Chesapeake Executive Council
903R90108
Chesapeake Bay Bluefish
Fishery Management Plan
Chesapeake
Bay
Program
Agreement Commitment Report
December 1990
-------
Chesapeake Bay Bluefish
Fishery Management Plan
An Agreement Commitment Report from
the Chesapeake Executive Council
Annapolis, Maryland
December 1990
Printed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
for the
Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
ADOPTION STATEMENT
The Chesapeake Bay Bluefish Management Plan has been prepared for the Chesapeake
Bay Program and adopted by the Chesapeake Executive Council.
Chesapeake Executive Council:
Commonwealth of Virginia
State of Maryland
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
United States of America
District of Columbia
Chesapeake Bay Commission
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii
INTRODUCTION vi
SECTION 1. BLUEFISH BACKGROUND 1
Life History 1
Biological Profile 4
The Fishery 5
Fishery Parameters 12
Economic Perspective 15
Resource Status 18
Habitat and Water Quality Issues 19
FMP Status and Management Unit 20
Coastal Management Measures 20
Laws and Regulations 22
Status of Traditional Fishery Management Approaches.... 24
Data and Analytical Needs 26
References 27
SECTION 2 . BLUEFISH MANAGEMENT 31
A. Goal and Obj ectives 31
B. Problem Areas and Management Strategies 32
1. Stock Status and Increased Fishing Pressure.... 32
2 . Wasteful Harvest Practices 34
3 . Research and Monitoring Needs 35
4. Habitat and Water Quality Issues 37
APPENDIX: Bluefish Management Plan Implementation Matrix.... 39
Figures
1. Spawning Areas and Coastal Migration Patterns for
Bluefish Along the Atlantic Coast 2
2. Commercial Bluefish Landings from the Chesapeake Bay.... 6
3. Commercial Bluefish Catch by Gear Type 7
4. Commercial Bluefish Landings from the Atlantic Coast.... 9
5. Commercial Bluefish Landings from Maryland and Virginia,
Bay and Atlantic Ocean 10
6. Estimated Recreational Bluefish Landings,
Atlantic Coast 11
7. Percentage of the Bluefish Recreational Catch by
State, 1989 13
8. Total Bluefish Harvest from the Atlantic Coast 14
9. Commercial Landings and Dockside Value 16
10. Commercial Bluefish Landings and dockside Value
from the Atlantic Coast 17
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Chesapeake Bay Bluefish Management Plan was developed
under the direction of the Fisheries Management Workgroup. Staff
from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Tidewater
Administration, Fisheries Division were responsible for writing the
plan and addressing comments on the draft versions. Support was
provided by staff from the Virginia Marine Resources Commission
(VMRC), Fisheries Management Division. Contributing MDNR staff
included Nancy Butowski, Phil Jones, Randy Schneider, and Harley
Speir. VMRC staff included Erik Earth, Lewis Gillingham, and Roy
Insley. Thanks are due to Verna Harrison and Ed Christoffers for
guiding the plan through the development and adoption process.
Dave Packer, from EPA's Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office, assisted
with production and distribution. Finally, we express gratitude
to members of other Chesapeake Bay Program committees and
workgroups and to the public who commented on the plan.
Members of the Fisheries Management Workgroup were:
Mr. Mark Bundy, STAC Economic Advisory Group
Mr. K.A. Carpenter, Potomac River Fisheries Commission
Mr. Ira Palmer, D.C. Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs
Mr. William Goldsborough, Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Mr. J. W. Gunther, Jr., Virginia Waterman
Mr. Robert Hesser, Pennsylvania Fish Commission
Dr. Michael Hirshfield, MD Department of Natural Resources
Dr. Edward Houde, UMCEES/Chesapeake Biological Laboratory
Mr. W. Pete Jensen, Chair, MD Department of Natural Resources
Mr. J. Claiborne Jones, Chesapeake Bay Commission
Dr. Robert Lippson, NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service
Dr. Joseph G. Loesch, Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Dr. Charles F. Lovell, Jr., M.D., Virginia
Mr. Richard Novotny, Maryland Saltwater Sportfishermen1s Assoc.
Mr. Ed O'Brien, MD Charter Boat Association
Mr. James W. Sheffield, Atlantic Coast Conservation Assoc. of Va.
Mr. Larry Simns, MD Watermen's Association
Mr. Jack Travelstead, Virginia Marine Resources Commission
Ms. Mary Roe Walkup, Citizen's Advisory Committee
ii
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
One of the strategies for implementing the Living Resources
Commitments of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement is to develop and
adopt a series of baywide fishery management plans (FMPs) for
commercially, recreationally, and selected ecologically valuable
species. The FMPs are to be implemented by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, Commonwealth of Virginia, District of Columbia,
Potomac River Fisheries Commission, and State of Maryland as
appropriate. Under a timetable adopted for completing management
plans for several important species, the bluefish FMP was scheduled
for completion in December 1990.
A comprehensive approach to managing Chesapeake Bay fisheries
is needed because biological, physical, economic, and social
aspects of the fisheries are shared among the Bay's jurisdictions.
The Chesapeake Bay Program's Living Resources Subcommittee formed
a Fisheries Management Workgroup to address the commitment in the
Bay Agreement for comprehensive, baywide fishery management plans.
The workgroup is composed of members from government agencies, the
academic community, the fishing industry, and public interest
groups representing Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, the District
of Columbia, and the federal government.
Development of Fishery Management Plans
An FMP prepared under the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement serves
as a framework for conserving and wisely using a fishery resource
of the Bay. Each management plan contains a summary of the fishery
under consideration, a discussion of problems and issues that have
arisen, and recommended management actions. An implementation plan
is included at the end of the FMP to provide additional details on
the actions that participating jurisdictions will take and the
mechanisms for taking these actions.
Development of a fishery management plan is a dynamic process.
The process starts with initial input by the Fishery Management
Workgroup, is followed by public and scientific review of the
management proposals, and then by endorsement by the appropriate
Chesapeake Bay Program committees. A management plan is adopted
when it is signed by the Chesapeake Bay Program's Executive
Committee. In some cases, regulatory and legislative action will
have to be initiated, while in others, additional funding and
staffing may be required to fully implement a management action.
A periodic review of each FMP will be conducted under the auspices
of the Bay Program's Living Resources Subcommittee, to incorporate
new information and to update management strategies as needed.
111
-------
Goal of the Bluefish Management Plan
The goal of the Chesapeake Bay Bluefish Management Plan is to
protect and monitor the bluefish resource in the Chesapeake Bay,
its tributaries, and state coastal waters, to provide for optimum
long-term ecological, economic, and social benefits.
In order to meet this goal, a number of objectives must be
met. They include following the guidelines established by the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) and the Mid-
Atlantic Fishery Management Commission (MAFMC) for coastwide
management of the bluefish fishery, providing for fair allocation
of the resource, promoting efficient harvesting practices,
promoting biological and economic research, and pursuing standards
of environmental quality and habitat protection. These objectives
are incorporated into the problem areas and management strategies
discussed below.
Problem Areas and Management Strategies
Problem 1: Stock Status and Increased Fishing Pressure. Commercial
and recreational bluefish harvests are currently at high levels.
The commercial market demand and price are presently unstable, yet
the fishery has the potential to expand. Recreational harvest
accounts for 85% - 90% of the total catch and the number of sport
fishermen is increasing. Historically, bluefish abundance appears
to have been highly variable; therefore, there is always the
possibility of an unpredictable, natural decrease. Recent stock
analysis indicates the bluefish population along the Atlantic coast
is being fully exploited.
Strategy 1: In order to protect the bluefish resource in the
Chesapeake Bay and along the Atlantic coast from overexploitation,
the Bay jurisdictions will work with the MAFMC and ASMFC to
coordinate research and management. In addition, the Bay
jurisdictions will monitor the bluefish fisheries and implement
conservative management measures as needed. Management measures
include: establishing commercial harvest controls if the harvest
is projected to equal or exceed 20% of the total bluefish catch
from the Atlantic coast; fully implementing licensing requirements
for the commercial harvest and sale of bluefish; and establishing
a 10 fish per person per day recreational creel limit which may be
modified as needed.
Problem 2: Wasteful Harvest Practices. Both the recreational and
commercial fisheries have wasted some of their bluefish harvest.
Unmarketable bluefish from the commercial fishery have been
discarded in the Bay and recreational fishermen have discarded
excess bluefish that have been caught by hook and line.
IV
-------
Strategy 2: Efforts will be made to reduce the discard of dead
bluefish in the Chesapeake Bay. A daily creel limit will reduce
wastage in the recreational fishery. The jurisdictions will also
educate the general public, through the use of informational
brochures and other means, about the need to reduce wastage in the
fishery. The jurisdictions will begin identifying and assessing
the factors that contribute to wastage in the commercial fishery
and take necessary action.
Problem 3: Research and Monitoring Needs. There is a lack of
information regarding population dynamics of bluefish in the
Chesapeake Bay, including what factors affect their occurrence,
distribution, and abundance. Adequate information on the bluefish
fisheries is also lacking. In order to monitor stock levels and
improve management, additional data on bluefish biology, market
demands, and catch and effort is needed.
Strategy 3: Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions will make efforts to
improve the understanding of the Bay's recreational and commercial
fisheries. They will also encourage research to collect additional
data on bluefish biology. Among the recommendations are to improve
reporting and analysis of catch information, collect additional
data on the composition of the bluefish catch, and conduct studies
on the effects of environmental parameters on bluefish populations.
Problem 4: Habitat and Water Quality Issues. Water quality
impacts the distribution, abundance, and quality of finfish species
in the Chesapeake Bay. Habitat destruction also contributes to the
reduction of finfish abundance. Low oxygen levels are known to
limit bluefish movement and toxic contamination of bluefish is an
important issue.
Strategy 4: The Bay jurisdictions will continue their efforts to
improve water quality and define habitat requirements for the
living resources in the Chesapeake Bay pursuant to the 1987
Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Efforts include identifying and
controlling nutrients, toxic materials, conventional pollutants,
and atmospheric inputs, and protecting wetlands and submerged
aquatic vegetation.
-------
INTRODUCTION
MANAGEMENT PLAN BACKGROUND
As part of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement's commitment to
protect and manage the natural resources of the Chesapeake Bay,
the Bay jurisdictions are developing a series of fishery management
plans covering commercially, recreationally, and selected
ecologically valuable species. Under the agreement's Schedule for
Developing Baywide Resource Management Strategies, a list of
priority species was formulated, with a timetable for completing
fishery management plans as follows:
° oysters, blue crabs and American shad by July 1989;
0 striped bass, bluefish, weakfish and spotted seatrout by 1990;
0 croaker, spot, summer flounder and American eel by 1991; and
0 red and black drum by 1992
A comprehensive and coordinated approach by the various local,
state and federal groups in the Chesapeake Bay watershed is central
to successful fishery management. Bay fisheries are traditionally
managed separately by Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, the
District of Columbia, and the Potomac River Fisheries Commission.
There is also a federal Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council,
which has management jurisdiction for offshore fisheries (3-200
miles), and a coast-wide organization, the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), which coordinates the management of
migratory species in state waters (internal waters to 3 miles
offshore) from Maine to Florida. The state/federal Chesapeake Bay
Stock Assessment Committee (CBSAC) is responsible for developing
a Baywide Stock Assessment Plan, which includes collection and
analysis of fisheries information, but does not include the
development of fishery management plans.
Consequently, a Fisheries Management Workgroup, under the
auspices of the Chesapeake Bay Program's Living Resources
Subcommittee, was formed to address the commitment in the Bay
Agreement for Baywide fishery management plans. The Fisheries
Management Workgroup is responsible for developing fishery
management plans with a broad-based view. The workgroup's members
represent fishery management agencies from Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, the District of Columbia, and the federal government; the
Potomac River Fisheries Commission; the Bay area academic
community; the fishing industry; conservation groups; and
interested citizens. Establishing Chesapeake Bay FMPs, in addition
to coastal FMPs, creates a forum to specifically address problems
that are unique to the Chesapeake Bay. They also serve as the basis
for implementing regulations in the Bay jurisdictions.
vi
-------
WHAT IS A FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN?
A Chesapeake Bay fishery management plan provides a framework
for the Bay jurisdictions to take compatible, coordinated
management measures to conserve and utilize a fishery resource.
A management plan includes pertinent background information, lists
management actions that need to be taken, the jurisdictions
responsible for implementation, and an implementation timetable.
A fishery management plan is not an endpoint in the management
of a fishery; rather, it is part of a dynamic, ongoing process
consisting of several steps. The first step consists of analyzing
the complex biological, economic and social aspects of a particular
finfish or shellfish fishery. The second step includes defining
a fishery's problems, identifying potential solutions, and choosing
appropriate management strategies. Next, the chosen management
strategies are put into action or implemented. Finally, a plan
must be regularly reviewed and updated in order to respond to the
most current information on the fishery; this requires that a
management plan be adaptive and flexible.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS
The goal of fisheries management is to protect the
reproductive capability of the resource while providing for its
optimal use by man. Fisheries management must include biological,
economic and social considerations in order to be effective. Three
simply stated objectives to achieve this goal are:
° quantify biologically appropriate levels of harvest;
monitor current and future resource status to ensure harvest
levels are conserving the species while maintaining an
economically viable fishery; and
adjust resource use and other factors affecting resource status,
as needed, through management efforts.
These general objectives are incorporated with information on
a particular resource and the current status of management for that
resource, into specific objectives for a fishery management plan.
MANAGEMENT PLAN FORMAT
The background section of this management plan summarizes:
0 natural history and biological profile of bluefish;
bluefish fishery and fishery parameters;
Vll
-------
o
economic perspective;
0 resource status;
° habitat issues;
0 FMP status and management unit;
° coastal management measures;
0 Current laws and regulations in the Chesapeake Bay; and
o
data and analytical needs.
The background information is derived primarily from the
document entitled, Chesapeake Bay Fisheries; Status. Trends.
Priorities and Data Needs and is supplemented with additional data.
Inclusion of this section as part of the management plan provides
historical background and basic biological information for each of
the species.
The management section of the plan, which follows the
background, defines:
0 the goal and objectives for management of the species;
0 problem areas;
0 management strategies to address each problem area; and
0 action items, with a schedule for implementation, by the
appropriate management agency.
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM'S FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANNING PROCESS
The planning process starts with initial input by the
Fisheries Management Workgroup and development of a draft plan.
This is followed by a review of the management proposals by Bay
Program committees, other scientists and resource managers, and the
public. After a revised draft management plan is prepared, it must
be endorsed by the Chesapeake Bay Program's Living Resources
Subcommittee and Implementation and Principal Staff committees.
The plan is then sent to the Executive Committee for adoption.
Upon adoption, the appropriate management agencies implement
the plan. In some cases, regulatory and legislative action must
be initiated, and additional funding and staffing may be required.
A periodic review of each FMP is conducted by the Fisheries
Management Workgroup to incorporate new information and to update
management strategies as needed.
Vlll
-------
Section 1. Bluefish Background
Life History
Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) is the only member of the
family, Pomatomidae, and is closely related to the jacks, pompanos,
and roosterfish (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953). Bluefish are also
commonly known as blue, tailor, snapper, elf, fatback, snapping
mackerel, skipjack, horse mackerel, greenfish, chopper and Hatteras
blue (Wilk 1977) . Bluefish have a world-wide distribution with
occurrences recorded in the Atlantic Ocean, the Mediterranean Sea,
the Black Sea, and the Indian Ocean. Along the east coast of the
United States, bluefish can be found from Nova Scotia to Texas.
Lund (1961) identified stocks of bluefish along the Atlantic coast
based on meristic characteristics and Wilk (1977) concluded that
during the spawning season, one stock could be distinguished in the
Middle Atlantic Bight and another stock could be distinguished off
the coast of North Carolina (Figure 1) . Early life history studies
by Kendall and Walford (1979) found two geographically distinct
concentrations of larvae, one shoreward of the Gulf Stream from
Florida to Cape Hatteras (South Atlantic Bight) and the other in
shelf waters from Cape Hatteras to Cape Cod (Middle Atlantic
Bight). Austin and Graves (1990) have shown that a single genetic
stock exists in the mid-Atlantic, and that the "two stocks"
reported by Wilk (1977) are environmentally induced morphotypes.
This means that the north and south spawned fish can be separated
based upon morphological characters, even though they are of a
single genetic stock. The Mid-Atlantic Management Council (MAFMC)
and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (ASMFC)
fishery management plan for bluefish along the Atlantic coast,
therefore, treats the species as a single unit stock.
Bluefish typically inhabit the continental shelf waters of
warm temperate zones. They undertake extensive coastal migrations
and generally travel in like-sized groups of fish. Results from
controlled laboratory experiments suggest migration is affected by
temperature and photoperiod (Olla and Studholme 1971, 1972) . With
increasing water temperature and day length, bluefish migrate
northward. They appear to follow warmer water with local movements
into and out of bays and sounds affected by changes in tide,
weather, season, and food supply. Fall migration takes place when
the water temperature begins to decline (Lund and Maltezos 1970).
Although this is the generally accepted description of bluefish
migration, movement patterns are complex and not well understood.
Younger fish appear to follow different migratory routes than older
fish. In addition, the Middle Atlantic Bight population and the
South Atlantic Bight population appear to have different migration
patterns. An analysis of bluefish distribution suggests they are
limited by the 9°C (48.2°F) to the 30°C (86°F) isotherms (Wilk
1977), therefore, cold cells and frontal systems may act as
barriers to bluefish migration (Olla et al. 1985).
-------
80
75'
40
o
30-^
70(
!
kilometer!
200
100
nautical mll«j
stuarine Nursery Area
of Spring Spawners
Path to Wintering A_rea
of Sirnrner Scawyiers
SUMMER SPAWNING AREA
./ SPRING SPAWNING AREA
-40
35'
30'
80C
75'
70'
1 . Spanning areas ard. coastal micrat-ion patterns for bluefieh
along the Atlantic Coast. (Wilk, 1977).
-------
Adult bluefish are found in a variety of habitats, usually in
response to food availability and spawning cues (Stagg 1986). They
are voracious predators and will feed on virtually any food they
can catch and swallow. The fishes most frequently comprising their
diet include butterfish, menhaden, herring, sand lances,
silversides, mackerel, anchovies, sardines, weakfish, spotted
seatrout, croaker, and spot. In estuarine areas like the Chesapeake
Bay, bluefish feed on bay anchovies, white perch, shad, alewife and
blueback herring, and striped bass (Sargent and Boreman 1984). Due
to their predacious nature, bluefish are in competition with adult
striped bass, mackerel and large weakfish. They have few predators
and can live up to 12 years.
Most bluefish mature at age II and are highly fecund.
Fecundity (the number of eggs produced) is a function of size and
age and has been estimated from 900,000 to 4,500,000 eggs per
female (Wilk 1977). The distribution of bluefish eggs is related
to temperature and salinity and can vary from year to year.
Spawning and larval development take place offshore from April to
May in southern waters and from June through August in the Middle
Atlantic Bight (Kendall and Walford 1979). In a survey conducted
in the Chesapeake Bight, bluefish spawned mainly over the outer
half of the continental shelf with only a few eggs found in the
Chesapeake Bay. In this area, bluefish eggs are most abundant in
July. Optimum temperature and salinity for spawning in the
Chesapeake Bight are 25.6°C (78°F) and 31 o/oo (Norcross et al.
1974) .
Bluefish larvae can be found offshore between Cape Cod,
Massachusetts, and Palm Beach, Florida, during every season of the
year (Kendall and Walford 1979). Larval distribution is affected
by the wind and currents. Larvae that originate from spawning off
the Chesapeake Bay are carried south and offshore (Norcross et al.
1974). As larvae grow and are able to swim, they leave the surface
for deeper water and move inshore. Upon completion of fin formation
which occurs around 13 to 14 mm (0.5-0.6 inches), bluefish larvae
are considered juveniles (Norcross et al. 1974).
Juvenile bluefish from the spring-spawning, South Atlantic
stock, are found at the surface near the slope front (refer to
Figure 1) from south of Cape Hatteras to the Middle Atlantic Bight
during April through June. It is believed these juveniles move
northward along the slope front, cross the shelf and enter the
estuaries of the Middle Atlantic Bight, including Chesapeake Bay.
After spending the summer in the estuaries, juvenile bluefish
return to the coast and move southward. Most juvenile bluefish
spawned during the summer in the Middle Atlantic Bight remain in
coastal waters, but some may enter estuarine waters for a couple
of months before they leave the Middle Atlantic Bight in early fall
(Kendall and Walford 1979). Juveniles prefer water temperatures
between 17.7 and 26.1°C (64-79'F) during the summer and between
15.0 and 17.2°C (59-63°F) during the fall (Kendall and Walford
-------
1979). Thermal preferences may partly explain the distribution of
juvenile and adult fish (MAFMC 1989). Onshore movements of juvenile
bluefish into estuarine areas probably provide protection, food and
shelter. The circulation of continental shelf waters is probably
the most important factor in determining yearclass strength
(Norcross et al. 1974).
Juvenile bluefish grow quickly and by late fall there are
usually two size groups along the middle Atlantic and New England
coasts. Those fish that were spawned in the south during the spring
are 150-200 mm (6-8 inches) long, and those spawned in the summer
are 50-100 mm (2-4 inches long) (Sargent and Boreman 1984). Growth
rates of the summer-spawned fish exceed the spring-spawned fish
during the second year. By age II and III, the size difference
between the two groups is not as apparent. Mean lengths more than
double between ages I and IV, then steadily decline thereafter
(MAFMC 1989). Length at maturity (age II) , generally ranges from
378 to 510 mm (14.9-20.1 inches) (Wilk 1979).
Biological Profile
Natural mortality rate; 29.5% annually.
Fecundity; 900,000 - 4,500,000 eggs/female.
Longevity; 11-12 years.
Spawning and Larval Development
Spawning season: April and May in southern waters;
June through August in the Mid-
Atlantic Bight, with peaks in July.
Spawning area: Offshore coastal waters.
Location: Most spawning occurs over the outer
half of the continental shelf. In
the Mid-Atlantic Bight, eggs have
also been reported as far inshore as
southern Chesapeake Bay. Eggs and
larvae are most abundant in surface
waters.
Salinity: 26.6 - 35 ppt.
Temperature: 17.8 - 26.1°C (64 - 79°F).
Young-of-Year
Location: Begin to move inshore after
transformation from the larval stage
-------
Salinity:
Temperature:
Dissolved Oxygen:
is complete. Occur along coastal
beaches and are widely distributed
in Chesapeake Bay.
0-35 ppt.
15.0 - 26.1°C (59 - 79°F).
Probably at least 5 ppm.
Subadults and Adults
Location:
Salinity:
Temperature:
Dissolved Oxygen:
Estuarine and ocean waters.
0-35 ppt.
Between 17.7 and 23.3°C (64-74°)
Minimum about 5.0 ppm.
The Fishery
Commercial bluefish landings from the Chesapeake Bay began
increasing dramatically in the 1970s with a record high catch of
4 million pounds in 1976 (Figure 2a). Over the next eight years,
the harvest declined to 1 million pounds, then fluctuated around
1.5 million pounds. Between 1987-1988, the Maryland commercial
bluefish harvest increased over 50% but most recently has decreased
from 738,000 pounds in 1988 to 218,371 pounds in 1989. Between 1984
and 1987 the commercial harvest in Virginia averaged about 1.2
million pounds, increased to 2.6 million pounds in 1988, and
decreased to approximately 780,000 pounds in 1989. It is apparent
that the commercial catch statistics are highly variable from year
to year, however, without effort information it is difficult to
relate catch statistics to bluefish abundance.
Historically, the commercial bluefish harvest has been more
important in Virginia than in Maryland (Figures 2b & c) . At the
peak harvest in 1976, Virginia caught approximately 88% of the
total commercial landings from the Chesapeake Bay. The predominant
commercial gear type used in harvesting bluefish from the Bay has
been pound nets. Large numbers of small bluefish have been caught
in Virginia pound nets and used as bait for the crab fishery. Other
gears for harvesting bluefish include gill nets, otter trawls, haul
seines, and hand lines (Figures 3a & b) . Currently, all commercial
gears, except Virginia's hook and line fishermen, are required to
have a license. Most bluefish are commercially harvested in the
Chesapeake Bay region from May to October (Stagg 1986).
-------
-------
Figure 3a. Maryland commercial bluefish
catch by gear type
Percent
UUTb 7T " ' = ' = '= T
75%
50%
25% - I - y
1 1 ^
. , 1 1 nil
-
1
joN T,
11
11
•
1
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
Year
•i Pound Net
CZl Otter Trawl
RMi Qill Net
|:':':'==':=l Misc. Gear
I I Hand Lines
Figure 3b. Virginia commercial bluefish
catch by gear type
Percent
100%n=rrr
75%
50%
25%
0%
1960
1965
!• Pound Net
I I Haul Seine
1970
1975
Year
1980
1985
(•I Qill Net
liiiliill Misc. Gear
CZH Otter Trawl
-------
A discussion of the commercial bluefish fishery would not be
complete without including an examination of the bluefish fishery
along the Atlantic coast. As previously mentioned, bluefish are
highly migratory and spawn in the Middle and South Atlantic bight
regions. Harvest along the entire Atlantic coast may affect what
is available in the Chesapeake region. During the 1950's and
1960's, bluefish commercial harvest from the Atlantic coast
averaged less than 5 million pounds. Since 1979, bluefish
commercial landings from the Atlantic coast have averaged
approximately 14 million pounds per year (Figure 4). Bluefish are
caught from both state (internal waters to 3 nautical miles
offshore) and the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (3-200 miles) with
the majority of landings from state waters. The Mid-Atlantic region
(New Jersey to Virginia) has traditionally harvested 80% or more
of the total bluefish landings from all of the Atlantic coast.
Virginia has ranked second in commercial bluefish landings from the
mid-Atlantic region, harvesting 18% of the total. Maryland has
harvested about 3-5% of the mid-Atlantic total (Pottern et al.
1989) . Bluefish from the Maryland and Virginia commercial fisheries
are mainly harvested from the Chesapeake Bay with ocean landings
accounting for a small percentage (Figure 5).
Although recreational surveys that include the Chesapeake Bay
region are limited, the importance of the recreational bluefish
fishery is obvious. During 1979 and 1980, bluefish recreational
landings from Maryland tidal waters were estimated at 6,438,192
pounds and 9,589,604 pounds, respectively (Williams et al. 1982 &
1983) . Compared to the commercial bluefish landings for these same
years, 319,100 pounds and 437,334 pounds, respectively, the
recreational harvest was more than twenty times as great. In the
Chesapeake Bay, bluefish are the most sought-after species among
recreational fishermen during May through October (Williams et al.
1983). Estimates of the 1988 and 1989 bluefish recreational catch
are not available.
The importance of the recreational bluefish fishery along the
coast can be dramatically represented. Although saltwater fishing
surveys were conducted in 1960, 1965, and 1970, they are of limited
value. The National Marine Fisheries Service has conducted an
annual Marine Recreational Fishing Statistical Survey (MRFSS) since
1979 to the present. Bluefish have ranked first among sport fish,
in both number and weight, nearly every year since 1970 (Pottern
et al. 1989) . Furthermore, in recent years, bluefish have comprised
nearly 30% by weight of all species in the Atlantic coast
recreational fishery with inland waters (bays, sounds, estuaries)
accounting for almost half of the total catch during the past 8
years (Pottern et al. 1989). Since 1979, the estimated bluefish
recreational catch from the Atlantic coast has averaged 111.7
million pounds with the highest harvest occurring in 1980 (153.5
million pounds). Since then, the recreational catch has been slowly
decreasing. In 1989, an estimated 58.1 million pounds were caught
by recreational fishermen (Figure 6).
8
-------
Figure 4. Commercial bluefish landings
from the Atlantic coast
Million Pounds
19311935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 198019841988
Year
§• Combined state & EEZ state (0-3 miles) fell EEZ (3-200 miles)
Data from MAFMC 1984
-------
Figure 5. Commercial bluefish landings
from Maryland & Virginia, Bay and Ocean
Million pounds
1975
1980
1985
Year
Ocean Landings
Bay Landings
Landings by area not available till 1970
-------
Figure 6. Estimated recreational
bluefish landings, Atlantic coast
160
Million Pounds
J L
1960
Data from MAFMC
1965
1970
1975
Year
1980
1985
1989
-------
Catch-per-unit-of-effort data from the Atlantic coast
recreational fishery suggest that recent exploitation has reduced
bluefish abundance. The bluefish recreational catch per angler trip
increased from 2.11 kg/trip (4.65 Ibs/trip) or 1.18 fish/trip in
1979 to a peak of 2.72 kg/trip (6.0 Ibs/trip) or 1.49 fish/trip in
1981. Since then, the catch rate has decreased to 1.35 kg/trip
(2.97 Ibs/trip) or 0.89 fish/trip in 1987 and 0.95 kg/trip (2.09
Ibs/trip) or 0.42 fish/trip in 1988 (preliminary estimate, NOAA
Technical Memorandum 1989). The mean recreational CPUE during 1979-
1987 was 1.76 kg/trip (3.88 Ibs/trip) or 1.06 fish/trip. It can be
assumed that the Chesapeake Bay recreational fishery would follow
the coastwide trend.
Maryland and Virginia accounted for 15.5% of the total 1989
bluefish recreational harvest from the Atlantic coast (Figure 7).
Historically, the estimated recreational catch of bluefish has been
much larger than the recorded commercial landings (Figure 8). Since
1979, the average distribution of bluefish catch along the Atlantic
coast has been 11.2% commercial and 88.8% recreational (Boreman
1982; Stagg 1986; MAFMC 1989). To date, there is no appreciable
foreign catch or joint venture catch of bluefish along the Atlantic
coast and no user conflicts (MAFMC 1989).
Fishery Parameters
Status of exploitation:
Long term potential catch:
Importance of recreational
fishery:
Importance of commercial
fishery:
Fishing mortality rate:
Fully exploited.
Approximately 137 - 150 million
pounds a year for all Atlantic
coastal states combined.
Very important - approximately 90%
of the bluefish harvested in Maryland
are caught by sport fishermen. In
Virginia, the recreational bluefish
catch accounts for approximately 80
to 90% of the bluefish harvest.
Seasonally important in the Maryland
pound net fishery. Important in the
Virginia drift and gill net fishery,
pound net and otter trawl fisheries.
However, the commercial harvest
represents a small fraction of the
total baywide catch.
The coastwide rate is 26% - 33%
annually.
12
-------
Figure 7. Percentage of the bluefish
recreational catch by state, 1989
H
CO
CT
7,2
Rl
4,1
ME, NH & MA
5,1
SC & GA
1.8
C
10.5
Data from MAFMC
-------
Figure 8. Total bluefish harvest
from the Atlantic coast
200
150
100
MILLION POUNDS
0
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985' 1986 1987 1988 1989
YEAR
COMMERCIAL
RECREATIONAL
Data from MAFMC
-------
Economic Perspective
The dockside value of the bluefish commercial fishery in both
Maryland and Virginia has increased since the late 1970s and early
1980s (Figure 9a & b) . An analysis of current and deflated dollars
for both the Maryland and Virginia commercial harvest from 1974 to
1982, however, indicated the value of the catch did not change
markedly in either state (Stagg 1986). In comparison with other
finfish from the Bay, bluefish have ranked as high as fifth in
value from Maryland during 1987. This is a change since the early
1980s when bluefish ranked 10th or 13th in value.
The ex-vessel value of the commercial bluefish fishery from
the Atlantic coast has steadily increased from $1.1 million in 1976
to as high as $3.7 million in 1982 (Figure 10). The average price
per pound, adjusted for 1987 values, has varied from $0.18 to $0.27
per pound (MAFMC 1989). An extensive economic evaluation has not
been done for bluefish due to the undeveloped nature of the
bluefish market. What can be seen is a growing demand for bluefish
and an increase in price. Since most of the commercial bluefish
harvest is not a directed fishery but rather a bycatch from other
fisheries, significant trends in market demands are not discernible
(MAFMC 1989) .
Determining the value of a recreational fishery is not a
straightforward process. Usually, competitive market prices and
quantities are used to determine value. However, a market price is
not available for recreational fisheries and quantities are usually
estimated. The "value" of a sportfishery has been estimated by
utilizing the cost of a fishing trip (Norton et al. 1983) . The
factors contributing to the "value" of a fishing trip, such as
number of fishing trips, fishing trips directed specifically
towards bluefish, average cost per trip and total dollars expended,
have been derived from the NMFS 1979-1982 surveys. Based on this
information and the assumption that sportfishing in the Mid-
Atlantic region is representative of sportfishing in the Chesapeake
Bay, the economic value of the recreational bluefish fishery in the
Chesapeake Bay was estimated at 20 to 30 million dollars annually
from 1980 to 1982 (Stagg 1986). Using this limited estimation, the
bluefish sportfishery was about 40 times more valuable than the
commercial catch during this time period.
Likewise, estimating the "value" of the recreational bluefish
fishery along the coast is a complicated task. The MRFSS data has
been used to estimate economic activity associated with bluefish.
For the 1985 recreational bluefish fishery on the Atlantic coast,
associated retail sales were estimated between $390.7 and $574.1
million and wages were estimated between $79.7 and $117.0 million
(MAFMC 1989) . The value of a recreational fishing day has been
estimated between $18.97 and $169 per day (Bell et al. 1982; Norton
et al. 1983). The NMFS estimated that 2.5 million shore-based and
4.3 million boat-based trips targeted bluefish in 1985. By
15
-------
Figure 9a. Commercial landings and
dockside value for Maryland bluefish
1000
THOUSAND POUNDS
THOUSAND $$
1962 1965
Landings
Dockside value
140
1989
Figure 9b. Commercial landings and
dockside value for Virginia bluefish
3500
THOUSAND POUNDS
THOUSAND $$
500
1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 19851989
YEAR
Landings
Dockside value
16
-------
Figure 10. Commercial bluefish landings
& dockside value from the Atlantic coast
Million Pounds
Thousands $$
4000
^3000
- 2000
- 1000
1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987
Year
Landings
Dockside value
Data from MAFMC 1989
-------
PCB values of finfish from Chesapeake Bay (including bluefish)
averaged 0.26 ppm, well below the FDA limit of 2.0 ppm (Eisenberg
et al. 1980). From 1976 to 1988, the Virginia State Board of Health
prohibited the consumption of bluefish from designated areas of the
James River because of high concentrations of Kepone (MAFMC 1989).
This ban was lifted in July, 1988.
FMP Status and Management Unit
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) and the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) in cooperation
with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the New England
Fishery Management Council, and the South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council formally adopted a fishery management plan (FMP)
for the bluefish fishery along the Atlantic coast in October, 1989.
Although the Plan was adopted in October, the EEZ regulations
actually became effective on May 31, 1990. This plan represents the
nation's first joint interstate-EEZ Plan for an interjurisdictional
fishery resource. The MAFMC/ASMFC plan serves as the basis for the
Chesapeake Bay FMP.
The management unit for bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix. is a
single Atlantic coastal stock.
Coastal Management Measures
Based on the coastwide status of the bluefish resource and the
structure of the fishery, the MAFMC and ASMFC have adopted the
following management measures. The Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions
will follow these measures as described in the management section
of this plan.
Recreational Catch Limits
Anglers are restricted to a possession limit of no more than
ten (10) bluefish or the equal or more stringent possession limit
at the state of landing, if one exists. On vessels with several
passengers, the number of bluefish contained on the vessel may not
exceed ten (10) times the number of people aboard the vessel,
excluding persons with commercial permits and their catch. Those
with commercial permits are required to keep their bluefish
separated from the recreational pooled catch and in their
possession at all times. Commercial hook and line fishermen may
take more than the recreational possession limit if they have a
commercial permit.
Based on a recommendation by the MAFMC and ASMFC, the regional
director of the NMFS and individual states may modify the
possession limit to between zero (0) and fifteen (15) bluefish per
angler in their respective jurisdictions.
20
-------
Commercial Catch Limits
The commercial fishery, on a coastwide basis, is limited to
20% of the total catch (recreational catch plus commercial
landings) each year. The decision to implement commercial controls
on the bluefish fishery is based on two separate indices and a two-
tier approach.
The first tier:
A. A three year moving average of both the commercial landings
and total bluefish catch will be used to derive a time-series
projection of the commercial share for the upcoming year. If
the projected commercial share is 20% or above, then
commercial controls will be implemented at the start of the
upcoming year. If this percentage is between 17% and 20%, then
policy makers will use the criteria of the second tier to
determine if commercial controls will be implemented.
B. The percent of commercial landings in the total bluefish catch
will be calculated for each year and compared to the
commercial share for the previous year. If the change in the
commercial percentage equals or exceeds 50%, then policy
makers will use the criteria of the second tier to determine
if commercial controls will be implemented.
The second tier:
If the projected commercial share based on the average catch
for the previous three years is between 17% and 20% OR the
commercial share increased 50% or more from the previous year, then
the following steps will be used to determine if controls on the
commercial fishery will be implemented for the upcoming year:
1. The most recent, complete year of data will be used to
determine what factors led to the increase in commercial
share.
2. In-season data will then be investigated to determine if the
trends exhibited in the previous year are continuing. These
data will include commercial landings by state, month, and
gear and recreational catch by wave (2 month periods).
3. If an increasing trend in commercial landings was indicated
for the current year then commercial controls will be
implemented the following year. The type of control will be
determined from examination of the above data.
If the catch in the commercial fishery is projected to equal or
exceed the 20% limit during the upcoming year, then a state
allocation system will be implemented. This entails the use of
landings data from the most recent ten year period for each state
21
-------
to determine the average percentage of coastwide commercial
landings. These percentages will be used to determine the amount
of the coastwide quota allocated to each state. Quotas apply to
landings in each state regardless of where the bluefish are caught.
Individual states are responsible for ensuring that their
individual quotas are not exceeded and may design specific
management measures best suited to their state. States are
encouraged to develop regimes that will provide fishing
opportunities throughout the season for all bluefish fisheries.
If the use of a highly efficient gear (purse seines, pair trawls,
or runaround gill nets) is responsible for the increase in
commercial landings, it will be regulated in EEZ waters. States
are encouraged to implement companion regulations. Commercial
controls will remain in effect until conditions in either the
recreational or commercial fishery warrant a retraction. The
Bluefish FMP Review and Monitoring Committee will annually review
landing statistics to determine if commercial controls will be
suspended.
In addition, any person selling bluefish must have a
commercial fishing permit that allows the sale of bluefish. This
commercial definition includes all hook and line fishermen who sell
bluefish, regardless of fishing mode (that is, fishing from shore,
manmade structures, private boats, party boats, or charter boats).
For states without a permit, a federal permit is required to sell
bluefish.
Laws and Regulations
Limited entry;
Maryland's Delay of Application Process,
which went into effect September 1, 1989,
requires previously unlicensed applicants
to wait two years after registering with
MDNR before a license to harvest finfish
with commercial fishing gears will be
issued.
Virginia - Proposed legislation
authorizing the VMRC to limit or delay
entry to fisheries (House Bill 286) was
introduced to the 1990 Virginia General
Assembly. The Bill was tabled and assigned
to a legislative subcommittee for further
study.
Potomac River - Current moratorium on any
new commercial hook and line or gill net
licenses, only Maryland and Virginia
residents allowed to fish commercially.
22
-------
Minimum size limit;
Maryland- 8" total length; Potomac River-
s'1; Virginia- None.
Creel limit;
Harvest quotas;
By-catch restrictions:
Season:
Gear - Area restrictions:
Not in effect for Maryland. Potomac River
and Virginia established a 10 fish per
person per day recreational creel limit
in 1990.
Not in effect for Maryland, Potomac River
or Virginia.
None in effect.
No closed season.
Maryland - purse seines, otter trawls,
beam trawls, trammel nets, troll nets,
drag nets and monofilament gill net
prohibited. (Otter and beam trawls are
legal on the Atlantic Coast at distances
of one mile or more offshore) . Prohibition
on gill netting in most areas of
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries,
except; (1) attended drift gill nets 2.5
to 3.5 inches stretch mesh may be fished
outside the striped bass spawning reaches
and; (2) anchor, stake and drift gill net
4.0 to 6.0 inches stretch mesh can be
fished in Chesapeake Bay, excluding the
tributaries south of Kent Point from June
1 to September 30, inclusive. Minimum
stretch mesh size restrictions for pound
net - 1.5", haul seine - 2.5".
Potomac River - Current moratorium on any
new gill net or hook and line licenses.
The use of a spear, gig, purse net, beam
trawl, otter trawl, or trammel net are
prohibited. Mesh size restrictions on
pound net- 1.5", haul seine- 1.5", fyke
net- 1.5", fish pot- 2.0", gill net 3.75"
with a maximum of 7.0". Length limitations
on pound net (12001), stake gill net
(6001), anchor gill net (600' X 12'), fyke
net (4001), haul seine (1200' or 2400'),
fish pot (10'). Seasonal restrictions:
Pound net- February 15 through December
15; Anchor or stake gill net- June 1
through November 30; Drift gill net-
closed; Haul seine-January 1 through
December 31 except Saturdays June 1
23
-------
through August: 31 and Fridays and
Saturdays September 1 through May 31.
Virginia - Trawling prohibited in the
Chesapeake Bay. It is unlawful to set,
place or fish a fixed fishing device of
any type within three hundred yards in
either direction from the Chesapeake Bay
Bridge Tunnel. From April 1 through 31
May the spawning areas of the James,
Pamunkey, Mattaponi, and Rappahannock
Rivers are closed to stake and anchor gill
nets. Striped bass taken in spawning areas
by any gear must be released immediately.
Minimum stretch mesh size restrictions:
pound net, 2"; gill net, 2 7/8"
(increased to 3" in 1992); haul seine,
3" (nets over two hundred yards long).
Additionally, no haul seine can be longer
than one thousand yards in length or
deeper than forty meshes. Any gill net,
whether floating or submerged, that is not
assigned a fixed location shall be set in
a straight line, have no greater depth
than 330", shall not exceed 1200' in
length, and shall be fished no closer than
200 feet to any other such gill net. Gill
nets are prohibited in the Lower Hampton
Roads area from the Friday preceding
Memorial Day to Labor Day, both days
inclusive, from 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.;
gill nets are prohibited in four Eastern
Shore Bayside creek mouths (the Gulf,
Hungars Creek, Nassawadox Creek and
Occohannock Creek) from June 1 to October
1. Also, Sections 28.1-52 and 28.1-53 of
the Code of Virginia outline placement,
total length and distance requirements for
fishing structures.
Status of Traditional Fishery Management Approaches
The following definitions have been adapted from the document,
"Status of the Fishery Resources Off the Northeastern United States
for 1989" (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-72). For a more
thorough review of fisheries terminology, refer to this document
under the section "Definition of Technical Terms."
Catch-Effort; Defined as the number or weight of fish caught during
a specific unit of fishing time and considered a basic measure of
abundance or stock density.
24
-------
Historical commercial fisheries catch data exist for
Chesapeake Bay, however, it is difficult to utilize since there is
little species-specific effort data. The estimated CPUE
(number/trip) for bluefish derived from the recreational survey
data from the Atlantic coast have trended downward since 1981
(MAFMC 1989).
Estimates of mortality; Defined as the rate at which fish die from
natural causes or fishing. Conceptually, the easiest way to
describe mortality is by using the total annual mortality rate,
the fraction of the fish alive at the beginning of a year that die
during the year. For example, a total annual mortality rate of 0.50
means that 50% of the population of fish died for whatever reason
during the year. Annual rates are easy to understand but difficult
to use when describing the relative contribution of different types
of mortality, such as fishing and natural causes, to the total
mortality of fish during a year.
To overcome this limitation, instantaneous rates, the fraction
of the population of fish that dies in each very short period of
time, are used because they are mathematically easier.
Instantaneous total mortality (Z) can be represented mathematically
by the natural logarithm of a ratio of the number of fish alive at
the end of a unit of time, to the number alive at the beginning of
the unit of time. If a year is divided into a large number (n) of
equal time intervals, Z/n is the proportion of the population which
dies during each time interval. For example, if Z = 1.7 and a day
represents the time interval, then approximately 1.7/365 or 0.466%
of the population is dying daily.
The part of the total mortality rate applying to a fish
population that is caused by man's harvesting is considered the
fishing mortality rate (F). Fishing mortality rates are estimated
using a variety of techniques, depending on the available data for
a species or stock. For example, if F = 1.5, then approximately
1.5/365 or 0.411% of the population dies each day from fishing. The
part of the total mortality rate applying to a fish population
attributed to natural causes is usually assumed to mean all causes
other than fishing. Natural mortality rates (M) are usually
expressed as an instantaneous rate and are difficult to estimate.
There are no estimates of bluefish mortality from the
Chesapeake Bay. Total annual mortality for the Atlantic bluefish
population is estimated at 69% to 75% over all ages; annual fishing
mortality is estimated at 27% for large fish and up to 70% for
small fish (due to their greater vulnerability to inshore
fishermen); and annual natural mortality is estimated at 59% to 63%
for large fish and 18% to 50% for small fish (Pottern et al.1989).
Total mortality rates (Z) for adult bluefish estimated from catch
curve analysis and age composition data from Atlantic coast
fisheries range from 0.6 to 0.8 (MAFMC 1989). Instantaneous natural
25
-------
mortality rates (M) range from 0.32 to 0.39, therefore, 0.35 is a
reasonable estimate of M for age 1 and older bluefish (MAFMC 1989).
Yield-per-Recruit: A mathematical calculation of the theoretical
yield that would be obtained from a group of fish of one age if
they were harvested according to a certain exploitation pattern
over the life span of the fish.
Yield-per-recruit for the East coast stock as a whole is
maximized by delaying fishing until bluefish reach 18" total length
at F = 0.25 - 0.40
Stock-Recruitment: The relationship between the number of adults
and the amount of fish, in numbers or weight, that reach a certain
size or age in a specific year. For example, the weight or number
of fish that grow to become vulnerable to the fishing gear in one
year would be the recruitment to the fishable population in that
year. Recruitment is also used in referring to the number or weight
of fish from a year class reaching a certain age and is often used
to describe the strength of a year class.
Merging Atlantic Coast spawning stock size (which accounted
for 14.5% of recruitment variability) and March wind stress vectors
into an environmentally dependent stock recruitment model explained
over 86% of the recruitment variability occurring from 1974 - 1986.
Recent stock assessment indicates that year class recruitment is
highly variable and that three strong year classes have been
produced at irregular intervals since 1974 (MAFMC 1989).
Maximum Sustainable Yield; The number or weight of fish in a stock
that can be taken by fishing without reducing the stock's biomass
from year to year, assuming that environmental conditions remain
the same.
Equilibrium yield models indicate that the highest sustainable
yield for the Atlantic Coast is 137 - 150 million pounds a year.
This yield occurs at F = 0.30 and 0.40. These models also predict
stock collapse, if F exceed 0.50 - 0.60 for 10 to 15 years (MAFMC
1989).
Virtual Population Analysis; Defined as an analysis of the catches
from a given year class over its life in the fishery. If 10 fish
were caught each year from the 1968 year class for 10 successive
years from 1970 to 1979 (age 2 to 11) , then 100 fish would have
been caught from the 1968 year class during its life in the
fishery. Since 10 fish were caught during 1979, then 10 fish must
have been alive at the beginning of that year. At the beginning of
1978, there must have been at least 20 fish alive because 10 were
caught in 1978 and 10 more were caught in 1979. By working backward
year by year, one can be virtually certain that at least 100 fish
were alive at the beginning of 1970. A virtual population analysis
goes a step further and calculates the number of fish that must
26
-------
have been alive if some fish also died from causes other then
fishing. Accuracy depends on the rate of population decline and the
correctness of the starting value of the fishing mortality rate.
Most recent modified and revised estimates of the bluefish
stock size from the Atlantic coast range from 142 to 150 million
pounds (MAFMC 1989).
Data and Analytical Needs
1. Determine annual estimates of catch and effort in the
commercial and recreational fisheries.
2. Determine annual estimates of the age, length and sex
composition of the commercial and recreational catch.
3. Determine the level of discard in the commercial and
recreational fisheries.
4. Determine the effects of hooking mortality by gear type and
fish size relative to implementation of proposed bag and size
limits in the recreational fishery.
5. Evaluate the economic effects of proposed ASMFC regulations
on the recreational and commercial bluefish fisheries in
Maryland and Virginia.
6. Investigate the principal environmental factors affecting year
class strength.
7. Determine if the south-Atlantic spring-spawning stock and the
mid-Atlantic summer-spawning stock are truly separate stocks
by examining the genetic integrity of the populations, both
temporally and spatially.
References
Austin, H. and J Graves. 1990. Stock identification of mid-
Atlantic weakfish, Cynoscion regalis. bluefish, Pomatomus
saltatrix. and summer flounder, Paralichthys dentatus, using
electrophoresis. Part I, Bluefish. Final Report to the VMRC
from VIMS, Contract Number WB-86-02/F-60-R, 62 pages.
Bigelow, H.B., and W.C. Schroeder. 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of
Maine. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Fish. Bull. 53, 577 p.
Boreman, J. 1982. Status of bluefish along the Atlantic Coast,
1982. NMFS, NE Fisheries Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts.
Ref. Doc. No. 83-28. 35 pp.
27
-------
Eisenberg, M., R. Mailman, and H.S. Tubiash. 1980.
Polychlorinated biphenyls in fish and shellfish of the
Chesapeake Bay. Mar. Fish. Rev. February 1980:21-25.
Kendall, A.W., Jr. and L.A. Walford. 1979. Sources and
distribution of bluefish, Poitiatomus saltatrix. larvae and
juveniles off the east coast of the United States. Fish. Bull.
77(1):213-227.
MAFMC (Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 1984. Bluefish
fishery management plan. Dover, Delaware.
MAFMC (Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 1989. Bluefish
fishery management plan. Dover, Delaware.
Morin R.P. and C. Bonzek. 1988. Maryland fisheries statistics.
Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources, Completion Rept. Project
3-413-D-l. 34pp.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1989.
Status of the fishery resources off the northeastern United
States for 1989. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-72. 110 pp.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Food and Drug
Administration/Environmental Protection Agency (NOAA/FDA/EPA) .
1986. Report on 1984-86 federal survey of PCBs in Atlantic
coast bluefish. Data Rep. NTIS PB86218070/AS.
Norcross, J.J., S. L. Richardson, W.H. Massmann, and E. B. Joseph.
1974. Development of young bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) and
distribution of eggs and young in Virginian coastal waters.
Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 3:477-497.
Norton, V., T. Smith, and I. Strand. 1983. Stripers:The economic
value of the Atlantic coast commercial and recreational
striped bass fisheries. University of Maryland, Sea Grant
Publication No. UM-SG-TS83-12.
Olla, B.L. and A.L. Studholme. 1971. The effect of temperature
on the activity of bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix L. Biol.
Bull. 141:337-349.
Olla, B.L. and A.L. Studholme. 1972. Daily and seasonal rhythms
of activity in the bluefish, Poroatomus saltatrix. In H.E.
Winn and B.L. Olla, Eds., Behavior of Marine Animals: Recent
Advances. Vol. 2, Chapter 8:303-326. Plenum Publishing Corp.,
N.Y.
28
-------
Olla, B.L., A.L. Studholme, and A.J. Bejda. 1985. Behavior of
juvenile bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix in vertical thermal
gradients: influence of season, temperature acclimation and
food. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 23:165-177.
Pottern, G.B., M.T. Huish, and J.H. Kerby. 1989. Species
profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of
coastal fishes and invertebrates (mid-Atlantic)- bluefish.
U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(11.94). U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 20pp.
Sargent, W. and J. Boreman. 1984. Bluefish: Biology and management
along the Atlantic Coast. NE Fisheries Center, Woods Hole
Laboratory, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. 6 pp.
Stagg, C. 1986. An evaluation of the information available for
managing Chesapeake Bay fisheries: Preliminary stock
assessments. Volume II. University of Maryland, UMCEES (CBL)
86-45.
Wilk, S.J. 1977. Biological and fisheries data on bluefish,
Pomatomus saltatrix (Linnaeus). Sandy Hook Laboratory,
Northeast Fisheries Center, NOAA Technical Ser. Report No. 11,
56 pp.
Williams, J.B., T.P. Smith, H.J. Speir, and S. Early. 1983. 1980
Maryland Saltwater Sport Fishing Survey. Maryland Dept.
Natural Resources Tidewater Admin. Rept. TA-CRD-83-1. 124pp.
Williams, J.B., H.J. Speir, S. Early, and T.P. Smith. 1982. 1979
Maryland Saltwater Sport Fishing Survey. Maryland Dept.
Natural Resources Tidewater Admin. Rept. TA-CRD-82-1. 100pp.
29
-------
30
-------
Section 2. Bluefish Management
The source document for the management section is the
coastwide "Fishery Management Plan for the Bluefish Fishery, 1989"
prepared by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) and
the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) in
cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the New England Fishery
Management Council (NEFMC), and the South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (SAFMC). The coastal plan is intended to avert
potential problems and to improve current management practices. The
development of the Chesapeake Bay bluef ish management plan has been
prepared by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR),
the Potomac River Fisheries Commission (PRFC), and the Virginia
Marine Resources Commission (VMRC). The Chesapeake Bay Bluefish
Management Plan is intended to avert potential problems with the
bluefish recreational and commercial fisheries in the Bay, focus
on problems and needs of the fishery unique to the Bay area, and
facilitate interjurisdictional management of the species. Existing
regulations regarding the harvest of bluefish will continue to be
enforced except where otherwise indicated by the plan.
A. GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
The goal of this plan is to:
Protect and monitor the bluefish resource in the Chesapeake
Bay, its tributaries and state coastal waters, and provide for
the greatest long term ecological, economic, and social
benefits from the resource.
In order to achieve the goal, the following objectives must be met:
1) Follow the guidelines established by MAFMC and ASMFC for
coastwide management of bluefish stocks and make Bay
management actions compatible where possible.
2) Promote protection of the resource by maintaining a clear
distinction between conservation goals and allocation issues.
3) Provide for fair allocation of allowable harvest, consistent
with traditional uses, among the various components of the
fishery.
4) Promote harvesting practices which minimize waste and maximize
the biological and economic return from the resource.
5) Promote studies to improve the understanding of economic,
social, and biological aspects of the fishery.
31
-------
6) Continue to provide guidance for the development of water
quality goals and habitat protection necessary to protect the
bluefish population within the Bay and state coastal waters.
B. PROBLEM AREAS AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Problem 1 - Stock Status and Increased Fishing Pressure: Bluefish
abundance appears variable, and although recent commercial and
recreational harvests are currently at a high level there is always
the possibility of an unpredictable, natural decrease. Modeling
results indicate that the highest sustainable yields for bluefish
along the coast range from 137 to 150 million pounds. Since 1979,
total bluefish catch from the coast has been in this range six
times and exceeded the range three times. Recent evaluation of the
bluefish stock along the Atlantic coast suggests fishing has
reduced abundance and the stock is currently being fully exploited.
Effective management necessitates cooperation among the coastal
Atlantic states.
In the Chesapeake Bay, the bluefish commercial harvest
increased by more than 50% between 1987 and 1988 then decreased by
over 50% in 1989. Currently, the market demand and price for
bluefish are unstable but the fishery has the potential to expand.
Bluefish continue to be one of the most popular sport fish in the
Bay and along the coast. Recreational harvest accounts for
approximately 90% of the total catch. Currently, there are no creel
limits on bluefish and the number of fishermen is increasing. Since
the bluefish resource is believed to be fully exploited,
conservative management practices are necessary to protect the
stock from overexploitation. At the same time, the bluefish stock
can continue to support both the recreational and commercial
fisheries.
Strategy 1 - Stock Status and Increased Fishing Pressure: In order
to protect the bluefish resource in the Chesapeake Bay and along
the Atlantic coast from overexploitation, stock levels and fishing
rates need to be monitored. Appropriate management actions may be
needed if stock levels continue to decline and harvest levels
continue to increase.
PROBLEM 1.1
There is a growing concern that continued increases in fishing
effort by both the commercial and recreational fishery will
lead to over-exploitation of the bluefish stock. Currently,
there are gear limitations in effect and regulations on
harvest for both the recreational and commercial fisheries are
minimal.
32
-------
STRATEGY 1.1.1
Since bluefish are a highly migratory species harvested
along the Atlantic coast, Maryland, the Potomac River
Fisheries Commission, and Virginia will cooperate with
the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to solve
interjurisdictional problems in managing the bluefish
stock.
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.
STRATEGY 1.1.2
Maryland, the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, and
Virginia will monitor the bluefish fisheries in the
Chesapeake Bay and in state coastal waters and implement
conservative management measures for the fisheries as
needed.
ACTION 1.1.2.1
Maryland, the Potomac River Fisheries Commission,
and Virginia will adhere to state allocations
established by the MAFMC and 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 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 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.
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.
33
-------
IMPLEMENTATION 1.1.2.2
A) 1991 B) Open
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
waters. 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
1991
Problem 2 - Wasteful Harvest Practices: Waste of bluefish harvest
has been reported for both the commercial and recreational
fisheries. Unmarketable bluefish from the commercial fishery have
been discarded in the Bay. Recreational fishermen also discard
excess bluefish that have been caught by hook and line.
Strategy 2 - Wasteful Harvest Practices: There will be a baywide
effort to eliminate and/or minimize wasteful harvest practices in
the bluefish commercial and recreational fisheries.
PROBLEM 2.1
Dead bluefish are discarded in the Bay by both commercial and
recreational fishermen.
STRATEGY 2.1
Efforts will be made to reduce the discard of dead
bluefish in the Chesapeake Bay.
ACTION 2.1.1
Virginia and the Potomac River established 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 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
34
-------
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 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
Problem 3 - Research and Monitoring Needs: The bluefish population
along the Atlantic coast is believed to be fully exploited. There
is very little known about the population dynamics of bluefish in
Chesapeake Bay. Their occurrence, distribution, and abundance is
highly variable from year to year. Additional information on catch
and effort is needed to monitor and protect the bluefish resource
in the Bay and along the coast. Currently, the economic value of
the bluefish recreational fishery in the Chesapeake Bay can only
be deduced from surveys taken along the coast.
Strategy 3 - Research and Monitoring Needs: In order to increase
the knowledge and understanding of the bluefish fishery in the
Chesapeake Bay, the jurisdictions will monitor the commercial and
recreational fishery and improve catch and effort data. The
jurisdictions will also pursue studies to evaluate the economic
aspects of the bluefish fishery.
PROBLEM 3.1
There is a lack of information about the bluefish fishery in
Chesapeake Bay. In order to monitor stock levels and improve
management, additional data on bluefish biology and catch and
effort is needed.
STRATEGY 3.1
Maryland, the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, and
Virginia will increase the knowledge and understanding
of the bluefish fishery in the Chesapeake Bay.
35
-------
ACTION 3.1.1
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 finfish license requirements with the
needs of finfish catch and effort reports.
2) Reevaluate the reporting form to include
information on what types of gear a fishermen owns,
how much they used on a particular day, and how much
they caught.
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 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 sportsfishermen
in Maryland to obtain catch and effort data for
several species, including bluefish.
IMPLEMENTATION 3.1.a
1991
ACTION 3.1.3
Maryland, the Potomac River Fisheries Commission,
and Virginia will encourage research to collect data
36
-------
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
Problem 4 - Habitat and Water Quality Issues: Water quality in the
Chesapeake Bay has been impacted by a variety of factors including
inadequately treated sewage, nutrients, toxics, and runoff from
agricultural and urban lands. These factors affect the living
resources in the Bay including bluefish. Toxic contamination of
bluefish, especially kepones and PCB's, has been an important
issue. Excessive nutrients in the Bay can deplete oxygen, creating
anoxic conditions. Anoxia is known to limit the distribution of
bluefish.
Strategy 4 - Habitat Issues: Adequate water quality is necessary
to insure protection of living resources in Chesapeake Bay. The
jurisdictions will continue their efforts to improve water quality
and define habitat requirements for the living resources in
Chesapeake Bay.
PROBLEM 4.1
Water quality impacts the distribution and abundance of
finfish species in the Chesapeake Bay.
STRATEGY 4.1
The District of Columbia, Environmental Protection
Agency, Maryland, Pennsylvania, the Potomac River
Fisheries Commission, and Virginia will continue to
promote the commitments of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay
Agreement. The achievement of the Bay commitments will
lead to improved water quality and enhanced biological
production.
ACTION 4.1
The 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
37
-------
1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. The Agreement and
documents developed pursuant to the Agreement call
for:
1) Developing habitat requirements and water quality
goals for various finfish species.
2) Developing and adopting basinwide nutrient
reduction strategies.
3) Developing and adopting basinwide plans for the
reduction and control of toxic substances.
4) Developing and adopting basinwide management
measures for conventional pollutants entering 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.
38
-------
CHESRPERKE BRY
BLUEFISH MRNRGEMENT PLRN IMPLEMENTRTION
PROBLEM
RRER
1 . Stock status
& increased
fishing
pressure
W
VO
2. Wasteful
harvest
practices
RCTION
1.1.1 Continue to participate
in scientific and technical
meetings for managing bluefish
along the coast and in
estuarine waters.
1.1.2.1 Will adhere to state
all oc i at i ons estab 1 i shed by
the MRFMC/RSMFC for commercial
harvest of bluefish if projec-
ted harvest levels meet cri-
teria in the coastal plan.
1.1.2.2 Will continue present
licensing requirements for
harvest and sale; Ya will
establish a 10 fish creel
limit for its commercial hook
and line fishery and pursue
a license for that fishery.
1.1.2.3 MD will establish a ID
f ish/'person/'day recreational
creel limit. vH & PRFC
instituted 10 fish creel limit
in summer 199O. Creel limits
and minimum legal sizes may
be modified as appropriate.
2.1.1 H 10 fish daily creel
limit Csee Rction 1.1.2.3)
will minimize wastage.
2.1.2 Will educate the general
public about the need to
reduce the waste problem in
the bluefish fishery.
DRTE
Continue
Dependent
on
harvest
trends
1991
1991
1991
1991
RESPONSIBLE
HGENCY & METHOD
MDNR - R
PRFC - R
VMRC - R
MDNR - R.R
PRFC - fl,R
YMRC - R,R
MDNR - R
PRFC - H
VMRC - H,R
MDNR - R
PRFC - R
MMRC - R
J-
MDNR - R
PRFC - R
VMRC - R
MDNR - H
PRFC - H
VMRC - R
RDDTL
STRFF
or **
1OK
COMMENTS/NOTES
Jurisdictions will work closely with
the MHFMC, HSMFC, and other coastal
states, especially to monitor the
commercial catch.
Bay jurisdictions will coordinate
with each other and with federal
government. May include gear, trip,
area, catch, and/or other
restr i ct i ons .
Vfl will require new regulation for
commercial hook and line fishery.
Will require new regulations.
Jurisdictions will coordinate creel
limits and size limits.
See Hct i on 1.1.2.2.
MD has produced video & fact sheet
on hook & release; HSMFC has also
developed hook & release brochure.
Will explore other means to educate
the public about reducing waste.
-------
CHESHPERKE BRY
BLUEFISH MRNRGEMENT PLHN IMPLEMENTHTION
:
PROBLEM ! RCTION
RRER !
!2.1.3 Will assess factors
! causing waste in the commei —
!cial sector and indentify
! potential solutions.
3. Research 13.1.1 Will improve the catch
needs land effort data collected from
! the bluefish commercial
! fishery in the Chesapeake Bay.
'.3.1.2 Will assess methods
.'for improving recreational &
! charter catch/effort data
! needed to evaluate biological
:& economic impacts.
O ! 3. 1.3 Will encourage research
! to collect data on bluefish
ibiology.
4. Habitat !4.1 Will continue to set
issues ! goals for uater quality and
! habitat, and review programs
! established under the 1987
!Bay Hgreement.
DRTE
1991
1991
1991
1991
Cont i nue
RESPONS
HGENCY &
MDNR -
PRFC -
MMRC -
MDNR -
PRFC -
VMRC -
MDNR -
PRFC -
YMRC -
MDNR -
PRFC -
YMRC -
MDNR -
PRFC -
VMRC -
PFC -
EPH -
ISLE
METHOD
R
fl
fl
fl
R
H
H
R
H
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
RDDTL I
STHFF I COMMENTS/NOTES
or **!
!Must look at market demand, bait
! fishery, migratory patterns, etc.
! Contractua 1 arrangement 1 i ke 1 y .
75K !
!Will be accomplished in conjunction
Iwith other fish species reporting.
! Need to assess licensing, reporting,
! and f o 1 1 ow up systems . Vfl will
! pursue mandatory reporting system.
40K !The HSMFC is encouraging states to
!buy into MRFSS for bluefish; Bay
40Kx ; Jurisdictions will assess feasi-
bility. Need staff to look at
{existing biological data and assess
! econom i c factors .
1OOK .'Will coordinate with CBSHC, univei —
! si ties, other agencies.
I
I
tflgencies must coordinate closely;
Imust continue work on habitat
{requirements for bluefish and other
! water quality issues in the Bay.
LEGEND: HSMFC
CBSHC
EPR
MHFMC
MDNR
MRFSS
PFC
PRFC
VMRC
Htlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
Chesapeake Bay Stock Rssessment Committee
Environmental Protection Rgency
Mid—Htlantic Fisheries Management Council
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Marine Recreational Fishery Statistical Survey
Pennsylvania Fish Commission
Potomac River Fisheries Commission
Virginia Marine Resouces Commission
H = fidministrative action
L = Legislation
R = Regulation
K = *1,OOO
* = Federal funds
------- |