Chesapeake Executive Council
903R89105
Chesapeake Bay
Alosid Management Plan
Chesapeake
Bay
Program
Agreement Commitment Report
July 1989
-------
Chesapeake Bay Alosid Management Plan
An Agreement Commitment Report from
the Chesapeake Executive Council
Annapolis, Maryland
July 1989
-------
ADOPTION STATEMENT
We, the undersigned, adopt the Chesapeake Bay Alosid Management Plan, in
fulfillment of Living Resources Commitment Number 4 of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay
Agreement:
"...by July 1989, to develop, adopt, and begin to implement Bay-wide
management plans for oysters, blue crabs, and American shad."
We agree to accept the Plan as a guide to protecting, restoring, and enhancing the shad
and river herring resources for long-term ecological, economic, and social benefits. We further
agree to work together to implement, by the dates set forth in the Plan, the management actions
recommended to address: (1) declining abundance; (2) overfishing; (3) stock assessment
deficiencies; and (4) habitat loss and degradation.
We recognize the need to commit long-term, stable financial support and human
resources to the task of protecting, restoring, and enhancing the shad and river herring fisheries.
In addition, we direct the Living Resources Subcommittee to review and update the Plan yearly
and to prepare an annual report addressing the progress made in achieving the Plan's
management recommendations.
Date
J
For the Commonwealth of Virginia
For the State of Maryland
For the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
For the United States of America
For the District of Columbia
For the Chesapeake Bay Commission
p. /./
'' _J£ U (s .
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ill
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iv
INTRODUCTION vii
SECTION 1. BACKGROUND 1
Shad and River Herring 1
FMP Status and Management Unit 2
Fishery Parameters - American Shad 2
Hickory Shad 3
Biological Profile - American and Hickory Shad 3
Fishery Parameters - Alewife and Blueback Herring 4
Biological Profile - Alewife and Blueback Herring 5
Habitat Issues 6
The Fisheries - American Shad 7
Hickory Shad 1
Economic Perspective - American and Hickory Shad 10
The Fisheries - Alewife and Blueback Herring 10
Economic Perspective - Alewife and Blueback Herring 15
Resource Status - American and Hickory Shad 15
Alewife and Blueback Herring 15
Laws and Regulations for American and Hickory Shad 16
Laws and Regulations for Alewife and Blueback Herring... 18
Status of Traditional Fishery Management Approaches 20
Data and Information Needs for American and Hickory
Shad 21
Data and Information Needs for Alewife and Blueback
Herring 21
References 22
SECTION 2 . ALOSID MANAGEMENT 23
A. Goals and Objectives 23
B. Problem Areas and Management Strategies 24
1. Declining Abundance 24
2 . Overf ishing 27
3. Stock Assessment Deficiencies 30
4. Habitat Loss and Degradation 31
Preparation of this document was funded in part by the Coastal
Resources Division, Tidewater Administration, Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, through a grant from the
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
-------
FIGURES
1. Maryland American Shad Commercial Landings from
Chesapeake Bay 8
2. Virginia American Shad Commercial Landings from
Chesapeake Bay 9
3. Maryland Hickory Shad Commercial Landings from
Chesapeake Bay 11
4. Virginia Hickory Shad Commercial Landings from
Chesapeake Bay 12
5. Maryland River Herring Commercial Landings from
Chesapeake Bay 13
6. Virginia River Herring Commercial Landings from
Chesapeake Bay 14
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Development of this management plan is the result of concerted
efforts by members of the Fisheries Management Plan Workgroup
(FMPW), particularly by providing direction for and review of the
plan. Staff from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), Tidewater Administration, and the Virginia Marine Resources
Commission (VRMC) authored the plan and addressed comments on the
draft versions. Contributing DNR staff included Nancy Butowski,
Harry T. Hornick, Phil Jones, Randy Schneider, and Harley Speir.
Mark Bundy provided assistance with economic aspects of the
fishery. VRMC staff included Erik Earth, Lewis Gillingham, Roy
Insley, Robert O'Reilly, Randy Owens, Ellen Smoller, Jack
Travelstead, and Lyle Varnell. Thanks are also due to Verna
Harrison and Ed Christoffers for guiding the plan through the
development and adoption process. Finally, we are grateful to
members of other committees and workgroups associated with the
Chesapeake Bay Program and the public who commented on the plan.
Members of the Fisheries Management Plan Workgroup are:
Dr. Erik Earth, Virginia Marine Resources Commission
Mr. K.A. Carpenter, Potomac River Fisheries Commission
Mr. James Collier, 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. Edward Houde, UMCEES/Chesapeake Biological Laboratory
Mr. W. Pete Jensen, MD Department of Natural Resources
Mr. J. Claiborne Jones, Chesapeake Bay Commission
Dr. Victor Kennedy, UMCEES/Horn Point Environmental Laboratory
Dr. Romauld N. Lipcius, Virginia Institute of Marine Science
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
Dr. Roger L. Mann, Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Mr. Richard Novotny, Maryland Saltwater Sportfishermen's 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
Dr. William Van Heukelem, UMCEES/Horn Point Environmental Lab.
Ms. Mary Roe Walkup, Citizen's Advisory Committee
iii
-------
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 Bay-wide fishery management plans (FMPs) for
commercially, recreationally, and selected ecologically valuable
species. The FMPs are to be implemented by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, State of Maryland, Commonwealth of Virginia, District
of Columbia, and Potomac River Fisheries Commission as appropriate.
Under this strategy, a timetable was developed for completion of
fishery management plans for several important species. Oysters,
blue crabs, and American shad were given highest priority, with
plans due for these species in July 1989.
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.
A Fisheries Management Plan Workgroup (FMPW), under the Chesapeake
Bay Program's Living Resources Subcommittee, was formed to address
the commitment in the Bay Agreement for Bay-wide management plans.
The FMPW is composed of members from government agencies, the
academic community, and public interest groups from Pennsylvania,
Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
Development of Fishery Management Plans
A fishery management plan is a dynamic, ongoing process to
wisely use a fishery resource. Each of the fishery management
plans prepared under the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement is a concise
summary of the fishery under consideration, problems and issues
that have arisen, and recommended management actions.
The process of developing a management plan incorporates
public and scientific evaluation, and appropriate governmental
approvals. After an FMP is adopted by the Executive Committee, an
implementation plan will be developed to provide more detail on
actions that participating jurisdictions will take and the
mechanisms for taking these actions. In some instances, regulatory
and legislative action will have to be initiated, while in still
others, additional funding will be required. An annual review of
each FMP will be conducted, under the auspices of the Living
Resources Subcommittee, to incorporate new information and to
update management strategies.
IV
-------
Goal of the Chesapeake Bay Alosid Management Plan
The goal of the Chesapeake Bay Alosid Management Plan is to
protect, restore, and enhance baywide shad and river herring stocks
to generate the greatest long-term ecological, economic, and social
benefits from the resource.
Problem Areas and Management Strategies
Problem 1: Declining Abundance. Bay-wide stocks of shad and river
herrings are very low compared to historical levels. The
commercial American shad fishery in Maryland became insignificant
by 1979, and is greatly reduced in Virginia. Commercial catches
of river herring in the 1980s are 80-90% lower than during the
1970s. Hickory shad no longer support a viable commercial fishery
in Virginia or Maryland.
Strategy 1: Recommendations by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission (ASMFC) for harvesting of alosids should be followed to
optimize interjurisdictional coordination. These include a
moratorium in Maryland for fishing of American and hickory shad
until stocks have recovered, and 25% exploitation rates for alosids
in Virginia. Management of river herring on an area-by-area basis,
and regulation or closure of areas slated for restoration are
discussed. In order to improve management decisions, studies to
determine stock levels and exploitation rates need to be conducted.
Problem 2: Overfishing. Overfishing has contributed to the decline
of alosid populations and, at current stock levels, is affecting
recruitment and stock recovery. High exploitation rates in some
of Virginia's waters, and the combined effect of direct and
indirect coastal fishing are important factors.
Strategy 2: Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia will continue to
participate in ASMFC programs targeting coast-wide, directed alosid
fisheries as well as foreign and domestic mackerel fisheries, which
have a by-catch of alosids. Virginia will follow ASMFC
recommendations to reduce shad and river herring harvests to a 25%
exploitation rate.
Problem 3: Stock Assessment Deficiencies. Data on harvest levels,
fishing effort, and biological characteristics of the harvest are
limited and may not accurately represent stock abundance when
alosid populations are low. There are also limited fishery-
independent measures of alosid stocks.
Strategy 3: Specific data on alosid biology and the Chesapeake Bay
alosid fisheries is needed to improve management. A combination
-------
of surveys, research, fish reporting programs, tagging efforts, and
assessments are among the actions recommended.
Problem 4: Habitat Loss and Degradation. Changes in and loss of
spawning habitat for alosids have contributed to declining stocks.
Dams and other stream blockages have removed thousands of acres of
spawning and nursery grounds, and poor water quality has harmed
other areas.
Strategy 4: Signatory jurisdictions will implement plans under the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement to remove impediments to migratory fishes
and improve water quality, and will undertake restoration projects.
Recommended actions include constructing fish passage facilities,
restocking areas with hatchery-raised juvenile fish or transported
adult fish, and adopting water quality standards.
VI
-------
INTRODUCTION
MANAGEMENT PLAN BACKGROUND
To protect and manage the natural resources of Chesapeake Bay,
the jurisdictions are developing and will implement a series of
fishery management plans under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. This
agreement adopted a schedule for the development of Bay-wide
fishery management plans for commercially, recreationally, and
selected ecologically valuable species. The strategy for
implementing the Living Resources Commitments in the 1987 Agreement
listed the priority of each species and a timetable for completion
of fishery management plans:
° oysters, blue crabs and American shad by July 1989
0 striped bass, white perch, bluefish, weakfish, and spotted
trout by 1990
° croaker, spot, summer flounder and American eel by 1991
0 red and black drum by 1992
A comprehensive approach to Bay problems and a means to
coordinate the various state and federal groups was also necessary.
Bay fisheries are managed separately by the States of Pennsylvania,
Maryland, and Virginia, the District of Columbia, and the Potomac
River Fisheries Commission. There is also a federal Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) which has jurisdiction for
management planning over offshore fisheries (3-200 miles), and a
coast-wide organization, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission (ASMFC), which coordinates the preparation of plans for
migratory species in state coastal waters from Maine to Florida.
The state/federal Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee (CBSAC)
is responsible for developing a Bay-wide Stock Assessment Plan
which includes collection and analysis of fisheries information but
does not include the development of fishery management plans.
Consequently, a Bay-wide Fisheries Management group, under the
Living Resources Subcommittee of the Chesapeake Bay Program, was
formed to address the commitment in the Bay Agreement for
management plans.
The Fisheries Management group is responsible for developing
and writing the fishery management plans and includes:
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division;
Pennsylvania Fish Commission, Office of Chief Counsel, Planning and
Environmental; Potomac River Fisheries Commission; Virginia
Marine Resources Commission, Fisheries Management Division; and
Washington, D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs,
Fisheries Management Division. The management workgroup also
included representatives from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation,
vii
-------
Chesapeake Bay Commission, University of Maryland, College of
William and Mary/Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Maryland
Watermen's Association, Virginia Watermen's Association, Charter
Boat Association, and Maryland Saltwater Sportsfishermen's
Association. Plans developed by this group reflect the
multijurisdictional management requirements appropriate to the
species.
WHAT 18 A FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN?
A management plan is a dynamic process of analyzing the complex
biological, economic and social components of a particular finfish
or shellfish fishery, defining problems, identifying solutions, and
implementing decisions regarding habitat problems and human usage
of the resource.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS
The goal of fisheries management is to protect the reproductive
capability of the resource and provide for optimal harvests.
Fisheries management must include biological, economic and
sociological considerations in order to be effective. It requires
an adaptive management scheme which responds to the most current
status of the stock, therefore, it is of primary importance to
prepare a plan which provides a means of regular review and
reevaluation of current management actions. Three simply stated
objectives to protect the reproductive capabilities of the resource
while allowing optimal harvest include:
0 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 status if necessary through management efforts.
MANAGEMENT PLAN FORMAT
The background section for each management plan summarizes:
0 biological profile
° habitat requirements
° historical fishery trends
° economic profile
Vlll
-------
° current stock status
current regulations (in effect as of September 1988), and
° data needs
This information was modified from the Chesapeake Bay Fisheries;
Status. Trends. Priorities and Data Needs document. Including 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 defines:
° specific goals and objectives for each species
0 problem areas for each species
0 management strategies to address each problem area, and
o
action items with a schedule of implementation.
These plans are concise summaries that consider interjurisdictional
issues and recommend regulations which will be subject to public
review and appropriate approvals. Management planning provides the
opportunity for public and scientific evaluation, and debate of
management options and regulation strategies prior to actual
regulatory proposals. As the management plan review process
continues, changes will be necessary. The strategies will be
further defined as new information becomes available and,
therefore, must reflect some flexibility.
Once the plan has been adopted by the Executive Committee
appropriate regulatory and legislative action will be initiated.
An annual review of the management plans will be required to
continually update management strategies and actions. A workgroup
will be established to annually review the plan. Completed
management plans will follow the schedule set forth by the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement. The process of fishery management plan
review and acceptance is presented in the flow chart below.
IX
-------
COMMITMENT PREPARATION AND ADOPTION FLOW CHART
WORKGROUP
DRAFTS
DOCUMENT
DRAFT TO
I.C.
LIVING RESOURCES
SUBCOMMITTEE
REVIEW
CBLO DISTRIBUTES
TO CBP MAILING
LIST
PUBLIC MEETINGS
IF REQUIRED
CBLO DISTRIBUT
TO LIBRARIES
30 DAY PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
BRIEFINGS
WORKGROUP
REVISES/PREPARES
SECOND DRAFT
LRSC REVIEWS
2ND DRAFT
SHORT SECOND
PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD
2ND DRAFT MAILED
TO P.S.C.
I.C. REVIEWS
RECOMMENDS
CHANGES/ADOPTS
2ND DRAFT MAILED
TO CBP MAILING
LIST, ETC.
FMP WORKGROUP
MAKES FINAL
REVISIONS
FINAL DRAFT
DISTRIBUTED TO
I.C.
1C (Implementation Committee)
CBLO (Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office)
CBP (Chesapeake Bay Program)
LRSC (Living Resources Subcommittee)
PSC (Princioal Staff Cnrnmi
LRSC APPROVES
FINAL DRAFT
FINAL DRAFT
DISTRIBUTED TO
P.S.C.
EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE
ADOPTION
-------
SECTION 1. BACKGROUND
SHAD AND RIVER HERRING INTRODUCTION
American shad, hickory shad, alewife and blueback herring are
anadromous species that spend most of their lives at sea. Adults
migrate to the Chesapeake Bay primarily during March, April and May
where they spawn in low salinity and fresh waters. After spawning,
adults return to the sea and are prey for many marine fish.
Young-of-the-year inhabit fresh and brackish waters in the summer,
migrate to the ocean in the fall, and generally do not return to
estuarine waters until sexual maturity is reached between the ages
of three and six years.
American and hickory shad have declined to such low levels of
abundance in Maryland that they have been determined to be in need
of conservation. Regulations banning the capture, possession, and
sale of American shad in Maryland waters became effective April 12,
1980. Similarly, hickory shad capture was prohibited as of January
23, 1981. Current MDNR studies reveal that American and hickory
shad populations are at extremely low levels of abundance and
consequently the fisheries for both species remain closed. Shad and
river herring are absent from the Susquehanna River basin in
Pennsylvania. Historically they used this area for spawning and
nursery habitat. Access to this major river system has been blocked
by dams at four locations for over 80 years.
American and hickory shad, once an important component of the
commercial and/or recreational landings in Virginia, have also
dramatically decreased in abundance in the last decade. Virginia
American shad stocks are at very low levels relative to historical
abundances.
Alewife and blueback herring are nearly identical in appearance
and, as a result, both species are called river herring by
commercial and recreational fishermen. Alewife range from
Newfoundland and the St. Lawrence River to South Carolina with the
center of the distribution of the species skewed towards the
northern states. Blueback herring occur from Nova Scotia to
northern Florida and are most common in the southern portion of
their range.
In the Chesapeake region, both alewife and blueback herring spawn
in the northern Bay and in all major tributaries. The spawning
season for alewife generally runs from late March through April.
Blueback herring spawn from the last half of April to mid-May. With
the exception of the spring months, adults inhabit near-shore
Atlantic Ocean waters. Young-of-the-year river herring migrate from
estuarine to coastal waters in the early fall and remain at sea
until sexual maturity is reached in three to five years.
-------
At one time, these species had a vital ecological role. Young-of-
the-year river herring, along with other alosids, were one of the
dominant pelagic prey species in freshwater and upper estuarine
nursery areas, while adults were prey for many marine fish.
FMP Status and Management Unit
The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) alosid FMP
was approved in 1985. The plan was developed because of stock
depletion from overfishing, loss of habitat, inconsistencies in
management actions and lack of adequate data. Since the ASMFC
program promotes cooperative management of marine, estuarine and
anadromous fisheries throughout the states along the Atlantic
coast, the Chesapeake Bay alosid FMP is consistent with the goals
and objectives of the ASMFC plan. The baywide FMP will be effective
by July 1989.
The management units are the Chesapeake Bay stocks of American shad
(Alosa sapidissima), hickory shad (Alosa roediocris), alewife (Alosa
pseudoharengus) and blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) throughout
their range on the Atlantic coast.
Fishery Parameters - American Shad:
Status of exploitation:
Long term potential catch:
Importance of recreational
fishery:
Importance of commercial
fishery:
Fishing mortality rate:
American shad stocks south of
Delaware Bay are depressed.
There is a moratorium on the
harvest of American shad in the
Maryland portion of the Bay. No open
season in the Susquehanna River and
its tributaries in Pennsylvania.
Recreational shad harvest currently
in the District of Columbia.
Commerical and recreational harvest
in Virginia.
Unknown.
Historically significant in Maryland
and Pennsylvania; currently
seasonally and regionally significant
in District of Columbia and Virginia.
Historically very significant.
Unknown for District of Columbia,
Maryland, Pennsylvania or Virginia
stocks.
-------
Fishery Parameters - Hickory Shad:
Status of exploitation:
Long term potential catch:
Importance of recreational
fishery:
Importance of commercial
fishery:
Fishing mortality rates:
There is a moratorium on the
recreational and commercial harvest
of hickory shad in the Maryland
portion of Chesapeake Bay.
There is no open season for hickory
shad in Pennsylvania's portion of the
Conowingo Reservoir. Recreational
harvest in the District of Columbia.
In Virginia, commercial hickory shad
landings are insignificant due to low
current abundance levels and value
constraints.
Unknown.
Historically significant but not of
the magnitude of American
shad.
Insignificant.
Unknown for District of Columbia,
Maryland, Pennsylvania or Virginia
stocks.
Biological Profile - American and Hickory Shad:
Natural mortality rate;
Currently unknown for the District
of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania
or Virginia stocks.
Fecundity:
Longevity;
59,000 - 660,000 eggs/female
Approximately 7 years.
Spawning and larval development
(probably very similar for both species):
Spawning season:
Spawning area:
April - June.
The freshwater portion of the
northern Chesapeake Bay and all major
tributaries. It is generally accepted
that shad return to their natal
streams to spawn. Considerable mixing
-------
Spawning location:
Salinity:
Spawning temperature:
Dissolved oxygen:
pH:
Flow:
Younq-of-the-Year
Location:
Salinity:
Temperature:
Dissolved oxygen:
pH:
Subadults and adults
Salinity:
Temperature:
Dissolved oxygen:
and consequent straying may occur
among the spawning stocks which
utilize tributaries of the Chesapeake
Bay.
Mostly in tidal freshwater, usually
in areas dominated by extensive
flats.
0-2.0 ppt.
55° - 68° F.
Probably at least 5.0 ppm.
Reported range - 6.5 to 7.8.
Tidal or fluvial movement of 0.5 -
3.0 feet/second required.
Fresh and low salinity estuarine
waters through early fall.
0-7.5 ppt through summer months.
60° F minimum reported.
5.0 ppm minimum.
5.0 - 9.0.
0-35 ppt.
45° - 64° F.
5.0 ppm minimum.
Fishery Parameters-Alewife and Blueback Herring:
Status of exploitation: Currently unknown.
Long term potential catch: Currently unknown.
-------
Importance of recreational
fishery: Seasonally significant, highly
directed; availability is limited to
the spring months.
Importance of commercial
fishery: Significant; available in March,
April and May.
Fishing mortality rates: Unknown for District of Columbia,
Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia
stocks of alewife and blueback
herring.
Biological Profile - Alevife and Blueback Herring:
Natural mortality rate; Currently unknown.
Fecundity; 46,000 - 350,000 eggs/female.
Longevity: 7 to 8 years.
Age/size at maturity; 80 percent of the females return to
spawn by 4 years of age. Males
generally mature at an earlier age
and size than females. Limited data
exists for size at maturity for
Chesapeake Region fish.
Spawning and Larval Development
Spawning season: Alewife - late March through April;
Blueback - April to mid May.
Spawning area: Northern Chesapeake Bay and all major
tributaries.
Spawning location: Alewife - usually in sluggish water
less than one foot deep.
Blueback - generally swift flowing
relatively deep water.
Salinity: 0-6.0 ppt, mostly below 1 ppt.
Spawning temperature: Alewife- 50°-70° F; blueback herring
57°-80° F.
Dissolved oxygen: 5.0 ppm minimum.
pH: 6.5-7.8
5
-------
Flow:
Young-of-the-Year
Location:
Salinity:
Temperature:
Dissolved Oxygen:
Tidal or fluvial movement required.
Fresh and low salinity estuarine
waters through summer and early fall.
0-2.0 ppt through mid-summer.
60° F minimum reported.
3.6 ppm minimum.
Subadults and Adults
Location:
Salinity:
Dissolved oxygen:
Ocean waters, except during spawning
migrations into estuaries.
0-35 ppt.
At least 5.0 ppm.
Habitat Issues
Shad and herring spawning migrations have been blocked by dams
across the mainstem or tributaries of the Susquehanna, Patapsco,
Potomac, Rappahannock, James, York and Chowan Rivers and resulted
in the loss of spawning and nursery habitat. Smaller mill dams,
gauging stations and road culverts throughout tributaries in the
Bay watershed also limit the amount of available spawning and
nursery areas. Large kills of herring occasionally occurred below
Conowingo Dam in the late 1960 's when the dam ceased water release.
It is believed that the dissolved oxygen in pools below the dam was
low and easily depleted by large numbers of migrating fish. Current
operating procedures at the dam should prohibit a reoccurrence of
this situation.
The alosid passage issue at Conowingo Dam and other hydropower dams
upstream is being addressed by the Susquehanna River Anadromous
Fish Restoration Committee (SRAFRC) through detailed annual plans
and activities using both agency and project owner funding. In
Virginia, appropriations from General Funds and the City of
Richmond will be used to provide fish passages for the Machester
and Brown's Island Dams on the James River. The Virginia Anadromous
Fish Restoration Committee is constructing a plan for restoration
of anadromous fish in Virginia. Implementation of a fish ladder
for Walker's Dam on the Chickahominy River is also in progress.
The dam at Little Falls, District of Columbia, has been a major
barrier to migratory fish since the early 1950 's. Plans are
underway for a fish passage facility which would open the Potomac
-------
River spawning habitat another 11 miles to Great Falls, the
historical limit for shad and river herring. Plans to remove
impediments to migratory fishes in the Chesapeake Bay watershed
are being coordinated and implemented by the Fish Passage Workgroup
established by the Chesapeake Bay Program.
Acid deposition and stream acidification may be a major problem in
the decline of many anadromous fish. Laboratory studies have shown
that river herring eggs and larvae suffer high mortalities below
pH 6.5 and total dissolved aluminum levels greater than 0.34 mg per
liter. There is a high incidence of low pH and high dissolved
aluminum events in many Eastern shore streams following heavy
spring rains. The existing information on tolerance of shad to low
pH is limited and does not allow conclusions on the importance of
this factor to shad declines.
The Fisheries
American Shad
Historically, shad and river herring supported some of the most
valuable commercial fisheries in the Chesapeake Bay. From the late
1800s to the mid-1900s, shad was the most economically valuable
food fish harvested in the District of Columbia, Maryland,
Pennsylvania and Virginia. As is the case with river herring, most
American shad harvest occurred in March, April and May from gill
nets, haul seines and pound nets. Maryland commercial shad landings
generally declined from the early to late 1930s, increased through
the late 1950s and then declined precipitously through the 1960s
and 1970s (Figure 1). By 1980, the Maryland stock was reduced to
the point where capture and possession were banned for the first
time in the history of the fishery. American shad runs disappeared
from the upper Potomac River in the District of Columbia in the
1950's and have not returned to any substantial degree.
Pennsylvania stocks were eliminated beginning with canal dams in
the late 1800's and finally by the construction of hydroelectric
dams on the Susquehanna River in the early 1900's. These dams block
nearly 400 miles of habitat historically used by shad and herring.
A similar problem occurs on the James River in Virginia. There are
five dams on the James River which block fish access to nearly two-
thirds of the historic habitat. In the Virginia fishery, landings
declined dramatically during the decade of the 1930s, generally
increased through the late 1940s and have continuously declined
since that time (Figure 2) . The recreational American shad fishery
was extensive in both Maryland and Virginia. Although statistics
for the Bay are not available, data collected for the East Coast
fisheries in 1965 and 1970 reveal that the recreational shad
harvest was 61% and 65% respectively, of the commercial harvest.
Hickory shad
Hickory shad were historically harvested by fishing gears set
primarily for American shad and striped bass. Landings rarely
-------
Figure 1. Maryland commercial landings
for American shad from Chesapeake Bay
MILLION POUNDS
2.5
2-
1.5
0.5-
0
MI MII I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965
i i i i i i i i i
1970 1975
I I I T I I T I
1980 1985
YEAR
-------
Figure 2. Virginia American shad
commercial landings from Chesapeake Bay
MILLION POUNDS
0
I I 1 I I I II II I I II I I I I I I I II I I II I II I I II I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I i I I
1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
YEAR
-------
reached 50,000 pounds a year in Maryland and annual harvests of
less than 10,000 pounds were not uncommon (Figure 3). Harvests
started to decline dramatically in 1976 and by 1980 only 2,101
pounds were landed. No significant data exist for hickory shad
landings from the District of Columbia or Pennsylvania, although
they probably were taken with American shad catches in early
upriver commercial fisheries. Hickory shad landings in Virginia
were historically somewhat higher than those in Maryland. However,
as was the case in Maryland, harvests began a dramatic long term
decline in Virginia in 1976 (Figure 4). Hickory shad were never as
abundant as the other commercial anadromous herrings although they
were a highly desirable sportfish. Most were caught by hook and
line during the spring months in the spawning reaches of Chesapeake
Bay tributaries.
Economic Perspective - American and Hickory Shad
The commercial shad fishery seldom commanded a high price per pound
and the small incremental increases in value did not keep pace with
the annual inflation rate for food items. Consequently, the value
of American and hickory shad decreased in both real and inflated
dollars. The value of the recreational shad fishery in Maryland was
substantial and would be even greater if the fishery was restored.
Estimated values of a restored shad run utilizing different
econometric models range from 42 million to 178 million dollars.
The Fisheries
River Herring
In 1931 over 25 million pounds were harvested making herring second
in quantity and fifth in value of all Chesapeake finfish, and first
in quantity and fourth in value of all finfish landed in Maryland.
Principal gears used in the Chesapeake Bay river herring fishery
include pound nets, drift and anchor gill nets, haul seines and
fyke nets. Most of the annual harvest was taken in March, April
and May during the annual spring spawning migration. River herring
landings in Maryland have more or less steadily declined from
levels of about 5 to 8 million pounds in the early 1930s to less
than 250,000 pounds a year since 1976 (Figure 5). No historic data
have been found to indicate the significance of river herring
harvest in the Susquehanna River Basin in Pennsylvania or in the
upper Potomac River, District of Columbia. Virginia has
historically taken the largest portion of the total Chesapeake
harvest, catches in recent years have declined to levels comparable
to those in Maryland (Figure 6).
In the past, river herrings supported an apparently extensive
recreational fishery in the tributaries of Chesapeake Bay during
March, April and May. Although some fish were caught by hook and
line, most were harvested with dip nets. As was the case in the
commercial fishery, recreational catches of river herring have
decreased dramatically since the mid-1970s.
10
-------
Figure 3. Maryland hickory shad
commercial landings from Chesapeake Bay
THOUSANDS
0
1985
YEAR
-------
Figure 4. Virginia hickory shad
commercial landings from Chesapeake Bay
THOUSANDS
120
100-
0
1965
1985
-------
Figure 5. Maryland commercial landings
for river herring from Chesapeake Bay
MILLION POUNDS
OJ
0
MM M I I I I M IT I 1 I I 1 I I M MM Ml I I I I I I 7 I I I III
1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
YEAR
-------
0
Figure 6. Virginia commercial landings
for river herring from Chesapeake Bay
MILLION POUNDS
I I I I I I I I I I I I I! I "I I I
1930 1935 1940 1945
M i i i i i M i i i i i i i ii I i i i i i i i i i
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975
I i i i i i i i
1980 1985
YEAR
-------
Economic Perspective - Alewife and Blueback Herring
River herring have commanded a relatively low price per pound and
has not kept pace with the inflation rate for food items. Some
quantity of commercial herring landings are kept as eel and/or crab
bait and bait herring have a greater value than the dockside value.
The roe of herring is still an important food item especially on
a local basis. Roe herring commands a higher price than non-roe
herring and the level of demand is unknown as is the price
schedule. Currently, there is not enough information available to
document the total value of the commercial herring industry.
Recreational exploitation of river herring was widespread in the
1960's but has severely decreased. There is no information about
the economic value of the recreational sector.
Resource Status
American and Hickory Shad
At the present time, both the American and the hickory shad
spawning stocks are at low levels of abundance in all spawning
tributaries of the Maryland portion of the Bay. Restoration efforts
and the moratorium on American shad have contributed to an increase
in the population in the upper Bay. Maryland DNR adult population
estimates have projected a spawning population of approximately
75,000 fish for 1989, up from an estimated 2,600 in 1980. In the
same area in 1965, estimates of the spawning stock approached 1.4
million fish.
In Virginia, the precipitous decline in landings over the last 15
years is, in part, related to changes in fishing effort. Virginia
shad stocks appear to be at low levels of abundance relative to
earlier years.
Alewife and Blueback Herring
Stock status, based primarily on landings, reveals that there has
been a large decline in river herring abundance from the 1930s to
present. Causes of the long term decline in Chesapeake Bay are not
known with certainty but apparently relate to the effects of
fishing and habitat loss. There is strong circumstantial evidence
that the precipitous decline in landings that occurred in
Chesapeake Bay in the 1970's was attributable to large river
herring harvests by offshore fleets operating along the East Coast
of the United States from 1967 -1972 (the offshore fishery no
longer exists). At present, alewife abundance may be more depressed
than that of blueback herring. However, this relationship cannot
be quantified at the present time.
15
-------
Current Maryland Laws and Regulations for American and Hickory
Shad:
American shad: Capture, sale, or possession of
American shad caught in Maryland
waters of the Bay prohibited;
except that two per day may be
possessed for personal consumption
if the shad were found dead when
fishing gear operated for other fish
was retrieved from the water.
Hickory shad: Capture, sale, purchase or possession
of hickory shad caught in Maryland
waters of Chesapeake Bay prohibited;
except that the incidental catching
of hickory shad by gear set for other
species will not be considered a
violation if the hickory shad is
returned to the water.
Both species: Provisions of Maryland's Delay of
Application Process will apply if
the fisheries re-open. Provisions
which apply to shad are as follows:
after August 31, 1988 previously
unlicensed applicants must wait two
years after registering with MDNR
before a license to harvest finfish
with commercial fishing gears will
be issued.
Current Pennsylvania Regulations for American and Hickory Shad
(Susguehanna Basin):
Conowingo Reservoir: No open season for American or
Hickory shad.
Susquehanna River and
its tributaries: American shad only, closed year
round.
Current Potomac River Laws and Regulations for American and Hickory
Shad:
Minimum size: None other than those resulting from
gear specific limitations.
16
-------
Creel Limit:
Season:
By-catch Restriction:
American shad- 2 per person per day
or 2% by volume of total catch per
license. Hickory shad- none.
None other than those resulting from
gear specific limitations.
None other than those resulting from
gear specific limitations.
Current District of Columbia Laws and Regulations for American
and Hickory Shad:
Limited Entry:
Minimum size:
Creel Limit:
Season:
By-catch Restrictions:
No commercial harvest.
None.
American and Hickory shad- 3 per
person per day.
Not in effect.
Not in effect.
Current Virginia Laws and Regulations for American and Hickory
Shad:
Limited entry:
Minimum size limit:
Creel limit:
Harvest quotas:
By-catch restrictions:
Season:
Gear restrictions:
Not in effect.
None.
Not in effect.
Not in effect.
Not in effect.
Not in effect.
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. Minimum
stretch mesh size restrictions:
17
-------
Possession:
Area closures:
Other prohibitions:
pound net, 2"; haul seine, 3" (nets
over two hundred yards long); trawl
net, 4.5" (cod or bunt end). In
addition, no haul seine can be longer
than one thousand yards in length or
deeper than forty meshes; and the cod
or bunt end of a trawl net shall have
a minimum of fifty meshes deep. 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" and shall be fished no
closer than 200 feet to any other
such gill net. Also, Sections 28.1-52
and 28.1-53 of the Code of Virginia
outline placement, total length and
distance requirements for fishing
structures.
Not in effect.
None in effect.
Obstructing passage of fish and
dynamiting streams.
Current Laws and Regulations for Alewife and Blueback Herring:
Limited entry:
Minimum size limit:
Creel limit:
Harvest quotas:
By-catch restrictions:
Maryland's Delay of Application
Process, which goes into effect
September 1, 1988, 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.
Delayed or limited entry is not in
effect in the District of Columbia,
Pennsylvania or Virginia.
None.
Not in effect.
Not in effect.
Not in effect.
18
-------
Gear - Area restrictions: Maryland - gill nets prohibited in
striped bass spawning reaches;
monofilament gill net, otter trawls,
beam trawls, trammel nets, troll
nets, drag nets and purse nets
prohibited. (Otter and beam trawls
are legal on the Atlantic Coast at
distances of one mile or more
offshore) . Minimum stretch mesh size
restrictions - 1.5" in pound nets,
2.5" in gill nets, 2.5" in haul
seines and 1.5" in fyke and hoop
nets.
Pennsylvania-No gear restrictions.
In a cooperative river herring
restoration venture with MDNR,
regulations are being promulgated for
the Elk Creek Basin in Chester County
to prohibit the taking and possession
of blueback and alewife herring 8
inches or larger, effective 1/1/90.
Potomac River- Minimum mesh size:
pound net-1 1/2", haul seine-1 1/2",
fyke net- 1 1/2", fish pot-2", bait
pot-1", eel pot-1/2 x 1/2", gill net-
3 3/4' with a maximum of 7". Length
limitations: pound net-6001, stake
gill net-6001, anchor gill net-6001
x 12', fyke net-4001, haul seine-
1200' or 2400' , fish pot and eel pot-
10', bait pot-24" cube.
District of Columbia - No commercial
gears.
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" haul seine, 3" (nets over two
19
-------
Season:
Possession:
Other prohibitions:
hundred yards long); trawl net, 4.5"
(cod or bunt end). In addition, no
haul seine can be longer than one
thousand yards in length or deeper
than forty meshes; and the cod or
bunt end of a trawl net shall have
a minimum of fifty meshes deep. 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" and shall be fished no
closer than 200 feet to any other
such gill net. Also, Sections 28.1-52
and 28.1-53 of the Code of Virginia
outline placement, total length and
distance require- ments for fishing
structures.
Pennsylvania- no closed season.
Potomac River- none other than those
resulting from gear specific
limitations.
District of Columbia - no closed
season.
Virginia - no closed season.
Pennsylvania- not in effect.
Potomac River- not in effect.
District of Columbia- not in effect.
Virginia- not in effect.
Obstructing passage of fish
and dynamiting streams.
Status of Traditional Fishery Management Approaches for American
Shad, Hickory Shad, Alewife and Blueback Herring:
Catch-Effort:
Estimates of mortality
based on the abundance
of successive age groups
of shad or herring:
Yield-Per-Recruit:
Data is available for both shad and
river herring, however, the catch
data is of low quality and there is
no usable effort data.
Unknown - no historical information
on age specific relative abundance.
Can be calculated, however, estimates
of natural and fishing mortality
rates would be required.
20
-------
Stock-Recruitment Unknown - No information on the
Relationship: species specific relative abundance
of either the spawning stock or
young-of-the-year.
Maximum Sustainable
Yield (MSY): Unknown.
Virtual Population
Analysis (VPA): Has not been carried out - no
historical information on age
specific estimates of catch.
Data and Information Needs for American and Hickory Shad:
Closed fisheries
1. Estimates of the impact of the Virginia, Delaware Bay and
Atlantic Coast shad fisheries on Maryland and Pennsylvania
restoration efforts.
2. Basic biological data on hickory shad.
3. Effects of water quality factors on reproductive success.
4. Estimates of the survival rate of stocked juveniles.
Open fisheries
1. Species, age and sex specific estimates of population
structure and relative annual abundance.
2. Measures of annual reproductive success for each species.
3. Species specific estimates of natural mortality rates.
4. Annual age and sex specific estimates of fishing mortality
for each species.
5. Annual species and age specific estimates of yield.
6. Information relating to the stock-recruitment relationship of
American shad and hickory shad.
21
-------
Data and Information Needs for Alewife and Blueback Herring:
1. Annual species specific estimates of relative abundance.
2. Long term measures of annual reproductive success for each
species.
3. Annual species and age specific estimates of fishing mortality
rates.
4. Annual species specific estimates of catch and effort in the
commercial and recreational fisheries.
5. Information relating to the stock-recruitment relationship of
alewife and blueback herring.
6. Better definition of offshore migration patterns and the
extent of mixing of Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coast stocks.
7. Information on the influence of market factors on fishing
effort.
References
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1985. The fishery
management plan for the anadromous alosid stocks of the eastern
United States: American shad, hickory shad, alewife and blueback
herring. Fisheries management report No. 6.
Krauthamer, J. and W. Richkus. 1987. Characterization of the
biology of and fisheries for Maryland stocks of alewife and
blueback herring. Tidewater Administration, MDNR, Tawes State
Office Building, Annapolis Maryland.
Loesch, J. G., W. H. Kriete and R. P. Traponi. 1988. Study of Alosa
stock composition and year-class strength in Virginia. Completion
Report, Anadromous Fish Project 1984 -1986. VIMS, Glouchester Point
Virginia.
Stagg, Cluney. 1986. An evaluation of the information available
for managing Chesapeake Bay fisheries: preliminary stock
assessments, volume I and II. University of Maryland, CBL,
UMCEES[CBL] Ref. No. 85-29.1
22
-------
SECTION 2. ALOSID MANAGEMENT
The source documents for this plan, Richkus and DiNardo (1984),
Loesch and Kriete (1984-1986), and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission (1985), discuss many problems associated with the
current status of the Chesapeake Bay stocks and fisheries for shad
and river herrings. Problems and management strategies have been
defined and grouped into specific categories and served as the
basis for identifying the goal and objectives. The management
strategies and actions will be implemented by the jurisdictions in
order to protect and enhance the stocks of shad and herring
(alosids) in Chesapeake Bay. Existing regulations regarding the
harvest of alosids will continue to be enforced except where
otherwise indicated by the plan.
Fishery activity on the tidewater portion of the Potomac River is
managed by the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, a six member
body empowered under the Maryland-Virginia Compact of 1958. The
Commission meets quarterly to establish and maintain a program of
conservation and improvement of the seafood resources and to
regulate and license fisheries in the Potomac River. The Commission
will develop appropriate Actions and Implementations to address
those Problems and Strategies identified in this Management Plan
which are within the purview of the Commission by July 1990.
A. GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
The goal of this plan is:
Protect, restore and enhance baywide shad and river herring
stocks to generate the greatest long term ecological, economic
and social benefits from the resource. The management plan for
alosids will be adaptive and involve continuous responses to
new information about the current state of the resource.
In order to achieve this goal, the following objectives must be
met:
1) Maintain a spawning stock at a size which eliminates
low reproductive potential as a cause of poor spawning
success.
2) Promote protection of the resource by maintaining a clear
distinction between conservation goals and allocation
issues.
3) Reduce fishing effort on alosid stocks until they
exhibit increased abundance.
23
-------
4) Improve knowledge of alosid stock dynamics to develop
more accurate data bases and minimize interjurisdictional
conflicts.
5) Redefine the tributary survey program to improve water
quality and habitat accessibility specifically for alosids.
6) Continue programs to restock alosids into areas which
historically supported natural spawning migrations and
to expand existing stock restoration programs to include
areas which do not presently support alosids.
B. PROBLEM AREAS AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Problem-Declining abundance: Commercial landings for shad and river
herrings are at low levels relative to historical catches. Juvenile
indices indicate reduced reproduction.
Strategy-Declining abundance: The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission (ASMFC) has recommended a maximum annual exploitation
rate of 0% for American shad, hickory shad, and river herring in
Maryland due to their severely depleted status. Exploitation rate
was defined as the percentage of female fish in the spawning run
that are captured in recreational or commercial fisheries during
their spawning run in a single year. Recommended rates were arrived
at by a concensus of the ASMFC committee and were deemed to be
conservative. Maryland has addressed the problem of reduced alosid
stocks by initiating a moratorium on American shad and hickory shad
beginning in 1980. The Maryland river herring fishery is a
seasonally significant fishery and current stocks are low. The
ASMFC has recommended an annual exploitation rate of 25% for
American shad and hickory shad in Virginia due to their depleted
status. River herring, likewise, are identified as depleted and a
25% annual exploitation rate is recommended for Virginia stocks.
PROBLEM 1.1
In Maryland, American shad landings decreased from slightly
more than 1,000,000 pounds in 1970 to about 18,000 pounds in
1979. As a result of this severe decline, the Maryland fishery
was closed in 1980. Maryland stocks have not yet recovered
and the ban is still in effect. In Virginia, the average
annual catch of American shad during the period 1980-87 was
730,000 pounds, or 58% below the average 1970-79 landings
(1,740,000 pounds).
STRATEGY 1.1.1
Removing the moratorium on Maryland American shad will
not occur until the stocks of American shad in the upper
Bay are fully recovered. Reestablishing a fishery will
occur when annual population estimates in the upper Bay
increase for three consecutive years and stock size
24
-------
reaches at least 50% of historical levels (approximately
500,000 fish) during one of those three years.
Regulations will be established to ensure that initial
annual exploitation in the upper Bay does not exceed 10%
when the fishery is opened. Stock levels will be
determined from an annual stock estimation study and
exploitation rates will be established based on
recreational and commercial surveys.
ACTION 1.1.1
American shad abundance in the upper Bay has
improved but has not sufficiently recovered to
warrant an open fishery. American shad abundance
is also low in other Maryland river systems.
Maryland will continue the moratorium on American
shad in the Chesapeake Bay.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.1.1
Open. Dependent on stock recovery.
STRATEGY 1.1.2
Virginia will follow ASMFC recommendations for a 25%
exploitation rate for alosids.
ACTION 1.1.2
Virginia will utilize the Virginia Marine Resources
Commission's Stock Assessment Program and the
fishery surveys of the Virginia Institute of Marine
Science to assess current alosid exploitation rates.
If the data concludes that exploitation is above the
25% rate, Virginia will take the appropriate steps
to limit fishing effort.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.1.2
Stock assessment program will initiate activity
in winter 1989. VIMS surveys are currently
being implemented.
PROBLEM 1.2
River herring catches have declined substantially in recent
years in the Chesapeake Bay. The average 1980-87 Virginia
harvest was 1,000,000 pounds, or 88% below the average 1970
-79 catch (8,300,000). Similarly, the average harvest in
Maryland during the period 1980-87 (262,000 pounds) was 79%
below the average annual catch during the decade of the 1970's
(1,228,000).
STRATEGY 1.2
Maryland will recommend management of river herring on
a system by system basis. Criterion for closing a system
25
-------
to river herring harvest will be based on juvenile
indices from 1985 through 1989 and commercial harvests
over the last 10 years. Maryland, Pennsylvania and
Virginia will recommend that harvest from all systems
slated for restoration be regulated or closed. Technical
criterion will be submitted to ASMFC for reevaluation of
the 0% exploitation rate for river herring in Maryland.
In addition, Maryland will control the harvest of river
herring by one or a combination of the following:
harvest limits; harvest season; areal closures; or gear
restrictions. Virginia will use similar measures to
control harvests of river herring, American shad and
hickory shad.
ACTION 1.2
River herring harvest will be controlled. Types of
management actions which will be considered in the
regulation of river herring are as follows:
° Harvest- Quotas would be a reasonable regulation
if the size of the spawning stock in a given year
was predictable
Seasons- Setting a season during a segment of the
"average" spawning period to regulate exploitation
° Areal closures- Restrict exploitation in those
areas where the potential for harvest is greatest
such as restricted portions of migratory routes
or at migration barriers
0 Gear restrictions- Restrict large-volume
harvesting by pound nets and/or haul seines
IMPLEMENTATION 1.2
January 1990
PROBLEM 1.3
Hickory shad no longer support a viable commercial fishery
in Virginia or Maryland. Hickory shad landings in Virginia
averaged 774 pounds a year during the period 1980-87, which
is less than 1% of those in the 1970's (19,638 pounds). In
Maryland, declines in the hickory shad harvest throughout the
decade of the 1970's, led to a 1981 ban on fishing, which is
still in effect. Hickory shad landings may not adequately
reflect the status of the stock since they are often
identified and reported as American shad.
26
-------
STRATEGY 1.3
Maryland will continue the moratorium on the
fishery for hickory shad and consider opening a
recreational fishery when the American shad stocks
have recovered.
ACTION 1.3
Management actions and strategies for American
shad and hickory shad will not be separated due
to the paucity of information available on hickory
shad and by nature of their similar life history.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.3
Will follow the American shad schedule.
PROBLEM 1.4
Alosid migration into the Susquehanna Basin in Pennsylvania
has been totally blocked by hydropower dams for over 80
years.
STRATEGY 1.4
Pennsylvania will continue to prohibit the harvest of
American shad in the Susquehanna River and its
tributaries, and American and hickory shad in the
Conowingo Reservoir while restoration efforts are in
progress.
ACTION 1.4
As restoration of alosids progresses over dams on
the Susquehanna River, additional regulations in
Pennsylvania will be promulgated to protect these
species until a degree of restoration is achieved.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.4
Permanent fish passage facilities are currently
under design at Conowingo Dam. Progress will
be determined when fish passage is also
provided at the three remaining dams.
Problem-Overfishing: The combined effect of overfishing, habitat
degradation, and climatic variables has led to the decline in
alosid abundance. There is strong evidence to suggest that the
decline in river herring in the 1970's was due to large offshore
harvests. An analysis of American shad fishing mortality rates
suggest that some shad stocks were experiencing very high
exploitation levels prior to their recent declines. At current
stock levels, harvest is affecting recruitment, and probably
prevents stock recovery in some areas.
27
-------
Strategy-Overfishing: Both shad and river herring are vulnerable
to recruitment overfishing at present low stock sizes. Adding to
this potential for overfishing are the interjurisdictional offshore
fisheries which target mixed stocks of shad and river herring from
different river systems along the coast. Offshore harvests of
alosids impact inshore stocks and make management strategies
difficult. Inter jurisdictional problems require coordinated efforts
to be successful.
PROBLEM 2.1
Spring coastal fisheries from South Carolina northward, a fall
fishery in Canadian waters, and offshore foreign (or joint
venture) fisheries all exploit mixed stocks of shad, some of
which originate in the Chesapeake Bay. At current stock
levels, the cumulative effect of these interjurisdictional
fisheries affects recruitment and complicates harvest
management for shad.
STRATEGY 2.1
Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia will continue to
participate in ASMFC-coordinated coastal fishery stock
identification and ocean landing studies of alosids.
ACTION 2.1
Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia will participate
in the ongoing ASMFC alosid management program, both
in Board and Scientific and Statistical Committee
activities, with the goal of providing adequate
protection to the component of the coastal stock
which returns to Chesapeake Bay to spawn.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.1
Currently being implemented.
PROBLEM 2.2
Relatively high exploitation rates for American shad have
been documented in recent years for a number of Virginia's
spawning rivers; the high rates of exploitation in inshore
fisheries, coupled with offshore fisheries, will severely
depress recruitment.
STRATEGY 2.2
Virginia will follow ASMFC recommendations to reduce shad
harvest to a 25% exploitation rate.
ACTION 2.2
A) Implement a coastal shad tagging program to
determine which stocks are being exploited in its
intercept fishery
28
-------
B) Control the coastal intercept fishery through a
combination of gear restrictions, seasonal and
areal closures, and harvest limits
C) Continue to monitor and document its territorial
sea intercept fishery for American shad
IMPLEMENTATION 2.2
Shad tagging program implemented by 1990.
PROBLEM 2.3
Current offshore and coastal harvests of river herring are now
relatively low, but target immature fish. Consequently, a low
harvest in total poundage can represent a large impact in
terms of numbers. Notably, there is a growing problem with
river herring bycatch in the foreign and domestic mackerel
fishery, particularly when carried out nearshore in
conjunction with joint ventures.
STRATEGY 2.3.1
Virginia will follow ASMFC recommendations to reduce
river herring harvest to a 25% exploitation rate.
ACTION 2.3.1
Virginia will control river herring harvest during
spawning migrations through gear restrictions and
spawning area closures.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.3.1
1991
STRATEGY 2.3.2
Maryland and Virginia will ensure that river herring
by-catch in the foreign and domestic mackerel fisheries
is minimized.
ACTION 2.3.2
Maryland and Virginia will monitor river herring
by-catch through the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council and support the following recommendations:
a) The foreign fishery will stay 20 miles offshore.
b) Maximum by-catch of 1% for river herring in the
foreign and domestic mackerel fisheries with a
cap on total allowable by-catch.
c) Intercept fisheries will be discouraged.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.3.2
Currently being implemented.
29
-------
Problem-Stock assessment deficiencies: With declining abundance
and low population numbers, alosid juvenile indices, catch per unit
effort and landings data may not accurately represent stock
abundance.
Strategy-Stock Assessment: Data deficiencies are apparent for all
alosid stocks in the Chesapeake Bay. The migratory nature of these
species makes stock assessment a complicated issue. Data bases are
limited concerning harvest, fishing effort, biological
characteristics of the harvest, and fishery independent measures
of alosid stocks.
PROBLEM 3.1
A) At low stock size, juvenile abundance data does not
correspond well to landings data, as no declining trends
are evident with juvenile abundance.
B) When stock size is declining or low, catch per unit effort
data may not be proportional to changes in stock size, and
normalization of effort across the wide variety of gear
types is not practical.
C) Factors other than the abundance of the stock, influence
the magnitude of alosid landings. These factors include
the amount of fishing effort, extent of recreational
harvest, and market demand for fish.
D) There is frequent alosid misclassification (e.g., American
shad classified as river herring and hickory shad
classified as American shad) by foreign and domestic
fishing vessels.
E) There is limited knowlege of some life history aspects of
alosid stocks. Ocean distribution and movement patterns
are almost entirely unknown for hickory shad and the
offshore migration pattern of the river herrings is not
well defined.
F) For all alosids, information is needed on early life
mortality from the egg to the juvenile stage.
G) The effects of restoration practices on alosid stocks
have not been quantified.
H) American shad abundance is unknown for many river systems.
STRATEGY 3.1
The jurisdictions will collect specific data on alosid
species to improve stock assessment databases.
30
-------
ACTION 3.1
A) Maryland will continue the alosid juvenile survey
and develop an index of stock abundance. Virginia
will continue to collect shad and herring
juvenile abundance data with the objective of
developing a baywide index of abundance for these
species. (Currently being implemented) The
juvenile index will be used in conjunction with
adult stock estimates to trigger regulatory
changes and harvest rates.
B) Maryland will continue research projects for
American shad in the upper Bay and Nanticoke
River which provide annual estimates of adult
shad. (Currently being implemented)
C) Virginia will improve assessment of current
fishing rates on shad stocks in territorial
waters and seek to improve catch and effort data
through mandatory reporting. (1990)
D) The VMRC Stock Assessment Program will provide
additional fishery dependent data collection for
Virginia's shad fisheries, (on-going)
E) Virginia will initiate an ocean intercept tagging
program to determine stock composition in the
coastal shad fishery. (1990)
F) Maryland will examine the exploitation rates of
alewife and blueback herring in selected
tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay and improve the
accuracy and utility of herring landings data.
(1990)
G) Virginia will cooperate with research institutes
to implement a survey of selected shad and
herring spawning grounds, compiling information
on basic spawning stock characteristics including
relative adult abundance,juvenile abundance,
size, age and sex ratios. (Currently being
implemented)
H) American shad abundance will be investigated in
the Potomac River, a system of historic
importance, through a joint effort by Maryland,
Virginia, and District of Columbia. (1991)
IMPLEMENTATION 3.1
Variable, depending on the project.
Problem-Habitat Loss and Degradation: Changes in alosid spawning
habitat has contributed to stock declines. Prior to 1960, loss of
habitat to dams and other stream blockages removed thousands of
acres of spawning and nursery grounds. Unlike habitat loss due to
the contruction of stream blockages, water quality degradation has
31
-------
had a less obvious, but harmful effect on the remaining habitat
available to alosids.
Strategy-Habitat Loss and Degradation: Loss of spawning habitat
through damming and other blockages has contributed to alosid stock
declines. Declining alosid stocks in the Chesapeake Bay have also
been attributed to water quality problems but the specific
mechanisms contributing to the decline have not been conclusively
demonstrated. In conjunction with harvest restrictions, improving
water quality and removing impediments to migratory fishes will
have a positive impact on alosid stocks.
PROBLEM 4.1
Denial of access to spawning grounds by dams limits the
reproductive potential of shad and herring.
STRATEGY 4.1
The Chesapeake Bay Program's Fish Passage Workgroup has
analyzed the problem of impediments to alosid migration
and presented its recommendations for acceptance in
December 1988. Maryland will develop a multi-faceted
program based on the program's recommendations to restore
spawning habitat to migratory fishes by removing
blockages. Virginia, through its Anadromous Fish
Restoration Committee, will develop a comprehensive
inventory of dams and other impediments restricting the
migration of the shad and river herring to their
historical spawning grounds and establish fish passage
facilities. The Pennsylvania Fish Commission (PFC) will
continue to refine its inventory of low head dams through
SRAFRC and continue to promote fish passage at structures
on the Susquehanna River tributaries having the potential
for alosid spawning and nursery habitat. Maryland,
Virginia, District of Columbia, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and Corps of Engineers will continue its work for
fish passage at Little Falls and Rock Creek.
ACTION 4.1
The District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania and
Virginia will implement the plan adopted by the Fish
Passage Workgroup to remove fish barriers. Projects
include:
A) Permanent fish passage facilities are being
designed and will be constructed at Conowingo Dam
at a cost of $12.5 million. (1989)
B) Design planning and implementation of
fishways at Holtwood, Safe Harbor and York Haven
dams on the Susquehanna River. (In progress)
C) A comprehensive inventory of dams and other
impediments restricting the migration of shad and
32
-------
river herring to their historical spawning
grounds has been completed. (1989)
D) Removal of stream blockages, re-stocking efforts,
and construction of fish ladders at sites of
barriers on priority streams and rivers will
begin. (1990)
E) A demonstration fish ladder project has been
developed with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and
the town of Elkton as an example with public
access. (1989)
F) A program to reduce turbine mortalities by
implementing guidance and avoidance
techniques,i.e., use of fish attraction or
avoidance devices to guide shad away from
turbines to "sluice gate". (1991)
G) Fish passage facilities on the James and
Rappahannock Rivers will be established.
(Currently being implemented)
H) The recently constructed passage facility on the
Chickahominy River at Walker's Dam will be
evaluated for its effectiveness. (1990)
I) Fish passage facilities at Little Falls Dam
on the Potomac River will restore about 10 miles
of spawning habitat and at Rock Creek Park will
open an additional 5 miles of spawning habitat.
In addition to the strategies detailed in the Fish
Passage Plan, several aspects must be coordinated
with the Fishery Management Plan:
J) Sources of adult fish used for restocking areas
will be coordinated with other states and
agencies. (1990)
K) The reintroduction of alosid stocks will require
specific regulatory measures to protect the
newly-introduced fish until populations have been
established.
L) Monitoring is essential in gauging the impact of
fish passage projects on restoration efforts.
IMPLEMENTATION 4.1
Variable, depending on the specific project.
Problem 4.2
Restoration in the Susquehanna River through the
Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Committee
(SRAFRC) continue through the capture and transportation of
adult spawners to open flowing areas upstream from dams and
hatchery production of eggs, fry and juvenile shad for
stocking at facilities owned and operated by the Pennsylvania
Fish Commission (PFC), with major financial support from
upstream hydropower project owners. These stockings have
33
-------
occurred both below Conowingo Dam and above the other mainstem
Susquehanna River dams. There is uncertainty about the success
of outmigrating adult and juvenile alosids. The origins of
hatchery produced eggs, fry, and juvenile shad have been from
a variety of locations due to the scarcity of Susquehanna
River stock and the desire to have sufficient genetic
diversity resulting in a successful Susquehanna River
genetic strain. Presently there is a lack of knowledge about
the effects of combining outside genetic strains with the
endemic stock.
Strategy 4.2
Restoration of shad and river herring to suitable
unoccupied habitats will be accomplished by introducing
hatchery-raised juveniles or transplanting gravid adults.
Present policy fully supports the transportation of adult
shad using fish passage facilities at Conowingo Dam under
the assumption of reasonable outmigration. However, if
adequate outmigration is not obtained, then the effects
of transporting adults from the population below the dam
needs to be reevaluated.
ACTION 4.2.1
Maryland and Pennsylvania will continue to work
within SRAFRC's ongoing programs as described in the
annual work plan to evaluate methods for ensuring
successful downstream passage for juveniles and
adults. This will include spills, diversion devices,
and bypass systems.
IMPLEMENTATION 4.2.1
Annual activities as approved by SRAFRC members
ACTION 4.2.2
A) Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia working
within SRAFRC, will promote using Susquehanna
River brood stock for hatchery production.
B) Virginia will expand funding to the recently
constructed Pamunkey/Mattaponi Indian Reservation
shad hatcheries.
IMPLEMENTATION 4.2.2
Annual activities as approved by SRAFRC members
PROBLEM 4.3
Minimum flows are required at different life stages, i.e.,
spawning, hatching, juvenile growth, and adult migration.
Temporal changes in river flow and temperature during early
larval development are known to affect American shad year-
class strength in other systems. The effect of water
34
-------
withdrawal or water regulation at certain dams may interfere
with spawning success and juvenile survival.
STRATEGY 4.3.1
Technical issues concerning water quality standards for
dissolved oxygen and minimum flows in the Susquehanna
River below Conowingo Dam have been negotiated.
ACTION 4.3.1
The following technical issues have been accepted:
A) Adoption of Maryland water quality standard for
dissolved oxygen of 5.0 mg/liter in the
Susquehanna River below the Conowingo Dam (1989)
B) Installation of turbine venting systems and
intake air injection capabilities (1991)
C) Operation of turbines as necessary to meet
the D.O. standard (1989)
D) Monitored spills as necessary (1989)
E) A schedule of minimum and continuous flows (1989)
IMPLEMENTATION 4.3.1
Variable
PROBLEM 4.4
Water quality can be affected by water diversion which
impacts dissolved oxygen, water temperature, sedimentation,
soil erosion, eutrophication, and related substrate
alteration. All of these water quality aspects can
impact alosid stocks.
STRATEGY 4.4
Maryland DNR has proposed new criteria for use in the
revised water use classification and water quality
standards system setting standards for temperature,
dissolved oxygen, pH, amount of suspended solids and
a number of "priority pollutants" in anadromous fish
spawning areas.
ACTION 4.4
Establish new categories in the water
classification system to guide resource
management based on the physical habitat and
water quality characteristics. The revised system
would define anadromous fish spawning areas as
either Class II waters (fresh, nontidal warm water
streams, creeks and rivers) or Class III waters
(tidal estuarine waters and Chesapeake Bay).
IMPLEMENTATION 4.4
1990
35
-------
PROBLEM 4.5
Although water quality problems are strongly suspected as
contributing to alosid stock declines, the actual
mechanisms decreasing survival have not been precisely
identified. State water quality standards must be maintained
for all species in the Bay.
STRATEGY 4.5
The District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania and
Virginia will cooperatively evaluate the available
scientific data on the effects of impaired water quality
on alosids as a means of developing more effective water
quality criteria for spawning and hatching areas and take
action now to reduce pollution from several sources.
ACTION 4.5
The first three action items are commitments under
the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Maryland DNR,
PFC, DC and VMRC will not carry out the specific
commitments, but are involved in setting the
objectives of the programs to fulfill the
commitments and reviewing the results of the action
programs. The achievement of these commitments will
lead to improved water quality and enhanced
biological production.
A) Develop and adopt a basinwide plan that will
achieve a 40% reduction of nutrients entering the
Chesapeake Bay by the year 2000.
1) Construct public and private sewage facilities.
2) Reduce the discharge of untreated or
inadequately treated sewage.
3) Establish and enforce nutrient and conventional
pollutant limitations in regulated discharges.
4) Reduce levels of nutrients and other
conventional pollutants in runoff from
agricultural and forested lands.
5) Reduce levels of nutrients and other
conventional pollutants in urban runoff.
B) Develop and adopt a basinwide plan for the
reduction and control of toxic materials entering
the Chesapeake Bay system from point and nonpoint
sources and from bottom sediments.
1) Reduce discharge of metals and organic
compounds from sewage treatment plants
receiving industrial wastewater.
2) Reduce the discharge of metals and organic
compounds from industrial sources.
3) Reduce levels of metals and organic compounds
in urban and agriculture runoff.
36
-------
4) Reduce chlorine discharges to critical finfish
areas.
C) Develop and adopt a basinwide plan for the
management of conventional pollutants entering
the Chesapeake Bay from point and nonpoint
sources.
1) Manage sewage sludge, dredge spoil and
hazardous wastes.
2) Improve dissolved oxygen concentrations in the
Chesapeake Bay through the reduction of
nutrients from both point and nonpoint
sources.
3) Continue study of the impacts of acidic
conditions on water quality.
4) Manage groundwater to protect the water quality
of the Chesapeake Bay.
5) Continue research to refine strategies to
reduce point and nonpoint sources of nutrient,
toxic and convential pollutants in the
Chesapeake Bay.
D) Develop and adopt a plan for continued research
and monitoring of the impacts and causes of
acidic atmospheric deposition into the Chesapeake
Bay. This plan is complemented by Marylands
research and monitoring program on the sources,
effects, and control of acid deposition as
defined by Natural Resources Article Title 3,
Subtitle 3A, (Acid Deposition: Sections
3-3A-01 through 3-3A-04).
1) Determine the relative contributions to acid
deposition from various sources of acid
deposition precursor emissions and identify
any regional variability.
2) Assess the consequences of the environmental
impacts of acid deposition on water quality.
3) Identify and evaluate the effectiveness and
economic costs of technologies and noncontrol
mitigative techniques that are feasible to
control acid deposition into the Bay
IMPLEMENTATION 4.5
Variable, depending on the specific project.
37
------- |