CBP/TRS 99/53
July
Fisheries Management
Plan Re-As ses sment
Task Force Report
Report to the Living Resources Subcommittee
Chesapeake Bay Program
Printed on
Recycled Paper
-------
-------
Fisheries Management Plan
Re-Assessment j
; Task Force Report
Report to the Living Resources Subcomittee
July 1993
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary
2. Conclusions and Recommendations
a. Implementation Status of FMPs
b. Effectiveness of Implemented Actions- '--
c. Recommendations for Improving Effectiveness of FMPs
d. Interjurisdictional Considerations
e. Potential Problem Areas
Chesapeake Bay Fisheries Management Plans Review
Report of the Fisheries Plan Re-Assessment Task Force
3. Task Force Participants
4. Fisheries Management Plans Reviewed
5. FMP Review Process
6. Review of Alosid FMP
7. Review of Bluefish FMP
8. Review of Atlantic Croaker and Spot FMP
9. Review of Weakfish and Spotted Sea Trout FMP
10. Review of Summer Flounder FMP
11. Review of Blue Crab FMP
12. Review of Striped Bass FMP
1-3
4-8
.4--
4-5
5-6
6-7
8
9
9
10
10-21
22-27
28-32
33-40
41-46
47-59
60-71
-------
Tit
-------
REPORT OF
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN RE-ASSESSMENT
TASK FORCE
. ' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A 14-member Fisheries Management Plan Re-assessment task Force appointed by the
Living Resources Subcommittee has reviewed and assessed the implementation _status and
effectiveness of seven Chesapeake Bay Program Fishery Management Plans (FMPs).
The FMPs reviewed, are those for: Alosids, Striped Bass, Weakiish and Spotted Seatrout,
Bluefish, Blue Crab, Summer Flounder, and Atlantic Croaker and Spot.
The seven FMPs contain 170 planned actions each with an implementation schedule.
The responsible Bay jurisdictions have completed or are implementing 160 (94 %) of the
planned actions. .
The following statements summarize the major findings of the Task Force's
deliberations:
The seven FMPs reviewed are based on, and consistent with, ASMFC coastwide
management plans. With the implementation of these plans, the Bay FMP program has
become a leader in regional fisheries management.
The planned actions contained in the seven FMPs constitute a very ambitious and
demanding work load with a real potential for the workload to escakite as data required to
manage the Bay's fisheries accumulates.
Some examples of significant achievements by the Bay jurisdictions resulting from or
consistent with implementation of the FMPs include:
(1) control of the exploitation of striped bass stocks, significant success towards
rebuilding Chesapeake Bay and coastal striped bass fishery, and expansion of both age
structure and biomass of the striped bass spawning stock
(2 ) determination of a landmark estimate of striped bass fishing mortality rate based on
mark-recapture data
(3) demonstrated feasibility of restoring spawning runs of American shad and other
species in the Susquehanna River, instituted water quality standards to protect alosids at the
Conowingo Dam, installed fish lift at the Conowingo Dam, and initiated agreement to
construct fish passage facilities at Holtwood, Safe Harbor and York Haven
-------
(4) attained a significant increase (three-fold) in American shad population in the upper
Bay, and extended the moratorium on harvesting American shad to Virginia waters.,
(5) opened passage to 174 miles of historic alosid spawning habitat and nursery areas
(6) implemented Bay-wide size and creel limits on bluefish to minimize wastage in the
recreational fishery and created a mechanism to minimize wastage in commercial fishery, for
use as needed, including license requirements and delayed entry.
-t \ * * - ' - ' ' - "* - 'l . ' '.,.; -
(7) controlled commercial fishing effort in Virginia and Maryland on weakfish and
spotted seatrout through a delayed application program.
(8) improved and expanded data collection relative to managing Bay fisheries by
initiating multispecies surveys and instituting mandatory reporting systems for commercial
fisheries.
(9) created the Maryland blue crab advisory board to assist in developing and
coordinating effective management options to achieve the goals of the blue crab FMP
While assessing the implementation status of the seven FMPs, the Task Force also
evaluated (1) the adherence to implementation schedules and (2) the effectiveness of actions
which have been implemented.
The implementation schedule has been met in implementing 140 (88 %) of the 160
planned actions. Implementation is underway but has been delayed beyond the
implementation date for 20 planned actions; 13 of those delays involve planned actions
contained in the blue crab FMP.
Failure to implement planned actions or to meet implementation dates are attributed to
one or more of the following: (1) lack of funding or personnel to implement, (2) lack of
public and/or administrative support for implementation, (3) unrealistic implementation date
or schedule, and (4) revision of action plan.
Overall, the seven FMPs have been effective in (1) focusing attention of the problems of
the Bay's fisheries, (2) producing a regional agreement on the need for interjurisdictional
cooperation and action to restore and conserve these fisheries, (3) identifying data gaps and
information requirements (4) initiating and focusing research efforts, (5) creating support for
regulations for achieving resource conservation (6) reducing wastage in the recreational
bluefish fishery, and (7) attaining significant increases in Chesapeake Bay and coastal striped
bass stocks and American and hickory shad spawning stocks in the upper Bay.
To improve the effectiveness of the Bay FMPs, the Task Force recommends the
following:
-------
1. perform a substantive review of each FMP at three to four year intervals to delete
implemented actions and upgrade plan.
2. when sufficient data are available to do so, convert plans from problem solving to
problem preventing document by developing "triggers" to guide management and regulatory
decisions.' - ''._.-
3. attauTinterjurisdictional cooperation in data gathering and uniformity in setting
regulatory controls such as size and creel limits.
4. involve user groups to a greater extent in formulating FMPs and fisheries management
strategies ~
5. delegate to the PSC authority to approve changes inexisting FMPs as identified by the
appropriate FMP Workgroup. -
6. consider developing multispecies or fisheries specific management plans.
7. improve habitat aspects of FMPs by (1) making the habitat actions plan-specific or (2)
develop a separate Fisheries Habitat Management Plan
8. two potential problem areas should be addressed proactively ;: (a) data collection,
storage, interpretation and management associated with the FMPs hais the potential to
overwhelm available resources, and (b) management of recovered fisheries will require a
supportive constituency and may also require additional resources.
The Task Force supports conceptually the need for national inteirjurisdictional fisheries
management legislation to assist in the coast-wide management of important migratory
species and believes that any legislation mandating interjurisdictional fisheries management
authority should also provide supportive funding. (Please note that A. C. Carpenter (PRFC)
and Jack Travelstead (VRMC) abstained from voting on the statement.)
-------
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS :
- - Implementation Status of FMPs: '
Thfr seven Chesapeake Bay Fishery Management Plans which the_Task Force reviewed ~
_ contain 170 actions for implementation; associated with each action is an implementation-
schedule. The responsible Bay jurisdictions have completed, or are in-the process of
implementing, 160 (94 %) of the action items. The responsible jurisdictions have met the
implementation schedule for 140 of the 160 actions implemented. Implementation of the
other 20 actions has been delayed beyond the implementation date; 13 of the implementation
delays involved actions contained in the blue crab~FMP.
Failures to implement planned actions or to meet implementation schedules are attributed
to one or more of the following: (1) lack of funding and/or sufficient.personnel, (2) lack of
administrative and/or public support for action, (3) unrealistic implementation schedule, (4)
relatively low priority, and <5) action found to be in need of revision.
. Effectiveness of Implemented Actions: . -
In assessing the effectiveness of the planned actions contained in the seven FMPs, the
deliberations of the Task Force were necessarily confined by (1) absence within the FMPs of
criteria against which to evaluate effectiveness, (2) the open-ended or continuing nature of
many of the planned actions,(3) interdependency of several planned actions in achieving a
given objective, and (4) an insufficient time lapse following implementation for effectiveness
to become manifest. As a consequence, the Task Force's assessment of the effectiveness of
the FMP planned actions are subjective in many instances, though supported by professional
judgement.
For example, Maryland has implemented planned Action 1.1.1 (continuation of the
moratorium on American shad in the Chesapeake Bay). Data provided the Task Force on
shad population estimates for the upper Chesapeake Bay show a significant, progressive
increase in the population estimates since the moratorium was imposed. The data do not
establish a cause and effect relationship but do show a strong correlation. However, the
objective of attaining an increase in the annual shad population estimate in the upper Bay in
each of three consecutive years, including one in which the shad population estimate is at
least 500,000, has not been achieved. The consensus among Task Force members is that
action 1.1.1 as implemented has been effective. However, some members of the Task Force
noted that all jurisdictions had not imposed a moratorium on American shad and that a
recovered population as yet has not been achieved. Therefore, the action taken by Maryland
alone has not reached the desired level of effectiveness.
Where the information available warranted, the Task Force made an assessment of the
effectiveness of specific planned actions in achieving their stated objectives. The results of
those assessments are noted in the discussion of the appropriate action implementation status.
-------
A general statement concerning the effectiveness of each FMP is appended to the Task
Force's assessment of the implementation of each FMP where warranted.
The Task Force reached a consensus on an overall assessment of the effectiveness of the
seven FMPs. These plans have been effective, individually and collectively, in (1) focusing
attention on the problems of the Bay's fisheries, (2) producing a regional consensus on the
need for action to restore and conserve these fisheries, (3) identifying data gaps and
information requirements and (4) initiating and focusing research efforts. The ASMFC
representative on the Task Force noted that the Bay FMPs are based on coast-wide ASMFC
FMPs."He also expressed the opinion the Bay FMP program was a leader with respect to
regional management of fisheries.
The Task Force also noted the FMPs had been effective in bringing about a delayed
entry program and a mandatory harvest reporting system in the commercial fisheries in
Virginia.
Recommendations for Improving Effectiveness of FMPs;
The Task Force deliberations went beyond assessing the effectiveness of the seven FMPs
to consider what might be done to improve their effectiveness. The following were identified
as actions which would improve the effectiveness of the FMPs:
(1) A substantive review of each FMP by the FMP Workgroup at three to four year
intervals to up-date, amend or revise the plan based on implementation of the plan as
recorded in the annual progress reports. Actions which have been completed
should be deleted, any changes or modifications which would make the plan more effective
should be made, and when sufficient data are available to develop appropriate triggers (see #
2) to guide management and regulatory decisions, the FMP should be revised to make it a
"problem preventing" rather than a "problem solving" document.
(2) Develop criteria or "triggers" based on biological attributes such as stock abundance,
spawning stock biomass, recruitment, and/or population age structure, to guide management
initiatives and regulatory decisions. The ASMFC menhaden plan, for example, utilizes a
variety of triggers to drive management initiatives. The Bay Program's Alosid plan uses a
population trigger for ending the moratorium on American shad in the upper Bay. The Task
Force recognized that effective "triggers" may be difficult to define and may require a
significant biological data base.
(3) Achieve interjurisdictional cooperation in data gathering and uniformity in setting
regulatory controls such as size and creel limits. The Task Force recognized that such things
as logistical considerations, resource limitations, and program priorities make it difficult in
some instances to achieve cooperation in data gathering. The Task Force also recognized
that under some circumstances strict uniformity in regulatory controls may not be
appropriate. Disparity in regulatory controls, such as the weakfish and seatrout creel limit
-------
disparity between Maryland and Virginia regulations, should be resolved .on the basis of
biological data'and-within the context of the management plans. - . -es-
(4). Involve user groups to a greater extent in the management process, including FMP
development and implementation. Strategies which have teen employed, such as fact sheets,
informational meetings, hearings, etc.,"to involve user groups should be continued. In -
addition, activities patterned after tfie format now in use to involve the-public in the Bay
Program^ Tributary Strategy should also be used to involve user groups in the FMP process.
Also devote more effort to achieve an understanding, by the public, of fisheries and the
rationale of fisheries'management strategies and methods (this is a role which the LRSC's
Communication Workgroup might consider)
(5) Create a mechanism for quickly instituting adjustments and modifications of existing
FMPs identified as appropriate-by the-FMP Workgroup. This could be done by delegating to
the Principal-Staff Committee (PSC) authority to approve adjustments and modifications
recommended by the FMP-Workgroup. An opportunity for public comment should be
included in the process 'the FMP Workgroup follows in recommending adjustments and
modifications to the PSC.
(6) Replace the "boiler plate" habitat sections of the plans with habitat actions specific
to each plan, as has been done in the ASMFC Winter Flounder FMP which addresses
species specific habitat needs as well as habitat loss and/or develop a single fisheries habitat
management plan.
Several members of the Task Force recommended that consideration also should be given
to developing fisheries specific or multispecies management plans (recreational finfish,
commercial finfish, pound net). Fisheries specific management plans would focus on
management of specific user group as well as the resource base targeted by the user group.
Interiurisdictional Considerations;
The Task Force assessed the need for interjurisdictional cooperation to achieve effective
Bay-wide fisheries management. A very active effort is on-going to enact national (or
Atlantic Coast) interjurisdictional legislation modeled in concept after the Atlantic Striped
Bass Conservation Act. There also is some minority opinion favoring incorporation of
interjurisdictional fisheries matters in the re-authorization of the Magnuson Act.
The Task Force agreed on the need for interjurisdictional cooperation in managing
migratory species fisheries. The Task Force also agreed that national legislation was likely to
be enacted in the near future and noted the following concerns:
1. need to address the amount and source of (new) funding needed by states to
implement interjurisdictional FMPs adequately and effectively.
-------
2. need for a strong role for the states with support of the federal government in
development and .implementing FMPs.
3. need a_pre-emptive role of states in removal of moratorium rather than discretionary
federal decision. --'-_. ',.-_--- _ " "
4. habitat concernsu(needs as well as habitat loss) need to be linked to FMPs - habitat
should-be addressed in the federal legislation as a specific component of fisheries
management; federal legislation should also support state habitatwork (a) internally as
specific action items in each FMP (as in the New-Hampshire winter flounder FMP) and (b)
externally as a habitat management plan specific for fisheries.
5. need to avoid providing the argument that harvest control is not needed since habitat
isthecure.- ...._... --.
With respect to interjurisdictional issues relative to fisheries management in Chesapeake
Bay, the Task Force concluded the following:
1. interjurisdietional differences (issues) complicate but have not prevented
implementation of FMPs.
2. some interjurisdietional concerns relative to specific FMPs have resulted in "user"
problems (different creel limits, season dates etc.).
With respect to the Chesapeake Bay FMPs, the Task Force recommends:
(a) addressing specific interjurisdietional differences or issues in relevant FMP
(b) keeping user public informed regarding basis of interjurisdietional differences
j
(c) finding an effective mechanism for drawing user public into FMP development and
review at early date. ,
The Task Force supports conceptually the need for national inteijurisdictional fisheries
management legislation to assist in the coast-wide management of important migratory
species and believes that any legislation mandating interjurisdietional fisheries management
authority should also provide supportive funding. (Please note that A. C. Carpenter (PRFC)
and Jack Travelstead (VMRC) abstained from voting on the statement.)
-------
Potential Problem Areas: :
The Task Force expressed concern over two potential problem areas specific to the Bay
FMP program. The seven FMPs reviewed represent a very heavy work commitment and the
implementation actions are producing a great .deal .of data requiring technical analysis,
interpretation and maintenance. With the implementation action continuing and new data
generating actions being initiated, staff and funding requirements to keep up with data
collecting, processing and storage can become limiting.
As actions called for in the FMPs achieve their objectives, the focus of the fisheries will
shift from rebuilding depleted stocks, to managing recovered fisheries. Managing the
recovered fisheries effectively may require additional, if not new, resources and data and a
supportive user constituency. These concerns should be addressed well in advance of the
need. - -. - ......
8
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLANS REVIEW
REPORT OF THE
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN RE-ASSESSMENT TASK FORCE
FMPS REVIEW PARTICIPANTS
The make-up of the FMP Re-assessment Task Force differs from that of the Living
Resources Subcommittee Fishery Management Plans Workgroup. Participants in the task
force included Chesapeake Bay fisheries managers for Virginia, Maryland and the Potomac
River Fisheries Commission, and representatives from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,
NOAA, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the Atlantic State Marine Fisheries Commission,
Maryland Salt Water Sportsfishermen's Association, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory,
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Maryland Waterman's Association, Virginia
sportsfishermen and charter boat industry. (The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission
declined the invitation to participate in the meetings of the task force. Summary minutes of
task force minutes have been provided to the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission for
comment.)
All of the meetings of the task force were held at the Potomac River Fisheries
Commission office in Colonial Beach, Va. i
Participants attending one or more of the task force meetings were: Herb Austin,
Virginia Institute of Marine Science; Erik Earth, Virginia Marine Resource Commission;
Nancy Butowski, Maryland Department of Natural Resources; A. C. Carpenter, Potomac
River Fisheries Commission; Edward W. Christoffers, NOAA/CBO; Steve Funderburk, U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service; James H. Gilford, Task Force Chair; Bill Goldsborough,
Chesapeake Bay Foundation; Bruce Graham, sportfisherman; Ed Houde, Chesapeake
Biological Lab/CEES; Pete Jensen, Maryland Department of Natural Resources; Richard
Novonty, Maryland Saltwater Sportfishermens Association; Eric Nurmi, CRC/EPA/CBPO;
Paul Perra, ASMFC; Bruce Scheible, fishing center operator and charter boat captain; Larry
Simns, Maryland Waterman's Association; Harley Speir, Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, Gary Thomas, Potomac River Fisheries Commission; Jack Travelstead, Virginia
Marine Resource Commission; Margie Whilden, Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
/
FMPS SELECTED FOR REVIEW
The task force reviewed the Chesapeake Bay Management Plans for Alosids, Striped
Bass, Weakfish and Spotted Seatrout, Bluefish, Blue Crab, Summer Flounder and Atlantic
Croaker and Spot. The task force was asked to (1) determine the status of actions
recommended in the FMPs, (2) assess the effectiveness of the actions in achieving their
objective, and (3) identify actions which have not been implemented, determine the reason
for not implementing the action, and suggest an alternative action.
-------
FMPS REVIEW PROCESS
. - The Task Force met on March 8th, March 29th, April 12, and'April 29th, 1993 to assess
the status of the seven FMPs selected for review.. A task force subcommittee met on April -
22, 1993 tcraddress interjurisdictional issues as they_relate to the implementation of the ~
Chesapeake Bay FMPs. The subcommittee membersjvere Pete Jensen (chair), Jack -
Dunigan, ASMEC; A.C, CarpenterrPotomac" River Fisheries Commission; Andy Loftus,
Sport Fishing-Institute; Steve Punderburk, U.S. Pish & Wildlife Service; Edward W.
Christoffers, NMFS/CBP; and Jack Travelstead, Virginia Marine Resource Commission.
In .reviewing the FMPs, the task force examined the status of _all action items in the
plans, assessed the effectiveness of those which have been implemented and, in instances in
which an action~items~had not been implemented, determined the reasoirfior lack of
implementation. Proceedings of each meeting were recorded and are preserved on tape
cassettes.. Summary minutes _were transcribed from the tapes and distributed to task force
members for-review, correction if necessary, and approval. The final task force report has
been prepared based on the proceedings of the meetings and the summary minutes. A draft
of-the FMPs Review final report has been reviewed and approved by task force members.
ASSESSMENT OF CHESAPEAKE BAY ALOSID MANAGEMENT PLAN
ACTION 1.1.1.
American shad abundance hi the upper Bay has improved but has not sufficiently
recovered to warrant an open fishery. American shad abundance is also low in other
Maryland river systems. Maryland will continue the moratorium on American shad in the
Chesapeake Bay.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.1.1.
Open. Dependent on stock recovery.
Action taken - Maryland is continuing the shad moratorium.
Task Force Assessment - Current data on American shad abundance in Maryland waters
indicates the moratorium has been effective although shad abundance in the upper Bay has
not reached a level sufficient to warrant lifting the moratorium. The effectiveness of the
moratorium would have been enhanced if other jurisdictions would have instituted similar
protective measures concurrently.
ACTION 1.1.2.
Virginia will utilize the Virginia Marine Resources Commission's Stock Assessment
Program and the fishery surveys of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science to assess current
alosid exploitation rates. Jf the data concludes that exploitation is above the 25 % rate,
Virginia will take appropriate steps to limit fishing effort.
10
-------
IMPLEMENTATION 1.1.2.
Stock assessment program will initiate activity in winter 1989. VIMS surveys are
currently being implemented. (July 1989)
Actipn taken - Virginia has not been using exploitation rates as the basis for initiating
management actions because good estimates of exploitation from its American shad stocks
are not available. The best information Virginia has on exploitation is from estimates of
juvenile production in various river systems so management actions have been based on those
data and catch information. Using these parameters as indicators of stock health, Virginia
has limited its fishing season for American shad to one month in 1993 and will proceed with
a moratorium in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries in 1994.
Task Force Assessment - Virginia is facing a problem with funding its juvenile
production surveys. Funding for collecting data needed to determine exploitation rate is
recommended. Until funding for that purpose is available, Virginia will have to utilize
other measures of stock health to determine appropriate management actions. For that
reason, Action 1.1.2. should be rewritten to tie in the uses of juvenile production rates and
catch information as the basis for future management actions needed to conform with the
ASMFC exploitation rate for American shad. Alternative use of juvenile production
estimates is responsive to the intent of the management plan and has been an effective
interim action in limiting fishing effort.
i
I
ACTION 1.2.
River herring harvest will be controlled. Types of management actions which will be
considered in the regulation of river herring are as follows:
j
o Harvest - Quotas would be a reasonable regulation if the size of the spawning stock in
a given year was predictable.
j
o Seasons - Setting a season during a segment of the "average" spawning period to
regulate exploitation.
o Area! closures - Restrict exploitation in those areas where the potential for harvest is
greatest such as restricted portions of migratory routes or at migration barriers.
o Gear restrictions - Restrict large-volume harvesting by pound nets and/or haul
seines."
IMPLEMENTATION 1.2
January 1990
Action taken - Virginia, Maryland and PRFC have initiated administrative and
regulatory action to control river herring catch.
11
-------
Task Force Assessment - Actions taken are consistent with the management plan. The
management actions which have been the most beneficial for river herring are gear (net)
restrictions, including those intended to protect striped bass, and the moratorium on shad.
Strategy 1.2 stated that "Technical criterion will be submitted to ASMFC for re-evaluation of
the 0 % exploitation rate for river herring in Maryland." Although this is not an action item
in the current Alosid plan, the task force did reyiewjjrogress on the strategy initiative. It
avas found that not enough data have been obtained to warrant a re-evaluation of the 0 %
exploitation-rate. Maryland uses commercial catch data to characterize' status of the stock
and with the moratorium on shad in place, commercial catch records are not characteristic of
the stock. - .
ACTION 1.3. . -
Management actions and strategies for American shad and hickory shad will not be
separated due to the paucity of information available on hickory shad and by nature of their
similar life history. -
IMPLEMENTATION 1.3.
Will follow the American shad schedule. "
Action taken - Maryland has implemented action item 1.3. Although not designated to
do so, the PRFC and Virginia have implemented action 1.3, also. Virginia did not include
hickory shad in its 1993 shad regulations (reduced season) because of a lack of life history
data on hickory shad. Virginia will recommend that hickory shad be included under its 1994
shad moratorium.
Task Force Assessment - Action taken by Maryland has been effective based on the
increase in hickory shad appearing in Susquehanna tributaries (Deer Creek, Octararo Creek)
in 1992 and 1993. Virginia's action will provide protection for hickory shad spawning stock
in Virginia's tidal rivers and to the extent that harvest of hickory shad in the tidal rivers is
responsible for the decline of the fishery, the action should be effective.
ACTION 1.4.
As restoration of alosids progresses over dams on the Susquehanna River, additional
regulations in Pennsylvania will be promulgated to protect these species until a degree of
restoration is achieved.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.4.
Permanent fish passage facilities are currently under design at Conowingo Dam. Progress
will be determined when fish passage is also provided at the three remaining dams.
Action taken - The permanent fish lift has been constructed at Conowingo (completed in
1992). An agreement between Maryland, Pennsylvania, SRAFRC and the electric generating
industries involved to build fish passages at next three dams (Holtwood, Safe Harbor, and
York Haven) on the Susquehanna River and are scheduled to be completed by the year 2000.
12
-------
The Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Commission (and other jurisdictions)
have initiated water quality requirements, turbine survival studies are continuing, and
_ Pennsylvania currently prohibits .harvesting American shad in the Susquehanna River and its
tributaries. _. ~ - -
_ Task Force Assessment - Actions taken are consistent with the management plan. It is
too early to assess thejiltimate effectiveness~of the three fish passages-yet to be built but it is
assumed the action wiil be effective. The agreement by the electric generating companies to _
build the passage is based on evidence that, once passed the dams, shad will spawn
successfully in the-river. . _
ACTION 2.1 " - ~ i --__
- Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia will participate in the ongoing ASMFC alosid
management program, both in Board and Scientific and Statistical Committee activities, with
the goal ofjproviding adequate protection to the component of the eoasfal stock which returns
to the Chesapeake Bay to-spawn.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.1
Currently being implemented
Action taken - Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the PRFC are participating in the
ASMFC alosid management program; Pennsylvania funds the activities of the ASMFC
committee. The ASMFC representative noted it is difficult to evaluate exploitation of the
Chesapeake Bay component of the coastal stock due to a lack of data on origin and harvest of
shad in the ocean fishery.
Task Force Assessment - Action taken is consistent with the provisions of the
management plan.
ACTION 2.2
A) (Virginia will) Implement a coastal shad tagging program to determine which stocks
are being exploited in its (Virginia's) intercept fishery.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.2
Shad tagging program implemented by 1990.
Action taken - Instead of a shad tagging program Virginia has initiated a genetic analysis
study (by Dr. Brown); that study is in its final year. While it will not implement restrictions
before the genetic analysis is completed, Virginia is continuing to monitor and document its
territorial sea intercept fishery for American shad. Maryland has conducted tagging studies
for two years (1991 & 1992); the results of those studies indicate that the coastal shad fishery
contains mixed stocks and is highly variable from year to year.
13
-------
'Task Force Assessment - Although the action taken is in accord with the.intent of the
management plan, it has not progressed sufficiently to assess its effectiveness.
B) Virginia will control the coastal intercept fishery through a combination of gear
restrictions, seasonal and area! closures, and harvest limits (to reduce shad harvest to a 25 %
exploitation rate). .
Action taken - Action pending the outcome of the genetic analysis study (see Action item
A).
Task Force Assessment - Action not implemented.
C) Virginia will continue to monitor and-document its territorial sea intercept fishery for
American shad. -
Action taken - Virginia has implemented action. Virginia coastal landings of American
shad in 1992 amounted to 432,000 pounds.
Task Force Assessment - Action taken is in accord with management plan but it is too
early to assess effectiveness of the action.
ACTION 2.3.1.
Virginia will control river herring harvest during spawning migrations through gear
restrictions and spawning area closures.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.3.1.
1991
Action taken - Action has been initiated. Virginia has restricted use of commercial
fishing gear in the spawning areas in the Chickahominy River below Walker's Dam. Striped
bass regulations also are helping control harvest of river herring.
Task Force Assessment - Virginia has implemented management plan but it is too early
to assess effectiveness of measures.
ACTION 2.3.2.
Maryland and Virginia will monitor river herring by-catch through the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council and support the following recommendations:
a) The foreign fishery will stay 20 miles offshore.
b) Maximum by-catch of 1 % for river herring in the foreign and domestic mackerel
fisheries with a cap on total allowable by-catch.
c) Intercept fisheries will be discouraged.
14
-------
IMPLEMENTATION 2.3.2
Currently, being implemented.
- The management plan has been implemented. River herring by-catch is
.being monitored under the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries" Management Council Squid, Mackerel and
Butterfish FMP.
Task Eorce Assessment - Action appears to be effective. River herring stocks have been
relatively stable since 1968 although biomass has not improved equally among all rivers
along the East Coast. Virginia's mackerel fishery is staying well within the 1 % maximum
herring by-catch allowance.
ACTION 3.1
A) Maryland will continue the alosid juvenile survey and develop an index of stock
abundance; Virginia will continue to collect shad and herring juvenile abundance data with
the objective of developing a bay-wide index of abundance for these species. (Currently
being implemented) The juvenile index will be used in conjunction with adult stock estimates
to trigger regulatory changes and harvest rates. "
B) Maryland will continue research projects for American shad in the upper'Bay and
Nanticoke River which provide annual estimates of adult shad. (Currently being
implemented) i
C) Virginia will improve assessment of current fishing rates on shad stocks in territorial
waters and seek to improve catch and effort data through mandatory reporting (1990).
D) The VMRC Stock Assessment Program will provide additional fishery dependent data
collection for Virginia's shad fisheries, (on going)
E) Virginia will initiate an ocean intercept tagging program to determine stock
composition in the coastal shad fishery. (1990)
F) Maryland will examine the exploitation rates of alewife and blueback herring in
selected tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay and improve the accuracy and utility of herring
landings data. (1990)
G) Virginia will cooperate with research institutes to implement a survey of selected shad
and herring spawning grounds, compiling information on basic spawning stock characteristics
including relative adult abundance, juvenile abundance, size, age, arid sex ratios, (currently
being implemented)
EO American shad abundance will be investigated in the Potomac River, a system of
historic importance, through a joint effort by Maryland, Virginia and the District of
Columbia. (1991)
15
-------
IMPLEMENTATION 3.1.
Variable, 'depending on the project. - .
Actions taken ,
-A) Maryland has continued developing a juvenile index. Virginia will continue to collect
shad and river herring juvenile .abundance data. A joint effort between VIMS and Maryland
DNR was initiated to develop standardized gear for use in establishing a Bay-wide juvenile
index 'but that effort has been limited due to technical problems.
B) The shad research projects are continuing, but in the Nanticoke River there are not
enough recaptures to make an adequate population estimate for shad. The upper Bay study
is providing a fair amount of data in support of the Susquehanna River shad- study.
C) Virginia has implemented mandatory reporting of shad catches in territorial waters
(January 1993). - ..-.-,..: .
D)_The VMRC Stock" Assessment Program began in 1989 is continuing; the program has
not been in progress long enough to permit a reliable assessment of its effectiveness.
E) The tagging study has been replaced by a genetic analysis which is scheduled to be -
finalized by 1993. The genetic analysis will provide a better assessment of the origin of fish
in the coastal,fishery and differential exploitation, if such occurs.
F) Maryland has not implemented the exploitation study on blueback herring and alewife,
in other than the Nanticoke, due to lack of funding and other priorities.
G) The study of shad and herring spawning grounds and stock characteristics is
continuing on the Nanticoke and upper Bay, but the effort is limited by available funding.
H) PRFC has been cooperating in the genetic analysis study through contracts with
commercial fishermen for material for genetic analysis. The success of the effort has been
limited because the commercial fishermen have been unable to catch a sufficient number of
specimens.
Task Force Assessment - Maryland and Virginia have acted to implement Action 3.1, except
part F. Overall, the effectiveness of the response to this action has been low due to
insufficient funding, including the effort needed to analyze collected data, and because of
greater priorities in this and other fisheries management programs.
ACTION 4.1
The District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia will implement the plain
adopted by the Fish Passage Workgroup to remove barriers. Projects include:
A) Permanent fish passage facilities are being designed and will be constructed at
Conowingo Dam at a cost of 12.5 million (1989).
Action taken - Permanent fish passage facilities have been designed and constructed
(completed 1992) at Conowingo Dam at a cost of approximately $12.5 million.
16
-------
B) Design planning and implementation of fishways at Holtwoed, Safe Harbor and York
Haven dams on the Susquehanna River (In progress). - .
Action taken - Agreements have been signed for the construction of fish passage
structures at'the three remaining dams up fiver, Holtwood, Safe Harbor and York Haveni
.Last fish passageway is scheduled for completion by the year 2000. - ~
C) A comprehensive inventory of dams and other impediments restricting the migration
of shad and river herring to their historical spawning grounds has been completed (1989)
Action taken - Implementation achieved.
D) Removal of stream blockages, restocking efforts, and construction of fish ladders at
sites of barriers on priority streams and rivers will begin (1990).
Action taken - Implementation has been on-going for the past three years and is
continuing. Evaluation of effectiveness is on-going. .
E) A demonstration fish ladder project has been developed with the Chesapeake Bay
Foundation and the town of EDcton as an example with public access (1989).
Action taken - A demonstration fish ladder project has been completed on Big Elk Creek
but the Chesapeake Bay Foundation has moved its public education display to the fish
passage at Tuckahoe.
F) A program to reduce turbine mortalities by implementing guidance and avoidance
techniques, i.e., use of fish attraction or avoidance devices to guide shad away from turbines
to sluice gates (1991).
Action taken - Efforts to increase turbine survival through the use of guidance and
avoidance techniques are in progress.
G) Fish passage facilities on the James and Rappahannock Riveis will be established.
Action taken - Work on the James River is continuing to open fish blockages;
negotiations are underway to secure fish passage facilities on the Rappahannock River.
H) The recently constructed passage facility on the Chickahomimy River at Walker's
Dam will be evaluated for its effectiveness. (1990)
Action taken - The fish passage at Walker's Dam on the Chickaihominy River was
evaluated one season by VIMS and found to be effective at passing river herring. Efforts to
assess the effectiveness of this facility are continuing.
17
-------
I) Fish passage facilities at Little Falls Dam on the Potomac River will restore about 10
miles of spawning habitat and at Rock Creek Park will open an additional 5 miles of
spawning habitat. - _
_ Action taken - Implementation of the. Little Falls passage has not been completed;
negotiations are in progress with the. Corps of Engineers and the Aqueduct authorities.
In addition to the strategies detailed in the fish passage plan, several aspects must be
coordinated with the Fishery Management Plan:
J) Sources* of adult fish used for restocking areas will be coordinated with other states
and agencies (1990). . -
Action taken - The hatchery effort at Conowingo has started to use eggs obtained from
existing and healthy populations of shad in the Bay tributary system.
K) The reintroduction of alosid stocks will require specific regulatory measures to
protect the newly-introduced fish until populations have been established. "
Action taken - Pennsylvania and Virginia have adopted regulations to protect alosids
which proceed through fish passages. Maryland is prepared to do so at the appropriate time.
L) Monitoring is essential in gauging the impacts of fish passage projects on restoration
efforts.
Action taken - Effectiveness of fish passage facilities are being monitored. (This item is
considered to be more a statement of need than an action item.)
IMPLEMENTATION 4.1
Variable, depending on the specific project.
Task Force Assessment - Management plan has been, or is being, implemented on
schedule. To date, 174.2 miles of historic spawning habitat and nursery area have been
opened. Implementation has not been in effect long enough to warrant evaluation of
effectiveness. More effort to monitor the effectiveness of the fish passage projects may be
needed.
ACTION 4.2.1
Maryland and Pennsylvania will continue to work within SRAFRC's ongoing programs
as described in the annual work plan to evaluate methods for ensuring successful downstream
passage for juveniles and adults. This will include spills, diversion devices, and by-pass
systems.
18
-------
IMPLEMENTATION 4.2.1
Annual activities as approved by SRAFRC members.
Action taken - Maryland and Pennsylvania are continuing to work with SRAFRC's on-
going programs as approved by SRAFRC members and described in the annual work plan.
Task Force Assessment - Management plan is being implemented; effort is continuing.
ACTION 4.2.2
A) Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia working within SRAFRC, will promote using
Susquehanna River brood stock for hatchery production.
Action taken - (See action 4.1 J) Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia are working with
SRAFRC in using Susquehanna River brood stock for hatchery production.
Task Force Assessment - Management plan is being followed. Implementation is on-
going.
B) Virginia will expand funding to the recently constructed Pamunkey/Mattaponi Indian
Reservation shad hatcheries. ,
Action taken - Virginia has increased funding to the Pamunkey/Mattaponi Indian
Reservation shad hatcheries. Virginia also is redesigning its Stevens ville hatchery to
accommodate shad. Some shad will be reared at Stevensville this year. Virginia Department
of Game and Inland Fish will initiate a shad stocking program in the upper James River.
Maryland is initiating a program in the Patuxent River to provide PEPCO with shad eggs
which will be used in efforts to re-establish the Patuxent River shad population.
IMPLEMENTATION 4.2.2
Annual activities as approved by SRAFRC members.
Task Force Assessment - Management plan is being implemented.
ACTION 4.3.1
The following technical issues have been accepted:
A) Adoption of Maryland water quality standard for dissolved oxygen of 5.0 mg/L in the
Susquehanna River below Conowingo Dam (1989)
i
Action taken - Implemented since 1989 and effective. i
B) Installation of turbine venting systems and intake air injection capabilities (1991)
Action taken - Implemented and effective.
19
-------
C) Operation of turbines as necessary to meet D.O. standard (1989)
Action taken - Implemented'and effective.
- D) Monitored spills as necessary (1989)
- Action taken - Implemented ancfeffective . . -
E) A schedule of minimum and continuous flows (1989)
i«
Action taken -.Implemented and effective.
IMPLEMENTATION 4.3.1
Variable -
Task Force Assessment - Management plan has been implemented and actions have been
effective.
ACTION 4.4
Establish new categories in the water classification system to guide resource management
based on the physical habitat and water quality characteristics. The revised system would
define anadromous fish spawning areas as either Class n waters (fresh, non-tidal warm water
streams, creeks and rivers) or Class m waters (tidal estuarine waters and Chesapeake Bay).
IMPLEMENTATION 4.4
1990
Action taken - Action described has not been implemented. Related actions have been
addressed in the Habitat Requirement Document (revised 1991 edition).
Task Force Assessment - Action specified (in 4.4) is outside of mandate of. fisheries
management units. Appropriate agencies need to be informed of action needed.
ACTION 4.5
The first three action items are commitments under the 1987 Chesapeake Bay
Agreement. Maryland DNR, PFC, DC and VMRC will not carry out the specific
commitments, but are involved in setting the objectives of the programs to fulfill the
commitments and reviewing the results of the action programs. The achievements of these
commitments will lead to improved water quality and enhanced biological production.
20
-------
IMPLEMENTATION 4.5
Variable, depending on the specific project.
A) Develop and adopt a basin-wide plan that will achieve a 40 % reduction of nutrients
entering the Chesapeake Bay by the year 2000. ~ _-
_- Action taken - Participation inqsetting program objectives-as needed relative to-fisheries
management- - ' ~
B) Develop and adopt a basin-wide plan for the reduction and control of toxic materials
entering the Chesapeake Bay system from point and non-point sources and from bottom
sediments.
Action taken - Participation in setting program objectives as needed relative fc> fisheries
management. -.-
C) Develop and adopt a basin-wide plan for the management of conventional pollutants
entering the Chesapeake Bay from point and non-point sources. ~ ,
Action taken - Participation in setting program objectives as needed relative to fisheries
management.
D) Develop and adopt a plan for continued research and monitoring of the impacts and
causes of acidic atmospheric deposition into the Chesapeake Bay. This plan is complemented
by Maryland's research and monitoring program on the sources, effects, and control of acid
deposition as defined by Natural Resources Article Title 3, Subtitle 3A (Acid Deposition:
Sections 3-3A-01 through 3-3A-04).
Action taken - Participation is setting program objectives as needed relative to fisheries
management.
Task Force Assessment - Management plan is being implemented. This action is intended
to set some guidelines and standards for people outside of the usual fishery management
circle. A tributary initiative is on-going to set nutrient reduction goals and strategies for
achieving them for major tributaries.
Assessment of Management Plan Implementation:
1) Actions planned - 42
2) Actions implemented - 38
21
-------
ASSESSMENT OF CHESAPEAKE BAY BLUEFISH FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN
ACTION 1.1.1
Maryland, the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, and Virginia will continue to
participate in scientific and technical meetings for managing bluefish along the Atlantic coast
and in estuarine waters.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.1.1
Continuing.
Action taken - The three jurisdictions are continuing to participate in scientific and
technical meetings relevant to managing bluefish in coastal and estuarine waters.
Task Force Assessment - Management plan is being implemented.
ACTION 1.1.2.1
Maryland, the Potomac River Fisheries Commission and Virginia will adhere to state
allocations established by the MAMFMC and the ASMFC if the commercial harvest is
projected to equal or exceed 20 % of the total bluefish catch from the Atlantic Coast.
Commercial harvest controls will be coordinated among the Bay jurisdictions and will be
consistent with those established in federal waters. Options may include gear restrictions,
areal closures, trip limits and quotas.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.1.2.1
Dependent on harvest trends.
Action taken - The management plan is being implemented.
Task Force Assessment - The commercial harvest has remained relatively stable and has
not exceeded 20 % of the total coastal harvest while the recreational catch has declined. The
commercial harvest in Virginia is close to 20 % .In Maryland, the recreational catch far
exceeds the commercial harvest.
ACTION 1.1.2.2
A) Maryland, the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, and Virginia will continue
current licensing requirements for the commercial harvest and sale of bluefish.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.1.2.2 A)
1991
Action taken - Licensing requirements for commercial harvest and sale of bluefish
remain in effect.
22
-------
Task Force Assessment - Management plan is being implemented.
B) Virginia will institute a 10 fish creel limit for the commercial harvest of bluefish by-
hook and line and work towards establishing a commercial hook and line license.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.1.2.2 B)
Open ~ .__.,........
Action taken - Virginia has set a 10 fish recreational creel limit for bluefish and
instituted a commercial hooks and line license on January 1, 1993.
Task Force Assessment - The management plan has been implemented. The statement,
"Virginia will institute a 10 fish creel limit for the commercial harvest of bluefish by hook
and line ..." needs clarification. -
ACTION 1.1.2.3
Maryland will establish a 10 fish per person per day recreational creel limit at present
minimum size limits for the Chesapeake Bay and state coastal water*. Virginia and the
Potomac River Fisheries Commission established a 10 fish per person per day recreational
limit in summer 1990. Upon a recommendation from the MAFMC and ASMFC, or as
otherwise determined to be appropriate, jurisdictions may modify the possession limit and/or
minimum size limit.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.1.2.3
1993
Action taken - A 10 fish per person per day creel limit was instituted by the Bay
jurisdictions during 1991. Maryland and the Potomac River Fisheries Commission are
continuing with an 8 inch minimum size limit for bluefish.
Task Force Assessment - Management plan is being implemented.
ACTION 2.1.1
Virginia and the Potomac River Fisheries Commission establish^ a 10 fish per person
per day recreational creel limit and Maryland will establish a 10 fish creel limit to minimize
wastage (see Action 1.1.2.3).
IMPLEMENTATION 2.1.1
1991
Action taken - Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions have instituted 10 fish per person per day
creel limits.
Task Force Assessment - Action is in conformance with management plan.
23
-------
ACTION 2.1.2
Maryland, the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, and Virginia will educate the
general public, through the use of informational brochures and other means, about the need
to reduce the waste problem in the bluefish fishery. Hook and release will be promoted as
one method for reducing waste in the fishery.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.1.2
1991 .-
Action taken - The jurisdictions have developed instructional and educational brochures,
public service video programs and news releases promoting catch-and-release.
In addition, Maryland has promoted the use of barbless hooks.
Task Force Assessment -Public awareness-of the advantage of catch-and-release has
increased significantly and more anglers are practicing catch-and-release. The educational
effort has waned recently and should be increased.
ACTION 2.1.3
Maryland, the Potomac River Fisheries Commission and Virginia will begin assessing
factors contributing to waste in the commercial bluefish fishery and identifying potential
solutions. Issues to be considered include migratory patterns of bluefish, bycatch, the bait
fishery, and market demand.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.1.3
1991
Action taken - The reduction in the number of bluefish in the Bay has caused a delay in
initiating some activities. Virginia samples pound net catches and Maryland will initiate a
program in summer of 1993 to assess factors contributing to waste. Virginia is promoting
the use of plastic escape panels in pound nets to reduce bycatch.
Task Force Assessment - Management plan is being implemented but with some delay
because of decline in bluefish in the Bay.
ACTION 3.1
Maryland, the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, and Virginia will improve the catch
and effort data collected from the bluefish commercial fishery in the Chesapeake Bay.
Recommendations for improving the system include:
1) Coordinate finish license requirements with the needs of finish catch and effort
reports.
2) Reevaluate the reporting form to include information on what types of gear a
fisherman owns, how much they used on a particular day, and how much they caught.
24
-------
3) Develop a check and balance system to validate the catch and effort records.
4) Continue the commercial reporting requirements in Maryland and establish a
mandatory reporting system in Virginia. _
5) Evaluate how the use of young bluefish in the bait fishery contributes to fishing
mortality. .-.....-'. _
IMPLEMENTATION 3.1.1
1991 -
Action taken - Maryland is engaged in an overall effort to upgrade finfish catch and
effort data and bluefish are part of that effort. Virginia has instituted registration of
commercial fishermen, has begun to implement mandatory reporting, and is discussing the
implementation of charter boat log book reporting in 1993 (on a voluntary basis at first).
PRFC has developed software to monitor catch and effort data for sill fisheries.
Task Force Assessment - Actions are in accord with recommendations of management
plan and implementation is continuing. Implementation schedule for Virginia should be
1993.
i
ACTION 3.1.2
Maryland, the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, and Virginia will assess methods
for improving recreational/charter catch and effort data needed to evaluate the biological and
economic impacts of these fisheries. Recommendations include:
1) Evaluate hook and line data collected from the Maryland charter boat industry, i.e.,
age and length frequency, to characterize the recreational catch in the Bay.
2) Obtain economic information for the recreational and charter fisheries to determine
the factors important for sustaining these industries and determining their value to the region.
3) Institute a pilot survey of sportfishermen in Maryland to obtain catch and effort data
for several species, including bluefish.
IMPLEMENTATION 3.1.2
1991; 1994 for Virginia
i
Action taken - In Maryland, striped bass data collection has been the pilot for evaluating
hook and line data. The number of species evaluated is being expanded. The format and the
data elements have evolved through use in collecting data on striped bass fishery over a three
year period. The sportfishermen user data is obtained through the chatter boat survey.
Virginia is just starting to use log books to collect data for charter boats. Virginia has an
advisory group to recommend how to spend the money from the Virginia saltwater license to
25
-------
obtain economic data. Virginia will initiate a sportfishermen survey in 1994.
The PRFC will be collecting their own user data this year. PKFC will use Maryland and
Virginia economic data in assessing the economic impact of recreational fishing on the
Potomac River. For the sportfishermen survey, PRFC will send out surveys to a select
number of license holders.
Task Force Assessment - Actions'taken are in accord with management plan.
Implementation was initiated on schedule and is continuing.
' '. iT , " - - - ' - . - '"
ACTION 3.1.3
Maryland, the Potomac River Fisheries Commis'sion, and Virginia will encourage
research to collect data on bluefish biology, especially estimates of population abundance,
mortality, and recruitment in the Chesapeake Bay. Suggested research topics include:
1) Determine the factors that affect bluefish movements and distribution in the Bay.
2) Collect data on length-frequency and age composition of both the commercial and
recreational bluefish catch.
3) Investigate the environmental parameters that affect reproduction and growth of
bluefish.
IMPLEMENTATION 3.1.3
1991
Action taken - Virginia is collecting data on length frequency and age composition from
both the commercial and recreational bluefish catch as part of their stock assessment
program. Suggested research topics 1 and 3 are of low priority in terms of funding.
Maryland's multispecies pound net survey will provide size and age information on bluefish
and other species.
Task Force Assessment - Actions taken are consistent with management plan guidance.
Implementation is continuing.
ACTION 4.1
The District of Columbia, Environmental Protection Agency, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, and Virginia will continue to set specific
objectives for water quality goals and review management progress established under the
1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. The Agreement and documents developed pursuant to the
Agreement call for:
1) Developing habitat requirements and water quality goals for various finfish species.
2) Developing and adopting basin-wide nutrient reduction strategies.
26
-------
3) Developing and adopting basin-wide plans for the reduction and control of toxic
substances. "
4) Developing and adopting basin-wide management measures for conventional pollutants
entering-the Bay from point and nonpoint sources. - ~ " -
:5) Quantifying the impacts and identifying the sources of atmospheric inputs on the Bay
system. ~
6) Developing management strategies to protect and restore wetlands and submerged
aquatic vegetation. . ..
7) Managing population growth to minimize adverse impacts to the Bay environment.
IMPLEMENTATION 4.1
Continuing . .
Action taken - This section of the bluefish management plan addresses mandates of
agencies outside of the fisheries management area. The management plan is being
implemented but by those other agencies with input from fisheries experts.
Task Force Assessment - Habitat is an important aspect of fisheries management. It is
recommended that the fisheries management plans include specific environmental (=habitat)
action such as defining habitat requirements.
Assessment of Management Plan Implementation
1) Actions planned - 12
2) Actions implemented - 12
27
-------
ASSESSMENT OF CHESAPEAKE BAY ATLANTIC CROAKER AND SPOT
FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS
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.
^ Vi i
IMPLEMENTATION 1.1
Continuing ._. ~
Action taken - Implementation of the management plan has been initiated and is
continuing. Bay jurisdictions are monitoring fisheries stocks and participating in ASMFC
management agendas for croaker and spot.
Task Force Assessment - Actions taken conform to management plan. Implementation is
continuing.
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 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) Continuing, B)1993
Action Taken - Legislation passed in Maryland in 1993 set the minimum size limit for
croaker at nine inches. Maryland DNR is conducting a study to collect data on length-
frequency of croaker and hooking mortality which will be used in future consideration of
minimum size regulations. PRFC has maintained its 10 inch minimum size on croaker. The
length-frequency study being performed in Virginia has been completed; if warranted by the
length-frequency data, a minimum size limit recommendation will be implemented later in
1993.
Task Force Assessment - The actions taken to develop length-frequency and hooking
mortality data on croaker address the intent of increasing yield per recruit while maintaining
recreational fishing opportunities. The management plan should revisit the recommended
minimum size limit once adequate length-age frequency data are available on which to assess
yield per recruit for croaker.
28
-------
ACTION 1.2.2
The jurisdictions will evaluate the need for implementing a minimum size limit for spot.
-IMPLEMENTATION 1.2.2
1992 . "
Action taken - No action has been taken to implement this portion of management plan
by Maryland and Virginia._The PRFC held a public hearing on a proposed 6 inch-minimum
size limit for spot-but has not set a minimum size limit. i
Task Force Assessment - The management plan action on minimum size limit for spot
has not been implemented nor has need for a minimum size limit for spot been addressed by
Maryland and Virginia. The PRFC heard considerable opposition to its 6 inch minimum size
proposal.
ACTION 2.1.1
The jurisdictions will reduce the harvest of small croaker and spot in the directed and
non-directed fisheries.
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.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.1.1 A)
Continuing
Action taken - The ASMFC will present a plan to the jurisdictions this summer to
promote trawl efficiency devices in the shrimp fishery and the use of bycatch reduction
devices.
Task Force Assessment - actions taken are in accord with the management, plan.
B) Virginia will continue its prohibition on trawling in state waters. Virginia will
maintain its 2-7/8 inch minimum size for gill nets.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.1.1 B)
Continuing
Action taken - Virginia is continuing its prohibition on trawling in state waters and its 2-
7/8 inch minimum mesh size for gill nets.
Task Force Assessment - Action is in accord with the management plan.
29
-------
C) Maryland will continue its 4-6 inch gill net restriction during June 15 through
September 30 and implement a 3 inch minimum mesh size along the coast.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.1.1 Q
1992
Action taken - Maryland is continuing its 4 to 6 inch gill net restriction during June 15
through September 30. A 3 inch minimum mesh size along the coast has been proposed and
probably will be made effective.
Task Force Assessment - The actions are in accord with the management plan.
D) The PRFC will continue its prohibition on gill net fishing during the summer.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.1.1 D)
1992
Action taken - PRFC continues its prohibition on gill net fishing during the summer.
Task Force Assessment - The action is in accord with the management plan.
ACTION 2.1.2
The jurisdictions will investigate the magnitude of the by-catch problem and consider
implementing by-catch restrictions for the non-directed fisheries in the Bay.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.1.2
1992
Action taken - Virginia occasionally has a croaker by-catch problem and it is
investigating the use of an escape panel in pound nets. The escape panel is directed at
weakfish but croaker are expected to benefit also. Maryland is not aware of a by-catch
problem with croaker and spot in pound nets. In the hook and line fishery,quite a few of
undersize croaker are caught. Maryland is conducting a hooking mortality study on croaker
in 1993. It also will begin a multispecies sampling program which will collect data on spot
and croaker.
Task Force Assessment - The actions taken are in accord with the management plan.
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.
30
-------
IMPLEMENTATION 3.1
Continue -
Action taken - VMRC is continuing its stock assessment program and analysis of size
and sex data. - ~
" Task Force Assessment - The action taken is in accord with the management plan.
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. '.."'
IMPLEMENTATION 3.2 A)
Continue - i
Action taken - Maryland will continue data collection and expand the species catch
composition information from charter boats, including initiating a "cage study" to collect data
on survival rate of fish brought up from deep water and sampling of gonads to determine
maturity at certain ages. The PRFC will support Maryland's efforts.
Task Force Assessment - The continuing data collection on croaiker and spot biology is
an appropriate response to the management plan.
!
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 B)
Continue ,
Action taken - Virginia is continuing its stock assessment research, which is nearing the
end and a final report is expected in the near future.
Task Force Assessment - Action taken is in accord with the management plan.
ACTION 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.
31
-------
IMPLEMENTATION 4.1
Continuing _ . . .
Action taken - The water quality goals and review of management programs called for in
this section-are generic mandates relativejo fisheries habitat needs but require
actions largely outside of normal jurisdiction of fishery managers. -
Task Force Assessment - The management plan should be more specific in defining need
actions concerning--various aspects of habitat requirements. _
Assessment of Management Plan Implementation -
1) Actions .planned - 15 -....
»**"" - "
2) Actions implemented --14 (note - figure includes modified implementation of Action
1.-2.1 by Maryland) "--..-
32
-------
OF CHESAPEAKE BAY WEAKFISH AND SPOTTED SEA TROUT
FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN.
ACTION 1.1.1
Maryland, Virginia and the Potomac River Fisheries Commission will continue the stock
assessment work and analyses of catch/effort data described in Action 2.1 to improve
management measures for controlling overharvest.
*-«tt *<.--- - '':'
IMPLEMENTATION 1.1.1
Continue
Action taken - See comments under Action 2.1
Task Force Assessment - See comment under Action 2.1
ACTION 1.1.2
1) Maryland and the PRFC will propose an increase in the
minimum size limit for weakfish from 10 to 12 inches.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.1.2 1)
1991
Action taken - Maryland will implement a 12 inch size limit for weakfish, effective
probably by September of 1993; PRFC has set a 13 inch minimum size limit for weakfish.
Task Force Assessment - Actions taken by Maryland and PRFC are in accord with the
management plan.
2) Virginia will continue to enforce its minimum size limit of nine inches for weakfish.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.1.2 2)
Continue
Action taken - Virginia has set a 12 inch minimum size limit for recreational and gill net
gear; it has set a 10 inch minimum size limit for weakfish for pound, nets and haul seines
with a 10 % tolerance by weight.
Task Force Assessment - The actions taken by Virginia are in accord with the
management plan.
3) Bay jurisdictions will pursue discussions on a consistent Bay-wide minimum size for
weakfish.
33
-------
IMPLEMENTATION 1.1.2 3)
Continue " - . ,
Action taken - Jurisdictions have been discussing the need for Bay-wide uniform size and"
creel limit restrictions "and the basis for laclrof regulation* uniformity" between jurisdictions.
Task Force Assessment - Dack of uniformity in fishing regulations-has lead to user
confusion and loss'of credibility and support for fishery management plans. Different
minimum size limits between jurisdictions also tend to create unfair conditions among
commercial fishermen competing for a market share in the same fishery. To the extent
warranted by biological characteristics and stock abundance, jurisdictions should strive to
establish uniform size and creel restrictions. Special efforts should be made*-to inform the
user public of the basis for minimum size and creel restrictions and for any differences which
might exist between jurisdictions.- :
- " . - n-
ACTION 1.1.3
Maryland, the PRFC and Virginia will continue to enforce their-12 inch minimum size ~
limit for spotted seatrout.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.1.3
Continue
Action taken - Maryland and Virginia have maintained the 12 inch size limit on seatrout.
PRFC has set a 13 inch limit.
Task Force Assessment - Actions taken by the jurisdictions are in accord with the
management plan.
ACTION 1.1.4
Maryland will continue its Delay of Application program for commercial fishing licenses
to control fishing effort. Virginia will continue to pursue a limited and delayed entry
program.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.1.4
Continue
Action taken - Maryland is continuing its Delay of Application program. Virginia has a
Delay of Application program in place and has implemented limited entry in the pound net
fishery directed towards weakfish.
Task Force Assessment - Actions taken by Maryland and Virginia are in accord with the
management plan.
34
-------
ACTION 1.1.5
Maryland, the PRFC and Virginia will evaluate recreational and commercial creel limits
-for weakfish and spotted seatrout hook-and-line fisheries, and implement them as needed. -
IMPLEMENTATION 1.1.5 "_-'--
_ 1991-1992 ' ' " ./-_ - . _
Action taken-- The PRFC has set a 10 fish creel limit for weakfish and spotted seatrout
and will propose a five fish creel limit for 1994. Maryland has proposed regulations for a 10
fish creel limit for weakfish and spotted seatrout and may implement a five fish creel limit in
1994. -Virginia has a 15 fish creel limit on weakfish and a 10 fishcreel limit on spotted
seatrout. Virginia has no commercial quota. - ","-_.
- Task Force Assessment'- Actions taken by the jurisdictions are in accord with the
management plan. Strong opposition exists in Maryland "to a five fish creel limit from the
charter boat industry. Implementation is continuing. (Note - while actions taken are in
accord with"the Chesapeake Bay management plan, they are not in compliamce with the
ASMFC management plan for weakfish and spotted seatrout).
ACTION 1.2
1) Maryland will collect information from its pound net, ocean gill net and ocean trawl
fisheries to develop management strategies for reducing the non-directed bycatch of small
weakfish and other species. Options for consideration include minimum mesh sizes, season
and area restrictions, culling practices and fishing efficiency devices
IMPLEMENTATION 1.2 1)
Begin in 1991
Action taken - Maryland has collected information from its pound net, ocean gill net and
ocean trawl fisheries but does not yet have sufficient data to define jipecific strategies to
reduce non-directed bycatch. Implementation is continuing.
Task Force Assessment - Action taken by Maryland is in accord, with the management
plan. ,
ACTION 1.2 2)
Virginia will continue to monitor the species composition and biological characteristics of
bait harvested in its pound net fishery. The VMRC will take action,, as needed, to reduce the
incidental by-catch of small weakfish in the bait fishery.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.2 2)
Continue
35
-------
Action taken - Virginia is studying the use of escape panels in the pound net fishery to
reduce the bycatch of small weakfish. There is very little by-catch in the gill net fishery
because of the mesh size requirements.
Task Force Assessment - Virginia's actions are in accord with the management plan;
implementation is continuing.
ACTION 1.2 3)
Maryland and the PRFC and Virginia will work through the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries
Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to encourage
protection of immature weakfish caught in North Carolina fisheries.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.2 3)
1991 , -
Action taken - The jurisdictions are continuing to work with MAFMC and ASMFC to
reduce the by-catch of immature weakfish in North Carolina fisheries through the use of Fish
Exclusion Devices and TEDs. Use of these devices have been successful in eliminating some
of the by-catch of small fish including immature weakfish and seatrout.
TASK Force Assessment - Participation of the jurisdictions in the MAFMC and ASMFC
to reduce by-catch of immature weakfish is in accord with management plan. The problem
of attempting to reduce bycatch losses of immature weakfish highlights the need for some
form of interjurisdictional authority in fisheries management.
ACTION 2.1 A)
The jurisdictions will continue to support stock identification research, particularly
mitochondria! DNA analysis being conducted at Virginia's Institute for Marine Science
(VIMS), and analysis of weakfish and spotted seatrout scales and otoliths. Coordinated
studies on the relative contribution of various estuaries, including the Chesapeake Bay, to the
coastal weakfish stock will be initiated.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.1 A)
Variable depending on project
Action taken - The genetic analysis has been completed by VIMS and submitted to
ASMFC for scrutiny. ASMFC has concluded that weakfish are a single stock along the entire
Atlantic Coast. Maryland is conducting surveys which will provide young-of-the-year data on
weakfish in support of efforts to determine the relative contributions of various estuaries to
the coastal weakfish stock.
Task Force Assessment - Actions taken by Virginia and Maryland are in accord with the
management plan. Implementation is continuing.
36
-------
ACTION 2.1 B)
VMRC's Stock Assessment Program will continue to collect biological data (age, size,
sex) from commercial catches of weakfish and spotted seatrout. A cooperative Virginia
Institute of Marine Science - Old Dominion University Wallop-Breaux project on weakfish
population dynamics, mortality estimates and yield models is proposed. Other finfish species
to be examined include the spotted seatrout.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.1 B)
Variable depending on project ,
. ./->.! »,-. .,.:,.. .
Action taken - VMRC's Stock Assessment Program is continuing and will be completed
in 1994. The VMRC Stock Assessment Program provided the ASMFC with length data
from the Mid-Atlantic region which -was used in a coast-wide assessment of weakfish stocks.
Implementation is continuing. - r-
Task Force Assessment - The VMRC stock assessment work is in accord with the
management plan and has been effective in providing data used in the coast-wide assessment
of weakfish stocks.
ACTION 2.1 C)
Maryland, Virginia and the PRFC will continue to collect fisheries landings data on
weakfish and spotted seatrout as part of ongoing commercial fisheries statistical programs.
Maryland will continue its commercial pound net sampling project to collect data on length,
weight and sex for weakfish and other species. Virginia will continue to pursue its limited'
and delayed entry program and a mandatory reporting system for its licensed commercial
fishermen and seafood buyers. Maryland and Virginia will continue to supplement the
Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistical Survey to obtain more detailed catch statistics at the
state level. NMaryland will implement a reporting system for charter boats that require daily
logs.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.1 C)
Variable depending on project
Aptions taken - Maryland is continuing its pound net sampling and Is expanding it to
include several other species in the Bay. Maryland also is continuing its charter boat log
book program to collect data on the number and pounds of weakfish caught by charter boat
fishermen. The PRFC is continuing to collect landings data and has implemented a reporting
system for charter boats. Virginia has instituted mandatory reporting and delayed entry
program for licensed commercial fishermen and seafood buyers. Maryland and Virginia are
continuing to supplement the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey.
Task Force Assessment - The actions taken by the jurisdictions sire in accord with the
management plan. Implementation is continuing. ,
37
-------
ACTION^.! D)
Maryland and Virginia will continue the Bay-wide trawl survey of estuarine finfish
. species and crabs to measure size, age, sex, distribution, abundance and CPUE. Maryland-
will continue_studies utilizing bottom trawls and beach seines and will conduct a pilot stock-
assessment -study TOi-weakfish and other estuarine species. -
-" IMPLEMENTATION 2.1 D)r ~ ~
Variable-depending on project
Action taken --Jurisdictions are continuing trawl surveys. Maryland's summer trawl
program has produced some data on juvenile wealcfish size, abundance, distribution and
CPUE. Virginia's trawl survey is providing indices of juvenile abundance-Jfbr weakfish as -
well as other species.
Task Force Assessment - Jurisdictions have responded-to the management plan.
Implementation is continuing. .
. ACTION 3.1 .
The District of Columbia, Environmental Protection Agency, Maryland, Pennsylvania, .
the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, and Virginia will continue to set specific
objectives for water quality goals and review management programs established under
the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
IMPLEMENTATION 3.1
Continuing.
Action taken - The water quality goals and review of management programs called for in
this section are generic mandates relative to fisheries habitat needs but requiring actions
largely outside of normal fishery management jurisdiction with the participation of fishery
experts.
Task Force Assessment - The management plan should be more specific in defining need
actions concerning various aspects of habitat requirements.
ACTION 4.1
Virginia, the PRFC and Maryland will continue to address fishing conflicts and issues
with existing advisory groups. These include VMRC's Finfish Subcommittee, comprised of
commercial and recreational fishing representatives; MDNR's Tidal Fisheries Advisory
Commission and Sports Fishing Advisory Commission; and PRFC's members from Virginia
and Maryland.
IMPLEMENTATION 4.1
Continuing
38
-------
Action taken - Implementation for the most part has been limited to discussions between
jurisdiction agencies with minimal interaction between advisory groups. Actions have not
been effective in resolving interjurisdictional conflicts resulting from differences in size and
creel limits and regulation of commercial fishing activities.
Task Force Assessment - Advisory groups to the jurisdictions should be involved in
efforts to resolve interjurisdictional fisheries conflicts. There also is a need for some form of
interjurisdictional mandate to resolve interjursidictional'fisheries management conflicts.
ACTION 4.2
1) In April. 1990, the VMRC adopted a uniform marking system and a minimum mesh
size of 2-7/8 inches for all gill nets fished in Virginia's tidal waters. The minimum mesh
size will increase to 3 inches in January 1992." Gilr nets will be prohibited from the
Hampton Roads area (7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.) and four Eastern Shore Bayside creek mouths
during the summer months to avoid conflict with recreational user groups.
IMPLEMENTATION 4.2 1) !
On-going
Action Taken - The minimum gill net mesh size did not increase', to 3 inches in January
1992 and currently the minimum mesh is not scheduled to increase to 3 inches. All other
actions called for in management plan have been implemented and prohibition of gill nets is
being considered for additional areas.
i
Task Force Assessment - With exception of the change to 3 inch mesh size, the actions
taken by Virginia are in accord with the management plan.
ACTION 4.2 2)
In September 1990, Maryland adopted a marking system, based on Virginia's scheme,
for drift gill nets used in the striped bass fishery. This marking system will be proposed for
gill nets used in other fisheries as well.
IMPLEMENTATION 4.2 2)
On-going |
Action taken - The marking system used in the majority of Maryland gill net fisheries
currently is based on the Virginia system but there are some exceptions.
Task Force Assessment - Maryland has responded to the management plan's call to
extend the Virginia marking system to other fisheries besides the striped bass fishery.
Implementation to date is in accord with the management plan. Implementation is
continuing.
39
-------
Assessment of Management Plan Implementation
1) Actions planned - 19 - _
2) Actions implmented - 19 (Note - Except thai Virginia did not implement the 3 inch
mesh size in Action 4.2, part !)'._.-
40
-------
ASSESSMENT OF CHESAPEAKE BAY SUMMER FLOUNDER
MANAGEMENT PLAN
ACTION l.la -"_._ ~ -;__.-_. : _ -
.Maryland, the PRFC and Virginia will propose an increase in their minimum size_limit
for recreationally caught-flounder from 13 inches to 14 inches.
IMPLEMENTATION l.la
1991; continue
Action taken - The jurisdictions have'set a 14 inch minimum size liimfefor summer
flounder. (PRFC set 14 inch limit for 1992 season, Maryland's 14 inch limit became
effective in-March 1993 and Virginia's in January 1993).
Task Force Assessment - Except for implementation date, actions taken by jurisdictions
are in accord with management plan.
ACTION l.lb
Maryland, Virginia and the PRFC will propose creel limits and seasonal restrictions in
compliance with MAFMC recommendations. Examples include a three fish creel limit with
no closed season, a 10 fish limit with a closed season January - June or a five fish limit with
a January - May 15 closure. Virginia will continue to enforce her ten fish per day limit until
such time as MAFMC recommendations can be implemented.
Actions taken - Maryland has set a 10 fish per person daily creel limit with a June 1
through October 31 season in the Bay and a May 15 through September 30 in the ocean.
The PRFC has set a 10 fish creel limit and is proposing a June 1 through October 31 season
(Public hearing scheduled for May 1993). Virginia has a 10 fish creel limit but no closed
season.
Task Force Assessment - Actions taken by the jurisdictions are in accord with the
management plan and with MAFMC recommendations. Note - Although consistent with the
Chesapeake Bay Action l.lb, Virginia's "no closed season" does not conform to MAFMC
recommendations or the ASMFC management plan.
ACTION l.lc
Commercial size limits will remain at 13 inches in conformance with MAFMC
recommendations. Commercial fisheries will be subject to mesh size restrictions and a quota
system administered through MAFMC.
IMPLEMENTATION l.lc
1991, continuing
41
-------
Actions taken - Maryland and Virginia have set a 13 inch minimum-size for commercial
flounder fisheries. The PRFC has a 14 inch minimum size for both recreational and
commercial'to provide parity between the two user groups. Maryland has imposed a 5.5
inch-diamond or a 6 inch square minimum cod end mesh size for its trawl fishery. Neither
Virginia nor the PRFC has a trawl fishery. .Commercial quotas have been set for the 1993
commercial catch of summer flounder, 255,000 pounds for Maryland and 2.7 million pounds
for Virginia. Virginia is keeping a 10 % tolerance by weight of fish less than 13 inches for
its pound net fishery. It has dropped the recreational tolerance of 2 fish less than 14 inches.
-";.- J* . ,i
Task Force Assessment - Actions taken by the jurisdictions are in accord with the
management plan and in .compliance with MAFMC recommendations.
ACTION 1.2a
Virginia and Maryland will implements ininimum mesh size in all directed flounder
fisheries sufficient to allow escapement of immature flounder.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.2a
1991, continue
Actions taken - Virginia has a ban on trawling within state waters. Maryland has set
regulations for a 5.5 inch diamond or a 6 inch square minimum mesh for trawl fisheries.
Task Force Assessment - Virginia need not be included hi action 1.2a when management
plan is revised because of its ban on trawl fishing in state waters. Maryland actions are in
compliance with MAFMC recommendations.
ACTION 1.2b
Virginia and Maryland will work with the MAFMC to adopt a mesh size requirement for
the F.F.7 flounder trawl fishery consistent with the objectives of the Bay-wide plan and
MAFMC's recommendations for conservation of the resource.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.2b
1991, continue
Actions taken - Jurisdictions have participated in the MAFMC FMP development. The
5.5 inch diamond or 6 inch square minimum mesh size for trawls went into effect November
30, 192 in the EEZ. North Carolina began a seasonal requirement for 5.5 inch diamond or 6
inch square mesh in directed flounder fisheries beginning in 1990.
Task Force Assessment - Participation by jurisdictions has been helpful and effective in
developing and adopting mesh size requirements for the EEZ flounder trawl fishery which
are in accord with the Chesapeake Bay management plan for summer flounder.
42
-------
ACTION-1.3a
Maryland will collect information from its pound net and ocean trawl fisheries to develop
management strategies for reducing the non^directed bycatch of small flounder and other
species. Options for consideration include minimum mesh sizes, season and area restrictions,
culling practices and fishing efficiency devices. -~
- IMPLEMENTATION 1.3a - --.--
1991, continue " !
Actions taken - Maryland has begun (spring 1993)a multispecies sampling program for
summer flounder and other species from pound nets, trawls and fyke nets within the Bay.
Task Force Assessment - Except for the timing of the implementation, Maryland's action
is in accord^with the management plan. The dependence on federal funding highlights the
impact of funding limitations on implementation of the Chesapeake Bay FMPs. Scheduling of
PMP actions should be revised as necessary with respect to critical funding needs and
available funding support.
ACTION 1.3b
Virginia will continue to monitor the species composition and biological characteristics of
bait harvested in its pound net fishery. The VMRC will take action, as needed, to reduce the
incidental bycatch of small flounder in the bait fishery.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.3b
1991, continue j
Action taken - Virginia is continuing to monitor the species composition and
characteristics of bait harvested in its pound net fishery. Escape panels for reducing bycatch
of juvenile finfish were tested in 1992 and will be tested again in 1993.
Task Force Assessment - Virginia's action is responsive to the recommendations of the
summer flounder FMP.
ACTION 1.3c
Maryland, the PRFC and Virginia will work through the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries
Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to encourage
protection of immature flounder.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.3c
1991, continue j
Action taken - Jurisdictions are continuing to participate in MAFMC and ASMFC to
achieve protection for immature flounder. (See Action Lib, Lie. L2b)
43
-------
Task Force Assessment - Actions taken by jurisdictions are in accord with management
plan. ' " - -"'".' ' -
ACTION2.1 . - "
The-jurisdictions will continue to support stock identification research, particularly stock
.composition tagging studies being conducted at VIMS and the University of Maryland. -
Coordinated studies on-tiie relative contribution of various estuaries, including the
Chesapeake Bay, to the coastal flounder stock will be initiated.
J.V,'." - '"
IMPOIMENTATION 2.1
1991, continue _ . . . -
Actions taken - Maryland has conducted a flounder tagging study for the past three
years, concentrating on the coastal Bays and~offshore fishery: VIMS has tagged 12,000
flounder over a three to four year period and is now considering tagging young of the year
flounder. The PRFC has developed an educational program to inform anglers what to do if
they land a tagged flounder. . -
Task Force Assessment - Actions taken by the jurisdictions are in conformance with the
management plan. Implementation is continuing.
ACTION 2.2
VMRC's stock assessment program will continue to collect biological data (age, size,
sex) from commercial catches of summer flounder. VIMS will continue to monitor
abundance of juvenile flounder through its young-of-the-year and juvenile flounder survey.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.2
1991, continue
Action taken - Virginia is continuing to support stock assessment work by VMRC and
VIMS monitoring of juvenile flounder abundance.
Task Force Assessment - Virginia's action is in accord with the management plan.
ACTION 2.3
Maryland, Virginia and the PRFC will continue to collect fisheries landing data on
summer flounder as part of ongoing commercial fisheries statistics program. Virginia will
continue to pursue adoption and implementation of a limited and/or delayed entry program
and a mandatory reporting system for commercial licensees. Maryland and Virginia will
continue to supplement the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey to obtain more
detailed catch statistics at the state level. Maryland will begin a pound net sampling project
to collect information on summer flounder and other species.
44
-------
IMPLEMENTATION 2.3
1991, continue - .
Actions taken - Maryland has implemented a pound net sampling study and is collecting
landings data as part of the ongoing Marine Recreational-Fisheries Statistics Survey. The
. PRFC is collecting commercial landings data., Virginia has implemented all the actions "
called for underthis section of the management plan, including mandatory reporting.
Task Force Assessment - The actions by the jurisdictions are in accord with the
management plan.-Implementation is continuing.
ACTION 2.~4 " " ; .
Maryland and Virginia will continue trawl surveys of estuarine ifinfish species and crabs
to measure Tsize, age, sex, distribution, abundance and CPUE.: Maryland will continue
seaside juvenile summer flounder studies utilizing bottom trawls, beiich seines and their
cooperative sampling .of trawl fisheries. -
IMPLEMENTATION 2.4
1991, continuing
Actions fcken - Maryland and Virginia are implementing the management plan.
Maryland is de-emphasizing the Bay-wide trawl survey in favor of the pound net survey.
Virginia is continuing the trawl survey.
Task Force Assessment - Maryland and Virginia are implementing the management plan.
Implementation is continuing.
ACTION 3.1
The District of Columbia, Environmental Protection Agency," Maryland, Pennsylvania,
the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, and Virginia will continue to set specific
objectives for water quality goals and review management programs established under the
1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
IMPLEMENTATION 3.1
Continuing
Action taken - The water quality goals and review of management programs called for in
this section are generic mandates relative to fisheries habitat needs but requiring actions
largely outside of normal fishery management jurisdiction with the participation of fishery
experts.
Task Force Assessment - The management plan should be more specific in defining
actions concerning various aspects of habitat requirements.
45
-------
Assessment of Management Plan Implementation to
1) Actions planned - 13 - _
2) Actions implemented - 13 (Note - MarylandTias delayed
implementation of Action 1.3a) _ _'_._.-
46
-------
ASSESSMENT OF CHESAPEAKE BAY BLUE CRAB MANAGEMENT PLAN
ACTION 1.1.1
Maryland and Virginia will contain the commercial harvest of blue crabs at present
levels. The types of management actions which will be considered in the regulation of blue
crabs are as follows: -
Harvest seasons - For example, seasonal patterns of catch for hard crabs and peelers
suggest a possible crab-fishing strategy which would target peelers from May to July and
then hard crabs the remainder of the year. In Maryland, the blue crab season is closed
between January. 1 and April 1.
Gear restrictions - For example, limit the number of commercial crab pots and length of
trotiine per license. Restrictions on where crab pots and trotlines can be fished currently are
being implemented.
Catch limits - For example, set a catch limit for crab pots, trotiines and scrapes. Catch
limits would be based on current catch per unit effort data, historical harvest data and
stock/recruitment information. Catch limits would be modified as new information is
acquired.
Size limits to maximize yield per recruit - For example, develop the optimal size at first
entry into the fishery. Currently, Maryland has the following minimum size limits: 5 inches,
spine to spine, for male hard crabs; 3 inches for peeler crabs; 3 1/2 inches for soft crabs;
and no size limit for mature female crabs. Virginia has the following size limits in effect: 5
inches, male and immature female hard crabs; and no minimum size limits for peelers, soft
crabs or female mature crabs.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.1.1
1991
Action taken - (Maryland has a very active blue crab advisory board which did a review
of the management plan in the spring of 1993 for the purpose of recommending management
action. Virginia has a subcommittee of the fishery advisory committee which reviews blue
crab management actions.)
Maryland is considering using harvest season, gear restrictions and catch limits for blue
crabs (restrictions have been proposed since the Task Force completed its review and
assessment of the management plan). The Chesapeake Biological laboratory in Solomons,
Md., has determined that increasing the size limit on hard crabs from 5 to 5 1/2 inches
would not be an effective measure at this time. Virginia has not initiated much regulatory
control on hard crabs because blue crabs have been abundant. There has not been support
for harvest season, gear restrictions, catch limits or change in minimum size. Virginia does
47
-------
have a 17 barrel limit from March through May. Because of last year's low harvest, support
for protective'restrictions may materialize. The PRFC does not have a harvest season, gear
restrictions, or catch limits. The' size limk is 5 inches for males, 3 1/2 inches for peelers -
and no size limit on soft crabs or mature females. There is a consensus to. have a uniform
size limit for peelers and soft crabs but the jurisdictions have not yet agreed on a specific
size.
Task Force Assessment^ Jurisdictions have delayed implementing this section of the
management plan. Until the low abundance of blue crabs in 1992 user support for catch and
gear limits or other protective regulations was lacking. There was little incentive to reduce
fishing effort or reduce harvest through restrictions commercial on recreational crabbing.
Although the strategies .suggested in Action 1.1.1 have not been implemented, recent
crabbing'restrictions proposed by Maryland are in accord with the goals of the management
plan. -
ACTION 1.1.2
Maryland will continue the delayed entry program and Virginia will establish a delayed
entry program similar to Maryland's. - ,
IMPLEMENTATION 1.1.2
Maryland currently has a delayed entry program in effect. Virginia is developing a
similar delayed entry program and will be implemented by 1991.
Action taken - Maryland's delayed entry program is continuing. Virginia initiated a two
year delayed entry program, effective January 1, 1993.
Task Force Assessment - Maryland's action is in accord with the management plan.
Except for the delay in implementation, Virginia's action also is in accord with the
management plan.
ACTION 1.2
Maryland and Virginia will determine Bay-wide regulations concerning the harvest of
peeler crabs, soft crabs, hard crabs, and female crabs and size limits on all crabs based on
yield per recruit data.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.2
1991
Action taken - The jurisdictions are continuing to collect and assess data, discuss Bay-
wide size limits, gear and time restrictions and licenses. Less emphasis is being given this
activity since CBL has determined that an increase in size limit from 5 to 5 1/2 inches may
not improve yield per recruit. Virginia also is using the CBL study as a basis for size limits.
Virginia has initiated a shedders license and a peeler pot license as a means for collecting
data relevant to Bay-wide management strategies.
48
-------
Task Force Assessment - While actions are ongoing in response to this section of the
management'plan, the jurisdictions have not reached agreement on Bay-wide blue crab
regulations. "-'-_
--ACTION 1.3.1 "-.'!""
A clear distinction between commercial and. recreational crabbers will be defined by
-reducing the bushel limit for the non-commercial crabbing license.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.3;1 S! ~ i
1991 .
Action taken - Virginia is developing a new gear license for recreational crabbers using
commercial gear. The current recreational limit, for which no license is required, is two
pots per person and one bushel of crabs a day. Under the new license, the limit would be
five pqts-per person. Maryland has a non-commercial license which allows two bushels per
day per license holder. Attempts to correct" abuses of the non-commercial license
through the Maryland legislature in 1992 and 1993 have been unsuccessful."' The PRFC
regulations-limit recreational crabbers to one crab pot per person. "A $50 commercial license
is required to set more than one crab pot.
Task Force Assessment - Actions taken by the jurisdictions are consistent with the intent
of the management plan. Effectiveness of this section of the plan is hampered by lack of user
and legislative support. ,
!
ACTION 1.3.2
The economic and social impacts of commercial, non-commercial and recreational
crabbing in the Chesapeake Bay will be evaluated in order to resolve conflicts between user
groups.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.3.2 ;
1990
I
Action taken - Virginia has not had a problem with user conflicts sufficient to warrant
implementing this action. Maryland is experiencing some conflicts between commercial and
recreational trotliners in some tributaries and crabbers and recreational boaters over crab pot
markers. Formal evaluation of economic and social impacts has not been completed.
Task Force Assessment - Jurisdictions have not yet implemented this section of the
management plan largely because of relatively low level of user conflicts until recently and
need to respond to concerns of higher priority.
49
-------
ACTION 2.1
A) Maryland will promote the release of buckram (papershell) crabs by increasing the
general awareness of commercial and recreational crabbers of the economic advantages of
being more selective.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.1 A) :
1990 -
Action taken - Maryland has initiated action on this provision but at a low level.
Virginia has developed a technical manual for crab shedders to assist them in running a more
efficient operation; information on papershell crabs is included in the manual.
Task Force Assessment - Actions taken by jurisdictions represent minimal response to
this segment of the management-plan: ~ ..........
ACTION 2.1 B)
Virginia will consider design limitations on crab dredges and establish management or
sanctuary areas to avoid wastage problems in the crab dredge fishery.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.1
1990
Action taken - Virginia has investigated modifying crab dredges but recommendations
were not made at the time because there was a good crab harvest and little support for
modifying dredges to reduce harvest.
Task Force Assessment - Virginia has partially implemented this portion of the
management plan; implementation has been minimal.
ACTION 2.2
A) Maryland and Virginia will promote the use of cull rings to allow sublegal crabs to
escape from crab pots.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.2 A)
1989
Action taken - Virginia has distributed to all its crabbers a leaflet describing the benefits
of using a cull ring. A survey showed that 60 to 70 % of the crabbers are using cull rings
but recent observations suggest there might. Maryland also is promoting the use of cull rings
and the Maryland blue crab advisory commission is considering the merits of making cull
rings mandatory. The PRFC distributes the Virginia cull ring leaflet with each commercial
license issued. Cull ring use in the Potomac River will remain voluntary for the time being.
50
-------
Task Force Assessment - Actions taken by the jurisdictions are in accord with the intent
of the management plan.
B) The effectiveness of using cull rings will be evaluated from crab pot studies.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.2 B)
1989 ~ . '
Action taken" - A small pilot study by Virginia has demonstrated that cull rings are
effective. Maryland has been studying the effectiveness of cull rings. The high frequency of
usage among crabbers also indicates the effectiveness'of cull rings.
Task Force Assessment - Action taken by Virginia in conducting the pilot study and by
Maryland in surveying crabbers to determine the usage of cull rings is in accord with the
goal of the management plan.
ACTION 2.3
A) Maryland will prohibit the harvest of egg-bearing females (sponge crabs) and examine
methods of controlling fishing mortality on females during other life history stages. For
example, size at maturity is necessary to determine minimum harvestable size.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.3 A)
1990
Action taken - Maryland has prohibited the harvest of egg bearing females (sponge
crabs). Other actions called for under this section of the plan as yet have not been
implemented.
B) Virginia will monitor the harvest of female crabs to study the effect of female harvest
on crab population dynamics, especially in the winter dredge fishery. These data will be
used to determine management measures that protect the reproductive potential of blue crabs.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.3 B)
1993
Action taken - A tagging study conducted by Old Dominion in the late '80s and early
'90s indicates exploitation rates of female crabs in the winter dredge fishery is not that great.
VIMS and CBL are studying the entire stock using experimental dredge and dredge fishery
information and trawl survey data. The results of this study will be of help in evaluating
population effects resulting from harvesting female crabs.
I
Task Force Assessment - The study by VIMS and CBL is in accord with this section of
the management plan. Implementation is continuing.
51
-------
C) Maryland and Virginia will investigate the extent of mortality on mature female crabs
used as bait in the Chesapeake Bay eel fishery.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.3 C)
1990
Action taken - Neither Maryland nor Virginia has investigated the extent of mortality on
mature female crabs used as. bait in the Chesapeake Bay eel fishery.
i - J .,= - h
Task Force Assessment - This section of the management plan has not been
implemented.
ACTION 2.4 -
Maryland and Virginia will address-the problenvof abandoned crab pots as follows:
A) Virginia law prohibits abandonment of crab pots in navigable waters less than six feet
deep.
B) Maryland law requires the removal of all crab pots by the last day of the fishing
season. A regulation specifically addressing the problem of abandoned pots will be
considered.
C) Maryland will consider the use of biodegradable sections in crab pots.
D) Both Maryland and Virginia will improve the enforcement of existing regulations.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.4
Virginia law currently is in effect. Maryland will consider a regulation addressing
abandoned crab pots by 1990.
Action taken - Current Maryland regulations prohibit crab pots in the water from January
1 to March 31. Biodegradable panels in crab pots have been tested and the data is under
review flute may be the best material for biodegradable panels); a study reviewing the
economics of using biodegradable panels is underway. Improved enforcement of existing
regulations is being addressed.
Task Force Assessment - Regulation addressing abandoned crab pots has not been
established; aside from that, the actions taken are in accord with management plan.
ACTION 2.5
Maryland and Virginia will promote the reduction of peeler mortalities associated with
holding practices in peeler floats and shedding operations by providing the most up-to-date
technical information to owners. Any necessary regulatory changes will be made and
implemented.
52
-------
IMPLEMENTATION 2.5
1991
-Action taken - VIMS has developed a better shedding system and a technical document
to help reduce the mortality rate of green crabs. Virginia has initialed a shedders license and
peeler pot license to identify groups to target for information and assistance. Maryland is
providing technical information through the University of Maryland Sea Grant Extension
Service. The Maryland Blue Crab Advisory Commission is considering the need for a
shedder's license.
Task Force Assessment - Virginia and Maryland are implementing this/section of the
management plan. - --«_«--'
ACTION 3.1 ... .
Maryland and Virginia will maintain both fishery dependent and independent stock
abundance surveys to provide data for timely management measures., Actions include:
A) Maryland and Virginia will continue the crab trawl survey to monitor blue crab
abundance and distribution. (In progress)
IMPLEMENTATION 3.1 A)
Continue
Actions taken - (A) Maryland is continuing the crab trawl survey but more emphasis is
being placed on the winter dredge survey to collect data on stock status. Virginia is
continuing its long term finfish/crab trawl survey to collect stock assessment data.
Task Force Assessment - Actions taken by Maryland and Virginia are in accord with
management plan.
B) Maryland and Virginia will continue the blue crab winter dredge survey through
1990.
IMPLEMENTATION 3.1 B)
1990
Action taken - Maryland has continued the winter dredge survey. Virginia has continued
the winter trawl survey but some evaluation may be necessary before deciding on future
continuance of the survey.
Task Force Assessment - Maryland and Virginia have implemented the management
plan. Implementation is continuing.
53
-------
C) Maryland will implement a modified crab reporting system to obtain an accurate
measurement of effort by gear and fisherman.
IMPLEMENTATION 3.1 C)
1990
Action taken - Maryland is reviewing reporting procedures and is modifying report forms
to improve data collection. _The Blue Crab Advisory Commission is evaluating, procedure to
better track commercial harvest.
is aifask Force Assessment' -i Actions taken are consistent with intent of management plan
except for delay start of implementation.
D) Virginia will design and implement-a -mandatory reporting program for all species,
including blue crab, that will effectively monitor harvest and effort levels as well as
biological. " -
IMPLEMENTATION 3.1 D)
1990
Action taken - Virginia initiated mandatory reporting program effective January 1, 1993.
Task Force Assessment - Virginia has implemented this segment of the management
plan; implementation did not meet the 1990 implementation schedule.
E) Both the Virginia and Maryland reporting system will be compatible with one another
to facilitate a Bay-wide effort to obtain catch and effort data.
IMPLEMENTATION 3.1 E)
1991
Action taken - Maryland and Virginia are continuing to evaluate reporting systems; the
two systems currently are not fully compatible. The PRFC has initiated a mandatory
reporting system for crabs which collects data on effort and biological data (age and sex of
crabs).
Task Force Assessment - The jurisdictions are implementing this segment of the
management plan. Implementation schedule has not been met.
ACTION 3.2
There will be a Bay-wide effort to collect recreational catch and effort data and to
evaluate the economic impact of the recreational harvest on blue crab industry. Actions
include:
54
-------
A) Maryland and Virginia will utilize information obtained from the National Marine
Fisheries Sendee's "Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Surveys." (MRFSS) in order to
~ determine effective management options..
IMPIJMENTATION 3.2 A)' ~ -.-;--
- - 1991 " " _
Action taken - Maryland is using MRFSS data when it is available. Virginia has not used-
MRFSS data in the past.
Task Force Assessment - Implementation of this action item is minimal (MAryland) or
lacking (Virginia). --
B) Maryland will continue a survey on recreational crabbing and Virginia will investigate
survey methods for the recreational blue crab fishery. Virginia will institute a survey to
determine recreational harvest and effort at the conclusion of the study:
Action taken - Recreational crabbing survey has not been implemented on a regular basis
by Maryland or Virginia. Surveys were done in 1983, 1985 and 1990 in Maryland.
Task Force Assessment - Jurisdictions have not fully implemented this segment of the
management plan.
C) Management strategies will be implemented based on the information from Bay-wide
recreational surveys. Methods of controlling effort will be similar to management measures
described in Action 1.1.1
IMPLEMENTATION 3.2 Q
1991 '
Action taken - Action 3.2 C) has not been implemented. Maryland Blue Crab Advisory
Commission is considering various management options based on information from other
sources.
Task Force Assessment - The information available to the jurisdictions from survey data
on recreational crabbing is not sufficient to devise effective management strategies. In lieu
of survey data, near term control of effort can be based on measures such as those
considered in Action 1.1.1 (seasons, gear restrictions, catch limits, size limits)
ACTION 3.3
Maryland and Virginia will support cooperative research to address and define the
stock/recruitment relationship, natural fishing mortality rates and the environmental
parameters that effect short-term and long-term fluctuations in crab populations.
55
-------
IMPLEMENTATION 3.3
1990
Action taken - A blue crab workshop was held in the spring of 1990 to share information
and identify research needs. Maryland and Virginia have continued to support fishery
dependent and independent research jictivities. CBSAC is supporting research and evaluation
of rettability'of population estimates and sampling design (scheduled for completion in 1993).
Task Force Assessment - The jurisdictions have implemented this section of the
management plan. Enough new data from blue crab population research has been developed
to warrant convening another workshop as a follow up to the 1990 workshop.
ACTION 3.4 -
Maryland and Virginia will delay action on regulating the use of eels for bait until the
status of the eel population is investigated more fully.
IMPLEMENTATION 3.4
Delayed
Action taken - The Maryland crab catch reporting form has been modified to include
questions about the amount of eel used for bait.
Task Force Assessment - The jurisdictions are following management plan. Maryland's
action will provide timely information on eel exploitation by trotiine crabbers.
ACTION 4.1
Maryland and Virginia will continue to monitor conflicts between crabbers and
recreational boaters and enforce existing regulations on open and closed crabbing areas and
pot-free channels.
A) Maryland will actively investigate placing crab pots on line in order to reduce the
number of floats.
B) Maryland will increase the number of float-free areas.
IMPLEMENTATION 4.1
1990
Action taken - 19 new float-free areas were established in 1990. Herring Bay was added
in 1992. Approximately 30 float-free areas now in effect. Maryland has not conducted
investigations on effectiveness of placing pots on lines but fishermen themselves are
experimenting with the practice.
56
-------
Task Force Assessment - Maryland has implemented part A) of this action; the
establishment of float-free areas has caused fishermen to voluntarily consider placing pots on
lines to reduce the number of floats and conflicts with boaters. Resources to mark float-free
areas clearly and enforce the regulations must be recognized as limiting factors in creating
and maintaining'float-free areas.
ACTION 4.2
Maryland and Virginia jvill determine Bay-wide regulations concerning the harvest of
peeler crabs, soft crabs, hard crabs and female crabs and size limits on all crabs based on
yield per recruit data and a better understanding of economic effects, (see also section 1.2)
IMPLEMENTATION 4.3 -
1991 ' _ . - , .
Action taken -Data on which to base uniform regulations is being collected but currently
there is not a consensus among the jurisdictions on specifications for uniform regulation.
Task Force Assessment - Actions taken have not been in accord with the management
plan implementation schedule, otherwise, jurisdictions are proceeding with implementation.
Lack of interjurisdictional uniformity in size limit on soft crabs is a cause of tension in
Crisfield, Md. area.
ACTION 4.3
Maryland will consider the use of crab pots for commercial harvest only.
IMPLEMENTATION 4.3
1990
Action taken - Maryland still is considering this regulation; the impact of such a
regulation on landowner rights is being assessed.
Task Force Assessment - Maryland's action is consistent with the intent of the
management plan. In view of the language describing the action to be taken, the
implementation schedule should be changed to "continuing".
ACTION 4.4
There will be a Bay-wide reassessment of enforcement practices as a means of deterring
violations. The following actions will be taken:
A) Maryland will continue the Point Assignment System which serves as a deterrent to
crabbing violations.
57
-------
B) Virginia will investigate implementing a point schedule system similar to Maryland's,
to address inconsistent and inadequate penalties currently assessed for illegal crab harvesting
practices.
C) Maryland and Virginia will adopt consistent enforcement policies and practices
insofar as state laws permit, and continuously seek uniformity,,
IMPLEMENTATION 4.4
Maryland system currently in effect. Virginia system to be developed.
Action taken - Virginia has not considered a point system but has strengthened the laws
regarding habitual (repeat) offenders. The PKFC has a second offense provision and a
mandatory hearing process for the same offense in a 24 month period.
Task Force Assessment - Maryland has continued its point system and is in conformance
with the management plan. Virginia has not implemented this section of.the plan. .
ACTION 5.1
The first three action items are commitments under the 1987 Chesapeake Bay
Agreement. Maryland DNR and VMRC will not carry out the specific commitments, but are
involved in setting the objectives of the programs to fulfill the commitments and reviewing
the results of the action programs. The achievement of these commitments will lead to
improved water quality and enhanced biological production.
A) Develop and adopt a basin-wide plan that will achieve a 40 % reduction of nutrients
entering the Chesapeake Bay by the year 2000.
B) Develop and adopt a basin-wide plan for the reduction and control of toxic materials
entering the Chesapeake Bay system from point and non-point sources and from bottom
sediments.
C) Develop and adopt a basin-wide plan for the management of conventional pollutants
entering the Chesapeake Bay from point and nonpoint sources.
Action taken - The water quality goals and review of management programs called for in
this section are generic mandates relative to fisheries habitat needs but requiring actions
largely outside of normal fishery management jurisdiction with the participation of fishery
experts. The jurisdictions have provided technical support in fisheries matters in accord with
the plan.
Task Force Assessment - The management plan should be more specific in defining
needed actions concerning various aspects of habitat requirements. (See Action 5.2 as
example)
58
-------
ACTION 5.2
Maryland and Virginia will identify prime habitat areas for blue crabs and actively
protect these areas from the effects of dredging, development, and pollution.
- IMPLEMENTATION 5.2 . " -
1991 - _ " - "
Actipn'taken - Maryland has not established crab sanctuaries but it is using its winter
dredge survey to identify crab over-wintering areas for consideration as crab sanctuaries and
will continue implementation efforts. Virginia has established an extensive crab sanctuary (a
spawning sanctuary during the summer months) at the mouth of the Bay. Virginia also has
joined the NOAA Estuarine Reserve System and three reserve areas have been set up in the
York River. -
Task Force Assessment - Maryland and Virginia are implementing this section of the
management-plan. Implementation is continuing.
ACTION 5.3
A) Protect and restore submerged aquatic vegetation.
B) Support tidal and non-tidal wetlands management strategies.
C) Support the development of the "Use of Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake Bay
Living Resources" document which would be used to distribute geographically specific
information on critical or sensitive areas for living resources, including blue crabs, to water
quality and land use management personnel.
IMPLEMENTATION 5.3
Variable, depending on the specific project. >
Action taken - Jurisdictions are providing fisheries expertise for implementing section
5.3. Action is continuing.
Task Force Assessment - Jurisdictions role in this implementation currently is to provide
fisheries expertise in support of specific needs of those agencies mandated to implement this
section of the plan. Actions taken are continuing in accord with the plan.
Assessment of Management Plan Implementation
1) Actions planned - 37
2) Actions implemented - 32 (Note - Includes partial or minimal implementation of Actions
2.1, 2.3A, 3.2Band4.4)
59
-------
ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF CHESAPEAKE BAY STRIPED BASS
MANAGEMENT PLAN
ACTION 1.1.1- . .- - -,- - -
. The District of Columbia, Maryland-Virginia and the Potomac River Fishenes _ -
Commission wiH utilize combination of harvest restrictions to meet-target fishing mortality
rates. -Controls may include seasonal quotas, daily bag limits, minimum size limits, seasons, _
time restrictions, gear restrictions, license requirements, and other actions. Maryland's
annual-quota will be presented as total sport and commercial landings.
IMPLEMENTATION-1.1.1 " - '-- .
'1990 for a transition fishery _
Agtions taken - All jurisdictions are utilizing controls. Commercial harvest caps, seasons, .
area restrictions, gear restrictions,minimum size and other measures have been initiated to
implement Action l.l:l.-(see following action items).
Task Force Assessment - Jurisdictions' actions are in accord with management plan;
implementation is continuing.
ACTION 1.1.2 ..
Maryland, the PRFC and Virginia will cap commercial harvest during the transitional
fishery with a quota not to exceed 20 % of the average annual commercial harvest as
reported for the period 1972-1979. No commercial fishing is permitted in the District of
Columbia.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.1.2
1990; to be evaluated annually thereafter with a goal of setting the harvest two years in
advance.
Action taken - Jurisdictions are in accord with the management plan. Maryland is using a
harvest control model (approved by ASMFC) to establish its commercial harvest cap and the
harvest by charter boat and recreational anglers. The commercial harvest cap is exempt from
the 20 % limit because of the use of the harvest control model. Virginia and PRFC are
abiding by the 20 % limit but Virginia is requesting (of ASMFC) to exceed that level this
year since target mortality rates may not be being reached. The goal of setting-the harvest
two years in advance has not yet been achieved.
Task Force Assessment - Jurisdictions are in compliance with the management .plan.
Implementation is continuing.
60
-------
ACTION 1.2.1
The District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia and the Potomac River Fisheries
Commission will establish a minimum size limit of 18 inches total length in the Chesapeake
Bay and tributaries during the transition fishery. Maryland may establish a larger minimum
legal size during a May trophy fishery beginning in 1991.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.2.1
1990 for the transitional fishery; to be reevaluated for recovered fishery.
£. t-vi, . '
?.-:5';'i,.v, 4- T..< .
Action taken - Jurisdictions have established an 18 inch minimum size limit in the
Chesapeake Bay. The PRFC will propose (to ASMFC) a larger minimum size for the
Potomac River. Maryland has set a minimum size of 36 inches for its May recreational and
charter boat trophy fishery.
Task Force Assessment - Jurisdictions are in accord with the management plan.
ACTION 1.2.2
Maryland, Virginia and the PRFC will prohibit the keeping and sale of sublegal (fish
smaller man the minimum size) striped bass by-catch.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.2.2
1990
Action taken - Jurisdictions have implemented the plan. Gill net mesh size was set to
target fish larger than 18 inches. Regulations are in place prohibiting keeping and selling fish
under legal size.
Task Force Assessment - Jurisdictions are in compliance with the management plan.
ACTION 1.2.3
As a conservation measure, the District of Columbia, Maryland,, Virginia and the PRFC
will establish a consistent maximum legal size for striped bass in the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.2.3
1990
Action taken - Jurisdictions have adopted a consistent maximum legal size limit in accord
with the management plan.
Task Force Assessment - Although jurisdictions currently are in compliance with plan,
Action 1.2.3 should be reevaluated. Virginia is contemplating a larger size limit in their hook
and line fishery and to allow a trophy fish in the fall fishery. Maryland allows a trophy fish
in its spring fishery. ASMFC does not have a recommended maximum size limit.
61
-------
ACTION 1.3.1
During a transition fishery, mortality will be controlled to protect age Vffl or older
females until they comprise at least a certain percentage (as determined by ASMFC) of the
female spawning stocks. . - .
IMPLEMENTATION 1.3.1
1990 '-_""'--
Action taken - The jurisdictions and ASMFC have not been able to agree on what
percentage of the female spawning stock should be age Vm or older. ASMFC has this item
as a priority to be reviewed in 1993. Regulations now in effect are_keeping mortality of age
females low enough that the number of age Vm in the spawning stock-will increase.
. Task Force Assessment - ASMFC should take the lead on this action (to define
percentage of age Vm females) but.has.not done so as yet. Implementation has been delayed
pending ASMFC action. -"
ACTION 1.3.2
A fishery .on a recovered stock will be controlled so that females of age Vm or older
continue to comprise at least a certain percentage (as determined by ASMFC) of the female
spawning stock.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.3.2
Open, depending on when a recovered fishery is reached.
Action taken - No action taken as yet; ASMFC has yet to establish a definition of a
recovered fishery.
Task Force Assessment - This action item needs to be reviewed with input from
ASMFC.
ACTION 1.3.3.
Maryland and Virginia will continue hatchery production to enhance striped bass
spawning stocks in areas that are still depleted. The District of Columbia will work with the
Maryland and Virginia hatchery programs to enhance striped bass spawning stocks.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.3.3.
In progress. Restocking programs will target areas with inadequate striped bass
spawning populations.
Action taken - Maryland has maintained an active hatchery program. Besides stocking,
larvae are tagged to provide data on larval survival, distribution, movements and various
other aspect of population dynamics. Maryland's hatchery program is now moving into a
research phase. Virginia has initiated an experimental stocking program in the York River;
62
-------
no large scale stocking is planned since it appears that natural reproduction is adequate for
stock restoration. _ .
Task Force Assessment - Maryland and Virginia-actions are in accord with this segmenf
of the management plan: Implementation's continuing.- - _ -
ACTION 1.3.4
Hybrid striped bass stocking and the introduction of non-native stocks will be restricted
in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries in accordance with ASMFC guidelines. The
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the Pennsylvania Fish Commission and the U.S.
Fish &-Wildlife Service .will discuss stocking issues regarding the Susquehanna River.
IMPLEMENTATION 1;3.4
. 1990 - -..-.,.
Action taken - Maryland is in compliance with this segment of the management plan.
Task Force Assessment -"Pennsylvania was an invited participant in the FMP
reassessment review but did not take part. Pennsylvania has been asked to respond to
implementation of this item.
ACTION 2.1.1
The Maryland (striped bass) quota will be allocated as follows - 42.5 % commercial;
42.5 % recreational; and 15 % charter. Virginia and the PRFC will! use various restrictions
in fishing seasons and bag limits to equitably allocate and restrict harvest among the
commercial, recreational and charter boat fisheries.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.1.1
1990; to be re-evaluated after the 1990 season.
Action taken - Jurisdictions have implemented this provision of the management plan.
Implementation has been reevaluated and is continuing.
Task Force Assessment - Jurisdiction actions are in accord with the management plan.
ACTION 2.1.2
Maryland will terminate the fishing season for each of its three component fisheries
when their individual quota is reached, regardless of time during the season. Virginia will
terminate its commercial fishing component when its harvest quota is reached, regardless of
time during the season. The PRFC will terminate its fishing seasons when the allowable
harvest under the ASFMC's Striped J3ass Plan is reached, regardless of the time during that
season.
63
-------
IMPLEMENTATION 2.1.2
1990
Action taken - Jurisdictions are in compliance with this portion of the management plan.
Maryland has terminated seasons before the scheduled end because quotas had been reached.
Task Force Assessment - Actions taken are consistent with provisions of management
plan. Under the ASMFC Striped Bass Plan, states are allowed twice a year to seek changes
in implementation. A similar process should be considered for this as well as other
Chesapeake Bay FMPs.
ACTION 2.2.1
Maryland, the PRFC and Virginia will establish a minimum gillnet mesh size designed to
reduce sublegal by-catch mortality to negligible levels. -
IMPLEMENTATION 2.2.1
1990
Action taken - Maryland has implemented this provision. Virginia has been complying
since 1990 but the state is proposing (to ASMFC) to drop gill net mesh size requirements.
Fishermen are required to tag fish caught and Virginia's new proposal would allow fishermen
to possess smaller fish as long as they are tagged.
Task Force Assessment - Jurisdiction actions to date have been in accord with the
management plan.
ACTION 2.2.2
Maryland and Virginia will require that gill nets be marked, tended, and recovered
(except for Virginia's stake nets), daily. The PRFC will continue a fixed location for each gill
net licensed in the Potomac.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.2.2
1990
Action taken - Jurisdictions have implemented this provision of the management plan.
Task Force Assessment - Actions taken by Maryland, Virginia and PRFC are in
compliance with management plan. Implementation is continuing.
64
-------
ACTION 2.2.3
Maryland and Virginia will establish a maximum length of gill net allowed on board a
vessel and in the water based on the number of expected gill netters, the total gill net quota
and the projected season. The PRFC will establish a maximum number of gill net licenses
for the Potomac River and maintain a maximum length per license during the transitional
fishery. When the recovered fishery^ begins, maximum yardage will be reevaluated.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.2.3
1990
Action taken - AU jurisdictions have implemented this section of the management plan.
Virginia has created a limited entry system and is proposing to lift the maximum yardage.
Task Force Assessment - Jurisdictions are implementing action 5.2.3. This action should
be reviewed in light of the limited entry system initiated by Virginia and its proposal to lift
the maximum gill net yardage.
ACTION 2.2.4
Maryland and Virginia will establish annual quotas for their commercial fisheries.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.2.4
1990 ,
Action taken - Maryland and Virginia have implemented this portion of the management
plan. Implementation is continuing.
Task Force Assessment - Jurisdiction actions are in accord with management plan.
ACTION 2.3.1
A) Maryland will establish check-in stations for the commercial sale of striped bass.
B) Virginia dealers and commercial watermen that harvest striped bass will be required
to have a special permit to sell striped bass .
C) The sale of striped bass caught by recreational or charter boat fishermen will be
prohibited.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.3.1
1990 ;
Action taken - Actions A, B and C have been implemented.
Task Force Assessment - Actions by jurisdictions are in accord with the management
plan. Implementation is continuing.
65
-------
ACTION2.3.2
Maryland and Virginia will establish a weekly reporting system for licensed commercial
. fishermen, and a daily reporting system for buyers during the commercial season. Maryland
and Virginia .will provide the PRFC with information obtained through their mandatory buyer
reporting provisions; Hie PRFC will reduce the time period required for the finfish " ~
reporting'system from monthly to weekly:- . _ -
IMPLEMENTATION 2.^72
1990
Action taken - Maryland arid Virginia have implemented this reporting period although
Virginia now is'considering changing the" reporting time from daily to alonger interval. The
PRFC also has implemented this section of the plan.
Task Force Assessment - Actions taken by the jurisdictions are in accord with the
management plan. This section should be reviewed if Virginia does change the interval of its
reporting period. *--.-. .
ACTION 2.4.1 .
A) The District of Columbia will establish a recreational fishing season within the period
June through December.
B) Maryland will establish fishing seasons within the following periods:
The commercial gill net season will be within the period November through
March 15.
The commercial pound net/haul seine/fyke net/hook and line seasons will be
within the period June through November.
The recreational and charter boat seasons will be within the period June through
November.
There may be a May trophy fishery for recreational and charter boat fishing,
effective May 1991, limited to a single trophy fish per boat per day.
C) Virginia will establish fishing seasons within the following periods:
The commercial netting season will be within the period September
through February.
The recreational and charter boat seasons will be within the period June through
September.
66
-------
D) The Potomac River Fisheries Commission will establish fistiing seasons within the
following periods:
The commercial gill net season will be within the period November through
March.
The commercial pound net/haul seine/hook and line seasons will be within the
period June through December.
The recreational and charter season will be within the period June through
December.
E) Maryland, the PRFC and Virginia will annually review the need fora Bay spawning
season fishery in relationship to the issue of parity with the coastal istates.
IMPLEMENTATION
1990
Action taken - Maryland, Virginia and the PRFC have implemented this provision of the
management plan. Instead of one fish per boat per day during the May trophy season,
Maryland allows one trophy fish, 36 inches or longer, per angler, per season (approved by
ASMFC). Item E has not been implemented pending additional analysis.
Task Force Assessment - The jurisdiction actions are consistent with the intent of the
management plan; implementation is continuing.
ACTION 2.4.2
Maryland will prohibit commercial fishing on weekends and at night during the
transitional fishery.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.4.2
1990
Action taken - Maryland has implemented this portion of the management plan.
Task Force Assessment - Maryland's action is in accord with the management plan.
Implementation is continuing.
ACTION 2.4.3
Maryland will continue to restrict fishing for striped bass in spawning areas and rivers,
and spawning reaches as defined in COMAR 08.02.05.02. Virginia will continue to restrict
fishing within the spawning reaches defined in VMRC Regulation 450-01-0034. The PRFC
will continue its prohibition on gill netting or striped bass fishing during April and May
throughout the entire Potomac River during the transitional fishery.
67
-------
IMPLEMENTATION 2.4.3
In effect -
Action taken - Jurisdictions have implemented action.
Task Force Assessment - Actions by jurisdictions are in accord with management plan.
Implementation has continued. - -
ACTION 2.4.4.1
The District of Columbia, Maryland, the PRFC and Virginia will establish creel limits
for the recreational and charter boat fisheries up to five (5) fish per person per day within the
established season,
IMPLEMENTATION 2.4.4.1 -
1990 " . .
Action taken - Maryland, Virginia and PRFC have implemented this action." Maryland
has a creel limit of 1 per angler per day recreational, two per angler per day charter boat.
Virginia has a creel limit of 2. The PRFC has a creel limit of 2 for charter boat angler and
one for recreational angler.
Task Force Assessment - Actions taken by jurisdictions are in accord with the
management plan. Implementation is continuing.
ACTION 2.4.4.2
Maryland may allow one trophy fish per boat during the May trophy season.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.4.4.2
Open
Action taken - Maryland is allowing one trophy fish per person per season.
Task Force Assessment - Maryland's action has been approved by ASMFC is at variance
with the plan but is consistent with the strategy described in the plan (2.4.4).
ACTION 2.5.1
MAryland, Virginia and the PRFC will monitor harvest for the striped bass fishery by
one or a combination of measures.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.5.1
1990
68
-------
Action taken - The jurisdictions have implemented this section .of the management plan.
Maryland and-Virginia use most of the monitoring recommended in section 2.5.1. The
-PRFC employs, tagging for the commercial catch and employs most of the other
recommendations contained in 2.5.1. " -
Task Force Assessment - Actions Taken by the jurisdictions are in accord with the_ -
management plan, .-=---_.. ~ , --
ACTION 2.5.2
The District of-Columbia will conduct an angler survey to determine striped bass fishing
effort and harvest. ~
""" ~~ i ~
EMPLEMENTATION 2.5.2
. 1990 -
Action taken -.--"
.Task Force Assessment
ACTION 2.6.1
Maryland will propose legislation to authorize timely management actions and will
develop guidelines for regulations. Virginia will promulgate regulations for timely
management and seek legislation to correct any deficiencies if noted.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.6.1
1990
Action taken - Maryland has enacted legislation which gives Maryland DNR management
authority under approved management plans. VMRC has had management authority.
Task Force Assessment - Action by Maryland and Virginia is in accord with the
management plan.
ACTION 2.6.2
The District of Columbia, Maryland, the PKFC and Virginia will adopt consistent
enforcement policies for the striped bass fishery throughout the Chesapeake Bay. Strategies
to address enforcement needs will be developed.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.6.2
1990
Action taken - All jurisdictions (except D.C) in the Chesapeake region require the use of
tags for fish harvested commercially. Enforcement policies are fairly consistent among the
jurisdictions but the level of effort and the severity of the penalties vary significantly.
69 !
-------
Task Force Assessment - Actions by jurisdictions to achieve uniformity in enforcement is
limited even though policies are fairly uniform. Enforcement activity should be evaluated
frequently to identify specific areas in which enforcement actions are not consistent.
ACTION 3.1
The District of Columbia will continue monitoring aspects of striped bass population
dynamics. Maryland will continue surveys of the spawning and pre-migratory striped bass
stock in the Chesapeake Bay, Virginia will initiate surveys of its spawning stock of striped
bass. Collection of tissue and scale samples to augment tagging information and stock
identification will be considered.
IMPLEMENTATION 3.1
D.C. and Maryland, on-going; Virginia,-1990.
Actions taken - Maryland has continued surveys of spawning and pre-migratory striped
bass stock. Virginia has initiated and is continuing a survey of its spawning stock; funding is
limited to expand the survey to the Rappahannock River.
Task Force Assessment - Maryland and Virginia are complying with the provisions of
this section of the management plan. Maryland's striped bass survey effort constitutes more
than 50 % of the striped bass research being done on the East Coast. Funding limitations
need to be considered as more is expected of compliance efforts in this and other fisheries.
ACTION 3.2
The District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia, in cooperation with federal agencies,
will review and update existing data, and initiate new studies, that target: striped bass
reproduction and early life history, especially in relation to environmental parameters; natural
mortality; and catch-and-release mortality induced by various fishing methods.
IMPLEMENTATION 3.2
Variable, depending on project
Action taken - Maryland has implemented action 3.2 . Data has been developed on direct
and by-catch fishing mortality, survival of early life stages and other aspects of early life
history. Currently, Maryland is emphasizing research on hooking mortality in catch-and-
release situations.
Task Force Assessment - Maryland has committed a considerable effort in implementing
this portion of the management plan and has developed important data on hooking mortality
and fishing mortality. The Maryland fishing mortality data is essential to effective
management of striped bass stocks originating in the Chesapeake Bay. Implementation of
action 3.2 by other jurisdictions has been minimal.
70
-------
ACTION 4.1
Identify'those water quality factors, both natural and man-induced, which affect striped
bass reproduction and survival, "and focus on the control of those factors.
- The first four action items are commitments under the 4987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
The DCFM, MDNRt PRFC and VMRC are not agencies responsible for carrying out the
actual commitments, but are involved in setting objectives of the programs to fulfill" the
commitments. The achievement of these commitments will lead to improved water quality
and enhanced biological production that can only benefit striped bass populations. The
DCFM, MDNR, PRFC and VMRC fully support these commitments.
IMPLEMENTATION 4.1 . _
Variable,depending on project. ;
Actions taken - The water quality goals and review of- management programs called for
in this section are generic mandates relative to fisheries habitat needs but requiring actions
largely outside of normal fishery management jurisdiction with the participation of fishery
experts. The jurisdictions have provided technical support in fisheries matters in accord with
the plan.
Task Force Assessment - The management plan should be more specific in defining
needed actions concerning various aspects of habitat requirements.
Assessment of Management Plan Implementation
1) Actions planned - 32
i
2) Actions implemented - 32 (Note - Assumes D.C. implementation and includes 1.3.2
which is delayed pending action by ASMFC.)
71
-------
-------
-------
------- |