Addendum
11 to Amendment 5 Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic
Striped Bass: ASMFC PRESS RELEASEFISHERIES MANAGEMENT & LEGISLATIVE REPORT
by Tom Fote
(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association December1997Newsletter)
Help Designate Barnegat Bay a No Discharge Area
REPORT ON ASMFC ANNUAL MEETING
American Eel & Horseshoe Crab to be Addressed in Two Separate Plans
ASMFC Habitat Fact Sheet Weakfish
By the time you read this edition of the JCAA Newspaper, I will have testified at a hearing being held on Monday, November 17, 1997 on Assembly Bill #3226, introduced by Assemblyman Gibson. The JCAA and the New Jersey Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, in addition to most of the conservation community, realize that there should be no harvest of immature American eels, called elvers. The letter that follows is the public comment on the bill being presented on behalf of both associations.
We ask that you contact your state legislators and the Governor’s office and bring to their attention the necessity to oppose this bill and stop fishing for elvers altogether before the stocks of this important forage species are severely damaged.
To Governor, State Legislature, and Commissioner of DEP;
The Jersey Coast Anglers Association and the New Jersey Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, representing 130,000 concerned sportsmen in this state, are in strong opposition to A-3226, a bill that will permit the continued harvest of immature American eels (elvers). The intent of this bill is to allow certain licensed individuals to harvest immature eels for the very lucrative market price they bring for export to Japan. The sponsor of this bill might have good intentions, but we can not believe he understands the consequences it will have on the delicately balanced wild stock of eels. Understand that the recreational harvest for personal consumption or bait is not the reason for our overwhelming concern about this fishery. It is our concern for whole ecosystem. If this fishery collapses, how will it affect all the birds and fish that depend on eel for food?
Both organizations have witnessed this scenario occur in numerous other fisheries and the result is always the same, a total disaster for the wild stocks that leave our children to pay the price for our mismanagement. There are glaring examples of allowing the harvest of wild fish stocks based upon little or no scientific understanding of the dynamics of the species.
In the 1960s, the National Marine Fisheries Service encouraged a fleet of purse seine vessels to come to the east coast to fish on school Atlantic bluefin tuna, believing that they were very abundant and under-utilized. Within five years, these boats completely destroyed the stocks and 30 years later, the party and charter boat fleets and the rest of the recreational fishing community are still suffering the consequences of having lost a viable game species and the business opportunities it provided. Tens of thousands of New Jersey citizens have suffered both recreationally and economically so that a few individuals could reap massive profits from a common public resource. Today, with stocks at levels equal to only 18% of the biomass in the 1960s, the only commercial fishery left on these stocks is to provide sushi to the Japanese export market.
For decades, there was a healthy and sustainable biomass of large coastal and pelagic sharks that spent a considerable amount of time in New Jersey waters each year. They provided a recreational fishery that had far reaching economic and social benefits for ten of thousands of New Jersey citizens. These sharks also played an important role in the overall health of our ocean ecosystem. Once again, the National Marine Fisheries Service began promoting the increased harvest of sharks, which they classified as under-utilized, including the repugnant practice of finning them and discarding the remainder of the carcass unused, for the benefit of a small group of commercial fishermen. Shark fins went to fuel another Japanese market at the expense of New Jersey’s citizens and domestic fisheries.
We can point out numerous other examples of permitting the harvest of supposed under-utilized species like sea cucumbers, mullet for roe, sea urchins and on and on. Fisheries managers and politicians permitted the harvest of for commercial export markets without a real scientific understanding of their reproductive abilities or their place in the ocean, bay, freshwater and esturine ecosystem. The results in every case was devastation of the stocks of the species taken and an untold impact on other species in the ecosystem that depends upon them in one way or another.
The Japanese have systematically gone from country to country around the world promoting the development of fisheries for immature eels, which are shipped alive to Japan and grown to maturity through aquaculture. The problem with this aquacultural process is there is no way to obtain immature eels to grow other than to strip mine them from wild stocks. Eels will not reproduce in captivity, so the process is flawed. The Japanese promoted and destroyed the elver fishery in Asia and moved on to New Zealand and Australia, stripping those countries of their stocks of these important forage species. Once the fishery was destroyed there, they began promoting the fishery on the European eel, a close cousin to the American eel. The same result followed in Europe and now the Japanese are knocking at our door, paying big money to promote the decimation of our eel fishery. The question is, will we also fall prey to the Japanese money machine and sell our natural resources to the detriment of our own ecosystem?
For a change, federal fisheries agencies have shown foresight in seeking a solution for this problem. The Chief of Law Enforcement of the US Fish & Wildlife Service recently gave a presentation to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Service which I attended representing New Jersey Senator Louis Bassano. In summary, he felt that he would only see the "Gold Rush" mentality that leads to the selling off of natural resources in third world countries, but this is exactly what is happening in the US elver fishery. I pointed out that this scenario has taken place in numerous US ocean fisheries already, like the shark and bluefin tuna, but this is new to a species taken from inland rivers and streams like the elvers. We have resisted the taking of bear gall bladders for use in the Asian aphrodisiac market and numerous other species that sell for huge profits overseas, but we are permitting it to take place with the American eel.
The majority of states on the East Coast have already closed the harvest of elvers. Some of these states even requested New Jersey not permit the start of an elver fishery before it even began. They have all proceeded with the enactment of legislation that places a six inch size limit on the taking of American eels. JCAA and the NJ Federation of Sportsman’s Clubs demand that the only legislation enacted concerning this species be the immediate imposition of a six inch minimum size with stiff penalties for the illegal harvest of elvers.
We realize that this legislation is being requested by the NJ Marine Fisheries Council. The Council historically has only acted on important fisheries management issues well after the horse has been let out of the barn, and even then their recommendations are rarely in the best interest of the public resource. In the early 1990s, both JCAA and the NJ Federation of Sportsmens Clubs requested that the Council close this fishery before it was allowed to begin. There was a minute harvest at that time and no individuals were making a living from this fishery. But the Council, with its unbalanced commercial representation and unwillingness to do anything that might even remotely impact a commercial fishery regardless of how small it is, refused to act. Today, there are over 2,000 commercial elver permits issued by the state, most going to people who are not baymen or traditional commercial fishermen, but to those who are simply out looking to capitalize on a fast buck. One elver fisherman interviewed by a Channel Six reporter on the television said, "this is better than drug money and its legal."
New Jersey citizen’s personal property is being trampled in a unbridled effort to get to the streams where elvers are found. Rights are being trampled at the same time. This gold rush mentality, aimed at the rapid destruction of an important common natural resource, must stop now.
Tom Fote,
Legislative Chairman
Jersey Coast Anglers Association
New Jersey Federation of Sportsman’s Clubs
During the late winter and spring of 1997 there were numerous reports of a striped bass disease outbreak in many of New Jersey's fresh and estuarine waters. According to most accounts, the fish seem to have a "gray-white fungus looking growth on its skin and extreme deterioration of its tail fin". The gray area also had "red streaks running through there". These symptoms are consistent with the highly infectious Lymphocystis, virus, which is transmitted from fish to fish through contact following an abrasion of the skin. The Division is currently testing tissue samples collected from infected fish.
This disease did not just occur in New Jersey's waters. Fishermen and researchers from the Chesapeake Bay to the waters of New York State have also reported striped bass with signs of the infection (John Field, ASMFC, Craig Shirey DEDFW, Kathy Hattala and Vic Vecchio, NYDEC; personal communications).
According to literature, the Lymphocystis virus is a chronic disease but is not considered fatal. The disease is not considered hazardous to humans. It does however leave the fish unacceptable to the public. Individual infected skin cells may enlarge several hundred times their normal size creating a lumpy white "cauliflower- like" appearance. These pea-sized nodules may sometimes be accompanied by hemorrhaging and frayed or damaged fins. Strains of this virus are strongly specific for a given species of fish, which is why striped bass is the only known species being infected at this time.
Why was there such a widespread outbreak of Lymphocystis in 1997? The majority of infected fish were "schoolies" in the 15 to 25 inch range. Fish of this size tend to be tightly packed together during the winter and early spring so the virus will spread more easily. It also may be density related due to the large number of juvenile striped bass now evident in the overall population. The weather has also been a factor this year. After a mild winter along the East Coast, cool weather prevailed throughout the spring into late May. This kept Ocean and Bay water temperatures at low levels and therefore prevented stripers from dispersing.
There is evidence that infected fish do return to normal. The enlarged cells slough off without any known after effect to the fish. However, the disease is chronic and although the external symptoms are no longer visible, the fish may still retain the virus.
All information on this subject was compiled from the following sources:
1. Sindermann, C.J., J.J. Ziskowski, and V.T. Anderson Jr. 1978. A guide for the recognition of some disease conditions and abnormalities in marine fish. NMFS, Northeast Fisheries Center Technical Series Report No. 14, Highlands, N.J.
2. Mitchell, A.P., 1984. Parasites and diseases in striped bass. In The aquaculture of striped bass: A proceedings. University of Maryland Sea Grant Program.
3. Mahoney, J.B., F.H. Midlige, and D.G. Deuel. 1973. A fin rot disease of marine and euryhaline fishes in the New York Bight. NMFS, Highlands N.J.
Krantz, G.E. 1970. Lymphocystis in striped bass, Roccus saxatilis, in Chesapeake Bay.
Chesapeake Science 11: 137-139.
Help Designate Barnegat Bay a No Discharge Area December Workshops in Brick and Brant Beach
In order to initiate consideration of a No Discharge Area designation for Barnegat Bay, Alliance for A Living Ocean, Clean Ocean Action, Brick Township, members of the NJ Clean Vessel Act Program Steering Committee and the Barnegat Bay Estuary Program will be holding two workshops in December designed to discuss all of the information necessary to formulate a No Discharge Area application for the Bay.
Many areas where boats congregate in Barnegat Bay are naturally shallow or sheltered and not well flushed. The end result is that bacteria, chemicals, and nutrients contained in human waste from boats can overload small, poorly flushed waterbodies and cause problems with local water quality leading to closure of shellfish beds and restrictions on recreational activities such as swimming. Since many portions of Barnegat Bay are poorly flushed and the bay contains many shellfish harvesting beds and recreational swimming areas, the presence of raw or treated boat sewage in these and other sensitive areas can pose a health threat to the general public.
These facts make the area a likely candidate for citizens and local and state government to take the opportunity to investigate the feasibility of applying for approval of the area as a No Discharge Area. This federal approval would allow for complete prohibition of the discharge of treated and untreated vessel sewage into the waters of the estuary. This approval is the primary tool available to the state and local agencies to provide additional protection of Barnegat Bay from vessel sewage discharges.
The Clean Vessel Act, which was passed in 1992 to help reduce pollution from vessel discharges, provides grants to marinas for the construction, renovation and maintenance of pumpout facilities and portable toilet dump stations. It also entails education efforts regarding the effects of boater sewage and the means by which boaters can avoid improper sewage disposal. These goals also compliment the objectives of the Barnegat Bay Estuary Program (BBEP) Action Now Agenda. The BBEP’s Action Now Agenda includes coordinating education efforts for the public on boating law changes and implementing a program to install pumpout facilities as well as acquiring and operating a mobile pumpout vessel.
The Brick Township No Discharge Workshop will take place on December 4th, from 6PM to 10PM in the new court room of the Brick Township Municipal Building located on 401 Chambers Bridge Road. The Long Beach Island Workshop will be held at the Holy Trinity Lutheran Church in Brant Beach at 5800 Long Beach Blvd. from 6 to 10PM. Anyone interested in attending the sessions should contact Clean Ocean Action at (732)872-0111 or ALO at (609) 492-0222.
REPORT ON ASMFC ANNUAL MEETING
I attended the ASMFC meeting in Hershey, Pennsylvania. Much of what happened is covered in the following press releases. There was little done with Striped Bass or many other species. The lobster decision was deferred until November or December. I guess my greatest disappointment was the failure of ASMFC to act on the elver fishery. Their inaction was not due to a lack on concern. Most state directors felt this fishery should be shut down. The problem is that ASMFC can only act within their charter and their is no fisheries management plan for eels at this time. We also hear the "there is very little science" excuse, a ploy to put off any decision until more information is gathered. One advantage of the ASMFS has been their ability to act with some speed, rather than sitting idly by and watching a stock collapse. Why aren’t they doing this now?
As you can see from the press release below, we are at status quo for Striped Bass for 1998. We really need to come together in the recreational community to guarantee a management plan that addresses our concerns is put in place for 1999. If we can’t work together, despite our differences, and develop a plan that we can all support, we will once again be stuck with any plan that the ASMFC develops.
ASMFC NEWS RELEASES
CONTACT: Tina Berger (202) -289-6400
INTRODUCTION
On May 20, 1997, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) Striped Bass Management Board initiated Addendum Il to the interstate management plan for striped bass. This was done because Amendment 5 (the current version of the plan) and its associated Addendum I only specified fishing regulations through 1997, and policy had to be formulated for the next fishing year. At the following meeting in July, the Management Board decided to revise the target fishing mortality rate for Amendment 5, and adopt a new assessment tool for Atlantic coast stocks in Virtual Population Analysis (VPA). Under the flexible and adaptive management approach of Amendment 5, the Management Board can make these changes to the plan through the addendum process.
Amendment 5 specified target fishing mortality rates (F) over a multi-year period, with states eventually scheduled to adopt the F at maximum sustainable yield (Fmsy) through relaxed regulations. Fmsy is regarded by scientists as the threshold before which overfishing occurs, and is dependent on the rate at which a species grows, matures, and spawns. After careful consideration of the scientific advice and input from the Citizens' Advisory Panel, the Management Board voted to remain at the current mortality rate for Addendum IL which is currently F=0.31 at the standard minimum sizes of 20" in bays and 28" in coastal areas. The Technical Committee Advisory Panel, and Management Board decided that this lower reference point would provide a larger margin of safety for the striped bass stocks and help prevent overfishing. However, the Board directed the Technical Committee to continue studying Fmsy for striped bass, and to determine other fishing mortality rates necessary for various "qualities" of fisheries to be outlined by the Advisory Panel in the future.
The adoption of the VPA modelling approach has been one of the original objectives of Amendment 5 since it was adopted in March, 1995. This approach, which is widely used in the assessment and management of other species, makes use of the extensive landings records and scientific survey data compiled by the states each year. Unlike past approaches to striped bass assessment, the VPA incorporates data from all of the producing areas and individual stocks rather than relying solely on Chesapeake Bay juvenile abundance information. The Management Board adopted the VPA as an assessment tool with the understanding that it would be immediately subjected to formal peer review, in conjunction with the models used in the past (Spawning Stock Biomass model, etc.).
Until this peer review is complete, the Management Board has decided to maintain the status quo in state striped bass regulations. Specifically, the states voted to maintain 1997 ocean fishing regulations for sport and commercial fisheries in 1998. Producer area fisheries will start their 1998 fisheries at 1997 levels, but may submit new proposals to achieve the target fishing mortality after a final stock assessment peer review is complete in January 1998. Likewise, ocean management parameters may be revised after the peer review if necessary to achieve the target F - 0.31. States whose regulations exceed the minimum requirements may apply immediately to come down to the management plan standards.
American Eel & Horseshoe Crab to be Addressed
in Two Separate Plans
ASMFC NEWS RELEASES
CONTACT: Tina Berger (202)289-6400
On October 23, 1997, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's Interstate Fisheries Management Program Policy Board (Board) voted to develop a separate fishery management planning process for horseshoe crabs outside of that for American eel. This action was taken in response to the concern of fishermen, conservationists and managers that the issues and concerns surrounding the horseshoe crab resource were not going to receive adequate attention in the American eel management plan. The action was supported by the American Eel and Horseshoe Crab Advisory Panel.
Prior to this action, horseshoe crabs were to be addressed as a component of the American eel fishery management plan, since eels serve as a valuable source of bait in the eel pot fishery. Over the past year, however, horseshoe crabs have been receiving increased attention in the Delaware Bay area. Delaware, New Jersey and Maryland all have taken action to reduce the harvest of horseshoe crabs by commercial fishermen within their states after preliminary data showed marked declines in local stocks of horseshoe crabs.
In calling for the development of a separate Horseshoe Crab Management Plan, the states recognize the interjurisdictional, coastwide nature of the horseshoe crab resource and the complex interactions it has with other valuable species such as shorebirds, and conch, eel and other bait-consuming fisheries. The States of Delaware and New Jersey have committed to assist, in providing the necessary funds and staff to keep this fishery management plan on a fast track along with that of the American eel plan. It is the Board's intent that both plans be developed concurrently with significant coordination between the two plans.
Over the next several months, the Commission will be establishing a Horseshoe Crab Management Board, Technical Committee, and Plan Development Team. It will' also expand upon the membership of the the Horseshoe Crab Advisory Panel, which had been a subcommittee of the larger American Eel Advisory Panel. For more information, please, contact: John Field, Anadromous Species Coordinator, at (202)289-6400, ext. 301.
ASMFC Habitat Fact Sheet Weakfish
Cynoscion regalis
Summary of Life History and Habitat Needs
Weakfish are found on the Atlantic coast from Cape Cod, Massachusetts through Florida. This species is moderately-lived (at least up to 17-18 years of age, and undoubtedly older, but larger fish have not been aged) and normally spends the majority of its adult life in coastal estuaries and the ocean, migrating north and inshore in the summer, and south and offshore in the winter. Important wintering grounds for the stock are located on the Continental Shelf from Chesapeake Bay to Cape Lookout, North Carolina. With warming water temperatures in the spring, the mature adult fish migrate to the spawning areas to complete their life cycle. The principle spawning area is located from North Carolina to Montauk, New York, although extensive spawning and presence of juveniles has been observed in the bays and inlets of Georgia and South Carolina.
In nearshore and estuarine spawning areas mature female weakfish (ages 1 and older) produce large quantities of eggs that are fertilized by mature males (ages 1 and older) as they are released into waters. Length at maturity is less for southern fish than for northern fish. Southern fish are suggested to produce more eggs at smaller size than do northern fish. Recent work on weakfish fecundity indicated that weakfish, like other sciaenids, are batch rather than total spawners. In other words, females release their eggs over a period of time, rather than all at once. Spawning occurs from March through September, with a peak from April to June.
The fertilized eggs hatch into larvae in 36 - 40 hours at temperatures of 77-790 F. The larvae and postlarvae journey from spawning areas to coastal nursery areas, located in the deeper portions of coastal rivers, bays, sounds, and estuaries. Here they grow into juveniles, and remain in coastal sounds and estuaries until October through December of their first year. Year-old fish migrate to the Atlantic Ocean; weakfish in the northern end of the range leave the inshore areas earlier than the weakfish in the southern end of the range.
Habitats used by weakfish include spawning sites in coastal bays, sounds, and the nearshore ocean and nursery areas that include the lower portions of rivers and their associated bays and estuaries. These types of habitats are distributed along the coasts from Maine through Florida. Use of these habitats by weakfish may increase or diminish as the size of the population changes.
Weakfish feed primarily on penaeid and mysid shrimps, anchovies, and clupeid fishes (menhaden, river herring, shad). juvenile weakfish feed mostly on mysid shrimp and anchovies. Older fish feed on clupeids or anchovies and other fishes, including butterfish, herrings, juvenile weakfish, Atlantic croaker, spot, scup, and killifishes. Invertebrates in the diet in addition to shrimp include squids, crabs, annelid worms and clams. Weakfish are important top carnivores in Chesapeake Bay where they consume high percentages of blue crabs and spot while cruising the edges of eelgrass habitats. Weakfish are also found in estuaries without eelgrass, such as in the bays and estuaries of South Carolina.
Habitat quality and quantity must be maintained in order to maintain healthy weakfish stocks. Threats to weakfish habitat include intense coastal development, dredging and filling activities, water quality degradation resulting from both point and non-point source discharges, intensive conversion of coastal wetlands to agricultural use, and changes in water discharge patterns resulting from withdrawal or flow regulation. It is generally assumed that weakfish habitats have undergone some degree of loss and degradation; however, few studies exist that quantify impacts in terms of the area of habitat lost or degraded.
Human activities have resulted in degradation of the quality of weakfish habitats. Polluted waters were suspected to contribute to "fin rot" diseases of weakfish. Weakfish have been observed with ulcerative mycosis, and cases of ulcers and blindness have been documented.
Poor water quality is evident in many of the northeast Atlantic coast estuaries. The New York Bight is one example of an area that -has received deposits of contaminated dredge material, sewage sludge, and industrial wastes. These deposits have contributed to oxygen depletion and the creation of large masses of anoxic waters during the summer months.
Habitat Considerations in the Fishery Management Plan
Weakfish are currently managed under Amendment #3 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Weakfish, which was adopted by the ASMFC in 1996. Participating states and jurisdictions include Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Potomac River Fisheries Commission, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.
Habitat Recommendations - The following habitat related recommendations are designated in Amendment 3 to the FMP:
Each state should implement protection for weakfish habitat within its jurisdiction in order to ensure the sustainability of that portion of the spawning stock that either is produced or resides within its boundaries. Such a program should inventory historical habitats, identify habitats presently used and specify those that are targeted for recovery, and impose or encourage measures to retain or increase the quantity and quality of weakfish essential habitats.
Preservation of Existing Habitat
1. States in which weakfish spawning occurs should notify in writing the appropriate federal and state regulatory agencies of the locations of habitats used by weakfish. Regulatory agencies should be advised of the types of threats to weakfish populations and recommend measures that should be employed to avoid, minimize, or eliminate any threat to current habitat quantity or quality
2. Where sufficient knowledge is available, States should seek to designate weakfish essential habitats for special protection. These locations should be designated High Quality Waters or Outstanding Resource Waters and should be accompanied by requirements of non-degradation of habitat quality, including minimization of non point source runoff, prevention of significant increases in contaminant loadings, and prevention of the introduction of any new categories of contaminants into the area (via restrictions on National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permits for facilities in those areas).
3. State fishery regulatory agencies should develop protocols and schedules for providing input on water quality regulations to the responsible agency, to ensure that water quality needs for weakfish are met.
4. State fishery regulatory agencies should develop protocols and schedules for providing input on Federal permits and licenses required by the Clean Water Act, Federal Power Act, and other appropriate vehicles, to ensure that weakfish habitats are protected.
5. Water quality criteria for weakfish spawning and nursery areas should be established or existing criteria should be upgraded to levels that are sufficient to ensure successful reproduction. Any action taken should be consistent with Federal Clean Water Act guidelines and specifications.
6. All State and Federal agencies responsible for reviewing impact statements and permit applications for projects or facilities proposed for weakfish spawning and nursery areas should ensure that those projects will have no or only minimal impact on local stocks. Any project that would result in the elimination of essential habitat should be avoided.
Avoidance of incompatible Activities
1. Federal and State fishery management agencies should take steps to limit the introduction of compounds that are known to be accumulated in weakfish tissues and that pose a threat to human health or weakfish health.
2. Each State should establish windows of compatibility for activities known or suspected to adversely affect weakfish life stages and their habitats, such as navigational dredging, bridge construction, and dredged material disposal; and notify the appropriate construction or regulatory agencies in writing.
3. Projects involving water withdrawal from spawning or nursery habitats (e.g. power plants, irrigation, water supply projects) should be scrutinized to ensure that adverse impacts resulting from larval/juvenile impingement, entrainment, and/or modification of flow and salinity regimes due to water removal will not adversely impact on weakfish stocks.
4. Each state which encompasses spawning areas within its jurisdiction should develop water use and flow regime guidelines that are protective of weakfish spawning and nursery areas and that will ensure the long-term health and sustainability of the stock. States would endeavor to ensure that proposed water diversions/withdrawals from rivers tributary to spawning and nursery habitats will not reduce or eliminate conditions favorable to weakfish use of these habitats.
1. The use of any fishing gear that is deemed by management agencies to have an unacceptable impact on weakfish habitat should be prohibited within appropriate essential habitats (e.g. trawling in spawning areas or primary nursery areas should be prohibited).
Habitat Restoration, Improvement. and Enhancement
1. Each State should survey existing literature and data to determine the historical extent of weakfish occurrence and use within its jurisdiction. An assessment should be conducted of those areas not presently used for which restoration is feasible.
2. Every effort should be made to eliminate existing contaminants from weakfish habitats where a documented adverse impact occurs.
3. States should work in concert with the USFWS, Divisions of Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance and Ecological Services, and NMFS, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management and Office of Habitat Conservation, to identify hydropower dams that pose significant threat to maintenance of appropriate freshwater flows to weakfish nursery and spawning areas and target them for appropriate recommendations during FERC relicensing.
1. Conduct hydrophonic studies to delineate weakfish spawning habitat locations and environmental preferences (temperature, depth, substrate, etc.) and enable quantification of spawning habitat.
2. Compile existing data on larval and juvenile distribution from existing databases in order to obtain preliminary indications of spawning and nursery habitat location and extent.
3. Document the impact of power plants and other water intakes on larval, post larval and juvenile weakfish mortality in spawning and nursery areas, and calculate the resultant impact to adult stock size.
4. Define restrictions necessary for implementation of projects in spawning and overwintering areas and develop policies on limiting development projects seasonally or spatially.
The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission was formed by an interstate compact in 1942 in order to manage interjurisdictional fisheries within Atlantic toast state waters (0 to 3 miles offshore). This is accomplished through the development and implementation of ASMFC fishery management plans. Representatives from state fishery management and other agencies participate in technical and policy level deliberations incorporating the best available data into plan development. Species which are common in both state and federal (3 to 200 miles offshore) waters are managed jointly with federal fishery management councils.
Further information about the ASMFC and weakfish management is available in the following documents, or contact the ASMFC office at the address listed below:
ASMFC Interstate Fisheries Management Program -- A guide to fisheries management planning process and bow you can become more involved. Available from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, DC.
Forging Knowledge into Change: A History of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission by Lisa M. Kilczewski. 1992. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, DC
Interstate Fisheries of the Atlantic Coast by the Advisory Committee of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1991. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, DC.
Fishery Management Plan for Weakfish. 1985. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Fisheries Management Report No. 7, Washington, DC.
An Assessment of the Status of the Atlantic Weakfish Stock, 1982 - 1988. 1991. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Special Report No. 21, Washington, DC.
Amendment #3 to the Interstate Fishery Management plan for Weakfish 1996. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Fisheries Management Report No. 27, Washington, DC.
Final Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Regulatory Impact Review for a Regulatory Amendment for the Atlantic Coast Weakfish Fishery in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) by WT. Hogarth, T Meyer, P Perra and R. H. Schaefer. 1995. U. S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.
Species Profiles. Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (MidAtlantic)--Weakfish. By Linda R Mercer. 1989. Biological Report 82 (11.109). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Ecology Group, Vicksburg, MS. Report TR EL-82-4.
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission,
1444 Eye Street, NW, Sixth Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: 202/289-6400
FAX: 202/289-6051
Email: 74107.2632@compuserve.com
This fact sheet is one in a series developed to communicate the need for integration of habitat and fisheries management, and help improve fish habitat protection. Prepared by Claire L. Miller and C. Dianne Stephan, with assistance from Frank Lockhart. and Tina L. Berger