Chesapeake Executive Council
Annual Progress Report
Chesapeake Bay Alosid,
Blue Crab, and Oyster
Fishery Management Plans
Chesapeake
Bay
am.
December 1990
-------
-------
Annual Progress Report
Chesapeake Bay Alosid, Blue Crab, and
Oyster Fishery Management Plans
A Commitment Progress Report from
the Living Resources Subcommittee
Annapolis, Maryland
December 1990
Printed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
for the
Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary L iii
Alosids (Shad and Herring) iii
Blue Crabs , iv
Oysters ; v
Introduction , 1
Chesapeake Bay Alosid Management Plan 3
Declining Abundance ,. 3
Overf ishing. t . 4
Stock Assessment *.......,.. 4
Habitat Loss and Degradation. 5
Conclusion 7
Alosid Implementation Matrix : 8
Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Management Plan 13
Fishing Effort is Increasing. , 13
Wasteful Harvesting Practices , 14
Stock Assessment Deficiencies ; 16
Regulatory and Conflict Issues ,, is
Habitat Degradation ....,; ,. . 18
Conclusion ....„..,....,.. 19
Blue Crab Implementation Matrix , , 20
Chesapeake Bay Oyster Management Plan ; 25
Background ,1 . 25
Harvest Decline and Overharvesting. ....... t. , . . .. 25
Recruitment „ 27
Disease Mortality , 29
Leased Ground Production 30
Habitat Issues and Shellfish Sanitation. 31
Market Production „ 31
Repletion Program . .. „ 32
Conclusion „ . . , , 33
Oyster Implementation Matrix „...„,..,, 34
-------
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Aloslds (Shad and Herring)
Historically, the upper Chesapeake Bay was the most productive
area for American shad harvest. Since 1988, population estimates
of American shad in the upper Chesapeake Bay have increased from
approximately 38,000 to 125,500 fish. The increase in abundance
can be attributed to the moratorium on fishing in the Maryland
portion of the Bay (enacted in 1980); restocking by the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), the Pennsylvania Fish
Commission (PFC), and the Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish
Restoration Committee (SRAFRC); and removing river and stream
blockages to make additional habitat available for anadromous fish.
Although the increase in upper Bay shad abundanpe is encouraging,
the recovery of shad in other Chesapeake Bay river systems may not
follow upper Bay trends. Funding must be assured to achieve
recovery of shad populations throughout the Bay watershed and to
implement any additional controls that may be needed for the
fishery.
Population surveys have begun in other river systems to
determine shad abundance in areas outside of the upper Bay.
Juvenile surveys are currently in progress and are used in
conjunction with adult stock assessment projectis as another means
of evaluating stock health. The juvenile data will eventually be
used to develop a baywide young-of-the-year alosid index.
There is increasing concern about the growth of ocean shad
fisheries during the past ten years. These fisheries are probably
intercepting stocks that are not native to the states in which the
fish are landed. The ocean fisheries are threatening to displace
traditional inshore shad fisheries and may be hampering efforts to
rebuild local stocks along the coast,, including those of the
Chesapeake Bay. Maryland and Virginia are evaluating potential
actions to control their ocean shad fisheries and will pursue this
issue with other coastal states.
Management strategies and actions for hickory shad will
continue in conjunction with strategies and actions for American
shad. Management measures for these two species are combined
because their life histories are similar and there is little
specific information on hickory shad. i
The status of river herring (alewife and blueback herring)
stocks is believed to vary according to river system, but more
detailed information is needed. River herring stock assessment will
be expanded in the upper Bay and efforts will be made to assess
current fishing rates. The river herring juvenile survey has showed
considerable variation among river systems and environmental
conditions such as rainfall appear to contribute to the variation.
River herring populations will continue to be monitored through
iii .
-------
fishery dependent surveys. The proposed strategy to manage river
herring on a system-by-system basis must be postponed until a more
comprehensive data base has been established. River herring
populations will be positively affected by continued restocking
efforts and the removal of stream and river blockages.
Blue Crabs
Blue crabs are currently the most valuable commercial species
in the Chesapeake Bay. In addition, the recreational fishery is
very important and accounts for a significant catch. By nature of
its life history, blue crab abundance is highly variable from year
to year; therefore, there is the potential for overexplpitation
during any year of low relative abundance.
The commercial blue- crab harvest from the Bay continues at
historic high levels, yet effort needed to attain the catch
generally increased during the 1980s. The crab population does not
appear to be in any danger of collapse (there was a glut of blue
crabs toward the end of summer 1990 and into the fall), however,
the Bay jurisdictions are taking a conservative approach to keep
fishing effort from increasing and to reduce waste in the fishery.
Efforts include: developing a delayed or limited entry program in
Virginia similar to that in Maryland; establishing tighter
licensing requirements for commercial crabbers and studying
licensing issues for other components of the fishery; targeting
wasteful harvest practices that catch small or poor quality crabs
and that cause excessive mortality, and investigating potential
harvest, time, and area limits that will directly contain harvest.
Methods used to control harvest must take into consideration pripes
and increasing competition in the market from other states an
-------
relationship and other aspects of crab population dynamics. The
winter dredge and summer trawl surveys begun two years ago will be
continued, along with other cooperative research on blue crab
population dynamics, to provide information such as wintering
ground mortality, migration, growth, and sex ratios. Monitoring
efforts are also being improved, especiailly catch/effort
information from both the commercial and recreational components
of the fishery. Management decisions will be based on the most
current information from the research and monitoring data. With an
improved data base, socioeconomic issues can be better defined and
incorporated into management decisions.
i
Oysters j
The Chesapeake Bay oyster harvest declined precipitously
during the mid- and late 1980s due to a combination of factors,
including overharvesting, oyster diseases, pollution, and poor
spatfall in many areas. It appears that harvest levels are
stabilizing as the oyster disease MSX subsides and Maryland, the
Potomac River Fisheries Commission, and Virginia continue their
oyster repletion efforts. The repletion programs include planting
shell _and moving seed oysters to enhance natural production.
Repletion efforts continue to be refined and improved, but are
contingent on adequate funding. i
Spat set was very good in many areas of the Bay in 1990. The
quality of Chesapeake Bay oyster meats has also generally improved
as oyster populations become healthier. There" is reason to be
optimistic that harvests will increase over the next few years and
that prices will stabilize commensurately. Consumer confidence in
the Chesapeake oyster appears to be increasing as these events
occur.
i
Progress has been made on assessing oyster stocks and
understanding oyster diseases. Scientists in Maryland and Virginia
are conducting studies to improve sampling methods for oyster bars
and to recreate oyster beds. Researchers are also developing
strains of the Eastern oyster that appear to be less susceptible
to diseases in the Chesapeake Bay and are improving our knowledge
of oyster diseases and biology. These studies will help rejuvenate
the oyster fishery and improve management techniques. Introduction
of non-indigenous species, such as the Pacific oyster, is an
important issue and is being studied as well.
i
An area of increasing interest and importance to the oyster
fishery is aquaculture. New management measures are making seed
oysters more readily available to the private lease holder and
legislation requiring strict utilization of leased ground within
a certain time period should lead to increased production. Many
issues relating to aquaculture are being evaluated; these include
the states' role, potential ability of aquaculture to stabilize
production and markets, and use of the water column.
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION
T.OW ?? -,? I87 CnesaPea*e Bay Agreement, commercially,
recreationally, and ecologically valuable finfish and shellfish
species were selected for the development of baywide fishery
management plans (FMPs). Because fishery management is a dynamic,
process, provisions were made for. a periodic review of each FMP
under the auspices of the Living Resources Subcommittee. A periodic
SS£,TV .provides the format for incorporating new information,
™In*™in? Pro
-------
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY ALOSID MANAGEMENT PLAN
Declining Abundance
x
Maryland will continue the moratorium on American shad in the
Chesapeake Bay. The criteria for reestablishing a rishery in
Maryland is an increase in annual population estimates for three
consecutive years and a stock size of 500,000 fish in the uoner
was tne upr
was 125,574, an increase from the 1989 estimate of 75,329, but
surv'evs5 "fer ^ ^heacrirerion for opening a fishery. Population
m^?r v * tUi ^rican shad in other parts of the Bay
(Nanticoke and Potomac Rivers) have begun but population estimates
are not yet available. The general increases in population
vears ?! °/ ^erican. *had ^ the upper Bay during th* ^st S
years is a strong indication that efforts by the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) , the Pennsylvania Fish
iare relati?*y stab1^ a-d can sustain ^odera^
exploitation. The recommendation of controlling river herring
harvest on a system by system basis does not appear feasible at
^L^H6^ KaUSS-°f limi.ted information for each river system. A
ia™??Ld f36 ^S rec^lred Before adult commercial landings or
population estimates from each system can be related to -juvenile
indices from the same systems. Alosid research, particularly adult
river herring will be expanded in the upper Bay in order toobtain
in ?959Cw™e^SiT; data,base' In Virginia, river herring landings
in 1989 were 652,618 pounds, about 40% below the ten-year average.
-------
Haul seines accounted for over 85% of the landings in 1989.
Virginia is currently assessing exploitation rates for river
herring.
The hickory shad catch at the Conowingo Fish Lift during 1989
continued to be low. The Maryland moratorium on hickory shad will
continue.
Overfishing
The jurisdictions have continued to participate in Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) coastal stock
identification and ocean landing studies of alosids. An ASMFC-
funded project on evaluating shad ocean landings by state has just
been completed. The use of the term "intercept" fisheries has
caused some confusion and will be better defined. The term
"intercept" has been used in reference to alosids harvested from
coastal areas and from the Chesapeake Bay while the fish are
migrating either toward or away from the spawning areas.
Virginia submitted a proposal to limit the coastal shad
fisheries. As a result of this proposal, VMRC began a one year
study to evaluate the inequities of regulating the coastal fishery.
Results from this study should be available in 1991. Although there
is a moratorium on American shad in the Maryland portion of the
Bay, there was a total, of 488,000 Ibs (1989) reported as ocean
landings. The Maryland ocean catch will be evaluated followed .by
appropriate steps to limit fishing effort if warranted. The
jurisdictions have acknowledged a need to include and contact North
Carolina for cooperation in tagging studies, especially for the
ocean shad fisheries.
Stock Assessment
It is generally accepted that juvenile year class fluctuations
greatly influence the amplitude and variation in commercial fish
landings. The data for developing a reliable juvenile alosid index
is being collected. The Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS)
will reinstitute an alosid juvenile survey with Chesapeake Bay
Stock Assessment Committee (CBSAC) funding. This juvenile survey
had been discontinued because of lack of funding. With new funding,
the survey will complement past juvenile data and ongoing alosid
stock assessment. A long term data base is required before the
relationship between juvenile indices and adult commercial landings
or population estimates can be evaluated. The 1989 juvenile CPUE
for American shad in the upper Bay was the highest recorded since
the survey began in 1980.
Juvenile river herring in the upper Bay showed considerable
variation among river systems from 1985 to 1989. The apparent
decrease in juvenile river herring CPUE in most of the systems
-------
sampled during 1989 was primarily the result of record rainfall in
the late spring and summer. The influx of freshwater reduced
salinities and, most likely, extended the juvenile distribution.
In order to develop a baywide juvenile index, environmental factors
may need to be incorporated.
Substantial increases in the adult river herring commercial
catch were seen in the Patuxent River and upper Bay during 1989.
Adult river herring populations will continue to be monitored
through fishery dependent surveys.. Virginia began an alosid stock
assessment project in 1989 and will continue to collect biological
data for shad and river herring. This information will improve the
ability to calculate exploitation rates for these species.
The proposed shad tagging project for the coastal fisheries
was not implemented due to lack of funds. This project is currently
being reviewed by CBSAC for funding during the next year. Tagging
studies would provide information on the origins of coastal
migrating alosids and would help define management options for
regulating the coastal fishery.
i
The Fisheries Management of the District of Columbia (FMDC)
has begun to obtain detailed information on anadromous fish stocks
in the upper Potomac and Anacostia Rivers. A biological survey of
anadromous fishes, in general, is being conducted to determine the
onset and duration of spawning migration, age composition, and
other factors which affect reproductive ability- In addition,
physical and hydrographic parameters are also being collected and
will be coordinated with the fish-stock information. Collection and
analysis of data relating to American shad, hickory shad, and river
herring will be done during this process. The CPUE and juvenile
index calculations will be used to assess the future strength of
adult alosid populations. The gear and sampling methods for
assessing CPUE and juvenile production arp consistent with Maryland
and Virginia.
|
Habitat Loss and Degradation '
Removing impediments to migratory fishes hast been a primary
strategy for improving alosid habitat. Progress has been made at
several priority sites. For a detailed account, refer to the
document, "Removing Impediments to Migratory Fishes in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed." Construction of fish passageways will
be underway at Winter's Run, Ft. Meade, and Conowingo Dam following
the 1990 anadromous fish spawning period. Several other contracts
are in the final stages for sites on Big Elk Creek, Little Patuxent
River and Tuckahoe Creek. Four dams on the Patapsco River have been
given highest priority and will open 21 miles of river habitat to
alosid species. The Maryland Legislature has authorized $2.25
million in funds for the Fish Passage Program on the Patapsco
River. Fish passage improvements were made at four sites on the
James River system in 1989 (Manchester, Brown's Island, Herring
-------
Creek and Walkers Dam). Also slated for fish passageways are
William's Island and Boner's Dam. Work has been "initiated on
designing passage at Embrey Dam in Fredericksburg. ..•>• ,
Weekly biological monitoring for the assessment of anadromous
fish populations is being conducted on streams under fish passage
development. A monitoring study was initiated in March 1989 to
assess the effectiveness of the passageways on the Richmond dams
and to determine where the fish are approaching the next
impediment, 5 miles upstream, at William's Island Dam. Trap/
transport and restoration of river herring to areas in the
Patapsco, Patuxent, Big Elk and Tuckahoe have occurred. To date,
approximately 10,500 fish have been relocated. Suitable trap and
release sites were selected based on easy access and areas
considered good habitat for reproductive success. Release sites
have been monitored for alosid eggs and larvae. The Havre de Grace
and Elkton Shad restoration (grow-out and release ponds) facilities
were opened in July, 1990. In cooperation with the Pennsylvania
Fish Commission (PFC), the culture facilities were stocked with
approximately 650,000 shad fry from the Van Dyke Hatchery. These
fish will be released into the lower Susquehanna and upper Elk
Rivers this fall. The new facilities have an added advantage over
traditional stocking methods in that they hold the fry until they
grow to juveniles and they are released without being transported.
In addition to these two grow-out facilities, the Mattaponi Indian
Tribe completed a new shad hatchery on the Mattaponi River. This
complements the facility built on the Pamunkey River in 1989.
The restoration of American shad to the Susquehanna River
consists of trapping pre-spawn adults and transporting them above
dams, restocking fry and fingerlings, improving water quality, and
providing passage over dams. For specific details on the
restoration program, refer to the 1989 Annual Progress Report,
"Restoration of American Shad to the Susquehanna River." During the
1989 season, 6,697 adults were transported to upstream spawning
areas and PFC released a record 21.1 million shad fry (15-37 days
'old) and 70,000 fingerlings (107-204 days old) in the Susquehanna
watershed. Successful outmigration appeared higher in 1989 than in
any past year. High abundance was probably related to record
stocking of hatchery fry at Lapidum and upstream, and high river
flow conditions. Ongoing SRAFRC projects to evaluate methods for
successful outmigration of American shad juveniles and adults
included a biological evaluation of strobe lights to guide
downstream migrants at York Haven hydroelectric dam, radio tagging
studies, and a study to determine the migratory routes, timing and
relative abundance of juveniles as they reach the forebay of
Holtwood hydroelectric project. Restoration efforts have also
included monitoring the relative contribution of hatchery produced
fish to the wild population.
Dam operators on the Susquehanna River upstream of Conowingo
Dam have agreed to share the cost of additions to the new fish lift
-------
I
at Conowingo Dam. This was potentially a serious gap in the Shad
Restoration Program for the Susquehanna River. These operators
include Baltimore Gas & Electric (BG&E) and Pennsylvania Power &
Light (PP&L) at Safe Harbor Dam, PP&L at Holtwood Dam, and General
Public Utilities (GPU) at York'Haven Dam.
Support of water quality commitments in the 1987 Chesapeake
Bay Agreement has continued. Although FMDC, MDNR, PFC, the Potomac
River Fisheries Commission (PRFC), and VMRC do not carry out the
specific commitments, each agency has been actively involved in
defining water quality goals. Specific strategies for nutrient
reduction, reduction and control of toxic substances, and control
of pollutants can be found in the 1989 Annual Progress Reports for
each. Specific habitat requirements including water quality
parameters have been developed for alosids and will be available
in the document, "Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living
Resources." Maryland DNR and the Department of the Environment
(MDE) have initiated a joint project to estimate direct atmospheric
deposition of selected trace elements and organic compounds into
the Bay. Sampling will be coordinated with an EPA sponsored study
at a site in Virginia.
Conclusion
The 1989 Chesapeake Bay Alosid Management Plan was adopted
with a view to improve the abundance of .alosid stocks in the Bay.
During the first year, the alosid FMP directed efforts toward
restoration and habitat improvement. The restoration program in the
Susquehanna River has resulted in the largest population estimate
and largest production of hatchery-raised American shad to date.
Significant progress has been made in the removal of impediments
to migratory fish and restocking of adult shad and herring has
begun. Current exploitation rates for alosid stocks are being
examined, especially the coastal shad fisheries, in order to
improve and develop regulatory measures. Data deficiencies have
been identified and current research projects have been expanded.
There are two general areas that need to bo emphasized during
1990-1991 in order to continue rebuilding Chesapeake Bay shad and
herring stocks. Briefly, these are: ;
1) Continue to remove impediments to migratory fishes in each
Bay jurisdiction.
i
2) Identify the composition of coastal shad and herring stocks
to gauge what effects the coastal (intercept) fisheries have
on Chesapeake Bay stocks.
7
-------
i
i
COMMENTS/NOTES
a
o
UJ3Z
si
2 eS
th a
Qj z
DC CD
Q^
£ UI
Ifj bE
feQ
z
o
H
fT*
2*
S cn
||
a.
m
§i
6 0
0) L tl
10 Q.1* L
•H D it)
1 1 1
The 1990 shad population esl
approximately 125,600 fish,
38,000 in 1988. Both natural
tion and .restocking efforts
responsible.
OJ
of
1
|
S1
[jj
g
cj
e
• H
h .
-P in
(11 I"*
*v L.
Q *H
M
H'L
(0 L
ift tn
Wl VI
Of L
Ei
ka
• r* (D
0 0
n
*""* S
rH
• £
t-4 *H
I
cn QJ
c u
•H C
T) o S
OJ r— 1 fl
O ID 10
TD Tl
ID C
X ID
in
Qj
D 13
6 in
DC will consider a moratoril
after estimating fishing pri
adult shad abundance.
CK
1
_
fe
O
rH
fT\
2
13
01
Q. Ol
0 X
u
Of ID 0)
X- H JQ
R recreational fishery will
in PR when shad population i
a predetermined level; will
coordinated with SRRFRC.
Q:
CJ
u_
•Q.
OJ
•H
ID
-P
E '
• H
r-l
IWill continue present creel
!of 2 fish/person/day.
1
t
1
jj
Q.
Ol
• H
0
u
31 •
in in oj
Of *D X
-P in
ig in-H
L Q-tr-
01
C -P -P
i
i
IVR is assessing exploitatioi
land will take appropriate s
1 needed. The ocean intercep
! is being looked at closely.
i -
i
QC
CC
I .
CJ
S
cn
"""
•D
U
ll "o
Tl~ (Q
in -P x
cc .n m
E
3-5 C
0 M 0
rH 0 OJ
0 -P -P
Cr. ID •
C L N
r-l 0 If3
rH -H C PJ
3 ID -H 0
•0-P-P
§c ro
Ol .p yl
CM E 0 -H
• 0 •— i L
rH CJ a L
. OJ X 0)
rH V. 0) X
Ol
ID ' X X
-P • U
C T3 U -P
o oj i x a: ID
31-H .p U. U • .
4J ID O 'H CE
in rH o 3 o; cn
oi oj tn c
i
itlanaging river herring harv
{system-by-system basis is d
! until a larger data base is
ilected. Will be coordinated
{Fish Passage Workgroup and
!DC will control river herri
!in Rock Cr. 8c Potomac.
CK C£ K
n n iv
1 ' T '
OH 3Z CJ
z u. CJ o:
8
cn
*"'
Oi
CJI4J L
E in o
fH 31Ct- .
• L in
L Tl
Oi 31 0)
ID L.
L ti rH Ol
01 cn in x
> C 4J
•H -H in o
L Tl ID
3 (L r.
rH rH L C
0 U ID 0
b £• ' "^
Jj -H Ol -P
. C 4J ID
0 • ID L
CJ XrH 0
U 3 -P
CM -P ui in
• ID Ol 0)
rH U L L.
1
in u
Qj £
L -H
C 0
4-1
Ol
U 13 31
ID ID I.
i^ .£ Ol
Q. in ^i
in
rH 31- rl
rH I. tin
•H O
3^-0
° 0 E
" 0 5
(V .H >H
Q. -P. ..3
o: o;
cpo: oTo:
, ,* , ,
a: E u u
§ Q fc § £
OJ
rH
S • '
1
••
(Q
. E. -- -- -- --
rH
31 Ol Ol
oi oi in
X Ol'rl
in ID <4- .
•rl C
C4- ID Tl ^
E ID rH
Tl X •
ID oi in •— ^
VI ID C rH
In 'rl
31 C
L oi in o
10 0^
rH >H Ol
CD rH 4J Ol
. o o in
rH (4- ID V
8
-------
I/NOTES
LTI
1—
LU
E
O
CJ
Q
O
_JK
—•J r^
ffl LU
rH y
in
O
D. >
in u
LU Z
a: LU
UJ
CE
— .....
LU
E LU
LU h-
_J CC
« Q
*-
_,. __ m
t
RCTION
§CE
CD LU
DC CE
Q.
I
I
in in in
•rt .rt I >rt
U. LL 3i
ID Ql
£ U L •£
• H Q; oi L
3 LL TJ O
CE C +>
C Di 3 -rt .
o in cm
• rt 01 o m
-PcS L E dJ
10 ID L
•CD. r-H Ql
•H 3 Bl ID 0
•D 0 4J 0 L
{Continued coor
{Passage Workgr
{passage projec
{Weekly biologi
{currently in p
Q£
of -
CE
1
a u.
E a.
en
en
*H
ID
f r-
1.4 Protection will be giver
to alos ids in the Susquehanr
as restoration progresses.
1
rH -rt
1 ID t*. •
.a •* •* m
• rt 4J +> dJ
rH C C 'rt
dl dl Ol TJ
T) 4J TJ 3
O -rt 4J
cj a. in
LL -V
E Ql 0 Ql
in c o c
CE 'rt 4J -rt
in in TI
cm c
•rt 3 rH ID
U ID rH
Ql « 4J
C -rt lfl C
• rt -n ID ID
!Hre participat
{erations. Rre
"cooperative co
{cation and oce
o: CK
CE" CE CE" CE
CE
ii ii
o: E ' u u
Z LL CJ Q: LL
Ol
3
•rt
c
0
CJ
12.1 Jurisdictions will
•participate in the ongoing
IHSMFC management program.
i
i
Ql
C
•H
m
• H
C+.
Of
£
r\l
Ql 1
c in
• rt Ol
in in
in in L
3 ID 'rt
U Oi
in oi .c
•rt L 4J
TJ ID
Ol CE 0
ID in
in o in
2 Q L 0)
LL E 4J ^
in c L
u . o n
4J u _e
{States, CBSRC,
{tagging projec
Ising need for i
{ocean shad fisi
i
i
D;
n
CE
1
CJ
o:
D
rH
!2.2 Vfl. will reduce shad
{exploitation to 257..
i
i ~~
i
in
QJ
4J
ID
L *
-o
C dl
0 TI
•H Ol
ploitat
s as nei
X D.
Of Ol
m in
i
i
!VH is assess im
land will take :
o;
n
CE
1
CJ
o;
rH
cn
TH
1
12.3.1 UR. will reduce river
! herring exploitation to 257..
1
1
Q
|
-Q
ID
CJ
LL
in
CE
C
•rt
Ql
IHre participat:
! meet ings.
CE CE
1 1
Q E
01
3
< H
c
0
CJ
T,
2.3.2 Will ensure river
herring by-catch is minimize
in the mackerel fishery. '
Ol
u
1
°- c.
Oi ID
0) Q-
T) 0
' D X
: 4-1 di
' "^J
! 'O C
! ID
-D Ol
C C
•rt dl
us
Ol •"•>
rH
rH Ol
0 TI
U 'rt
Oi §1
L ID
CE JD
CE CECE
U»
ill
1
QLLtJE
E Q. Q 3-
Ol Ol
jQ D c
ID -P -rt
•rt -.H >(J
L C
t) ,ITl 0
D- JQ CJ
TI
• rt
3.1 Continue to collect alos
data.
H> Collect alosid juvenile
data.
in
Ol
41 "i
:: o
IIJ C
ill ^
1(1 'rt
ji in u
u m 'rt
0 Ui <4-
in'Si'-S
i
m
Underway.
CE
1
o:
1
• rt
c
0
CJ
in o d)
B> MD will continue project
in upper Bay and Nanticoke t
estimate adult shad abundanc
-------
5
»-
ROGRESS REPORT
1 FISHERY MRNiRGEr
0 RNNUBL F
RY RiLSOSIC
19S
CHESBPERKE E
COMMENTS/NOTES
Underway.
RESPONSIBLE
RGENCY DC METHOD
PFC - R
DCFM - R
UMRC - R
2^ UJ 1 C O O
UJ h- 1 £U CH CT^
, j cc i 0.0^ en
CL Q 1 O t-4 »-<
S !
1
RCTION
C> Improve assessment of
catch/effort on shad stocks.
E 1
sisi
^ 1
rH 4J -P C " C
TI JD • rH CJ ID Q VI • -H .
S.-K3 -i . 1 mS-p1 £ -p
ID in LL ID in 0 L ID ID « LL 0
I-H 0 LO 3 4-> Ol 4-1 44 C CC Ol
dj Q.U t<-ino jzcinioo; <4-
Tl OCO- .4JflJrHLn 3«*-
en»oi. COECQ. "-< oi
tn c cj c o L ID U'rt j: _ •¥ _
•rt -rt CC 0 0 rH »rH dl 4-> X 0) C
in in -n rH 4J Q. "D CLTI en -rt .u u -H
31 in 00 4J fll -n OIEOIID3 -H 3
TJ 3 CJ ID ID ID Tiin-rt
in-rtQL Oi • in Q.OOQ-3 Ol 4J L
TJ £ 01 TJ rH L 31 in ELL -PLO
en 4J c r-4 cj ID ID oin D.J. 01 ID Q 4-1
COl-CUID-'rt 3 Q. U Ol in TI Ct|-.rt
•rt L 4J ID 3 -1£ , L CPW-rtC 'rtCt-C
cnio-rt Lcn u 01 jz • in ID *H LL, 3 TI u o
en3iD£CJO TI W4J-P LE
«j.» J=-H QK c- -rl uinrHL.m oc
4JrH31(JL 3 LL dJ-rtBE ?!0rH,
i Ql "D L i «TJ '""J-P ID C4. 0 U *rt ID •
31 TJ(Ti3inOl31C Cn O OC4J -H 4JUTJ
ID dl rH 4J 0) X ID ID C 4J LOlOlWin Ol ID 'rt C
3 mint! 3 -rt Q.LT!-Pin .CIL.DIID
L OrHt3LLL C L d)L3 OQrH
Ql Q.-rt a. rH Ol Ol Ol C • Ol 31<4- Ol O U -P -P rH 31
TI '0-POU>T)> ID t- CM-LCUin IjinOL
C LCD C'rt C-rl rH Ol HJ.rtQOl'rt J^'Sj
ID CL30rHLoc£ CL o: ETJELQ ELJDE
cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc o: oi.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( 1
O CJ Q£EECJ C^ECJCJ CKECJK DiCJ
E E OCJ CJE OCJDiE QLutJE QLL DULE
Qj Ol Ol Ol Ol
3 3 rH rH rH
COOE-H J3 OJDJ3
• rtenCn-rtC^ ID CJ1IDID
4j en CP -P en 'rt en .ri .ri
ErH rHC rH L rHLL
O ID ID JD
u u :> => :>
rH -U II
ID ID L L
CJTOlOliTJ TJOl •
oin4J4Jcc iDJi in
•ricdioio cnoijc ioin -^
nJC-riTI-rt C>JDin Ol 3 L OU
•rt o ^j ai -P -H o a. o c o 4-1 o
t) CO'rtE OCt)-rHi ID 'rt -rtf+r -P
TJIDID4Jin-rt 33C--1E in LI ID WW
I04J Ol O EtTJID-rt-rtCC OlC 4J jDin LTD
4JTD-QIDE X4J Oin.dl dl CJ-H O O'rt 301
O LOdflDL)rH.p4-l D. -P (D <4- in U
OjHJCCnCJ TJ TJ-rtLID Ol C"~) 0 i!D3
rHC-rtd rH rH-rtCLODl JIOl Old 4J4JW OlTJ
rHOl DlL^i'rHOlrHinE t4-'rtl 4JCn EL rrtlD EO
8TJ dlCLO'rtC'rtOOt)-4JU ID OlD. Ol,3dl L
C JO O 3-rt 3rHU OliniD H-)WrH 4JTJL JI4J
dl CJ14J L-ID dlE Cm Q-dl IDIDID IDC
rHCL.rHCinCJLCJTJ4J>0 OlID ECn C -rt-rt
^Hd) rH'rt Qdl OH-C CC-P EQ. l-HlD .rttt-CnrHll
•rt TJ -H cnTi jc oiD'rt-rtO oi in TIOC-DL
31 3 CO ID cS cB 00. '1-1 JC s* ,CC 3TD 4J Oi E •-( Q. Cj Ol (J in U
^•di3> EO^OICCTJ: I-HLL i cjoouidi
JZ4-10I L >3 OI4J X L4J4J
x\in rtCLC '^D.'^LO /NT! rH3l/%m 'n*3in rtu
Q.rl LUdJ-rt LLE LD3L IIDC -ID CC-rt >-5Odl iiL
4- U E -rt in CH E-rt tfCQ U. V)L Q,
1
0
.rt
1 TJ 4J
1 -P C ID
1 ID ID TJ
1 -P ID '
i .rt in L
i JD in en , ,
ID 0 dl
X -H TJ
I -fl-
10
-------
-1
COMMENTS/NOTES
Q
yS
CD LU
LHE
Z«S
CL* 5*™
in u
ce §
CE
?-. "
E LU
U 1—
Q S
E '
h- <
NOI13U
Ice
m LU
o a:
Q£ CE
Q.
1
41
U
Hi
4»-
3H4-
! Is being coordinated with
Restoration efforts. Weekl
1 biological monitoring in e
i
TCE*
i
iu£
gti
ID
3
ID
•pH
5
L> Monitor impact of fish
passage projects.
U
Oi
CE
Ln
dl
Continue to develop and us
annual work plans.
^CE
t
. E CL
di
!D
ID
« H
i
1
14.2.1 MD 8c PR will work with
ISRRFRC for successful down-
Istream passage of alosids in
Ithe Susquehanna River.
• i-H
(D
3
§ '
U
Q£
LL
di
in
•o
ID '
Q.
0 •
1-1 in.
di c
> ID
dl -1
T3 a
-H Ji
-H L
Si
CE
, *
' |
a
z u
o u.
E a.
aj
rH
_a
ID
•r<
ID
ID <
14.2.2 Hatchery production
! H> Promote use of Susquehann
! brood stock for PR restocking
i
• H
C
o
a.
ID
41
41
ID
41
ID
31
41
•H
Increase funding for
! Pamunkey/Mattapon i hatcher i es
1
I
TJ
01
•o "m
C 0) -H
m di 1-1
tj n
^* «u
"O 4i ra
i
r
[Standards must be monitorei
(enforced. R special commi
within SRRFRC has been est,
CE
, *
1
|
Z U
o LL
S~ CL.
_.
co en
en en
ri -H
cn E e
i -
4.3 Technical issues regardin
water quality at Conowingo Da
have been accepted.
R> Rdpption of minimum
oxygen standards below the dai
B> Installation of
i
i "
•I
i
]
.
_
CO CO CO
cn cn cn
•— 4 i— ( T-*
vsrs^-- m^SrCS1 systems.
O Turbine operation to meet
D.O. standard.
D> Monitor spills as needed.
E> Flow schedules.
ID
41
ID
~n
T3
dl
N
• H
i
MD is developing a computer
base & mapping system.
PR process underway.
CE CE
1 1
QiE '
z LL CJ
D O LL
EDO.
dl
3
0^ * i™t
cn ^j
-H C
cS
r "n
4.4 Establish new water
classification system based 01
living resources, habitat, ant
water quality.
-------
I »
I rt
! 8
I D
VI
0
ffi
*y
£
_1
0.
1—
1
_s
5 CE
Q. CE
g£
>
Irt l±1
of in
CD w
la
Q. O
H-l
fl~ O
rjuj
ZCE
•s-
^^ ^T
rn fT^
U\ CQ
i-t HI
s
8j
T~
o
fcfcj
(—
O
2
X
Ifl
z
£ 1
^ 1
a
CJ
j
i
i
g
UJ:E
Si
Ul
?^ cH
D- %.
CK UJ
CD
CE
£
Ul
£ UJ
Jg
3;
l— t
a
H- I
*j
ff
53
x en
-P (0
• H
3 >-<
(^ ll
c i^
• rt t!
4J 0)
ID a-
• S 13
•o c
L ID
O n
0_OJ
(U ID
ckln
CE CE CE CE
1 ^ 1 1 1
QJ s: cj u
•^ t \ \\ \\ fv
Q Li_ CJ Qi 21
EQ.Q D-=>
flj
i— i
XI
ID
• rt
L
ID
=>
_
S"c
Qj S
QJ 4J
41!
318
1)
QQ U^
QJ «M
i -8-3
1 O Q*
ItL
QJ
".-S
f 3
-P
0
ID
$
• rt
*) C '
ID C 0
L 0 -•*
in -P ID
•rt ID rt
E rt m
•rt 3 'rt
e en en
T! 0) OJ
CE D£ — 1
II II II
CEQ:_I |
0
u
0
C lH
0 . •£ -Si
, -rt flj C i-l ID
in m in
u.in-rtzz:in PL.OJ
in u. 'rt in L u o
(UCE c4-ineaj-DLnL
E «0(Ue-rtlD 3
•H ^ (D -H 0 L C OJ 0
L O -H 4-1 LCJ OJCE4- in
IOOJ3EOJ X 'rtQj
ZZ-P E QJXJ: in LrtQ;
in 3e in in-rt OJ-D
in rt-p'H.rtU.>rtiij
HJ310LU.U. 'rt'rtE
-PIDCJID L-DiS'rt
ID CD D. 0 ID (U L
4J ^.aj.rt.rt>IDoaiD
Lnojoo-PC'rtE z:
J^ E ID D£ E X
CJIO-PT3ID> (OiniD
•rt tt) U E rt rt U X -rt -rt
-P CL-rt ID -P 31 ID QJ LL E
CIDl-rtCEinES -rt
IDin-P3^l EOCTiCT
rtOiini-iDE-PinLnL
-P X 'rt (D -rt 0) 0 3 l 'rt
CEOQs:z:Q.a.i/iz!3>
II II II II II II 1 ^ II II
CJ CJ CJ D£ l/l
LLCEZIQiZ: CJU.2CJ
ZZLnLl.2U.OU.CEU.O;
UlCDUQCEU-DiKLnE:
cECJQs:z:D.CLifir)E>
d!
12
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY BLUE CRAB MANAGEMENT PLAN
Fishing Effort is Increasing
Containing the harvest of blue crabs can be accomplished by
several changes in the commercial and recreational fisheries. The
Delayed Entry Program, passed during the 1988 Maryland legislative
session and implemented during 1989, has limited the number of new
people entering the commercial fishery. With the two-year delay,
the first new licensees will enter the fishery during the 1992
season (Sept.l, 1991- Aug.31, 1992). Since the tidal fish license
(TFL) was established, there has been an increasing number of TFLs,
with a dramatic increase between 1988 and 1989 in anticipation of
the delayed entry deadline. In addition to the TFL, there are three
other commercial crab license categories in which the number of
licensees have generally decreased. One of these crab licenses, the
limited crab catcher (LCC) , was exempt from the delayed entry until
1990. After one year of the Delayed Entry Program, the number of
TFLs appears to be holding steady but the positive effects of the
Delayed Entry Program will not be fully realized for several years.
Although conclusive data documenting the effectiveness of the
Delayed Entry Program is not available at this time, the program
will be effective at controlling short-term effort that could
result from changes in fishery regulations. A bill which would have
given VMRC authority to delay entry into the fisheries was tabled
at the last session of the Virginia General Assembly. The bill was
sent to a House subcommittee for study. No action will be taken
until the 1991 session of the General Assembly.
There will be a proposal to eliminate the non-commercial crab
catcher (resident and non-resident) license in Maryland. During the
1989 crabbing season, there was a total of 13,027 licensed non-
commercial crabbers that landed approximately 6 million pounds.
This catch appears high for personal consumption and it is likely
that some of the catch is being sold.'currently, non-commercial
crabbers are allowed 2 bushels of crabs per licensee per day.
Elimination of the non-commercial category would force crabbers to
purchase a commercial license or limit themselves to the sport
crabbing limit of 1 bushel per person per day.
Maryland and Virginia continue to conduct summer trawl and
winter dredge surveys to collect information on blue crab
population dynamics. Ultimately, Maryland's goal is to develop a
forecasting model based on the information from the winter dredge
and the summer trawl surveys. This model would be used for
predicting yearly harvest and possibly establishing yearly quotas.
Preliminary work on a model has begun but is not expected to yield
predictive information for another three to five years.
Mechanisms being considered for containing blue crab harvest
are gear restrictions and daily harvest limits. The Maryland
commercial crabbing survey will provide information on the average
13 . !
-------
number of pots, yards of trotline, number of scrapes, number of
collapsible traps, number of crab pounds and number of dip nets
used by commercial crabbers per day each month plus the maximum and
minimum number of each gear type. Gear restrictions may be
effective at limiting effort but enforcement problems may out-weigh
the advantages. Daily time limits are based on the premise that a
licensee can fish only a certain number of pots or other gear per
hour. Maryland will consider establishing daily time limits which
will require investigating the average number of hours spent
crabbing to determine if limiting commercial crabbing between
sunrise and 3:00 p.m. and/or prohibiting crabbing on Sunday will
effectively limit effort. Virginia currently prohibits commercial
hard crabbing on Sunday. Currently, there is no data to support
taking action on hard crab size limits.
Evaluating the economic and social impacts of containing blue
crab harvest were too'broadly stated in the FMP and need to be more
specifically defined. Suggestions for improving the social and
economic questions about crabbing include such topics as the
effects of limiting the number of pots, traps, trotline, etc. on
the economics of both commercial and recreational crabbers; and,
the economic effects of eliminating the non-commercial crabbing
license. Economic and social aspects of crabbing will become
clearer as information on total catch becomes available.
Another economic concern is the perception of business
investors in relationship to management actions. Rumors about blue
crab stock collapse in the Chesapeake Bay can prompt investors to
import crabs from other states, thus impacting fishery economics
in the Bay. It should be emphasized that the blue crab harvest from
the Bay has been relatively high since the early 1980s and the
stock is not in danger of collapse. Since blue crab abundance is
highly variable from year to year and because it is an important
fishery, conservative management actions have been proposed to
protect the stock and should not signal economic concerns to
business investors.
Wasteful Harvesting Practices
The release of buckram crabs, which weigh less than "fat"
hard crabs, is in the initial stages of being promoted through
educational pamphlets and other informational material. Size,
weight, and volume designations from crab dealers and buyers were
evaluated as a means of reducing the harvest of poor quality crabs.
However, the actual size of a crab in a given size category can
vary during any given season depending on availability,
seasonality, demand, and dealer interpretation of the market.
Establishing standard weight limits per bushel does not seem
feasible at this time.
The reduction and elimination of waste in the blue crab dredge
fishery has been a topic of concern. In June 1989, VMRC approved
14
-------
a proposal to limit crab dredging from sunrise to sunset. In other
action, a committee comprised of industry members and. VMRC Fishery
Management Division staff, was established to discuss and develop
viable management options for .Virginia's blue crab fishery. This
Blue Crab Subcommittee [of the Fishery Management Advisory
Committee (FMAC)] has met several times to discuss topics such as
daily catch limits, cull rings, crab and pot theft, peeler pot and
shedder licenses, delayed entry, and modification of crab dredges.
Cull rings can effectively reduce the number of sublegal crabs
found in crab pots and, therefore, reduce the amount of time a
crabber spends culling out small crabs. Virginia produced and
distributed a brochure about the use and benefits of cull rings to
all licensed crab potters. In addition, research on testing cull
ring size and effectiveness in Virginia tributaries of the Bay will
continue. Results from a recent survey of Virginia crab potters
indicate that nearly 60% of the full-time' crabbers are using cull
rings voluntarily. Maryland is in the process of designing and
printing a similar brochure for cull ring use and has also printed
an article about cull ring use in the Watermen's Gazette. Depending
on the success of the voluntary use of cull rings, Maryland may
propose future regulations requiring all new crab pots to have cull
rings. Definitions and dimensions of cull .rings and peeler pots
will need to be defined.
As of September, 1989, it is illegal in Maryland to possess,
transport, or pack a female crab from which the egg pouch has been
removed or an egg-bearing crab, known/as a sponge crab, which has
been taken from state waters (COMAR 08.02.03.02). Sponge crabs also
cannot be taken from the Potomac River. In addition, the use of
mature female crabs as bait in the eel fishery will be surveyed in
Maryland using a list generated by the new requirement for eel pot
licenses.
Abandoned crab pots continue to fish for crabs and contribute
to mortality. The current Maryland regulation states that all crab
pots shall be removed from State waters by December 31 of each
year. Proposed changes to the wording of this regulation would
state that pots found in the waters of the Chesapeake Bay after
Dec. 31st of each year will be considered the property of the
finder. The Department could fine (an amount to be determined) the
licensee of any crab pot found by the Department after Dec. 31st.
Maryland will also assess the feasibility of using different types
of biodegradable panel configurations and implement their use on
an experimental basis with the cooperation of selected watermen.
The Maryland Natural Resource Police conducted a survey of
shedding operations during the summer 1990. This survey will
provide information on the extent of shedding operations, peeler
mortality, and whether it would be beneficial to license shedding
operations. Virginia is also considering a license for shedding
operations. Maryland is discussing the feasibility of preparing a
15 :
-------
shedding demonstration using low cost technology to improve yield
and reduce peeler mortality.
The above actions will begin to reduce the waste problem in
the blue crab fishery and also contribute to the containment of the
blue crab harvest.
Stock Assessment Deficiencies
The Summer Trawl survey has been modified to collect more
detailed data on size class distribution and availability,
environmental parameters, and specific crabbing areas in order to
obtain the biological data necessary for determining blue crab
abundance and distribution.
The second year of the Winter Dredge Survey was completed in
March 1990. The first year was a pilot study and it may take 3 to
5 years before a sufficient data base is collected and management
recommendations can be made. There are expectations that the Winter
Dredge Survey will provide the basis for developing a forecast
model for blue crab harvest in Chesapeake Bay. Preliminary results
from the dredge survey are found in the last paragraph in this
section.
The Maryland Commercial Crab Catch Reporting Form has been
modified as a means to more accurately measure blue crab effort and
harvest. For instance, crabbers must now include a separate total
for dozens of soft crabs and numbers of peeler crabs. How much gear
used per day for trotlines has been clarified by indicating either
feet or yards and effort information has been clarified by
rewording the question on the number of "runs of trotlines" or
"pulls" of the specific gear type. The wording for fishing area has
been changed from "area code" to "water code" to avoid confusion.
Virginia collects hard crab landings from several sources including
wholesalers and picking houses. Virginia is currently working on
obtaining an accurate account of crabs landed.
Maryland has expanded the national Marine Recreational Fishery
Statistics Survey (MRFSS) by contracting for an additional regional
recreational crabbing survey. The data from this survey will be
compatible with previous MRFSS surveys conducted in 1983 and 1988.
Instead of the usual 5-year period between surveys, the additional
regional survey will be conducted more regularly. The specific time
interval between surveys will be determined once the data is
analyzed and data needs are better defined. Virginia plans to add
questions to the MRFSS telephone survey to help estimate catch rate
and fishing effort in the recreational blue crab fishery.
Maryland's Natural Resources Police (NRP) conducted a recreational
crab survey during the summer, 1989. Preliminary results indicate
the recreational crabber spends an average of 4.8 hrs crabbing and
catches 41 crabs per trip (<1 bushel). This survey has the
potential of providing important information on catch and effort
16
-------
trends in the recreational fishery and efforts; will be made to
conduct the survey again in 1991. Any controls placed on the
commercial harvest of crabs will be considered for the recreational
fishery as well. ,
Virginia conducted an effort survey in 1989/1990 to assess
commercial and recreational fishing effort in the crab pot fishery.
The response level was excellent from the 2425 crabbers surveyed.
Data are being processed and a report will be released this year.
Additionally, Virginia's Stock Assessment Program initiated a
survey of CPUE trends in the winter dredge fishery. The CPUE data
generated from this ongoing project will serve as an index for
abundance. Virginia is developing a program to collect biological
data from the commercial dredge fishery and summer fishery to
determine the effect of both male and female crab harvest on
population dynamics.
Cooperative research on blue crab population dynamics is in
progress. There are three subprojects that comprise the population
dynamics field study: a survey of the Maryland pot fishery, a
fishery independent winter dredge survey, and a tagging study. A
survey of the pot fishery provides information on size-frequency
and will be used to express CPUE by sex and size class. This data
will allow an examination of the age and sex structure of the blue
crab population on a seasonal basis. Preliminary conclusions from
the fishery independent winter dredge survey are as follows: more
crabs are found in river systems and tributaries than in the open
Bay; crabs in the river systems are on average', much smaller and
include many young-of-the-year crabs; and, sex ratios vary widely
between the upper and lower Bay, and among rivers. The estimated
standing stock of >5 mm crabs in the Bay during the 1989 winter
was between 60 and 90 million crabs. The winter dredge survey is
viewed as a pilot study to develop a long-term, baywide survey and
to predict the availability of blue crabs in 'following seasons. The
tagging study will provide data for estimating exploitation rates
for the commercial and recreational fisheries.
Although the action on regulating the use of eels for crab
bait was delayed, the first step towards investigating the problem
has begun. Maryland Senate Bill 158 was passed during the 1990
session of the General Assembly. This bill will require a person
to obtain a tidal fish license to catch eels with a pot or other
device in the tidal waters of the State. Limited crab catchers (up
to 50 pots) are exempt from the license provided the harvested eels
are not sold and are for personal use only. A person can apply for
an eel license until September 1, 1991 without the required waiting
period. Reports must be submitted to the MDNR if eels are offered
for sale. The new license will provide data on eels used as bait
in the blue crab fishery.
17
-------
Regulatory and Conflict issues
Conflict issues in the blue crab fishery have begun to be
resolved. An amendment to COMAR 08.02.03., which prohibits the
setting of buoyed crab pots in marked channel entrances of certain
access and navigational areas within Maryland, will add 19 new
buoy-free areas. With the proposed elimination of the non-
commercial crabbing license (Action 1.3.1) in Maryland, the use of
crab pots would be retained for commercial harvesters and
waterfront property owners. This action would also facilitate
enforcement of harvesting regulations.
Enforcement policies and practices regarding the blue crab
fishery have been strengthened throughout the Bay by a commitment
to consistent and uniform practices. Enforcement effort has been
placed on the practice of culling small crabs from the commercial
and recreational catch. More stringent penalties have been enforced
for repeat violations of crabbing regulations.
Habitat Degradation
Support of the habitat and water quality commitments in the
1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement has continued. Although MDNR, PRFC,
and VMRC do not carry out the specific commitments, each agency has
been actively involved in defining water quality goals and
reviewing the results of the action programs. Specific strategies
for nutrient reduction, reduction and control of toxic substances,
and control of conventional pollutants can be found in the 1989
Annual Progress Reports for each. In addition to these areas of
habitat and water quality concern, specific items have been
addressed for blue crabs. Data collected from the summer trawl
survey in Maryland indicate that the areas of highest crab
abundance/ well-suited for crab sanctuaries, are also the best
commercial crabbing areas. At this time, it does not seem feasible
to prohibit crabbing in these areas. As environmental parameters
.are better defined, areas with moderate abundance may be targeted
for protection. It is recommended that those areas of highest crab
abundance be protected against environmental modifications such as
channel dredging •.
Additional research on crab habitat preference has shown that
vegetated habitats support more juvenile crabs by an order of
magnitude than adjacent unvegetated marsh creeks. The need to
protect and restore submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and support
tidal and non-tidal wetlands strategies remains important. The
development of the document, "Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake
Bay Living Resources," is in the process of being completed and
will include specific information on critical and sensitive areas
for blue crabs.
18
-------
Conclusion
The 1989 Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Management Plan was adopted
with a view to prudently manage a highly valuable resource.
Increasing fishing pressure on the blue crab stock, incomplete
knowledge about blue crab population dynamics and environmental
factors that affect larval stages, and socioeconomic issues present
a complex management agenda. During the first year, actions were
begun to contain blue crab harvest by decreasing the waste of small
or poor quality crabs. Other methods of controlling blue crab
harvest are being investigated. The blue crab data base has been
improved, especially for the recreational fishery, and should yield
some important and valuable information in the near future. With
an improved data base for both the commercial and recreational
fisheries, socioeconomic issues can be better defined and
incorporated into management decisions.
Two general areas need to be emphasized during 1990-1991 in
order to improve the management of the blue crab fishery. Briefly,
these are:
1) Continue to collect and analyze data from the winter dredge
and summer trawl surveys. This research will improve the
understanding of stock/recruitment relationships and
contribute to developing a forecasting model for the fishery.
2) Improve the data base and methodologies needed to decrease
waste in the fishery. Waste arises from hairvesting small or
poor quality crabs and operations that cause excessive
mortality. The winter dredge fishery, consistent size limits
:for peeler and soft crabs, and shedding operations are among
the issues to be addressed.
19
-------
1
'1
1
1
IS/NOTES
COMMEN'
Q
O
LU 3C
CD LU
in
•z. <£
n
UJ Z
Q; LU
E: LU
LU 1—
to
i— i
Z
o
rt
CJ
cc
§CE
CD LU
OK
Q.
EQj ^n
^^^
• rt CE rt
•y . • -H
8) . M3
E ID D.
L 4J 3 •
O ID 0 W
Q- TI L L
E 01 Ol
• rt rt J3
ID 31.0
Ol £ L. ID
rt 0 0 L •
.D-rt IA (J rt
«0 4-1 -rt C7V
i— 1 -rt > Q- 01
•rt T) TI O rt
m TI in
assessing av.
collecting ai
ulting- with .
ucted survey
workshop in
in T) "0
01 13 £ £ rt
L C 0 0 0
CC UJ 0 U .C
Qi _I Qi
cc K CE"
1 1 1
ill
rH
S
rH
-r|
V\ 0
rH f— 1 4J
ID Ol ID
•rt > rH
0 Ol 3
L. i—* cn
Ol 01
fi-P L
E E
801 rt
I/I ID
Ol -rt
£ L -P
•rt Q. £
ID Ol
•P -P 4J
c^cU
"•ant
i rt 0) m 3
rtC-88
rt^Sl
in c
I -rt -rt
I cn in
1 E-P ID
1 -rt L dj
1 J= O L
Ifl Cu U
VI *r» V
•rt U- £
U. Ol -rt
rH
,
31
1 V. E
E Ol 0 '
0 £
u in o T!
•rt -p £
int). Ol
E TI Q.
ID £ U Oi
L -rt U TI
cn 3 '
o in TI rt s
L. Ol 0 • rt ID
Q. CJ1 L. rt .rt L
E -P cn 3 m
in ID E cn o
-P-C-rtrt C L
•rt U 0 Q.
Ol £ -rt
CJ> E J3 'rt -p O
EL ID E
•rt Ol 0 Ol -P
L 4J 4J L £ Cr.
O 1 3 Ol O
-P -P 31-P E
• rt L rt ID Ol £
£ 0 Oi rt rt 0
e.£ j/ in D.'rt
in -rt -rt E-P
rrt Cn*rt ID
in in oi 3
•rt rt rt rH CJ i— t
0 rt LL ID
TI L. -rt CE CH >
E: -P m _> a. oi
J
CE o; o:
ill
QC CJ CJ
z Oi LL
i i •£
• rt rH Ol
-P cn Q.
£ cn o
O rt |
U 1 CJ
1 CE LL
Q r> Oi
E: a.
c
L
cn
0 £
Q. E
L
31 Ol
L -P
-P (0
£ 3
Ol
rt
TJ ID
Ol -rt
rt flj
Ol E
O E
00 8
rt L
• 0
rt Ct-
oi in" D
N E 0
•rt 0 L
TJ in -rt .E
£ 4-14-1
ID TJ U
Ol -rt 3
-P in L o
o in -P rt
oi 3 in rt
rt (J 01 0
rt m L. C*.
0 -rt
U TI Ql rt
n oi -rt .71
continuing t
ss data; hav
ts, gear 8c t
licensing; w
Oi .rt
oi in e T)
L in -rt £
CC ID rt ID
f\
CC CC CE
1 1 1
Q; CJ CJ
z Qi LL
i§£
1-4
cn
cn
rH
TI
Ol
i in
L ID
Ol Ol J3
rt 4J
-D E »
^J-rt in ID
-P Ol 4-1
ID Ol 3 ID
Q. in in TJ
E ID in
0 Ol 'rt -p
(J 'rt
0 rt 3
j: 4-1 ID L
in E u
•rt in o oi
rt £ .rt L
-D O 4-1 X
ID -rt 0 TI
4-1 4-1 -rt rt
in ID TI oi
ui rt m-rt
3 -rt 31
^bE
rt L T-) O
0
Ol »4J
ID ID in
£ TI 01
•rt X 0
E 3 -rt
•rt _Q 0 P
flj f\l U ID
o v cn o
-P Oj E -H
in -rt 4j
rt £4J ID
rt Ol 'rt Ol
•rt U S L
J3.rt.rt U
introduced
commercial 1
for sale), 1
ercial or re
Ol E
> £ 4J E
(0 0 0 0
I £ £ 0
_|
Di
CE"
1
ct:
^
cn
cn
""*
" 1
1-4 ID
JZ ID Oi
in ^ L
•rt U 0
3 L U
cn oj L
£ E
•rt E T)
-P 0 C
in u ID
•rt I
•D E - in
Ol rt L
i— t flj ID Ol
rt 3 -rl _D
•rt 4-1 U -Q
3 Ol L. ID
-Cl Ol L
Q E 0
z: 31 e
rH O rH
rt V. U ID
1 ID 1 £
m oi E o
1 rH 0 -rt
rt U C -P
ID
4-1
ID
TI
L 1 T)
Ol 0 Oi 1
.£ 'rt 4J I
4-1 0 U 1
0 0 Ol
in rt
"D rH
E in o
ID in U
Ol
rti.cn
ID TI £
U -D 'rt
•rt ID Ol
01 J3
0 31
rH rH ID
0 rH 4J
•rt ID ID
JD Ol T)
rH in
ID 0 W
£ -P 0
0 -rt i
• rt TI e
4-1 Ol 0
•H T! £
-D 01 0
"0 QJ 0
CE £ Ol
CC
1
K
Q
C3
cn
CP
i—l
0 •
-P in
4J
01 0
C -rt
-rt rH
n CT.
Ol J3 £
-P ID 0
ID L U
3 U
rt Q.
ID Cr. 3
> 0 0
Ol L
in cn
f— i 0
«-H *H L
•H € Of
3 0 W
i
1.3.2 MD
socioecon
resolve u
_Y 1
0 'rt
-------
a.
: LU
Ln
LU
NtS/NuT
LU
I
C3
U
a
D
DD LU
In2"
.O'
Ln u
LU Z
o: LU
t-
LU
Z: LU
LU t-
_J CE
Q- a
5
o
rH
=
'• •"
5
_l CE
m iii
O Oi
£=1
i r. | *
CO -H CJ
L. T3 LL
300:
x e Q.
0
o in cB
L. -rf
x a
"U E
(U ID 31
-P X
3 in
X CU dl
•rt rH m
L, U 3
-P -rt
in -P L
•rt L 0 -
T3 ID Cr.
oS TD dl
Cu L
•O -P 3
dl E X
CL-rt U •
0 L 0
rH O. L
dl ID 01
T> X E
ID Q 31
0:0:0:
afccaf
1 1 1
Q: a cj
D E Oi
cn
CD
cn
rH
Q: i
dl rH dl"
-P rH CC
0 ID ID
E U
o o in
L -P 01
°" WO
~c W**-
ID 'rt m
U X
dl ID
-P rH. L.
ID rH U
3 3
rH U'rH
?«,.&
LU 0 OJ
CM dl X
. in 3
CM 3- W
cn p**
CO f0
CT* C
t-H 0
•iH
,'C-P
•rt 'rt
C TJ
o ID
>H
'-P cn
ID. E ..
rH .rf in
3 -P X
01 U ID
, dl- CU L
L rH U
..rH
-P 'io
ID dl E
cn L di
.rH. ID (4.
.'. e 0
CLcH ID
•iil
Qi
.1
Oi
•Q '
z:
a
cn
cn
rH
CU •
•••, -SB
prohibit har
crabs, evalu
t other Femal
rH {U U
•'rH CJ1 dl
•rt. E -P
3 O O
Q. L
,o in a.
21 H- o
£04J
• v -4J "O
(T) Ifl (U
i (U flj
^M ^ C
',
\
1
1
dl
-a
ZJ
CE
'I
CJ
Zl ''
ffi
cn
rH
X
ID.
nitor Fern, cr
tential regs.
.18.
rH L
.rH 0
. 4J -•
cc in
CD L.
v ID •
cn
E in
•rt rH
•P dl
L CU
0
Q. 3. 01
CD ID E
, L rH -rl
-X
ID 3 0
•rt dl -P
> E ID
U
, T! dl
(U > L
-P ID 0
CJ X Cf.
dl ,
rH ir, CU •
•rH m in
0 31 E,
U dl dl
OlC-.r,
X 3 rH
in
rH CJI
rH L E
•rt 0 *H
3 • L
in ^
ID E 3
••* b S"
Q (4- L
CE
1
Di
O
z:
'o
cn
cn
rH
X
te Female era
el Fishery.
ID HI
01
••rt E
^\ , p^
• in
' dl 31
> -P
. E -rt
rH 1— 1.
(0
91 •
*
cn
E
• rf
i Contin
CE
1
CJ
te
CL
di
c
>|H
-U
'o
CJ
continue to
ossession oF
rH O-
rH
•rf dl
3 X
CJ
LL 4J.
Di -H
a. x
•H
§*£
D.
males.
£4-
01
beari
cn
cn
•
cn
E
>rf
3
Contin
CE ,
1
U"..
Di
§
dl-
o
ID
I-H
Q.
E
rH
0
O ir.
•rt m
•4-1 -P
•rt' 0
X Q.
•rt
If
P-'O"
CE T);
•*• (0
CM "S
f
E lr.-P
L ro QI
ct If
L. di
_iJi y t •
0 0
D. 1 «4-,
X rH, £
L C ! '
4J -tS. 0
•rt 0 L
X L -P
•rt cf. m
••"0 i. cn
L. dl E
Q.4J -rt
ID -4-1
C 3 ID
0, . 3
•rt C rH
-P -rf (D
ID >
rH Ql (ll
OVrt fl).
dl dl 1.
Di X (0
Di
CE"
1 i
Di
Q'
z:
s! •
cn •
rH
•D
dl
U
valuate the m
on abandoned
CU E
0
rH > H '
rH 4J
•H ID in
3 --5- Vj
Q Ol 0
E dl CL
rt JJJ)
CD L tJ
VOL
Ct- 0
(
•Q
3
in.
-g
rH
L Cu
1 dl 'rt
X C».
0 01
E • iH
, O -P
t u
Ct- 3
•n
ID E
-P 0
ID U
cS
E in
.* di
4^ 'rt
Evalua
Fisher
Qi
CE"
i
Qi
Q
CD
cn
rH
•D
ID
L ir.
cn. in
•SI*
Q Q.
•iH
'«£
in u
He
in .rt
in
rH E
rH O
>rt >rt
0 CU
z: in
8 5
• *
"D
CD
N
•H
C
CU
.•S
' ,3
F
3
rrt
0
•H
r
3V
Underw
crabs.
CECE
1 1
:Di CJ
,g Q;
"
£
cn
rH
nFdrcement.
Cu
di
HI
Q.
E'
Q
"
in
cn
dl
CE
cS
Q
01
p*
• rf
Jj •
Evalua
Di-
n.
CE
1 '
CJ
Li.
Qi '
Q-
rH .
cn
cn
'rH
Ift
consider, reg:
rab pots.
rH 0
rH
•rt "^
3 CU
Qi E
Q. ID
n
S C
0
21
-------
•H (fl
ts
0 -H
Q.-U
QJ 10
^i U
en
•H (0
11
in
•a
01
Ql
• rt
1.
! Tl
'•8
-o ^ D. in
QJ QJ
UJ Ql L 4-1
n 44 (o
Q. 10 E 44
u L o in
• H Q.
X
"D QJ
01
£
•H E >
IM
£. QJ
44 X
10 44
cn (o
en
^
.53
0 >
-P C
1/1 -H
i
4-1
JB
QJ
Tl
•H i
> (0
e-s
CUT)
QI in
0 rH
31
3 0
3
O 31
L L
(U Q
c». ,
in
QI In
•H -r< IV
cni- m
QI , o
Io "io £
Ql i. r-K -H
1 QI 'E c
0
in-H
. _ 01 0
z: 4-1 JD cc
cni*.'
QJ
Q I
Ull
111.
4- rH •
o <4- in
ceo
O -H -H
•H 4J
44 in ro
0 Q) L
3 -H 01
TJ 4J Q.
QJ *rl O
L rH
10 Dl
U 4-1 C
4J L. -H
883
PLx1
CL QJ in
in QJ TI
CM D. 10
Ul
dffi
se
i -
i u
QJ
I CJ
in
31
«-»
m
in
n
si
rH E
i -rl
m 3
"JS
44 in
QJ cn
rH E
•H L
o QJ
y§
E
cn
•SJS
=1
3 cn
cc-S
in
E
QJ
-U
in
5P
' cn
•H
4-1
o
D.
01 -H
QJ
44
in
ff
report
diFied
I rH% .
•a (o 44 QJ in
Ql C O QJ QJ
C^EL
in cn
ii c
-
•H lu
C8.
C
3
•
31
31U1 0
ig»
5 Q .
-C E JC
U QJ U
L cn L
(0 (0 10
TJ in
C Ql
n v.
QJ
os
QJ 10 QJ
L Ql E
1) 0 4-1 -
3 rH IP*
•s
r-4
1'
8.
H IP* Q ,
/NO /N Q. /N rH
Q Q. UJ E U. rH
"** Ql v 0 V -H
L U 3
ffl in "Sa
QJ -n o u en
N Ol -P QJ Ql
3 J3 QJ E
rH J3 X '
CM (0 «3 in L.
• L L -H o
(T) 01 0 tt. «4-
0)
m in
niC
i m
X rH Ol
in >H >
a in
S P- W
°J21^
sis'
•H -H 44
u:j
U. N rH
OS -H 0
o. in p
o
LUI
m UJ
l/l2"
Z cB
fflS
Qi UJ
to
or
I—
£UJ
UJ H
^15
orcccc cccccc er eccccc
ill ill i ill
CK CJ CJ 0^(JQ£ CJ Q; CJ CJ
SScL E§§ § §§CL
QJ
rH E O O *H »H
cn 'H cn en cn cn
cn 44 cn cn cn cn
cc cc cc
1 1 1
o: u CJ
z ex u.
,_,
cn
cn
cc cc cc
i i I
D£ U U
E § C^
o
cn
cn
cc •
1
ui
cu •
•D
31
fl3
r^
%
4-1 'H
0 <0
c in
(T)
22
-------
CC
in
LU
h-
o
z
X
in
z
1 1 1
y
O
CJ
Q
O
LU ac
_l H
CO LU
LO
Z oB
O
Q_ >
in CJ
1 1 1 z
CC LU
CH
CC
z
Ku
LU h-
_J CC
CL Q
•2Z
M
Z
I-H
- ^—
£
5
_j QZ
O CC
CC CC
CL
Ol
3 •
in c
in QJ
Q) 'H E
Ol L
L cn QJ
CL. Z -P
1 'H ID
31 in 3
o in
3 3 TJ
J3 0 Z
in ID
3 'H
oj TJ in
Z CL
Qj 3
cn L o
r-H ID L
cn
TJ .«
Ol Q 31
-Z01 L
in cn o
•H i-H m
i-H <|H
-0 Z >
ID 'H TJ
-P ID
in in
Ol ID -Z
QJ -P
EL 'H
ID 3
a:
CC .
1
CC
z
a
E
O
cn
cn
t-H
ml
31.0 Ol .
ID _c in
3 (4- -P ID
0 QJ
Ol. Ol L
-p L in ID
ID Qj ID
Q1J3 Qj Qj
• H £ L 0)
4J 3 U L
in z z CL.
Qj ' iH j
> Ol -P
Z -Z TJ ID
•rt -P Z O
ID ^H
rH Qj CL.
i-H in in
•H ID -P IL.
3 QJ ID 0
L 0
Q O I-H L
E QJ CL. Ol
T! J3
-H -p £ •
• O 0 3
•^- -P a. z
n
31
L
ID 'H m
i-H rH Qj
3 CL. 3
cn z in
QJ o in
cc o -H
^
;- ITA . m
z -•»• « in in
• in • o . QJ CL oi
.-( .0 'H : -P 3 in in
31 ID ID -P L in ID 0 'H m
OJLinZL 0 OX-PL ID .
30000 ID- CL. o in cn a m
in in a. L E "< ID
in-^o-P-P o in ID.QJ ,-HQJ
•* > L ZCL. Z ' iQj QJ-H-P .~H L
cn^ ^^ ., H- IDS 5 ?3 ™
E 31 QJ W -:-.v«, •-< L 0 -IH ID ini-H
•H X L U TJ Z .. ffi> ID i— i L 3 M ID
in-PjgLQj 0' -' z cno. H^OJ-H
m-rtzo-p 'iHO ij c .z U>-P
33'riC^L -PCn a.'H4J=a Z'l-iz
0 E Z 0 D-Cn L -P 'H (g 4: oi
inTJ-rtQjQ. O-H T!0l03in MID-P
•HZ'-'E QJTJ3QJ ZO
TJ ID QJ Di'H cn z in z TJ cn-n 31 L o.
N.LZ Z'IH IDQJZZU (DO)
cn in CL-IH c«- 'H .Qjtt-0'HZ CO-PL
zoiino -PZ L 14. o -P QJ ^H QJ
•ri.HQiiD IDQJ 'oo. men LIDX
-PO>Qjin 3Ji . . Z QlZID QJH-I
IDZIDL-P I-HUI Ol Ol -H 4J L -H 3CPO
3QJXO-H ID4J Z Z IDIDTJ.-H OZ
• i— i cn z E > -H .H inoi LID i— i -H L
ID ID m-H .H OlOJ 3 3'QJCLCCOL -PO
>in--H ja z ZT)oii>ooi iniDtt-
oicncxin in •* •* -HL OTJ 103
Z3'HQ| 'rtrt 4J -P>-oBQj JZ^J(0
QjOQN >— i Z Z OQJ Oj CL. ID-P
LELCI-H Q.rt o OLJ:QL cc>T5
CE ID DIE in E3 CJ . CJ :Q_-PEIDoB Z»OlTJ
a: a; ' o;
* " n
CCCCCE CC CC CC CECCJCC CCCECC CCQi
i' i i i i i 111 i i i i i
DiCJCJ CC Oi CJ ' Q£ CJ ' O CCCJCJ CCCJ
ZCCU. Z' ~Z. CC ZCCLL ZCCU. ZCC
QECt: D Q E DECC Q E CK .. QE
E=»0- E E 3> ;> E > CL E3>0. E3>
Ol Ol Ol
3 • ' 3 I-H
1-1 CD z • z ja ^H
cn cn -H .H ID cn
cn cn -PI i -p -i-i cn
*-< ^H C C L . »H
0 OH)
CJ , , CJ 3-
in , , • • in
-P -P L ' Ol
0 Z ID * n < -H
L CL .H rt m L
Ol 0 -rl | Z • ID •
•-" '-0 Q.EZOS 3--IH-1
Ol IDi '•iHO-HfO 4J(Din
,JJ L31 gj inO-POiL O-PQJ
LCL Ort 3 03D1 CZ>
O ZZL-P'HZO IDQJL
C4-TJ LO -H Qj ZTJ'HL in £10
Z Ol -PTJOlin-PCL ZJI
TJ ID TJ Ol C m -H ... E -H c JD o
oi • •* in o E. in QJ L o s (o L TJ
Ql-Pin W3 OQJZ 03. OL L'HZ
ZM--P C +10 L'^ 0)31 0>ID
oi in E om --131 CL. cn i-i E co -P x QJ in
Z -rt .H .H m r-H Z Z -H Qj' Z VI Z
•HTJl-H r-HU 3 ^H QJ03CL.4JU 'H4JQ
EOl i-iL +)'H EC(-LE i-nU'H
L-POJ .iH(lj QZ3 QjIDCJO OOl J3.HJJ
OlIDN 3E EflJ J/ U. Q.QI (OLID
-PZ'H £ ECCin ID-P'CCT! CLL -P-PO
Qj^in QO ^ZI>EEZ!CLZ 3cn inin-rt
QTI EO CEO! Qj Qj OI/1CC' LUOltL.
L.D v.Hxs+lxx-P^O L'H
(MOID (T)L •^-incoincjinaoi'-H C\JTJ
• oL io i in \c an sx -H • %/ m • iOO
TJ-OO ^CL. -*-ID. in m'= in in-Pe
0
... ' '• • 4J- .
• ; -P ID
ID T!
4J ID .
1 -H L
j3 cn
• ! ID Ol
I TJ
in
23
-------
in
tu
QJI
£
8
Q
CD
UJI
GQ UJ
1-H £
in
i
en
c
c
•H
4J
j
OC CE
1 1
n
0
•H
-P
U
ID
ID
>
• rt
4J C
(DOC
L -rt 0
4J .jJ -H
in nj -P
• rt i—* ID
' c in -i
•H -rt D
E cn cn
TJ (U dJ
CE _j a:
cB
II II II
CE _j o:
fl* t—
s E
U UJ
W UJ I—
_i n Q
rn JEI
^
Q
^
OC
ul
(X.
ffi
III
*p
CJ 2
a
s
S
L | OC
(T) | \ 1
§CC
DL
0)
J3
ID
•rt
is
•%
•E •
(D
i— 1 n
ri.) t.|..^ |
cu c *i in
3 Cg ID 4J
ID Qj 'rt Qj
ID ID ID D
^i^^
a: e t*. TI
m-o° u>
4J C -P -P
L 15 C C
o cr
i aj cu cu
in L T3 L
.
Ol
in D
CD -P
U -P
L -H
3 C 6
0 0 E
in c -H o
D o in cj
fy* ,rt y^
in -H 4J
-< in e c
ID -H E 01
L E 0 E
j e a in
-P o in
ID u in cu
z D in
in u in
U-OlL.CC
0 -rt 3
L 0 X
-P oi in o
C -C QJ 0
Jin DC 4J
•rt l/l
U. CJ
iDL.rt?
D. (U L CD
CU > ID
Q -rt E Ol
D£ ^
T3 ID ID
C CJ -rt 0)
ID ID £ Q.
rH E -rt ID
31 O Ql in
L -»J L 0)
ID O -rt X
T- n "^ tj
£• UH *J? **J
II II II II
Qi CJ CJ U
Q ct = 5
z: a. :> m
CJ
1 1
0
S
a
24
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Background
Governor Schaefer's Committee to Review State Policy for
Funding Maryland's Chesapeake Fisheries is concluding its
assessment of the State's role in managing the oyster fishery. The
committee's final report should be released towards the end of
1990. The various topics under review by the Committee are
discussed under the appropriate headings of this report. ,;,
The University of Maryland, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory
(CBL)^ in Solomons, is conducting research to improve oyster bar
sampling methodologies and to increase our understanding of oyster
population dynamics. This information will improve management of
the fishery and has implications for shell and seed stocking
strategies in the micromanagement of specific oyster bars. Results
of the first phase of research are briefly discussed in the
appropriate sections of this report.
In December 1989, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission,
Fishery Management Division (FMD) identified several management
options designed to reduce harvest and prevent excessive reduction
of James River oyster broodstock. Strong opposition by industry
representatives resulted in a Commission decision to deny the
public hearing process for consideration of the staff proposal.
The Commission, instead, approved the establishment of a committee
comprised of industry members and FMD staff to further discuss and
develop viable management options for Virginia's oyster industry.
This group, known as the Shellfish Subcommittee (of VMRC's Fishery
Management Advisory Committee) , conducted several meetings in early
1990. Agenda items included discussions on the 1990 repletion
proposal, status of the James River oyster fishery, and status of
disease research at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science
(VIMS). A second FMD proposal to restrict James River harvest for
the 1990-1991 season was presented in August 1990. Final Commission
action is expected following the FMD's review of October, 1990,
landings.
i
Harvest Decline and Overharvesting !
The preliminary count for Maryland's 1989-1990 oyster harvest
is 395,000 bushels, the third season in a row that the harvest has
been under 400,000 bushels. The Choptank and Tred Avon Rivers
alone accounted for approximately 61 percent of the harvest. The
Maryland harvest has stabilized at these low numbers, in part, due
to the subsidence of MSX, the seed and shell repletion program, and
the continuing delayed entry program for commercial fishing
licenses in Maryland. Virginia's total market and seed production
for calendar year 1989 was 355,000 bushels, a 39 percent reduction
from the 1988 harvest and 66 percent below the rten year average
25 . ;
-------
annual harvest from 1979-1989. Preliminary estimates for 1990
harvest levels through April are within 1 percent of 1989 levels.
The daily harvest for each gear type in Maryland was generally
less than the limit allowed under current regulations, however, the
Department shortened the beginning of the season by two weeks in
an attempt to decrease total effort and to maximize economic return
from the available resource. Watermen will be consulted on season
length and catch limits for the 1990-1991 oyster season. Fishing
effort in Virginia's James River in October-November 1989 was 40
percent below that for the same period in 1988. Average catch per
vessel in October 1989 was down over 50 percent from 1988.
The VMRC, as part of its normal seasonal closure of the
State's public oyster grounds, approved the May 1, 1990 closure p£
all public oyster rocks on the Seaside of the Eastern Shore and on
the clean cull areas of the State, with the exception of the James
River. The James River was closed on June 1, 1990 by a separate
order. Such closures reduce effort and allow for spawning and spat
set in areas traditionally harvested. In an attempt to promote
broodstock conservation in the James River, the VMRC approved the
closure of Deep Water Shoals to public harvest in 1990. This
upriver productive rock has escaped MSX and Perkinsus (Dermo)
because of its location in low salinity waters.
The procedure for opening and closing specific harvest areas
on a rotating basis is not yet fully developed, however, CBL has
concluded the first phase of a study that will lead toward that and
other management goals. Among the important findings of CBL' is
that patent tongs are more efficient than an oyster dredge for
sampling oyster bars. The CBL has also developed a preliminary,
cost-effective, baywide sampling scheme for oyster bars. In order
to verify some assumptions in the preliminary sampling scheme,
intensive systematic surveys were conducted in the Choptank River.
Nine oyster bars were surveyed and data from British Harbor,
.Chancellor Point, and France bars were analyzed. Results indicate
the importance of tightly defining the acreage of an oyster bar
when estimating oyster population densities, and the need to refine
on-bar sampling techniques. In addition to the bars sampled in
1989, intensive stock assessments have been completed on Stonerock,
Man-0-War, Simmons and Little Cove Point bars. Information on
population distribution, oyster density, abundance, and size-class
composition were collected. Using this information, these oyster
bars can be described according to average oyster density;
estimated_total abundance; percentage of spat, smalls and markets;
average size; and estimated total number of markets.
t The Maryland Delayed Entry Program passed during the 1988
legislative session and established in 1989 to control the number
of people^entering the commercial fisheries, requires commercial
fishing license applicants to wait a minimum of two years before
receiving their license. With the two-year delay, the first new
26
-------
.licensees will enter,the fishery during the 1992 season (Sept. 1,
1991 -Aug. 31, 1992)J, As previously mentioned in the review of the
Blue Crab Management Plan, the number of tidal fish licenses (TFLs)
has been increasing with a dramatic increase between 1988 and 1989
in anticipation of the delayed entry deadline. The number of oyster
harvesting licenses (OYHs) have fluctuated for the pass several
years. After one year of the Delayed Entry Program, the number of
TFLs appears to be holding steady but the positive effects of the
Delayed Entry Program will not be fully realized for several years.
Although conclusive data documenting the effectiveness of the
Delayed-Entry Program is not available at this time, the program
will be effective at controlling short-term effort that could
result from changes in fishery regulations.
Proposed legislation authorizing the VMRC to limit or delay
entry for fisheries (House Bill 286) was introduced to the 1990
Virginia General Assembly. The bill was tabled and assigned to a
legislative subcommittee for further study. No action will be
taken until the 1991 legislative session.
• 1
Recruitment
The 1990 Maryland, Virginia, and Potomac River oyster
repletion programs were conducted at approximately the same level
as last year. Maryland planted approximately 5.5 million bushels
of dredged (fossil) shell and 86,000 bushels of fresh shell as
cultch. In order to improve the usefulness of cultch, the bagless
dredging program was upgraded. Previously, bagless dredging was
used only for fouled or silted oyster bars. Beginning in 1988,
bagless dredging was used in seed areas to increase spat set and,
thereby, increase recruitment. During 1990, three State seed areas
were cleaned for the upcoming oyster set arid 49 oyster beds were
improved by bagless dredging. Approximately 160,000 bushels of
surf clam shells, a viable alternative cultch, were also planted
and represents a considerable increase from previous years. In
addition, approximately 340,000 bushels of seed oysters were moved.
Virginia planted approximately 1.2 million bushels of shell
and transplanted 175,000 bushels of seed. The repletion program
began shifting its emphasis to seed transplants in 1987 to reduce
the time it takes to produce market-size oysters, thereby,
decreasing exposure to disease and environmental pressures. Areas
receiving seed included the Coan River, Currioman Bay, and the
Rappahannock River. No repletion activities were proposed below
the Piankatank River because of low spat strikes in the James River
and Mobjack Bay over the past few years. Plantings in the Great
Wicomico and Piankatank Rivers will foster future seed
transplanting activities.
Approximately 50 acres of old shell beds were proposed for
cleaning by bagless dredging on Virginia's Eastern Shore Seaside.
The Seaside, which typically receives moderate to heavy spat sets,
27
-------
will continue to be planted with reef shells from VMRC's 1988
stockpile in Harborton, VA. . In addition, some Eastern Shore buyers
indicated the availability of fresh shells for the Seaside Program.
The 1989 Maryland oyster spat set was poor. Most areas
received no set and a few scattered areas had a very light set.
The lower Eastern Shore was the most productive, with 30-50 spat
per bushel. Even the seed areas, which are heavily planted with
cultch in historically good spat setting areas, had a poor set in
1989. However, if these oysters survive, together with small
oysters from the past two years, and there is similar recruitment
this season, there is the potential for increased harvests in
future years.
Maryland's hatcheries at Deal Island and Piney Point are
actively engaged in oyster production and research. Experiments
are being conducted with Delaware and Chesapeake oyster stocks and
with the pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas, under quarantine. .More
details are provided under the Disease Mortality section of this
report. Maryland DNR and the University of Maryland have begun a
cooperative project to assess a new technique for remote setting.
The Piney Point aquaculture facility will produce approximately 70-
80 million eyed larvae for the project. Researchers will "plant"
these larvae from a sled pulled behind a vessel onto 6 or 7 plots,
each 1/2 acre in size. The plots will be monitored before, during,
and"after planting, and will be compared to hatchery-set spat. If
successful, this technique could be used to revitalize existing
oyster bars, establish new bars, and make the large-scale culture
of oysters with specific characteristics, such as disease
resistance or fast growth, feasible. Cooperative research between
MDNR, Baltimore Gas & Electric, Langenfelder Company, and SCM
Chemicals, Inc. is also underway for the development of artificial
cultch composed of gypsum and fly ash.
The Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) will continue
hatchery operations to produce eyed larvae and seed oysters for
research and rehabilitation projects (also see Disease Mortality).
The VIMS Oyster Outreach Program currently provides hatchery-reared
cultchless seed oysters to industry for off-bottom rack culture
(grow out). This cooperative venture is designed to evaluate the
feasibility of rearing the oysters to market size before heavy
mortality from MSX and Perkinsis (Dermo) is realized.
In February, 1990, VMRC approved a project for an applicant
to install a series of floating trays, 3 feet long by 2 feet wide
and 6 inches deep, for raising oysters to market size. A total of
400 trays is anticipated, requiring encroachment over approximately
one acre of State-owned subaqueous bottom. The project is situated
in the upper reaches of Butcher Creek, a tidal tributary to the
Chesapeake Bay, in Accomack County. Questions concerning riparian
property owner rights and the potential for impacts were addressed
at length. This project represents Virginia's first aquaculture
28
-------
permit for oysters authorizing the use of the water column in tidal
waters.
Disease Mortality
Maryland and Virginia are continuing their annual oyster
disease surveys in order to develop strategies for optimal seed and
shell planting. Plantings have been focused in areas of low
salinity to take advantage of the 12 ppt minimum salinity tolerance
of MSX.
The incidence of MSX decreased in Maryland waters during 1989;
much of this can be attributed to high rainfall, resulting in low
salinities. However, Perkins is (Dermo) does riot appear to be
limited by salinity, and incidences of this disease were found in
areas previously thought to be uninfected.
Maryland is currently planting spat produced from Delaware Bay
disease-resistant oysters on Maryland oyster bars to gauge their
effectiveness here. Native stocks are also being bred and tested
for their resistance to MSX and Perkinsis (Dermo). To date, it
appears that either the Maryland or Delaware Bay stocks may be
superior in any given area of the Chesapeake. In addition, the
Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) is being experimented with,
under quarantine, for disease resistance. Initial results suggest
that they are resistant to MSX, but are susceptible to Perkinsis
(Dermo), at least at sublethal levels.
The Virginia Institute of Marine Science is actively pursuing
funds to continue its oyster disease research program. The overall
goal of the research is to develop or identify strains of oysters
that are less susceptible to Chesapeake Bay oyster diseases and
that can be used in programs to rejuvenate the oyster industry.
Specific objectives are: 1) develop, through selective breeding
or genetic manipulation, a strain of C. virginica that survives
well enough in disease endemic areas of the Chesapeake to make its
use economically feasible, and; 2) determine growth and
susceptibility to MSX and Perkinsus (Dermo) of diploid and triploid
C. qigas and of C. virginica X C. gigas hybrids, if hybrids can be
produced. The VMRC held a public hearing in May 19,90, on the
subject of introducing C. gigas into natural waters for
experimentation, and ruled that an environmental impact statement
would have to be conducted before such action could be taken.
A series of workshops concentrating on rehabilitation of the
Chesapeake and Delaware Bay oyster industry was held during the
past year. Workshop participants included both scientists and
managers, and topics ranged from oyster genetics ctnd disease to the
introduction of exotic oyster species. The workshops produced
recommendations for research and a consensus that additional
efforts should be made to rebuild populations of the eastern
29
-------
oyster, C. virginica, before attempting major rehabilitation
efforts with the Pacific oyster or other non-native species.
Leased Ground Production
Maryland made seed oysters available to private planters in
May 1990r from one of two seed beds established in 1989 for this
purpose. It was estimated that the area in St. Jerome Creek, St.
Mary's County, would yield approximately 50,000 bushels of seed at
an average count of 113 spat per bushel. The seed area was found
to be disease-free during the winter of 1989-1990, however, because
Perkinsis (Dermo) was found in adjacent sites, MDNR recommended
that the seed not be replanted on oyster leases in areas not
impacted by oyster diseases. The 1989 spat set was too low on the
private seed bed in Calvert County to make seed available this
year. Additional cultch plantings and a second year of set may
improve conditions for 1991.
The Maryland State Legislature passed HB 214 in 1990 which
raises the fee for leased bottom applications. A leased ground
applicant must now pay DNR a non-refundable fee of $300 to cover
the costs of recording, surveying, and 'advertising potential
tracts. In addition, the time period during which a leaseholder
must "utilize" his/her lease by planting cultch, planting
shellfish, or harvesting shellfish was reduced. Previously, a
leaseholder need only use/improve the leased ground once during a
five-year period. Now a leaseholder must utilize his/her leased
ground at least once during a three-year period.
Virginia proof-of-use measures to promote private production
and cultivation were implemented July 1, 1990. Section 28.1-109
of the Code of Virginia specifies that, unless there is good cause,
VMRC may not renew or extend oyster ground leases if there has been
neither significant production of shellfish nor reasonable
plantings of shellfish or cultch during the 10-year period of the
lease prior to,its renewal. The first leases to be evaluated for
'usage prior to renewal were reviewed by the Commission in June,
1990, resulting in over half of the 26 lease renewals under
consideration to be denied.
One of the subjects being studied by the Committee to Review
State Policy for Funding Maryland's Chesapeake Fisheries is whether
private oyster culture can play a more important role in the state
production of oysters. The committee is looking at production
potential, whether the state should help develop the industry,
appropriate areas and conditions for private culture, cost and tax
issues, enforcement, and related matters. Once the committee's
recommendations are presented to Governor Schaefer, the Department
will take actions as needed.
The VMRC staff are working within current legal requirements
to minimize impediments in the existing permitting process for
30
-------
applicants seeking new culture methods. The first permit was
issued in February, 1990 (see the discussion of tray culture under
Recruitment). The Virginia Institute of Marine Science is shifting
the emphasis of its outreach prpgram and internal research program
to new culture techniques for the Virginia oyster fishery.
Habitat Issues and Shellfish Sanitation j
The signatories to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement continue to
press forward with research, monitoring, and management for habitat
and water quality improvement. Reports for the Baywide Nutrient
Strategy, Living Resources Monitoring Plan, State of the Chesapeake
Bay, Habitat Requirements, Wetlands Policy, Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation (SAV) Policy, and other plans should be consulted for
details.
The VMRC, in cooperation with VIMS and the Department of
Health, conducted a feasibility study in 1987 which investigated
the potential for containerized relaying (depuration) of condemned
oysters. This technique was found to be acceptable for depurating
both the American oyster and the hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria) .
The VMRC instituted a containerized clam relay program in March
1987 and has recently (July 1990) approved the same procedure for
oysters. The Food and Drug Administration found this relay practice
to be beneficial to both "industry and the Commonwealth; industry
could maximize yield due to reduced transplant mortality, and
Virginia would benefit from an improved system of controls which
would reduce the likelihood of contaminated shell stock reaching
the consumer.
In Maryland, the Department of Natural Resources, the
Department of the Environment, and the Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene continue to share responsibility for the sanitary
control of the shellfish industry. The VMRC and the Virginia
Department of Health (Division of Shellfish Sanitation) jointly
regulate the sanitary control of Virginia's shellfish industry.
Market Production I
Successful implementation of the various strategies listed in
the management plan should help restore natural oyster stocks and
increase private production, thus providing a more reliable
quantity and quality oyster product to the market. As noted in
earlier sections of this report, production remains at low levels
but progress is being made in several important areas.
i
i
In the meantime, efforts are being made to improve consumer
interest in the Chesapeake oyster. The Maryland Department of
Agriculture, Seafood Marketing Division, has created a consumer's
guide and a fact sheet that include information on the quality of
Chesapeake oysters. The department also regularly publishes the
31 i
-------
Maryland Seafood Buyer's Bulletin. Both DNR and the Department of
Agriculture have also given numerous media interviews and
distributed press releases on oyster quality issues.
The Virginia Marine Products Board (VMPB) continues active
promotion of the Chesapeake Bay oyster. Three pamphlets, targeting
consumers, have been produced to encourage consumption of oysters.
Pact sheets were distributed to promote oyster purchases by
wholesale distributors. Another brochure was designed to advertise
oysters on an international level. In addition, the VMPB featured
Virginia oysters at four major trade shows. Trade leads from 200
buyers interested in purchasing Virginia oysters were generated
from these shows. In response to negative publicity about oysters,
the VMPB began a quality assurance campaign, producing a video tape
on safe inspection of Virginia shellfish, promotional
advertisements, and a direct mail program.
Repletion Program
A major topic under consideration by the Committee to Review
State Policy for Funding Maryland's Chesapeake Fisheries is the
oyster repletion program. This subject area includes how and at
what level the program should be conducted, the extent to which the
state and participants in the fishery should share repletion costs,
severance taxes on the sale of oysters, and other related matters.
The state will not take specific action on any of these issues
until the committee's report is completed.
The Chesapeake Biological Laboratory conducted studies in 1989
to help determine optimal time and location for shell plantings.
Preliminary data from field experiments indicate that shells placed
in polyethylene cages were more effective in attracting spat than
were mesh bags 1 meter off the bottom or shells on oyster bars.
At least for 1989, when salinities were unusually low due to high
levels of rainfall, spat settlement was most pronounced in July
and August. Data from these and other experiments is still being
analyzed and will be available this year. In addition, a project
to experimentally . reconstruct oyster bars into productive
configurations will begin.
In 1989, VIMS reported on three studies comparing alternative
substrates for oyster cultch - oyster shell, tire chips, and
expanded shale. The studies entailed laboratory and field
evaluations of the three substrates for oyster settlement and an
assessment of mobility and hydraulic roughness, of the substrate
materials. The laboratory evaluation of oyster settlement
indicated that oyster shell was significantly superior to the other
two substrates, and in two of three tests, there were no
statistically significant differences between the tire chips and
expanded shale. The field studies of oyster settlement indicated
that oyster shell was the preferred substrate based on the
proportion of spat present. Laboratory and field analyses found
32
-------
that tire chips were more readily dispersed or transported along
the bottom than the other substrates. Expanded shale fragments
were somewhat more mobile than oyster shell. The VMRC and VIMS
agreed that tire chips did not serve as suitable substrate, but
that expanded shale may warrant further study if it can be obtained
in cost-effective quantities.
An oyster industry restoration program is in the development
stages and includes Maryland and Virginia harvesters and
processors, officials from other states, and the federal
government. Currently, MDNR and the University of Maryland Sea
Grant Program are planning to hold a national conference in August,
1991. Oyster scientists from the United States and other countries
and oyster industry people will be invited to gather information
and discuss a program for rebuilding the Chesapeake Bay oyster
stocks and industry. One of the major issues will be whether to
utilize non-native species.
Conclusion
Progress has been made on methodologies for improving the
assessment of oyster stocks and on understanding oyster ecology and
diseases. Important policies regarding oyster management are also
being developed. However, refinement of techniques and additional
information is needed before some management actions can be put
into place. With continued progress, management agencies will, in
the next few years, be able to manage oyster bars at the "micro"
level. This should lead to increased and stable production of
quality oysters.
Concurrently, Chesapeake fishery managers are discussing
reasonable target goals for recovery of the oyster fishery. Both
biological and economic concerns are being addressed in these
discussions. Target goals will provide managers with direction for
their actions and will provide a yardstick with which to measure
their success. Target goals should be fully developed by the end
of 1990.
Two general areas need to be focused on during 1990-1991 in
order to rebuild oyster stocks and improve mcinagement of the
fishery. Briefly, these are:
1. Identify new areas of fossil oyster shell that can be
dredged and planted for cultch, and increase the availability
of alternative sources of cultch.
i
2. Continue to conduct research on growth, disease resistance,
and production capabilities of the eastern oyster, and
continue developing an official baywide policy on the
introduction of non-indigenous species of oysters.
33
-------
CC
ffl
1
UJ
1
o
UJ 8
1 I.JII1
_J (~™
ic8
CL, >
Km
E
l-
z
LU
ELLl
LU H"
Q. a
z:
rH
g
E
CC
UJ
dec
UJ
CC CC
I
cn
c.
•rt CD
"lO Z
r3 0
ID -rt 0
> C,. 4J
Ol -H
0 31
c8 Of -0
in in oi
01 L
•rf Ol
TJ rH Jj
!Rre conducting stu
! techniques to enab
! management, but no
! implement yet.
CC CC CC
. . 1
life
E 3> a.
Oi
3
O £
CT\ >H
cn -P
rH C
0
CJ
c
o
rH
in o
10 L,
ID 0
0,°
in o
O 4-1
u in
•rt i
•D in -P
C (D L.
^0 TrO O
01 £ Oi
CL-H
O 4J 01
10 £
rH 4J -rt
• 0 SI
rH L W
1 'IH
rH ID CT-
TJ 4J
E in
ID Ol
4J OJ L
in c ID
> 'rH L
L U 0)
ID Ol >
IT) o
1
rH
cn
c
• rt
L
L
01
i
u
1
31
dj in
£. CL
!Rre evaluating Fis
iuiith advisory grou
Q: cc cc
i i i
CC CJ CJ
2:3*0.
Ol
3
rH C
cn -rt
en 4J
rH C
O
U
in
tj
•rt Cj-
E O
•rt
rH «
j: 4-1
U ID
• 4J 4-1
ID in
Oj
in -P
•rt i
rH 4J Ol
-DDL)
ID 0) L
4J rH 3
in CT. o
LU dj in
L. dj
CM L
• -p
I-H ID 0)
. -C .C
rH 4J -p
1
E
e.
0
!In eFFect.
i
i
IHre assessing MD p
CC CC
I 1
i a
Q Q£
y n
(U
£ £
•rt Qj
4J Q.
£ O
0
CJ
f
E 4->
ID L
L. 0
oV
L. Qj
^E"
L 'rt
4J j:
£ in
Ol -rt
QJ OJ
31 N
ID -rt
rH rH
Qj i rt
^^ 1^
ID '
. in
i-H
< 0
rH 4J
0
-P
31
rH i
.Y cn
• rt cn
rH i— 1
•0.5
Oi
4J Qj
in L.
Ol 3
L 4-1
!VR groups are inte
! propose to leg is la
_l
1
CJ
rv
E '
r>
i
i
31
L
OJ -
r1 Oi
L) U
4-1 E -P
JT, 4J 0
in 3
i— 1 -H 0
10 in L
4.1 QJ cn
£ L
QJ -o
E Ol £
•rt m io
L 10
Oi Ol »
Iflre continuing exp
1 product ion For dis
[alternative cultch
1 methodo 1 og i es .
i
i
CC CC CC
1 1 1
o; cj cj
Z QC Ll.
Q E D;
cn
CO
cn
.-H
•D
Ol
31 QJ in
L L'
Qj Qj Ol
X U 4-1
u 3 in
4-1 TJ 31
ID 0 0
Oi Qj
3 D OJ
£ -P in
• rt
4J in "D
E§§ .
CJ -rt
-P QJ
rH 10 ID
• L >
rH QJ L.
• CL ID
CM 0 rH
4-1
S
J
•rt
3
(J
Oi
,
CM
cn
c
• rt
+1 rH
0 ID
3 i. in
t! 3 3
£ -P 0
0 ID -rt .
uclo^
Ol .£ > 10
L 4J L
10 'rt Of Ol
3 > 0
un 10 L
E in j= a.
M 4J
1
IMDNR, MDflGR, UM, V
aquaculture projec-
and hatchery seed;
outreach/extension
_l
n
cc cc
1 1
C£ CJ
Q E
n
cn
cn
rH
01
u
10
cr
(8
-P
o
Q.
Q.
ui in
4-1
CM L.
• 0
rH Cf.
CM Of
OJ 1
E 0
ID L.
in EL •
4.1 men
flu £ cn
•rt rH
E.SC
Of t4- .rt
3 Ol
L 4-1
in *
S OJ E
ID L. -rt
L. ID rH
m '
1990 repletion proi
levels as in 1989;
grams; Funding may
cc cc cc
1 1 1
Oi CJ CJ
E CL §
cn
CO
cn
i-H
Of
4-1
in •
0 ID
ir
• ft n
-P °-
£ £
0 0
CJ -rt
4J
(T) OJ
i rH
rH n
i QJ
CM L
10
1
Research project ui
CC
i
etc
Q
o
cn
cn
"" ~"
ID
1 1
Oi
g
oj T
•rt Ol
L Q.
3 X
-Q Ol
4J 0
0 L
U ID
L <
TJS.2
-i m in
• 31 in
CM 0 J3
34
-------
D CE
D- Z
LU CE
in >
in cc
UJ UJ
CC 3Z
CD in
O rt
cc u.
CL
CE I-
=j in
z >
Z C3
CC
cn CD
cn
rt LU
CE
in
LU
u
in
LU
o
z
^
, in
z
LU
z:
D
CJ
a
o
LU X
CD LU
in
Z sB
0
in u
LU Z
CC LU
CD
CC
^
jr LU
-ife
Q- O
i— i
§
rt
CJ
CC
LU
—1 CC
CD LU
D CC
CC CC
Q_
,
31
ID
3
L
•8
£
3
QJ
ID
in
Ol
W
31
i— (
ID
£
ID
•o
£
ID
x
U
ID
Ql
in
Ol
cc
CE CE CE
1 1 1
CC CJ U
Z LL os
a cc z:
z: o_ :>
OJ
£
1— 1
,
-P T!
WE U
Ql (U Qj
E 'E in
•rt _p 01
T3 'rt +1 04.
£ 3 ID 0
•rt L rt
t*- o 3 cn
aj cn E
X V. Ol 'rt
(0 -P 0 0
Ol 'rt .p -p
S £ Q. M
•D X £
tn -P E -10
3 rt 0 4J
3 -rt in
10 TJ -P QJ
> ID ID >
l-l rt L.
• £ QJ ID
f\l 0 lu X
i in
£%
•H l_
-jj 3
c in
ID in
rt Ol
a. i_
a.
rt
rt Ol
QJ in
X ID
in QJ
in
eB £
T3
Ql E
Ql 0
in L.
C|_
cn
£ Ql
•H Qj
N L
.rt q.
•;-< m
X ID
ID Ol
E L
ID
QJ
t c
CC 'rt
CE CE CE
1 1 1
CC CJ CJ
ZU.CC
a cc z:
Z: Q- :>
cn
CO
cn
rH
QJ
£ cn
rt |