Profile - Spot
Natural mortality rate;
Fecundity;
Longevity;
Age/size at maturity;
Currently unknown.
Only limited data available (n=2).
Mature females produce at least
70,000 - 90,000 eggs.
4-5 years.
On the Atlantic Coast, spot mature
at the end of their second year or
early in their third year at 186-214
mm TL (7.3-8.4") .
Spawning and Larval Development
Spawning season:
Spawning area:
Spawning location:
Spawning off Chesapeake Bay occurs
from late fall to early spring.
Offshore coastal areas.
Spawning occurs more heavily
offshore (78-384') than inshore (44-
60') .
-------
Salinity:
Dissolved oxygen:
Younq-of-the-year
Location:
Salinity:
Temperature:
Dissolved oxygen:
Subadults and Adults
Location:
Salinity:
Temperature:
Dissolved oxygen:
At least 20 ppt.
> 2.0 ppm.
Low salinity Bay waters and tidal
marsh creeks with mud and detrital
bottoms; young-of-the-year are also
associated with eelgrass beds in
Chesapeake Bay.
0 - 30 ppt.
1.2- 35°C (34-95°F).
> 2.0 ppm.
Mud and sandy bottoms in inshore
waters; offshore to at least 40'.,
0-30 ppt.
1.2- 35°C (34-95°F). Mortalities due
to prolonged cold spells have been
observed in the Maryland portion of
the Chesapeake Bay,,
> 2.0 ppm. :
The Fishery - Atlantic Croaker
Commercial landings of Atlantic croaker from the Atlantic
coast show a period of record high landings during the 1940's of 65
million pounds (Figure 1) . By the early 1950's, the commercial
catch had decreased to less than 10 million pounds but was followed
by a moderate increase. A record low commercial catch of 1 million
pounds was recorded in 1970. There was a moderate! peak in 1978 of
30 million pounds but over the last 10 years, croaker landings have
declined to approximately 10 million pounds. The 1990 landings were
6.7 million pounds with the majority of the catch from the South
Atlantic, particularly North Carolina.
Commercial landings for croaker from the Chesapeake Bay
declined dramatically from almost 60 million pounds in the 1940's
to approximately 2 million pounds in the 1980's (Figure 2a) .
Historically, the Chesapeake region accounted for the majority of
Atlantic Coast commercial croaker landings. Maryland landings
reached a high of 6 million pounds in 1942 but have ranged from
-------
CO
o
c
o
(D
-Tl
O)
CQ
C
CD
-JL
•
- Q
O
CD
55-0
'
CO
0)
(Q
CO
-------
-------
1.06 million pounds (1976) to 500 pounds over the last twenty years
(Figure 2b). Virginia landings have been as high as 55 million
pounds (1937) but in the last few years have averaged 2.38 million
pounds (Figure 2c) . In 1990, the Chesapeake region harvested
196,000 pounds. Without effort information from fisheries within
the Bay, it is difficult to determine how changes in fishing
practices and market demands have influenced commercial landings
and, therefore, abundance trends. Despite the lack of effort data
from the Bay fisheries, the decline in catch most likely represents
a real decrease in abundance. Catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) data
from the North Carolina winter trawl surveys indicate decreasing
trends in catch. The North Carolina fisheries have also observed an
increase in the proportion of small unmarketable fish (<225 mm or
9") in the last few years.
Since croaker are considered a southern species, landings
north of Chesapeake Bay occur only when the population abundance is
high or under particularly favorable environmental conditions. It
has been suggested that periods of high landings and northward
range extension are associated with warming trends and mild
winters; cold winters reduce recruitment (Norcross 1983) . Croaker
are caught by a variety of gear types usually in mixed species
fisheries. The average size caught differs by gear type. Generally,
fish are smaller in trawl catches (less than or equal to 200 mm TL
or 7.9") and larger from pound nets (greater than or equal to 210
mm TL or 8.3") (Chittenden et al. 1990). In the Chesapeake Bay,
croaker are caught from spring (early April) through early fall
(mid-October) primarily by pound nets.
Croaker are considered an important recreational species in
the Chesapeake Bay. They usually rank within the top 10 species
caught. Maryland recreational catches in 1979 and 1980 were
estimated at 1.07 million pounds and 18,150 pounds, respectively
(Williams et al. 1984, Williams et al 1983). Virginia recreational
catches in 1985 and 1986 were 5.5 and 3.06 million pounds,
respectively. Recreational landings from the mid-Atlantic region
estimated by the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistical Survey
(MRFSS) peaked in 1986 but have been declining (Figure 3) . In 1990,
the downward trend in recreational catch continued.
In addition to the commercial and recreational catch of market
size croaker, small croaker are regularly caught in several
commercial fisheries. As an example, croaker with a mean weight of
0.144 kg (0.32 Ibs or 5 oz.) comprised 41.5% by weight and 34% by
number of the total marketable fish in the North Carolina long haul
seine catches during the 1989 season. Croaker of similar size and
weight are caught by flynets. Scrap fish (part of the catch not
marketed for human consumption but sold for bait, industrial use,
or discarded), comprised between 2% and 53% (average-28%) of the
North Carolina flynet catch between October 1985 and April 1988.
Scrap catch also occurs in the pound net and trawl fisheries. There
-------
CO
00
00
0)
3
a.
io
oo
CD
=1
c
3
cr
(D
•^
CO
0)
0>
-t •
><
33 CQ"
CD c
CD
GO
13 O
CD
0) O
I O
>
o
-------
is a sizeable bycatch and discard mortality of small croaker from
the southern shrimp fishery. Scrap catch, bycatch, and discard
mortality significantly impact the croaker population (Mercer
1987a). The magnitude of these impacts on the Chesapeake Bay
population has not been fully investigated.
Fishery Parameters - Atlantic Croaker
Status of exploitation: Unknown, but likely near capacity.
Long term potential catch: Currently unknown.
Importance of recreational Significant in Virginia, currently
fishery: of variable importance in Maryland.
Importance of commercial Historically significant.
fishery:
Total annual mortality: Estimated at 68% a year based on an
analysis of the northern stock.
The Fishery - spot
Commercial landings for spot from both the Atlantic coast and
the Chesapeake Bay exhibit year-to-year fluctuations with no
apparent long-term trends (Figures 4 and 5ci) . Yearly fluctuations
in harvest can be attributed to the general life history of spot
and annual environmental differences on the spawning grounds
(Joseph 1972). Spot is a short-lived species and in most years the
commercial catch consists of a single year class. Other factors
such as fishing effort, habitat degradation, and economic
conditions also contribute to the annual fluctuations in commercial
landings (Mercer 1987b). Before 1960, the Chesapeake and South
Atlantic regions harvested almost equal amounts of spot. South
Atlantic landings currently account for the largest portion of the
total Atlantic coast harvest. For 1990, a total of 6.4 million
pounds were landed from the Atlantic coast with 4.6 million pounds
coming from the South Atlantic, 1.7 million from the Chesapeake,
and the remainder from other mid-Atlantic areas.
Within the Chesapeake Bay, the commercial harvest of spot
usually begins during April or May and continues until September or
October. The largest commercial catches are reported during fall
when spot are migrating out of the Bay and most spot are landed as
bycatch from the pound net fishery in the lower Bay (Homer and
Mihursky 1991). In Maryland, commercial catches have been as large
as 590,000 pounds (late 1950s) but in recent years have been less
than 100,000 pounds (Figure 5b). Landings in Virginia have
historically been an order of magnitude higher than those in
Maryland. Spot catches in Virginia have been as high as 8 million
pounds (1949) and have generally declined since then (Figure 5c).
10
-------
CO
O
c
—t
O
(D
CO
a.
CQ
CD
o
3
CD
> °
=± °
& 3
ii
o -
o SL
0)
Q.
CQ
O)
11
-------
(Q
§
-* 01
O
E?|
CD §
O CD
ys.
CO 0)
0 CD
V 3
o
-^
CO
•D
O
-* IO CO
So g S S
(Q
Ol
p
CD
-«, £U
O 3
~« O.
CO r,
ij
(D
12
ST
H.
(Q
0)
-------
The recreational catch from the Atlantic coast has fluctuated
between 12.5 million fish and 31.4 million fish (5.0 to 13.3
million pounds) since 1979. For 1990, the recreational catch of
spot was 18.9 million fish (15.6 million came from the mid-
Atlantic). Of the 18.9 million caught, 11.3 million fish were
harvested. The recreational catch of spot from the Chesapeake
region (in pounds) has exceeded the commercial catch from the same
area except for 1989 (Figure 6 and 7) . In Maryland, spot are one of
the species most frequently caught by recreational fishermen. Spot
ranked third in a 1980 recreational fishing survey with an
estimated catch of more than 1.3 million fish. In Virginia, spot
are generally larger, more abundant, and targeted by recreational
anglers. Spot ranked first in pounds landed in 1985 (3 million
pounds) and fifth in 1986 (1.6 million pounds). In numbers
harvested, spot ranked first in 1985 (11 million) and second in
1986 (8.3 million).
Similar to croaker, small spot are caught for scrap in the
pound net, trawl, and long haul seine fisheries. There is a
sizeable bycatch and discard mortality of small spot from the
southern shrimp fishery, long haul seine and the flynet (a high
profile or high-rise type of trawl) catch. As an example, about 95%
of spot caught' in the North Carolina flynet fishery between 1982
and 1988 were less than marketable size (< 195mm or 7.7"). Scrap
catch, bycatch, and discard mortality significantly impact the spot
population (Mercer 1987b). •
Fishery Parameters - Spot
Status of exploitation: Currently unknown.
Long term potential catch: Currently unknown.
Importance of recreational Highly significant in Maryland and
fishery: Virginia
Importance of commercial Highly significant in Virginia with
fishery: landings at least an order of
magnitude greater than Maryland.
Fishing mortality rates: Currently unknown.
Economic Perspective - Atlantic Croaker and Spot
Croaker and spot are two of the five sciaenid fishes that
account for about 18 percent of the landed value of all food fish
from the mid-Atlantic through the Gulf coast. In Maryland, trends
in dockside value for croaker and spot have generally followed
commercial landings (Figure 8 and 9). Despite the variability in
commercial landings, the dockside values for croaker and spot in
Virginia have remained steady (Figure 10 and 11). since 1980, the
price per pound of croaker and spot in Virginia has increased.
13
-------
Figure 6. Spot caught by Recreational
Anglers, Mid-Atlantic Region
Million Pounds
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
Year
•1988 and 1989 numbers are preliminary
Figure 7. Spot caught by the
Commercial fishery, Mid-Atlantic Region
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
Thousand Pounds
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
Year
14
-------
Figure 8. Maryland Dockside Value for
Croaker
Thousand pounds
Thousand $$
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
Year
Croaker $$
Com. Landings
•1990 preliminary
Figure 9. Maryland Dockside Value for
Spot
140
Thousand Pounds
Thousand $$
140
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
Year
Spot $$
Com. Landings
•1990 preliminary
15
-------
Figure 10. Virginia Dockside Value
for Atlantic Croaker
Million pounds
Million $$
1970 1975 1980 1985
1990
Commercial Landings
Dockside Value
Figure 11. Virginia Dockside Value
for Spot
Million pounds
1960
Million $$
1990
Commercial Landings
Dockside Value
16
-------
A socio-economic profile on croaker was completed in 1978 by
Austin et al. At this time the following conclusions were made- 1)
small croaker were a low value/high volume product and an expanded
market could place severe pressure on the stocks unless the
incidental catch of croaker were reduced; 2) food croaker (large
croaker) are of minor importance to fish houses and there is a
substantial incidental catch of small croaker that is discarded-
3) there is a very large incidental catch of croaker associated
with the commercial shrimp fishery, estimated at twice the size of
the total commercial catch of croaker, and 4) recreational fishing
will continue to expand, since current information is lacking
these areas of socio-economic importance need to be reevaluated.
The value of spot from the northeast region (ME to VA) has
been approximately 1 million dollars over the last few years The
1989 value was $1,113,000 and the preliminary 1990 value was
$878,000. Although the recreational catch of spot is significant
its economic value along the coast and from the Chesapeake Bav has
not been estimated.
Habitat Issues - Atlantic Croaker and Spot
Both croaker and spot utilize estuarine and coastal oceanic
waters at various life history stages and times of the year.
Habitat alterations within estuarine areas affect croaker and spot
stocks because they use these areas as nursery grounds. Most
estuarine areas of the United States have been altered to some
degree by such activities as agriculture drainage, flood control
development, filling of shallow water habitat, dredging of
navigation channels, and pollution. Federal and state programs have
been initiated to protect both coastal and estuarine waters.
In addition to problems caused by habitat alteration, spot are
particularly sensitive to both chlorinated sewage effluent and to
residual chlorine in seawater. In the 197O's, massive fish kills
estimated at 5 - 10 million individuals (spot, bluefish, white
perch, weakfish and menhaden) were observed in the James River
Virginia adjacent to two sewage treatment plants. Low dissolved
oxygen can affect croaker and spot distribution by limiting their
prey distribution, it can also limit their distribution by direct
avoidance of areas with stressful dissolved oxygen concentrations.
FMP Status and Management Units j
Atlantic croaker and spot management plans were prepared under
the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (ASMFC)
Interstate Fisheries Management Program and completed in October
1987. Management measures for both species were reevaluated in 1990
by the ASMFC scientific and statistical committee. The committee
emphasized the need to: promote the development and use of bycatch
reduction devices (BRDs) through demonstration and application in
trawl fisheries; promote increases in yield per recruit by delaying
17
-------
entry to both the croaker and spot fisheries to ages greater than
one; and, implementation of research and monitoring projects. The
ASMFC plan recommends a coastwide stock assessment for croaker
within the next two years. The ASMFC's plans serve as the basis for
the Chesapeake Bay Atlantic croaker and spot FMPs.
The management units are the Atlantic croaker, Micropoaonias
undulatus, and spot, Leiostomus xanthurus. throughout their range
along the Atlantic coast and in the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries.
Resource Status- Atlantic Croaker
Commercial landings of Atlantic croaker from the Chesapeake
Bay suggest that there has been a reduction in abundance. The most
recent increase in landings along the Atlantic coast can be
attributed to increases in North Carolina landings. An assessment
of North Carolina's winter trawl fishery indicates that the current
fishery is harvesting much smaller croaker than in previous years
(NCDNR 1990). Catch-per-unit-of-effort (CPUE) data from the North
Carolina flynet catches also indicate a decline in catch from 1985-
86 to 1987-88.
Based on CPUE indices for juvenile Atlantic croaker from along
the coast, annual recruitment is highly variable. Maryland and
Virginia surveys indicate high juvenile abundance in the mid-1970's
with another peak in the early 1980's. The most likely" explanation
for the fluctuation in abundance is temperature. Survey results
support the premise that year class strength is related to
temperatures on the nursery grounds (Joseph 1972). There is also
strong evidence to suggest that species interaction, such as
predation on young croaker by striped bass, has had a negative
influence on croaker population levels (Dovel 1968).
Resource Status- Spot
There are no obvious trends in abundance of spot in the
Chesapeake Bay region or from the Atlantic coast based on
commercial landings data. Abundance estimates are not available
based on stock assessment analysis. Annual variations can be
attributed to variations in year class strength, environmental
conditions, and fishing pressure.
Laws and Regulations
Limited entry;
Maryland's Delay of Application Process,
which went into effect September 1, 1989,
requires previously unlicensed applicants
to wait two years after registering with
MDNR before a license to harvest finfish
with commercial fishing gears will be
issued.
18
-------
Minimum size limit:
Atlantic Croaker-
Spot-
Creel limit:
Harvest quotas:
Virginia - Proposed legislation
authorizing the VMRC to limit or delay
entry to fisheries (House Bill 286) was
introduced to the 1990 Virginia General
Assembly. The Bill was tabled and
assigned to a legislative subcommittee
for further study.
Potomac River - Current moratorium on any
new commercial hook and. line or gill net
licenses, only Maryland and Virginia
residents allowed to fish commercially.
Maryland- 10" TL; Potomac River-10" TL;
Virginia- None.
No minimum size for any of the
jurisdictions.
None in effect for either species f.or any
of the jurisdictions.
None in effect for either species for any
of the jurisdictions.
By-catch restrictions; None in effect.
Season;
No closed season.
Gear - Area restrictions;
Maryland - purse seines, trawls, trammel
nets, and monofilament gill net
prohibited. (Otter and beam trawls are
legal on the Atlantic Coast at distances
of one mile or more offshore).
Prohibition on gill netting in most areas
of Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries
except; (1) attended drift gill nets 2.5
to 3.5" stretch mesh may be fished
outside the striped bass spawning reaches
and; (2) anchor, stake and drift gill net
4.0 to 6.0" stretch mesh can be fished in
Chesapeake Bay, excluding the tributaries
south of Kent Point from June 15 to
September 30, inclusive. Minimum stretch
mesh size restrictions for pound net -
1.5", haul seine - 2.5".
Potomac River - Current moratorium on any
new gill net or hook and line licenses.
19
-------
The use of a spear, gig, purse net, beam
trawl, otter trawl, or trammel net are
prohibited. Mesh size restrictions on
pound net- 1.5", haul seine- 1.5", fyke
net- 1.5", fish pot- 2.0", gill net 5.0"
with a maximum of 7.0". Length
limitations on pound net (1200'), stake
gill net (600'), anchor gill net (600' X
12'), fyke net (400'), haul seine (1200'
or 2400'), fish pot (10'). Seasonal
restrictions: Pound net- February 15
through December 15; Anchor or stake gill
net- June 1 through November 30; Drift
gill net-closed; Haul seine-January 1
through December 31 except Saturdays June
1 through August 31 and Fridays and
Saturdays September 1 through May 31.
Virginia - Trawling prohibited in
Virginia waters. It is unlawful to set,
place or fish a fixed fishing device
within 300 yards of the Chesapeake Bay
Bridge Tunnel. From April 1 through May
31 the spawning areas of the James,
Pamunkey, Mattaponi, and Rappahannock
Rivers are closed to stake and anchor
gill nets.
Minimum stretch mesh size restrictions:
pound net 2"; gill net 2-7/8" (increased
to 3" in 1992) ; haul seine 3" (nets over
200 yards long) . No haul seine can be
longer than 1000 yards or deeper than 40
meshes. Any gill net not assigned a fixed
location, shall be set in a straight
line, have no greater depth than 330",
shall not exceed 1200' in length, and
shall be fished no closer than 200 feet
to any other such gill net. Gill nets are
prohibited in the Lower Hampton Roads
area from the Friday preceding Memorial
Day to Labor Day, both days inclusive,
from 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.; gill nets
are prohibited in four Eastern Shore
Bayside creek mouths (the Gulf, Hungars
Creek, Nassawadox Creek and Occohannock
Creek) from June 1 to October 31. Also,
Sections 28.1-52 and 28.1-53 of the Code
of Virginia outline placement, total
length and distance requirements for
fishing structures. ,
20
-------
Status of Traditional Fishery Management Approaches
The following definitions have been adapted from the document
"Status of the Fishery Resources Off the Northeastern United States
for 1989" (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-72). For a more
thorough review of fisheries terminology, refer to this document
under the section "Definition of Technical Terms."
Catch-Effort or Catch-Per-Unit-of-Effort: Defined as the number or
weight of fish caught during a specific unit of fishing time and
considered a basic measure of abundance or stock density.
Atlantic Croaker- Catch and effort data from both the commercial
and recreational fisheries in the Chesapeake Bay are insufficient
fc° determine the relationship between landings and abundance.
Although trends in landings do not necessarily reflect actual
abundance, there are indications that croaker abundance has
declined. The CPUE from the North Carolina flynet catch declined
from 5,868 kg/catch in 1985-86 to 1,629 kg in 1987-88.
Spot- Catch and effort data from both the commercial and
recreational fisheries in the Chesapeake Bay are insufficient to
determine the relationship between landings and abundance. Spot
CPUE from the North Carolina sciaenid-bluefish flynet catches have
fluctuated with no apparent trend. Mean seasonal CPUEs ranged from
369 to 1,391 kg/trip, with three-season averages of 788 kq/trip
(1982-85) and 817 kg/trip (1985-87).
Estimates of mortality; Instantaneous mortality is defined as the
rate at which fish are removed from a population by death (Z) It
can be represented mathematically by the natural logarithm of a
ratio of the number of fish alive at the end of a unit of time, to
the number alive at the beginning of the unit of time. It can also
be expressed as a percentage of the population.
Atlantic Croaker- Total mortality rates are 37-60% when maximum age
is set between five and ten years, and mortality rates are 55-60%
(Z-1.15) for five or six year life spans (Chittenden et al. 1990).
A Z-l.15 is appropriate for Chesapeake Bay fish which translates to
a 55-60% annual total mortality.
Spot- Mortality rates are unknown.
Yield-per-Recruit; A mathematical calculation of the theoretical
yield that would be obtained from a year class (group of fish of
one age) if they were harvested according to a certain exploitation
pattern over their life span.
21
-------
Atlantic Croaker- If instantaneous natural mortality (M) values are
between 0.5 and 1.0, then calculated yield per recruit is between
32 and 91 g at an age at first capture of 1.5 years; and, between
25 and 125 g at an age at first capture of 3 years (Chittenden
1977) ."
Spot- Since current mortality rates are unknown, yield per recruit
analysis has not been calculated.
Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB)- The total weight of all sexually
mature fish in the population. This changes depending on the size
of new year classes, the growth rate of young fish, the age at
sexual maturity, the growth and natural mortality of older fish,
and the fishing mortality rate:
Atlantic Croaker- Unknown.
Spot- Unknown.
Spawning Stock Biomass Per Recruit (SSBR)- The spawning stock
biomass divided by the number of fish recruited to the stock at age
2. This number is in units of weight and measures the average or
expected contribution of any one young fish to the spawning stock
biomass over its lifetime:
Atlantic Croaker- Unknown. .
Spot- Unknown.
Stock-Recruitment; The relationship between the adult stock size
and subsequent recruitment (fish that reach a certain size or age
in a specific year):
Atlantic Croaker- Successful recruitment into the Chesapeake Bay
and survival during the juvenile stage is mainly determined by
environmental factors. Warm winter water temperatures allow
spawning to occur further north and contribute to a higher survival
rate of overwintering juveniles. During times of adverse
environmental conditions, the fishery becomes heavily dependent on
North Carolina breeding stocks.
Spot- A first approximation of a Ricker spawner-recruit
relationship has been examined by D. Bodolus, VIMS. No significant
relationship between the two could be discerned. However, from this
study the spawning population appears to account for approximately
10% of the variation in recruitment of spot to the Chesapeake Bay.
22
-------
Maximum Sustainable Y^lci; The number or weight of fish in a stock
that can be taken by fishing without reducing the stock's biomass
or reproductive potential from year to year, assuming that
environmental conditions remain the same.
Atlantic Croaker- Unknown.
Spot- Unknown .
Virtual Population Analysis; Defined as an analysis of fish
catches from a given year class over its life in the fishery.
Atlantic Croaker- Has riot been carried out.
Spot- Has not been carried out.
Data and Analytical Needs- Atlantic Croaker
±n/ °rmation °n the Biology and population dynamics
g data on growth, age structure, reproductive biology
migration patterns, mortality, long-term potential yield, and
stock structure .
2. Determine the relationship between parental stock size and
environmental factors on year class strength.
3. Improve catch and effort data for both the commercial and
recreational croaker fisheries.,
4. Determine the magnitude of incidental by-catch and discard
mortality of small croaker in non-directed fisheries in the
Chesapeake Bay.
5. Determine the magnitude of the scrap/bait catch of croaker
from the pound net, long haul seine, and trawl fisheries.
Data and Analytical Needs- Spot
1. Determine the coastal movement of spot and the extent of stock
2. 'Collect biological data including size and age composition of
harvest, age at maturity, fecundity, and spawning periodicity.
3. Improve catch and effort data.
4.
Determine a measure of annual reproductive success and
information on the relationship between parental stock size
and environmental factors that regulate year class strength.
23
-------
References Cited
Austin, C.B., J.C. Davis, R.D. Brugger, and J.A. Browder. 1978.
Croaker Workshop Report and Socio-Economic Profile. NMFS
Southeast Fisheries Center. Sea Grant Special Report No. 16.
Bigelow, H.B., and W.C. Schroeder. 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of
Maine. U.S. Fish. Wild. Serv., Fish. Bull. 53:423.
Chao, L.N., and J.A. Musick. 1977. Life history, feeding habits,
and functional morphology of juvenile sciaenid fishes in the
York River estuary, Virginia. Fish. Bull. 75:657-702.
Chittenden, M.E.,Jr., L.R. Barbieri, C.M. Jones, S.J. Bobko, and
D.E. Kline. 1990. Initial information on the Atlantic
croaker, a final report on "Development of age determination
methods, life history-population dynamics information, and
evaluation of growth overfishing potential for important
recreational fishes." Virginia Institute of Marine Science,
Gloucester Point, Virginia.
Chittenden, M.E., Jr., and J.D. McEachran. 1976. Composition,
ecology, and dynamics of demersal fish communities on the
northwestern Gulf of Mexico continental shelf, with a similar
synopsis for the entire Gulf. Tex. A & M Univ., TAMU-SG-76-
208. 104p.
Cowan, J.H.,Jr., and R.S. Birdsong. 1985. Seasonal occurrence of
larval and juvenile fishes in a Virginia Atlantic coast
estuary with emphasis on drums (Family Sciaenidae). Estuaries
8(1):48-59.
Dovel, W.L. 1968. Predation by striped bass as a possible
influence on population size of the Atlantic croaker. Trans.
Amer. Fish. Soc. 97:313-319.
Haven, D.S. 1957. Distribution, growth and availability of
juvenile croaker, Micropogon undulatus. in Virginia. Ecology
38:88-97.
Hildebrand, S.F., and W.C. Schroeder. 1928. The fishes of
Chesapeake Bay. Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish. 43(l):388p.
\
Homer, M.L., and J.A. Mihursky. 1991. Habitat requirements'for
Chesapeake Bay living resources: Spot profile. tChesapeake Bay
Research and Monitoring, 2nd Edition.
Joseph, E.B. 1972. The status of the sciaenid stocks of the
middle Atlantic coast. Ches. Sci. 13:87-99.
24
-------
Mercer,_L.P. 1987a. Fishery management plan for Atlantic croaker
(Micropogonias undulatus). Fish. Rept. No. 10 of the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission. 90p.
Mercer, L.P. I987b. Fishery management plan for spot (Leiostomus
xanthurus). Fish. Rept. No. 11 of the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission. 81p.
Morse, W.W. 1980. Maturity, spawning and fecundity of Atlantic
croaker, Micropoaonias undulatus occuring north of Cape*
Hatteras, North Carolina. U.S. Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv. Fish
Bull. (U.S.) 78(1):190-195. ;
Norcross, B.L. 1983. Climate scale environmental factors
affecting year-class fluctuations of Atlantic croaker
(Micropogonias undulatus^ in the Chesapeake Bay. Ph.D. diss.
Coll. William & Mary, Williamsburg, 387 p. +append.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources. 1990. Assessment of the North Carolina winter trawl
fishery, Sept. 1982- Apr. 1985. Special Scientific Report No.
53. Division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, N.C. 94p.
Orth, R.J., and K.A. Heck, Jr. 1980. Structural components of
eelgrass (Zostera marina^ meadows in the lower Chesapeake Bav
fishes. Estuaries 3:278-288.
Stagg, C. 1986. An evaluation of the information available for
managing Chesapeake Bay fisheries: Preliminary stock
assessments. Vol. II, Atlantic Croaker. University of
Maryland, UMCEES[CBL] 85-29, 148p.
Wallace, D.H. 1940. Sexual development of the croaker, Micropoaon
undulatus, and distribtuion of the early stages in Chesapeake
Bay. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 70:475-482.
Welsh W.W. , and C.M. Breder. 1923. Contributions to life'
histories of Sciaenidae of eastern United Staites coast. Bull
U.S. Bur. Fish. 39:141-201.
White, M.L., and M.E. Chittenden, Jr. 1977. Age determination,
reproduction and population dynamics of the Atlantic croaker
Micropogoniaa undulatus. U.S. Nat. Mar. Fish. Serv. Fish
Bull. 75:109-123.
Williams, J.B., T.P. smith, H.J. Speir, and s. Early. 1983. 1980
Maryland Saltwater Sportfishing Survey. Md. DNR Tidewater
Admin. TA-CRD-83-1.
Williams, J.B., H.J. Speir, S. Early, and T.P. Smith. 1982. 1979
Maryland Saltwater Sportfishing Survey. Md. DNR Tidewater
Admin. TA-CRD-82-1.
' • 25 '
-------
26
-------
Section 2. Atlantic Croaker and Spot Management
WV>, source documents for this plan, Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission Fishery Management Plans for Atlantic Croaker
?J£J£ M(?^fer 1t87a and 1987b)' White an<* Chittenden (1976), and
Joseph (1972) contain current knowledge about stock status and
anra^rTI?hdSA^0r'^lantiC croaker "* SpOt in the ^esapeake Bay
stra?lS?«^e AtiantxS c°ast- The following problems and management
strategies have been defined and serve as the basis for identifying
be i2naiman? ^l*^™' The .mana9e^nt strategies and actions will
be implemented by the jurisdictions to protect Atlantic croaker and
SS harvS ^ ^ ChesaPeake Bav' Existing regulations regardfng
S® har7®st ?f thefe species will continue to be enforced except
where otherwise indicated by the plan. ^<-«FV-
A. GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
The goal of this plan is to:
Protect the Atlantic croaker and spot resource in the
nrSvTd?Se^ay/ ^f't^taries, and coastal waters, while
Sooli? SL^ gr/ates^ ^onc-f term ecological, economic, and
social benefits from their usage over time.
In order to achieve the goal, .the following objectives must.be met:
1) Follow the guidelines established by the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) for coastwide management
SJ™Se A a^1C croaker and sPot stocks and make Bay
management actions compatible where possible.
2) Maintain Atlantic croaker and spot spawning stocks at a size
which minimizes the possibility of recruitment failure and
determine the effects of environmental factors on year class
strength .
3) Pjomote harvesting practices which minimize waste and maximize
the biological and economic return from the resources
especially in non-directed fisheries.
4) Promote studies to improve the understanding of economic
' biolo?ical aspects of the commercial and
reGlnn ,1
recreational fisheries.
5)
Continue to provide guidance for the development of water
quality goals and habitat protection necessary to protect
Atlantic croaker and spot populations within the Bay and
27
-------
B. PROBLEM AREAS AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Problem 1 - Stock Status: The most recent peak in Atlantic croaker
landings occurred in 1977 and 1978 and were only about half of the
historical peaks. Although effort data is lacking, the decline in
catch most likely represents a - real decrease in abundance.
Fluctuations in croaker landings and decreasing abundance may be
related to changes in population structure, the influence of
environmental factors on the spawning grounds, changes in fishing
effort, and the degradation of estuarine habitats.
Spot landings have been highly variable from year-to-year.
These annual fluctuations have been attributed to spot's short life
span and climatic factors on the spawning grounds. Increasing
fishing effort and habitat degradation could lead to declines in
spot abundance.
Currently, croaker and spot are not reaching their maximum
potential in size before being harvested by the fishery. Both are
migratory species along the Atlantic coast which necessitates
cooperative interstate management to insure that they are
adequately protected during all phases of their life history.
Strategy 1 - Stock Status: The jurisdictions will continue to
monitor the Atlantic croaker and spot populations in the Bay. Since
both species are migratory, interstate coordination will be
emphasized. Increases in yield per recruit will be promoted.
Problem 1.1
Annual abundance of Atlantic croaker and spot stocks is highly
dependent on environmental conditions during the spawning
season. Fishing generally affects one year class and yield per
recruit has not been maximized in the fisheries.
Strategy 1.1
The Bay jurisdictions will continue to monitor the
Atlantic croaker and spot stocks and cooperate with the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to manage the
stocks through interjurisdictional management measures.
Action 1.1
Maryland, the Potomac River Fisheries Commission,
and Virginia will continue to participate in
scientific and technical meetings for managing
Atlantic croaker and spot along the Atlantic coast
and in estuarine waters.
Implementation 1.1
Continue
28
-------
Strategy 1.2
The jurisdictions will promote increases in yield per
recruit for the Atlantic croaker and spot fisheries.
Action 1.2.1
A) Maryland and the Potomac River Fisheries
Commission will continue their 10 inch minimum size
for Atlantic croaker.
B) Virginia will implement a minimum size limit for
Atlantic croaker if suggested by length-frequency
analyses currently being conducted by the Virginia
Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) and Old Dominion
University (ODU).
Implementation 1.2.1
A) Continue B) 1993
Action 1.2.2
The jurisdictions will evaluate the need for
implementing a minimum size limit for spot.
Implementation 1.2.2
1992
Problem 2 - Harvest of Small Croaker and Spot: The incidental
bycatch and discard mortality of small croaker and spot in non-
directed fisheries such as the southern shrimp fishery and the
scrap catch from pound net, long haul seine, arid trawl fisheries
are substantial and have the potential to significantly impact
croaker and spot stocks. The magnitude of bycatch in the Chesapeake
Bay fisheries and the impact of Atlantic coast bycatch on
Chesapeake Bay populations have not been determined.
Strategy 2 - Harvest of Small Croaker and Spot: The jurisdictions
will promote the use of trawl efficiency devices (TEDs) and bycatch
reduction devices (BRDs) and investigate other means to reduce the
catch of small croaker and spot in non-directed and directed
fisheries.
Problem 2.1
The magnitude of the scrap catch, incidental bycatch and
discard mortality of small croaker and spot has not been
determined but may significantly impact croaker and spot
stocks. ' , •
Strategy 2.1
The jurisdictions will reduce the harvest of small
croaker .and spot in the directed and non-directed
fisheries.
29
-------
Action 2.1.1
A) Through the ASMFC, the jurisdictions will
promote the development and use of trawl efficiency
devices (TEDs) in the southern shrimp fishery and
promote the use of bycatch reduction devices (BRDs)
in the finfish trawl fishery.
B) Virginia will continue its prohibition on
trawling in State waters. Virginia will maintain
its 2-7/8'.' minimum mesh size for gill nets.
C) Maryland will continue its 4-6" gill net
restriction during June 15 through September 30 and
implement a 3" minimum mesh size along the coast.
D) The PRFC will continue its prohibition on gill
net fishing during the summer.
Implementation 2.1.1
A) Continue B) Continue C) 1992 D) Continue
Action 2.1.2
The jurisdictions will investigate the magnitude of
the bycatch problem and consider implementing
bycatch restrictions for the non-directed fisheries
in the Bay.
Implementation 2.1.2
1992
Problem 3 - Research and Monitoring Needs: There is a lack of stock
assessment data for both the Atlantic croaker and spot stocks in
the Chesapeake Bay. Information on recruitment, age, size and sex
composition of the stocks and how they vary with time and space is
needed. Assessing the migratory patterns and the extent of stock
mixing for both croaker and spot are integral factors in
determining appropriate coastal management recommendations.
Improved catch and effort data are needed from the recreational and
commercial fisheries to assess the impact of fishing activities on
the croaker and spot stocks. The socioeconomic profile on Atlantic
croaker should be updated and a socioeconomic profile on spot
should be undertaken.
Strategy 3 - Research and Monitoring Needs: In order to identify
necessary management measures, a program of research and data
collection will be pursued for Atlantic croaker and spot.
Problem 3.1,
There is a lack of stock assessment data and socioeconomic
information for both the Atlantic croaker and spot stocks in
the Chesapeake Bay and along the Atlantic coast.
30
-------
Strategy 3.1
The jurisdictions will promote research on the biology
and socioeconomic factors that affect the croaker and
spot stocks in the Chesapeake Bay. Research topics that
need consideration include: the effects of coastal
fishing on croaker and spot abundance in the Bay; the
determination of migratory patterns through tagging
studies; the monitoring of. long-term changes in
abundance; the size and age structure of croaker and spot
populations within the Bay; and monitoring juvenile
abundance to establish a reliable index of year-class
strength.
Action 3.1
The Virginia Marine Resources Commission's stock
assessment program will continue to analyze size
and sex data from Atlantic croaker and spot
collected from the Virginia commercial fisheries.
Implementation 3.1
Continue
Action 3.2
A) Maryland and the Potomac River Fisheries
Commission will encourage research to collect data
on croaker and spot biology, especially estimates
of population abundance, recruitment, and
reproductive biology.
B) Virginia will continue to fund . its stock
assessment research conducted by VIMS and ODU,
specifically designed to provide estimates of
population abundance, recruitment, and reproductive
biology.
Implementation 3.2
A) Continue B) Continue
Problem 4 - Habitat and Water Quality issues: Adult spawning and
larval distribution along the continental shelf, and juvenile over-
wintering within the Chesapeake Bay have been identified as key
periods of environmental vulnerability. Habitat alterations within
the Bay damage croaker and spot stocks since they are used as
nursery grounds. Low dissolved oxygen can affect croaker and spot
distribution by limiting their prey distribution. It also affects
their distribution through behavioral avoidance of areas with
stressful dissolved oxygen concentrations.
Strategy 4 - Habitat and Water Quality Issues: The jurisdictions
J^J^.0?ntinue their efforts to'improve water quality and define
habitat requirements for the living resources in Chesapeake Bay.
31 !
-------
Problem 4.1
Habitat alteration and water quality impact the distribution
and abundance of finfish species in the Chesapeake Bay.
Strategy 4.1
The District of Columbia, Environmental Protection
Agency, Maryland, Pennsylvania, the .Potomac River
Fisheries Commission, and Virginia will continue to
promote the commitments of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay
Agreement. The achievement of the Bay commitments will
lead to improved water quality and enhanced biological
production.
Action 4.1
The jurisdictions will continue to set specific
objectives for water quality goals and review
management programs established under the 1987
Chesapeake Bay Agreement. The Agreement and
documents developed pursuant to the Agreement call
for:
A) Developing habitat requirements and water
quality goals for various finfish species.
B) Developing and adopting basinwide nutrient
reduction strategies.
C) Developing and adopting basinwide plans for
the reduction and control of toxic substances.
D) Developing and adopting basinwide management
measures for conventional pollutants entering
the Bay from point and nonpoint sources.
E) Quantifying the impacts and identifying the
sources of atmospheric inputs on the Bay
system.
F) Developing management strategies to protect
and restore wetlands and submerged aquatic
vegetation.
G) Managing population growth to minimize adverse
impacts to the Bay environment.
Implementation 4.1
Continue
32
-------
*
z
a
HH
1-
CE
LU
LU
Q.
Z
Z
CE
a.
i—
>- LU
tl-IKt tJM
MRNRGEM
i
L
E 1-
T a
j
a
CE
a
LU
i;
CE
O
3
CJ
HH
RTLRNT
j
*
in
LU
o
s
1-
LU
O
CJ
LL «•
• LL W
Q CE
Q 1— L.
a: in o
a
o
LU I
CD LU
HH ^"
in
Z cB
o
CL >
in cj
LU "Z.
CD
CE
LU
1—
CE
o
o
t— 1
CJ
CE
T~
LU
_l CE
m LU
O DC
fy fj-
Cu
TD
c
ID
1
0)
0; -Y
^ ID
• H 0
-P \.
ID Ci
0) U-
Q. 0
•rt -U
in (b
•H 6
0)
E cn
0 ID
•* E
-P ID
£S
•H i— 1
-D 3
L U- .
o in in
o in .Y
- o ID o
0 0
f-t 0 -P
ID 3 in
-p in
in .P
ID L 0
ODD.
0 ^ in
CE
CE CE CE
CJ ' ' '
z:ifc?£
in a a: z:
CE z: Q. :>
0)
•i-i
1 1
o
o
"E
•IH
11
-U
l~
• H ID
U U
'r* -rl
-P E
ID "6
CL Hi
-P
-3-D
U ID
D
E O
•rt -H t
-P <4- in
E -H cn
0 -P E
CJ E •*
H
in E
31 •-<
<-< E
ID
E -P
ID E
-P CT*
E 'H
o
CJ
Hi
3 ,
E L. E
•H OJ 3
-4-1 _V E
E ID -H
DOE
U L. •«
L) E
i— i
•-< E ID
' •*« O
OJ CU
CJ N -D
LL ••-< -H
o: in in
a. E
E O
aB 3 0
Q -H ^H
z: E -H
•IH *f-l
' -H E 3 .
I dl
OJ = • N
• D CE -H
*-i ~ :> m
CJ
LL
z: •
in (u i
CE "D m — i
g -D a
5 £ • rt n
SEE
L C L in
T| **- OJIO; OE 3
2 ID cj in i. a. •* z:
QC CK QC Q/ ^ ^
afaTo: CE CE CE" CE'CE'CE" CE
i i i i i i iii ,
Q: u u a: u a Q: u u cj
§fei g^i ii! | .
__z:cL3>z:Q.^ zrct^ §
• —— — — — — — "• — — — • B« _. _« _. w_ _ ^ _ —
dj CU Q.
s2 E s
0> *H • rH - n\ 1^
^ o o 2 • "c
CJ' CJ (j
31 0) E .
I-H i C C -tJ n en
^^ -*J Qj IA -rH /D £ .JJ llJ P fl C?
, ^ Q • S i_ jj jj T r^ HI i * c ift
3 Q. O O C l/l £ 7" C Qj ^} 3 JD 1/1 flj "D
itl VI *H -p o *IH £ -^ ^ 0 C '^ *^< C
C k. Iw t*- L. *H *M Ifl i—i T o m n .2 n n
o o o fljflji PC «H i/( i r (i in r* P m
-(J 'M|(lJl>C3j*'ii< CT* L ^JQ-fH-iH ig
U"D4^ 31ft «iH34Js C(UD -*•) L Q- 0^
D ^ (U -4J IT! (J (L) D l/l O -ul uJ c^ l_ fli S ^
. ^_ - j «i « «y-t t t j i J~ r* M | ^ |7 f^ j^ J" "^ VJ
JCC L »— t -in (D N C -4-1 »^ C^WI Olft
GD AjfnQiAiAfj , rt ^ t rj t s ._ ^ j^
C\l L S *-*ULLL L -H OJ-H(JC ^^ -¥ ^
f\J ri ^ f" . ^ ^^Jj in t in ip . ~ - y *u
•"•tie CM "D -n ^J 3 g 3 L Q. O (MEID-P mind
L
C4-^ R1
O ID 5
0 J3 [|
1* Q. rti .,_(
> •— f in cD c
L ^ in o
ry fy ^ fl. g
-ESC Q^
In uJ ^3
_* i C
f\J fO 03
U
C
01
• H
,y
in w
(b (b
^ ti 'o .5
cn z;
in in ID 31
*• (u w _L) Ct_
1! 0 -H 0 E L. Ol
OJ4J in E 0 (Li-P
^ .» V " -rt > 3
i E in a/ 4J •* -P
(U ^ > E U E -t
\ -SJIS -| Z cl
jt ID > 0 KI
I (1) [Jl-P • >H -P E HJ
in E •-< in -o ID E -H -H
jb £ 3 ID L LOEE
L, 13 -rt o -p -rt o -H
! ET3OO in-PQOl
f""* 3 (U E Cf *IH flD k-
ID t^ -P ID E ""^ "D 'H
E ID C71 in >H ^ f-H ^
O(DE OZ:Q.CL^ EO o
" 0 g -H 3
QilD C)_ -p dJ (j OLD
|D Oj (D .M-rt E -rt 4J £J fll M
L3in Oi-id) JDE -EOJ
3E(D (DIDL EIDJZinC^
O tf^ L. CL 3 *H 3 £ in "rt
U-P inCT3 *— i -P -FH li fli
EE-P D" 0 V. U. C
(U O C -U L Cu CJ ID L-I-I
Utt) fl)(LL Q. Q V L.
, —• E in-P (t- ID -H > Q
'-"'-'in. ID-4-1 OOE-HZZ
• •HI— tin O3ID IDC£
•3 -H (Jj ^J^j -PT3> ID
, 3 I/) L -H (j E -H U -H
CJ in Cu 0 J3 -HID31IDE
:LLCEID 3t4-(D L^mE-n
^^.. C,,-C -P31EOO1
CLJii '^W WLE^IL.
i U -4-1 (D T) -i-i ID (D 0 'H
•fiR S>£ QZ:Q-CL3>
U ^J o **^ iD
Q L. (ft CJ -P 11 11 11 II II
fl TI
uJ U Oj »~H J^ O^ LJ CJ
fl I. t4- it-'ocn QZ:Q.CL§
in
(D "^
! . 3 E
in (D
"ID L -H J1
•p ii t
•i !fl "m -p1
I 3^
•^ m
• E 3
^* 'D ^r
-------
------- |