CBP/TRS 124/94
December 1994
Annual Progress Report
Fishery Management Plans
1993
Alosid
Blue Crab
Oyster
Bluefish
Weakfish/Spotted Seatrout
Summer Flounder
Atlantic Croaker/ Spot
American Eel
Chesapeake Bay Program
Printed on
Recycled Paper
-------
Annual Progress Report
Fishery Management Plans
1993
Alosid
Blue Crab
Oyster
Bluefish
Weakfish/Spotted Seatrout
Summer Flounder
Atlantic Croaker/Spot
American Eel
Prepared By
Nancy Butowski, Beverly Sauls, Marguerite Whilden
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Ellen Smoller
Virginia Marine Resources Commission
December 1994
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Figures and Tables .................... ...... iii
Introduction 1
Fishery Management Plan Task Force Re—assessment .....
Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management
Act 4
Alos d Management Plan . •.... . . . . . ••...... . . . . . . • . . . . . •.... 5
Declining Abundance 5
Potential for Overfishing ............................ 11
Research and Monitoring .............................. - 11
Habitat Loss and Degradation 15
Conclusion 16
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Implementation Matrix 18
Blue Crab Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Fishing Effort and Catch ............................. 23
Wasteful Harvesting Practices 26
Stock Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Regulatory and Conflict Issues ............ 27-
Habitat Degradation 28
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Implementation Matrix . . . . . . . 29
Oyster Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Suin nary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Bluefish Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
StOck Status and Increased Fishing Pressure .......... 37
Wasteful Harvest Practices 39
ResearchandMonitoring.. 40
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
References 42
Implementation Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Weakfish/Spotted Seatrout Fishery Management Plan 45
Overfishing and Stock Status 45
Stock Assessment and Research Needs 48
Recreational—Commercial Conflicts .... . .... ........... 49
Conclusion 49
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Implementation Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Summer Flounder Management Plan ..... ....... 54
Overfishing and Stock Status ..... ............... 54
Stock Assessment and Research Needs 56
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Implementation Matrix . . . . . . . . . • . . . . e . . . . . . . . . . . 59
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Habitat and Water Quality . .
Habitat Overview for Fishery Management
Atlantic Croaker/Spot Management Plan
Stock Status . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .
Research and Monitoring Needs . . .
Conclusion
Implementation Matrix ...
American Eel Management Plan
Stock Status .
B alt Fishery . . . . . .. . . . . ....• ... ... S.....
Research Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Habitat and Water Quality Issues
Implementation Matrix
• .
.•......•
• •
S..
S..
S..
.•.
•.•
••.
• 5•
S..
.•..
S
. 5..
• S S
S...
62
62
66
66
67
69
69
71
71
72
73
75
77
S....
S....
S....
S....
ii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.. American shad population estimates for the
upper Bay . . 6
Figure 2. Virginia commercial landings for American
shad (bay •& ocean) . . . . . . • , • • • • • • • • • 8
Figure 3a. River herring commercial landings from
Maryland, 1975—1993 . ....... ..... ... . . . . . .1st 9
Figure 3b. River herring commercial landings from
‘Virginia, 1975—1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 4. American shad landings from the Atlantic
Ocean & seaside bays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Figure 5. Maryland commercial blue crab landings and
‘value 24
Figure 6. Virginia commercial blue crab landings and
value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Figure 7. Maryland commercial oyster landings by season. 35
Figure 8. Virginia oyster ground production by season .. 36
Figure 9a. Commercial bluefish landings from Maryland .... 38
Figure 9b. Commercial bluefish landings from Virginia .... 38
Figure ba. Bluefish length frequency distribution, VA
StockAssessment, 1992.. . 41
Figure lOb. Bluefish length frequency distribution, VA
StockAssessment, 1993 ......; 41
Figure ha. Maryland commercial landings for weakfish,
1950—1993 ........•.. ................ .. 47
Figure lib. Virginia commercial landings for weakfish,
1950—1993 ...... .....................•• .
Figure 12a. Maryland commercial landings for croaker 63
Figure 12b. Virginia commercial landings for croaker ...... 63
Figure 13a. Maryland commercial landings for spot 65
Figure 13b. Virginia commercial landings for spot ... 65
Figure 14a. Maryland live eel commercial harvest . . . . . ..... 70
Figure 14b. Virg inia live eel commercial harvest .......... 70
LIST OP ThBLES
Table 1. Schedule for reviewing fishery management plans . 3
iii .
-------
INTRODUCTION
The management process for fisheries resources began with the
signing of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. To date, 11 fishery
management plans (FNP5) have been developed encompassing 16
species. An annual review of each adopted FMP began in 1990 to
provide a format for incorporating new information on the status of
the resource, evaluate progress toward achieving objectives, and
update management strategies. This report reviews the progress of
management plans during 1993 and includes the following species:
American shad, hickory shad, blueback herring, alewife herring,
blue crab, oyster, bluefish, weakfish, spotted seatrout, summer
flounder, spot, croaker and American eel. The 1993 Striped Bass
Annual Progress Report is under separate cover in order to include
the entire commercial fishing season. The FMPs for black and red
drum were adopted in September 1993 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. Although habitat issues are defined in
each FMP, they will not be reviewed separately unless there are
unique topics for individual species. A habitat overview for FNPs
is presented at the end of the report. For previous updates, refer
to the 1990, 1991 and 1992 Annual Progress Reports. For details on
background information, problem areas, and management strategies,
refer to the appropriate management plan. This report begins with
a synopsis of two important efforts that will directly affect
management plans, the results of the Fishery Management Plan Re-
assessment Task Force Committee and the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries
Cooperative Management Act.
Fishery Management Plan Reassessment Task Force
During 1993, an independent Task Force Committee was appointed
by the Chesapeake Bay Program’s Living Resources Subcommittee
(LRSC) to review and assess the implementation and effectiveness of
7 FMPs. The FMPs that were evaluated were: Alosids (shad and
herring), Striped Bass, Weakfish/Spotted Seatrout, Bluefish, Blue
Crab, Summer Flounder, and Atlantic Croaker/Spot. These 7 FMPs
contained 170 recommended actjons. According to the findings of the
Task Force, the jurisdictions have completed or are implementing
160 or 94% of the planned actions. Implementation of the management
actions has been delayed beyond the implementation date for 20
planned actions with 13 of the delays contained in the Blue Crab
FMP. Failure to implement an action or a delay can be attributed to
one or more of the following: lack of funding or personnel to
implement; lack of public and/or administrative support for
implementation; unrealistic implementation date or schedule; and/or
a revision of the action plan. Overall, the Task Force concluded
that fishery management in the Chesapeake Bay has been effective
in:
1
-------
1) focusing attention on the fishery problems in. the Bay;
2) roducing regional agreement on the need for
interjurisdictional cooperation and action to restore and
conserve the fisheries in the Bay;
3) identifying data gaps and information needs;
4) initiating and focusing research efforts;
5) creating support for regulations and achieving resource
conservation; and,
6) reducing wastage in the recreational and commercial
fisheries.
In order to improve the effectiveness of the fishery management
process, the Task Force made the following recommendations:
1) develop a process to review each FMP at three to four year
intervals to delete implemented actions and upgrade the plan;
2) convert plans from problem solving to problem preventing
documents by developing “triggers” to guide management and
regulatory- decisions;
3) attain interjurisdictiona]. cooperation in data gathering
and uniformity in setting regulatory controls such as size and
creel limits;
4) involve user groups to a greater extent in formulating FMPs
and fisheries management strategies;
5) delegate authority to the Principal Staff Committee (PSC)
to approve changes in existing FMPs as identified by the FM?
Workgroup to expedite the FMP process;
6) consider multispecies or fisheries specific management
plans; - -
7) improve the habitat aspects related to fisheries;
8) address two potential problem areas proactively, a) data
collection, storage, interpretation and management associated
with FMPs and b) management of recovered fisheries will
require a supportive constituency and probably additional
resources (Fisheries Management Plan Reassessment Task Force
Report, 3. Gilford, July 1993).
As a result of the Reassessment Task Force, the FMP workgroup
developed a process for revising the existing FMP5. For changes
that are not extensive, an amendment procedure will be followed.
This will entail developing a description of the proposed changes
and sending it through the FM? Workgroup for endorsement. The
amendment will be published for public comment and reviewed by the
Living Resources Subcommittee (LRSC) and the Implementation
Committee (IC) for their comment and approval. The Executive
Council (EC) has given the PSC authority to approve minor changes
or FMP amendments. The FM? Workgroup felt that a major revision of
each plan would be necessary to address the Task Force
recommendations. A revision schedule was developed (Table 1) for
each FM?. Since the schedule extends over a five year period,
important minor changes can be addressed through the amendment
procedure. Updates on current stock status, commercial and
2
-------
Table 1. Schedule for reviewing fishery management plans.
SPECIES
COMPLETION
DATE
REVIEW DATE
Shad/Herring
1989
June 1995
Blue Crab
1989
Revision in progress,
completion date-Feb. 1995
Oysters
1989
Revision in progress,
completion date-Oct. 1994
Striped Bass
1989
August 1995
Weakfish/Seatrout
1990
March 1996
Bluefish
1990
June 1995
Croaker/Spot
1991
1996
American Eel
1991
1996
Summer Flounder
1991
March 1996
Black/Red Drum
1993
1997
Catfish
1995
2000
Mackerel
1994
1998
Black Sea Bass
1995
2000
Tautog
1995
2000
Horseshoe Crabs
1994
1999
3
-------
recreational fisheries statistics, and regulatio is will be
accomplished through the annual progress report. During the
revjsion process, the management strategies, actions and
implementation dates will be examined. Actions that have been fully
implemented will be deleted from the management section but
included in the background section. - On-going strategies will be
updated within the management section. New strategies will be
developed as necessary. The Task Force recommendations will be
addressed as thoroughly as possible and included in the revision.
The revised FMP will go through the standard adoption procedure
which includes an open public comment period, review and
endorsement by the LRSC, the IC, the PSC, and the EC.
Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act
During 1993, Congress passed the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries
Cooperative Management Act. The purpose of the Act is “to support
and encourage the development, implementation, and enforcement of
effective interstate conservation and management ‘of Atlantic
coastal fishery resources.” The bill directs the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) to adopt FMPs for coastal
fisheries and establishes an obligation for the states to implement
the coastal plan recommendations. The ASMFC is required by the bill
to review state implementation and report to the Secretary of
Commerce. If a state is not in compliance with ASMFC
recommendations, the Secretary may impose a moratorium on all
fishing for that particular species until the state complies.
Violation of the moratorium would be a federal offense and result
in criminal and civil penalties and forfeitures. Financial
assistance has been granted to ASMFC and the states to implement
the bill. Authorized appropriations are $3 million for Fl 1994; $5
million for FY 1995; and $7 million for Fl 1996. The bill also
repeals the sunset provision on the moratorium authority of the
Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act and extends and increases
the authorization levels for interstate marine fisheries
commissions under the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1988.
The specifics of how this bill affects the Chesapeake Bay FMPs will
be defined with time. Most likely, the Bay states will need to make
some changes in order to be in compliance.
4
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY ALOSID MAIIAGEMENT PLM
The 1989 Alosid FNP, which addressed four different species:
American shad ( Alosa sai idissima) , hickory shad ( . mediocris) ,
blueback herring ( . aestivalis) , and alewife herring (A.
seudoharengus) , was written prior to the 1993 agreement to restore
migratory fish to the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania. The
restoration goals of 2.0 million American shad and 15.0 million
river herring were developed by the Susquehanna River Anadromous
Fish Restoration Committee (SRAFRC) Whose fishery agency
representation includes the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USF&W), Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC), National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Maryland Department of Natural
Resources (MDNE) and New York Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYDEC). This agreement will need to be considered
when the Alosid FMP is reviewed in 1995. A moratorium on the
harvest of shad from the Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay has
been in effect since 1980. The moratorium was implemented in
response to historic low levels of harvest and the tenuous status
of the stock. Virginia will implement a moratorium on harvesting
shad from the Bay in 1994. In Pennsylvania, no harvest of alosids
is permitted within the Susquehanna River basin.
Declining Abundance
American Shad
The 1993 population estimate of American shad in the upper
Chesapeake Bay was 47,563 with 95% confidence intervals between
39,745 and 56,904. This value represents a 55% decrease from the
1992 estimate of 105,255 (Figure 1). Possible reasons for the
decline in adult abundance include poor reproduction and/or larval
survival 3—5 years earlier, continued exploitation by intercept
fisheries, and record flood conditions over the entire Susquehanna
River basin which may have adversely affected the 1993 spring
spawning migration (Markham et al. 1993). A total of 13,546
American shad were caught by the fish lifts at Conowingo Dam and
11,170 shad were transported and released above the dam. Most shad
were stocked at Niddletown and Columbia, Pennsylvania. There was a
declining trend in the abundance of American shad along the entire
Atlantic coast. In New England (Maine through Connecticut), the
1993 Merrimack River run was 75% lower than the 1992 run and the
Connecticut River run declined from a projected return of 1.7
million adults to 700,000 adults. The Hudson River shad run has
declined over the last three consecutive years. The coastwide
decline in American shad abundance has prompted the ASMFC to
convene a Species Board for alosids to review the problem.
Since Maryland’s stocks remain at low levels, the moratorium
on harvesting shad from the Bay will continue during 1994. The
trigger for considering an open fishery in the upper Bay is an
increase in the annual population estimate for three consecutive
S
-------
200
150
100
50
0
Figure 1. American shad population
estimates for the upper Bay
Thousands of fish
8081828384858687888990 919293
Year
Bars indicate 95% confidence ranges
-------
years with at least 500,000 fish (50% of the historica]..population)
during one of those three years. With the adoption of specific
restoration goals in the Susquehanna River basin, the trigger will
need to be reconsidered during the Alosid FMP review in 1995.
Additional fishery targets for shad are being developed through the
Fisheries Goal-Setting Task Force, a special subcommittee of the
Chesapeake Bay Program.
Preliminary American shad commercial landings in Virginia were
555,791 pounds during 1993 (Figure 2). The harvest represented a
slight increase from 478,000 pounds in 1992. Of the total 1993
Virginia commercial catch, 65,637 pounds were harvested from the
Bay and tributaries during a 30 day season (March 15-April 15). A
total moratorium on Virginia’s American shad fisheries within the
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries will be effective January 1,
1994. The ocean fishery continues with a 3,000—yard gill net
restriction and no season.
Alewife and B].ueback Herring
Alewife and blueback herring are collectively known as river
herring . They formerly supported important commercial and
recreational fisheries throughout their range. River herring
landings declined dramatically during the 1960’s and have remained
low. Historically, Maryland and Virginia were the major harvesters
of river herring in the mid-Atlantic area. Preliminary data
indicate that 154,900 pounds of river herring were caught by
Maryland watermen during 1993. This is a slight decrease in harvest
compared to the last three years (Figure 3a). However, examining
trends in commercial landings is very limited without data on the
amount of effort. River herring monitoring at the Conowingo Dam
continued with 8,600 blueback herring and 572 alewive herring
captured. Adult river herring were monitored on the Nanticoke River
during 1993. Results indicate that catch-per-unit-of—effort (CPUE)
for alewife decreased but without any linear trend between 1989 and
1993. Blueback h.erring CPUE showed a marginal decrease over time
(Markham et al. 1993). In Virginia, preliminary landings indicate
360,000 pounds of river herring were harvested during 1993. This
was a substantial decrease from 1.1 million pounds in 1992 (Figure
3b). It should be noted that river herring are an important forage
species for large predators such as striped bass which have
increased in abundance. River herring have not been managed on a
system by system as recommended in the 1989 Alosid FMP and no
controls on river herring harvest have been implemented.
Hickory Shad
The status of hickory shad in the Bay and along the Atlantic
coast is unclear. The species historically occurred in significant
abundance from Virginia to Florida. Management actions and
strategies did not change for hickory shad in the Bay and
tributaries during 1993. Maryland continued its moratorium on the
7
-------
Figure 2. Virginia commercial landings
for American shad (bay & ocean)
Million pounds
10
8-- —_____________________________
6-
4.-
2 -- —______
0 hhhhhhhhhhhl IIIIIIIII’IIIIIII II’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ ’’’’’’’’’’’hI
1929 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1993
Year
*1993 preliminary data
-------
Figure 3a. River herring commercial
landings from Maryland, 1975-1993
Thousand pounds
Figure 3b. River herring commercial
landings from Virginia, 1975-1993
1993
1986
Year
1993
MIllion pounds
Note the difference In scale, MD & VA
1985
Year
9
-------
harvest of hickory shad. The Potomac River Fisheries Commission
(PREC) continued their 2 fish/person/day creel limit on hickory
shad. The District of Columbia continued its moratorium on the
harvest of both American and hickory shad. No hickory shad were
caught from the Conowingo fish lift (upper bay) during 1993.
Hickory shad adults have been caught during the adult American shad
survey in the upper Bay but in very low numbers. A small but record
number (16) of juveniles, were caught during the 1993 Maryland
estuarine juvenile finfish survey. Hickory shad juveniles have not
been collected by the juvenile finfish survey since 1971. Reported
hickory shad commercial catch from Virginia was 1,264 pounds during
1993. Only North Carolina is actively conducting research on
hickory shad and many aspects of its life history, migration
patterns and fisheries remain unknown.
Susauehanna River Restoration
In June 1993, an agreement was signed by the governors of
Pennsylvania and Maryland, as well as utilities, fisheries agencies
and fishery interests to provide fish passage at Holtwood and Safe
Harbor Dams by 1997 and York Haven Dam by the year 2000. This
action will provide American shad access to nearly 500 miles of
major river habitat in Pennsylvania. The restoration goals stated
in the agreement are for 2.0 million American shad and 15.0 million
river herring. Striped bass and American eel are expected to use
the Susquehanna River when it is accessible by fish passage
facilities. The restoration effort is being managed by SRAFRC.
Operation and management of upstream and downstream passage
facilities at each dam is directed by the individual utility owners
and a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) composed of fisheries
agency staff from the USF&W, PFC, and MDNR.
Since 1976, over 102 million larval shad have been stocked at
locations above the dams on the Susquehanna River and below
Conowing Dam. Hatchery fish were marked with various tetracycline
tag combinations which appear on their otoliths (ear bones).’ During
1993, otoliths were examined from 124 adult American shad taken by
the Conowingo fish lifts. The results indicate that 17% were of
wild origin. The Van Dyke hatchery (Juniata River, Pennsylvania)
component of the returning adult American shad population has
ranged from 67% to 83% since 1989. Otoliths from shad caught by
pound nets in the’upper Bay indicated 52% were of wild origin and
48% were from hatcheries. A total of 11,171 American shad and 1,333
river herring were transported upstream of dams on the Susquehanna
River in 1993. The restoration efforts on the Susquehanna River
represent a commitment by state and federal fishery resource
agencies and private utility companies to return shad and other
migratory fishes to historic spawning and nursery areas above the
dams. For a complete report on the operation of the Conowingo Dam
fish passage facilities, American shad egg collection program,
hatchery operations and stocking, juvenile shad outmigration, and
10
-------
turbine studies, refer to the 1993 Annual Report of th Susquehanna
River Anadromous Fish Restoration Committee.
Potential For Overfishing
The jurisdictions have continued to participate in the on-
going Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) alosid
management program. An interstate FMP for shad and herring was
adopted by ASMFC in 1985 and a supplement assessing progress was
developed in 1988. Although some progress has been made to
implement the ASMFC plan, alosid stocks continue to remain at low
abundance when compared to stock levels between 1950 and 1970.
Stock assessment from twelve rivers along the Atlantic coast
indicate that the maximum sustainable yield (NSY) ranges between
12,000 to 2.5 million pounds (ASMFC 1993). Current catch levels are
below MSY values and will be reevaluated by the ASMFC Species Board
during 1994.
Directed ocean fisheries for American shad during 1993
occurred in New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina.
Maryland ocean catches peaked at 487,812 pounds in 1989 but have
decreased since then. During 1992 and 1993, Maryland implemented a
coastal shad season from February 4th through April 30th. In 1993,
Maryland harvested 77,885 pounds and Virginia harvested 490,150
pounds of American shad from the ocean (Figure 4). Virginia’s
coastal shad fishery accounts for over 90% of its total shad catch.
A Virginia coastal season was in effect during 1992 but not in
1993. A new mandatory reporting system was implemented in Virginia
1993.
American shad and river herring tagging studies have indicated
that the Bay of Fundy in Canadian waters is an important summer
area. The ASMFC is monitoring the status of Bay of Fundy tidal
power development which could impact all east coast shad, alewife,
and blueback herring stocks. Coastal shad tagging projects were not
conducted in Maryland or Virginia during 1993.
Monitoring river herring bycatch in the foreign and domestic
mackerel fisheries continued during 1993. Since 1983, the river
herring bycatch has averaged 0.22% o.f the total mackerel catch and
does not appear to adversely impact the mid—Atlantic stocks.
Research and Monitoring
A cooperative effort between the Maryland Department of
Natural Resources (MDNR) and the University of Maryland (UM) was
undertaken to develop a comprehensive stock assessment program for
important commercial and recreational fisheries in Maryland. One
task of this project was to review MDNR fishery-dependent and
fishery-independent projects to evaluate if the data being
collected met the needs of a comprehensive stock assessment
program. The evaluation involved a review of the following MDNR
11
-------
600
500
400
300
200
100
.0
Figure 4. American shad landings from
the Atlantic Ocean & seaside bays
Pounds (Thousands)
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Year
Maryland Virginia
-------
field projects: the American shad juvenile survey; the river
herring juvenile survey; the characterization of adult river
herrings in the Nariticoke River; and the characterization of adult
American shad stocks in the upper Chesapeake Bay and Nanticoke
River. The results of the project evaluation by Rugolo et al.
(1993) and the 1993 project results (Markham et al. 1993) are as
follows:
1) In 12 years of sampling (haul seine and otter trawl), the
American shad juvenile survey caught 75 juvenile shad. Catch-per—
unit—of-effort (CPUE) ranged from 0 to 0.6. Estimates of adult shad
were not reflected in increased spawning success as measured by the
juvenile survey and for this reason the project was terminated in
1991.
2) The river herring juvenile survey samples the relative abundance
and distribution of juvenile anadromous alosids (including shad)
using a mid-water trawl. The overall abundance of alewife and
blueback herring has varied significantly from year to year and
from region to region. Catch data indicate that alosids were absent
from the Gunpowder and Patapsco Rivers and at low levels in the
Bush River. Nonsignificant differences between years and locations
jnay indicate stable levels of recruitment or be the result of small
sample sizes. During 1993, juvenile Alosa abundance was monitored
in the Patuxent, Chester, Choptank, and Nanticoke rivers. From 1985
through 1993, the weighted geometric mean for alewife herring in
all river systems combined showed a significant increasing trend in
abundance. Blueback herring showed no significant trend over the
same time period. Abundance levels for both species have remained
similar in all areas over time. No juvenile American shad or
hickory shad were collected during 1993 from the four river
systems. A total of 31 juvenile American shad were collected from
the upper Bay by electrofishing. This high number could indicate
that natural reproduction and survival has improved this year even
though adult abundance decreased. The overall weighted geometric
mean index was 0.32. Alosa sp. were also sampled by the Maryland
Estuarine Juvenile Finfish survey from the head of the Bay, the
Choptank, Nanticoke and Potomac river systems. The relative
abundance of blueback herring was very good (73.5 fish/seine haul)
and comparable to abundance levels in the 1970’s. Mean catches for
alewife herring have generally been low but the 1993 catch was
better than 1992. American shad have been collected by the seine
survey but in extremely low numbers. The 1993 index was 0.2
fish/seine haul which was an increase from 1992.
3) Characterization of adult river herring from the Nanticoke River
is important since this river accounts for 30% to 50% of the total
Maryland commercial river herring catch and is a key spawning area.
The 1993 evaluation concluded that the study is achieving its
objectives. For river—specific management to be implemented,
additional sampling areas would be necessary. Additional sampling
areas would also be needed to evaluate the status of herring stocks
13
-------
in the Bay. The Nanticoke survey has provided estimates of adult
mortality. Average annual mortality estimateé for alewife herring
were 73% .and 62% for males and females, respectively, between 1989
and 1993. Average annual mortality estimates for blueback herring
were 52% and 47% for males and females, respectively, between 1989
and 1993.
4) The project to characterize adult American shad stocks in the
upper Bay and Nanticoke River is also achieving its objectives. The
upper Bay population estimate provides a basis for assessing stock
status and will provide a framework for managing a fishery once it
is reopened. Recommendations to improve the project include a
consideration of river flow characteristics before making inter-
annual comparisons of the population estimates and separate
comparisons by gear type when examining stock composition. In
Maryland, the 1993 adult population estimate for American shad
decreased by 55% from the previous year. There has been a downward
trend in the population estimate for the last two years after
reaching a high of 148,000 fish in 1991. The 1988 shad year—class
(age 5) was the most abundant year-class sampled in the upper Bay
during 1993. Total mortality estimates during 1993 for upper Bay
adult shad were 92% for males and 73% for females. The average
annual mortality between 1985 and 1993 was 86% for males and 72%
for females. Total mortality estimates for the Nanticoke River
during 1993 were 51% for males and 60% for females. The average
annual mortality between 1988 and 1993 was 55% for males and 61%
for females. A decrease in mean length at age was noted for
females. Repeat spawning was the highest recorded in recent years
at 20%, males and females combined.
The 1992 shad juvenile indices on the Mattaponi and Pamunkey
Rivers were the lowest since 1979. Surveys on the James and
Rappahannock Rivers also showed very low juvenile indices during
1992. The Alosa juvenile study was not funded in 1993 but an
abbreviated study limited the assessment to the Mattaponi and
Pamunkey Rivers. During 1993, the Mattaponi River shad index was
30.3, the highest index value observed since the annual survey
began in 1979 and almost double the long-term index of 16.1. The
Painunkey River index remained considerably below the long—term mean
of 5.7.
During 1993, 1,552 American shad were sampled by the VMRC Fish
Stock Assessment Program. The mean total length of the 1993
collection was 508mm (20 inches). A complete summary of the harvest
and biological data collected is in progress. The VMRC stock
assessment program also collected 557 American shad from ocean and
river gill net fisheries for use in a genetic identification study
being conductdd by Virginia Commonwealth University.
Besides otolith examination of adult shad taken by the
Coriowingo fish lifts, juvenile otoliths were also examined during
1993. Out of a total of 603 juveniles, 69% were wild. In comparison
14
-------
to previous years, 40% (1992) and 21% (1991) of the juvenile shad
otoliths were wild. In 1993, all 67 juvenile shad taken by NDNR
electrofishing efforts and seine surveys below Conowingo Dam were
wild (SRAFRC, December 1993 Technical Meeting).
Approximately 500,000 American shad larvae were stocked by the
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries in the James River
during 1993. The restocking effort was part of the fish passage
plan to restore populations of anadromous fish to historical
spawning areas. The James River, the largest Bay tributary In
Virginia, once supported a large spring migration of anadroinous
fish. The first effort to trap and transport river herring in
Virginia was accomplished. A total of 680 adult blueback herring
were collected and transported to the Appomattox River. Fish
passages at the dams in Richmond have been completed. When
construction is completed at Boshers Dam (spring 1995), 140 miles
of the James River will be open to spawning fish.
The ASMFC American Shad Stock Assessment Committee is working
on updating the 1988 stock assessment of 17 shad stocks from Rhode
Island to Florida and examining the impact of ocean commercial
fisheries. The results of these studies should be available in
1994. There is concern about the magnitude of the ocean harvest
especially with the continued decline in shad stocks. New England
and mid—Atlantic states continue to actively participate in alosid
restoration efforts through fish passage construction and stocking
programs (ASMFC 1993).
Habitat Loss and Degradation
Since the signing of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement to
remove stream blockages for migratory finfish species, a total of
53 fish passage projects have been initiated through 1993. An
additional 42 fish passage projects are planned in the next five
years and another 24 projects after ten years. During 1993, 20 fish
passages were completed in Maryland and have opened 114 miles of
stream/river habitat (1993 Chesapeake Bay Program Annual Progress
Report). The fish passage program includes the design and
construction of new fishways, the trap/transport and reintroduction
of shad and river herring, biomonitoring of fishways to evaluate
passage success, and assessment of spawning/recruitment in stocked
streams. A total of 2,302 blueback herring were transported from
the Conowingo Fish Lift and stocked at four sites in the Patapsco
River. This was a decrease in the number of adult fish transported
by MDNR in 1992 and is a direct result of heavy rainfall and high
flows in the Susquehanna River. The fish lift operations were
delayed approximately .4 weeks because of the high flows and
affected the number of herring available for transport.
Four fish ladders were monitored during 1993. Big Elk Creek in
the upper Bay had large numbers of herring using the fish ladder
during late May. The Tuckahoe fish ladder provided passage of
15
-------
blueback herring and several other species in April. ! onitoring on
the Tuckahoe indicated a need for the development of a fish ladder
operation schedule for installing and removing the entrance and
exit stoplogs and the dam splashboards. Monitoring began at the
Bloede Dam fish ladder on the Patapsco River as soon as the ladder
was completed. Trash accumulation was a problem at this site.
Although a small number (294) of blueback herring were stocked
downstream of the ladder, there was no evidence the ladder provided
passage for anadromous fish species. Anecdotal information suggests
that some carp and gizzard shad were present in the fish ladder
when it was drained. The Daniels Dam fish ladder on the Patapsco
was also completed in the spring and monitored. A single blueback
herring was collected which documents the use of this ladder.
Continued restoration and monitoring of alewife and blueback
herring in the Patapsco have been proposed for 1994. For more
details on the fish passage program, refer to the document,
“Removing Impediments to Migratory Fishes in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed.”
The most important abiotic factors which affect spawning
success are river flow rates and water temperature. In years with
“normal” river flows during the shad spawning period, year-class
strength exhibits a good correlation with parental stock size.
Years with high flow rates and low water temperature during
critical developmental periods result in reduced survival (Crecco
et a].. 1983). Water quality standards for dissolved oxygen and
minimum flows in the Susquehanna River below Conowingo Dam were
implemented between 1989 and 1991. Other factors which affect year-
class strength include interspecific competition for food, food
availability, predator abundance, and availability of shelter.
The effects of acidic conditions on early life history stages
of blueback and alewife herring in three Maryland coastal plain
streams from the Potomac, South and Nanticoke river systems were
investigated. Episodic acidification events are stressful to
alewife and blueback herring and are inhibiting recovery of these
stocks (Hall, Jr. et al. 1993). It is important to document river
systems where acidic conditions are a problem and may hinder
stocking efforts.
Conclusion
The major concern for alosid stocks is the unexplained
coastwide decline in abundance. Although stocks are being monitored
and histoiic spawning habitat has been opened through fish passage
programs, abundance remains at low levels. The following areas
should be emphasized during 1994:
1) Participate in reevaluating the goals and objectives of the
coastal alosid FMP and stock assessment.
16
-------
2) Continue to collect basic biological informatjon on stock
status, i.e., age structure, length frequency, mortality
estimates, juvenile and adult abundance of alosids in the
Chesapeake Bay.
3) Consider implementing stronger harvest controls on the
coastal harvest.
4) Continue opening spawning habitat through the Fish Passage
Program.
References
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 1993. The
1993 review of the ASMFC fishery management plan for American
shad and river herring ( Alosa sp.)
Chesapeake Bay Program 1993 Annual Progress Report. 1994.
Implementation plan for removing impediments to migratory
fishes in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. EPA Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, Annapolis, Md.
Crecco, V., T. Savoy, and L. Gunn. 1983. Daily mortality rates
of larval and juvenile American shad (Alosa sapidissiina) in
the Connecticut River with changes in year—class strength.
Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 40:1719—1728.
Hall, Jr. L.W., S.A. Fischer, W.D. Killen, M.C. Ziegenfuss, R.D.
Anderson and R.J. Klauda. 1993. Assessing the relationship
between critical aóidic conditions inMaryland coastal plain
streams and predicted mortality of early life stages of
migratory fish. Aquat. Tox. 26:239-272.
Markham, C.A., J.P. Mowrer, A.A. Jarzynski, R.V. Jesien, and D.R.
Weinrich. 1993. Investigation of Anadromous Alosids in
Chesapeake Bay. U.S. Fish and. Wildlife Service Federal Aid
Annual Report, Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
Rugolo, L.J., C. Stagg, B.J. Rothschild and J.S. Ault. 1993.
Fishery independent sampling and biological sampling of
commercial fishing landings. Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment
Committee, and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration. NOAA/NMFS Grant No. NA9OAA-H-SF694.
17
-------
1993 ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
CHESAPEAKE BAY ALOSID IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
1.1.1 Continue shad moratorium in MD’s Continue
portion of the Chesapeake Bay.
1.1.2 VA will follow ASMFC recommenda-
;ion to limit exploitation rate on shad
and herring to 25%.
1.2 Control river herring catch, in-
cluding: by system, regulate areas
slated for restoration, gear and/or
seasonal restrictions.
1.3 Hickory shad fishery will follow
the same management actions as in 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 -
adequate protection to the component
of the coastal stock which returns to
the Chesapeake Bay to spawn .
The 1993 population estimate for adult American shad in the
upper Bay was 47,563 fish. This is a decrease from the
1992 estimate of 105,255 fish. This is the 2nd year of
decreasing abundance.
A Bay moratorium in VA will be implemented in January 1994.
DCFM implemented a moratorium-on shad harvest during 1992.
PRFC will continue their 2 fish/person/day creel limit.
VA had a shad season from Mar 15-Apr 15 within the Bay
& tributaries during 1993.
No restrictions have been implemented for river herring in
VA or MD.
MD will continue moratorium on hickory shad. PRFC will
continue restrictions on hickory shad. DC implemented a
moratorium on hickory shad during 1992.
Agreement on the construction of 3 passage facilities up-
stream of Conowingo was reached in Nov. 1992. Two dams
should be opened by 1997 & the third dam by the year 2000.
MD & VA have continued to participate in the coastal
deliberations for shad and herring.
Problem Area
Action
Date
Comments
1. Declining
alosid
abundance
2. Overfishing
1993
Continue
Continue
1993
1990
Continue
Continue
Continue
-------
ALOSID CONTD.
Problem Area
Action
Date
Comments
2. Overfishing 2.2 A) Implement a coastal shad tagging 1991. Results from 1991 & 1992 study indicate that the coastal
‘(cont’d) program to determine which stocks are 1992 fishery is mixed & highly variable from year to year.
being exploited in the intercept Additional genetic work will be continued.
fishery.
B) Control the coastal intercept 1992 Coastal shad seasons were started in 1992 by both
fishery through a combination of gear Continue MD & VA. MD continued a coastal season during ‘93 (Feb-Apr).
restrictions, seasonal and arcal VA did not have a coastal season during 1993.
closures, and harvest limits.
C) Continue to monitor and document its 1993 MD coastal landings during 1993 were 77,885 lbs. VA coastal
territorial seas intercept fishery landings during 1993 were 490,150 lbs. VA continued
for American shad. its genetic analysis of the shad stocks taken in the
intercept fishery.
2.3.1 Virginia will control river her- 1992 VA has restricted use of commercial fishing gear in the
ring harvest during spawning migrations Continue spawning areas in the Chickahominy River below Walker’s
through gear restrictions & spawning Dam.
area closures.
2.3.2 MD & VA will monitor river her- In River herring bycatch is being monitored under the MAFMC
ring bycatch through the MAFMC and effect Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish FMP. River herring stocks
support the following recommendations: have been relatively stable since 1968.
a) Foreign fishery will stay 20 miles
offshore; b) Maximum bycatch of 1% for
river herring in foreign & domestic
mackerel fisheries with a cap on total
allowable bycatch; c) Intercept fish-
cries will be discouraged.
-------
ALOSID CONTD.
1%)
0
Problem Area
Action
Date
Comments
3. Stock
Assessment
3.1 Continue to collect alosid data:
a) Collect alosid juvenile data;
b) MD will continue project in upper
Bay & Nanticoke to estimate adult shad;
c) VA will improve assessment of shad
stocks in territorial waters & improve
catch & effort data through mandatory
reporting;
d) Continue VMRC stock assessment;
e) VA will initiate ocean intercept
tagging program;
f) MD will examine exploitation rates of
herring in selected tributaries & im-
prove landings data;
g) VA will implement a surveys of alosid
spawning grounds & associated biological
data;
h) A joint effort will be made to
investigate shad in the Potomac.
Continue
Continue
Continue
Continue
1991-
1992
Continue
1991
On-going VIMS, MDNR & DCFM alosid juvenile survey.
Mandatory reporting has been implemented in VA.
Tagging project was a joint MD & VA endeavor. Results mdi-
cate coastal catch is mixed & highly variable.
Mortality rates have been calculated for the Nanticoke R.
DCFM has been sampling the upper Potomac.
4. Habitat
Loss and
Degradation
4.1 Implement the Chesapeake Bay Fish
Passage Plan:
A) - I) Implement various fish passage
projects.
3) Coordinate resources for restocking
efforts.
K) Establish measures to protect rein-
troduced fish stocks.
L) Monitor impact of fish passage
projects.
Variable
Continue
1990
Continue
To date, 53.6 miles of historic spawning habitat have
been opened.
Refer to Fish Passage Plan for details.
The source for river herring restocking efforts are from the
Conowingo fish lift. 2,300 herring stocked in the Patapsco R.
Regulations to protect reintroduced herring have not been
implemented in MD.
Monitoring efforts need to be improved.
-------
ALOSID CONT’D.
ASMFC = Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
DCFM = District of Columbia, Fisheries Management
MAFMC = Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council
MDNR = Maryland Department of Natural Resources
PRFC = Potomac River Fisheries Commission
SRAFRC = Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Restoration Commission
VDGIF = Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
VIMS = Virginia Institute of Marine Science
VMRC = Virginia Marine Fisheries Commission
F ’,
I -
Problem Area
Action
Date
Comments
4. Habitat
4.2.1 MD & PA will continue to work
Continue
Loss and
within SRAFRC’s ongoing programs to
Degradation
ensure downstream passage for juveniles
(cont’d)
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,
Continue
1993.
Continue hatchery funding. VDGIF initiated a shad
stocking program on the upper James River.
4.3 A)- E) Technical issues regarding
water quality at Conowingo Dam.
Continue
Standards have been implemented since 1989.
4.4 Establish new water classification
system based on living resources,
habitat, & water quality.
4.5 Promote Bay Agreement water quality
commitments.
Variable
The Bay Program added a tributary initiative Which
will set nutrient reduction goals for major tributaries.
LEGEND:
-------
CHESAPEAICE BAY BLUE CRAB MANAGEMENT PLAN
Reports of increased effort and lower commercial landings of
the Chesapeake Bay blue crab ( Callinectes sa idus ) during 1992
provided the impetus to develop additional management measures for
containing crab harvest, a primary goal of the 1989 Blue Crab FMP.
A special blue crab committee convened in late 1992 to advis
Maryland’s Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) on blue crab
fishery management. The Maryland Blue Crab Advisory Board (MBCAB),
similar to Virginia’s Blue Crab Advisory Committee formed in 1987,
was comprised of watermen, packers, retailers, recreational
crabbers, legislators, scientists, environmental organizations and
technical advisors.
Both Maryland and Virginia took steps to implement the 1989
Blue Crab FMP and contain commercial and noncommercial catch and
effort. The 1993 session of the Virginia General Assembly
restructured the commercial crab gear license fees, established new
commercial licenses for crab shedders and peeler potters, and
authorized the Commission to establish recreational gear licenses.
During 1993, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC)
adopted regulations that included: establishing recreational
licenses for crab pots, crab traps and crab trotlines, with gear
restrictions and mandatory report; requiring one cull ring (2—5/16”
diameter) in hard crab pots to allow small crabs to escape;
reducing the daily catch limit in •the crab dredge fishery; and
establishing limited entry in the crab dredge fishery. The Potomac
River Fisheries Commission (PRFC) established a regulation
requiring the use of crab pot cull rings of 2—5/16” diameter,
compatible with Virginia’s regulations.
In June 1993, Maryland’s Governor introduced the Maryland Crab
Action Plan (MCAP). Regulations proposed in the MCAP would place
limits on gear for both commercial and sport crabbers and reduce
catch limits for sport crabbers. Also proposed were time limits for
commercial and sport crabbers and increased spacing between certain
gear types to control effort and reduce conflict between user
groups. The MCAP proposed mandatory installation of cull rings in
commercial—style crab pots and an air space in riparian pots for
air-breathing animals. The legislative portion of the MCAP included
a proposal to restructure the licensing system. The proposed
license amendment would eliminate the noncommercial crabbing
license, institute a recreational crabbing license, limit the
number of commercial licenses that may be issued, and require a
license for shedding soft—shell crabs.
The regulatory package of the MCAP was first introduced at
public hearings in October, 1993. significant public comment
modified the original regulation package to recognize crew members
as licensees under the captain’s license and allow- for a maximum of
900 crab pots per boat. Also, the requirement for an air space in
22
-------
riparian pots was postponed. The regulations as mod&fied will be
reintroduced in January 2.994.
Pishing Effort and Catch
The number of commercial licenses in Maryland has remained
stable over recent years. In 1993, 4,978 commercial crab licenses
were issued in Maryland in addition to 1,540 Tidal Fish Licenses
which permit commercial harvest of crabs, shellfish and finfish.
The greatest number of commercial licenses are issued in the
category of Junior and Senior Commercial Crabber which is intended
for State residents under 14 years and over 64 years. Their
reported commercial catch is insignificant when compared to other
commercial license categories. There were 5,024 noncommercial
licenses issued in Maryland in 1993.
There is evidence in Maryland that effort has increased in the
crab pot fishery and catch per pot fished has declined. Despite a
decline in the Maryland blue crab harvest in 1992 to 20.9 million
pounds, the 1993 landings of 57.6 million pounds exceeded the 10
year average (45 million pounds) (Figure 5). In Virginia, the 1992
harvest of 23.3 million pounds was also low. Preliminary Virginia
commercial hard crab landings for 1993 are 50.6 million pounds,
nearly double the 1992 landings and more than the 10 year average
(40.5 million pounds) (Figure 6). Virginia implemented mandatory
reporting for all commercial harvesters in 1993 and the increase in
landings may be, in part, an artifact of the new reporting system.
Anecdotal observations in Virginia indicate 1993 was not an
exceptional year for the fishery, and may even be on scale with
2992 landings. Virginia’s new reporting system should provide
improved statistics on catch and effort in following years.
Harvest declines of the magnitude experienced in 1992 made it
difficult to establish a catch limit for the 1993 season. It is
probable that the 1992 landings reflected a one year reduction in
abundance resulting from a weak year class of crabs in the fishery.
An annual quota, a monthly quota system or catch limits will not
have any effect on maintaining catch or effort above a certain
level until annual abundance can be predicted with confidence and
more is known about stock—recruitment and harvest—stock
relationships. A Fisheries Target Setting Task Force will be
developing specific targets for guiding the management of blue
crabs in the next few years.
Recreational fishing effort remains poorly documented.
Estimates of recreational catch in Maryland range from a high of 41
million pounds in 1983 to 1]. million pounds in 1990. Currently, the
Maryland sport crab fishery is comprised of unlicensed recreational
crabbers and licensed noncommercial crabbers. Noncommercial harvest
in Maryland for 1993 was 6.2 million pounds. Maryland has not
surveyed recreational crabbers since 1990 and no current estimates
of recreational catch or effort are available. Virginia issued 361
23
-------
Figure 5. Maryland commercial blue crab
landings and value
Million Pounds
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Year
Dockside Value Commercial Landings
-------
Figure 6. Virginia commercial blue
crab landings and value
Million Pounds
/
I I I I I I I I I I I
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Year
1
p. ___ . _
rJHr J I ___ __ _
1, - V I 1 _____
U I U U. UU U
Value Commercial Landings
*1993 preliminary data, dockside value not available
Hard crab landings only
U I
60
50-
40-
30-
20-
10-
0-
-I
-------
recreational crabbing licenses in 1993. Catch reports are still
being processed to determine harvest by licensed recreational
crabbers in Virginia.
Wasteful Harvesting Practices
Cull rings in crab pots were made mandatory in Virginia to
conserve small crabs and are proposed in Maryland. Research
conducted by several States, including Virginia, has proven that
cull rings significantly reduce the capture and mortality of small
crabs. Biodegradable escape panels for crab pots were investigated
in Maryland asa means to reduce crab mortality in abandoned pots.
Jute appears to be the best material for a biodegradable panel with
a decomposition rate of approximately 55 days. The economics of
installing the panel and sustained proper use continues to be
investigated.
The MCAP and the 1994 regulatory package include measures to
address the recreational use of crab pots. Currently, recreational
crab pots are limited to private piers and structures, and these
unattended pots trap and kill air-breathing species. Recreational
crab pots will be limited to two pots per property and air spaces
and escape mechanisms will continue to be investigated.
In response to high peeler mortality estimates during a 1990
MDNR survey of 86 crab shedding operations, a soft-shell crab
shedding operator’s license will be introduced to the Maryland
legislature in 1994. The purpose of the license is to identify crab
shedding operators, provide them with technical information on
reducing shedding mortality, and develop better techniques for
managing the soft crab fishery. Virginia established crab shedding
licenses in 1993 for commercial as well as recreational shedders.
Stock Assessment
The method for obtaining commercial crab data in Maryland will
change in -1994 from a survey that estimates harvest to a direct
reporting system similar to Virginia’s new reporting system. In
place of establishing a separate recreational crabbing license in
Maryland, the proposed 1994 legislation would require recreational
crabbers to obtain a sportfishing license. The sportfishing license
requirement will not be effective f or collecting crab catch and
effort data unless license holders are surveyed annually. With the
elimination of the noncommercial license, the noncommercial catch
estimates will be unavailable. Virginia established a recreational
license in 1993 and requires reporting by licensed recreational
crabbers. Catch data for unlicensed recreational crabbers who can
use dip net, handline or two crab pots for personal use, is not
currently monitored in Virginia.
26
-------
The winter population of blue crabs• in the Ch esapeake Bay
during 19 3 was estimated at653.3 million crabs (winter dredge
survey) of which 366.7 million were 50 nun (2 inches) or greater.
While these estimates are thought to be conservative when compared
to total baywide landings, they are the only estimates currently
available. Little is known about the growth of crabs in the wild,
and it is uncertain if crabs less than 50 mm enter the fishery the
following summer. Assuming that they do not enter the fishery, the
exploitation rate of crabs 50 mm and greater in 1992 was 50%. This
figure does not include the harvest of sort and peeler crabs or
recreational harvest which would increase the exploitation rate.
Baywide summer trawl surveys and winter dredge surveys
continue to provide fishery independent population data. Maryland
DNR summer trawl data indicate that blue crab abundance was
relatively high in 1977, low from 1978—1980, and relatively high
through 1986. Since then (1987—1993), considerable fluctuation has
been observed. The Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William
and Nary (VIMS/W&M) trawl data from 1972-1988 indicate major
interannual fluctuations in blue crab abundance, often asynchronous
with abundance patterns of crabs in Maryland. Historically,
population abundance has remained high or low for two or more years
before significant fluctuation in abundance is observed. This has
not been the case in recent years. Winter dredge data from Maryland
and Virginia indicate fluctuations between single years with high
population estimates in 1991 and 1993 and a very low estimate in
1992.
The Chesapeake Bay winter dredge survey from mid—December 1992
through March 1993 sampled both shallow and deep regions of the
Bay. A total of 1,897 crabs were caught (n=1386) with 57% sampled
from Maryland waters and 43% from Virginia. Catch statistics from
the Virginia commercial dredge fishery show a significant decline
in winter harvests from 1956 to 1992 and this decline is also
reflected in the fishery independent trawl survey conducted in the
James, York, and Rappahanock Rivers. The trawl survey indicates a
decline in adult female abundance over the same time period. The
dredge and trawl data sets correlate well when compared together.
Similar declines have been observed in the softshell industry which
is dependent on spring “peeler runs” when females are approaching
their final molt preceding maturity. The dredge and peeler
fisheries, dependent on female abundance in the winter and spring,
are 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 initiated by commercial
crabbers, and this increased effort is accompanied by a concurrent
decrease in return per unit of effort. Catch and effort data is
unavailable for Virginia.
27
-------
Regulatory and Conflict Issues
The concept of the blue crab as a resource equally accessible
to all is difficult to practice. Division between commercial and
recreational crabbers is quite apparent. Recreational crabbers
believe that commercial crabbers are not asked to bear a
proportionate share of the regulatory burden. Commercial crabbers,
on the other hand, believe that since they are dependent upon the
resource for a living, they are entitled to a larger portion.
Several of the proposed regulations and the licensing legislation
in Maryland are in response to conflicts between recreational and
commercial crabbers. An increase in the required distance between
trotlines is a result of complaints from both. commercial and
recreational crabbers experiencing gear conflicts. Another example
is the proposal to eliminate the “noncommercial crabbing” license.
The noncommercial catch limit is believed to be more than one could
use for personal consumption and should be included in the
commercial license structure. Staggered start and end times for
crabbing proposed in Maryland are also an attempt to reduce
conflict between commercial and recreational crabbers.
Habitat Degradation
Recent studies by the Smithsonian Environmental Institute
emphasize the importance of tributary habitat to the survival of
the blue crab. Shallow, vegetated areas provide shelter for young
and shedding crabs and are probably important wintering areas. The
1992 amendments to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement place greater
emphasis on the tributaries. This expanded emphasis, the Tributary
Initiatives, will focus on improving water quality and habitat in
the shallow areas in the Bay.
Conclusion
Both states have continued efforts to reduce fishing effort on
the blue crab resource. Areas to be pursued during the 1994
management year include:
1) A reevaluation of the blue crab management recommendations
and a revision of the 1989 Blue.Crab Fishery Management Plan.
2) Continue monitoring the status of the blue crab fishery and
determine the need and means of controlling effort.
3) Continue collecting and analyzing data from summer and
winter surveys and implement management measures suggested by
the data.
4) Continue improving the catch and effort data base for both
the commercial and recreational fisheries.
28
-------
1993 ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
CHESAPEAKE BAY BLUE CRAB IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Problem Area
Action
Date
Comments
1. Fishing Effort is
Increasing
1.1.1 MD and VA will contain the
commercial harvest at present levels; assess
and introduce potential regulatory measures,
1993
A MD crab advisory committee was formed and made
recommendations. A legislative and regulatory package was
proposed which included commercial gear and time limits and
limited entry to the commercial fishery. VA reduced the
commercial dredge daily catch limit and limited entry into the
dredge fishery.
1.1.2 MD will continue delayed entry and
VA will develop a delayed entry program.
Continue
1993
VA began a delayed entry program effective Jan., 1993. Maryland
will consider limited entry.
1.2 MD and VA will determine Baywide
regulations concerning harvest of peeler, soft,
hard and female crabs and size limits on all
crabs based on yield and recruit data.
1991
MD and VA continue to collect and assess data; discuss size
limits, gear and time restrictions and licenses.
1.3.1 A clear distinction between
commercial, noncommercial and recreational
crabbers will be defined by reducing the
bushel limit for the noncommercial crabbing
license in MD.
1991
The MD Crab Action Plan proposed reduced gear and harvest
limits for noncommercial crabbers and will be considered by the
1994 legislature.
2. Waiteful
Harvesting
Practices
2.1
A. MD will promote the release of buckram
crabs.
B. VA will consider design limitations on
crab dredges and establish management or
sanctuary areas.
1990
Continue
A. The FMP RAT Force determined implementation of this action
was minimal.
B. Changes in dredge designs were evaluated and no
recommendations were made. No new sanctuary areas were
established.
2.2 MD and VA will promote the use of cull
rings and continue to evaluate the
effectiveness of cull rings from crab pot
studies.
1993
VA passed regulation for mandatory cull rings in crab pots. Rings
may be obstructed by permission of the Commission. MD
proposed regulation for mandatory cull rings.
-------
Problem Area
Action
Date
Comments
2.3
A. MD will prohibit the harvest of sponge
crabs.
B. VA will monitor the harvest of female
crabs in the dredge fishery.
C. MD and VA will investigate the extent of
mortality on mature female crabs used in for
eel bait. D. PRFC will continue to prohibit
possessipn of egg-bearing females.
A. MD adopted prohibition on harvest of sponge crabs in 1989.
B. VA continued winter dredge surveys, CPUE data collection and
mandatory reporting will be utilized to monitor commercial
harvest.
C. This action has not been implemented.
D. PRFC has implemented this action and has continued
prohibition on sponge crab harvest.
VA implemented a crab shedding license. MI) has proposed a crab
shedding license which will be considered in 1994.
A) 1989
B) 1993
C) Cancelled
D) Continue
0
2.4
A) 1993
A. VA code has been changed.
A. VA will continue prohibition of
B) No change
B. No new regulations have been proposed.
abandoned crab pots.
C) Continue
C. Materials for degradable escape panels continue to be
B. MD will evaluate the need for regulation
D) No change
investigated.
of abandoned pots.
E) No change
C. MD will asses biodegradable panels in
crab pots.
D. MD and VA will improve enforcement.
E. PRFC will consider regs for abandoned
pots.
2.5 Promote reduction of peeler mortality in 1993
shedding operations. Necessary regulatory
changes will be implemented.
3. Stock
3.1
Continue
A-B. Trawl and dredge surveys were contLnued.
Assessment
A. Continue trawl survey.
C. Commercial crab mandatory reporting requirement will be
Deficiencies
B. Continue dredge survey,
C. MD will implement a modified reporting
system.
D. VA will implement mandatory reporting.
E. VA and MD will make reporting systems
as compatible as possible.
implemented in 1994.
D. Mandatory reporting was in effect for 1993.
E. When MD implements mandatory reporting, the two systems
should be more compatible.
-------
Problem Area
Action
Date
Comments
3.2
A. Utilize information from federal survey.
B. MD will continue recreational survey and
VA will study survey methods and implement
a survey.
C. Implement effort control measures for
recreational crabbers.
Variable
A. Implementation by MD was minimal and was lacking in VA.
B. Implementation by MD has not been on a regular basis. VA
established a recreational crabbing license and mandatory reporting
by license holders.
C. VA established gear and catch limits for licensed crabbers, and
gear limits for unlicensed crabbers. MD is considering regulations
that limit gear, harvest and time for recreational and
noncommercial crabbers.
3.3 MD and VA support cooperative research
to address and define the stock/recruitment
relationship, mortality and environmental
effects on crab population.
Continue
Fishery independent surveys were continued. VA analyzed
historical fishery independent data and compared to commercial
landings and continubs to investigate stock/recruitment
relationships and environmental factors. Baywide data was
analyzed for fishing mortality rates and absolute abundance
estimates.
3.4 MD will conduct studies on use of eels as
bait for trotlines.
1994
MD will add questions on eels to the crab reporting survey forms
beginning in 1994.
4. Regulatory
Conflicts
4.1 MD will decrease the number of crab pot
floats and increase the number of float-free
areas.
Completed in
1990.
Resources to mark float free areas is a limiting factor.
4.2 Determine need for coordinated soft and
peeler size limits.
1991
No consensus to date.
4.3 MD will consider crab pots for
commercial use only.
1993
Landowners are still permitted to use crab pots from private piers;
reduced gear limits by landowners are being considered.
4.4
A. MD maintains a point assignment system.
B. VA will consider a point assignment
system.
C. Make enforcement consistent among
jurisdictions.
Continue
B. VA has strengthened laws against repeat offenders.
-------
FMP RAT Force = Fishery Management Plan Keassessment lask I orce
CPUB = Catch per unit effort
PRFC- = Potomac River Fisheries Commission
SAV = Submerged aquatic vegetation
Problem Area
Action -
Date
Comments
5.1
A. Achieve a 40% reduction of nutrients to
the Bay.
B. Develop and adopt a basinwide plan for
toxic materials.
C. Develop and adopt basinwide plan for
point and nonpoint source pollution.
Continue
A. Continued. Tributary strategies are being developed by each
jurisdiction.
B-C. Toxics strategies are being developed.
5.2 MD and VA will establish crab
sanctuaries where harvest may be controlled
and environmental modifications restricted.
1991
VA has established no new sanctuaries and MD has not considered
establishment of a sanctuary.
5.3 Support SAV and wetland research and
management, development of habitat
requirements document.
Continue
SAV replenishment strategies being developed; habitat
requirements document revised in 1991.
i %JL LN LI:
-------
Chesapeake Bay Oyster Management Plan
The oyster ( Crassostrea virginica ) resource in the Chesapeake
Bay has been significantly iinpacted by the oyster parasites MSX and
Dermo, habitat losses, water quality, and harvesting. In 1989, an
FMP was completed for oysters and included strategies to address
the problems of harvest decline, recruitment, disease mortality,
leased ground production, habitat issues, shellfish sanitation,
market production and the repletion program. As the ecological
value of the oyster resource became more important and disease
became more limiting, an improved management framework was needed.
The 1989 Oyster FMP was scheduled for a complete revision during
1992. The Chesapeake Bay Program’s Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee (STAC) initially played a dominant role in
coordinating efforts to draft an oyster restoration action agenda.
After several workshops, eight problem areas were defined to
maintain the oyster fishery and restore the oyster reef community.
These problem areas were: restoration of habitat; recognition of
ecological function; control of fishing mortality; improvement of
the repletion program; management around disease; support of,
research; promotion of aquaculture and the establishment of oyster
sanctuaries. The revision process has been more complex and time—
consuming then originally planned and the completion date has been
postponed until October 1994. Since a revision is in progress only
a brief summary of the status of the oyster resource will be
presented in this report.
During 1993, the state of Maryland convened an Oyster
Roundtable to reach a consensus about a comprehensive plan to bring
oyster stocks back to economically and ecologically healthy levels.
The objectives defined by the Roundtable were:
1) maximize and enhance the ecological benefits of oysters;
2) maximize and enhance the economic benefits derived from
harvesting in the public and private oyster fisheries; and
3) maximize the ability of government to respond effectively
to the magnitude of the problem.
One of the major innovations resulting from the Roundtable was
defining oyster recovery areas (ORA’s). Restoration areas will be
established in the Chester, Choptank, Magothy, Nanticoke, Patuxent,
and Severn Rivers. These areas will be targeted for restoring
oyster populations and then scientifically monitored to see how
well new techniques are working. A non—profit corporation will be
formed by aquaculturists, environmentalists and waterm n to play a
major role in developing and applying innovative oyster restoration
techniques. Maryland DNR will also establish a pilot permitting
program for oyster aquaculture demonstration projects. Specific
actions recommended by the Roundtable will serve as one of the
source documents for revising the 1989 Oyster FMP. In Virginia, the
“Blue Ribbon” Committee has developed the Holton Plan which
recommends specific actions for the oyster resource in Virginia.
33
-------
The Holton Plan will also be used as a source document in revising
-the 1989 Oyster FMP.
Currently, oyster harvest from the Bay is at an all time low.
Preliminary 1993-1994 commercial oyster landings from Maryland are
75,600 bushels, 30,000 bushels from Virginia, and 223 bushels from
the Potomac River. During the 1992/1993 season, 125,000 bushels
were harvested from Maryland, 64,500 bushels from Virginia, and
105,000 bushels from the Potomac River. This is the seventh
consecutive year of harvests below 500,000 bushels (Figures 7 & 8).
The Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) biologists
recommended a moratorium on the harvest of oysters from public
grounds during 1993. After much deliberation and public hearings,
the VMRC decided to shorten the oyster season and set a 6,000
bushel limit from October 15th through December 3 1st, restrict the
length of tongs to 18 feet, and prohibit harvest after 12 noon. The
VMRC’s actions did not affect the harvest of oysters from private
grounds. The restrictions were similar to those approved by the
Potomac River Fisheries Commission (PRFC) in response to high
oyster mortalities. Mortalities as high as 90% were reported in
parts of the Potomac River due to a high freshwater influx from
spring rainfall and snowmelt. For 1993/1994, Maryland delayed
opening the oyster season until October 15th and prohibited the
harvest of oysters on Saturdays.
Oyster surveys in Maryland indicate that Dermo continued to
intensify, especially in low salinity areas and that it has
expanded to every productive oyster bar in the Maryland portion of
the Bay. During the summer of 1993, MSX underwent remission
throughout the upper Bay. Its distribution and intensity closely
resembled data collected in 1990. The 1993 oyster spat set was 16.2
spat per bushel which ranks in the lower one-fourth of the
distribution of annual spat fall records. Maryland’s oyster growing
areas that are sustaining the present harvest did not receive a
significant spat set in 1992 or 1993 (Krantz 1994, in prep.).
References
Krantz, G.E. 1994 (In prep.). Maryland oyster population status
report: 1993 fall survey, CBRN-OX-93-O1. Maryland Department
of Natural Resources, Annapolis.
34
-------
Figure 7. Maryland commercial oyster
landings by season
Million bushels
5
4
3
2
1
‘ -I ’
o—...— I I I I I I I I I_I I I I I I I I I
1958 1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993
Year
-------
5
4
3
2
1
0-
Figure 8. Virginia oyster ground
production by season
Million bushels
l . a
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
58 63. 68 73 78 83 88 93
Year
Public Landings
Private Landings
-------
Bluefish Fishery Management Plan
Stock Status and Increased Fishing Pressure
Total bluefish ( Po]natomus saltatrix ) landings from the
Atlantic coast were 48.0 million pounds during 1992. Since 1988,
total landings have been substantially below the 14 year average
(1979—1992) of 112.0 million pounds. Total commercial harvest from
the Atlantic coast during 1992 was 10.7 million pounds. Commercial
harvest from the Chesapeake region during 1992 was 214,500 pounds
from Maryland and 579,100 pounds from Virginia. Preliminary
commercial harvests during 1993 are 94,050 pounds from Maryland and
629,900 pounds from Virginia (Figure 9 a & b).
Recreational bluefish landings from the Atlantic coast were
37.2 million pounds during 1992. The 1992 value was the lowest
since the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS)
began in .1979. Recreational landings have been decreasing since
1986 when 130.9 million pounds were landed. Both the 1992
commercial and recreational catch were below the 14 year average of
13.9 and 98.2 million pounds, respectively. The estimated
recreational catch from Maryland during 1992 was 621,229 fish.
Preliminary 1993 estimated bluefish catch is 193,190 fish (MRFSS
data). Currently, there is a 10 fish creel limit in the Chesapeake
Bay. Maryland and PRFC will continue their 8” minimum size limit.
The Bluefish Review and Monitoring Committee did not recommend any
changes for the recreational fishery during 1994. Catch and effort
estimates from the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey
(MRFSS) will be recalculated for data collected in 1979 through
1986 to make them more directly compatible with the estimates from
1987 to 1993. It is expected that the recalculations will lower
recreational bluefish catch estimates during the earlier years by
10 to 15% (ASMFC 1993).
A coastal fishery management plan for bluefish was developed
by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC), adopted by
the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) members in
October, 1989 and approved by the Secretary of Commerce in March,
i990. Included in the plan was a trigger for implementing a
commercial quota when bluefish harvest criteria were exceeded, a
commercial permit requirement, and .a recreational creel limit. A
Chesapeake Bay Bluefish Management Plan was completed in December
1990 which followed the guidelines established in the coastal plan.
During 1993, the Bluefish FMP Review and Monitoring Committee
recommended that the MAFMC and ASMFC implement a commercial quota
system for bluefish in 1994. Their recommendation to implement a
quota was based on the evaluation of two indices or triggers that
were defined in the 1989 Coastal FMP. The first index was a three-
year moving average of both commercial landings and total bluefish
catch used to derive a time-series projection of the commercial
share for 1994. If the projected share was 20% or above, then
37
-------
Figure 9a. Commercial bluefish landings
from Maryland
Thousand pounds
800
600 —
400
200 -____
0 IIl I 11111 II IulullIuuIllIll iii iii Iii 111111111111 I ulIllIll ul I
1929 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1986 1993
Year
Figure 9b. Commercial bluefish landings
from Virginia
Thousand pounds
4000-
3500 -
3000
2500
2000 -_______
1500
1000• - —
500 —
0 iiuiuuiii I I uuuiiuuIIiIIIIIIuuuIIIIII 11111111 uuluulIllIulIl
1929 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1986 1993
Year
•1993 preliminary data
38
-------
commercial controls would be implemented. Using 1979—1992 data, the
projected 1994 commercial catch would be 21.2%. The second index
was based on the percentage of commercial landings in the total
bluefish catch calculated for each year and compared to the
commercial share for the previous year. If the change in the
commercial percentage was equal to or exceeded 50%, then policy
makers would use the criteria of the second index to determine if
commercial controls would be implemented. The change in commercial
share from 1991 to 1992 decreased by 0.6%. The Committee
recommended the implementation of commercial controls based on the
first index. A quota was calculated using a regression equation to
predict the 1994 commercial share and is 11.4 million pounds. The
allocation of the quota among states was based on the 10 year
average of commercial landings by state (1978—1987). Maryland’s
allocation is 2.8% of the total or 323,300 pounds. Virginia’s
allocation is 10.7% or 1.2 million pounds. Individual states will
be responsible for monitoring their harvest and closing the fishery
when their quota is reached.
Bluefish recreational landings, catch-per-unit—of-effort
(CPUE), and relative spawning stock bioinass (SSB) have decreased
over the last five years. Estimates of SSB from the coast suggest
a decline from approximately 300 million pounds in 1982 to below 81
million pounds in 1989. It is unclear whether the decrease in
bluefish stock abundance is due to natural events or increased
exploitation (ASMFC 1993). During 1993, the Bluefish Stock
Assessment Subcommittee re-estimated the biological reference
points for the Atlantic coast bluefish stock to include data on
estimated young—of—year losses from recreational fishing, shrimp
bycatch and scrap fishing.’ Previously, F was calculated at 0.35.
Using the additional data, the new F =0.25. Fishing mortality (F)
ranged between 0.23 and 0.42 from 1982 to 1985. Since then, F has
been higher than 0.25 and may be responsible for the decline in
landings and SSB. The level of F will be re-evaluated at the 1994
Stock Assessment Workshop.
Wasteful Harvest Practices
In 1991, a 10 fish creel limit was implemented for the
recreational fishery as a method to reduce waste within the
fishery. Eleven states have implemented the possession limit or an
equivalent measure. Connecticut, North Carolina, New Jersey and
Pennsylvania are not in compliance with the recommendation. Some
jurisdictions have also implemented a minimum size limit (Delaware,
Maryland, and PRFC).
The reduction of small bluefish as bycatch from the commercial
fishery has been indirectly accomplished by the adoption of
increased minimum mesh sizes for gill nets (3”) and otter trawls
(3”) in Maryland. Virginia has a 2 7/8” minimum mesh size for gill
nets and a ban on trawling in state waters. There have been no new
39
-------
efforts to educate the general public about the need to reduce
waste in the recreational fishery. Hook and release is still being
promoted.
Research and Monitoring
Ichthyoplankton surveys along the Atlantic coast indicate that
there are three separate spawning concentrations of bluefish: a
spring-spawned group from the South Atlantic Bight (SAB); a summer-
spawned group from the Middle Atlantic Bight (NAB); and a fall-
spawned group from the SAB. It appears that the spring-spawned
group contributes the most to the Atlantic coast bluefish
population. Fish from the spring-spawned group recruit to estuaries
as far north as Maine and to southern estuaries. Estuaries of the
NAB which includes the Chesapeake Bay region, are important nursery
grounds for bluefish (McBride et al. 1993).
•The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) autumn trawl
survey, conducted from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras, provides the best
available measure of bluefish year class success alongthe Atlantic
coast. Indices of juvenile abundance suggest that a moderately
strong year class recruited to the stock in 1989 and significantly
contributed to the fishery in 1990 and 1991 (NOAA Tech. Memo.
1993). Bluefish were sampled by month for length and sex through
the VN.RC stock assessment program. The fish ranged between 226mm
(8.9 inches) and 950mm (37.4 inches) in length (Figure lOa & b).
Based on size data, most bluefish available in the Bay were age 1
and 2 (300 to 400mm).
Maryland implemented a mandatory reporting system for charter
boats in 1991. The logbooks provide information on the number of
trips, and number and weight of fish caught and released, on a
monthly basis for part of the recreational fishery in Maryland.
During 1993, 156,137 pounds (59,299 fish) of bluefish were reported
by charter boat fishermen. This was approximately half the number
of bluefish caught during 1992 (304,271 lbs.) and 1991 (333,823
lbs.). Catch-per-unit-of-effort (CPUE) was calculated using the
number of bluefish caught divided by the number of charter boat
trips. The CPUE decreased from 8.1 during 1992 to 3.6 during 1993.
Although abundance was lower in 1993, average weight remained
similar compared to previous years. Average weight of bluefish
caught by charter boat fishermen between April and November was 2.9
pounds (1991), 2 • 3 pounds (1992) and 2 • 6 pounds (1993). Bluefish
were also sampled from the commercial fishery through a multi-
species study implemented in Maryland during 1993. A small sample
size and only one year of data make any, observations tentative, at
best. However, as the study continues, it should provide valuable,
basic biological data on bluefish in the Bay.
The Marine Fisheries Project has been surveying Maryland’s
coastal bay areas for juvenile and adult marine and estuarine
species since 1972. During 1992, a small number (n=18) of juvenile
40
-------
Figure lOa. Bluefish
distribution, VA. Stock
Figure lOb. Bluefish
distribution, VA. Stock
Number of fish
length frequency
Assessment, 1992
length frequency
Assessment, 1993
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
226-250 251-300 301-350 351-400 401-450 451-500 501-550 551-600 601-960
Length (mm)
n•2341
Number of fish
n•4966
228-250 251-300 301-350 351-400 401-450 451-500 601-550 551-800 601-950
Length (mm)
4’
-------
bluefish were caught by haul seine. The number of blu efish in the
coastal bay area has declined since 1982 and current numbers
indicate a continuing low trend (Casey et al. 1993).
Conclusion
Projected ,coastwide commercial landings triggered the
implementation of a commercial quota for bluefish in 1994.
There has been a steady decline in b 1uefish recreational landings,
CPUE, and SSB over the last 5 years. Although the trend in F varied
between 1982 and 1985, it increased between 1986 and 1988 to levels
beyond the current F and F of 0.25 and 0.55, respectively. The
current level of fishing mortality (F) is uncertain based on the
assumptions and model used in the analysis. The uncertainty should
be resolved in the upcoming Stock Assessment Workshop when the
status, of the bluefish stock is reviewed. The following areas
should be emphasized during 1994 for the bluefish resource:
1) Implement and monitor the 1994 commercial quota,
2) Continue to collect biological data and stock assessment
information on bluefish within the Bay.
References
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 1993.
Fishery Management Plan Review for Bluefish by Zawacki, C.S.,
C. Moore, V. Crecco, R. Christian, 3. Ross, 3. Terrill, H.
Austin, and S. Rideout. ASMFC Review Document.
Casey, J..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-2. MD Dept. of Nat. Res.,
.Tidewater Admin., Fisheries Division.
McBride, R.S., J.L. Ross, and D.O. Conover. 1993. Recruitment
of bluefish Pomatonius saltatrix to estuaries of the U.S. South
Atlantic Bight. Fish. Bull. 91:389-395.
NOAA Technical Memorandum 1993. Bluefish. Status of the Fishery
Resources off the Northeastern United States for 1992. NMFS-
F/NEC—95.
42
-------
1993 ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
CHESAPEAKE BAY BLUEFISH IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
1.1.1 Continue to participate in scien-
tific & technical meetings for
managing bluefish 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 10 fish creel
in summer 1990. Creel limits and
minimum legal sizes may be modified
as appropriate.
2.1.2 Educate the general public about
the need to reduce waste in the blue-
fish fishery.
2.1.3.Assess factors causing waste
in the commercial fishery and identify
potential solutions.
Preliminary commercial landings during 1993 are 65,100 lbs
(MD) and 629,900 lbs. (VA). Coastal FMP review committee
has recommended a commercial quota for bluefish in 1994.
VA implemented a 10 fish creel limit for all bluefish
harvested by hook and line. A recreational fishing
license for VA Bay and commercial H&L for VA tidal
waters was in effect during 1993.
A 10 fish/person/day creel limit was implemented by
the Bay jurisdictions during 1991. MD and PRFC will
continue then 8 minimum size limit for bluefish.
Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions have implemented a 10 fish
creel limit.
Jurisdictions are promoting hook & release via brochures
and press releases. Awareness by the general public has
increased & more are practicing conservation.
VA and MD sample pound net catches. Data on length frequency
& sex ratios will be available. VA is promoting plastic
escape panels in pound nets. -
Problem Area
Action
Date
Comments
1. Stock
Status &
Increased
Fishing
Pressure
2. Waste-
ful
Harvest
Practice
Continue
Continue
1991
Continue
1991
Continue
1991
Continue
1991
Continue
1991
Continue
2.1.1 A 10 fish creel limit will
minimize wastage.
-------
BLUEFISH (CONTD)
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 blue fish.
4.1. Continue to set goals for water
quality and habitat, review programs
established under the 1987 Bay
Agreement.
Continue VA began mandatory reporting in January, 1993.
Continue Jurisdictions continue to support the MRFSS for bluefish
and other species. MD requires daily/weekly log books for
charterboat fishery. VA initiated a charter boat task
force in 1993 to study the issue of logbooks.
MD pound net survey will provide size and age
information on bluefish.
In addition to the Bay Program, a tributary initiative
will set nutrient reduction goals for major tributaries.
LEGEND: ASMFC = Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
MAFMC = Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council
MRFSS = Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistica Survey
PRFC = Potomac River Fisheries Commission
Problem Area
Action
3. Research
Needs
4. Habitat
Issues
1991
Continue
Continue
-------
Weakfisb and Spotted Seatrout Management Plan
Overfishing and Stock Status
Weakf ish
An ASMFC management plan for, we.akfish ( Cynoscion repalis ) was
developed in 1985. Following a dramatic decline in commercial and
recreational weakfish landings along the Atlantic coast, Amendment
#1 was developed and adopted in 1991. This amendment recognized the
overfished status of the weakfish stock and proposed a phased
reduction in exploitation of 15% during 1992, reaching a 50%
reduction by 1995. To meet the reduction in exploitation,
increasing minimum size limits (10” in 1992, 11” in 1993 and 12” in
1994) were required. Also recommended was a 50% bycatch reduction
in the southern shrimp fishery by January, 1994 and the
implementation of a commercial mesh size that would allow 75% of
undersized weakfish to escape. To date, the implementation of
Amendment #1 by the coastal states has been inadequate to effect
the recovery of the weakfish stock. State implementation was
reviewed by the ASMFC weakfish management board for the states of
New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North
Carolina. Only Delaware and New Jersey were judged to have met the
recommended reduction in fishing mortality during 1992. These two
states account for approximately 14% of the coastal fishery while
Virginia and North Carolina account for approximately 80% of the
fishery. A 25% reduction in exploitation was the target during
1993. Procedures for instituting annual state weakfish
implementation plans, evaluating sta•te plans and determining state
compliance were developed by ASMFC and documented as Supplement to
the Weakfish FMP-Ainendment #1, Addendum 1-Procedures. Under revised
guidelines developed by the Weakfish Technical Committee, no state
was judged in compliance during 1993.
The ASMFC Weakfish Management Board is considering more
extensive restrictions for reducing weakfish exploitation. A
complete moratorium or quota based system may be required. A
current assessment of stock status should be completed by the first
quarter of 1994. In the interim, states are encouraged to fully
comply with the recommendations of Amendment #1 during 1994. The
ASMFC recommended that the MAFMC implement complementary management
measures for weakfish in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ, 3—200
miles offshore). After consideration, the MAFMC deferred action
back to the states. The MAFMC is less flexible in enacting
complementary regulations when there are multiple size limits in
state waters. The MAFNC recommended new language for a management
measure concerning state possession and landing regulations which:
a) prohibits the landing or possession of fish smaller than that
state’s minimum size limit, and b) requires a vessel with a 100
pounds or more of weakfish to use a gear type that allows a 75%
escapement rate equivalent or greater than the recommended ASMFC
minimum size limit of 12”.
45
-------
Maryland implemented a 12 ’ minimum size limit for, weakfish in
September, 1993. Additional regulations included a 10 fish creel
limit for the recreational fishery, a 3” minimum mesh size for
trawis and gill nets, and a closed coastal commercial season from
July 1st through September 30th. The PRFC continued their 13”
minimum size limit for both the recreational and commercial
fisheries and 10 fish creel limit (implemented in 1992). Virginia
continued their 12” minimum size limit and 15 fish creel limit for
the recreational fishery; a 12” minimum size limit for gill nets;
and a 10” minimum size limit for pound nets and haul seines with a
10% tolerance (implemented in 1993). The ASMFC weakfish evaluation
team concluded that Maryland would have achieved a 12% reduction in
exploitation for the recreational fishery if management measures
had been implemented earlier in the .Year. The PRFC achieved an 18%
reduction in exploitation for the recreational fishery and Virginia
achieved a 10% recreational reduction during 1993.
The 1993 weakfish stock assessment indicated an average annual
exploitation rate of 62% and a F=1.2 between 1990 and 1992 (Crecco
1993). In order to achieve the maximum spawning potential (MSP) of
20% of an unfished spawning stock at F c,=O. 2 2, the annual
exploitation rate must be lowered to 17%. The weakfish stock showed
a drop in NSP from 7-12% to 2-5%. Effort has remained high and F
has risen from 0.9 to 1.1 or 1.2 in the last three years (ASMFC
1993) . The most recent calculation of F, which also has the most
associated uncertainty, shows a slight reduction. Because the stock
has been under heavy exploitation, the age structure of the
population has been truncated. Although stock biomass has
decreased, recruitment has been good. Restrictive regulations could
rapidly rebuild the stock given the early maturation and fast
growth of weakfish. Continued reductions in spawning stock biomass
could lead to recruitment failure (Gibson 1993).
Coastwide commercial landings of weakfish during 1992 were 7.4
million pounds. This was a decrease from the 1991 catch of 8.8
million pounds. Commercial landings during 1992 were 385,000 pounds
and 549,900 pounds from Maryland and Virginia, respectively. During
1993 commercial weakfish landings from the Chesapeake B y region
increased. Preliminary landings indicate that 135,600 pounds were
harvested from Maryland and 1.1 million pounds were harvested from
Virginia (Figures 11 a & b). Part of Virginia’s apparent increase
may be the result of implementing a mandatory reporting system
beginning in January 1993. Recreational weakfish landings have been
estimated by the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey
(MRFSS) since 1979. The estimated number of weakfish caught by
marine recreational anglers during 1992 from the Atlantic coast was
1.4 million fish (1.8 million pounds). This was a decrease from the
1991 estimate of 2.0 million fish (2.4 million pounds). Preliminary
recreational weakfish harvest from Maryland during 1992- is
estimated at 314,244 fish and for 1993 at 203,870 fish.
46
-------
Figure ha. Maryland commercia! landings
for weakfish, 1950-1993
MillIon pounds
7
6
5
A
3
2
; 11ltiIIlI1ltlIiILlII ill. ,
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1986 1993
Year -
Figure lib. Virginia commercial landings
for weakfish, 1950-1993
MIllion pounds
7
6
5 -
4
3
H____
0 1111111111111111111111111 It Ii ill I lit ill Lii
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1976 1980 1986 1993
‘1993 prelhrdnary data
47
-------
Spotted Seatrout
A stock assessment workshop on spotted seatrout ( Cynoscion
nebulosus ) was conducted during 1993. Results from the workshop
will be available in 1994. Spotted seatrout are harvested by both
recreational and commercial fishei?men and are most frequently
caught in the South Atlantic region (North Carolina to east coast
of Florida). The recreational fishery has generally been more
important than the commercial fishery. Estimated recreational catch
(NRFSS data) from Maryland and Virginia com6ined, was 207,000 fish
in 1991. In 1992, recreational anglers caught an estimated 6,032
fish from Maryland. Data from Maryland’s charterboat logbooks
indicate 4,609 fish (5,067 pounds) were harvested during 1993.
Maryland has not reported any commercial catch of spotted seatrout
for several years. Commercial landings from Virginia were 10,400
pounds during 1992. Preliminary 1993 landings are 36,450 pounds.
Currently, the Bay jurisdictions have the following
regulations in place for spotted seatrout: Maryland— 12” minimum
size limit and a 10 fish creel limit; PRFC— 13” minimum size limit
and 10 fish creel limit; and Virginia— 14” minimum size limit, 10
fish creel limit, and a 5% tolerance of fish less than 14” for
pound nets and haul seines.
Bvcatch
The bycatch mortality of weakfish in non-directed fisheries,
especially in the southern Atlantit shrimp trawl fishery, is a
problem. The average (1985—1988) annual number of age 0 weakfish
killed by the South Atlantic trawl fishery is about 18.9 million or
approximately 2.7 million pounds (ASMFC 1993). It has been
estimated that large gains in yield per recruit and spawning
potential can be realized if age 0 and 1 weakfish (10” or less) are
protected by requiring bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) in the
South Atlantic shrimp fishery (MAFMC 1993). The Bay jurisdictions
support the ASMFC recommendation that bycatch of weakfish be
reduced by 50% by January, 1994. The bycatch of weakfish in
Chesapeake Bay non-directed fisherieé is being monitored through
the Maryland multi-species pound net sampling program started in
1993. Approximately 77% of the weakfish sampled (n=432) were
smaller than 12”. Maryland culling practices allow the return of
undersized fish with a minimum of bycatch mortality. Weakfish were
also sample from the ocean trawl fishery. The length frequency data
indicate that over 90% were larger than 12”. Oceanside data
suggests that the discard mortality of small weakfish is minimal.
Stock Assessment and Research Needs
Weakfish
Maryland charter boat logbooks indicate that 83,180 pounds of
weakfish (62,780 fish) were caught during 1993 by charter boat
48
-------
anglers. Average weight decreased slightly from 1.6 pounds (1992)
to 1.3 pounds (1993). The catch-per—unit-effort (CPUE) was 3 • 8
during 1993. Bycatch of small weakfish was monitored in the
commercial fishery by sampling pound nets in the Bay and sampling
the catch from the ocean trawl fishery.
Young-of—year and yearling weakfish were collected by trawl
from Maryland’s coastal bay areas during 1992. The 1993 coastal bay
juvenile weakfish index of 2.1 did not indicate strong recruitment
(Uphoff, in prep.). Offshore sampling of weakfish indicated that
age 3 and 4 fish were harvested by the commercial gill net fishery
of f Ocean City, Maryland (Casey et al. 1993). Studies on weakfish
bycatch, mesh size, and catch and release mortality are recommended
by the ASMFC Technical ,Committee.
Spotted Seatrout
No directed research on spotted seatrout has occurred in
Maryland or Virginia but some southern states are collecting data.
A life history study is in progress and other studies include: age-
growth analysis; food habits; maturity and reproductive habits;
mortality estimates; and migration (ASMFC 1993a). Coastal states
have begun to collect catch and effort data on spotted seatrout.
South Carolina has begun work on developing a pre—recruit index of
abundance. Data from specific geographical areas may not be
transferable to other areas since it appears that the coast has
several different stocks.
Recreational—Commercial Conflicts
Recreational anglers, recreational boaters and commercial
harvesters all compete for the same resource. There have been
conflicts among the user groups on a variety of topics including
fishing gears and fishing locations. The Bay jurisdictions have
established advisory boards which include representatives from the
user groups, to address fishing conflicts. To date, these advisory
boards provide an adequate forum to address recreational and
commercial conflicts.
Conclusion
The weakfish resource continues to be overfished. The Bay
jurisdictions did not completely implement the ASMFC recommenda-
tions to reduce exploitation on weakfish by 25% during 1993. The
results of the ASMFC weakfish/spotted seatrout stock assessments
will be available in 1994 and should provide better estimates of
fishing mortality and spawning stock biomass. The adoption of the
Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act should
provide the “backbone” to implement coordinated coastwide manage-
ment. The following areas should be emphasized during 1994 for the
weakfish and spotted seatrout resources:
49
-------
1) Fully implement the ASMFC reconunendation to reduce
exploitation on the weakfish resource, and
2) Continue to monitor recreational and commercial harvest of
both species from the Bay.
References
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1993a. The 1993
Review of the ASMFC Fishery Management Plan for Spotted
Seatrout ( Cvnoscion nebulosus )
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1993b. The 1993
Review of the ASMFC Fishery Management Plan for Weakfish
( Cynoscion regalis )
Casey, J.F., S.B. Doctor, and A.E. Wesche. 1993. Investigation
.of Maryland”s Atlantic Ocean a d coastal bay finfish stocks.
Federal Aid Project No. F-50-R-2. MD Dept. of Nat. Res.,
Tidewater Admin., Fisheries Division.
Gibson, M.R. 1993. Assessment of Atlantic coast weakfish 1992
using separable virtual population analysis with projections
of stock size. A report to the Atlantic States Marine Fisher
ies Commission Weakfish Technical Committee, Arlington VA.,
February 1993.
Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (MAFNC). 1993. Weakfish
( Cvnoscion reaalis ) Scoping Document. MAFMC, Dover, Delaware.
Uphoff, J. H. 1994 (In prep.). The status of weakfish and its
fisheries in Maryland, 1993. A report to the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission. Maryland DNR, Annapolis, MD.
50
-------
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 con-
trolling 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 juris-
dictions 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 limited & 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.
No state was judged in compliance with ASMFC recommendations
for reducing exploitation during 1993.
VA implemented a 12” mi size limit for H&L & gill net; a
10” mm. was adopted for haul seine & pound net with a 10%
tolerance by wi. PRFC implemented a 13” miii. size for weak-
fish during 1992. MD implemented a 12” size limit in Sept.
1993.
In 1992, PRFC implemented a 13” mm. size limit. VA
implemented a 14” mm. size with a 5% tolerance for haul
seine & pound net. MD implemented a 12” miii. size in Sept.
1993.
In MD, charter boat captain licenses are now under the
Delay of Application procedure. VA implemented a delayed
entry program in 1993 & VMRC was given authority to
implement limited entry. MD has proposed a limited
entry law for 1994.
VA implemented a 15 fish creel for weakfish & a 10 fish
creel for spotted seatrout during ‘92. PRFC implemented a
10 fish creel for both species. MD had no creel limits until
Sept. 1993 when a 10 fish/person/day limit was implemented
for both species.
1. Overfishing
1993 ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
CHESAPEAKE BAY WEAKFISI-1/SPOTFED SEATROUT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Problem Area
Action
Date
Comments
Ln
I- .
Continue
1992
1993
Continue
Continue
1992
1993
-------
WEAKFISH/SPOTFED SEATROUT CONrD.
U’
Problem Area
Action
Date
Comments
1.2. a) MD will collect information
from pound net, ocean gilt net & ocean
trawl fisheries to develop management
strategies for reducing the non-direct-
ed bycatch of small weakfish & other
species; b) VA will continue to monitor
the species compostion & 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 weak-
fish caught in NC fisheries,
1991
Continue
1992
Continue
a) MD has a new multi-species monitoring program which
will provide data on the extent of incidental bycatch of
small weakfish. b) VA began a study on the use of escape
panels in pound nets for reducing the bycatch of juvenile
finfish. The study continued in cooperation with
NC during 1993.
.
The jurisdictions have worked through ASMFC & MAFMC to
promote the use of FEDs & TEDs. Use of these devices have
been successful at eliminating some of the bycatch of
small fish including weakfish & spotted seatrout.
2. Stock
Assessment &
Research Needs
2.1 a) Continue to support stock iden-
tification research. Coordinated
studies on the relative contribution
of various estuaries to the coastal
weakfish stock will be initiated.
b) Continue VMRC’s stock assessment
to collect biological data from corn-
mercial 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; supple-
ment MRFSS & charterboat logbooks.
d) Continue baywide trawl survey.
Continue
b) VA stock assessment program provided the ASMFC with
length data from the mid-Atlantic region which was used
in a coastwide assessment of weakfish.
c) VA implemented mandatory reporting & delayed entry in
1993. MD continued charterboat logs which has provided data
on the number & lbs of fish caught by charterboat fishermen.
d) MD’s summer trawl survey has provided some data on
juvenile weakfish. VIMS trawl survey provides indices of
juvenile abundance for weakfish & other species.
-------
WEAKFISHISPOTFED SEATROUT C0N’rD.
LEGEND: ASMFC = Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
FEDs = Finfish exclusion devices-
MAFMC = Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council
MRFSS = Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey
PRFC = Potomac River Fisheries Commission
TEDs = Trawl efficiency devices or turtle exclusion devices
VIMS = Virginia Institute of Marine Science
VMRC = Virginia Marine Resources Commission
Problem Area
Action
Date
Comments
3. Habitat
Loss and
Degradation
3.1 1-7) Continue to set specific ob-
jectives for water quality goals &
review management programs.
Continue
The Bay Program added a tributary initiative which
set nutrient reduction goals for major tributaries.
.
4.Recreational
& Commercial
Conflicts
4.1 Continue to address fishing con-
flicts & issues with existing advisory
groups.
4.2. a) VMRC adopted a uniform marking
system & a minimum mesh size of 2 7/8U
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.
Continue
Continue
lnterjurisdictional conflicts have arisen because of the
different size and creel limits.
VA also restricts gill net by area & season. MD implemented
a 3 miii. mesh size for gill nets and trawls in Sept.
1993.
U’
-------
Summer Flounder Fishery Management Plan
Overfishing and Stock Status
The Atlantic coast summer flounder ( Paralichthvs dentatus )
stock continues to be overfished. Based on the most current stock
assessment, summer flounder stock biomass is still low but has
increased since 1989. Fishing mortality (F) rates were
approximately 1.1 in 1992, a decrease from a high of 1.8 in 1988-
1989. An F=l.l equated to an exploitation rate of 62% during 1992.
Fishing mortality rates have varied between 0.7 and 1.8 over the
last 10 years and relate to annual exploitation rates between 46%
and 78%. With the implementation of a summer flounder quota, no
increase in the discard of summer flounder and no recruitment
failure, F during 1993 is expected to decrease to 0.5, an
exploitation rate of 36%. Overfishing was defined by MAFMC/ASMFC as
fishing in excess of the F level or F=0.23. The F level equates
to a spawning stock biomass (SSB) per recruit level of 20%. Past
fishing mortality rates equate to a spawning stock biomass per
recruit level of about 2 to 3%. With the 1993 quota, SSB is
predicted to increase. The age composition of the stock continues
to be compressed. The NMFS spring survey indices indicate that
stock abundance is being sustained by age 2 fish and younger.
Approximately 11% of the spawning biomass is composed of ages 3 and
older. At F , about 77% of the SSB would be expected to be fish
age 3 and older with average recruitment (16th SAW). The stock is
still at risk because older, more fecund adults are being removed
too rapidly from the population. Overall recruitment from along the
coast was poor in 1988 and 1989. Recruitment levels in 1990 and
1991 were around the recent average but still below the long-term
average. Young—of—year summer flounder sampled from Virginia rivers
and Bay were about average in 1990 and 1991 but decreased in 1992
and 1993.
An ASMFC coastal summer flounder plan was developed in 1982
and a MAFMC plan was prepared in 1988. Since then 5 amendments have
been added to the plans. Amendment #1 (Sept. 1990) provided a
definition of overfishing; Amendment #2 (Aug. 1992) provided a
strategy for reducing fishing mortality and a sea turtle conserva-
tion requirement; Amendment #3 (Jul. 1993) revised the exempted
fishery description and increased possession limits for those not
participating in the exempted mesh program; Amendment #4 (Aug.
1993) revised the state specific shares of the coastwide quota; and
Amendment #5 (Aug. 1993) allowed the transfer or combination of
summer flounder quotas between two or more states. Amendment #6 has
been proposed and if implemented would allow the following: larger
mesh size nets on board if properly stowed; changes in the time
requirements on regulations for the recreational fishery so it is
more responsive to the previous year’s events; a prohibition on
twisted mesh; authorization for an experimental fishery under
certain conditions; definition of a fish box, consistent with the
54
-------
Northeast t’ft4ltispecies FMP; and authorization for the reporting of
fish size frequencies rather than weights from the party and
charter boat fishery. The overfished status of the summer flounder
stock was acknowledged in the Chesapeake Bay Summer Flounder FMP
(1991). Following ASMFC and MAFMC recommendations, various
strategies to reduce fishing exploitation were implemented.
A commercial quota of 12.35 million pounds and a recreational
harvest limit of 4.36 million fish (8.38 million pounds) were
implemented in all states (Maine to North Carolina) beginning on
January 1, 1993. Maryland had a 251,829 pound quota and Virginia
had a 2.63 million pound quota. The total commercial harvest of
summer flounder from the Atlantic coast during 1993 was 12.46
million pounds. Harvest from state waters was not included in the
quota except for Massachusetts. Maryland harvested 254,081 pounds
or 100.9% of its quota and closed the coastal commercial summer
flounder fishery on October 12, 1993. Virginia’s total allowable
quota was 2.88 million pounds after a transfer of quota from North
Carolina. Virginia harvested 2.9 million pounds or 100.7% of its
quota. Preliminary recreational data for 1993, indicate 4.69
million fish (6.2 million pounds) were landed. Maryland
recreational anglers landed an estimated 659,00 pounds (unpublished
!‘IRFSS data). Complete recreational data will not be available until
1994. In addition to the quota, a minimum mesh size of 5.5” was
required for the directed trawl fishery and a 13” minimum size
limit for the commercial fishery. The recreational fishery required
a 14” minimum size limit, a 6 fish per person per day creel limit
and a season from May 15 to September 30. During 1993, Maryland’s
recreational fishery had a 14” minimum size limit, a 10 fish creel
limit, a Bay season from June 1 to October 31 and an ocean season
from May 15 to September 30. Virginia’s recreational fishery had a
14” minimum size limit, a 10 fish creel and no season. The PRFC had
a 14” minimum size limit for both the recreational and commercial
fishery, a 10 fish creel limit and a recreational season from May
15 to September 30.
The summer flounder coastal plan recommends a coastwide
commercial quota and recreational harvest limit each year. A quota
of 26.7 million pounds has been proposed for 1994 with 16.0 million
pounds allocated to the commercial fishery and 10.6 million pounds
(7.6 million fish) allocated to the recreational fishery. The 1994
proposed quota represents a 30% increase from 1993. Recreational
and commercial allocations are based on historic records, with 60%
for the commercial fishery and 40% for the recreational fishery.
Maryland’s allocation for the commercial fishery is 326,389 pounds
and Virginia’s allocation is 3.41 million pounds. Recommendations
for the summer flounder recreational fishery will be developed once
the 1993 recreational data is completely analyzed. If the coastwide
harvest limit was not exceeded during 1993, the creel limit would
be increased and/or the season extended. Several states were not in
compliance with MAFMC recommendations for a creel limit and/or
55
-------
season during 1993. They include North Carolina, Virgii ia, Maryland
and ConnecUcut which have historically accounted for approximately
35%.of the recreational landings (MAFMC 1993).
The catch of undersized flounder has been a problem for the
summer flounder commercial fishery. The implementation of a 5.5”
diamond or 6” square minimum mesh size for the directed summer
flounder fishery in Maryland and Virginia’s ban on trawling should
effectively allow smaller summer flounder to escape capture in
state waters. Bycatch of small summer flounder in non—directed
fisheries such as pound nets has not been well documented. Both
Maryland and Virginia collected information on the catch of summer
flounder. Data from the 1993 Maryland multi-species pound net
sampling program in the Bay indicate that approximately 20% of the
catch (n=218) was under 330mm (13”). The amount of summer flounder
caught in Virginia’s pound net bait fishery is not monitored
separately from the overall commercial catch. The VMRC stock
assessment data indicate that 11.6% of summer flounder sampled
(n=3024) from the commercial fishery in state waters (all gear
types) were less than 330mm (13”). Pound nets, which landed the
majority of summer flounder caught in state waters, had 10.8% of
the sample catch (n=2647) measuring less than 13”.
Stock Assessment and Research Needs
The status of the summer flounder stock was assessed during
the 16th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (16th SAW).
The results were based on an analytical assessment (Virtual
Population Analysis or VPA) of the total commercial and recreation-
al catch by age. Data on recruitment and stock abundance are
provided by year—round trawl surveys from along the coast. Young—
of-the-year (YOY) surveys are conducted by Massachusetts, Delaware,
Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina. The Virginia Institute of
Marine Science (VIMS) trawl survey has been recognized as a good
predictor of year-class strength, consistent with past VPA
estimates. The VIMS indices for 1992 and 1993 were considered
spawning failures with estimated numbers of YOY comparable to the
lowest years during the mid-to-late 1980;s. Coastwide, the 1988
year class was the weakest recorded and estimated at only 17
million fish. Coastwide recruitment since 1988 has improved with an
estimated 33 million fish in 1989, 37 million fish in 1990, and 42
million fish in 1992 (16th SAW).
Summer flounder were collected by trawl and seine from the
Maryland coastal bay area by the Marine Fisheries Project during
1992. A total of 657 flounder were caught and 74% were YOY. Coastal
bay data indicate an increasing population until 1986, followed by
a decline. Summer flounder numbers were slightly higher than in
1988 but the increase is not enough to indicate a recovery (Casey
et al. 1993). The summer flounder juvenile index (flounder less
than 8”) from the coastal bays during 1993 was 1.3.
56
-------
Data from Maryland charter boat logbooks indicate. that ‘21,088
pounds (12,121 fish) of summer flounder were caught during 1993.
This was a 64% decrease from the reported 1992 charter boat harvest
(57,852 pounds) and probably related to the creel limit implemented
in 1993. Although a 14” minimum size limit was also implemented in
1993, the average reported weight was similar between years at 1.7
pounds per fish.
Conclusion
The summer flounder stock is overexploited and the stock is at
a low biomass level. The MAFMC/ASMFC coastal summer flounder set a
target fishing mortality rate of F=O.53 for 1993-1995. The
implementation of a 1993 summer flounder quota along the Atlantic
coast’reduced fishing mortality on the stock and appears to have
met the target fishing rate. If there have been no changes in the
pattern of discarding and recruitment levels remain within recent
ranges, summer flounder stock biomass is expected to increase
during 1994. The fishery continues to be dependent on recruitment
because the age structure of the stock is truncated. A 1994 quota
has been recommended. The following areas should be emphasized
during 1994:
1) Monitor the 1994 commercial summer flounder quota;
2) Implement the MAFMC/ASMFC recommendations for the summer
flounder recreational fishery to achieve the necessary
reduction in fishing mortality;
3) Continue research and monitoring efforts to characterize
the age structure of the Chesapeake Bay and coastal popula-
tions;
4) Continue the VIMS and Maryland trawl surveys to monitor
recruitment of ‘101 summer flounder in the Chesapeake region;
and,
5) Continue to participate in ASMFC/MAFMC monitoring and
technical committee meetings to present data on the Chesapeake
region fisheries.
57
-------
References
Casey, J.F., S.B. Doctor, and A.E. Wesche. 1993. Investigation of
Maryland’s Atlantic Ocean and coastal bay finfish stocks.
Federal Aid Project No.1 F-50-R-2. MD Dept. of Nat. Res.,
Tidewater Adluin., Fisheries Division.
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC). 1993. Memo on
Summer Founder Quota for 1994, August 1993. Summer flounder
Plan Monitoring Committee. MAFMC. Dover, Delaware.
Report of the 16th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop
(16th SAW), Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) Consensus
Summary of Assessment (NEFSC Ref. Doc. 93—18). 1993. Terceiro,
M. (ed).
58
-------
1.la. MD,VA & PRFC will propose an
increase in their minimum size limit
for recreationally caught flounder from
13’ to 14.
l.lb. MD, VA & PRFC will propose creel
limits & seasonal restrictions in com-
pliance with MAFMC recommendations.
1.lc. Commercial size limits will re
main in effect for VA & MD; PRFC will
propose a 14’ size limit. A 5.5”or 6’
mm. mesh size will be implemented in
all directed flounder trawl fisheries.
lid. Commercial fisheries will be sub-
ject 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 es-
capement of immature flounder.
l.2b. VA & MD will promote implementa-
tion of 5.5’ diamond or 6’ square mesh
in all EEZ directed flounder trawl
fisheries. - _____
PRFC implemented a 14’ mm. size limit for the ‘92 & ‘93
seasons. MD & VA adopted regulations increasing recreational
size limit to 14’, with Mar. 1, 1993 and Jan. 1, 1993
effective dates for MD and VA, respectively.
MAFMC recommends a 6 fish creel & a recreational season
from May 15-Sep 30. PRFC implemented a 10 fish creel
& a season (May 15- Sep 30). MD implemented a iO,fish creel
a Bay season, Jun 1-Oct 31 & ocean season, May 15-Sep-30.
VA had a 10 fish creel with no season.
PRFC 14’ size limit for commercial fishery went into effect
for the ‘92 fishing season. VA has a ban on trawling within
state waters. MD implemented regulations for a 5.5’ or 6’
mm. mesh size for flounder trawl fisheries (effective
Mar. 1, 1993).
The 1993 commercial quota was 251,829 lbs for MD & 2.6
million lbs for VA. Each state allocated the annual
quota by quarter & area. VA kept a 10% tolerance by wt
less than 13’ for pound nets. VA eliminated the
recreational tolerance of 2 fish less than 14’.
MD drafted regulations for a 5.5’ diamind or 6’ square mm.
mesh size for flounder trawl fisheries, effective date Mar
1,1993. VA has a ban on trawling within state waters.
5.5’ diamond or 6’ square minimum mesh size for trawis
went into effect November 30, 1992 in the EEL NC began
a seasonal requirement for 5.5’ diamond & 6’ square mesh
in directed flounder fisheries durina 1990.
I. Overfishing
1993 ANNUALPROGRESS REPORT
CHESAPEAKE BAY SUMMER FLOUNDER IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Problem Area
- - Action
Date
Comments
U I
1992
1993
1993
1993
1993
1993
Continue
-------
SUMMER FLOUNDER CONT’D.
0
Problem Area
Action
Date
Comments
1. Overfishing
(cont’d)
1.3a. MD will collect information from
its pound net & ocean trawl fisheries
to develop strategies for reducing by-
catch of undersized flounder & other
species.
1.3b. VA will monitor species composi-
tion & 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 protection
of immature flounder.
1993
Continue
Continue
MD implemented a pound net sampling program in the Bay.
Escape panels for reducing bycatch of juvenile finfish
were tested in 1992. Testing continued during 1993.
2. Stock
Assessment
and
Research
Needs
2.1 Conduct stock identification work.
2.2 Continue collection of data from
commercial catches.
2.3 Continue on-going commercial fisher-
ics statistics programs; VA will pursue
its mandatory reporting system VA & MD
will continue to supplement the MRFSS.
2.4 Continue the baywide trawl survey
to measure size, age, sex, distribution,
abundance, and CPUE.
Continue
Variable
Continue
VMRC has continued stock assessment work including summer
flounder. MD sampled pound nets and offshore trawl catches.
Mandatory reporting was implemented in VA beginning Jan. 1993.
MD drafted a multi-species sampling program which examined
size, age & sex of selected species from commercial
gear types & a limited creel census.
VIMS continued baywide trawl survey & juvenile flounder
index to predict future population size.
-------
SUMMER FLOUNDER CONTD.
Problem Area
Action Date Comments -
3. Habitat
Issues
3.1 Promote the objectives of the Continue The Bay Program added a tributary initiative
Chesapeake Bay Agreement to improve which set nutrient reduction goals for major
water quality, tributaries.
LEGEND:
ASMFC = Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
CPUE = Catch per unit of effort
EEl = Exclusive economic zone (3-200 miles offshore)
MAFMC = Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
MRFSS = Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey
PRFC = Potomac River Fisheries Commission
VIMS = Virginia Institute of Marine Science
VMRC = Virginia Marine Resources Commission
-------
Atlantic Croaker and Spot Management Plan
Stock Status
Atlantic Croaker
Croaker are a major component of the fishery independent trawl
and seine surveys along the Atlantic coast. Adult abundance and
juvenile recruitment are highly variable from year to year and
dependent on natural environmental conditions. Data from the
Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program’s (SEAMAP) spring
inshore trawl survey indicate the mean abundance of croaker (70mm-
280mm) has increased from 1990 to 1992. Juvenile indices have been
low in Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina (ASMFC 1993). A total
mortality rate of 55-60% has been calculated for the Chesapeake Bay
region.
Atlantic croaker commercial landings have decreased from 10.1
million pounds in 1987 to 4.1 million pounds in 1992. The Bay
jurisdictions have continued to monitor the harvest of croaker.
During 1992, Maryland harvested 17,000 pounds and Virginia
harvested 1.3 million pounds. Commercial harvest of croaker from
Maryland during 199,3 was 92,900 pounds. Preliminary commercial
harvest from Virginia for 1993 is 4.8 million pounds (Figure 12 a
& b).
Croaker is also an important recreational species in the
Chesapeake region. According to the data collected by the MRFSS,
Maryland had the second highest croaker recreational catch from
1990 to 1992. Average weight of croaker caught by recreational
anglers during 1992 was 0.3 kg (0.6 pounds) (Uphoff and Piavis
1993). The MRFSS data also indicates that most of the croaker that
were caught were also discarded. Data from Maryland charter boat
logbooks indicate that 115,618 pounds (127,265 fish) of croaker
were caught at an average weight of 0.9 pounds. The availability of
croaker in the Bay appears to have increased in the last three
years. Average weight for the last two years has been similar.
Spot
Spot are frequently caught in large proportions in fishery
independent trawl and seine surveys along the Atlantic coast. Like
croaker, spot adult abundance and juvenile recruitment are variable
from year to year and dependent on environmental factors. The
abundance of juvenile spot caught in Maryland and Virginia surveys
has fluctuated with no apparent long-term trend.
Spot commercial landings from along the Atlantic coast were
7.0 million pounds in 1987. Since then, commercial landings have
fluctuated between 5.3 million pounds and 5.9 million pounds.
Commercial landings were 5.8 million pounds in 1992. Over the same
period, Maryland commercial landings ranged between 58,000 pounds
62
-------
Figure 12a. Commercial landings for
Atlantic croaker from Maryland
Million Pounds
1
16
.
14
12
10
8
6
4
iT 111 • 11 .
2
n
liii II
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
Year
Figure 12b. Commercial landings for
Atlantic croaker from Virginia
1993
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
MIllion Pounds
0
1950 1955
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
Year
1993
.1993 PrelIminary landinga
,I, IIIIIl II
63
-------
and 253,000 pounds. Virginia commercial landings range4 between 1.7
million pounds and 3.7 million pounds. Spot commercial landings
from Maryland during 1993 wGre 146,000 pounds. Preliminary 1993
commercial harvest from Virginia is 3.2 million pounds (Figure 13
a & b). During 1992, 54% of Chesapeake Bay commercial spot landings
were caught by hook and line (probably the sale of headboat catch)
and 34% were caught in pound net (Uphoff and Piavis 1993).
Estimated recreational catch of spot from Maryland during 1992 was
2.7 million fish (MRFSS data). Since spot are frequently caught and
usually not targeted, recreational reporting is probably not as
accurate as for other species.
The Bay jurisdictions continued to participate in interjuris-
dictional scientific and technical meetings. An Atlantic croaker
and spot workshop was held during 1993 to review the ASMFC plans
for each species and to assess the status of the stock and fishery.
Several recommendations for spot and croaker were developed during
the workshop. They are as follows:
1) ASMFC management recommendations in the 1987 Spot and
Croaker FMPs are still relevant and should be implemented by
coastal states;
2) Bycatch and fishing mortality of fish less than age 1
should be monitored;
3) The harvest of less than age 1 fish should be minimized
through minimum size limits, minimum mesh size and/or other
gear restrictions;
4) The effects of bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) should be
evaluated;
5) Research on bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) should be a
funding priority;
6) Size and sex specific relative abundance estimates should
be developed;
7) Juvenile indices should be developed to clarify stock
status;
8) Standardized ageing methodology should be developed for
both species; and,
9) A yield per recruit analysis should be completed.
Harvest of Small Spot and Croaker
The bycatch of small spot and croaker continues to be a
concern for the stocks. Spot is a major component of the bycatch in
seine, fish trawl, and pound net fisheries. They also comprise a
large portion of the bycatch in the southern shrimp trawl fishery.
There are no minimum size limits or creel limits on spot along the
Atlantic coast. Bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) are currently
required in the inshore shrimp trawl fishery in several states and
should benefit the spot and croaker stocks.
64
-------
Figure 13a. Commercial Jandings for spot
from Maryland
MillIon Pounds
10
8
6
4
2
0 111111111111111111111111111111111111(11111 I lIiiIiIIiiIiIltIli
1929 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1993
Year
Figure 13b. Commercial landings for spot
from Virginia
MIllion Pounds
10
8
6
4
2 —
0 • 111111 liii 111111111 liii lilt iii 1111111111 liii lilt lit
1929 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1993
Year
•1993 Preliminary landings
65
-------
Research and Monitoring Needs
Stock identification studies or estimates of adult abundance
have not been conducted for croaker or spot. Recreational and
commercial fisheries statistics are being collected but effort data
is not available. Juvenile surveys provide some data on recruitment
but are highly variable from year to year. The Virginia Institute
of Marine Science (VIMS) has conducted studies on temperature
tolerance and developed a juvenile croaker recruitment model based
on the effect of winter water temperature and offshore wind
velocities. Staff from VMRC and North Carolina are evaluating the
use of culling panels in pound nets for the release of small spot
and croaker. During 1993, Maryland DNR conducted a hook and line
mortality study on croaker and a study to determine a size-related
maturity schedule for croaker.
Conclusion
Abundance of adult spot and croaker and juvenile recruitment
are highly variable from year to year. The resources do not appear
in need of any additional management measures at this time but
analysis of data from the 1993 spot/croaker workshop may revise
management recommendations in the ASMFC plan. Bycatch of small spot
and croaker are being addressed bythe implementation of BRDs. The
following areas should be emphasized during 1994:
1) Continue to monitor the commercial and recreational harvest
of spot and croaker from the Chesapeake Bay;
2) Work through ASMFC to promote the development and use of
bycatch reduction devices in the trawl fisheries; and,
3) Promote the harvest of spot and croaker that are age 1 and
older.
66
-------
1.1. MD, VA & 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 & PRFC will continue 10’
minimum size for croaker.
l.2.lb 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.
2.1.1 a) Jurisdictions will promote the
development and use of trawl efficiency
devices in the southern shrimp fishery
and promote the use of bycatch reduc-
tion devices in the fin fish trawl
fishery.
b) VA will continue its prohibition
on trawling in State waters and will
maintain its 2 7/8’ niinhnum mesh for
gill nets.
c) MD will continue its 4-6 gill
net restriction during June 15 through
September 30 and implement a 3’ minimum
Bay jurisdictions continued to monitor Bay stocks. A
workshop on spot & croaker was held in October 1993.
The recreational size limit for croaker was changed to 9’
with a creel limit of 25 fish/day in MD. The 10’ size limit
stayed in effect for the commercial fishery.
Data analysis should be completed by January 1994.
The jurisdictions have worked through ASMFCIMAFMC to
promote the use of TEDs & BRDs Use of these devices
has been successful in eliminating some bycatch of small
fish including croaker and spot.
1992 MD prohibits summer gill net use and anchor and stake gill
Continue net use at anytime in the Bay.
Problem Area
1993 ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
CHESAPEAKE BAY ATLANTIC CROAKER AND SPOT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Action
Date
Comments
1. Stock
Status
2. Harvest
of Small Spot
and Croaker
a’
-J
Continue
Continue
1993
Delayed
1992
Continue
Continue
Continue
No minimum size is recommended at this time.
-------
ALANTIC CROAKER AND SPOT (cont’d
2.1.2 Jurisdictions will investigate
the magnitude of bycatch problem &
consider implementing bycatch restric-
tions for the non-directed fisheries
in the Bay.
3.1 VMRC stock assessment program will
continue to analyze size and sex data
from Atlantic croaker and spot
collected from VA commercial fisheries.
3.2 a) MD & PRFC will encourage re-
search to collect data on croaker &
spot biology, i.e. estimates of
abundance, recruitment, & reproductive
biology.
3.2 b) VA will continue to fund VIMS
& ODU stock assessment research,
specifically designed to provide
estimates of population abundance,
recruitment, & reproduction.
4.1 A-G) Continue to set water quality
goals & review management programs
____________ under the 1987 Bay Agreement .
LEGEND: ASMFC = Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
BRDs = Bycatch Reduction Devices
FEDs = Finfish Efficiency Devices
MAFMC = Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council
ODU = Old Dominion University
PRFC = Potomac River Fisheries Commission
VIMS = Virginia Institute of Marine Science
VMRC = Virginia Marine Resources Commission
VA conducted a study on escape panels for reducing the
bycatch of juvenile finfish in pound nets. The study
continued in 1993. MD began a multi-species sampling
program which collected data on spot & croaker during 1993.
VA will continue to provide stock assessment data on spot
and croaker.
The Bay Program added a tributary initiative which
set nutrient reduction goals for major tributaries.
2.1.1 d) PRFC will continue prohibition
on gill net fishing during the summer.
Problem Area
Action
Date
Comments
Continue
1992
Continue
Continue
Continue
2. Harvest
(ConEd)
3. Research
& Monitoring
Needs
4. Habitat &
Water Quality
0 •
Continue VA will continue to fund stock assessment research.
Continue
-------
AMERICAN EEL FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN
Stock Status
The status of the American eel ( Anpuilla rostrata ) stock in
the Chesapeake Bay remains incomplete. Information from commercial
waterinen suggests that eels are less abundant and smaller than in
the past. Watermen have also suggested that the demand for eel as
trotline bait has diminished because bull lips and chicken necks
are cheaper.
Commercial landings have fluctuated over the years (Figure 14
a & b) and include only eels caught for the live-eel market.
Preliminary 1993 commercial landings are 221,900 pounds from
Maryland and 390,180 pounds from Virginia. The value of the live-
eel catch has averaged $1.74 per pound in Maryland over the last
several years. Preliminary 1993 data from Maryland indicates the
dockside value of eels has dropped to $1.04 per pound. In Maryland,
the total eel harvest is unknown because a substantial number of
eels are taken for bait by commercial crabbers but are not reported
as part of the commercial harvest. Beginning, in 1993, specific
questions relating to the commercial crabber’s “eel—for—personal
use” catch were added to the commercial crab catch report forms.
Current biological data to characterize the Chesapeake stock
remains unavailable. The American eel does not enter the Bay until
they are in the elver stage. Elvers usually appear in the Bay area
during April and can be harvested quite easily with dip nets at the
base of impoundments. In other states, elvers are used in the live—
eel industry for aquaculture and exportation to foreign markets.
Considering the potential to harvest large quantities of elvers
(size range from 1.8”—5”) which could result in a significant
effect on the local eel fishery, the American Eel FMP recommended
a 6 inch minimum size limit. Virginia already prohibits the taking
of elvers but needs to adjust its definition to correspond to 6
inches. The Potomac River Fisheries Commission adopted a 6 inch
minimum size limit in January 1992. Maryland has proposed a 6 inch
minimum size limit but will not be in effect until 1994. The
jurisdictions agree that until information*p1656X*ailable on
optimizing yield per recruit, the 6 inch minimum size will prevent
the development of an elver fishery. Although not intended as an
eel management measure, the use of eel as bait for hook and line
(except as specifically allowed during striped bass season) is
prohibited in Maryland as of 1992. Striped bass often swallow the
bait and hook which makes the safe release of under sized fish, or
fish out of season, unsuccessful. On the other hand, the demand for
eel during the short intense striped bass season usually far
exceeds supply and drives prices up.
A baywide minimum mesh size of 1/2 by 1/2” for eel pots was
also recommended by the,eel FMP. The minimum mesh size restriction
for eel pots has been in effect in Virginia since 1990 and on the
69
-------
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
n
Figure 14a. Reported commercial landings
of American Eel from Maryland
Thousand Pounds
1929 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
Year
1993
Figure 14b. Reported commercial landings
of American Eel from Virginia
Thousand Pounds
crn
.;
fA J tAT÷
+I k 1 1
u.IuIIIIlIg1!T
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1,1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0
1929 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985
Year
II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII’I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII
I
I
I
400
200
•1993 preliminary data
1993
70
-------
Potomac since 1983. In addition, Virginia also req 4res escape
panels for’ eel pots. 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. Maryland has proposed the 1/2 by 1/2” minimum mesh size for
eel pots but it will not go into effect until 1994.
Historically, American eels populated the Susquehanna River
Basin from the mouth of the river to its headwaters. Construction
of four hydropower dams on the low r river in the 1900s blocked
thousands of miles of eel habitat. Fish passage began operation at
Conowingo Dam in 1991. In June 1993, an agreement was signed by the
governors of Pennsylvania and Maryland, as well as utilities,
fisheries agencies and fishery interests to provide fish passage at
Hoitwood and Safe Harbor Dams by 1997 and York Haven Dam by the
year 2000. This action will provide American eels access to nearly
500 miles of major river habitat in Pennsylvania and many
tributaries. Fish passage initiatives on the Pennsylvania
tributaries to the lower Susguehanna River will provide eels access
to many miles of high quality habitat. As eels are restored to the
Susquehanna River Basin, PFBC will adopt regulations to prevent the
overharvest of small eels.
Bait Fishery
In the Chesapeake Bay region, there are two distinct indus-
tries for eels. There is the crab bait market which uses eels that
are 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 are
exported alive to Japan and Europe. There may be an interest in
farming eels, but little information is available for Maryland eel
aquaculture.
Eels are used for bait in the commercial crab trotline fishery
in Maryland but much of this eel harvest goes unreported. A
commercial crabber is allowed to catch eels for personal use but is
not required to report their bait eel catch. The unreported harvest
has been estimated between 700,000 and 1.7 million pounds per year
based on estimated eel usage in the late 1970s. There has been a
reported reduction in the use of eels as crab trotline bait in
Maryland. Catch and effort statistics from the bait fishery is
important in monitoring the harvest of eels from the Bay. Maryland
considered adding the harvest of bait eels on their mandatory
finfish reporting forms during 1992, but decided to target crab
trotliners instead of finfish license holders to obtain bait eel
information. The Maryland commercial crab catch reporting form was
modified to obtain information on the number of eels being used for
trotline bait beginning with the 1993 season. Preliminary results
will be available in 1994.
71
-------
Research Needs
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. 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 Eel FMP
encourages research to collect information on eels from the
Chesapeake Bay, no studies were begun during 1993.
Habitat and Water Quality Issues
The Habitat Workgroup of the Chesapeake Bay Program Living
Resources Subcommittee has requested the development of a Habitat
Restoration Plan for Fisheries Management document which would
expound on habitat management issues for all managed species.
Future management plans will cover more habitat issues and contain
specific recommendations for habitat protection mandates.
Fish passage efforts continue to improve eel habitat.
Migrating 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.
Conclusions
The status of American eels in the Chesapeake Bay is unclear
and stock assessment data is unavailable. Management recommenda-
tions are conservative and directed at reducing the possibility of
growth overfishing and preventing the wastage of small eels.
Changes in the crab catch reporting form should improve the
estimates of bait eel harvest. Areas of prime importance during
1994 are:
1) Implement a minimum size limit and minimum mesh size in the
Maryland portion of the Bay;
2) Evaluate the commercial crab bait eel catch in Maryland
from the additional questions placed on the Crab Reporting
form.
3) Promote basic research.
72
-------
1993 ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
CHESAPEAKE BAY AMERICAN EEL IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE.
1.1 MD & PRFC will adopt a 6” minimum
size limit. VA will continue a prohi-
bition on taking dyers & adjust
definition to correspond to a 6”
minimum size limit.
1.2 MD will implement a 112” by 1/2”
mesh size for eel pots. VA & PRFC will
continue to enforce their 1/2” X 1/2”
mesh. VA will continue to enforce 1/2”
by 1” escape panels in 1/2” by 112”
mesh pots.
1.3 Upon restoration of eels to the
Susquehanna River basin PFC will adopt
regulations to prevent overfishing
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 mon-
itoring crab bait fishery.
3.2 Encourage research to collect
basic biological and socioeconomic
information.
Until information is available on optimizing yield per re.
cruit, the 6” minimum size will prevent the development
of an elver fishery. MD proposed a regulation for a 6”
minimum size during 1993. DCFM will implement a 6” size
limit by 1996.
There will be reluctance in accepting a minimum mesh size
by the bait eel harvesters. A 1/2 x 1 /2” mm. mesh was
proposed in MD during 1993.
DCFM will implement a 1/2 x 1/2” minimum mesh size for eel
pots by 1996.
Providing fish passage will make American eel habitat more
accessible & benefit the Bay population.
Additional questions on the crab reporting forms were
added and should provide some information on the crab bait
harvest.
Development of a monitoring approach for the bait eel
fishery has begun. Basic stock assessment & biological
monitoring is needed.
Requires coordination with other agencies and universities.
Problem Area
Action
Date
Comments
1. Stock
Status
2. Bait
Fishery
3. Research
Needs
-J
1992
1993
1993
1993
Continue
1992
Continue
-------
AMERICAN EEL CONTD
Problem Area
Action
Date
Comments
4. Habitat and
4.1 Continue to provide stream passage.
Continue
Requires coordination with other agencies.
Water Quality
Issues
4.2 Continue to set specific objectives
for water quality goals and habitat
requirements.
Continue
In addition to the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, a Bay
tributary initiative set nutrient reduction goals
for major tributaries.
LEGEND:
DCFM = District of Columbia, Fisheries Management
PFC = Pennsylvania Fish Commission
PRFC = Potomac River Fisheries Commission
-J
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
Habitat and Water Quality
In 1987, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, the District of
Columbia, the Chesapeake Bay Commission and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency formally agreed to reduce and control point and
nonpoint sources of pollution to improve water quality in the Bay.
During 1991, the strategies to achieve the goals of the Agreement
were reevaluated. Based upon the 1991 nutrient reduction
reevaluation, the following conclusions were made:
1) significant improvements in water quality and living resources
habitat conditions have occurred in the mainstem of the Chesapeake
Bay;
2) There is a need to expand program efforts to include the
tributaries since most of the spawning grounds and essential
habitat are in the tributaries;
3) In order to meet the 40% nutrient reduction goal, intensified
efforts to control nonpoint sources of pollution from agriculture
and developed areas will be necessary;
4) There is a demonstrable link between water quality conditions
and the survival and health of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV);
5) Implementation of the Clean Air Act Amendments will provide
additional opportunities to achieve nitrogen reductions;
6) Achieving a 40% nutrient reduction goal challenges the limits of
current point and nonpoint source control technologies.
In order to further efforts in restoring and protecting the
ecological integrity, productivity and beneficial uses of the
Chesapeake Bay system and further the commitments made in the 1987
Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the 1.992 Amendments were developed and
signed by the Executive Council. The jurisdictions and agencies
will continue the commitment to achieve an overall 40% reduction of
nitrogen and phosphorus entering the inainstem Chesapeake Bay by the
year 2000 and maintain this level of reduction thereafter. The
jurisdictions recognize the importance of the tributaries in
restoration efforts. The 1992 Amendments call for the following:
1) Amend the water quality goal of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay
Agreement to reflect the importance of tributaries in restoring the
.Bay;
2) Develop and implement tributary—specific strategies to reduce
nutrients, achieve water quality requirements for living resources,
incorporate public participation and involvement, and advance both
cost—effectiveness and equity;
3) Use the distribution of SAys in the Bay and, its tidal
tributaries as an initial measure of progress in the restoration of
living resources and water quality;
4) Incorporate into the Nutrient Reduction Strategies an air
deposition component which builds upon the 1990 Amendments to the
federal Clean Air Act and explores additional implementation
opportunities to further reduce airborne sources of nitrogen
entering the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries;
75
-------
5) Continue to explore yost-effective and improved tec hnologies to
attain further nutrient reductions;
6) Explore cooperative working relationships with the other three
basin states, New York, West Virginia, and Delaware, in the
development of tributary-specific strategies for nutrient
reduction.
Two specific goals have been set by the Bay Council to help
restore the Chesapeake Bay habitat. To date, 2,526 river blockages
that prevent migratory fish from reaching upstream spawning areas
have been surveyed. Removal of blockages has reopened 149 miles
thus far. Because there are so many blockages, the Fish Passage
Plan has adopted the following goals to reopen waterways to
migratory fish species: a 5-year goal to open 582 miles of
potential spawning habitat and a 10-year goal to open 1,356 miles.
The Bay Council has also set specific goals for the restoration of
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAy). An interim goal of 114,000
acres which at current recovery rates would be achieved by 2005.
The abundance of SAys is closely associated with water quality and
also provides shelter and nursery areas for many species of fish
and wildlife.
New action was taken towards meeting the 40% reduction in
nutrients which amounts to the removal of 74 million pounds of
nitrogen and 8.4 million pounds of phosphorus. The tributary-
specific strategies were defined and implementation reports
completed. The tributary plans recognize that each river is
different in its geography, hydrography, and ecology and will
require flexibility in meeting the 40% nutrient reduction goal. As
a result, Maryland has divided its Bay watershed into 10 tributary
basins. A long-term monitoring and computer modeling effort is
underway in the lower Bay. The lower tributaries in Virginia have
little impact on nutrient loading because of their proximity to the
mouth of the Bay and require a different approach to reduce
nutrient levels and improve habitat. Since agriculture is a major
source of nutrient run-off to the Bay, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) has been asked to play a larger role in
developing an integrated plan. The Agricultural Nonpoint Source
Initiative will develop guidelines for the use of fertilizers,
pesticides, and other chemicals in order to minimize their use
while maximizing farm production. The Council has issued a
directive for the development of a new basinwide toxics reduction
strategy to address three “hot spots” of toxics problems, the
Baltimore Harbor, the Anacostia River, and the Elizabeth River.
In addition to the Chesapeake Bay’s water quality and habitat
programs, the Ecosystem Processes Modeling (EPM) program (funded by
the Chesapeake Bay Program Living Resources Subcommittee) is
currently developing a set of models for integrating water quality,
benthos, plankton, fish, and species-specific SAV processes within
littoral habitats of the Chesapeake Bay. The EPM program will
ultimately provide an integrated ecological tool for resource
76
-------
managers which can guide decisions and prioritie on living
resources. Understanding how living resources influence
environmental conditions and how the environment influences living
resources is the major goal of the program. The EPN5 should provide
the capability to predict potential fish production from nutrient
loading and to simulate management scenarios. The fish models could
be used to predict the potential, production of striped bass,
bluefish, weakfish, bay anchovy, menhaden, spot, and white perch.
(Bartleson at al. 1994).
Habitat Overview for Fishery Management Plans
Restoring and improving habitat and water quality for living
resources have been priorities of the Chesapeake Bay Program.
Actions towards fish passage, wetlands, monitoring, toxics, exotic
species, submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), nutrient reduction,
and atmospheric deposition are being implemented. The water quality
and habitat requirements of many important finfish and shellfish
species have been investigated and reported in the document
entitled: Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living Resources
(Funderburk et al. 1991). The habitat sections within each
management plan have typically been generic in scope and similar
from plan to plan. Both the Fisheries Management Plan Reassessment
Task Force and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation have recommended
strengthening the FMP habitat actions and utilizing them for
managing habitat. There are some inherent problems in moving from
water quality and habitat improvements to enhanced fish production.
The effects of habitat alteration and water quality on fish
populations are generally indirect, gradual and unquantifiable
(Burns 1991). Fish habitat consists of a wide range of physical,
chemical and biological factors. Modifications of fish habitat can
vary along a geographic range and/or across a temporal spectrum,
presenting a very complex situation. Fish can also respond to their
environment by changes in their behavior, growth, reproduction, and
physiology. The FMP workgroup will begin a comprehensive review of
habitat issues and how they relate to fish production. The ultimate
goal of this project will be to develop habitat sections in the
FMPs that can be utilized as a vehicle for encouraging and
justifying resource conservation by those agencies with regulatory
authority over modifications to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems
(Carter, in prep).
Ref erences
Bartleson, R., W.R. Boynton, S.B. Brandt, J.D. Hagy, K.H. Hartman,
W.M. Kemp, J. Luo, C.J. Madden, M. Meyers, T. Rippetoe, and R.
Wetzel. 1994. Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem Modeling Program
Technical Synthesis Report, 1993—1994. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, CBPO, Annapolis, Md.
Burns, D.C. 1991. Cumulative effects of small modifications to
habitat. Fisheries 16(1):12—14:
77
------- |