Chesapeake Executive Council
           Chesapeake Bay
              American Eel
 Fishery Management Plan
      Agreement Commitment Report
                         1991
Chesapeake Bay Program
                        i Printed on recycled paper

-------

-------
        Chesapeake Bay
          American Eel
  Fishery Management Plan
           Chesapeake Bay Program
     Agreement Commitment Report 1991
    Produced under contract to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
              Contract No. 68-WO-0043
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program

-------

-------
                           ADOPTION STATEMENT
        We, the undersigned, adopt the Chesapeake Bay American Eel Fishery Management Plan in
  partial fulfillment of Living Resources Commitment Number 4 of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agree-
  ment:

                     . by July to develop, adopt, and begin to implement a Bay-
            wide management plan of oysters, blue crabs, and American Shad.
            Plans for the other major commercially, recreationally and ecologi-
            cally valuable species should be initiated by 1990."

        The American Eel was designated a valuable species in the Schedule for Developing Baywide
 Resource Management Strategies. In 1991, the American Eel plan was completed.

        We agree to accept the plan as a guide to managing the American Eel stock in the Chesapeake Bay
 and its tributaries for optimum ecological, social and economic benefits. We further agree to worktogether
 to implement, by the dates set forth in the plan, management actions recommended to monitor the status
 of the stocks, obtain catch and effort information from the bait fishery, address research and monitoring
 needs, and develop the habitat and water quality criteria necessary for healthy American Eel populations.

        We recognize the need to commit long-term, stable, financial support and human resources to the
 task of managing the American Eel stock. In addition, we direct the Living Resources Subcommittee to
 periodically review and update the plan and report on progress made in achieving the plan's management
 recommendations.
                                       Date
December 18, 1992
 For the Commonwealth of Virginia

 For the State of Maryland

 For the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

 For the United States of America

For the District of Columbia

For the Chesapeake Bay Commission

-------

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 	; • •	   1:L

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  	;• • •	  11;L

INTRODUCTION	/	   V1

SECTION 1. Biological Background	• •	     ^
     Life History	
     Biological Profile	
     The Fishery	
     Fishery  Parameters	   j-"
     Economic Perspective	• • • •	   I"0
     Resource Status	   |
     Habitat  Issues	   ^
     FMP Status  and Management Unit	-	   |^
     Laws and Regulations	•	   ^
     Status of Traditional Fishery Management Approaches	   16
     Data and Analytical Needs	   j-7
     References	
                                                !               fy -I
 SECTION 2 . American Eel Management	   ~
     A.  Goal  and Objectives	.	• • •	
     B.  Problem  Areas and Management Strategies..	
           1.  stock Status	    21
           2 .  American Eel Bait Fishery	    23
           3 .  Research Needs	    23
           4.  .Habitat and Water Quality Issues.	    24


 APPENDIX:  American Eel Implementation Matrix		    27


                              Figures

 1.  Estimated range of eel harvest used for bait by
     Maryland trotliners	•	     ~
 2.  Estimated total eel harvest from Maryland	     °
 3.  Reported commercial landings  of American eel from
     the Chesapeake Bay	• • :	• •, • • •	' •
 4.  Maryland commercial landings  and dockside value of
     American eels	
 .5.  Virginia commerical landings  and dockside value of
     American eels	

-------
                          ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
          ^sapeake Bay American Eel Management Plan was developed
          M dlr1ect-Lon of the Fisheries  Management Workgroup?  stiff
          Ma+r.Yland .DePartment of Natural Resources (MDN!) , Tidewater
      »    ««°n' F.lsheries Division were responsible for writing the
 plan and addressing  comments on the draft versions.  Support  was

 ?V^cf   FiLIrt" M^ the Vir?inia  Ma^ine Resources  SoSSiL™
 (VMRC) ,  Fisheries Management  Division.  Contributing  MDNR  staff

       Rov Tn2LvUtrSki t^ HarleY  Spelr- ™*c staff iLluded Savfd
         Y  nsley' Sonya Knur, and Ellen  Smoller. Thanks  are due to
                                   TSTS-
 Members of the Fisheries Management Workgroup were:
 Mr.
 Mr.
 Mr.
 Mr.
 Mr.
 Mr.
 Dr.
 Ms.
 Mr.
 Dr.
 Mr.
 Dr.
 Dr.
 Dr.
 Mr.
 Mr.
 Mr.
 Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
 Mark Bundy,  STAC Economic Advisory Group

 ?:^;v.CarfenSef',Potoinac River Fisheries Commission
 Jeffrey S.  Eutsler,  Maryland Waterman
 William Goldsborough,  Chesapeake Bay Foundation
 J.  W.  Gunther,  Jr.,  Virginia Waterman
 Robert Hesser,  Pennsylvania Fish Commission
 ??^ rdwH°?de/ UMCEES/Chesapeake Biological Laboratory
 Linda  Hurley, USFWS  Bay Program

 R*  ?JS?^enSen'  Sh^ir'  MD DePartme*it °f Natural Resources
 R.  Jesien, Horn Point  Environmental  Lab
 J.  Claiborne Jones,  Chesapeake Bay Commission

 SnLSa?da/ MDNR/  CheaPeake Bay Research and  Monitoring
 CnSSc, L3;PPfon'  NOAA/National  Marine Fisheries  Servic^
 Charles  F. Lovell, Jr.,  M.D.,  Virginia
Simns,
                            ^
                Watermen's Association
Marv Rorw^vfad'^i^ginfa Marine Reso^ces Commission
Mary Roe Walkup, Citizen's Advisory Committee
                                ii

-------
                        EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction                                    i

     One of the strategies  for  implementing the Living Resources
Commitments of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement is to develop and
adopt a  series of  baywide fishery  management plans  (FMPs)  for
commercially, recreationally, and selected ecologically valuable
species.   The  FMPs  are to be implemented  by the  Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania,  Commonwealth of  Virginia,  District of  Columbia,
Potomac  River Fisheries  Commission, and  State  of Maryland  as
appropriate.  Under a timetable adopted for completing management
plans for  several  important  species,  the American eel  FMP was
scheduled for completion in December 1991.

     A comprehensive approach to managing Chesapeake Bay fisheries
is  needed  because  biological,  physical,   economic,  and social
aspects of the fisheries are shared among the Bay's jurisdictions.
The Chesapeake Bay Program's Living Resources Subcommittee formed
a Fisheries Management Workgroup  to address the commitment in the
Bay Agreement for comprehensive, baywide  fishery management plans.
The workgroup is composed of members  from government agencies, the
academic  community, the  fishing  industry,  and  public  interest
groups   representing   the  District   of    Columbia,   Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the federal government.


Development of Fishery Management Plans         '

     An FMP prepared under the 1987 Chesapeake Bay  Agreement serves
as a framework for  conserving and wisely using  a  fishery  resource
of the Bay.   Each  management plan  contains a summary of the fishery
under consideration, a discussion of problems and  issues that have
arisen, and recommended management actions.  An implementation plan
is included at the end of the FMP  to  provide additional  details on
the  actions that participating jurisdictions will take  and the
mechanisms  for taking*these actions.                       •  *

     Development of a fishery management plan is a  dynamic  process.
The  process starts with  initial  input by  the Fishery Management
Workgroup,  is followed  by public and  scientific  review of the
management  proposals,  and then  by endorsement by the appropriate
Chesapeake  Bay Program committees. A management  plan is adopted
when  it  is  signed by  the Chesapeake  Bay  Program's  Executive
Committee.  In some cases, regulatory and  legislative action will
have  to be  initiated,  while in  others,  additional  funding and
staffing may be  required to fully implement a  management action.
A periodic  review of each FMP is conducted under the auspices of
the Bay Program's Living Resources Subcommittee, to incorporate new
information and to  update management strategies as needed.
                                111

-------
Goal of the American  Eel Management Plan

     The goal of the Chesapeake Bay American Eel Management Plan is
to^manage  the  American eel harvest in the Chesapeake Bay  and  its
tributaries  so  that harvest  does not  exceed  the reproductive
capacity of the population to maintain its size from year  to year.
With this  goal,  optimum biological, economic,  and social  benefits
will be attained.

     In order  to meet this goal, a number of objectives must  be
met. These objectives are  incorporated into the problem areas  and
management strategies discussed below.


Problem Areas  and Management Strategies

Problem 1: Stock Status.  The  status of the American eel  stock in
the  Chesapeake  Bay  is unclear.  Local  watermen  have   reported
catching  smaller eels  and  a   decrease  in the  number  of eels.
Biological ^data to characterize the stock is not current.  There is,
the potential  to harvest large quantities of elvers which could
impact the local eel  fishery.

Strategy   1:   Stock  Status.   The  jurisdictions  will  adopt  a
conservative approach to managing American eels  in the Bay until
stock assessment analyses have been completed. A minimum size of 6
inches will be adopted  to  protect elvers.  A baywide minimum mesh
size for eel pots will be implemented.


Problem 2: American Eel Bait Fishery.  The use  of  eels  for crab
bait, especially in the Maryland portion  of  the Chesapeake Bay,
places additional fishing pressure on  the population. The quantity
of "pencil eels" (eels larger than 6" and less than 10")  used  for
finfish bait  by recreatioanl  fishermen is unknown but  has  the
potential to increase.  The harvest  of eels for bait has  not been
completely recorded in catch  statistics. Accurate catch statistics
are necessary for assessing the status of eels in the Bay.

Strategy 2: American Eel Bait Fishery.  Catch and effort information
from the  American eel  bait  fishery is important  for  developing
management measures.  Catch and effort statistics will be improved
by adding questions about the use of eel bait to the crab survey.


Problem 3: Research Needs. Basic stock assessment data is lacking
for American eels in the Chesapeake Bay. There is a limited amount
of fishery dependent data and fishery independent data. Very little
is known about the economic value of the bait eel fishery and how
it affects harvest practices. Lack of biological and socioeconomic
information hinders effective management practices.
                                IV

-------
 Strategy 3: Research Needs. In order to increase the knowledge and
 understanding of the American eel  resource in the Chesapeake Bay,
 research projects will be promoted to address the deficiencies in
 biological  and socioeconomic  data.
 Problem 4:  Habitat and Water Quality Issues.  American eels prefer
 well-oxygenated   areas   and   anoxic  water   probably   affects
 distribution and inhibits growth. The condition of bottom sediments
 and substrates is also important since eels  are  bottom dwellers.
 Long-term exposure to pollutants and toxic substances can interfere
 with metabolic processes. American eel habitat is currently blocked
 by dams and other obstructions.

 Strategy 4 Habitat and Water Quality Issues:  The Bay jurisdictions
 will  continue  to set specific objectives for waiter  quality goals
 and  review  management  programs   established   under  the  1987
 Chesapeake   Bay  Agreement.     Efforts   include  identifying  and
 controlling nutrients, toxic materials, conventional pollutants,
 and atmospheric inputs; protecting wetlands and submerged aquatic
 vegetation;  and  managing  population  growth.  In  addition,  the
.jurisdictions  have  committed to  providing  upstream access  for
 migratory fishes.

-------
                           INTRODUCTION

HANAGEMENT  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
priority  species was formulated,  with a timetable for completing
fishery management plans  as  follows:

0  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
0  Spanish and king mackerel, tautog,  black sea bass and freshwater
   catfish by  1993.

     A comprehensive and coordinated  approach by the various local,
state and federal groups in the Chesapeake Bay watershed is central
to successful fishery management.  Bay fisheries are  traditionally
managed   separately  by   Pennsylvania,  Maryland,  Virginia,  the
District  of Columbia, and the  Potomac River Fisheries Commission.
There is  also a federal Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management  Council,
which has management jurisdiction for  offshore  fisheries (3-200
miles), and a coastwide organization,  the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission  (ASMFC),  which  coordinates the management  of
migratory  species in  state  waters  (internal  waters to  3 miles
offshore) from Maine to Florida. The state/federal Chesapeake Bay
Stock Assessment Committee (CBSAC)  is responsible  for developing a
Baywide  Stock  Assessment Plan,  which  includes   collection  and
analysis  of  fisheries information,  but  does not   include  the
development of fishery management plans.

     ^Consequently,  a Fisheries Management Workgroup, under  the
auspices  of  the  Chesapeake  Bay  Program's  Living  Resources
Subcommittee,  was formed  to address the  commitment in  the  Bay
Agreement  for baywide  fishery management  plans. The  Fisheries
Management  Workgroup   is  responsible   for  developing   fishery
management plans with a broad-based view. The workgroup's members
represent  fishery  management  agencies  from  the  District  of
Columbia,  Maryland,  Pennsylvania,  the  Potomac   River  Fisheries
Commission, Virginia,  and the federal  government;  the  Bay  area
academic community; the fishing industry; conservation groups; and
interested citizens. Establishing  Chesapeake Bay FMPs, in addition
to coastal FMPs, creates a forum to specifically address problems
that are unique  to the Chesapeake Bay. They also serve as the basis
for implementing regulations in the Bay jurisdictions.
                               VI

-------
   WHAT IS A FISHERY MANAGEMENT  PLAN?
   management actions  that  need  To  ^
   ».,-,„. ,„  ,«„„„«•;«, S, S
                                          plan       es .
  most currant  information  on th»?e2 in °rder to respond to  the

  management plan be  ada^ive anf ll"  th±S  «r,^ ^ •  .
          eex tisnery and fishery parameters;


0 economic perspective ;
                                                              on
                              Vll

-------
° resource  status;
0 habitat issues;
°FMP status and management unit;
o current laws and regulations in the Chesapeake Bay; and
°data and analytical needs.
      The background  information  is
                                -
 document  entitled '
                          nd ij suPPle^e management plan provides
                                              ormation for each of
                                        e manag
                           b^si^iological  information for each of
the species
      pece.
      Ihe  management  section  of.  the  plan,  which  follows  the
 background, defines:
 othe goal and objectives for management of the species;

 0 problem areas
 o
  LJ J_ vji^ •*• *-"*»*• *•*«•• i^- — — .
  management strategies to address each problem area; and

 o action items, with  a  schedule for  implementation,  by  the
   appropriate management agency.
                                                    for adoption.
        Dpcn adoption  by the  ^ecutive  Committee  th^appropr.ate
   management agencies  IjPl^* tSe Natural Resource' article giving
   legislature approved §4-215^ofthe »«       authority to regulate
   the Maryland Department °^»tu,r?i|2J by regulation. In Virginia,
   a fishery once a FMP has b€*" ad°]?tedJ1 y   g  lslatlve changes or
   FMP recommendations  are pursued  J"n% ?ucte| by the Commission.
   trough a public  regulatory process <%££&  Vy      Fisheries
   Ln^fnt^o^^VtoTntorrorate new information and to update
   management strategies as needed.
                                  Vlll

-------
                  Section 1. Biological Background
 Life History
      *he American eel (Anguilla rostrata) , also known as the common
      ejhWater eel, can be found in a variety of  habitats across  an
 o  ni-ge0graP ^ rvfnge' .It: ProbablY has  the  broadest diversity
 of habitats of any fish species in the world (Helfman et al.  1987)
 American  eels  occur in freshwater rivers  and  lakes,  estuaries,"
 coastal areas  and open ocean  from the  southern tip of Greenland
 ^ g *£? entire coast  of North America, into the Gulf of MexiSo
 AvviriQ^  T %t?S ™rtheastern portion of South America (Van Den
 Avyle 1984). In the Chesapeake Bay, American eels can  be found  in
 ScSroeder   m      ^  tributaries and streams  (Hildebrand an"S
           ;fnefai  ,llfe  historY Pattern  of  the  American  eel is
 soend   ™«i n0tffU-\lY ^rstood. It is a  catadromous species, that
 spends  most  of  its life  in  rivers,  lakes  and  estuaries,  but
 migrates  to  the  ocean  to  spawn.  Prior  to beginning  a  fall
 SSnS  ?n' matur1™? eelf undergo a metamorphosis which includes a
 enaa?Lin J010/'  fattening of the body  and thickening of  the skin?
 ?5™ gr?   ? °n  fc?e SyeS' -and degeneration  of the digestive trac4
 (Van Den  Avyle 1984) .  Migrating  adult  eels  are referred  to as
 meI?Lnee\S  ^.^f118  °f  their *^™^™  are nof well knowS
 (Helfman et al. 1987).  Spawning has never been directly observed
 but based on larval distribution,  it is  believed to  occur during
 sou^roanBeSnHin? ^ .the Sar^asso Sea (east of the  Bahamas  Jnd
 ?« o?    Bermuda) at temperatures  between 22 and  25 °C  (72-77 °F)
 (McCleave et  al .  1987).  Fecundity,  the  number of eggs per female
 suaaeststA          ,                     '   urren   evc
 suggests  that American eels spawn only once and then die. Results
 from genetic  studies indicate  very  little  variation  in  eel
 P°^i^102S  th.rou5hout  their geographic  range  and support  the
 concept of a  single,  randomly breeding population (Helfman 1987).

 *iff The  larval  form or  leptocephalus stage  of the  eel is  so
 different from the adult that it took over forty years to discover
     eTrS    I Between it  and the adult form/ The  leptocephalSs
       (? hajactenzed  by  a  ribbon-like  transparent  body  form)
       th1Sc, %?°r °ne Yttr bUt maY be longer ^pending on latitude
       this  time, growth occurs and  the larvae are dispersed  by
 s     c!£rents-.0nce they reach  a certain size and  physiological
 state  they begin to metamorphose. The  modifications in body  form
 hSadU?^a -redUCtl°n in fize and weight,  changes in the shape of the
 head and  Daw,  and accelerated development of the  digestive system
 (Van Den Avyle 1984).  After these  changes occur,  the larvae wouJS
 be recognized  as a "typical" eel  except that it is unpigmen^rand
     °r.LeS.S  transparent.  Eels  at this stage  are  called  "glaSs
          mi9rate toward  freshwater.  The mechanisms that  trigger
          towards land and freshwater are not well understood
Migration may  involve active  swimming, selective  tidal-stream

-------
transport, and transport by Gulf Stream intrusions and long-shore
currents (Kleckner and McCleave 1985;  Williams and Koehn 1984). As
glass eels move into coastal areas, pigmentation develops and 'the
body becomes uniformly dark brown.  At  this point, metamorphosis is
complete and the eel is now called  an  elver  (Van Den Avyle 1984).

     Elvers generally move into estuarine and freshwater habitats
in late winter and early spring.  They usually  appear in the Bay
area  during April  and  the run  can last a  few days  or  a month
(Schwartz  1961 as  cited by  Mowrer  1979).  Young eels  assume a
nocturnal  lifestyle,  active at  night and resting  in deep water
during the day. Typically,  elvers are smaller and arrive earlier in
southern  areas along the coast. Movement upstream appears to be
affected  by tidal  action  and currents  (Fahay  1978). Elvers can
range  in size from 46  mm  (1.8")  to 127  mm  (5»)   (Bigelow and
Schroeder  1953) .  In the Chesapeake Bay, an  eel  less than 152 mm
(6")  is  generally referred  to as  an  elver.  When  elvers  stop
migrating, they undergo a period of growth and differentiation and
are then known as  yellow eels.

     The  yellow eel stage  (also referred to as  the juvenile or
subadult  stage)  can last from 8 to 24 years. Growth  rates during
this time are  highly variable and there is considerable overlap in
length, weight,  and age. Predicting age from size  is, therefore,
not  reliable  (Van Den Avyle  1984) . Growth  rates  for eels in the
upper Chesapeake Bay appear to differ by sex and age.  Estimates of
eel  growth rates  from the  South  Altahama River, Georgia, based on
seasonal  and long-term recapture methodology, were 57 and 62  mm/yr
 (Helfman  et al. 1984). The yellow eel stage is highly mobile which
accounts  for  their widespread distribution  (Williams and  Koehn
1984). Studies suggest that eels living in river and lake habitats
have long  distant seasonal movements and  relatively large  home
ranges  (Gunning and Shoop 1962). Estuarine eels are more  sedentary
with little evidence of  seasonal movements and smaller home ranges
 (Helfman  et al. 1983).  Tag return data  from  the  upper Chesapeake
Bay support the concept of limited movement and discrete eel sub-
populations within tributaries  (Foster and Brody 1981). There have
been conflicting reports on habitat preference by sex with females
preferring freshwater and males preferring  brackish water.  Foster
and Brody (1982)  found  female eels in estuarine  areas in  the Bay
and male eels in freshwater.

      Prior to migrating to  the  sea,  the yellow eel  changes to  a
 silver or bronze  eel,  the final stage in its  life  history.  This
 stage generally lasts for one year and sexual maturity is  reached
 during this time.  Since sexual maturity depends to some  extent on
 size,  the variation  in -maximum  and  minimum lengths  makes  it
 difficult to  state the  age or length at which  an eel will mature
 (Moriarty 1987). However, there appears to  be  a  general trend in
 age and size at maturity with location.  Eels  are older and reach a
 larger size at maturity in northern locations.  Age at maturity
 for female eels from the Chesapeake Bay has  been estimated at 10 to

-------
12 years  at  a minimum size  of 470 mm  (18.5")  i(Foster and Brody
1982) .

     The American eel feeds mostly at night. In the Chesapeake Bay,
crustaceans,  bivalves and polychaetes make up the majority of their
diet.  Food  analyses  suggest  that the  eel may  be  a  significant
predator on blue crabs (Wenner and Musick 1975). Anguillid eels are
considered dietary  generalists,  eating  a broad diversity of food
items,  limited only by the availability of a particular  food item
(Tesch 1977). Leptocephali,  glass  eels,  elvers, and small yellow
eels are consumed by  a variety of predatory fish. Larger eels are
eaten by other species of eels and a number of  bird species (Sinha
and Jones 1967).                                ;
Biological Profile

Natural mortality rate;

Fecundity:

Longevity;
Currently unknown,.

10 to 20 million eggs per female
Up to 25 years.
Spawning and Larval Development

Spawning season:
Spawning area:
Spawning  location:
 Salinity:

 Temperature:

 Elvers

 Location:




 Salinity:

 Dissolved  Oxygen:
Not known  with certainty,  probably
winter and spring.

Warm side of a thermal front in the
Sargasso Sea (23-26°N, 69-74°W).

Spawning probably teikes place above
the thermocline  at depths  of less
than  350  m. Leptocephali  occur in
ocean  waters.  Glass  eels  occur in
offshore and coastal waters.

35 ppt.

22-25°C (72-77-F).
At  sizes  less than  150  mm (6") in
length, generally in shallow, near-
shore waters; larger individuals in
deeper waters.

0-35 ppt.

Greater than  2.5 ppin.

-------
 Juveniles

 Location:


 Salinity:

 Dissolved oxygen:

 Adults

 Location:




 Salinity:

 Dissolved Oxygen:
Fresh, estuarine and marine waters.
Apparently prefer vegetated areas.

0-35 ppt.

Greater than 2.5 ppm.
Initially  in  fresh,  estuarine  or
marine waters;  as  sexual  maturity
progresses,  migratory activity  to
offshore spawning waters begins.

0-35 ppt.

Greater than 2.5 ppm.
The Fishery

     There  are  two  distinct industries  for  eel,  the  crab  trotline
bait market in which 0.5 -  1.0"  (1.3  - 2.5 cm) diameter eels  of
approximately  10  -  14"  (25.5 -35.5 cm)  lengths are  used, and the
live-eel  market where  eels of at  least  13"  (33  cm)  length are
preferred for export. Traditionally in  the  Chesapeake Bay region,
smaller eels were salted  for crab trotline  bait and, secondarily,
marketed  for local consumption (Foster and Brody 1981). Presently,
the use of  eels for crab trotline bait widely  occurs in  Maryland
waters. In Virginia, the number of eels used for crab bait  is small
and mostly  used by the recreational  crabber.  The number of eels
harvested for  crab  bait in the Chesapeake  Bay  is unknown and
generally goes  unreported.  An attempt has been made to calculate
the harvest of eels used for bait from the Maryland portion of the
Bay  (Krauthamer,  unpubl.  manuscript).  Estimates  of  annual  eel
harvest were based on the ratio of eel bait  to  trotline crab catch
and multiplied by the total annual commercial trotline crab harvest
(Figure 1) . Ratios  of  1:10  (1 pound of eel bait to 10 pounds  of
crabs  harvested,  the  high  value)  and  1:17  (mid-value)  were
determined   from  information   gathered    from   crab   fishermen
(Krauthamer, unpubl. manuscript). Since the price  of eel bait has
increased and the price of  other baits  decreased,  crab fishermen
have become more conservative with their bait usage.  A lower ratio
of 1:25 appears more reasonable for the 80's (Jim  Casey-MDNR, per
comm.). Values from the  ratio method of  estimation  increased total
eel harvest between  0.6 and 2.4  million pounds, depending on the
specific year in question (Figure 2).

     Beginning in the mid 60's, the  live-market  industry developed
when air freight transportation made it possible to export live

-------
m
«
••*
i'
»
<-*•

0)
0)
CO

(0
Q.
to
«-«•

o'
CO

o
«-«•
o
Q.
 
-------
CO
CO
«-«•

i'
(a

ar
CO
CO
CD
CL

O
3
0)
f*

o'
I
0)
-1
«<^


3
Q.
    CD
    o
   m
   CO
   CD
   Q.

   m
   
-------
eels to the European market.  Since then,  the live-eel market has
grown and  it  is from  this industry that harvest  statistics are
obtained.  In  1990,  730,000  pounds  were  harvested  from  the
Chesapeake Bay, of  which  577,000  pounds .were landed in Virginia.
These values  do  not include eels  harvested  by the crab trotline
bait fishermen who  are  not required to report. The Potomac River
Fisheries  Commission  (PRFC) requires  the reporting  of  all eels
caught from the Potomac River.  The reported commercial eel harvest
from the Chesapeake Bay has been  highly variable  (Figure 3). The
difference in reported  and estimated catch  can be illustrated by
Foster  and Brody's investigation of  the eel  fishery.  In 1980,
Maryland DNR estimated total eel catch in Maryland at approximately
1.2 million pounds, yet the reported catch from Maryland was only
322,000 pounds.

     Historically, the American eel populated the Susquehanna River
Basin from the mouth of the river to its  headwaters. Although the
size  of  the  historic  population  cannot  be determined,  the
Pennsylvania  ,Fish  Commission  (PFC)  estimates  that  over 900,000
pounds  per  year  were  taken  for  commercial  resale   and home
consumption at the  turn-of-the-century. Although eels still exist
 (PFC stocking program)  in  limited  numbers  in many basin tributaries
and the mainstem, construction of  four hydropower dams on the lower
river  in the early 1900s has blocked  nearly  350  miles, of river
habitat. Under the  Fish Passage Workgroup, a plan has  been adopted
to  provide fish passage  at dams  and  to  remove • stream  blockages
wherever necessary. This strategic plan for reestablishing American
eels throughout their historic range, especially in the Susquehanna
River basin,  is  currently in progress.

     Reported harvests  from the Chesapeake Bay up until  1980, were
based  on  National Marine Fisheries  Service   (NMFS)  statistical
 surveys which relied on  interviews from  fishhouse managers only.
This  method  of  collecting data  probably  contributes  to the
variability  in yearly harvests.  Since  1980, harvests in Virginia
have been  collected directly from  live-market eel buyers and other
 seafood buyers,  which accounts for the majority of Virginia's eel
 landings.                                    !

      In 1990, Maryland DNR began including the catch of eels  on
 their mandatory  finfish reporting forms. The harvest record should
 be  more  accurate  with this improvement  in  reporting,,however,
 obtaining accurate  catch  information on eels used for bait is still
 a problem and will  continue to hinder stock assessments of the eel
 resource in  the Chesapeake Bay.  Crab licensees are allowed to use
 up  to  50 eel  pots for personal use and are  not required to report
 their bait eel catch. The Potomac  River Fisheries Commission (PRFC)
 has had mandatory catch reporting for eels since 1964. The reports
 indicate eels are  sold for both  the  live  and bait  markets. Eel
 landings from the  Potomac have  averaged over  300,000  pounds per
 year and have ranged from 126,000  to 650,000 pounds.  Approximately
 80% of the Potomac harvest is landed in Virginia.

-------
CD
                     CD CD

                     O' CO
                        '
                        3J
                        o
                        3

                    go
                    CD  S
                    ST.
                    DD CQ
8

-------
     In the Chesapeake Bay, the eel pot is  the metjor gear type for
capturing eels and has been responsible for between 80 and 98% of
the reported  commercial  harvest since 1929. Eel  pots are baited
with  a variety  of fresh  and frozen  baits (soft  clams,  female
herring,  carp roe,  female horseshoe  crabs,  menhaden  and small
female crabs)  (Foster  and  Brody 1981). The traditional upper Bay
eel pot is cylindrical  (8 to 12" in diameter, 24-36"  long) with two
fabric  funnels  in  one  end  and  a closed,  opposite  end.  It is
constructed of wire mesh with  1/3  X 1/3",  1/2 X 1/2", or 1/2 X 1"
size meshes. The minimum size  eel  retained by each mesh size is 230
mm  (911)/  260  mm (10.2")  and 320 mm (12.6"), respectively  (Foster
and Brody 1982) . In Maryland, 1/3 X  1/3" mesh size  is  used in
approximately  15 to 20% of the eel pots with  the two other mesh
sizes  evenly divided  across  the  remaining eel pots  (Foster and
Brody 1982) . In Virginia, a square or rectangular pot (12-16" high,
18-24" long) with  1/2  X  1/2"  or 1/2 X  1" wire mesh  is more widely
used since the major portion of the catch is for live market eels.
Virginia  currently has a  1/2  X 1/2" minimum mesh size limit .and
requires  two escape panels of 1/2 X 1" mesh  in  1/2  X 1/2" mesh
pots.  Pound and fyke  nets are of minor importance in the fall,
catching  silver eels  as they migrate out  of  the Chesapeake Bay
 (Foster and  Brody  1981).                        i

      In  Virginia,  the eel pot  fishery has historically  been  a
transitional  type  of fishery.  Commercial watermen would generally
fish  a few eel pots in between other fishing seasons, particularly
in the spring and fall. During the last few years  with the  decline
of  the oyster,  shad,  and striped bass fisheries,  more  fishing
pressure  has been exerted on the eel resource. There has  been an
increase  in the  number of  fishermen targeting eels and an  increase
in the. number of pots being fished per  man. Over the last 10 years,
dockside  price for eels to the fishermen has increased at  a  rate
greater than that for  other finfish.            |.

      There is evidence that hook and line,  or recreational  fishing
 for eels existed throughout the Susquehanna River basin. Presently,
rod and reel fishing occurs in the basin on eels remaining from eel
 stocking  above  Conowingo  Dam.  Other  active fisheries are  on the
Octoraro  and Elk Creeks in Lancaster and Delaware Counties. These
 fisheries are not well documented.

      Due   to  the  vulnerability   of  elvers  to   overharvest,   a
 prohibition on the taking  of  elvers was established by Virginia  in
 1977. Waves of  elvers (eels  less  than 6"  long) enter  the  Bay and
 its tributaries in the spring,  converging at outfalls,   as  they
 migrate toward  freshwater. These  large concentrations  are easily
 harvested. In addition  to the overharvest potential  at outfalls,
 there is  the potential to  harvest  elvers for  the foreign eel
 culture market.  Harvesting large numbers of elvers could negatively
 impact the Chesapeake Bay American eel stock.

-------
             t0 mfdiuin ?ized eels are used as live bait by hook and

                   tghflng StrlP?d bSSS and C°bia- When ^riped bJss
 ba   sfnvo a          "Sage °f eels diminished.  Now  that striped
 bass stocks are recovering and limited fishing is allowed live eel



 xine rintish  fishery has been reestablished.
 Fishery Parameters


 Status of exploitation:


 Long term potential catch:


 Importance of recreational
 fishery:


 Importance of commercial
 fishery:


 Fishing mortality rates:
Unknown.


Currently unknown.


Insignificant.
Significant, becoming increasingly
important.


Currently unknown.
 Economic Perspective
      -rorto   landl,n?s. * r™ ">e Chesapeake Bay are probably
       reported,   only  a.  limited  economic  perspective  can  bi

            aSS  °n dockside ™lue.. Based on the

                 or

                   °ther finfish  sPecles-  Almost  ll of the
Resource Status



in Maryland ^llJ^ ithere WtS S°me concern abo^ the eel fishery
iL^abundant   ?* °tal comments suggested that eels were becoming
                               10

-------
'"-3
(Q
W
 a
 O
 O
 OL

 O
 0
                                                   (Q
                                                D
                                                O
                                                o
                                                    CD
                                                    O
                                                    o
l
Q
=3.
O

                                                     (Q

                                                     CO
                          11

-------
CO
D
o
o
CL
CD
C
CD
                                                       31
                                                       (Q
                                                       C
                                                       CD
                                                  8
                                                      03

                                                      O
     3
     3
>  2
3Q
CD  :JJ)"
                                                 m J=f:
                                                 CD
                        12

-------
improvement  included  the  adoption of  a  commercial  eel  fishing
license,  a  minimum  6"  size  limit,  and  a minimum mesh  size
restriction for eel pots  (Foster  and Brody 1982).  The study also
analyzed eel catch by pot  mesh size in the upper Chesapeake Bay.
With the smallest mesh size (1/3 X 1/3"),  80% of the eels were too
small for the live market  fishery. There  is a potential conflict
over optimum mesh size  for the live  market  and  the bait fishery
since each targets a  different size eel. Presently, it is unknown
if restricting the harvest of small eels will benefit the harvest
of eels in following  years.

     Overfishing  for  eels  and decreasing  size of  eels have also
been  concerns  for  the  Virginia   eel  industry.  As  a  result  of
pressure from Virginia eel fishermen  and processors,  a study on
optimum mesh size for eel  pots was conducted in 1981. Results of
this study indicated  that  61% of  the  eels  caught in pots of 1/2 X
1/2"  mesh were  below the minimum  live  market size (13  -  14"
length), and on average,  caught an eel 1.8" shorter and 1.7 ounces
lighter than the  1/2  X 1" mesh pots.  In  1990,  after a series of
meetings  with  eel  industry  representatives,  Virginia  passed a
regulation which established a 1/2 X 1/2" minimum mesh size  for eel
pots and which required  1/2 X  1"  mesh escape panels in 1/2 X 1/2"
mesh  pots.  The  purpose of  this   regulation is  to  conserve  the
Chesapeake  Bay eel  stock, to  reduce the possibility of growth
overfishing, and  to  prevent  the wastage of  small eels. A  similar
law  was passed in  North Carolina that same year. Virginia also
passed  a  regulation in  1990  which established procedures  for the
setting,  fishing, and marking  of  eel  pots.

     In 1983, the Potomac  River Fishery Commission required a  1/2
X  1/2" minimum mesh size for eel pots. In 1985, the PRFC  adopted a
1/2 X 1" minimum mesh size  to become effective in 1987. However, it
was repealed before 1987, thereby, returning  the 1/2 X 1/2"  minimum
mesh size requirement. This illustrates the difficulty in changing
traditional methods and gear  types. An investigation of the  Potomac
River  eel fishery was conducted  in the fall of 1989. Again,  the
perception of decreasing catch and smaller available eels, prompted
the  investigation. The results indicated a significant increase in
fishing pressure  during the previous five-year period, both in  the
number of fishermen  catching  eels and the average number of  eel
pots  being fished. The  average  size  of  eels  has declined which
could  be  an indication  of growth overfishing (Smoller 1989). In
growth overfishing,  fish are caught at too  small  a size to allow
realization  of growth and  yield potential.

     American  eel  populations along the Atlantic coast  appear
variable  depending on the estuary or  river  in question. Even  two
closely related  systems may differ  considerably in abundance  and
biological  characteristics.  Computer  simulations  of  larval drift
indicate  a broad,  uniform distribution  of  eels along the coast
 (Helfman  et  al.  1987).   In  many  ocean   spawning  fish  species,
environmental  factors   are  far  more  important  in  determining

                                13

-------
 survival of eggs and young than are  the number of parents. Whether
 there is a relationship  between number  of adult eel spawners and
 eventual number of  elvers that  enter Atlantic  and  Gulf  Coast
 streams  is unknown.  The  spawning  aggregation  of  eels in  the
 Atlantic is composed of eels from Greenland to South America. Even
 if one or several river specific populations within the range were
 subjected  to  intense  fishing  pressure,  it  is  unlikely  that
 reproduction would be negatively affected (recruitment overfishing)
 if the remainder of  the habitats experienced only moderate fishing
 pressure. There is  some  evidence  that total American eel harvest
 from the Canadian maritime provinces has declined due  to  local
 growth overfishing.  This situation has resulted in the development
 and  consideration  of  new  management  policies.  These  policies
 include restrictions on the number of eel  licenses,  gear and area
 restrictions,  and a closed season  (Jessop 1982). Other regions,
 including the  Chesapeake,  have also exhibited  signs of growth
 overfishing and should be investigated  further.


 Habitat Issues

      American eels are numerically  dominant  in a broad  array  of
 habitats which includes small clear streams;  large, turbid rivers;
 blackwater  swamps;   springs  and  caves;  clear and turbid,  deep and
 shallow,  vegetated and barren lakes and ponds; and fresh, brackish,
 and saltwater marshes (Helfman et al. 1987). Given this diversity
 of habitats, the eel  has relatively broad environmental tolerances.
 Eels  are  considered  a  "hardy"  species.  From  the  available
 literature,  it  appears  that eels generally prefer  well-oxygenated
 areas (Hill 1969).  Anoxic water  in the  Chesapeake Bay  probably
 affects  eel distribution and may contribute to slow  growth rates.
 Since eels are essentially bottom dwellers, the condition of bottom
 sediments and  substrates  is   important.  Migrating  elvers  seek
 shelter  in bottom areas and adult and subadult  eels,  especially  in
 northern  areas,  use  the  bottom  mud  during winter (Van Den Avyle
 1984).  It would follow that disturbances  to  the bottom  habitat,
 such as  physical alteration, chemical and metal pollution, would
 affect American  eels  in the  Bay.

      The  effects of  pollutants on  American  eels have  not  been
 extensively researched. High levels of chlordane have been found in
 eels  tested from  Back  River  and Baltimore Harbor.  These tests
 resulted  in  a health advisory to limit the consumption of  eels
 caught in these  two  areas. Toxicity  of  aquaculture chemicals has
been investigated by  Hinton and Eversole (1979)  and  results suggest
that tolerance increases  with  size and age. Permanent damage from
pollution occurs only if the pollutants produce long-term metabolic
effects  (Tesch  1977). Sewage  probably  has an adverse  effect  on
elvers migrating upriver  (Tesch  1977).
                                14

-------
     Upstream habitat in many areas of the Bay is inaccessible to
migrating eels.  In particular, young eels are impeded by structures
such  as  weirs  and  dams.  Eel  populations  could be  improved by
facilitating upstream passage (Tesch 1977).

FMP Status and Management Unit

     There is  no coastal management plan  for American eels. The
1987  Chesapeake Bay Agreement contains  a  commitment to develop,
adopt, and begin to  implement this baywide FMP for American  eels by
December 1991.

     The management unit is defined as all American eels  (Anguilla
rostrata) in Chesapeake  Bay  waters.
Laws and Regulations

Limited entry:
 Minimum size limit:



 Creel limit:



 Harvest quotas:


 By-catch restrictions:


 Season:

 Gear/Area restrictions:
Maryland's Delay of Application Process,
which went into effect September 1, 1989,
requires previously unlicensed applicants
to wait two years after registering with
MDNR before a license to harvest finfish
with  commercial fishing  gears will  be
issued.

Limited or delayed entry is not in
effect  for  Pennsylvania,  the  Potomac
River or Virginia.

None  in Maryland, Pennsylvania,  or the
Potomac River.  In Virginia the taking or
catching of elvers is prohibited.

50  per person  per day in Pennsylvania.
Not in  effect  in Maryland, Potomac River
or Virginia.

Not in  effect  in Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Potomac River  or Virginia.

Not in  effect  in Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Potomac River  or Virginia.

No  closed  season.

Maryland - No  restrictions on eel  pots.

 Pennsylvania - No gear restrictions.

 Potomac River -  The use of  spears,  gig,
 gig  irons  or  dynamite are  prohibited.
 Minimum mesh size restrictions: pound and
                                 15

-------
Other prohibitions:
                           fyke  nets  -  1-1/2"; eel  pots  -  1/2 X
                           1/2";  bait pots  -  1";  fish  pots  -  2";
                           fyke  net  -1.5".  Length  limitations on
                           fish  pots  -  10';  bait  pots  -2'  cube.
                           Seasonal restrictions: pound nets -  Feb
                           15 through  Dec. 15.

                          Virginia -  Eel  pots:  1/2  X 1/2" minimum
                          mesh size;  rectangular or  square pots of
                          1/2 X 1/2"  mesh required to  have  two
                          unrestricted 1/2 X 1" mesh  escape panels;
                          cylindrical  pots of 1/2  X  1/2"  mesh
                          required to have  one  unrestricted  1/2 X
                          1" mesh  escape panel.  Each single  pot
                          must be marked with  a buoy;  for multiple
                          pots on a line,  the  eel  pot line may not
                          exceed 1200' and must be buoyed at  each
                          end;   unlawful to  set pots  in a navigable
                          channel.  It is unlawful  to  set,  place or
                          fish a fixed  fishing device within  300
                          yards   of  the  Chesapeake Bay Bridge
                          Tunnel.   Minimum   stretch   mesh   size
                          restrictions:   pound net 2", haul seine
                          3"  (nets  over 200 yards  long).   No haul
                          seine  can be longer  than  1000  yards  or
                          deeper than  40  meshes.  Also,   Sections
                          28.1-52   and  28.1-53  of   the   Code   of
                          Virginia  outline placement, total length
                          and  distance  requirements   for   fishincr
                          structures.
Obstructing   passage
dynamiting streams.
                                                  of   fish
and
Status of Traditional Fishery Management Approaches




                                         -  Def lned as the """"-r
                        dunng a specific unit of fishing time and
                                          or stook

    of time, to the number  alive  at the beginning  of  the  unit  of

                               16

-------
time. It can  also be  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the population:
None available  for  eels  in  the  Chesapeake  Bay.

Yield-per-Recruit-  A  mathematical  calculation of  the theoretical
yield that  would be obtained from a group of fish of one age  if
they were  harvested according  to  a  certain exploitation pattern
over the life span  of the fish:  Unknown for  eels.

Spawning Stock  Biomass- The total weight  of  all  sexually mature
fish in the population.  This changes depending  on  the size of new
year classes, the  growth rate  of  young fish,  the age at sexual
maturity, the growth and natural mortality of older fish, and the
fishing mortality rate:  Unknown for  eels.

Spawning	Stock  Biomass  Per Recruit fSSBR^-  The  spawning stock
biomass divided by the number of fish recruited to the  stock at age
2. This number  is  in  units  of  weight and measures the average  or
expected contribution of any one young fish to the spawning stock
biomass over  its lifetime: Unknown for eels

Stock-Recruitment-  The  relationship  between the adult stock size
and subsequent recruitment  (fish that reach a certain size or age
in a specific year).  Unknown for eels.

Maximum Sustainable Yield- The  number or weight  of  fish in a stock
that can be taken by fishing without reducing the  stock's biomass
from year to  year,  assuming that environmental conditions remain
the same:  Unknown  for eels.

Virtual—Population Analysis-   Defined  as an  analysis of  fish
catches from  a given year class over its life in the fishery: Has
not been carried out for eels  - no  information on  age specific
catch of eels.

Data and Analytical Needs

1.   Collect biological  information on the  distribution, size, age
     and sex composition of the catch in fresh, brackish, estuarine
     and marine waters of Maryland.and Virginia.

2.   Collect data for estimating catch-per-unit-effort in the eel
     pot fishery.

3.   Improve  annual estimates   of  total  landings  including  eels
     harvested for crab bait.
4

5

6,
Determine the optimum minimum size for harvesting eels.

Determine natural and fishing mortality rates.

Determine economic characterizations of each major component
of the fishery.

                           17

-------
References

Bigelow, H.B., and W.C.  Schroeder.   1953.   Fishes of the Gulf of
     Maine.  U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Fish. Bui. 53. 577pp.

Fahay, M.P.  1978.  Biological and fisheries data on American
     eel, Anguilla  rostrata (LeSueur). U.S.  Dept.  Commer.  Natl.
     Mar. Fish. Serv. Tech. Ser. Rep. No. 17, Northeast Fisheries
     Center, Highlands, J.J.  82pp.

Foster, J.W.S., and R.W. Brody.  1982.  Status report: the
     American  eel  fishery in Maryland,  1982.  Maryland Tidewater
     Administration, Tidal Fisheries Division, Annapolis, Maryland.

Foster,  J.W.S.,  and  R.W.   Brody.    1981.    The  American eel:  a
     situation report.  Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
     Annapolis, Md.

Gunning, G.E., and C.R. Shoop.   1962.  Restricted movements of the
     American  eel,  Anguilla rostrata  (LeSueur),   in  freshwater
     streams,  with  comments on  growth  rate.  Tulane  Studies in
     Zoology 9:265-272.

Helfman, G.S., E.L. Bozeman, andE.B.  Brothers.  1984.  Comparison
     of American eel  growth rates from tag returns and length-age
     analyses.  Fish. Bull. Vol. 82, No. 3.  pp 519-522.

Helfman, G.S., D.E. Facey,  L.S. Hales, Jr., and E.L. Bozeman, Jr.
     1987.  Reproductive Ecology of the American Eel.  Amer. Fish.
     Soc. Symp. 1:42-56.

Helfman, G.S., D.L. Stoneburner, E.L.  Bozeman,  P.A.  Christian, and
     R.  Whalen.    1983.   Ultrasonic  telemetry  of  American eel
     movements in a tidal creek.  Trans.  Amer.  Fish. Soc. 112:105-
     110.

Hildebrand, S.F. and  W.C.  Schroeder.  1927.  Fishes of Chesapeake
     Bay. Bull. U.S.  Bur.  Fish. 43(1):111-112.

Hill,  L.J.   1969.    Reactions  of  the American eel  to dissolved
     oxygen tensions.   Tex. J.  Sci. 20:305-313.

Jessop,  B.M.   1982.   A review of the  status and management of
     commercial fisheries for American eels (Anguilla rostrata) in
     the maritime provinces.  Ontario Fish. Tech. Rep. Series No.
     4:28-32.

Kleckner, R.C., and J.D. McCleave.   1985.  Spatial and temporal
     distribution  of American  eel  larvae  in relation  to North
     Atlantic  ocean current systems.  Dana 4:67-92.
                                18

-------
McCleave,  J.D.,  R.C.   Kleckner,   and  M.  Castonguay.    1987.
     Reproductive  Sympatry  of American  And  European  Eels  and
     Implications  for Migration  and Taxonomy. Amer.  Fish. Soc.
     Symp. 1:286-297.

Moriarty,  C.   1987.    Factors influencing  recruitment  of  the
     Atlantic  species  of  anguillid  eels.    Arner.   Fish.  Soc.
     Symp.1:483-491.

Mowrer, J.P.  1978.   The occurrence  and abundance-, of the American
     eel  in  freshwater  streams of Maryland.   Maryland Dept. of
     Natural Resources,  Tidewater  Administration, Final  Rep. Mar.
     1974-Oct. 1976.  92pp.

Sinha,  V.R.P.,   and  J.W.  Jones.    1967.    On the  food  of  the
     freshwater eels and their feeding relationship with salmonids.
     J. Zool. (Lond.)  153:119-137.

Smoller,  E.B.   1989.   American eel fishery for the Potomac River
     status  report.   Virginia Mar. Res. Comm., Newport  News, Va.
     19pp.

Stagg,  Cluney.  1986.   An  evaluation of the information available
     for  managing  Chesapeake Bay fisheries:   preliminary stock
     assessments, volume I and  II.  University of Maryland,  Center
     for Environmental and Estuarine Studies, Chesapeake Biological
     Laboratory,  UMCEES[CBL]  Ref.  No.  134-148.

Tesch,  R.W.   1977.   The eel: biology and  management of anguillid
     eels.   Translated  from  German  by J.  Greenwood.  Chapman and
     Hall/John Wiley  & Sons,  New York,  New York.

Van  Den Avyle, M.J.   1984.   Species  Profiles:   Life  Histories and
     Environmental Requirements of Coastal  Fishes and Invertebrates
      (South  Atlantic), American Eel.  U.S.  Fish & Wildlife Service,
     Slidell, Louisianna.

Wenner, C.A. and J.A.  Musick.  1975.   Food habits and seasonal
     abundance  of the  American eel,  Anguilla rostrata,  from the
     lower  Chesapeake Bay.   Ches.  Sci.  16:62-66.

Williams,  G.C.,   and  R.K.  Koehn.  1984.   Population  genetics  of
     North  Atlantic catadromous eels (Anguilla).  Pages 529-560  in
     B.J. Turner, editor. Evolutionary Genetics of Fishes. Plenum,
     New York,  New York.
                                 19

-------
20

-------
                Section 2.  American Eel  Management
     Source documents for this plan  (Foster and Brody 1982; Van Den
Avyle 1984; and Stagg 1986) discuss various aspects of the American
eel  life  history,  fishing  exploitation, and  potential problems
associated with the  fishery.

A.  GOAL AND OBJECTIVES

The goal of this plan is to manage the American eel population in
the  Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries  so  that  harvest does not
exceed the natural capacity of the population to maintain its size
from year  to  year.  With this goal, optimum biological, economic,
and social benefits  will be attained.

In order  to achieve this goal,  the following  objectives must be
pursued:
1)



2)


3)


4)



5)


6)
Promote protection  of the  resource  by maintaining  a clear
distinction   between   conservation   goals   and   harvest
regulations.

Restore self-sustaining populations of American eels to their
historical ranges.

Implement  appropriate  monitoring  programs  necessary  for
collecting stock assessment data.

Provide for fair allocation of allowable harvest, consistent
with traditional  uses,  among the various  components of the
fishery.

Promote studies to  improve the understanding  of economic,
social, and biological aspects of the  fishery.,

Continue  to  pursue  and  enforce standards  of environmental
quality  and  habitat protection  necessary  to   protect  the
American eel population within the Bay and its tributaries.
 B.   PROBLEM AREAS  AND MANAGEMENT  STRATEGIES

 Problem 1  - Stock  Status:   The current status  of  the  American  eel
 stock in  the  Chesapeake Bay  is  unclear. It  has been  suggested
 (Helfman)  that the eel's long stay in freshwater  may  make  it more
 vulnerable  to  local  exploitation.  There   is   some   anecdotal
 information that eels in the Bay are smaller and less abundant than
 in  the  past, but commercial landing statistics do not indicate  any
 stock trends.   Biological  data to  characterize the stock is  not
 current. Harvesting large quantities of elvers when they enter  the
 Bay in  dense numbers and foreign interests looking to obtain elvers
 for culture could negatively impact the Chesapeake Bay American  eel
                                21

-------
stock. American eel habitat is currently blocked by dams and other
obstructions  which  potentially limits  stock  abundance.  Annual
recruitment of  elvers is more  affected by environmental factors
(offshore winds, currents)  then abundance of spawning stock from
any one region.

Strategy 1  -  Stock Status:  Until  stock assessment  analyses are
available, the jurisdictions will adopt a conservative approach to
managing the eel stock  in the Bay by reducing the possibility of
growth overfishing and by preventing the wastage of small eels.

     Problem l.l
     The current status  of the American eel  stock in  the Bay is
     unclear and stock assessment data  is unavailable. The harvest
     of elvers has the potential to impact the Chesapeake Bay eel
     fishery.  Elver migration in the spring is blocked by dams and
     other obstructions.

          Strategy l.l
          The jurisdictions will  adopt a conservative management
          approach  until  stock  assessment  analyses  have  been
          completed for American eels in the Bay.

               Action 1.1
               A)   Maryland  and   the   Potomac   River  Fisheries
               Commission will  adopt a  minimum size limit  of 6
               inches for American eels in the Bay.
               B)  Virginia  will continue its prohibition  on the
               taking of elvers and will adjust its definition to
               correspond to a 6" minimum size limit.

                    Implementation l.l
                    A) 1992      B) 1992

               Action 1.2
               A)  Maryland  will implement  a  1/2 x  1/2"  minimum
            A  mesh size for eel pots.
            Xd,  B)   Virginia  and   the   Potomac   River  Fisheries
            "*   Commission will  continue to enforce a 1/2  X  1/2"
               minimum mesh size  for  eel pots.  Virginia  will
               continue to enforce the  escape panel  requirements
               in 1/2 X 1/2" mesh pots.                   :

                    Implementation 1.2
                    A) 1992      B) Continue


               Action 1.3
               Upon   restoration   of   American  eels   to   the
               Susquehanna  River   basin,  the  Pennsylvania  Fish
               Commission (PFC)  will adopt regulations to  prevent
               the  overharvest of small eels.

                                22

-------
                    Implementation 1.3
                    Dependent on restoration.
Problem 2 - American Eel Bait Fishery:   In the Maryland portion of
the Chesapeake Bay,  the use of eels for crab bait is  a major source
of fishing pressure  on the population. The harvest of American eels
for crab bait has not been completely recorded in catch statistics.
Estimates of  eels harvested  for bait and used by commercial crab
trotliners range between 700,000 and 1,700,000 pounds per year. The
quantity of "pencil eels" (eels larger than 6" and  less than 10")
used for finfish bait by recreational fishermen  is unknown but has
the potential to increase. Accurate catch statistics are necessary
for assessing the status of eels in the Chesapeake  Bay.

Strategy  2  -  American Eel  Bait  Fishery:    Catch  and  effort
information from the American eel bait fishery is important for the
development of  management measures  for  the  eel  stock in the Bay.
The jurisdictions will monitor  the  crab bait  fishery  to  obtain
catch and effort data.

     Problem 2.1
     The  American  eel  crab bait  fishery  in  Maryland has  been
     estimated  at three to  five times  that of  the reported eel
     harvest  for the  live-eel  fishery  but is not  completely
     reported in the catch statistics.

          Strategy 2.1
          Catch and  effort  statistics for  the  American  eel crab
          bait  fishery will be obtained.

               Action 2.1
               Maryland  will require the  reporting of  American
               eels  used for   the  crab  bait  fishery  on  their
               mandatory finfish reporting forms.

                    Implementation 2.1
                    1992


Problem 3 - Research Needs:  Basic stock  assessment data is lacking
for American eels in the Chesapeake Bay.  Size and  age composition,
maturity, growth rates, mortality rates,  and estimates of abundance
are not available. Currently, there is a  limited amount of fishery
dependent and fishery independent data.  The  price  of eels used for
bait has increased over the past few years, however,  very little is
known about the economic value of the bait eel fishery and how it
affects harvest practices.  Lack of  biological  and  socioeconomic
information complicates effective management.
                                23

-------
Strategy  3  - Research Needs:   In order to better understand the
American eel resource in the Chesapeake Bay, research projects will
be  promoted  to   address   the   deficiencies   in  biological and
socioeconomic data.

     Problem 3.1
     There  is  a  lack  of  basic  biological  and  fisheries data
     necessary  for  effective  management  of  the   American eel
     resource in  the Chesapeake Bay.                      ;

          Strategy 3.1
          The jurisdictions will increase their understanding of
          the  American  eel  resource   in  the  Chesapeake  Bay.
          Important research topics include but are  not  limited to
          the   following:    fishery  independent   estimates  of
          abundance;  mortality rates;  the  effects of  fishing
          exploitation  on  growth;  the  factors  that  influence
          recruitment in the Bay;  and how economic aspects affect
          the eel fishery.

               Action 3.1
               A)  Maryland  and  Virginia will continue to collect
               catch and effort data from the live-eel fishery and
               begin monitoring the bait eel  fishery.
               B)  PRFC will continue to collect catch and effort
               data from their  commercial fishery.

                    Implementation 3.1
                    A) Continue   B) Continue

               Action 3.2
               Maryland, the  Potomac River Fisheries Commission,
               and Virginia will  encourage  research to  collect
               basic biological and socioeconomic information.

                    Implementation 3.2
                    1992


Problem 4 - Habitat and Water  Quality  Issues:  American eels are
generally considered a "hardy"  species since  they inhabit a broad
array of habitats and occur over a wide  range. Upstream habitat in
many  areas  of  the  Chesapeake, Bay  system  is  inaccessible  to
migrating eels because  of  dams  and  other  blockages. Eels prefer
well-oxygenated areas and are essentially bottom dwellers. Anoxic
water  probably affects  distribution  and  inhibits growth.  The
condition  of  bottom  sediments   and  substrates  is  important.
Disturbances  to   the   bottom  habitat  will  also  affect  eel
distribution. Tolerance to  pollutants  varies with different life
stages. Long-term  exposure to pollutants and toxic substances can
interfere with metabolic processes.
                                24

-------
Strategy 4 - Habitat  and Water Quality Issues;: The jurisdictions
will continue their efforts to improve water quality, habitat, and
provide fish passage for living resources in the Bay.

     Problem 4.1
     Water quality and stream impediments impact the distribution
     and abundance of finfish species in the Chesapeake Bay.,

          Strategy 4*1
          The  District  of  Columbia,  Environmental  Protection
          Agency,  Maryland,   Pennsylvania,   the  Potomac  River
          Fisheries Commission,  and  Virginia  will continue  to
          promote  the commitments  of  the 1987 Chesapeake  Bay
          Agreement. The achievement  of  the Baty commitments will
          lead to improved water quality and  enhanced biological
          production.  In addition, the jurisdictions  have committed
          to providing upstream passage for migratory fishes.

               Action 4.1
               The jurisdictions will  continue to provide for fish
               passage at  dams,  and  to  remove  stream  blockages
               wherever necessary.

                    Implementation 4.1
                    Continue

               Action 4.2
               The jurisdictions will continue  to set  specific
               objectives  for water  quality  goals  and  review
               management programs  established  under  the  1987
               Chesapeake  .Bay  Agreement.   The  Agreement   and
               documents  developed pursuant to the Agreement call
               for:

               A)   Developing  habitat  requirements and  water
                    quality goals for  various  finfish species.
               B)   Developing and  adopting  basinwide  nutrient
                    reduction strategies.
               C)   Developing and adopting basinwide plans  for
                    the reduction and control of toxic substances.
               D)   Developing and adopting basinwide management
                    measures  for conventional  pollutants  entering
                    the Bay  from point and nonpoint  sources.
               E)    Quantifying the impacts and identifying the
                    sources   of  atmospheric  inputs  on  the Bay
                    system.
               F)    Developing management  strategies  to  protect
                    and  restore wetlands and  submerged  aquatic
                   vegetation.
                               25

-------
G)   Managing population growth to minimize adverse
     impacts to the Bay environment.

     Implementation 4.1
     Continue
                 26

-------
  ill!
               « 0)
               c £
               "si-
               C u
               o 'a>
               f|
               JS-1
               s 5
               •5 |.
               21
               e 6
               F « ,
                    |i§
                    111
                    i1!
                    &~ &
                    |l|-
                    •sjl
                    «5 5 —
                    23 »
                    ill
                                 i
     Q
     .O
111555
~-* == !
S2 i
O * i
                  ^
                < OS84
                iil
<

z
                                 D CS
< <•<
B«OO
Z£g
                                     |
a
o£
     O
     i
                                     1
                                 HI
                                 2 2 g>5?
                                 l-s|i
                                 •Ills
                                 5S1I
                                 n c S 2
                                 <«1 « iS O
                                       2 !•!
                                       J3 * «

                                       III
                                       t§l|
                                       ais
     w,
      1!
                                I

-------

-------

-------

-------