EPA903-R-95-016
CBP/TRS141/95
ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS
1994
Alosid
Blue Crab
Oyster
Bluefish
Weakfish/Spotted Seatrout
Summer Flounder
Atlantic Croaker/Spot
American Eel
Black Drum
Red Drum
October 1995
Chesapeake Bay Prograi
-------
ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS
1994
Alosid
Blue Crab
Oyster
Bluefish
Weakfish/Spotted Seatrout
Summer Flounder
Atlantic Croaker/Spot
American Eel
Black Drum
Red Drum
prepared by
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Virginia Marine Fisheries Commission
October 1995
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
for the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES iv
LIST OF TABLES iv
Chapter 1
Introduction 1
Atlantic Coast Cooperative Statistics Program
1
Habitat Overview 2
Chapter 2
Alosid (Shad & Herring) Management Plan
4
Introduction 4
Stock Status 5
Declining Abundance 5
Potential for Overfishing 7
Research and Monitoring 8
Habitat Loss and Degradation 8
Conclusion 9
References 9
Chesapeake Bay Alosid Implementation Matrix 10
Chapters
Blue Crab Management Plan 12
Introduction 12
Fishing Pressure 12
Wasteful Harvesting Practices 16
Stock Assessment and Research Needs 16
Regulatory Issues 16
Habitat Issues 17
Conclusion 17
References 18
1995 (1996) Blue Crab Management Plan Implementation Matrix 19
Chapter 4
1994 Oyster Fishery Management Plan 27
Introduction 27
Disease 27
Repletion Programs 27
Habitat/Water Quality 27
Management to Increase Oyster Production 28
Collection of Management Quality Data 28
Management for Maryland Oyster Recovery Areas (ORAs) 28
-------
Current Status of the Oyster Fishery 28
Conclusion 29
1994 Oyster Implementation Matrix 31
Chapters
Bluefish Fishery Management Plan 37
Introduction 37
Stock Status and Increased Fishing Pressure 38
Wasteful Harvest Practices 39
Research and Monitoring 40
Conclusion 40
References 40
Bluefish Implementation Matrix 42
Chapter6
Weakfish/Spotted Seatrout Fishery Management Plan 43
Introduction 43
Overfishing and Stock Status 44
Research and Monitoring 47
Conclusion 47
References 47
Weakfish/Spotted Seatrout Implementation Matrix 49
Chapter 7
Summer Flounder Fishery Management Plan 51
Introduction 51
Stock Status 51
Overfishing 53
Stock Assessment and Research Needs 55
Conclusion 55
References 56
Summer Flounder Imple mentation Matrix 57
Chapters
Atlantic Croaker and Spot Fishery Management Plan 59
Introduction ' 59
Status of the Stock and Fishery 59
Increase Yield-Per-Recruit 63
Harvest of Small Croaker and Spot 63
Research and Monitoring Needs 63
Conclusion 64
References 64
Atlantic Croaker and Spot Implementation Matrix 65
Chapter 9
America! Eel Management Plan 67
Introduction 67
11
-------
Stock Status 67
American Eel Fishery 69
ResearchNeeds 69
Habitat and Water Quality Issues 69
Conclusions 70
American Eel Implementation Matrix 71
Chapter 10
Black Drum Fishery Management Plan 72
Status of Stocks 72
Fishing Mortality 73
Gear Conflicts 75
Conclusion 75
References 75
Black Drum Implementation Matrix 76
Chapter 11
Red Drum Fishery Management Plan 77
Introduction 77
Overfishing 77
Stock Assessment and ResearchNeeds 78
Conclusion 79
References 80
Red Drum Implementation Matrix 81
111
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 American shad population estimates for the upper Bay 5
Figure 2.2 American shad landings from the Atlantic Ocean & seaside bays 7
Figure 3.1 Maryland commercial blue crab landings and value 13
Figure 3.2 Virginia blue crab commercial landings and value 14
Figure 4.1 Maryland commercial oyster landings by seasoa 29
Figure 4.2 Virginia oyster ground production by season. 30
Figure 5.1 Estimated spawning stock biomass for Atlantic coast bluefish stock 38
Figure 6.1 Maryland commercial landings for weakfish. 45
Figure 6.2 Virginia commercial landings for weakfish. 46
Figure 7.1 Exploitation rates for summer flounder stock 52
Figure 7.2 Estimated spawning stock biomass for summer flounder 54
Figure 7.3 Summer flounder juvenile indices from Maryland & Virginia 56
Figure 8.1 Recreational catch estimates for croaker in Maryland 59
Figure 8.2 Commercial croaker landings in Virginia 60
Figure 8.3 Commercial croaker landings in Maryland. 60
Figure 8.4 Recreation catch estimates for spot in Maryland 61
Figure 8.5 Commercial spot landings in Virginia..... 62
Figure 8.6 Commercial spot landings in Maryland. 62
Figure 9.1 Reported American eel commercial landings from Maryland. 68
Figure 9.2 American eel commercial landings from Virginia. 68
Figure 10.1 Black drum length frequencies in Virginia's commercial fishery 72
Figure 10.2 Virginia black drum citations 73
Figure 10.3 Virginia commercial black drum landings 74
Figure 10.4 Maryland commercial black drum landings 75
Figure 11.1 Red drum length frequencies in Virginia's commercial fishery 78
Figure 11.2 Virginia red drum citations 79
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Schedule for reviewing fishery management plans 2
Table 3.1 Estimated absolute abundance and rate of exploitation in Chesapeake Bay
from winter dredge survey 12
Table 7.1 Management measures implemented for the summer flounder stock. 53
IV
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
The development of fishery management plans (FMPs) began in 1987 with the signing of the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Since then, 13 FMPs encompassing 19 species have been completed and
adopted through the Chesapeake Bay Program (Table 1.1). The adoption of a FMP is not an endpoint in the
management of a fishery but part of a dynamic, changing process. Plans must be adaptive and flexible to
meet the changing needs of a particular resource. Once the concerns and management strategies of a fishery
have been defined and implemented, progress towards meeting the goals and objectives must be evaluated. As
part of the process of establishing accountability and tracking the implementation of management actions,
each FMP is annually reviewed and updated. This report reviews the progress of management plans during
1994 and includes the following species: American shad, hickory shad, blueback herring, alewife herring,
blue crab, oyster, bluefish, weakfish, spotted seatrout, summer flounder, spot, croaker, American eel, black
drum and red drum. The status of the striped bass resource is considered in a separate report, the 1994
Annual Progress Report for Striped Bass. The FMPs for horseshoe crabs and Spanish/king mackerel were
adopted in October 1994, and will not be reviewed until next year.
After the narrative for each FMP, a table provides a synopsis of the actions, dates, and relative
comments regarding the action's implementation. Since habitat issues relate to a number of species, a general
overview is provided in the introduction. Specific habitat issues relating to a particular species are covered in
the review for that species. For previous updates, refer to the FMP Annual Progress Reports beginning in
1990 to the present.
Atlantic Coast Cooperative Statistics Program
A recurrent issue for Chesapeake Bay finfish and shellfish species is better data on commercial and
recreational landings and the coordination and exchange of data between state and federal agencies and
research institutions. The increased complexity of fishery management issues and the limited budgets of state
and federal agencies have caused problems with fishery data collection. During 1994, the ASMFC formed a
Statistics Policy Committee (SPC) to address the problem of data collection for commercial and recreational
fisheries from the Atlantic coast. The overall goal is to implement a cooperative statistics program among
state and federal agencies to plan, coordinate, and evaluate marine fisheries data collection and data
management activities. The ASMFC has identified the following attributes to characterize this program: 1)
the development of a cost-effective, dependable and accurate data base; 2) a cooperative coastwide effort
among state and federal agencies involved in the collection, compilation, and management of marine fisheries
statistics; 3) the collection of both commercial and recreational statistics to provide the general public,
fishermen, fishery managers and stock assessment biologists with the best available scientific technical data;
4) a means to ensure timely communication of statistics among interested parties; 5) the avoidance of
duplicate sampling efforts between state and federal data; 6) a means to pursue long-term funding for the
continuation and expansion of a coastwide data collection system; and 7) a means to ensure compatibility and
continuity of data between all state and federal collection programs. In order to implement the statistics
program, ASMFC has scheduled a series of workshops during 1995. These workshops will be the first steps
in implementing an Atlantic coast cooperative statistics program which will improve the management of all
marine finfish species. In addition, catch and effort statistics calculated from the Marine Recreational Fishery
Statistics Survey (MRFSS) are being revised to improve their accuracy. The improvements in coastwide data
collection will benefit the management efforts in the Bay and improve state fishery statistics.
-------
Table 1.1. Schedule for reviewing fishery management plans
SPECIES
Shad/Herring
Blue Crab
Oysters
Striped Bass
Weakfish/Seatrout
Bluefish
Croaker/Spot
American Eel
Summer Flounder
Black Drum
Red Drum
Mackerel
Horseshoe Crabs
Black Sea Bass
Catfish
Tautog
Menhaden
COMPLETION
DATE
1989
1989
1989
1989
1990
1990
1991
1991
1991
1993
1993
1994
1994
Octl995
Dec 1995
1996
1996
REVIEW
DATE
6/95 - 10/95
1995-1996
10/94
8/95 - 12/95
3/96
6/95 - 10/95
1996
1996
3/96
1997
1998
1999
2000
2000
2001
2001
The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) is also working to improve fisheries data. The CBP will
establish a workgroup to assess and evaluate existing ecological resource inventories used by Federal
agencies and make recommendations to improve coordination, compatibility, standardization and interagency
transfer of information. To date, a data center director has been hired to assess data resources and needs, and
draft an integration plan. A CBP conference on data coordination is planned for 1995.
Habitat Overview
The ASMFC has formed a Habitat Committee to discuss and work on habitat issues as they relate to
fishery management. Currently, the habitat program is focusing on an education program, fact sheets on the
habitat requirements for recreationally important finfish species, an educational display for trade shows, and
the development of a habitat section for a weakfish amendment. Workshops are being planned for 1995 to
increase understanding of the relative functions and value of shallow water habitats and the development of
research priorities associated with shallow water, and a workshop to develop standards that define essential
habitat for finfish species. The Standards and Procedures Working Group has begun work on the interstate
-------
management plans that includes a habitat standard for all ASMFC FMPs. Each ASMFC FMP will be
required to contain fish habitat information important to the stocks and ecosystem operation. The Chesapeake
Bay Program FMPs will utilize the habitat outline developed by ASMFC as a guideline for improving the
habitat sections in each of the new Bay FMPs being developed and revise the habitat sections of the adopted
plans as they are reviewed (see Table 1.1 for review dates).
The Bay FMPs have continued to reflect the work of the Chesapeake Bay Program's (CBP) habitat
and living resource restoration programs. The CBP was established in 1983 and is a voluntary partnership
among Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and
the Environmental Protection Agency. The Program addresses the prevention and abatement of pollution; the
conservation and restoration offish, wildlife, and habitat; the enhancement of public access to the Bay and its
tributaries; public education; and the overall health of the Bay. The following information highlights CBP
accomplishments during 1994 that relate to fisheries issues.
The Chesapeake Bay Agreement was amended in 1992 to include tributary-specific plans to reduce
nutrient pollution into the Bay. Since the tributary strategies focus on watersheds instead of county or state
boundaries, they provide a comprehensive management approach which integrates nutrient reduction efforts,
habitat restoration, growth management and planning, preservation of agricultural lands, protection of
drinking water reservoirs and aquifers, and other initiatives to promote a healthy environment. Part of the
Maryland Tributary Strategy goal is to implement nutrient management plans on 60% or 1.2 million acres of
agricultural cropland by the year 2000. As of mid-1994,507,000 acres are being protected under state-
approved plans which are designed to reduce nutrient runoff from farm fields. Maryland's Nutrient
Management Program helps manage nutrients from animal wastes, commercial fertilizers, and urban sludge.
To date, significant progress has been made to reduce nutrients entering the Bay. Maryland has reduced
nitrogen entering tidal waters by 17% and phosphorus by 27%. Strategies for the lower Bay tributaries of the
Rappahannock, York, James, and the western and eastern shore of Virginia will be developed by 1995.
Studies indicate that these areas impact the Bay's nutrient problems to a lesser degree and require strategies
specific to the areas. Refer to the document, "Achieving the Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Goals: A Synthesis of
Tributary Strategies for the Bays's Ten Watersheds, October 1994, for more details.
Efforts to restore habitats for living resources were strengthened with the adoption of "Chesapeake
Bay Habitat Restoration: A Framework for Action" document. It provides a foundation for integrating
restoration activities in four areas: freshwater tributaries and streams for anadromous fish; shallow water for
juvenile fish, crabs, diving ducks and herons; open water for adult fish, shellfish and waterfowl; and inlands
and islands for waterfowl and migratory song birds. Habitat restoration projects currently include: removal of
barriers to migratory fish, protection of eroding Bay islands and wetlands, the creation of aquatic reefs,
restoration of riparian (stream) buffers, and the restoration of water quality conditions to support SAV.
A strong link between water quality and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) has been made in the
Chesapeake Bay. SAVs provide critical habitat for fish and blue crabs. From 1978 to 1993, the abundance of
SAV has increased by 75%, from 41,700 acres to 73,000 acres. SAV distribution and abundance is now used
as a health barometer of the Bay. An SAV restoration goal of 114,000 acres baywide was defined in 1993.
At current recovery rates, this goal should be achieved by 2005. Targets have also been proposed for SAV
density and species diversity.
-------
Chapter 2
Alosid (Shad & Herring) Management Plan
Introduction
In 1989, a Chesapeake Bay (CB) Alosid FMP was developed for American shad (Alosa
sapidissima), hickory shad (A. mediocris), blueback herring (A. aestivalis), and alewife herring (A.
pseudoharengus). The plan defined problems associated with declining abundance, the potential for
overfishing, research and monitoring efforts, and habitat loss and degradatioa The 1989 plan has been
reviewed each year since 1990. In order to improve the effectiveness of the fishery management process, the
FMP workgroup developed a revision schedule for each FMP. The CB Alosid FMP is scheduled for a
substantive review in June 1995. The FMP workgroup will evaluate each strategy and action item in the 1989
plan for its effectiveness in reaching the plan's objectives and make a decision to either revise or amend the
plan, based on the current stock status and monitoring and research assessments. The workgroup will also
consider the proposed stock restoration targets for American shad recommended in the Fisheries Target
Setting Task Force Report to the Living Resources Subcommittee (in preparation). An Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) Shad and River Herring plan was developed in 1985 and was used as a
source document for the development of the CB Alosid FMP. There is concern that the plan does not
adequately address the current status of the resource. Consequently, the ASMFC FMP is under review and
the preparation of Amendment 1 to the FMP has been initiated. The amendment is expected to be completed
in spring of 1996. The current mandatory requirements of the ASMFC Shad and River Herring FMP and
implementation schedule are as follows:
1) Each state will monitor and document existing and new EEZ (3-200 miles) and territorial sea
fisheries for anadromous alosids, and report this information to ASMFC.
2) Each state shall evaluate the potential for anadromous alosid restoration within their internal
waters, and provide it to ASMFC along with a summary description of ongoing restoration efforts,
and a statement of anticipated restoration activities for the next five years.
An additional compliance statement was also discussed. It stated that: "all east coast states will recognize the
priority rights of traditional fisheries in internal waters that target resident stocks, while not encouraging new
intercept fisheries in the territorial seas waters. Such fisheries should not be encouraged and, if evidence
suggests they pose a threat to any single stock of shad, steps should be taken to prohibit them" (ASMFC
1994). The ASMFC Management & Science Committee decided that this recommendation did not constitute
a compliance measure and was omitted from the list of state compliance requirements.
Currently, there is a moratorium on the harvest of American shad from the Chesapeake Bay and
tributaries. The prohibition on the harvest of American shad has been in effect since 1980 in Maryland's
portion of the Bay and since January 1,1994, in Virginia's waters. Maryland also placed a mortatorium on
hickory shad harvest in 1981. The Potomac River allows 2 fish/person/day or 2% tolerance on the harvest of
American and hickory shad in their pound net fishery. In Pennsylvania, no harvest of alosids is permitted
within the Susquehanna River basin. Harvest of shad is permitted along the Maryland and Virginia coasts.
Maryland has a coastal shad season from February 4 through April 30.
-------
Stock Status
The Atlantic coast stock of American shad appears to be in a very depressed condition (Hattala, Shad
Technical Committee). There has been a decreasing trend in the number of shad caught along the Atlantic coast for
the past few years. Several hypotheses have been suggested to account for the decline. They are: 1) overharvest by
riverine commercial and ocean intercept fisheries; 2) stock displacement or enhanced mortality due to colder than
normal ocean water temperatures; and 3) increased predation on either adult and/or juvenile fish (Savoy and
Crecco 1994). Data from the Connecticut River was used to test the predation hypothesis and preliminary results
suggest that alosid mortality rates are positively correlated with the relative abundance of striped bass and
bluefish. Currently, there is insufficient data to determine the actual cause or causes for the decline along the coast
(Winslow 1994). An unresolved problem for the stock is the occurrence of both ocean and river fisheries. Riverine
fisheries are not a problem in the Chesapeake Bay because of the current moratorium. A coastwide stock
assessment of American shad has been hindered because there is no standard reporting.
Declining Abundance
American Shad
The upper Bay alosid population has been monitored annually since 1979. Estimates of shad
abundance have been
Figure 2.1. American shad population estimates for the upper Bay
200
150
100
50
Thousands of fish
calculated based on
tag-recapture results.
The 1994 population
estimate of American
shad in the upper
Chesapeake Bay was
129,482 fish with
95% confidence
intervals between
110,576 and 151,597.
This was an increase
from the 1993 value
of 47,563 but not as
high as the 1991
value (Figure 2.1).
Average annual
mortality for adult
American shad in the
upper Bay has been
72% for males and
86% for females
(1985-1993). A
significant decrease in
mean length for nearly all age
groups in the upper Bay has been observed from 1980-1993 (Markham et al. 1994). Maryland and Virginia will
continue their moratorium on the harvest of American shad from the Chesapeake Bay. Maryland will also continue
the moratorium on hickory shad, hi Maryland, removing the moratorium will be considered when the annual
population estimate from the upper Bay increases for three consecutive years and stock size reaches at least 50%
of historical levels (approximately 500,000 fish) during one of those three years (1989 Chesapeake Bay Alosid
80 81 82 83 84 85 86
Bars indicate 95% confidence ranges
87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94
-------
FMP). The target for lifting the moratorium will be evaluated when the CB Alosid plan is reviewed in 1995 and
new restoration targets proposed by the Fisheries Task Force will be considered. In Virginia, 1994 was the first
year that the harvest of American shad was prohibited in the Bay. In 1993, Virginia allowed a brief, 30 day harvest
season.
Alewife and Blueback Herring
In the last 10 years, Atlantic coast river herring harvest have ranged between 4.6 and 14.5 million pounds
(ASMFC 1994). During 1994, river herring harvest was 96,112 pounds and 120,500 pounds from Maryland and
Virginia, respectively. River herring commercial landings from the Chesapeake Bay decreased considerably in the
mid-1970's and have been harvested at relatively low levels since then. Traditionally, the majority of the river
herring harvest from the mid-Atlantic region was harvested by Maryland and Virginia Landings from both the
New England and South Atlantic regions have shown a downward trend in river herring harvest.
Hickory Shad
There is a lack of commercial and recreational harvest data for hickory shad which makes it difficult to
make any stock assessment. Historically, they have occurred as far north as New England and south to Florida, and
have a similar life history to American shad. To date, management strategies in the Chesapeake Bay have not been
specific to hickory shad. There has been a moratorium on the harvest of hickory shad from the Maryland portion of
the Bay since 1981. Atlantic coast commercial harvest of hickory shad has been as high as 350,000 pounds
(1961), but most recently has been less than 10,000 pounds.
Susquehanna River Restoration
During 1994, the shad restoration program continued stock rebuilding activities similar to previous years.
Since 1976, anadromous fish restoration activities have been guided by the Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish
Restoration Committee (SRAFRC). As a result of a new fish passage settlement agreement in 1993, the utility
companies will no longer participate in SRAFRC activities after 1994. The 1993 agreement provides for design,
construction, and operation of permanent fish passage facilities at all projects; establishes Fish Passage Technical
Advisory Committees for each project; continues trap and transfer of shad from Conowingo until faculties are
operational at Holtwood and Safe Harbor (1997); and, provides limited funding for shad hatchery operations and
related activites until York Haven completes its fish passage project (2000). Although the committee will be
reorganized, it still recognizes the need for a unified approach to planning, management, and stock enhancement.
The Committee will continue to provide a forum for information exchange; plan and implement anadromous stock
rebuilding programs; coordinate research activities to assess the restoration program; establish and maintain a
comprehensive database; and, coordinate the construction, operation, and evaluation offish passage facilities on
the Susquehanna River (Draft Charter, 9/94).
A total of 32,330 adult American shad were collected at the Conowingo fish lifts during 1994 and
approximately 29,000 were transported upstream. Observed transport and delayed mortality was 1.8%. The West
hit operating procedures were hindered during 1994 by inadequate attraction flows due to the season-long outage
of one of the house units which supplies water to the facility. The West lift usually accounts for 44% of the total
shad catch at Conowingo and during 1994, only amounted to about 17% of the total. The American shad catch
was the highest on record, but the other Alosa species were near record low number. There were 2,851 blueback
herring, 75 alewife herring, and 2 hickory shad. Lack of herring was directly attributable to flow and attraction
problems at the West lift.
Peak outmigration for juvenile shad above Conowingo occurred in October. Catch per effort during this
-------
time period was 2.46, a decrease from the long-term average of 6.74 (SRAFRC Technical Meeting, December,
1994). Catch effectiveness was adversely affected by water clarity which allowed shad to avoid being caught.
Otolith analysis was completed on adult shad (n=287) from Conowingo. Results indicate that only 10% of the
otoliths showed wild microstructure. Additional otoliths (n=59) taken from adults sampled from Susquehanna
Flats showed that 44% were wild. A total of 664 juvenile shad otoliths were analyzed during 1994. Hatchery
origin fish comprised between 50% and 82% of the juvenile fish sampled above the dams. The proportion of wild
juveniles (n=54) sampled below Conowingo Dam was 61%.
Potential for Overfishing
hi August, 1994, Maryland proposed a regulation to prohibit the harvest of American shad from Maryland
coastal waters. To date, no action has been taken on the regulation. Maryland coastal shad landings have ranged
from 20,000 to 487,800 pounds between 1983 and 1994 (Figure 2.2), with an average of 168,334 pounds per
year. The 1994 coastal harvest was 38,500 pounds. Virginia coastal shad landings have ranged from 300,000
pounds to 490,000 pounds from 1985-1993. In 1994, they decreased to 311,000 pounds.
Figure 2.2. American shad landings from the Atlantic Ocean &
seaside bays
Thousands
1983 1964 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
| E3 Maryland BBVirginia
According to the findings of the ASMFC Shad and Herring Technical Committee, alosid bycatch is
declining. The river herring bycatch in the menhaden and mackerel fisheries will continue to be monitored.
-------
Research and Monitoring
Maryland DNR has characterized the adult American shad and river herring spawning stocks since 1979.
The 1989 year-class (age 5, sexes combined) was the most abundant year-class sampled in the upper Bay during
1994 while the 1990 year-class (age 4, sexes combined) was most abundant in the Nanticoke River. The number
of repeat spawners increased in the upper Bay but showed no linear trend in the Nanticoke River. Estimates of
total annual mortality increased during 1994 which suggests continued exploitation of the upper Bay population
despite the moratorium on harvest (Markham et al. 1995). During 1994, catch-per-unit-of-effort (CPUE) for adult
alewife herring increased slightly and blueback herring CPUE decreased. Estimates of river herring mortality from
the Nanticoke River system have been relatively low with a stable age composition (Markham et al. 1994).
During 1994,1,323 American shad were sampled by the VMRC Stock Assessment Program. The mean
total length of the 1994 collection was 508 mm (20 inches). The VMRC program also collected 300 American
shad for use in a genetic identification study being conducted by the Virginia Commonwealth University.
Juvenile finfish surveys have been used to develop alosid indices of abundance. These indices measure the
relative size of each new year class. In Maryland, juvenile alosids are sampled from the Patuxent, Chester,
Choptank and Nanticoke rivers (May-Sept). Since 1985, juvenile alewife herring in all river systems have been
increasing. Juvenile blueback herring have shown a marginal increase over the same time period (Markham et al.
1995). Trends in juvenile herring abundance have been difficult to detect since the indices tend to fluctuate with
environmental conditions. A total of 36 juvenile shad were collected by electrofishing from the Susquehanna Flats
between August and November. Otolith analysis indicated 60% were of wild origin and 40% were hatchery fish
(n=55). No significant trend in juvenile American shad abundance has been detected since 1990. An additional 22
shad were caught by Maryland's Estuarine Finfish Recruitment Project (surveys the Potomac, Nanticoke, and
Choptank Rivers and upper Bay). American shad indices from this project have averaged 0.69 fish per seine haul
(1966-1994). The 1994 index (0.27) was below the average, but was a slight increase from 1993 (0.19). The
VIMS juvenile trawl survey provides some information on the abundance of alewife herring in Virginia rivers
(James, York and Rappahannock Rivers). Over the last 12 years, the alewife index has ranged between 0.02
(1991) and 0.90 (1981). Since the low in 1991, the index has gradually been increasing to a high of 0.71 (1993)
(Bonzeketal. 1995).
As part of the American shad restoration efforts in the Bay, MDNR and the Potomac Electric Power
company began a program in 1992 to propagate and stock hatchery-raised shad in the Patuxent River.
Approximately 1.0 million juvenile shad were released into the river during 1994. A proportion of the juvenile fish
have been tagged with coded wire tags for future identification and evaluation. The river will be monitored to
determine the survival of juvenile shad but the full impact of the effort will not be measured for another three or
four years when the adults return to spawa
Habitat Loss and Degradation
The Fish Passage Restoration Program has been successful in opening spawning habitat to anadromous
fish. In Virginia, a total of 88.6 miles of blocked spawning habitat has been reopened. For Bay tributaries in
Virginia, the total 10-year goal is to reopen 413 miles of anadromous fish spawning habitat. Six dams are
currently on schedule for fish passage. They are: Basher's Dam on the James River/ Ashland Mill Dam on the
South Anna River; Ruffins Mill Pond Dam on Massaponax Creek; Chandler's Mill Pond Dam on Chandler's Mill
Run; Harvell Dam on the Appomattox River; and, Embrey Dam on the Rappahannock River.
8
-------
Chemical (Hg, Pb, Cd, Zn, Cu) sensitivity experiments on shad larvae were conducted during 1994.
Preliminary results indicate that American shad are very sensitive to chemical toxins, overlapping the sensitivity of
striped bass. These results suggest significant implications for water quality requirements in targeted shad
restoration areas and further studies have been proposed (memo from Hartwell, Sept. 1994).
Conclusion
The Alosa populations in the Chesapeake Bay continue to occur in low abundance. The population
estimate of American shad in the upper Bay increased during 1994 in spite of a general decline in their abundance
along the Atlantic coast. The Fish Passage Program continues to open additional habitat for spawning alosids.
Areas to be emphasized during 1995 are:
1) Conduct a thorough review of the 1989 Chesapeake Bay Alosid Fishery Management Plan and decide
whether a revision is necessary;
2) Continue to participate in reevaluating the ASMFC coastal shad and herring FMP;
3) Continue to monitor the coastal harvest of American shad and evaluate the need for more restrictive
harvest measures;
4) Continue to collect basic biological information on the stock status of alosids in Chesapeake Bay; and,
5) Continue to work with the Fish Passage Program to open potential spawning areas.
References
Atlantc States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 1994. 1994 Annual review of interstate fishery
management plans. Special Report No. 33, ASMFC Commission and Science Committee.
Bonzek, C., P.J. Geer, and H. Austin. 1995. Juvenile fish trawl survey, 1979-1994. Virginia Institute of Marine
Science, February, 1995.
Loesch, J.G. and S.M. Atran. 1994. History of Alosa fisheries management: Virginia, a case study. Anadromous
Alosa Symposium, Tidewater chapter, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, p. 1-6.
Markham, C.A., J.P. Mowrer, A.A. Jarzynski, R.A. Sadzinski, and D.R. Weinrich. 1995. Investigation of
anadromous alosids in Chesapeake Bay. U.S. Fish & Wildlife, F-37-R, Federal Aid Annual Report.
Savoy, T. and V. Crecco. 1994. Factors affecting the recent decline of blueback herring and American shad in the
Connecticut River. Ct. Fisheries Division. Report to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, October
1994.
Winslow, S.E. 1994. American shad fisheries of North Carolina with emphasis on the Albemarle Sound area.
Anadromous Alosa Symposium, Tidewater Chapter, American Fisheries Society, pp 72-80.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Alosid Implementation Matrix
Problem Area
1. Declining alosid
abundance
2. Overfishing
3. Stock Assessment
Action
1.1.1 Continue shad moratorium in MD's portion of the Chesapeake Bay.
1. 1.2 VA wilt follow ASMFC recommendation to limit exploitation rate on shad and
herring to 25%.
1.2 Control river herring catch, including: by system, regulate areas slated for
restoration, gear and/or seasonal restrictions.
1.3 Hickory shad fishery will follow the same management actions as for shad fishery
(see Action 1.1.1).
1 .4 Protection will be given to alosids in the Susquehanna as restoration efforts
continue.
2. 1 Jurisdictions will participate in the ongoing ASMFC alosid management program,
with the goal of providing adqueate protection to the component of the coastal stock
which returns to the Chesapeake Bay to spawn.
2.2 A) Implement a coastal shad tagging program to determine which stocks are being
exploited in the intercept fishery.
B) Control the coastal intercept fishry through a combination of gear restrictions,
seasonal and areal closures, and barest limits.
C) Continue to monitor and document the territorial seas intercept fishery for
American shad.
2.3. 1 Virginia will control river herring harvest during spawning migrations through
gear restrictions & spawning area closures.
2.3.2 MD & VA will monitor river herring bycatch through the MAFMC.
3 . 1 Continue to collect alosid data:
a) Collect alosid juvenile data;
b) MD will continue project in upper Bay to estimate adult shad;
c) VA will improve the assessment of shad stocks in territorial waters & improve
catch & effort data through mandatory reporting.
d) Continue VMRC stock assessment:
Date
Continue
1994
Continue
Continue
1994
1990
Continue
Continue
Continue
1991-
1992
1994
1994
1992
In effect
Continue
Continue
Continue
Continue
Comments
The 1994 population estimate for aduh American shad in the upper Bay
was 129,482 fish. This was an increase from the 1993 estimate of
47,563 fish.
VA implemented a moratorium on the harvest of American shad from
the Bay in 1994.
DCFM implemented a moratorium on shad during 1992.
PRFC will continue their 2 fish/person/clay creel limit
VA implemented a moratorium on shad harvest from the Bay during
1994.
No restrictions have been implemented for river herring.
MD (1981) and DC (1992) will continue moratorium on hickory shad.
PRFC will continue 2 fish/person/day creel limit.
MD.VA and PRFC are participating in the the development of
Amendment # 1 for the ASMFC Shad and Herring FMP. Tentative
completion date is spring 1996.
Results from the tagging study indicate that the coastal fishery is mixed
and highly variable from year to year.
Coastal shad seasons were in effect in MD & VA in 1992. MD continue
a season during 1993 & 1994 (Feb-Apr). MD also proposed a regulation
to prohibit the harvest of shad from coastal waters but no action was
taken in 1994. VA had no coastal season during 1993 or 1994.
MD coastal landings were 38,500 Ibs. & VA landings were xxxxxxx Ibs.
during 1994.
VA restricted the use of commercial fishing gear in the spawning areas in
the Chickahominy River below Walker's Dam.
River herring bycatch is being monitored under the MAFMC Squid,
Mackerel and Butterfish FMP.
On-going VIMS, MDNR and DCFM alosid juvenile surveys.
Aduh shad work on the Nanticoke River was discontinued because of
lack of tag returns.
10
-------
Problem Area
4. Habitat Loss and
Degradation
4. Habitat Loss and
Degradation (cont'd)
Action
e) VA will initiate ocean intercept tagging program;
f) MD will examine exploitation rates of herring in selected tributaries & improve
landings data;
g) VA will implement a survey of alosid spawning grounds & associated biological
data;
h) A joint effort will be made to investigate the status of shad in the Potomac.
4. 1 Implement the Chesapeake Bay Fish Passage Plan:
A) - 1) Implement various fish passage projects.
J) Coordinate resources for restocking efforts.
K) Establish measures to protect reintroduced fish stocks.
L) Monitor impact offish passage projects.
4.2. 1 MD & PA will continue to work within SRAFRC's ongoing programs to ensure
downstream passage for juveniles and adults.
4.2.2 A) Promote use of Susquehanna brood stock for PA restocking.
B) VA will expand funding for Pamunkey/Mattaponi shad hatcheries.
4.3 A) - E) Technical issues regarding water quality at Conowing Dam.
4.4 Establish new water classification system based on living resources, habitat, and
water quality.
4.5 Promote Bay Agreement water quality commitments.
Date
1991-
1992
Continue
Continue
Variable
Continue
1990
Continue
Continue
Continue
1993
Continue
Variable
Comments
Tagging work completed in 1992. Results indicated coastal catch is
mixed and highly variable.
Mortality rates have been calculated for herring on the Nanticoke River.
DCFM has been sampling the upper Potomac for shad and river herring
since 1991.
Refer to Fish Passage Plan and Annual Progress Rept. for details.
Approximately 1 .0 million hatchery-raised shad were released into the
Patuxent River during 1994. Restoration efforts continued on the
Susquehanna River.
Regulations to protect reintroduced herring have not been implemented
in Maryland.
Biological monitoring has occurred on a limited basis. The utilization of
new fish passage facilities has been documented. Funding not available
for extensive coverage.
Standards were implemented in 1989 and have been monitored ever
since.
Preliminary American shad baseline water quality sensitivity studies
were conducted in 1994. Results indicate that shad are very sensitive to
chemical toxins.
LEGEND:
ASMFC= Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission PRFC = Potomac River Fisheries Commission VMRC = Virginia Marine Rexources Commission
DCFM= District of Columbia, Fisheries Management SRAFRC = Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Commission
MDNR= Maryland Department of Natural Resources VIMS = Virginia Institure of Marine Science
11
-------
Chapter 3
Blue Crab Management Plan
Introduction
The blue crab resource supports the most valuable commercial fishery in the Chesapeake Bay, as
well as a highly valued recreational fishery. Currently, the blue crab population in the Chesapeake Bay
appears to be in a low phase of population abundance. Various fishery independent indices based on long-
term data sets indicate a significant decrease in catch per unit effort (CPUE) of juvenile crabs and the fishable
segment of the stock The most recent Baywide indices indicate mat the blue crab population is likely to
remain in a low phase through 1995. The decline in CPUE is also reflected in the dredge fishery landings and
in comparable measures of adult female abundance from Virginia's trawl survey. Concurrently, fishing effort
has increased substantially while commercial harvest per unit of effort has declined. Volstad et al. (1994)
calculated exploitation rates of 50% to 92% from 1991 to 1993 for crabs subject to the Chesapeake Bay
fishery (Table 3.1). These collective patterns are symptomatic of a fishery in the process of being
overharvested. Rothschild et al. (1992) data suggest that managers should be concerned about the calculated
high rates of fishing mortality in relationship to variability in stock size. Prudent management measures are
necessary to control fishing effort and prevent a major decline in the fishery. Conservative management is
also necessary to prevent a stock collapse if environmental conditions coincidentally deteriorate.
Table 3.1. Estimated absolute abundance and rate of exploitation in Chesapeake Bay from winter dredge
survey (Volstad et al., 1994).
Year
1991
1992
1993*
Absolute Number of
Crabs
(millions)
893.3
440.0
653.3
Crabs
Harvested
(millions)
274.5
164.1
306.0
(u)
Exploitation Rate
(all crabs)
0.31
0.37
0.47
(u)
Exploitation Rate
t> 50mm)
0.92
0.50
0.83
*1993 corrected for updated commercial landings
In 1989, a Blue Crab Fishery Management Plan (BCFMP) was developed and included information
on life history, the fishery, status of the resource, habitat, laws and regulations, and management problems,
strategies and actions. During 1994, the BCFMP was completely revised. The new draft BCFMP has been
updated with current information pertaining to biology, ecology, habitat issues, fisheries, and social and
economic issues. The problem areas and management strategies of the revised BCFMP are discussed below.
For greater detail, refer to the draft 1995 BCFMP.
Fishing Pressure
Annual commercial landings in Maryland have averaged 46.0 million pounds (MDNR 1983-1994).
Commercial crab landings for 1994 were 43.5 million pounds, a decrease from 57.6 million pounds in 1993
12
-------
Figure 3.1. Maryland commercial blue crab
landings and value
Millions (Ibs /$$)
0 *
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
Year
(Figure 3.1). Maryland changed their reporting system for crabs at the beginning of 1994 from an estimated
harvest method based on random, subsampling of commercial harvesters to a direct enumeration of crab catch
by all licensed harvesters. Preliminary hard crab commercial landings from Virginia for 1994 are 31.6 million
pounds. Annual commercial landings in Virginia have averaged 40.5 million pounds since 1983 (Figure 3.2).
Virginia implemented mandatory reporting for all commercial harvesters in 1993 and the large increase in
landings for that year may be an artifact of the new reporting system. Anecdotal observations in Virginia
indicate 1994 was not an exceptional year for the fishery, and comparisons of reporting systems indicate
1993 was a slightly above 1992 landings.
Research indicates that there is a significant stock/recruitment relationship in the Chesapeake Bay
blue crab population. The number of young produced (recruited) is affected by low levels of adult spawning
stock as well as by environmental factors. Spawning potential can be directly linked to the number of female
crabs which are subject to harvest by the hard crab pot fishery, winter dredge fishery and soft crab fishery.
Catch statistics from the Virginia commercial dredge fishery (composed almost entirely of mature female
crabs) show a significant decline in winter harvests from 1976 to 1994. A decline in adult female abundance
has been observed in the fishery independent trawl survey conducted in the James, York, and Rappahanock
Rivers over the same time period. When the two data sets are compared, they correlate well. The dredge
13
-------
fishery is preceded by the summer hard crab fishery which has had relatively stable landings. There is
evidence in Maryland and the Potomac River that the stability in hard crab landings is due, in part, to a
greater amount of effort by commercial crabbers. Declines in the winter dredge fishery and spring peeler
fishery are evidence that females are being intercepted at some earlier time.
Figure 3.2 Virginia blue crab commercial
landings and value
Millions (lbs/$$)
60
50
40
30
20
10
[CUDockside Value •Commercial Landings ]
1983
1985
1987 1989
Year
1991
1993
1993 change in reporting system
The development of fishing targets which will identify relationships between abundance and harvest
for the blue crab resource is in progress. These targets may include measures of optimum abundance, fishing
mortality rates, spawning stock biomass and/or yield per recruit. They will be used as an index from year to
year to determine if fishing pressure is increasing and should allow early detection of harvest rates that are too
high to sustain the resource. In order to protect the blue crab resource, limits have been placed on fishing
effort and on the number of participants. The new laws and regulations adopted in Maryland and Virginia to
contain commercial and recreational fishing effort will be evaluated to determine their effectiveness and are
summarized below.
Virginia Regulations and Legislation effective in 1994 and 1995:
Virginia reduced the crab dredge daily catch limit from 25 to 20 barrels for the 1993/94 season. The
Commission also adopted regulation limiting entry into the crab dredge fishery. The sale of crab dredge
licenses is limited to those persons who held licenses and were actively engaged in the fishery as of March 31,
1994. No new licenses will be issued until the number of valid licenses decreases to 225 through attrition.
14
-------
Regulations were implemented to limit the size of dredges to a maximum width of 8 feet. A committee will be
assembled to evaluate dredge size limits and make recommendations for the 1995/96 season.
In October, 1994, Virginia approved a regulatory package of conservation measures and limits on effort in
the commercial fishery for blue crabs. A winter crab sanctuary was established upriver from the Hampton
Roads Bridge Tunnel where dredging is prohibited. A second summer spawning sanctuary was established
bayside of Kiptopeke on the eastern shore where crabbing is prohibited June 1 through September 15. Gear
limits were set on peeler pots with 400 pots per vessel from April 1 through June 30; 400 pots per person are
allowed July 1 through November 30. A crab pot and peeler pot season was established April 1 through
November 30. Four cull rings are required in crab traps/pounds and two cull rings are required in hard crab
pots to facilitate the release of small crabs.
Maryland Regulations and Legislation effective in 1994:
Maryland's Limited Entry Bill was passed during 1994 and limits new entries into the commercial fishery.
Maryland has had a delayed entry program since 1988 which required a person to wait two years upon
application before receiving a commercial license. Any person whose name was on the two year waiting list in
Maryland prior to April 1,1994, will receive a license two years after the date of application. The Limited
Entry Bill gives the Department of Natural Resources authority to establish a prescribed number of people to
participate in any given fishery. Once the two year waiting list is exhausted, no new licenses will be issued for
that fishery until the number of licenses drops below the prescribed number. As licenses are lost voluntarily,
by revocation, expiration or death, the fishery will be capped at a maximum number of participants, and
fishing effort will be limited.
Maryland has adopted a new license system for crabbing. The new license structure, to take effect in 1995,
retains the Limited Crab Harvester License (up to 50 pots) and consolidates licenses for more than 50 pots
and all other gears into one Crab Harvester License. Crab Harvesters are limited to 300 crab pots per vessel,
and licensees may buy single and double allocations for one to two crew members which permits 300
additional pots per allocation, not to exceed 900 pots per boat. The Tidal Fish License, which consolidates
finfish, shellfish and crabs in one license, is also limited to 300 pots with allocations up to 900 pots per boat
Times when commercial and recreational crabbers can set and fish their gear in Maryland were defined in
regulation in 1994 (see Appendix A). To limit effort in the number of man hours spent fishing, start and end
times were staggered to minimize conflicts between user groups.
The noncommercial crab license was eliminated through legislation. Maryland currently has no licensing
system fro recreational crabbers, which now includes crabbers who were previously licensed as
noncommercial crabbers. Unlicensed recreational crabbers were limited to 5 crab traps and/or rings per
person while the licensed noncommercial crabber was allowed up to 50 traps and/or rings. All recreational
crabbers are now limited to 10 traps and/or rings per person, not to exceed 25 traps and/or rings per boat.
Trotline, which was limited to 500 feet for recreational crabbers and unlimited for noncommercial crabbers, is
now limited for all recreational crabbers to 1000 feet per person, not to exceed 2000 feet per boat.
Recreational harvest is now limited to no more than one bushel per person and no more than 2 bushels per
boat.
The maximum number of crab pots which can be set from private property in Maryland is two. Some
counties prior to 1994 were allowed four.
15
-------
The impact of the new regulations will take several years to evaluate. A panel will convene after four
years to review the status of the resource and make any additional recommendations.
Wasteful Harvesting Practices
Optimum use of the blue crab resource can be promoted by eliminating and/or reducing wasteful
harvest practices. Harvesting small crabs, crabs of poor quality (buckram crabs which have recently shed
their exoskeletons and have small amounts of meat), sponge crabs (female crabs with eggs), and green crabs
(a peeler crab without red or pink coloration in the swim fin) for shedding operations does not optimally
utilize the resource. In order to reduce the number of sub-legal crabs retained in crab pots, cull rings (circular
openings in the mesh of crab pots) are required to allow the release of undersized crabs. Effective in 1994,
Virginia requires two cull rings (one 25/16" and one 23/16" diameter) in all hard crab pots. The larger ring may
be closed in some areas to retain small, legal crabs. Maryland also required one 25/,6" cull ring in all hard crab
pots in 1994, though the ring may be obstructed if the gear is fishing for peeler crabs.
Crab pots lost to storms or left abandoned are attractive refuge sites for crabs and fish, and result in
mortality. Weak or dead animals in traps attract other organisms and the pots become self-baiting. A
biodegradable escape panel is currently under development for testing in the Chesapeake Bay, and other
options to discourage deliberate abandonment are being investigated.
Small crabs are susceptible to the soft and peeler fishery. Size limits for soft/peeler crabs are a useful
tool for reducing juvenile mortality, increasing the yield per recruit, and may make Chesapeake Bay's product
more competitive. A new market for "thumb-nail size" soft-shell crabs may be opening in Virginia and may
command a greater price per pound than any crab from the Bay. Maryland size limits for soft and peeler crabs
are 3" and 3.5", respectively. Virginia currently has no size limits. Alternative methods for protecting small
crabs in Virginia's soft/peeler fishery, such as cull rings in peeler pots, were investigated Virginia currently
requires four 1V2" cull rings in all peeler pounds/traps.
Stock Assessment Deficiencies and Research Needs
The development of blue crab fishing targets and assessment of the blue crab stock is dependent on
fishery and biological data. New reporting methods for the commercial fishery and fishery independent
surveys will be used to monitor trends in catch and effort, produce reliable estimates of blue crab abundance,
and contribute to the understanding of the relationship between harvest and stock size. Information is needed
on the recreational harvest of blue crabs. Virginia currently requires all recreational crabbers to report on
harvest and effort. Maryland will propose a recreational crabbing license as a means to obtain recreational
harvest data. The baywide effort to collect population data will continue. Maryland and Virginia will continue
the winter dredge survey, used as an annual assessment of the abundance, distribution, and mortality of blue
crabs. They will also continue to encourage research on the stock/recruitment relationship.
Regulatory Issues
Conflict between commercial crabbers and recreational boaters has become a serious problem in
some of the more densely populated areas of Maryland and Virginia. There is competition for trotline space in
the tributaries. Conflicts among user groups will be minimized by applications of time, area and gear
16
-------
restrictions. These limits will provide a means to allocate space and harvest. Activities will be coordinated
among Bay jurisdictions to insure optimal baywide usage of the blue crab resource.
The interstate shipment of peelers and soft crabs may circumvent efforts to protect the Bay stock
from illegal fishing activities.
Chesapeake Bay blue crab harvest has accounted for over 50% of the national blue crab landings for
the past two decades (Orth and van Montfrans, 1990). As more countries develop crab fisheries and
processing techniques, the crab supply worldwide will continue to grow. If the Chesapeake Bay product is to
remain competitive in the domestic and international market, it is important to acknowledge the relationship
between the long-term health of the resource and the ability to compete in an international market (Petrocci
and Lipton 1994). In the Chesapeake region, Petrocci and Lipton warn of the effects of overcapitalization,
high levels of fishing pressure and competition that drive the product price up. They recommend limited
access to the fishery to prevent overcapitalization, increase productivity and lower the cost of harvesting
crabs. Concern must be focused on the health of the resource, rather than short-term availability from one
season to the next, to remain competitive in the global market
Habitat Issues
Estimates of juvenile abundance for the York and Rappahannock Rivers have been calculated and
demonstrate the relative importance of vegetated habitats to young juvenile blue crabs. Juvenile blue crab
densities are an order-of-magnitude greater in seagrass than in unvegetated areas. Currently, there are
approximately 25,000 hectares of SAV in Chesapeake Bay (Orth et al. 1991), approximately 10% of the
historical abundance (Stevenson and Confer 1978). Most of the major SAV declines in Chesapeake Bay have
occurred outside the primary settlement and nursery areas for the blue crab. However, these vegetated
habitats are of vital importance to maintaining high population abundances of crabs that they should be
recognized and preserved.
The recommended minionim dissolved oxygen requirement for target species in the Chesapeake Bay,
including blue crabs, is 5 mg/L (Jordan et al. 1992). Juveniles may have a lower tolerance than adults (Stickle
et al., 1989), therefore, needing a higher minimum oxygen level. Achieving minimum standards of dissolved
oxygen requirements and SAV recovery efforts are dependent on the ability of the Bay jurisdictions to
accomplish the goal of a 40% reduction in controllable nutrient sources. Meeting this goal will require
capping nutrient loads once the 40% reduction is accomplished to account for the effects of population
growth and reducing atmospheric nitrogen greater than that required by the federal Clean Air Act.
Conclusion
The blue crab resource in the Chesapeake Bay appears to be in a low phase of population abundance.
In order to protect the reproductive potential of blue crabs, limits have been placed on fishing effort and the
number of participants. The new restrictions and their effectiveness at stabilizing fishing effort need to be
evaluated. If these actions are successful at limiting fishing effort, the plan will have met its objective of
being a "problem preventing" rather than a "problem solving" plan. The following areas should be
emphasized during 1995:
1) Monitor the new laws and regulations adopted in 1993 and 1994 to contain blue crab fishing
effort and determine their effectiveness;
17
-------
2) Continue to monitor the commercial and recreational harvest of blue crabs;
3) Develop criteria for establishing blue crab fisheries targets, and;
4) Work through the newly established blue crab steering committees to evaluate current
management processes and recommend additional actions regarding the blue crab fishery, if
necessary.
References
Orth, R. and J. van Montfrans. 1990. Utilization of marsh and seagrass habitats by early
stages of Callinectes sapidus. II. Spatial and temporal patterns of molting. Bull. Mar. Sci. 46:95-
104.
Orth, R., J. Nowak, A. Frisch, K. Kiley and J. Whiting. 1991. Distribution of submerged
aquatic vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and tributaries and Chincoteague Bay, 1990. U.S. EPA,
Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD. 261 pp.
Petrocci, C. and D. Liptoa 1994. The Warmwater Crab Fishery in Asia: Implications for the ChesapeakeBay
Blue Crab Industry. MD Sea Grant Extension Program, VA Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program. 45
pp.
Rothschild, B., J. Ault, E. Patrick, S. Smith, H. Li, T. Maurer, B. Daugherry, G. Davis, C. Zhang, and R.
McGarvey. 1992. Assessment of the Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Stock. Univ. of Maryland,
Chesapeake Bay Biological Lab. CB92-003-036, CEES 07-4-30307, Solomons, Maryland.
Stevenson, J. and N. Confer. 1978. Summary of available information on Chesapeake Bay submerged
vegetation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Biol. Serv. FWS/OBS-78/76.
Stickle, W., M. Kapper, L. Liu, E. Gnaiger and S. Wang. 1989. Metabolic adaptations of
several species of crustaceans and molluscs to hypoxia: tolerance and microcalorimetric studies. Biol.
Bull. 177:303-312.
Volstad, J., B. Rothschild and T. Maurer. 1994. Abundance estimation and population
dynamics of the blue crab in the Chesapeake Bay. Report submitted to Maryland Department of
Natural Resources, Fisheries Department. Annapolis, MD. 53pp.
18
-------
1995 (1996) Blue Crab Management Plan Implementation Matrix
PROBLEMS AND STRATEGIES
ACTIONS
DATE
COMMENTS
/. Increased Fishing Effort
1.1 Fishing Effort
New laws and regulations adopted in
MD and VA to contain commercial and
recreational fishing effort and protect
stocks will be evaluated to determine
their effectiveness.
1.1.1 New reporting methods will be used to determine
actual harvest, biological composition of catch, and the
effectiveness of current regulations for maintaining safe
levels of harvest.
1994
M D changed from estimated harvest to direct
enumeration (1994), VA changed from voluntary survey
to mandatory reporting (1993).
1.1.2 New reporting methods for commercial harvest will
be compared with previous methods to standardize catch
data in the two periods.
MD,
1994
VA,
indeterm
inate
MD is in process of comparing reporting systems;
preliminary data shows a close relationship. VA has not
begun comparisons.
1.1.3 Maryland will determine a maximum number of
commercial crabbing licenses and licenses with crew
allocations as required under new Limited Entry law
(Sect. 4-210).
1996
Original implementation date was 1995 but legislation
changed it to 1996.
1.1.4 The impact of regulations and law to cap effort in
Maryland and Virginia will be evaluated. A joint panel
from MD and VA will convene after four years to review
the status of the resource baywide and the effectiveness of
current regulations and will make recommendations.
1998
MD will form a Blue Crab Steering Committee in 1995,
and VA will form a Committee in 1995. The two
committees are coordinating efforts and evaluating current
regulations.
1.1.5 Targets will be established through analysis of
historical fishery independent data sets and landings data
to identify relationships between abundance and harvest.
Should overfishing be detected, measures will be taken to
reduce fishing mortality to levels that are within the
boundaries of defined targets and which permit restoration
of the stock to its former capacity.
1995
This action item is underway, but is not scheduled to yield
final results until 1996. In addition, the Chesapeake Bay
Stock Assessment Committee will conduct a stock
assessment in 1995.
19
-------
PROBLEMS AND STRATEGIES
2. Wasteful Harvesting
2.1 Economic Yeild
Optimum use of the blue crab resource
will be promoted by eliminating and/or
minimizing wasteful harvest practices,
and by informing the consumer of poor
quality or poor value crabs and
discourage their purchase.
2.2 Cull Apparatus The biological
benefits and economic impact of cull
rings will be investigated to determine
specific seasons when cull rings may be
obstructed.
ACTIONS
1.1.6 Maryland and Virginia will monitor recreational crab
data to determine if further restrictions on the recreational
fishery are necessary.
2.1.1 MD and VA will continue to promote the release of
buckrams.
2.1 .2 MD will investigate publicizing optimal bushel
weight ranges for the various types of crabs and
establishing minimum weight limits for each.
2. 1 .3 MD and VA will educate the consumer about
wasteful harvesting practices and their effects on the
resource so they may be better informed when purchasing
crabs.
2.2.1 Maryland will define seasons for peeler fishing with
hard crab pots (pots with mesh size 1.5 inches or greater)
for which cull rings may be obstructed to minimize the
impact on the resource and maximize economic benefits
2.2.2 VA will continue the mandatory use of cull rings
throughout the hard crab pot season.
2.2.3 VA has initiated studies to determine the economic
impact of the cull ring requirement and will continue
research to determine the significance of allowing
obstructed cull rings for short periods of time.
DATE
MD, see
Action
3.2.2-3
VA,
ongoing
Ongoing
1996
1996
1997
On-
going
On-
going
COMMENTS
MD, see Action 3.2.2-3
VA, established a recreational license for crabbers wishing
to use more gear, and implemented a mandatory reporting
system for licensed recreational crabbers.
Need cooperation with the Department of Agriculture in
order to be successful.
Current regulation allows cull rings to be obstructed
anytime a potter is fishing for peeler crabs.
VA required a second cull ring in all hard crab pots.
Studies completed investigated the percent of legal-size
crabs that may escape from cull rings of different sizes.
The information was used to define regulations for
mandatory cull ring use.
20
-------
PROBLEMS AND STRATEGIES
2.3 Female Harvest Landings and
fishery independent data will be
reviewed to determine if low
reproductive potential and poor
spawning success are resulting from
female harvest.
2.4 Abandoned Pots Causes of
abandoned pots will be investigated,
the deliberate abandonment of crab
pots will be discouraged, and escape
mechanisms in pots will continue to be
researched.
ACTIONS
2.2.4 VA is investigating the use of cull rings in peeler
pots and will consider mandatory cull rings in peeler pots
and peeler pounds.
2.3.1 MD will investigate the interstate trade of blue crabs
to quantify the number of sponge crabs and other types of
crabs (which may not be legally harvested in MD) coming
into the state.
2.3.2 MD will investigate the effects of prohibiting the
import of sponge crabs, or crabs from which the egg
packet has been removed, and consider regulations if the
action is deemed biologically necessary.
2.3.3 VA will consider the expansion (time and/or area) of
the spawning sanctuary. Additional sanctuaries or closed
areas may be established.
2.3.4 MD will evaluate the use of female crabs as eel bait
in eel pots.
2.3.5 VA and MD will continue to collect data on female
size at maturity, migration, distribution and harvest by sex
to study the effect of female harvest on crab population
dynamics.
2.4.1 VA and MD will continue to address regulation of
abandoned crab pots, including significant fines that may
discourage deliberate abandonment.
2.4.2 VA and MD will continue to investigate materials
for biodegradable escape panels and latches in crab pots
and escape mechanisms for air breathing animals.
DATE
1995
1996
1995
1995
1996
On-
going
1995
On-
going
COMMENTS
Cull rings were tested for use in peeler pots and results are
being evaluated. Cull rings are required in peeler pounds.
This information would be helpful for implementing 2.3.2
and implementation dates may have to be changed to
reflect this.
VA established one new summer sanctuary for spawning
crabs, and one winter sanctuary for females overwintering
near spawning grounds.
This will be an on-going endeavor. Statistics are currently
being collected through crab reporting.
MD will investigate female harvest by year and month,
and by gear type to consider new regulation in 1995. VA
estimated female harvest by gear type for management
purposes in 1994.
A prototype for testing in the Chesapeake Bay is in the
making.
21
-------
PROBLEMS AND STRATEGIES
2.5 Shedding Mortality Information
will be provided to shedders to
minimize mortality in shedding
operations.
ACTIONS
2.4.3 VA and MD will investigate the feasibility of
establishing used pot disposal sites in Bay counties and
other incentives.
2.4.4 VA and MD will educate commercial crabbers about
the problems of abandoned crab pots and MD will educate
property owners about the effects of pots left unattended.
2.4.S VA and MD will investigate placement of
identification on crab pots so that lost pots may be
returned and purposeful abandonment will be
discouraged.
2.4.6 MD will identify sources of abandoned pots.
2.5.1 MD and VA will continue to provide technical
information to shedding operations that promote reduction
of peeler mortalities associated with holding practices.
2.5.2 VA established a commercial shedding license,
effective January 1, 1994, and will monitor data reports.
2.5.3 MD and VA will continue to educate watermen on
problems related to green crab mortality.
2.5.4 MD will investigate a joint venture with commercial
watermen's associations to establish a state-of-the-art
shedding facility for the purpose of research and to
educate the shedding industry.
DATE
1996
1996
1995
1995
On-
going
On-
going
On-
going
1996
COMMENTS
Data not yet available.
22
-------
PROBLEMS AND STRATEGIES
3. Stock Assessment Deficiencies
3.1 Commercial Reporting New
reporting methods will be used with
continued fishery independent surveys
to monitor trends in catch and effort,
produce reliable estimates of blue crab
abundance, and understand the fishery
and the relationships between harvest
and stock.
3.2 Recreational Harvest
There will be a Baywide effort to
collect recreational catch and effort
data and to evaluate the economic
impact of the recreational harvest
3.3 Research Needs The Baywide
effort to collect population data on blue
crabs will continue, and current
methods -will be improved to assure
baywide uniformity of data sets and
achieve reliable and more accurate
catch estimates.
ACTIONS
3.1.1 MD and VA will monitor commercial records in
order to evaluate the relationship between fishery
dependent and fishery independent estimates of
abundance
3.2.1 As of 1993, VA requires annual reporting by all
licensed recreational crabbers including weight harvested,
location of harvest, days fished, and amount of gear used.
This data will be used to estimate recreational harvest and
effort.
3.2.2 MD will seek a recreational crabbers license
requirement.
3.2.3 MD will develop a method of estimating recreational
catch to improve monitoring of the blue crab resource.
Data collected will be compatible with Virginia.
3.3.1 MD and VA will continue cooperation in the
Baywide winter dredge survey and continue to refine data
analysis as a consistent annual assessment of the
abundance, distribution, and mortality of the crab
resource.
3.3.2 MD and VA will continue to encourage research on
recruitment-stock and stock-recruitment relationships and
how environmental parameters affect fluctuations in crab
abundance.
DATE
On-
going
On-
going
1995
1995
On-
going
On-
going
COMMENTS
MD will conduct this study in 1995.
To date, 361 licenses were sold in 1993 and catch data is
not yet available.
Previous legislation has not been adopted.
CBSAC will fund a design for a recreational crab survey
in Chesapeake Bay in 1995.
Recent data is presented in this progress report.
MD will investigate stock-recruitment relationships in
1995.
23
-------
PROBLEMS AND STRATEGIES
4 Regulatory Issues
4.1 Commercial/Recreational Conflict
Conflicts among user groups and the
general boating public can be
minimized by rational application of
time, area and gear restrictions to
allocate space and harvest of the
resource.
4.2 Interstate Trade MD and VA will
continue to investigate the biological
and economic effects of size limits on
the soft crab fishery and the need to
coordinate soft and peeler size limits.
5 Public Health and Consumer
Concerns
5.1 Personal Consumption Minimum
weight standards and volume will be
considered for the various types of blue
crabs.
ACTIONS
4.1.1 MD and VA will continue to monitor conflicts
between crabbers and recreational boaters and enforce
existing regulations on open and closed crabbing areas and
buoy-free channels.
4.1.2 Maryland has staggered start and end times for
recreational and commercial crabbing. The effectiveness
of these time limits will be monitored.
4.2.1 MD will consider a ban on the importation of crabs
which do not meet State requirements.
4.2.2 MD and VA will work to achieve consistent
Baywide standards for minimum sizes of all crabs
harvested in the Bay.
4.2.3 MD will investigate the extent of importation of
southern blue crab.
S.I .1 MD will evaluate the necessity of establishing a
minimum bushel weight for various grades of crabs.
5.1 .2 MD will define by regulation the minimum volume
of a crab bushel, as well as potential substitutes, such as
the waxed cardboard seafood box.
DATE
On-
going
1994
1995
1995
1995
1996
1996
COMMENTS
MD will hold a series of public meetings in 1995 to
provide information to recreational and commercial
crabbers, and the public.
Analysis of effectiveness is ongoing.
Would require a change in legislation.
Virginia considered soft/peeler limits and were rejected
based on public comments.
This information is necessary for considering Action 4.2.1.
24
-------
PROBLEMS AND STRATEGIES
ACTIONS
DATE
COMMENTS
5.2 Foreign Import Efforts will be
made to insure that consumers are
aware of the origin of the crab products
they purchase.
5.2.1 Imported crab meat shall be identified as such in
Maryland as required by Section 21-339 of Annotated
Code of Maryland, Health Article.
1994
In effect.
5.2.2 In addition to foreign crab meat, the interstate
shipment of crab products shall be surveyed in Maryland.
1997
Would have to be coordinated with the Department of
Agriculture and possibly with Sea Grant.
6 Habitat Degredation
6.1 Anoxia MD, PA, and DC have
outlined a Tributary Strategy that will
reduce the amount of nutrients from
tributaries to the Bay 40% by the year
2000 to meet the Bay Program's
nutrient reduction goal. Oxygen
content goals for the Bay are also
recommended.
6.1.1 Implement goals of tributary strategies.
6.1.2 Dissolved oxygen standards for baywide adoption
are recommended and goals for optimum survival of
juvenile and adult blue crab should be as follows:
a_All waters of Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries
should contain a minimum of 1.0 mg/L dissolved oxygen
at all times, and
b.a minimum duration of 12 hours of dissolved oxygen
content between 1.0 and 3.0 mg/L with a 48 hour
minimum return frequency of <3.0 mg/L and >1.0 mg/L,
and
c.all above pycnocline waters of Chesapeake Bay and its
tidal tributaries should contain a monthly average of 6.0
mg/L dissolved oxygen.
2000
In effect
upon
adoption
of Plan
6.2 SAV and Intertidal Wetlands The
Chesapeake Bay Program is committed
to achieving a net gain in SAV
distribution, abundance and species
diversity in the Bay and tidal tributaries
over present populations. The Bay
jurisdictions will maintain a priority
status on protection of SAV and
intertidal wetlands.
6.2.1 The Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions will work to
restore SAV to their historic levels.
Tier 1:
On-
going
Tierfl:
2005
Tier El:
after tier
n
Baywide SAV declined in 1994.
25
-------
PROBLEMS AND STRATEGIES
6.3 Water Quality The Chesapeake Bay
Program will continue its commitment
to toxins reduction and control,
particularly in localized regions near
discharge points and where toxins are
accumulated.
ACTIONS
6.2.2 MD and VA will prepare a report on blue crab
habitat and biology and identify critical habitat utilized by
the species, evaluate projected growth to the Bay
watershed and make recommendations on regulating
coastal development for permitting agencies.
6.2.3 MD will consider limits on scraping for hard crabs
in the early crabbing season.
6.3.1 Regions of concern will be identified within criteria
set by the Chesapeake Bay Toxics Strategy. Within
regions of concern the sources and amounts of pollution
will be determined, control methods will be explored and
implemented and important habitats within the area and
land uses with negative effects will be identified.
DATE
1996
1995
On-
going
COMMENTS
MD, in cooperation with VA, will prepare a document in
199S which links land use to aquatic habitat for use during
land use permitting decisions.
26
-------
Chapter 4
1994 Oyster Fishery Management Plan
Introduction
As the ecological value of the oyster (Crassostrea virginica) resource to water quality was
recognized and disease became more limiting, an improved framework was needed for managing the oyster
resource. During 1994, a revision of the 1989 Oyster Fishery Management Plan (FMP) was completed and
signed by the signatories of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. The goal of the 1994 Oyster FMP is to enhance
the production of oysters in the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem by restoring habitat, controlling fishing
mortality, promoting aquaculture and continuing the repletion programs. Recommendations from both
the Virginia Holton Plan (VHP) and the Maryland Oyster Roundtable (MOR) were incorporated into the
revised FMP. The Holton Plan recommendations were the result of discussions by a 33-member "Blue
Ribbon" panel to restore Virginia's oyster industry. The MOR recommendations came from a 40-member
committee of aquaculturists, environmentalists, legislators, scientists, watermen, and representatives from
government agencies on how to bring back oyster stocks in Maryland. One of the major innovations from the
MOR was the establishment of oyster recovery areas (ORAs). Restoration areas can be found in the Chester,
Choptank, Magothy, Nanticoke, Patuxent, and Severn Rivers. These areas are targetted for restoring oyster
populations and monitoring the results.
Since a revised Oyster FMP has recently been completed, the following discussion is a summary of
the problem areas and management strategies defined in the new plan. For a more extensive discussion of
each management recommendation and action, refer to the 1994 Oyster FMP.
Disease
Disease was identified as one of the major impediments to restoring oyster stocks in the Chesapeake
Bay. Several strategies were developed to address the disease issue. They include monitoring oyster stocks in
the Bay for the prevalence and intensity of disease, minimizing the spread of disease, implementing a
National Oceanic and Atmospeheric Administration (NOAA) coordinated research program, and continuing
research on disease-resistant oysters.
Repletion Programs
State repletion programs have focused on increasing oyster harvest by moving shell and transplanting
seed oysters. The programs are limited by natural reproduction (spat set), disease infection, the amount of
available shell or cultch, and funding. Maryland and Virginia currently have no disease-free, seed-producing
areas and transplanting seed may facilitate the spread of disease. The Bay jurisdictions will adapt, as
appropriate, their repletion programs to enhance oyster production without encouraging the spread of disease.
The programs may be modified as new initiatives from the MOR and VHP are implemented. Repletion
efforts will be monitored and evaluated after three years (1997).
Habitat/Water Quality
There has been a loss of three-dimensional structure of oyster bars within the Bay. Reef flattening
has taken oysters out of the higher water column where currents bring fresh food supplies and oxygen,
making them particularly vulnerable to siltation. The reduction in reef surface area has also reduced
27
-------
theamount of substrate for oyster larvae to settle. The Bay jurisdictions will restore physical oyster habitat
through the Maryland and Virginia Aquatic Reef Program (refer to the 1994 Aquatic Reef Habitat Plan for
details). The jurisdictions will also work to ensure that water quality is maintained at levels to support healthy
oyster populations.
Management to Increase Oyster Production
Disease, the decrease in oyster habitat, variability in recruitment and harvest pressures have placed
considerable constraints on oyster production. New technology is needed for the restoration, culture, and
production of oysters. To allow progress for private oyster aquaculture ventures, efforts will be made to assist
and encourage private industry. Maryland and Virginia will initiate a grant program with matching funds
from the private industry, for oyster restoration, culture and production. Maryland will increase hatchery
production of oyster larve and seed oysters. The jurisdictions will also reduce and control fishing mortality.
Collection of Management Quality Data
Oyster population data and harvest information is currently being collected but improvements in bar-
specific data will be made, hi addition to research data on disease, research will also be encouraged on
spawning stock density necessary to repopulate an area decimated by disease, natural and fishing mortality
rates, the stock/recruitment relationship, factors affecting abundance, and survival and growth of larvae and
juveniles. The jurisdictions will continue to collect quantitative data on oyster stocks, habitat, and diseases.
Management for Maryland Oyster Recovery Areas (ORAs)
Geographic areas, termed Oyster Recovery Areas (ORAs), have been designated in low salinity
reaches of the Bay and its tributaries where MSX and Denno, oyster parasitic diseases, are less viable. These
areas will be used to evaluate different methods of rehabilitating, rebuilding and restoring oyster populations.
Transplantation activities such as moving shell and seed will be limited. Regulations have been proposed to
establish specific ORA zones and limit shellfish activities in the Chester, Choptank, Severn, Magothy,
Nanticoke and Patuxent Rivers. These regulations are the first phase of implementing a program to enhance
oyster populations in the Bay.
Current Status of the Oyster Fishery
As of December 1994, the preliminary harvest report for the Maryland 1994/95 oyster season is
121,000 bushels. The catch is about 20% greater than the 1993/94 season (Figure 4.1). The increased harvest
is from areas that were previously out-of-production, i.e., upper Tangier Sound and tributaries, upper Little
Choptank, Harris Creek on the Tred Avon and the Wicomico River (western shore). These areas are now
productive as a result of the 1991 and 1992 spat set and reduced levels of disease mortalities, hi Virginia, the
preliminary 1994/95 harvest is 30,000 bushels (Figure 4.2). On the Potomac River, the preliminary 1994/95
harvest is 1,569 bushels.
An annual fall oyster survey is conducted in Maryland to determine recruitment levels, mortality,
disease prevalence and population status. Preliminary observations suggest that spat set was poor during
1994. Disease mortality has decreased to pre-1991 levels but mortality due to a major freshet (influx of
freshwater) was significant The following areas exhibited between 20% and 80% mortality: Cabin Creek and
up-river on the Choptank; above Spaniard Point on the Chester River; above a line running from Mountain
Point to Rock Hall in the upper Bay; above Swan Point on the Potomac River; and above Mills Point on the
Wicomico River (MDNR Shellfish Program, pers. comm.).
28
-------
Figure 4.1. Maryland commercial oyster landings by season
Million bushels
1958 1963 1968 1973 1978
Year
1983
1988
1993
An annual fall survey is also conducted in Virginia. Preliminary observations suggest that spat set
was almost nonexistent during 1994 except for the James River. Harvesting in Virginia's portion of the Bay
(except the James River) was closed in 1994/95 due to the extremely low population levels. Disease
prevalence in 1994 was not significantly different from other recent years. Population levels in the James
River appear to be stable primarily due to a shortened workday (12:00 noon) during the past two years. A
quota of 80,000 bushels of seed oysters was set for the James River which will probably be caught by the end
of March 1995.
Conclusion
The 1989 Chesapeake Bay Oyster FMP was revised during 1994 to reflect the limiting influence of
disease and the ecological value of the oyster resource. During 1995, the Bay jurisdictions should focus on
implementing the revised plan.
29
-------
Figure 4.2. Virginia oyster ground production by season
Million bushels
1958
30
-------
1994 OYSTER FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX
PROBLEM AREAS &
STRATEGIES
1 . Disease
1 . 1 Monitor the prevalence and
intensity of MSX and Dermo and
attempt to minimize the spread of
disease
1 .2 Implement a coordinated
research program.
1 .3 Continue research on disease-
resistant oysters, hybridization, and
possible effects of introducing a
hybrid or exotic species.
ACTIONS
1.1.1. Continue the annual disease survey, increase sample size and
develop new disease detection techniques.
1 .1 .2. Establish a protocol for certifying oysters, including seed oysters,
for the prevalence and intensity of MSX, Dermo, or other pathogens.
1.1.3. Continue the repletion programs using natural seed with low
levels of MSX and Dermo contamination until hatchery produced,
disease-free seed is produced. At that time in MD, movement of seed
which cannot be certified will cease.
1 . 1 .4. Continue to rotate seed areas to avoid transport of older year
classes that have a higher probability of disease infection.
1 .1 .5. Conduct a pilot study to test the difference in survival between
seed moved in the fall compared to seed moved in the spring.
Investigate other approaches to reduce disease infestation before
transport.
1 .2.1 . Delegate responsibility for coordinating the research program to a
specific person/agency.
1 .2.2. MD will initiate the first 5-year phase of a multi-year research
program aimed at early detection, prevention and control of MSX and
Dermo.
1 .3.1 . Follow the guidelines set forth in the Exotic Species Policy.
1 .3.2. MD will initiate a pilot field program to plant strains of C.
virginica from North Carolina to the Chesapeake Bay in higher salinity
areas of the Bay and tributaries.
DATE
Continue
1995
Continue
Continue
1994-1995
1994
1995-2000
1994
1995
COMMENTS
New techniques will be developed at the Oxford
Lab and VIMS.
Techniques for disease monitoring will include
histocytology (thioglycolate assays and
histological analysis), immunological detection
tests and histopathology. Implement movement
of disease-free seed from hatcheries as it
becomes available.
Part of the improved repletion program.
Adequate precautions will be taken to prevent
the introduction of new disease strains and
undesirable genetic stock.
31
-------
PROBLEM AREAS &
STRATEGIES
2. Repletion Programs
2.1 Minimize the possibility of
spreading MSX and Dermo.
2.2 Maintain and adapt current
repletion programs to promote
natural oyster production and meet
the changing needs of the resource.
ACTIONS
1.3.3. a) VA is conducting an environmental impact assessment on the
introduction of a non-native oyster, C. gigas.
b) MD will conduct an environmental impact assessment on the
introduction of a non-native oyster as a contingency plan if the action
items in this plan are not enough to increase oyster stocks in the Bay.
2.1.1. Implement the disease strategies and actions defined in the
Disease Section of this management plan to minimize the spread of
disease
2.2.1. MD will maintain the state repletion program as funds are
available at current levels (2 million bushels of shell & 500,000 bushels
of seed if spat set permits). As new initiatives by the MOR are
implemented, the repletion program may be modified.
2.2.2. MD will continue the fall dredge survey.
2.2.3. MD will provide fresh shell to the state hatchery and community
groups for habitat enhancement and develop a policy on the minimum
desiccation period to prevent the spread of MSX and Dermo with fresh
shell.
2.2.4. MDNR will support the ORA efforts by providing the program
with a percentage of available shell. The amount of shell will be
determined annually.
2.2.5. VA will restore two major areas where setting is good, the James
and Rappahannock Rivers, forming sanctuaries for maintaining the
stock.
2.2.6. VA will turn and clean or add cultch to oyster beds near sanctuary
reefs in the James and Rappahannock Rivers to prepare them to receive
spat set from sanctuary areas.
DATE
Continue
Open
Variable
Continue
Continue
1995
1995
Begin in
1994
1995
COMMENTS
Specific guidelines on the research of triploid
individuals are being developed.
Maryland will utilize the results of the VA
assessment to avoid duplicating efforts.
Implementation depends on actions defined in
the previous management section
The amount of shell and seed may be variable
from year to year depending on availability.
Repletion efforts will be monitored then
evaluated after 3 years (1997)
The survey provides data on oyster mortality,
recruitment (spat set), and disease patterns that
help direct the repletion
For 1994/1995, 200,000 bushels of shell will be
available.
Restoration efforts will include: locating the best
substrate; prohibiting harvest; adding shell or
other material to build reef structure; adding
seed; and, monitoring growth
The cleaning and shelling procedure will
include: identifying the best areas; delineating
the best time; monitoring growth; setting a
harvest quota; and, implementing the quota.
32
-------
PROBLEM AREAS &
STRATEGIES
ACTIONS
DATE
COMMENTS
2.2.7. a) Continue to monitor the repletion efforts and adjust the timing
and location of shell and seed planting based on the best available data.
b) VA will establish a computer data-base system to monitor the
progress of the repletion program on a bar by bar basis.
a)
Continue
b) 1995
Maryland has been compiling a computer-based
oyster data system as an on-going effort.
2.2.8. When the hatchery production of seed is adequate to meet
planting needs, the repletion programs will be modified to eliminate the
spread of disease with seed plantings.
Open
Implementation is dependent on seed
production.
3. Habitat/Water Quality
3.1 Conduct a phased program to
evaluate and implement projects to
restore the physical habitat for
oysters.
3.1.1. Restore physical oyster habitat through the Maryland and Virginia
Aquatic Reef Program.
Variable
See specifics in the 1994 Aquatic Reef Habitat
Plan.
3.1.2. Redefine sanctuaries with adequate geographic extent and
distinctiveness.
Variable,
beginning
in 1994
3.1.3. Evaluate innovative techniques for restoring physical oyster
habitat, conduct projects such as cleaning bottom areas, and evaluate
optimal physical structures and alternative materials for rebuilding
oyster bars.
1995
3.2 Will work to ensure that water
quality is maintained at levels
necessary to support healthy oyster
populations.
3.2.1. Current programs established under the CBP to reduce pollutant
sources that adversely affect oyster stocks will be maintained.
Continue
The Tributary Strategy will work to identify
specific measures to protect and restore water
quality for the benefit of living resources
including Bay oysters.
3.2.2. Local, state, and federal agencies will utilize their permitting and
environmental review programs to ensure that oyster habitat is not
adversely affected by the discharge of pollutants, dredging, and other
human activities.
Continue
33
-------
PROBLEM AREAS &
STRATEGIES
ACTIONS
DATE
COMMENTS
3.2.3. The ORA advisory committees will assess the potential impact of
activities which may adversely affect oysters inn ORA's and provide
recommendations to the appropriate agencies for prevention and
restoration of adequate water quality.
1995
4. Management to Increase Oyster
Production
4.1 Work to improve and increase
oyster production in the private and
public oyster fisheries.
4.1.1. Prepare a comprehensive analysis of past and current oyster
culture techniques and other relevant areas to help focus effort and
finances into projects with the best chances of success.
1995
Existing expertise and experience in the
National Marine Fisheries Service will be
utilized.
4.1.2. MD will increase the hatchery production of oyster larvae and
seed oysters by maximizing production at Horn Pt. and using fresh
shells supplied by MDNR.
Continue
Field surveys are currently underway to evaluate
plantings of hatchery reared seed which will
guide utilization of larvae and seed from state
facilities.
4.1.3. MD will establish remote setting sites for eyed-larvae purchased
from public or private hatcheries, in appropriate locations with low
levels of MSX and Dermo
1995
4.1.4. Encourage private companies to develop oyster hatcheries.
1995
Encouragement will include competitive bidding
for contracts to provide oyster larvae and seed
for ORA's and other areas.
4.1.5. Initiate a grant program with matching funds provided by private
industry, to stimulate the development of innovative techniques for
oyster restoration, culture and production.
Dependent
on funding
4.1.6. MDNR will establish a pilot permitting program for oyster
aquaculture demonstration projects.
1994
As of February 1994, a draft document entitled,
Oyster Aquaculture Permit Guidelines 1994 has
been developed (see Appendix V in this plan for
details).
4.1.7. MDNR will establish an aquaculture permit clearinghouse service
for applicants.
1994
Includes: designating a single point of contact,
tracking permit applications, coordinating state
agencies and preparing a permit handbook.
34
-------
PROBLEM AREAS &
STRATEGIES
4.2 Reduce and control fishing
mortality.
5. Collection of Management
Quality Data
ACTIONS
4.1.8. Will define the acreage available for leasing oyster bottom.
4 . 1 .9. The enforcement of property rights relevant to private oyster
aquaculture will be added to the public education program.
4.1.10. VMRC will develop and operate a depuration facility to utilize
oysters in less than optimum water quality situations.
4.2.1. Maryland will utilize specific guidelines to control fishing
mortality.
4.2.2. Evaluate the potential advantages and disadvantages of a "slot
limit" with a minimum size for harvesting of 2.5" and a maximum size
of 4" for areas impacted by disease.
4.2.3. VMRC will manage the public oyster grounds in the James
River, Rappahannock River, Pocomoke/Tangier Sounds and Seaside
Eastern Shore.
5.1.1. Continue to collect quantitative data on oyster stocks, habitat and
diseases and make the information available in an annual report.
5. 1 .2. VMRC will establish a computer data-base system for the
collection, storage and analysis on a bar-by-bar basis, updated weekly, of
information to estimate standing stock and establish yearly catch quotas.
5.1.3. The fisheries agencies will make oyster data available to the
research community as needed to investigate suggested research topics
or in connection with other research.
DATE
Variable
beginning
in 1994
1995
1995
1995
Begin in
1994
Variable
Annually
1995
1994
COMMENTS
The development of a depuration facility will
not lessen the need to continue to improve water
quality.
Harvest rates will be determined and
adjustments made on annual fishing mortality
rates.
Slot limit already in effect for PRFC. MD will
collect oysters over 4" from diseased areas and
test their resistance to disease. The patent tong
survey will provide estimates of the impact of
harvesting small oysters from the population.
Data will include daily entries for total landings,
boat numbers, landings per boat, area harvested,
and number of harvesters per boat.
35
-------
LEGEND:
CBP - Chesapeake Bay Program
MDNR - Maryland Department of Natural Resources
MOR - Maryland Oyster Roundtable
ORA - Oyster Recovery Area
PRFC - Potomac River Fisheries Commission
VIMS - Virginia Institute of Marine Science
VMRC - Virginia Marine Fisheries Commission
36
-------
Chapter 5
Bluefish Fishery Management Plan
Introduction
The Chesapeake Bay Bluefish Fishery Management Plan was adopted in 1990 and
followed the guidelines recommended by the coastal management plan. The coastal plan was
prepared by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC), adopted by the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) in 1989, and approved by the Secretary of
Commerce in 1990. The current mandatory requirements of the ASMFC/MAFMC plan and
implementation schedule is as follows:
1) Each state must restrict the possession of bluefish (Pomatomus saltatriK) by anglers
to not more than 10 fish/person/day or have an ASMFC-approved conservation
equivalent. Compliance by: September 1,1994.
2) Each state (except GA, SC & ME) must restrict its commercial fishery to the quota
adopted under procedures specified in the FMP. Compliance by : Immediate.
In addition, the 1994 coastal FMP review team made the following recommendations:
a) Each state enact a license for fishermen to sell bluefish.
b) Each state implement the provisions of the coastal FMP (as stated in #1 & #2).
c) Each state implement allocation systems and controls on the bluefish commercial
fishery.
d) The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) target the collection of commercial
landings and that statistics on size, age composition and gear type be collected.
e) The states should encourage research on catch and release mortalities and the
information provided to recreational anglers.
f) A fee should be charged for all commercial permits issued by the state of landing or
the NMFS which would discourage their purchase by recreational anglers trying to
circumvent the possession limit.
g) The MAFMC, NMFS and ASMFC should investigate if the total percent share of the
commercial fishery which exceeded 20% in 1993 was due to a shift of effort by
recreational fishermen from bluefish to other species (ASMFC 1994).
Creel limits and size limits were implemented by the Bay jurisdictions as part of the
Chesapeake Bay Bluefish Plan in 1991. The current creel limit is 10 fish/person/ day. Li
addition, Maryland and the Potomac River have a minimum size limit of 8". The Bay
jurisdictions are in compliance with ASMFC/MAFMC recommendations for bluefish. The
Chesapeake Bay Bluefish FMP is scheduled for a substantive review in June 1995. The FMP
37
-------
workgroup will evaluate each strategy and action item in the 1990 plan for its effectivesness in
reaching the plan's objectives and make a decision to either revise or amend the plan.
Stock Status and Increased Fishing Pressure
The status of the Atlantic coast bluefish stock has changed from fully exploited to over-
exploited and is at a low level of abundance. This determination is based on trends in fishing
mortality rates, spawning stock biomass (SSB) levels and recruitment. There has been an
increase in fishing mortality from approximately 0.2 (1982) to approximately 0.45 (1993) . The
current fishing mortality rate exceeds the biological reference point used to define overfishing.
The ASMFC Bluefish FMP defines overfishing as F,,^ = 0.2 or the level of fishing at maximum
sustainable yield. Spawning stock biomass has declined from 653.6 million pounds (1982) to
172.4 million pounds (1993) (Figure 5.1). Since 1989, recruitment has been below average and
the 1993 year class was the lowest since 1975. Because of the current status of the bluefish
stock, an ASMFC Bluefish Technical Committee, Advisory Panel, and Plan Development Team
were formed during 1994. A Scoping/Informational document was prepared by the MAFMC for
a public hearing process which began in December, 1994 and will continue into 1995. When the
public hearings are completed, the development of Amendment #1 to the ASMFC Bluefish FMP
will begin.
Figure 5.1 Estimated spawning stock biomass for Atlantic coast
bluefish stock
Million pounds
800
600
400
200
1982
MAFMC data
1992
The recreational catch of bluefish along the Atlantic coast has steadily declined from
130.9 million pounds (1986) to 30.8 million pounds (1993). The 1993 coastal recreational
38
-------
landings were considerably lower than the 1979-1993 average of 93.7 million pounds (Kline et
al., 1994). The estimated recreational catch of bluefish from Maryland in 1993 was 193,187
fish, a decrease from the 1992 estimate of 621,229 fish (MRFSS). Preliminary MRFSS 1994
recreational landings for the Chesapeake region are not available.
The MAFMC/ASMFC Bluefish FMP defined two indices or triggers for implementing
controls on the bluefish fishery. In 1993, it was determined that the criteria for implementing the
controls had been met and a commercial quota was recommended for the 1994 fishing season
.The quota was calculated using the average recreational catch from 1990-1992 ( MRFSS data).
The 1994 coastwide commercial quota was 11.4 million pounds. Each state's allocation was
based on the 10 year average of commercial landings between 1978 and 1987. Maryland's
allocation was 2.8% of the total or 323,000 pounds. Virginia's quota was 10.7% of the total or
1.2 million pounds. Neither State met their 1994 quota. Maryland commercial landings were
155,643 pounds and Virginia landings were 532,000 pounds. States were asked to prepare an
implementation plan for monitoring their quotas. Since there were no enforcement measures
included in the coastal bluefish FMP, the quota was only considered a "target" quota (ASMFC
Bluefish memo, 1993). All state plans for implementing the commercial quota were approved by
the ASMFC Bluefish board.
The commercial fishery is projected to equal or exceed the 20% limit during 1995 and
will require a commercial quota. The original purpose of a quota was to maintain historical
allocations of harvests between commercial and recreational fisheries and, as written, does not
require a biological basis. The 1995 quota will be based on a three-year average of the
recreational catch between 199land 1993. The average coastal recreational harvest during this
period was 38.3 million pounds. If the 38 million pounds is the allowable 80% recreational
harvest, the allowable 20% commercial harvest for the entire coast is 9.6 million pounds, i.e.
38,332,000 divided by .8 (47,915,000) multiplied by .2 equals 9,583,000. State allocations
would then be determined by the total commercial catch in the most recent ten year period
(1983-1992). Maryland's allocation for 1995 is 2.9% or 274,373 pounds. Virginia's allocation
is 9.5% or 913,788 pounds. The state's percentage and quota will change each year depending
on the most recent data for the recreational harvest (3 year average) and commercial landings (10
year average).
Wasteful Harvest Practices
The harvest of "snapper" bluefish (fish < than 12") has increased due to a directed
recreational fishery on juvenile fish and as a result of bycatch in the South Atlantic (Kline et al.,
1994). As a result, minimum size limits and more restrictive creel limits will be discussed during
1995. "Catch and Release"programs have been initiated for the recreational fishery in
Maryland to help educate the general public about the need to minimize over-exploitation and
waste in the bluefish and other finfish fisheries. The MAFMC/ASMFC bluefish scoping
document has also recognized the need for educational programs promoting conservation.
The bycatch of small bluefish may have been reduced in Maryland by the increased
minimum mesh size for gill nets and otter trawls to 3 inches. In Virginia, a 2 7/8 inch minimum
mesh size for gill nets was established in 1990, while trawling in all state waters has been
prohibited since 1989. The Bay jurisdictions continue to support the use of bycatch reduction
devices (BRDs) in the southern coastal fisheries.
39
-------
As recommended by the MAFMC coastal FMP, a 10 fish recreational creel limit has
been in effect in the Bay jurisdictions since 1991 to reduce waste in the recreational fishery.
Maryland, Potomac River, and Delaware are the only jurisdictions at this time to implement a
minimum size limit as a waste reduction measure.
Research and Monitoring
The Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) conducts a juvenile trawl survey to
monitor the abundance of young fish in the Virginia portion of the Chesapeake Bay and its three
major tributaries (James, York, and Rappahannock Rivers). The bluefish juvenile data from this
survey suggest that since 1979, strong year-classes occured in 1981,1984,1989 and 1990 and
poorest year-classes occured in 1979-1980,1985-1987, and 1991. Data for 1993 and 1994 is
incomplete. VIMS also conducts a haul seine survey which targets juvenile striped bass. An
index of age 0 bluefish indicates that poor recruitment occured in 1986 and 1992. There is no
evidence that the increase in the striped bass stock has adversely affected bluefish recruitment
(18th SAW). Bluefish were sampled by month for length and sex through the VMRC Stock
Assessment Program. Bluefish ranged between 232.5 mm (9.1") and 917.5 mm (36.1") in
length. Based on size data, most bluefish available in the Virginia portion of the Bay were age 1
and 2.
Bluefish were sampled in the mid- and lower Chesapeake Bay during the summer by the
Maryland Comprehensive Finfish Program. During 1994, the bluefish sampled from pound nets
ranged from 121 mm to 503 mm. Bluefish abundance has historically been variable in
Maryland's portion of the Bay due to environmental factors such as temperature and salinity, and
stock considerations such as current low stock levels.
Conclusion
The commercial catch of bluefish has been limited to 20% of the total catch (recreational
plus commercial landings) by the implementation of a quota system. The change in stock status
from fully-exploited to over-exploited will require closer monitoring efforts during 1995. States
will also need to consider more restrictive management measures. Areas to be emphasized during
1995 are:
1) Implement and monitor the 1995 commercial quota for bluefish;
2) Consider the recommendations of the coastal FMP Review Team and their implementation.
References
ASMFC 1994. 1994 Annual Review of Interstate Fishery Management Plans: Bluefish.
CZawacki (ed). October, 1994.
Kline, L.L, C. Moore and D. Keifer. 1994. Report on status of stock and bluefish (Pomatomus
saltatrix) fishery management. Special Rept. No. 40 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission, December, 1994.
40
-------
18th SAW. Report of the 18th Stock Assessment Workshop/Stock Assessment Review
Committee, NEFSC CRD94-22; Bluefish Assessment, 1994 Report of the SARC
Pelagic/Coastal Subcommittee, Mark Terceiro (ed). NEFSC CRD94-15.
41
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY BLUEFISH IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Problem Area
1. Stock Status*
Increased Fishing
2. Wasteful Harvest
3. Research Needs
4. Habitat Issues
Action
1.1.1 Continue to participate in scientific & technical meetings
for managing blueftsh along the coast & in estuarine waters.
1 . 1 .2. 1 Will adhere to state allocations established by the
MAFMC/ASMFC if commercial harvests levels meet criteria in
the coastal plan.
1 .1 .2.2 Will continue present licensing requirements for harvest
and sale; VA will establish a 10 fish creel limit for its
commercial hook & line fishery & pursue a license for that
fishery.
1 .1 .2.3 MD will establish a 10 fish/person/day recreational creel
limit. VA & PRFC instituted a 10 fish creel in the summer of
1990. Creel limits and minimum legal sizes may be modified as
appropriate.
2.1.1 A 10 fish creel limit will minimize wastage.
2.1.2 Educate the general public about the need to reduce waste
in the bluefish fishery.
2.1 .3 Assess factors causing waste in the commercial fishery and
identify potential solutions.
3 . 1 . 1 Improve the catch and effort data collected from the
bluefish commercial fishery in the Bay.
3. 1 .2 Assess methods for improving recreational & charter
catch/effort data needed to evaluate biological and economic
impacts.
3.1 .3 Encourage research to collect data on bluefish.
4.1 Continue to set goals for water quality and habitat, review
programs established under the 1987 Bay Agreement.
Date
Continue
Continue
1991
Continue
1991
Continue
Continue
1991
Continue
1991
Continue
Continue
Continue
Continue
Comments
A quota of 323,000 pounds was established for Maryland in
1994, 2.8% of the mid-Atlantic projections of 1 1 .4 million
pounds. Virginia's quota for 1994 was 10.7% (1,219,000
Ibs.) of the total. 155,643 pounds from Maryland and
532,000 pounds from Virginia.
A 10 fish creel limit is enforced by the Bay jurisdictions.
A 10 fish creel limit is enforced by the Bay jurisdictions
(1991).
Programs geared towards children are helping.
Mandatory reporting is in effect in all Bay jurisdictions.
LEGEND: ASMFC = Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
MAFMC = Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council
MRFSS = Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey
PRFC = Potomac River Fisheries Commission
42
-------
Chapter 6
Weakfish/Spotted Seatrout Fishery Management Plan
Introduction
Weakfish
The weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) stock from Maryland to North Carolina has been experiencing
growth and recruitment overfishing since 1983 (Boreman and Seagraves 1984). An ASMFC weakfish FMP
was adopted in 1985 and recommended: a delay in harvest until age 1; the use of trawl efficiency devices
(TEDs) in the southern shrimp fisheries; and cooperative interstate research. A Chesapeake Bay
Weakfish/Spotted Seatrout FMP was completed in December 1990 and recognized the overfishing problem.
The continued decline in weakfish landings prompted the development of ASMFC Amendment #1 in 1992.
Amendment #1 proposed a phased reduction in exploitation by 15% during 1992, meeting a 50% reduction
by 1995, and restoring the stock over a 10 year period. An interim 25% reduction in exploitation was
recommended for 1993 and 1994. Procedures for determining whether a jurisdiction was in compliance with
ASMFC recommendations was added to Amendement #1. No State was judged in compliance during 1993
by the Weakfish Technical Committee. States were encouraged to fully implement the recommendations of
Amendment #1 during 1994. A draft Amendment #2 has been developed as a provisional measure to
stabilize the decline of weakfish stocks until a more comprehensive plan is adopted. Amendment #2 proposes
coastwide minimum size limits, a reduction in exploitation by 25% for the 1995/1996 fishing
season, minimum mesh sizes and a reduction in bycatch by 50% in the southern shrimp fishery.
Maryland adopted a 14" TL minimum size limit for weakfish and spotted seatrout for the recreational
fishery in September 1994 and continued a 12" TL minimum size limit for the commercial fishery. A
commercial fishing season for weakfish and sported seatrout was implemented from October 1 through
November 30 (no weekend fishing) for the Atlantic Ocean, its coastal bays and tributaries. In Virginia, the
minimum size limit for weakfish varied by gear type and so did the closed season. The commercial size limit
was between 9" (pound net & haul seine) and 12" (gill net, trawl). The commercial and recreational hook &
line size limit was 14" with a 10 fish/person/day creel limit. The PRFC had a 12" TL minimum size limit for
weakfish and spotted seatrout and a 4 fish/person/day creel limit.
With the federal adoption of the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act, ASMFC
has issued the following FMP compliance requirements for weakfish (as of August 1994):
1) All states with a directed fishery (MD, VA and PRFC included) must have a 12" minimum size
limit or a conservation equivalent. Compliance date: 7/31/94.
2) All states with a directed fishery must implement a harvest control strategy to reduce annual
exploitation (the proportion of existing stock harvested in a given period) by 25% for the fishing year
4/1/94- 3/31/95. Compliance date: 7/31/94.
3) All states with a directed fishery must implement a control strategy such that their fishing
mortality rates (rate at which fish die due to fishing) do not exceed F=0.34 (F20). Compliance date:
3/20/95.
4) All states with a directed fishery must submit a plan to the Weakfish Management Board
implementing the necessary controls for approval or disapproval. Compliance date: 7/31/94.
43
-------
5) North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida must reduce bycatch mortality of weakfish in
the shrimp trawl fishery by 50%. Compliance date: 3/30/95. Plans must be submitted prior to June 1
each year.
6) New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and the Potomac River Fisheries
Commission must implement appropriate mesh sizes to achieve 75% escapement of minimum size
weakfish. Compliance date: 1/1/95.
All state plans for achieving a 25% reduction in weakfish exploitation for the recreational fishery during the
April 1,1995 through March 31,1996 fishing year, were approved. The PRFC will maintain a 14" minimum
size limit and a 10 fish creel limit. Maryland and Virginia will implement one of the combination size and
creel limit options as specified by ASMFC (either a 14" size limit and a 10 fish creel or a 12" size limit and a
4 fish creel). Management measures to reduce commercial exploitation during 1995/1996 have not been
finalized. Bay jurisdiction commercial proposals include a minimum size limit, minimum mesh size, and
seasonal and areal closures. A more comprehensive management scenario will be developed during
1995/1996 (Amendment #3).
Spotted Seatrout
An ASMFC FMP for spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus) was developed and adopted in 1984.
Amendment #1 was adopted in 1991 and defined a spawning potential ratio (SPR) of at least 20% to
minimize the possibility of recruitment failure. The 1994 ASMFC review team concluded that the goal and
objectives of the 1984 plan were still valid but full implementation of the recommendations has not been
achieved. The recommendation to establish a minimum size limit of at least 12" TL has occurred in all states
that have declared an interest in spotted seatrout (Maryland to Florida). The collection of improved catch and
effort data from the commercial and recreational fisheries has also been initiated based on ASMFC
recommendations. Additional recommendations that need to be fully implemented include the development of
methodologies to monitor stock status such as pre-recruit indices, virtual population analyses, and size
composition and the annual incorporation of new data and research findings (ASMFC 1994b). A combined
weakfish and spotted seatrout Chesapeake Bay FMP was adopted in 1990.
Overfishing and Stock Status
Weakfish
The weakfish stock along the Atlantic coast is overfished. A biological reference point of F=0.22 or
exploitation rate of 17% has been defined as a target for the weakfish stock which is equal to a maximum
spawning potential of 20% of an unfished spawning stock. Current average annual exploitation has been
estimated at 63% or F=1.23. The current average exploitation rate would need to be lowered by 73% to reach
the biological reference point (ASMFC 1994a). Comprehensive management measures to reach the reduction
in exploitation will be defined in Amendment #3. Until then, Amendment #2 requires a 25% reduction in
weakfish exploitation during April 1,1995 through March 31,1996. Weakfish recruitment has been low but
stable while commercial and recreational harvests, and biomass have declined (ASMFC 1994a).
There is some concern whether the current state plans for managing weakfish adequately implement
fishing controls relating to the landing offish from the EEZ. Weakfish harvest from the EEZ has comprised
from 52% to 55% of the coastal harvest in the past two years. The ASMFC weakfish FMP would be less
effective if the EEZ harvest is not controlled.
In 1994, the commercial harvest of weakfish was 224,000 pounds from Maryland and 1.0 million
44
-------
Figure 6.1. Maryland commercial landings for weakfish
Million pounds
0.4
0.2
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980
Year
1986
1994
pounds from
Virginia
(Figures 6.1
and 6.2). In
1994, the
Maryland
harvest
increased from
1993 (136,000
pounds) and
Virginia
landings stayed
about the same
(1.1 million
pounds).
Virginia
received
approval in
1994 to
establish an
effort reduction
for its pound
net fishery.
Fishermen were allowed to forfeit gear licenses to avoid a seasonal closure. At least 65% of 58 licencees who
harvest weakfish used this alternative management strategy for the 1994/95 season (VMRC, weakfish
report). A limited entry system has already been established (1994) for pound nets in Virginia which caps
existing effort. The 1994 weakfish recreational harvest data from MRFSS is not available. Data from
Maryland charterboat logbooks, which only characterizes a portion of the recreational harvest, indicate that
69,000 pounds (50,600 fish) of weakfish were harvested from the Bay and 700 pounds (900 fish) from the
coastal areas. Fish caught from the Bay averaged 1.36 pounds while fish caught from the coastal areas
averaged 0.78 pounds. Recreational landings from coastal Maryland are probably under-reported due to the
non-resident, transient nature of the Ocean City charterboats.
Spotted Seatrout
There is not enough catch and effort data to assess the status of the spotted seatrout stock along the
Atlantic coast (ASMFC 1994b). Preliminary population analyses of local spotted seatrout stocks from
Florida and South Carolina indicate a need to reduce fishing effort in order to maintain a SPR of 20%.
Recreational catches of spotted seatrout have averaged 2.0 million fish (MRFSS data, 1984-1993).
Recreational fishing pressure has been increasing in the South Atlantic region and there is some concern over
declining recreational catches in Florida.
There were no reported commercial landings recorded for spotted seatrout from Maryland in 1993 or
1994. Virginia commercial landings during 1994 was 42,000 pounds, a slight increase from 1993 (38,000
pounds). Data from Maryland charterboat logbooks indicate that 5,000 pounds (4,500 fish) were harvested
from the Bay and 66 pounds (81 fish) were harvested from the coastal areas. Fish caught in the Bay were
larger than fish caught from the coastal areas.
45
-------
The catch of small weakfish and spotted seatrout in non-directed fisheries and subsequent mortality
associated with the discard is a problem. The use of experimental escape panels in Virginia pound nets has
been investigated as an alternative option to reducing exploitation of weakfish in the Bay. Two years of field
work has shown this option reduces the incidental take of weakfish less than 10" TL. Virginia has submitted a
proposal for funding under the SK grant program to further quantify the percentage of weakfish (under 10")
released by this device. This research is intended to provide ASMFC with a quantitative evaluation of the
reduction in small weakfish caught in pound nets with escape panels installed.
Figure 6.2. Virginia commercial landings for weakfish
Million pounds
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
Year
Losses to the weakfish stock from the scrap/bait fisheries have been included in the most recent stock
assessment for weakfish. Estimates of scrap/bait landings were based on data from the Virginia and North
Carolina trawl, pound and haul seine fisheries. In order to estimate weakfish bycatch in the southern shrimp
fishery (Georgia through North Carolina), a ratio of 0.25 pounds of weakfish to 1 pound of shrimp was
utilized. Nearly 90% of the estimated weakfish discards are age 0 fish (Gibson 1994). Assessments have
shown that discards offish from the southern shrimp trawl fishery reduces weakfish yield per recruit and
spawning stock biomass per recruit (Vaughan et al. 1991, Crecco 1993). Southern states are required to
reduce the bycatch of weakfish (Amendment #2). To date, only the North Carolina shrimp trawl fisheries
have implemented management measures to achieve a 50% reduction in bycatch.
Field studies and testimonies by fishermen have disputed the accuracy of current theoretical lengths
used to determine mesh size requirements for weakfish. Changes in gill net and trawl minimum mesh sizes
recommended by ASMFC have been placed on hold until more information is compiled on mesh selectivity.
An empirical mesh selectivity study is needed to determine the effects offish density, net hanging aspects,
area, season, and fishing techniques (Weakfish Amendment #2). Several coastal states are participating in
minimum mesh size studies and data will be available in 1995.
46
-------
Research and Monitoring
There are trawl surveys conducted along the Atlantic coast that determine a juvenile index for
weakfish and large trawl surveys that sample population characteristics (age, length, weight, CPUE).
Population characteristics are also sampled from commercial fisheries. During 1994, the Maryland Multifish
Project sampled commercial pound nets from the mid-Bay region [Pt. Lookout (Potomac River) to Stillpond
Cr. (Sassafrass R.)]. Weakfish ranged from 216 mm (8.5") to 394 mm (15.5") with a mean length of 290 mm
(11.4"). The Maryland Marine Fisheries Project sampled juvenile weakfish (< 203 mm or 8") from the coastal
bays. The 1994 weakfish trawl index was 4.3, ranking 5th over 23 years (Casey et al., in prep.). Virginia
monitored weakfish population characteristics from both the recreational and commercial fisheries. During
1994, the Stock Assessment Program processed 13,830 fish. Weakfish ranged from 152.4 mm (6") to 795.0
mm (31.1") with a mean length of 302.3 mm (11.9").
There are no spotted seatrout research projects currently in progress in Maryland or Virginia. There
are several research projects being conducted in the southern Atlantic region which include: determining the
rates of utilization and movements of spotted seatrout; locating and mapping spawning aggregations;
deriving juvenile abundance indices and relating them to adult abundance; collecting life history information
on age and growth, and size and age at maturity (ASMFC 1994b).
Conclusion
The weakfish stock is overfished. Recommendations for reducing exploitation have not been fully
implemented by the coastal states and fishing mortality has not decreased. The ASMFC has defined several
compliance issues which will become effective during 1995. Currently, the coastal states are required to
reduce weakfish exploitation by 25% during 1995/1996. The status of spotted seatrout has not been defined
but there is some evidence from the south Atlantic that suggests abundance has decreased. Research projects
in the south Atlantic are in progress to help define the situation. The following areas should be emphasized
during 1995 for the weakfish and spotted seatrout stocks:
1) Fully implement the ASMFC recommendations to reduce exploitation by 25% during the
1995/1996 fishing season;
2) Continue to collect biological data on both species and monitor the recreational and commercial
catch; and
3) Continue to coordinate with ASMFC and the MAFMC to coordinate management activities
between state waters and the EEZ.
References
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 1994a. Review of the ASMFC Fishery Management
Plan for Weakfish. R.T. Christian (ed.). Special Rept. No. 33.
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 1994b. Review of the ASMFC Fishery
Management Plan for Spotted Seatrout. R.T. Christian (ed.). Special Rept. No. 33.
47
-------
Boreman, J. and R.J. Seagraves. 1984. Status of weakfish along the Atlantic coast, 1984. Nat. Mar. Fish.
Ser., NEFC, Woods Hole Lab. Ref. Doc. No. 84-19, p.27.
Casey, J.F., S.B. Doctor, and A.E. Wesche. (in prep). Investigation of Maryland's Atlantic Ocean and coastal
bay finfish stocks. Fed. Aid. Proj. No. F-50-R-3. MDNR, Tidewater Admin., Fisheries Division.
Crecco, V.A. 1993. Changes in F20 and F20sp for Atlantic coast weakfish following increases in the minimum
size limit and reductions in current F. Connecticut Division Marine Fisheries. Report to the ASMFC
weakfish technical committee.
Gibson, M.R_ 1994. Alternative estimates of weakfish bycatch in shrimp trawl fisheries in the South
Atlantic using shrimp effort and relative weakfish abundance data. Report to the ASMFC Weakfish
Technical Committee, Nov. 1994.
Vaughan, D.S., R.J. Seagraves and K. West. 1991. An assessment of the status of the Atlantic weakfish
stock, 1982-1988. Special Report No. 21. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.
48
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY WEAKFISH/SPOTTED SEATROUT IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX
Problem Area
1. Overfishing
2. Stock Assessment &
Research Needs
Action
1.1.1 MD, VA & PRFC will continue stock assessment work &
analyses of catch/effort data described in Action 2.1 to improve
management measures for controlling overharvest.
1 .1 .2.a) MD & PRFC will propose an increase in the minimum size
limit for weakfish from 10" to 12";
b) VA will continue to enforce its minimum size limit of 9" for
weakfish;
c) Bay jurisdictions will pursue discussions on a consistent baywide
minimum size for weakfish.
1.1.3 MD, PRFC & VA will continue to enforce their 12" minimum
size limit for spotted seatrout.
1 . 1 .4 MD will continue its Delay of Application program for
commercial fishing licenses to control fishing effort. VA will
continue to pursue a limite & delayed entry program.
1.1.5 MD, PRFC & VA will evaluate recreational & commercial
creel limits for weakfish & spotted seatrout H&L fisheries, &
implement them as needed.
1 .2 a) MD will collect information from pound net, ocean gill net &
ocean trawl fisheries to develop managment strategies for reducing
the non-directed bycatch of small weakfish and other species;
b) VA will continue to monitor the species composition & biological
characteristics of bait harvested in its pound net fishery. Will take
action as needed to reduce the incidental bycatch of small weakfish;
c) MD, PRFC & VA will work through MAFMC/ASMFC to
encourage protection of immature weakfish caught in NC fisheries.
2.1 a) Continue to support stock identification research. Coordinated
studies on the relative contribution of various estuaries to the coastal
weakfish stock will be initiated.
Date
Continue
In effect
No longer
applies
No longer
an issue
Continue
Not
applicable
1994
Continue
Continue
Continue
Continue
Comments
The weakfish stock is overfished. Recommendations for reducing
exploitation have not been fully implemented by the coastal states and
fishing mortality has not decreased. The ASMFC has defined several
compliance issues.
PRFC implemented a 14" size limit for their recreational and
commercial fishery for weakfish.
VA. has implemented a 10" size limit for the haul seine & pound net
fisheries and a 12" minimum size limit for H&L and gill net with a
10% tolerance by weight.
PRFC has a 13" minimum size limit (1992); VA has a 14" size limit
with a 5% tolerance for haul seine & pound nets; MD has a 12" size
limit (1993).
MD adopted a limited entry law during 1994 which supercedes the
delayed entry program. VA implemented a delayed entry program
(1993) and has limited entry authority.
All Bay jurisdictions adopted a minimum size limit for weakfish and
spotted seatrout and had a 10 fish/person/day creel limit in effect.
VMRC continued its stock assessment activities including collecting
biological data on weakfish. MD collected length frequency data
from Multifish and Marine Monitoring projects. Weakfish were also
sampled from the ocean trawl fishery.
VA has continued experimenting with the use of escape panels in
pound nets. Continued working with Nroth Carolina on the
escapement of small weakfish.
The jurisdictions continue to work with ASMFC/MAFMC to promote
the use of bycatch reduction devices (BRDs).
49
-------
Problem Area
3. Habitat Loss and
Degradation
4. Recreational &
Commercial Conflicts
Action
b) Continue VMRC's stock assessment to collect biological data
from commercial catch. A weakfish population study including
mortality estimates & yield models is proposed;
c) Continue to collect landings data, sample pound nets, pursue
limited & delayed entry, & require mandatory reporting; supplement
MRFSS & charterboat logbooks.
d) Continue baywide trawl survey.
3.1 1-7) Continue to set specific objectives for water quality goals &
review management programs.
4.1 Continue to address fishing conflicts & issues with existing
advisory groups.
4.2 a) VMRC adopted a uniform marking system & a minimum
mesh size of 2 7/8" for gill nets in tidal waters.
b) MD adopted a marking system based on VA's scheme for drift
gill nets in the striped bass fishery.
Date
On-going
Continue
On-going
Continue
Continue
Continue
Continue
Comments
MD and VIMS trawl surveys provide some data on juvenile weakfish
abundance.
LEGEND:
ASMFC= Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
MAFMC= Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council
MRFSS = Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey
PRFC= Potomac River Fisheries Commission
VIMS= Virginia Institute of Marine Science
VMRC= Virginia Marine Resources Commission
50
-------
Chapter 7
Summer Flounder Fishery Management Plan
Introduction
An Atlantic State Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) Management Plan for summer flounder
(Paralichthys dentatus) was adopted in 1982. The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC)
completed and adopted a federal plan for summer flounder in 1988. Several amendments have been jointly
developed by ASMFC and the MAFMC since the adoption of the plans, and provide a comprehensive
management program for summer flounder. The most recent amendment, #6, was approved in May, 1994. It
allows nets with a cod end mesh size less than that established in the plan, on a vessel if they are properly
stowed. It also changed the specifications for setting recreational management measures until after the Marine
Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS) data are available. The current mandatory requirements for
summer flounder are as follows (ASMFC Schedule for Compliance, FMPs):
1) Each state must submit a plan for managing its commercial quota including plans for size limits
and mesh regulations for the 1995 fishery.
2) Each state shall close its summer flounder commercial fishery and prohibit landings when its
quota is reached.
3) Each state shall establish a 13 inch minimum size limit for its commercial fishery.
4) Each state shall establish a minimum mesh size of 5 1/2 inches for trawl nets, as specified in the
management plan.
5) Each state shall establish a 14 inch (TL) minimum size limit for its recreational fishery.
6) Each state (except Maine and New Hampshire) shall establish a possession limit for its
recreational fishery. (The creel limit for 1994 was 8 fish/person/day and will be the same for the
1995 recreational fishery.)
7) Each state (except Maine and New Hampshire) shall establish a recreational fishing season. (The
1994 season was April 15-October 15. For 1995 is no season.)
The Bay jurisdictions are currently in compliance with ASMFC/MAFMC recommendations. In 1991, the
Chesapeake Bay Program developed and adopted a FMP for flounder following the ASMFC/MAFMC
guidelines and addressing issues relating to the the stock in the Chesapeake region. The status of the
Chesapeake Bay Summer Flounder FMP has been reviewed annually since 1992 (Annual Progress Report for
FMPs, 1992 & 1993). The following is an update on the status of the stock and management measures that
have occurred during 1994. For complete details, refer to the 1991 Chesapeake Bay Summer Flounder
Fishery Management Plan.
Stock Status
The summer flounder stock is overfished but management measures recommended by the
MAFMC/ASMFC and implemented through the Chesapeake Bay Summer Flounder FMP have been
51
-------
successful at reducing exploitation. Data from the NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center spring survey
indicate a stable level of spawning stock biomass during 1993-1994. Over the last 10 years, fishing
exploitation has been between 46% and 78% (SAW 1994). With the implementation of a commercial quota
and comparable recreational restrictions, the fishing exploitation rate dropped from 76% in 1992 (F=1.7) to
36% in 1993 (F=0.54) (Figure 7.1). A target fishing mortality rate of F=0.53 was set for 1993-1995 by
MAFMC/ASMFC.
Figure 7.1. Exploitation rates for summer
flounder stock
100
MAFMC data * Preliminary data
The summer flounder stock has been managed under a coastwide quota since 1993. The allocation of
the coastal quota between the commercial and recreational fisheries is based on historical data, with 60% of
the total quota allotted to the commercial fishery and 40% to the recreational fishery. The 1994 coastwide
recreational harvest limit for summer flounder was 10.7 million pounds. The 1994 limit represented a 30%
increase in harvest from 1993, identical to the increase in commercial quota (Table 7.1). The 1994
commercial quota was 15.6 million pounds, with 324,100 pounds allocated to Maryland and 3.2 million
pounds allocated to Virginia. State allocations are also based on historical commercial records with 2% of the
catch allotted to Maryland and 21.3% allotted to Virginia. The 1994 commercial quota was adjusted in
November 1994, to 18.6 million pounds as a result of a court order. The adjusted 1994 allocations for
Maryland and Virginia, were 335,196 pounds and 3.9 million pounds, respectively. In recent years, between
85% and 90% of the commercial harvest landed in Maryland and Virginia has been harvested from the EEZ
(3-200 miles offshore).
Fishing mortality is expected to increase to between 0.7 and 0.8 with the landing of the adjusted
1994 quota (ASMFC 1994). As of January 1995, the total commercial harvest during 1994 was 14.3 million
pounds or 77% of the adjusted 1994 commercial quota. During 1994, Maryland harvested 160,400 pounds or
48% of its allocation and Virginia harvested 3.0 million pounds or 78% of its allocation. The projected
increase in fishing mortality may not be as high as expected because the quota was not reached. However,
fishing mortality is still expected to increase because of poor recruitment in 1993 (the lowest since 1988) and
52
-------
an increase in the exploitation of younger fish (SAW 1994). The age composition of the stock remains
truncated with only 12% of the spawning stock biomass at age 3 and older. A recovered, "healthy" stock is
expected to have 77% of the spawning stock biomass at age 3 and older. Expanding the age structure of a
stock has several advantages. Since the summer flounder fishery is dependent on incoming recruitment,
protection of the most recent year classes is important. Protecting older fish increases egg production as
larger and older females are usually more fecund.
Table 7.1. Management Measures Implemented for the Summer Flounder Stock
MANAGEMENT MEASURES
Coastwide harvest (millions of Ibs)
Commercial quota (millions of Ibs)
Recreational harvest (millions of Ibs)
Commercial minimum size (inches)
Minimum mesh size (inches, diamond/square)
Recreational size limit
Recreational creel limit
Recreational season
1993
20.7
12.4
8.4
13
5.57
6.0
14
* 6
May 15-
Sept 30
1994
26.7
16.0
10.7
13
5.57
6.0
14
8
**Apr
15- Oct
15
1995
22.5
14.7
7.8
13
5.57
6.0
14
8
Open
year-
round
* MD not in compliance with a 10 fish creel; VA and PRFC not in compliance with a 10 fish creel and no
season.
** VA season May 1-Oct 30; MD season May 1-Nov 30; PRFC season May 27-Oct 31.
Overfishing
Overfishing for the summer flounder stock has been defined by MAFMC/ASMFC as fishing in
excess of the F,,,^ level or F=0.23. Over the last ten years or more, fishing mortality has been higher than F^
Implementing a quota system for the management of summer flounder has significantly reduced fishing
mortality. The ¥max level equates to a spawning stock biomass (SSB) per recruit level of 20%.
Spawning stock biomass reached a low in 1989 but since then, has been gradually rebuilding (Figure 7.2).
The 1994 SSB is expected to be close to the 1993 level.
The Bay jurisdictions will implement the 1995 summer flounder quota recommended by the
MAFMC/ASMFC. The jurisdictions will use the commercial landings data collected by NMFS to monitor
commercial catch and close the commercial fishery if/when the quota is reached. The 1995 quota is 299,551
pounds and 3.1 million pounds for Maryland and Virginia, respectively. Minimum size limits (13"
commercial & 14" recreational) and minimum mesh sizes will remain in effect. An 8 fish/person/day creel
53
-------
limit and a fishing season from January 1 to December 31 is recommended for the recreational fishery.
There is continued concern from commercial and recreational fishermen about the disparity between
the recreational and commercial size limits. The NMFS data on mesh sizes indicate that 50% of the 13"
summer flounder caught by 5.5/6.0 inch meshes will escape. It is the intent of the MAFMC that both fisheries
target fish greater or equal to 14 inches. The 13" commercial limit was allowed in order to minimize the
discard mortality in the fishery.
Figure 7.2. Estimated spawning stock biomass for summer
flounder
E
o
1987
1988
1989
1990 1991
Year
1992
1993
1994
MAFMC data
The bycatch of flounder in non-directed fisheries and discard mortality associated with the catch of
undersized fish have been defined as problems for the stock. Currently, summer flounder may only be landed
by those vessels with moratorium permits. However, fishermen harvesting scallops (using dredges) may land
as many flounder as they catch, as long as they meet the minimum size limit, trip limit or closures that are in
effect. The scallop fishery is managed under the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP which has implemented a
moratorium on entry into the fishery and has limited effort. The issue currently under discussion is whether to
allow sea scallop fishermen to land their bycatch of flounder when a state closure is in effect. Discard data
from the offshore trawl fishery has been examined by the stock assessment committee. Based on length
frequency data from 1989-1992, proportions at age, length at age, and weights at age were used to
characterize the 1993 summer flounder commercial fishery. Preliminary results suggest that large quantities
of summer flounder are not being discarded due to trip limits or seasonal fishery closures (SAW 18).
Amendment #1 (see attachment #1) to the Chesapeake Bay Summer Flounder FMP was drafted
during 1994 in response to the coastal commercial quota and the small percentage allocated to Maryland.
Acceptance of the amendment would give Maryland the authority to develop a limited entry program for the
commercial summer flounder fishery. The amendment has been endorsed by the FMP Workgroup. It will be
54
-------
sent to the Living Resources Subcommittee for approval and then to the Principal Staff Committee for
adoption during 1995.
Stock Assessment and Research Needs
The Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) prepared an updated stock assessment of the
coastwide stock of summer flounder between 1989 and 1993; provided catch and SSB options at various
levels of fishing mortality; and provided catch and SSB forecasts. Indices of abundance are currently
calculated from data obtained by the NEFC offshore survey, the Massachusetts spring and fall inshore
surveys, the Connecticut fall trawl survey, and the Rhode Island fall trawl survey. Young-of-the-year indices
are available from North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island and Massachusetts.
Information from these states indicate that the spatial distribution of recruitment success may not be uniform
over a geographic range (SAW 18).
The Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) juvenile fish trawl survey has been a good indicator
of year-class strength for summer flounder. The VIMS indices for 1992 and 1993 were the lowest years in the
survey since 1987 and 1988. The 1994 index was 1.1. The VIMS trawl survey samples only the Virginia
portion of the Bay and does not include coastal areas. Maryland DNR conducts a trawl survey in the coastal
bay area which samples juvenile flounder. The 1994 index was the fourth highest value over the last 23 years
at 8.2 fish per tow (Figure 7.3 ). Fishery-dependent sampling in the mid-Bay area (MD Multifish Project)
indicated that both young-of-the-year and adult fish are caught by pound nets. Fish were most abundant
between 317 mm and 394 mm (12.5" and 15.5"). Estimated coastwide recruitment (Age 0) decreased from
42.8 million fish (1992) to 20.5 million fish (1993). Predicted recruitment for 1994 has been calculated at
32.2 million fish (SAW 18). The VMRC stock assessment data indicate that 5.5% of summer flounder
sampled (n=2984) from the commercial fishery in state waters (all gear types) were less than 330 mm (13").
Pound nets, which landed the majority of summer flounder caught in state waters, had 5.9% of the sample
catch (n=2761) measuring less than 13".
Research recommendations by the stock assessment committee include: continued sea sampling
programs to monitor the effects of FMP management actions and quantify discard levels; continue the winter
trawl survey to provide precise indices of abundance and mortality estimates; update the biological reference
points to reflect the different partial recruitment of age 1 fish; update the recruitment indices through 1993;
update maturity schedules and fecundity estimates based on histological examination of summer flounder
ovaries; and revise recreational catch statistics after the MRFSS data is revised.
Conclusion
The summer flounder stock continues to be overfished but the implementation of a coastwide quota
has been successful at reducing exploitation. Exploitation rates from 1992 to 1993 decreased from 76% to
36%. The exploitation rate is expected to increase as a result of a poor recruitment in 1993 and increased
exploitation of younger fish. Spawning stock biomass has been gradually rebuilding from a low in 1989. The
age structure of the stock continues to be compressed with few fish older than age 3. The following areas
should be emphasized during 1995:
1) Implement the MAFMC/ASMFC recommendations for the 1995 summer flounder fishery;
2) Monitor the 1995 commercial quota and close the fishery if/when it is necessary;
55
-------
3) Continue research and monitoring efforts to characterize the age structure of the Chesapeake Bay
and coastal populations; and,
4) Continue the VIMS and Maryland trawl surveys to monitor recruitment in the Chesapeake Bay
region.
Figure 7.3. Summer flounder juvenile indices from Maryland and
Virginia
1979
1984
1989
1994
Year
VIMS juvenile trawl survey
MDNR coastal bay trawl survey
-Maryland -"-Virginia
References
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 1994. 1994 Annual Review of Interstate Fishery
Management Plans, (ed.) R.T. Christian. ASMFC Management and Science Committee.
Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW) 18. 1994. Advisory Report on Stock Status, Northeast Fisheries
Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole, Massachusetts
56
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY SUMMER FLOUNDER IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX
Problem Area
1 . Overfishing
2. Stock
Assessment and
Research Needs
Action
1 .la. MD, VA & PRFC wilt propose an increase in their minimum size
limit for recreationally caught flounder from 13" to 14".
1 .lb. MD, VA & PRFC will propose creel limits & seasonal restrictions in
compliance with MAFMC recommendations.
1 . Ic. Commercial size limits will remain in effect for VA & MD; PRFC
will propose a 14" size limit. A 5.5" or 6" min. mesh size will be
implemented in all directed flounder trawl fisheries.
l.ld. Commercial fisheries will be subject to a quota administered by
MAFMC. Each state's fishery will close when its quota is met.
1 .2a. VA & MD will implement a 5.5" diamond or 6" square mesh in all
directed trawl fisheries to allow escapement of immature flounder.
1.2b. VA &MD will promote implementation of 5 .5 " diamond or 6" square
mesh in all EEZ directed founder trawl fisheries.
1.3a. MD will collect information from pound nets & ocean trawl fisheries
to develop strategies for reducing bycatch of undersized flounder & other
species.
1 .3b. VA will monitor species composition & biological characteristics of its
pound net fishery & take steps to reduce bycatch as needed.
1 .3c. MD.VA & PRFC will work with the MAFMC & ASMFC to
encourage the protection of immature flounder.
2.1 The jurisdictions will conduct stock identification work.
2.2 Continue collection of data from commercial catches.
2.3 Continue on-going commercial fisheries statistics programs; VA will
pursue its mandatory reporting system; VA & MD will continue to
supplement the MRFSS.
Date
1992
1993
Continue
1992
1993
Continue
Continue
1993
Continue
Continue
1993
Continue
Continue
Continue
Continue
Variable
Comments
PRFC implemented a 14" size limit beginning in 1992.
MD & VA implemented a 14" size limit in 1993.
The MAFMC recommended an 8 fish creel & an Apr 15- Oct 15
season. Bay jurisdictions implemented an 8 fish creel and different
seasons (see Table #).
PRFC established 14" size limit for the commercial fishery in 1992. MD
& VA had a 13" size limit during 1993 & 1994. VA has a ban on
trawling in state waters. MD implemented a 5.5" min, mesh size for the
directed trawl fishery (beginning 1993).
Commercial quota system started in 1993 and continued during 1994.
MD was allotted 324,100 Ibs & VA was allotted 3.2 million Ibs.
MD implemented a 5. 5 "diamond or 6" square mesh for the flounder
trawl fisheries in 1993. VA has a ban on trawling in state waters.
The minimum mesh size for trawls in the EEZ went into effect in Nov.
1992.
MD implemented a pound net sampling program beginning in 1993 and
continuing during 1994.
VMRC continued their stock assessment work, collecting length & age
data.
VMRC samples commercial fishery in the Bay. MD sampled pound nets
and offshore trawl catches.
Mandatory reporting was implemented in VA (1993). All participants in
the summer flounder trawl fishery are required to report in NMFS
logbooks.
57
-------
Problem Area
3. Habitat Issues
Action
2.4 Continue the baywide trawl survey to measure size, age, sex,
distribution, abundance and CPUE.
3.1 Promote the objectives of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement to improve
water quality.
Date
Continue
Continue
Comments
MD conducts a multi-species sampling program from pound nets &
fykes nets throughout the Bay. Also conducts a juvenile trawl survey in
the coastal bays. VIMS also conducts a baywide trawl survey.
During 1994, the Bay Program continued to create and protect habitat,
prevent pollution, enhance living resources, educate and involve the
public and monitor and measure progress.
LEGEND:
ASMFC = Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
CPUE = Catch per unit of effort
EEZ = Exclusive Economic Zone, 3-200 miles offshore
MAFMC = Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council
MRFSS = Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey
NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service
PRFC = Potomac River Fisheries Commission
VIMS = Virginia Institute of Marine Science
VMRC = Virginia Marine Resources Commission
58
-------
Chapter 8
Atlantic Croaker and Spot Fishery Management Plan
Introduction
The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) Fishery Management Plans (FMP) for
Atlantic Croaker (Micropogonias undulatus) and Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) were adopted in 1987. The
Commission's recommendations focused mainly on research and monitoring. The South Atlantic Fishery
Management Board has asked the ASMFC staff to begin the preparation of an amendment to define
management measures necessary to achieve goals of the ASMFC FMP. The current ASMFC FMP does not
contain specific management measures and compliance issues. In 1991, the Chesapeake Bay Atlantic
Croaker and Spot FMP was completed. Review of the Chesapeake Bay FMP is scheduled for 1996.
Status of the Stock and Fishery
The abundance of croaker and spot in Chesapeake Bay is highly variable and dependent upon
environmental conditions. During 1994, the jurisdictions conducted fishery independent and dependent
surveys to monitor the relative abundance of croaker and spot within the Chesapeake Bay region.
Atlantic Croaker
Juvenile recruitment is dependent upon survival of winter temperatures. Fishery independent trawl
and seine surveys during 1994 indicated recruitment was at moderate levels but was well below recent
"dominant" yearclass levels (VIMS 1994; D. Cosden and S. Doctor, MDNR pens. comm.).
Croaker is one of the most frequently caught sportfish in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Recreational
Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) estimated that Virginia sportfishermen caught 14.0 million croaker
(includes both kept and released) during 1994. This catch was nearly twice the 1993 estimate of 7.7 million
fish. Maryland sportfishermen had another exceptional year with an estimated 3.2 million croaker caught
(Figure 8.1). Average weights remained at approximately 0.60 pounds (MRFSS data). Data from
Maryland's charterboat logbooks indicated an increase in landings during 1994 with 223,595 fish being
harvested at an average weight of 1.04 pounds.
Figure 8.1. Recreational Catch Estimate* For Croaker In Maryland*
MB lion fish
* 1979 and 1900 catches are comMned.
Source: MRFSS dot*
59
-------
Baywide commercial croaker landings have increased in recent years to levels seen in the late 1970's.
During 1993, Maryland and Virginia harvested 93,000 and 5.2 million pounds, respectively. Harvest during
Figure 8.2. Commercial Croaker Landings In Virginia
Mfflion pounds
1993-5249.892 1994-Not Available
i i i i i i i i r r i i \ \ i it i i i i i i IT i i i T i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i r
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1994
SourcaNMFSdata
Figure 8.3. Commercial Croaker Landings In Maryland
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
Thousand pounds
1993-92,913 1994-178.468
ii i ii i i i ii i i i i i i i i i i i i i ii i i \ii \rii t i i i i i i i r i i
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1994
Year
Source: NMFS data
60
-------
1994 increased to 178,000 pounds in Maryland and 5.7 million pounds Virginia (Figures 8.2 & 8.3). It is
difficult to determine the relationship between landings and abundance without effort information. Historic
trends indicate that landings increase significantly as strong year classes recruit to the fishery, remain high for
a few years, and then decline as the the year class passes through the fishery (Uphoff & Piavis 1993). Croaker
indices from baywide juvenile surveys have remained at moderate levels for several years with a strong year
class reported from Maryland in 1991. Successive years of good recruitment with a reduction in bycatch from
the North Carolina fisheries, appears to be having a positive effect on the croaker population in the Bay.
Spot
Recruitment of spot, like croaker, is highly variable and dependent on environmental conditions.
Juvenile spot are a major component in fishery independent trawl and seine surveys along the Atlantic coast
The abundance of juvenile spot in Virginia and Maryland has fluctuated with no apparent trend. Juvenile
indices in Virginia during 1994 remained low for the fourth year in a row (VIMS 1994). After five years
(1989-1993) of poor recruitment in Maryland, recruitment was average during 1994 (D. Cosden and S.
Doctor, MDNR pers. comm.). The appearance of a "dominant" yearclass has not occurred since the late
1980's.
Spot are also one of the most frequently caught sportfish in Chesapeake Bay. TheMRFSS
estimated that Virginia sportfishermen caught 5.5 million spot (kept and released) during 1994. This was a
substantial increase from the 1993 estimate of 3.5 million spot Maryland spot catch during 1994 was
estimated at 2.8 million fish. The Maryland recreational harvest has been between 2.2 and 2.6 million fish
since 1992 (Figure 8.4). Average weights in Maryland increased slightly from 0.32 pounds in 1993 to 0.39
pounds in 1994 (MRFSS data). Data from Maryland charterboat logbooks indicate spot catches nearly
doubled in 1994 at 754,008 fish and average weights remained at slightly over 0.5 pounds. Since spot are
frequently caught and usually not targeted, recreational reporting is probably not as accurate as other species.
Figure 8.4. Recreational Catch Estimate* For Spot In Maryland*
Million <«h
E3N»nb«r Reteised
Commercial spot landings within the Chesapeake Bay region, though lower than historical data, have
increased slightly during the 1990's (Figures 8.5 & 8.6). However, without catch-and-effort data it is difficult
to determine the relationship between landings and abundance. Virginia and Maryland harvested 3.3 million
61
-------
and 146,000 pounds during 1993, respectively. The harvest in Maryland during 1994 increased to 186,000
pounds. Preliminary Virginia commercial landings for spot are approximately 4.0 million pounds.
Figure 8.5. Commercial Spot Landings In Virginia
Million pounds
1993-3,349,847 Ibs. 1994 - Not Available
1950 1955
Source: NMFS data
1860
1965
1970
1975
i I i i i i r
1990 1994
Figure 8.6. Commercial Spot Landings In Maryland
Thousand pounds
400
300
fS
$[T.
[f-
;X
S
ft!
si
•M
S
-f
^P-
^ * .-
^,; ^
,.
-
s
c
[
^
V
v
.
^
•M
I
n
I
I
X
I
s
1
fc
S
(
_,ra
° V I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1
1950 1955 1960 1965
Source: NMFS data
1
.y
1
•;-;
*
I
1
1 1993- 146,127
1994-186^56
I
i
i
i
5
5
< ~
] JILp
S
I
^
1
.X
N
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
1970 1975 1980 1985
Year
I
i=i
:
i-
I
h%
Qh
•n
«?» '
^:
•F
I I I I
1990
i
|
n
P
.,
%
i r
1994
62
-------
Increase Yield-Per-Recruit
Bay jurisdictions continue to promote increases in yield-per-recruit by delaying entry into the fishery
until at least age 1. Maryland has a 9-inch minimum size limit and 20 fish creel limit for the recreational
croaker fishery and a 10-inch minimum size limit for the commercial croaker fishery. The Potomac River
Fisheries Commission has a 10-inch minimum size limit for croaker. These harvest restrictions should
protect age 0 and a portion of age 1 croaker. Harvest restrictions have not been implemented for Virginia's
croaker fishery. A minimum size limit has not been implemented for the spot fishery.
Recruitment to the recreational fishery was examined using MRFSS data. In 1994, almost all
croaker (99%) harvested in Maryland were age 1+ according to length-at-age data. Assuming the maximum
length of age 0 spot is 200 mm (Geer 1993; Casey et al. 1993), more than 87% of spot sampled in Maryland
were age 1+. Although a large number of croaker and spot are released by recreational anglers, a hook-and-
release study indicated mortality was negligible (May 1993). The MRFSS length-frequency data for Virginia
was not available.
Commercial spot landings from the lower Chesapeake Bay and coastal waters of Virginia and North
Carolina (1988-1991) indicated age 1 croaker were not fully recruited to any gears sampled (Barbieri et al.
1994). However, this may reflect the exclusion of scrap fish. Maryland's Multifish Program sampled pound
nets for croaker and spot The 1994 data indicated full recruitment occurred at age 2 and age 1 for croaker
and spot, respectively (Piavis et al. 1995). There appears to be size selectivity by gear for spot in Virginia
with full recruitment occurring at age 1+ for all gears except pound nets (Geer 1993;VMRC data).
Harvest of Small Croaker and Spot
The bycatch of small croaker and spot in Chesapeake Bay fisheries has not been documented and
remains a concern for the stocks. The Bay jurisdictions continue to promote the use of trawl efficiency
devises (TEDs) and bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) through the ASMFC and the MAFMC. The potential
loss of age 0 croaker and spot as bycatch in the Maryland pound net fishery should be minimal. Maryland's
coastal trawl fisheries land few croaker and spot Minimum mesh size requirements for summer flounder
and weakfish probably allow escapement of age 0 croaker and spot. Virginia prohibits trawling and requires
a 2-7/8-inch minimum mesh size for gill nets. An escape panel study is ongoing and may provide a means of
reducing bycatch in the pound net fishery. Virginia has no size or landing restrictions on croaker or spot,
resulting in a scrap market of small fish for crab pot bait, pet food, and fish meal (Geer 1993). Virginia
requires mandatory commercial reporting, but estimates of bycatch are unavailable because species
composition is not recorded.
Research and Monitoring Needs
Fisheries data continues to be collected for the Chesapeake Bay region but effort and landings
statistics are insufficient to determine trends in abundance. The relationship between parental stock size and
environmental factors on yearclass strength should be determined. Mortality of age 0 croaker and spot in the
Bay should be monitored.
Maryland's Multifish Program uses scales to age croaker. The accuracy in determining croaker age
from scale patterns is approximately 60%. For this reason, Maryland stopped aging croaker during 1994 and
now relies upon age 1 length data to monitor management objectives. A recent study reported an otolith-
ageing procedure which was more precise (>99%) within and among readers (Barbieri et al. 1993). Otoliths
63
-------
appear to be the best structure for ageing croaker in the Chesapeake Bay (Kline 1993). It would be an
improvement in determining age of croaker to switch from scale age analysis to otolith analysis.
The VMRC Stock Assessment Program collected biological information on both croaker and spot
during 1994. A total of 15,498 croaker were measured and ranged between 160 mm (6.3") and 424 mm
(16.7"). The average croaker size was 264 mm (10.4"), similar to the 1993 (n=16,890) average of 254
(10.0"). A total of 10,213 spot were measured and ranged between 145 mm (5.7") and 284 mm (11.2"). The
average spot size was 234 mm (9.2") compared to the 1993 (n= 6,846) average of 224 mm (8.8").
Conclusion
Adult abundance and juvenile recruitment of croaker and spot are highly variable from year to year.
The stocks do not appear in need of any additional management measures at this time. The following areas
should be emphasized during 1995:
1) Continue to monitor commercial and recreational harvests of croaker and spot;
2) Promote the harvest of croaker and spot age 1 and older;
3) Promote the use of escape panels in pound nets to release small croaker and spot; and,
4) Monitor bycatch of small croaker and spot and implement BRDs where appropriate.
References
Barbieri, Luiz R., ME. Chittenden Jr., and C.M. Jones. 1994. Age, growth, and mortality of Atlantic
croaker, Micropogonias undulatus. in the Chesapeake Bay region, with a discussion of apparent geographic
changes in population dynamics. Fisheries Bulletin 92:1-12.
Bonzek, Chris, P.J. Geer, and H. Austin. 1994. VIMS juvenile fish trawl survey. Virginia Sea Grant
Marine Advisory Program, Gloucester Point, Virginia.
Casey, James F., S.B. Doctor, and A.E. Wesche. 1993. Investigation of Maryland's Atlantic Ocean and
coastal bay finfish stocks. Federal Aid Project No.F-50-R-3. Maryland Department of Natural Resources,
Tidewater Administration, Fisheries Division. Annapolis, Maryland.
Geer, Patrick. 1993. Virginia Report for Atlantic Croaker and Spot Special Report No. 25 of the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission. Washington, D.C.
Kline, Lisa L. 1993. A summary of "life history, population dynamics, and yield-per-recruit modeling of
Atlantic croaker, Micropogonias undulatus. in the Chesapeake Bay area". Special Report No. 25 of the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Washington, D.C. May,
Piavis, Paul G., E.J. Webb, HI, B.H. Pyle, and D.R. Weinrich. 1994. Comprehensive sampling of resident
and migrant Chesapeake Bay recreational finfish. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Tidewater
Administration, Fisheries Division. Project number F-51-R-l. Annapolis, Maryland.
Uphoff, James H., Jr. and P.G. Piavis. 1993. Maryland Report for Atlantic Croaker and Spot Special Report
No. 25 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Washington, D.C.
64
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY ATLANTIC CROAKER AND SPOT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Problem Area
1. Stock Status
2. Harvest of Small Spot
and Croaker
Action
1.1 MD, VA, and PRFC will continue to participate in
scientific and technical meetings for management of the fishery
along the Atlantic coast and in estuarine waters.
1.2. la MD and PRFC will continue a 10 inch minimum size
limit for croaker.
1 .2. 1 b VA will implement a minimum size limit for croaker if
suggested by length-frequency analyses currently being
conducted by VIMS & ODU.
1 .2.2 Jurisdictions will evaluate the need for implementing a
minimum size limit for spot.
2.1 .la Jurisdictions will promote the development and use of
trawl efficiency devices in the southern shrimp fishery and
promote the use of by catch reduction devices in the finfish
trawl fishery.
2.1 .lb VA will continue its prohibition on trawling in State
waters and will maintain its 2-7/8 inch minimum mesh size for
gill nets.
2.1 .lc MD will continue its 4-6 inch gill net restriction during
June IS through September 30 and implement a 3 inch
minimum mesh size along the coast.
2.1. Id PRFC will continue prohibition on gill net fishing
during the summer.
2.1 .2 Jurisdictions will investigate the magnitude of bycatch
problem and consider implementing bycatch restrictions for the
non-directed fisheries in the Bay.
Date
Continue
Changed in
1993
Continue
Began
1992
Began 1992
Continue
NC regs. on
BRDs in effect
spring 1995
Continue
1992
Continue
Continue
1992
Continue
Comments
Coordination of croaker and spot data between coastal states
continues. The annual 1994 ASMFC review did not result
in any state compliance issues for 1995.
The recreational size limit for croaker was changed to 9
inches with a creel limit of 25 fish/day in MD. The 10 inch
size limit stayed in effect for the commercial fishery. The
PRFC has continued its 10-inch minimum size limit.
No minimum size limit has been established for croaker in
VA.
No minimum size limit is recommended at this time.
Jurisdictions have worked through ASMFC/MAFMC to
promote the use of TEDs and BRDs. Use of these devises
has been successful in eliminating some bycatch of small
fish including croaker and spot.
MD prohibits summer gill net and anchor and stake gill net
use at anytime in the Bay.
VA continues to examine the effects of escape panels in
reducing the bycatch of juvenile finfish. Data indicates
bycatch mortality of age 0 croaker and spot is minimal in
MD fisheries.
65
-------
Problem Area
3. Research & Monitoring
Needs
4. Habitat and Water
Quality
Action
3.1 VMRC stock assessment program will continue to analyze
size and sex data from Atlantic croaker and spot collected from
VA commercial fisheries.
3.2a MD & PRFC will encourage research on croaker and spot
biology, i.e. estimates of abundance, recruitment, and
reproductive biology.
3.2b VA will continue to fund VIMS and ODU stock
assessment research, specifically designed to provide estimates
of population abundance, recruitment, and reproduction.
4.1a-g Continue to set water quality goals and review
management programs under the 1987 Chesapeake Bay
Agreement.
Date
Continue
Continue
Continue
Continue
Comments
VA will continue to provide stock assessment data on
croaker and spot.
The Bay Program will begin to focus on the relationship
between habitat and fisheries.
Legend: MD = Maryland
VA = Virginia
PRFC = Potomac River Fisheries Commission
ASMFC = Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
VIMS = Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences
ODU = Old Dominion University
NC - North Carolina
MAFMC = Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council
VMRC = Virginia Marine Resources Commission
66
-------
Chapter 9
Americal Eel Management Plan
Introduction
The American eel (Anquilla rostratd) is a catadromous species that spends most of its life in rivers,
lakes, and estuaries and migrates to the ocean to spawn. Although its life cycle is not well understood, the eel
is believed to spawn only once and die on its spawning grounds in the Sargasso Sea. There are several life
stages for the eel beginning with the larval form or leptocephalus stage. The eel enters the Chesapeake Bay as
an elver (2"-5") from late March to mid-April. Large quantities of elvers are susceptible to harvest at
impoundments as the small eels migrate upstream toward freshwater.
Since the adoption of the Chesapeake Bay American Eel Fishery Management Plan (FMP) in 1991,
growth overfishing has been a concern. As a slow-growing creature, the eel could be overfished if constraints
were not placed on the harvest of immature eels. The majority of eels found in the Bay are immature. It is
believed that as they begin their spawning migration out of the Bay, they undergo a metaphorphosis and reach
maturity upon reaching the spawning grounds, hi Maryland, the harvest of eels less than 6" is limited to 25
per person per day. As recommended by the Bay FMP, a baywide minimum mesh size of 1A by V4" for eel
pots is in effect. Maryland regulations were adopted in the summer of 1994. Virginia has had a minimum
mesh size restriction and escape panel requirement for eel pots since 1990 and a ban on taking elvers since
1977. The Potomac River Fisheries Commission (PRFC) has required a mesh size since 1983 and a minimum
elver size since 1992. The minimum mesh regulation was imposed as a means to conserve the Chesapeake
Bay eel stock, reduce the possibility of growth overfishing, and prevent the wastage of small eels.
Stock Status
The characterization of the American eel population in the Chesapeake Bay is dependant upon
commerical fishery statistics. Chesapeake Bay commercial landings have fluctuated and include mostly eels
caught for the live-eel market. The size most preferred by the live-eel industry is between 1 and 1V4 pounds.
The preliminary 1994 harvest for Maryland is 295,867 pounds (Figure 9.1) with a dollar value of $465,263
or $1.57 per pound. The 1994 harvest represents a 33% increase over the 1993 landings of 221,900. In
1993, price per pound was $1.04 which was below the average of $1.74 per pound. The number of Maryland
watermen reporting a harvest of eels has ranged from 11 (1985) to 94 (1991). hi 1994, 66 individuals
reported catching eels. Over the last ten years, the catch per fishermen has increased from 2,061 pounds to
4,392 pounds. Landings for Virginia indicate a steady harvest level for 1991-1993 of approximately 600,000
pounds each year (Figure 9.2). Preliminary 1994 landings show an increase to 800,000 pounds.
Although the demand for eel as trotline bait has declined, there appears to be greater interest in elvers
for finflsh bait and aquaculture. The latter is dependent on the harvest of elvers since attempts at large scale
spawning in the lab have not been successful, hi the Chesapeake Bay, eels may take as long as five years to
reach the one pound size (citation size). The farther north, the larger and older eels become before reaching
maturity. To date, there are no established commercial eel fanning operations in the Chesapeake region.
However, there is renewed interest in the taking of elvers for stocking. The Small Farm Institute of the
University of Maryland has begun evaluating eel farming along with its other fish farming operations. The
jurisdictions agree that until information is available on optimizing yield per recruit, a 6" minimum size limit
will prevent the development of an elver fishery.
67
-------
Figure 9.1 Reported American eel commercial landings from
Maryland
Thousand pounds
1929
1989
Figure 9.2 American eel commercial landings from Virginia
Thousand pounds
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
1929
1939
1949
1959 1969
Year
1979
1989
68
-------
American Eel Fishery
Historically in the Chesapeake Bay region, there were two distinct industries for eels: the crab bait
market which uses eels 0.5 -1.0" in diameter and 10 -14" long for trotlines, and the live-eel market which
prefers eels at least 13" long and weighing about 1 Vi pounds. The importance of eels for trotline bait has
decreased. The crab trotline fishery in Maryland is shifting to cheaper bait other than eels. At the same time,
the live-eel market has increased. This may be the result of an advanced network of live-eel buyers which has
facilitated the eel export market. In addition, there is a growing interest for an elver fishery to supply
aquaculture endeavors.
The harvest of eels caught for personal use as bait by licensed crabbers has been historically
unknown but estimates are as high as 1.7 million pounds. Beginning in 1993, a question on the amount of eel
used as crab bait was added to the Maryland crab reporting forms. Crabbers reported using a total of 23,000
pounds of eels for crab bait, a surprisingly low amount. The question regarding the amount of eel used per
day by licensed crabbers needs further evaluation. Sportfishermen are also utilizing live eels as bait for
striped bass and cobia. The use of eels for bait needs to be monitored.
Research Needs
Fishery- independent eel research in the Bay region has not been initiated. Basic stock assessment
data and information for American eel in the Chesapeake Bay remains inadequate. Size and age composition,
maturity, growth rates, mortality rates, and estimates of abundance are not available. There is a limited
amount of fishery dependent and fishery independent data (Foster, 1980-1984). Catch information from the
crab trotliners in Maryland should improve estimates of the bait eel harvest. Besides the lack of basic
biological and fisheries data, socioeconomic information is not available. Although the plan has encouraged
research to collect information on eels from the Chesapeake Bay, no studies have begun. American eel has
been recommended as a species to be added to the third edition of the Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake
Bay Living Resources. As a catadromous species, the eel would be a valuable addition to the collection of
living resources currently used as health indicators for the Chesapeake Bay. Until additional biological data is
available to better characterize the Chesapeake stock, management strategies will be conservative.
Habitat and Water Quality Issues
The eel resource will benefit as more river miles are opened to migrating fish species. Migrating
elvers and eels are hindered by dams and other stream blockages. Restoring self-sustaining populations of
American eels to their historic ranges is an integral part of the Fish Passage Plan. As more passages are
opened to migrating fish, stock assessment strategies for newly introduced eel stocks should be developed by
Maryland and Pennsylvania.
The construction of four hydropower dams on the lower river in the 1900s blocked nearly 350 miles
of river habitat. According to an agreement among Maryland, Pennsylvania, and the electric companies, three
dams will be breached by 1997 and by the year 2000, the Susquehanna River will be opened as finfish
habitat. As eels are restored to these historic areas within the Chesapeake watershed, eels may be subject to
additional fishing pressures. Pennsylvania has agreed to consider recreational and commercial fishing
regulations on eels that are compatible with the other Bay jurisdictions.
69
-------
Conclusions
The status of American eels in the Chesapeake Bay is not clear and stock assessment analyses have
not been completed. Management recommendations have been directed at reducing the possibility of growth
overfishing (implementing minimum mesh size) and protecting elvers (eels < 6"). A preliminary assessment
of the bait eel harvest by licensed Maryland crabbers indicates that trotliners are using fewer eels than
previously estimated. Until stock information is available, the Bay jurisdictions will rely on commercial
statistics to monitor harvest trends. Areas of prime importance during 1995 are:
1) Continue to monitor the commercial harvest of eels;
2) Evaluate effects of the minimum size limit and minimum mesh size for eel pots;
3) Evaluate the impacts of using live eels for bait;
4) Continue to monitor the commercial crab bait eel catch in Maryland; and,
5) Continue to promote basic research.
70
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY AMERICAN EEL IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Problem Area
1 . Stock
Status
2. Bait
Fishery
3. Research
Needs
4. Habitat and Water
Quality Issues
Action
1 . 1 MD & PRFC will adopt a 6" minimum size limit. VA will
continue a prohibition on taking elvers & adjust definition to
correspond to a 6" minimum size limit.
1 .2 MD will implement a 1A by V4" mesh size for eel pots. VA &
PRFC will continue to enforce their '/a X Yi" mesh. VA will
continue to enforce Vt by 1 " escape panels in V4 by !/j" mesh
pots.
1 .3 Upon restoration of eels to the Susquehanna River basin
PFC will adopt regulations to prevent over fishing of small eels.
2.1 MD will require the reporting of eels used for crab bait on
crab reporting forms.
3.1 Continue to collect catch & effort data from live eel fishery
& begin monitoring crab bait fishery.
3.2 Encourage research to collect basic biological and
socioeconomic information
4.1 Continue to provide stream passage.
4.2 Continue to set specific objectives for water quality goals
and habitat requirements.
Date
1992
1993
1993
1993
Continue
Continue
Continue
Comments
The 6" minimum size will prevent the development of an
elver fishery. In MD, 1994 regulations were adopted limiting
the harvest of eels less than 6" to 25 per day.
MD, VA, and PRFC currently enforce the Vi X V4" minimum
mesh size for eel pots. DC plans to implement the 1A X 1A"
minimum mesh size by 1996.
Dependent on the fish passage implementation schedule.
Information gathered from the Crab Reporting Forms needs
further evaluation. Preliminary data indicates that previous
estimates may have been too high.
Basic stock assessment and biological monitoring is needed.
Requires coordination with other agencies and universities.
Small eel fanning research project ongoing with the
University of Maryland Eastern Shore.
Requires coordination with other agencies.
LEGEND:
PRFC = Potomac River Fisheries Commission
71
-------
Chapter 10
Black Drum Fishery Management Plan
The Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coast Black Drum (Pogonias cromis) Fishery Management Plan
is currently the only plan for this species along the Atlantic Coast. Adopted in 1993, the plan is scheduled
for a complete review in 1997.
Status of Stocks
While the Chesapeake Bay region supports a limited black drum fishery, stock status remains
uncertain. Important biological and fisheries information is lacking for a complete assessment of the stock.
States continue to promote research on characterizing these components, but until more information is
available, managers must rely upon existing data for management recommendations. Fishery monitoring
efforts in Virginia have indicated extreme short-term fluctuations in black drum abundance. Although long-
term effort data is lacking, variable seasonal movements question whether catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE)
data reflect variations in stock abundance (Chesapeake Bay Black Drum FMP, 1993). Age and size data
from Chesapeake Bay fisheries suggest reasons other than overfishing for these fluctuations. Black drum
reach sexual maturity at age 2 and approxmately 16 inches. The current harvest from the Bay is dominated by
large adults.
Virginia's Stock Assessment Program sampled the commercial catch and found that the majority of
black drum harvested in 1994 were in excess of 40 inches (Figure 10.1). During the same year, Virginia
30
25
20
15
10
Figure 10.1. Black Drum Length Frequencies in Virginia's
Commercial Fishery (1993-1994)
Frequency
— - - — •
• • FI , n , , FI • «! n i , II
—
1
1
E231
IN
993 Hi 1994 |
— -
iy
lit
: llliilbuL
25
40
45
50
Size Class (inches)
Sorce: VMRC data
issued 200 sportfishing citations for releasing fish over 44 inches and 43 citations for fish kept in excess of
70 pounds (Figure 10.2). In addition, the number of citations issued in Virginia has been increasing since
72
-------
1991 after several low years. Black drum harvested by charterboats in Maryland during 1994 averaged 52
pounds. The number of citations issued in Maryland for fish over 40 pounds has remained at a high level
since 1990 with 108 citations issued in both 1993 and 1994. Although citation records provide some
information on numbers and size of black drum caught in the Bay, effort information is not available and
probably varies from year-to-year.
300
Figure 10.2. Virginia Black Drum Citations (1976-1994)*
Number of Citations
1976
1994
•Minimum size for kept fish of 75 Ibs., 1976-82 and 70 Ibs. 1983-94.
'Minimum size for released fish of 44". 1989-Present.
Source: VA Saltwater Fishing Tournament data
The migration of black drum in the Chesapeake Bay is not well understood but probably contributes
to the short-term fluctuations in landings. Virginia's tagging program provides information on the
movements of the stock. A total of 149 black drum between 7 and 16 inches were tagged near Norfolk, VA
from September 9 to October 21,1993. No fish were tagged in 1994. Six tag returns have been reported
which indicate a southward, fall migration out of the Bay and along Virginia's coast (VMRC data). An angler
based tagging program will be implemented in 1995 as a result of Saltwater License Funds and should
provide a wider distribution of tags. Maryland supports Virginia's tagging efforts and will begin a telemetry
study in 1995 to determine the distribution of black drum in Maryland's portion of the Bay.
Fishing Mortality
The impact of fishing on the stock is unknown. For this reason, Bay jurisdictions continue to
monitor and regulate the recreational and commercial fisheries to prevent their expansion. Virginia monitors
its commercial fishery through a mandatory permit and reporting system and the recreational fishery through
the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS). Harvest restrictions include a 16-inch
minimum size limit, 120,000 pound commercial cap, and a 1 fish/person/day recreational creel limit. Size
and creel restrictions limit the harvest of immature fish and protect the spawning stock. Virginia gill netters
73
-------
accounted for most of the 154,073 pounds harvested during 1994, which exceeded 1993's harvest of 88,385
pounds (Figure 10.3, VMRC data). The 120,000 pound commercial cap was met and the fishery was closed
in early June. A sudden rush of drum towards the end of the season, coupled with tardy reporting caused the
overage. Attempts will be made in 1995 to emphasize the importance of timely reporting. While the number
of permittees has remained stable, Virginia began limiting entry into the commercial black drum fishery in
1994. Recreational landings are currently unavailable for 1994. The MRFSS estimates of black drum harvest
were 866 and 304,717 pounds for 1992 and 1993, respectively. The recreational estimates indicate the
extreme degree of year-to-year fluctuations.
Figure 10.3. Virginia Commercial Black Drum Landings
250
200
Thousand pounds
* 120,000 Ib. commercial cap
1975
Source: VMRC data
* Mandatory reporting since mid-1987.
i i i I i r
1990 1994
The commercial fisheries in Maryland and the Potomac River are nondirected and account for a small
fraction of the Chesapeake Bay's total black drum harvest. Maryland's commercial harvest for 1994 was
9,044 pounds (Figure 10.4). This was a decrease from the 1993 harvest of 21,051 pounds. Catches occurred
almost exclusively in Chesapeake Bay waters from April through August with peaks in June and July
(MDNR data). The recreational fishery in Maryland is also of short duration and is not accurately
represented by the MRFSS. For example, black drum were absent in Maryland according to the 1994
MRFSS, yet Maryland charterboat logbooks recorded harvesting 42,930 pounds, 93% of which were
harvested in June. In addition, Maryland's Saltwater Fishing Tournament issued 108 citations in 1994 for
fish 40 pounds and greater. Maryland adopted new regulations for black drum during 1994. A 16" minimum
size limit was implemented for both the recreational and commercial fisheries. A recreational creel limit of 1
fish/person/day was implemented for the recreational fishery and a commercial quota of 30,000 pounds was
implemented for the commercial fishery in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Commercial watermen
will be required to obtain a free permit and report on forms issued by the Department. The Potomac River
74
-------
Fisheries Commission has adopted a 16-inch minimum size limit and 1 fish/person/day creel limit for both
their recreational and commercial fisheries.
Gear Conflicts
Virginia established a special black drum management zone which includes "high use" recreational
areas such as Cabbage Patch and Latimer Shoals. This zone has been successful in minimizing conflicts
between commercial and recreational anglers. Regulations prohibit the use of gill net or trot line from 7:00
AM to 8:30 PM within the established zone between May 1st and June 7th. Gear conflicts have not been a
problem in Maryland and the Potomac River.
Figure 10.4. Maryland Commercial Black Drum Landings
Thousand pounds
1975
Source: MD data
1994
Conclusion
There is uncertainty in the status of the Chesapeake Bay black drum stock. Research and monitoring
efforts should focus on the information needed to conduct a complete stock assessment. The new regulations
implemented in 1994 are appropriate for stabilizing the harvest and protecting the stock until more
information becomes available. Areas to be emphasized during 1995 are:
1) Continue to monitor the recreational and commercial fisheries and improve fishery statistics, and
2) Participate in tagging efforts
References
Chesapeake Bay Program. 1993. Chesapeake Bay Black Drum Fishery Management Plan -
Agreement Commitment Report. Annapolis, MD.
75
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY AND ATLANTIC COAST BLACK DRUM IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX
Problem Area
1. Status of Stocks
2. Fishing Mortality
3. Gear Conflicts
4. Habitat Issues
Action
1 . VA will continue tagging black drum to determine coastal
movements of the Chesapeake Bay stock, fund research to determine
age, fecundity, and spawning periodicity, and sample the commercial
and recreational catch to determine length, weight, and sex. MD will
continue to support the Old Dominion black drum tagging study.
2a. VA will limit the entry into the commercial black drum fishery and
continue to require each commercial black drum fishermen and buyer
to obtain a permit and report weekly during the season. VA will
continue a 16-inch minimum size limit, 120,000 pound commercial
quota, a 1 fish/person/day recreational creel limit, and continue
monitoring commercial and recreational landings.
2b. MD will adopt a 16 inch minimum size limit and a 1
fish/person/day recreational creel limit.
2c. PRFC will consider similar size and bag limits once VA and MD
regulations are established.
2d. MD and PRFC will assess the need for commercial black drum
harvest restrictions as data becomes available.
3. VA has established a Special Black Drum Management Zone, for
"high use" areas. During May 1 through June 7, no gill net or trot line
may be in the established zone from 7:00 AM to 8:30 PM.
4.1-7 Bay jurisdictions will continue to set water quality goals and
review management programs under the 1987 Chesapeake Bay
Agreement.
Date
Continue
1994;
1992;
Continue
1994
1994
1994
1992;
Continue
Continue
Comments
In 1995, VA's tagging program will expand
to include an angler based program and
MD will begin a telemetry study.
VA will emphasize the need for timely
reporting in 1995.
The minimu size limit also applies to the
commercial fishery.
PRFC adopted a 16-inch minimum size
limit and 1 fish/person/day creel limit for
the recreational & commercial fisheries.
MD implemented a 30,000 Ib. quota for the
commercial fishery & requires a permit &
mandatory reporting. PRFC implemented a
1 fish/person/day limit.
Legend: VA = Virginia
MD = Maryland
PRFC = Potomac River Fisheries Commission
76
-------
Chapter 11
Red Drum Fishery Management Plan
The 1984 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (ASMFC) Red Drum FMP was amended in
1991. Amendment # 1 was developed jointly between the Commission and the South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (SAFMC). The plan adopted by the Council prohibits the harvest of red drum from the
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ, 3-200 miles offshore), thereby placing regulatory responsibility for the
harvest of red drum at the state level. The following requirements are specified in the ASMFC Red Drum
plan:
1) Each state must implement either of the following two alternatives: a) 18" minimum size with only
one fish over 27"; or B) 14" fninimnm size limit with no fish allowed over 27". Compliance
required by: March 20,1995.
2) Each state must implement a 5 fish daily bag limit or equivalent conservation measures approved
by the ASMFC South Atlantic State-Federal Fisheries Management Board. Compliance required by
March 20,1995.
In 1993, jurisdictions of the Chesapeake Bay adopted the Chesapeake Bay Red Drum FMP. The SAFMC
and the South Atlantic Board are currently reevaluating red drum management, which may result in the
development of another amendment to the 1984 FMP. A complete review of the Chesapeake Bay Red Drum
FMP is scheduled for 1997. Currently, jurisdictions of the Chesapeake Bay are in compliance with the
ASMFC FMP recommendations.
Overfishing
The Atlantic coast red drum stock is overflshed. Excessive harvests of immature red drum along the
Atlantic coast has caused the spawning stock to fall to a 2-3% spawning stock biomass per recruit (SSBR)
level. A SSBR of 3 0% is deemed necessary for a healthy stock. The low level of spawning stock, along with
a 70% annual fishing mortality rate on fish 1-3 years old, is cause for concern in the fishery (Chesapeake Bay
Red Drum FMP, 1993).
Even though landings from the Chesapeake Bay region comprise a minor component of the coastal
fishery, Bay jurisdictions have adopted management measures sufficient to provide a rate of escapement for
juveniles greater than 10% to support management efforts along the coast An 18-inch total length minimum
size limit and 5 fish/person/day creel limit, with one fish over 27-inches has been implemented for red drum
in the Chesapeake Bay and along the Maryland and Virginia coast. The need for further reductions in the
fishery to achieve a target spawning biomass per recruit level of 30% will be determined by future stock
assessments.
The bycatch of immature red drum has not been a problem in Chesapeake Bay fisheries because
small fish are infrequently encountered. However, Virginia's escape panel study which focusses on reducing
the bycatch of weakfish (grey trout) less than 10 inches in the pound net fishery should indirectly increase the
escapement of immature red drum. Ongoing research in North Carolina will provide an insight to the
effectiveness of gear efficiency devices.
77
-------
Stock Assessment and Research Needs
Managers lack important biological and fisheries data to effectively manage the red drum resource.
In particular, information on the stock-recruitment relationship of red drum within the Chesapeake Bay and
their movements into and out of the Bay is lacking. Data from both the recreational and commercial fisheries
should be improved.
Research on the contribution of Chesapeake Bay red drum recruitment and mixing of recruits from
various coastal nursery areas is encouraged. Virginia's tagging program is ongoing. A total of 100 red drum
between 15 and 22 inches were tagged near Norfolk, Virginia from September 9 to October 21,1993. One
red drum was tagged in 1994. Twenty-two tag returns were reported (20 by hook and liners) within two
months, with recapture locations indicating a southward, late fall migration out of the Bay and along the
Virginia coast Since then, only one tag return has been reported (VMRC data). Future tag returns should
provide more information on red drum movements in the Chesapeake region.
The VMRC's Stock Assessment Program collects biological data from commercial catches of red
drum. In 1994, length and weight data were collected from 55 fish, more than double the number offish
sampled in 1993. In 1993,96% of the fish sampled were between 19 and 28 inches while in 1994 80% were
between 24 and 32 inches (Figure 11.1). These length groups most likely represent a strong 1991 year-class
based on North Carolina's length at age data (Ross et al. 1995). Average weights for 1993 and 1994 were
7.0 and 10.0 pounds, respectively.
F
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Sol
rigure 11.1.
Frequency
Red Drum Length Frequencies in Virginia's
Commercial Fishery (1993-1994)
F.
:;
nh
1
p r r r i i
15 20
jrce: VMRC data
11
(E231993 MM 994 |
•:
I
r
•
~~~~7 ~ ~ I
1 1 1 1
r i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
25 30 35 40 45
Size Class (inches)
The Bay jurisdictions continue to collect fisheries data for red drum. They are also examining how
survey techniques can be improved to capture the intermittent nature of the recreational fishery. Commercial
landings in Maryland and the Potomac River during 1994 were 867 and 0 pounds, respectively ((MDNR and
PRFC data). Virginia's 1994 commercial landings are unavailable but 8,622 pounds were reported in 1993
78
-------
(VMRC data). Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) estimates for 1994 indicate less
than 30,000 red drum were caught in Virginia and no red drum were reported caught in Maryland.
Maryland's charterboat logbook data from the Bay, however, reported 2 red drum averaging 23.5 pounds and
three citations were issued for 3 red drum 40 pounds and larger. MRFSS estimates for 1993 indicate 11,815
red drum averaging 2.9 pounds and 0 red drum were landed in Virginia and Maryland, respectively. Although
the MRFSS estimates indicate no red drum were caught in Maryland in 1993,2 red drum averaging 14
pounds were reported by the charterboat fishery and 5 citations were issued, hi Virginia, the number of
citations issued has recently increased (Figure 11.2). Citation information does not include estimates of effort
which probably varies from year to year.
250
200
150
100
Figure 11.2. Virginia Red Drum Citations (1975-1994)*
Number of Citations
Kept (70 lbs.+) ^Release (44"+)
1975
1994
* Release citations began in 1988)
Source: VA Saltwater Fishing Tournament data
Conclusion
The harvest of red drum from the Chesapeake Bay region accounts for a small percentage of the total
Atlantic coast landings. Because the stock is overfished, Bay jurisdictions have supported management
efforts along the coast by implementing harvest restrictions recommended by the ASMFC. Further harvest
restrictions may be necessary to reach the target SSBR of 30%. Research and monitoring efforts are priority
issues and should focus on information needed to conduct a stock assessment. The following areas should
be emphasized during 1995:
1) Continue to monitor the commercial and recreational harvest of red drum from the Chesapeake
Bay;
2) Investigate how the MRFSS can be improved to capture the nighttime and intermittent nature of
the red drum fishery;
79
-------
3) Continue red drum tagging studies to determine movements of juvenile red drum once they leave
the Chesapeake Bay; and
4) Work with the ASMFC and SAFMC to coordinate management efforts along the coast
References
Chesapeake Bay Program. 1993. Chesapeake Bay Red Drum Fishery Management Plan-
Agreement Commitment Report. Annapolis, MD.
Ross, J.L., T.M. Stevens, and D.S. Vaughan. 1995. Age, Growth, Mortality, and Reproductive
Biology of Red Drums in North Carolina Waters. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
124:37-54.
80
-------
Chesapeake Bay Red Drum Fishery Management Plan
Problem Area
1 . Overfishing
2. Stock Assessment and Research
Needs
3. Habitat Issues
Action
1.1.1 VA will continue to enforce a 5 fish creel limit and an 1 8 inch
minimum size limit with one fish over 27 inches in the recreational
fishery.
1 . 1 .2 MD and the PRFC will implement a 5 fish creel limit and an 1 8
inch minimum size limit with one fish over 27 inches in the
recreational fishery.
1 .2a Jurisdictions will investigate the potential for using bycatch
reduction devices in nonselective fisheries.
1 .2b VA and MD will work with the MAFMC and ASMFC to develop
and require more efficient gear to reduce bycatch and/or discards.
2.1 Jurisdictions will support fecundity research and tagging studies to
determine movements of juvenile red drum, and develop juvenile
indices. MD and VA will continue the Baywide trawl survey of
estuarine finfish species and crabs.
2.2 VMRC Stock Assessment Program will continue to collect
biological data from commercial catches of red drum.
2.3 Jurisdictions will continue commercial fisheries statistics programs.
VA will implement a limited and/or delayed entry program and a
mandatory reporting system for commercial licensees. VA and MD
will continue to supplement the Marine Recreational Statistics
Program. MD will continue the Baywide Trawl Survey.
3 . 1 Jurisdictions will continue to set specific objectives for water
quality goals and review management programs established under the
1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement,
Date
1992;
continue
1994
1992;
continue
1992;
continue
1993;
continue
1993;
continue
1993;
continue
1993;
continue
Comments
MD regulations became effective in July,
1994.
VMRC is conducting a study on escape
panels in pound nets.
VA conducts an on-going tagging program
which includes red drum.
VA implemented a two year delay program
limiting the number of commercial
licensees.
Jurisdictions will examine how habitat can
be better incorporated into fishery
management plans.
Legend:
VA = Virginia
MD = Maryland
PRFC = Potomac River Fisheries Commission
MAFMC = Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council
ASMFC = Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
VMRC = Virginia Marine Resources Commission
81
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
The Chesapeake Bay Program is a unique regional partnership leading
and directing restoration of Chesapeake Bay since 1983. The Chesapeake
Bay Program partners include the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and
Virginia; the District of Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay Commission, a
tri-state legislative body; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
which represents the federal government; and participating citizen
advisory groups.
In the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, Chesapeake Bay Program
partners set a goal to reduce the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus
entering the Bay by 40% by the year 2000. In the 7992 Amendments to
the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, partners agreed to maintain the 40%
goal beyond the year 2000 and to attack nutrients at their source—
upstream in the tributaries. The Executive Council guided the restoration
effort in 1993 with five directives addressing key areas of the restoration,
including the tributaries, toxics, underwater bay grasses, fish passages,
and agricultural nonpoint source pollution. In 1994, partners outlined
initiatives for habitat restoration of aquatic, riparian, and upland
environments; nutrient reduction in the Bay's tributaries; and toxics
reductions, with an emphasis on pollution prevention.
Since its inception, the Chesapeake Bay Program's highest priority has
been the restoration of the Bay's living resources—its finfish, shellfish, bay
grasses, and other aquatic life and wildlife. Improvements include
fisheries and habitat restoration, recovery of bay grasses, nutrient
reductions, and significant advances in estuarine science.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
410 Severn Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21403
1-800-YOUR BAY
------- |