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.   /./
'' _Jú 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

-------