Update on EBFM in the Chesapeake Bay

Quantitative Ecosystem Team Updates:

The Socioeconomics Quantitative Ecosystem Team (QET) is continuing to develop an inventory of existing work on valuation of fisheries in the Chesapeake Bay, a project on governance mapping, drafting the socioeconomic issue brief for striped bass, and the team’s stakeholder interview project.  The team will meet again on December 11^th to review all activities.  Members of the Foodwebs QET are drafting mini-proposals outlined in the work plan to identify staff, funding, and data needs for accomplishing tasks.   Their next team meeting is on December 3^rd to discuss next steps.  The Habitat Suitability QET is drafting mini-proposals to formally describe the logistics of completing work plan activities.  The next team meeting is on December 1^st to discuss next steps.  The Stock Assessment QET will be meeting in the coming weeks to review ecosystem-based reference points for Striped Bass and Menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay.       

Species Team Updates:

The Alosines Species Team met by conference call on November 6^th to review biological background and issue brief outlines and preliminary drafts that team members have been collaborating on. They will meet again in early December to discuss progress. The Blue Crab  Once completed, they will be distributed to the QETs for use in their work. The Menhaden Species Team Biological Background and Issues Briefs continue to be reviewed by the QETs for use in identifying performance measures and development of reference points. The Striped Bass Editorial Oversight Committee is moving forward with a prospectus for pursuing formal publication of the Striped Bass Biological Background and Issues Briefs. Species Team is currently submitting briefs and MD Sea Grant is editing them as they are submitted.

Perspective:

This month’s perspective, submitted by Jake Kritzer provides an overview of the multi-scale ecology and multi-scale management of shad and river herring.  Jake Kritzer is a Senior Scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund.  He is also a member of the Alosines Species Team for EBFM in the Chesapeake Bay.  

Multi-scale ecology and multi-scale management of shad and river herring

Jake Kritzer, Ph.D., Environmental Defense Fund

Complex life histories of humble fishes

The four species in the genus Alosa that collectively comprise North America’s shad and river herring complex (American shad A. sapidissima, hickory shad A.mediocris, alewife A. pseudoharengus, and blueback herring A. aestivalis) are, at least in terms of appearance, fairly humble fish.   The alosines have a basic fusiform shape with a small triangular dorsal fin, and simple lateral markings.   Adding to their modest nature, many value these species less for their own sake and more for their role as forage, feeding larger predators such as striped bass, bluefish, tuna, marine mammals and birds of prey (Buckel et al. 1999; Gessner 2002; Brown and Terhune 2003; Walter et al. 2003).

However, despite their seemingly humble nature, these species exhibit one of the most complex life cycles of all fishes, especially in terms of spatial complexity (Table 1).   All four species spawn in freshwater ecosystems between late winter and early summer, depending upon latitude.   There, the eggs hatch and the young spend their first few months of life.   Later in the year, young-of-year move downstream to estuarine waters to overwinter.   During their second year of life, fish move further offshore and begin a marine phase that lasts until maturation and first spawning.    The marine phase might be restricted to nearshore waters not far from the natal river for hickory shad, but can extend to the Gulf of Maine and Bay of Fundy for the other species.   When fish move upstream to spawn, most return to their natal river, but some will stray to other spawning runs, with most demographically meaningful straying likely occurring among tributaries to a mainstem river or estuary (Palkovacs et al. 2008).

Table 1.  Major aspects of the life histories of alosines, the geographic feature in which each occurs, the spatial scale of that geographic feature, and the nature of fisheries management at that spatial scale within the Chesapeake watershed.

Partially matching this multi-scale life history complexity, management of alosine fisheries also takes place at multiple scales.   Individual states implement harvest regulations on their own or as part of the multi-state Potomac River Fisheries Commission (PRFC).   State and PRFC management matches the scale over which fish from different populations share young-of-year overwintering grounds, and over which most straying likely occurs.   States and PRFC are, however, bound by minimum management measures set by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC).   Management by ASMFC covers much of the nearshore range of these species, and part of the spatial extent of the ocean phase as well.  

Missing scales of management

Ocean-wide management

Co-management of alosine stocks during the ocean phase by the U.S. and Canada is a missing element of governance.   In fact, the name “river herring” is somewhat misleading, as these species spend the majority of their lives in saltwater.   However, before co-management with Canada becomes a plausible management direction, the federal fishery management councils within the U.S. must first tackle the challenge of managing these species within the EEZ.   Some of the marine phase takes place within state waters, but fish are quite common further offshore as well (Neves 1981; Fig. 1).   If management of alosines within the U.S. EEZ comes into being, a door might open for co-management by the two nations.   The federal government is already engaged in joint assessment and management agreements with Canada for species including Atlantic herring, Atlantic cod and yellowtail flounder.

Two of the three Atlantic councils administer fishery management plans (FMPs) for small-mesh fisheries targeting schooling pelagic species that have ecological and behavioral similarities with alosines at sea.  The New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) administers the Atlantic herring FMP, and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) administers the squid, mackerel and butterfish FMP.  Both fisheries are known to impact alosines (Harrington et al. 2005).  Recent estimates of river herring bycatch in the Atlantic herring fishery suggests added mortality of 1 million to 2 million pounds of fish, a value that approximates the directed harvest in recent years (Cieri et al. 2008).

There are promising indications that the federal councils are set to address the challenge of managing alosines in the EEZ.  In May 2009, ASMFC submitted a letter to the Secretary of Commerce requesting emergency funds to increase monitoring of river herring bycatch in federal fisheries and to support other bycatch mitigation measures, and MAFMC seconded this request in a June 2009 letter.  Earlier, NEFMC had voted to develop bycatch mitigation measures in Amendment 4 to the Atlantic herring FMP, although this has been deferred to Amendment 5 as the Council focuses on new legal requirements.

Community-based management

At the other end of the spectrum, management of alosines at the finest spatial scale is generally lacking along the eastern seaboard, including within the Chesapeake watershed.   Alosine populations are defined by spawning sites in rivers, streams, lakes and ponds.   For the most part, fisheries harvesting these populations are not managed at a comparable scale.   Instead, management of these local populations is nested within larger state and inter-state bodies.   For some of the larger freshwater systems (e.g., the Susquehanna or Potomac), state or inter-state management does match the appropriate geographic and ecological scale.   But smaller systems that fall within a single municipality (i.e., a town or county) are rarely managed at that scale of governance.

This is not the case everywhere.   In Maine, state law establishes minimum conservation measures that all alewife fisheries must meet, but then allows local towns to take management authority pending approval of a suitable harvest plan.   River herring fisheries are comparatively low in dollar value, and the costs of monitoring, management and enforcement in such small and numerous fisheries are not economical for a large entity like the state.   But these responsibilities are well suited to local municipalities in fisheries of this scale.   Furthermore, ceding authority to municipalities allows use and management to be tailored to local community goals and characteristics.

Some towns choose to prohibit fishing, either due to concern for the status of the run or because they prioritize other uses of river herring, such as passive recreation or forage.   However, other towns do allow harvest, continuing a tradition that precedes European settlement of North America.   In many cases, a town will contract harvest rights to a single individual or family, often one that has been running the harvest for many years.   This is the case on the Nequasset River in Woolwich, Maine (Fig. 2).   The transfer of management to the local level creates a much stronger sense of stewardship and a greater investment (in terms of identity as much as dollars) in sustainability.

Lessons for Chesapeake Bay

These missing scales of management point to important actions needed within the Chesapeake watershed.  Firstly, all stakeholders, including scientists, managers, fishermen and other users, need to be heard in the federal management arena, making it clear that ocean impacts are a concern and need to be better monitored at the very least, and likely mitigated as well.  For species with such complex multi-scale life histories, participation in management must extend beyond the local and regional scales.

But there are new directions that can be taken directly by managers within the watershed.  Amendment 2 to the ASMFC Shad and River Herring FMP implemented a default closure of all directed river herring fisheries along the coast, but with an opportunity to petition for continued harvest in a river if sustainability can be demonstrated.  Stakeholders in Maine, particularly the newly formed Alewife Harvesters of Maine, lobbied hard for this provision.  And many fisheries in the state should be well positioned to demonstrate sustainability because management is already tailored to each unique local situation, and the local managers and harvesters are invested in sustainability. 

An important but underappreciated concept in ecosystem-based management is that of “socio-ecological systems”, wherein management not only addresses the full range of anthropogenic impacts, but also human needs (McClanahan et al. 2009).  This goes beyond simply providing food and revenue to communities, and aims to build management structures that mesh with unique social and cultural elements.  Maine’s approach to management of river herring fisheries moves in the direction of building robust socio-ecological systems, and is an approach that states in the Chesapeake watershed might want to replicate.  There are already numerous community-driven management and outreach efforts underway within the Chesapeake region beyond the realm of fisheries management driven by vibrant and active watershed associations, riverkeepers, and other organizations on the Mattaponi, Pamunkey, Patuxent, Nanticoke, and other rivers.  These groups demonstrate the potential of community-based environmental management, which can be paired with community-based fisheries management.  Indeed, this direction might present the best opportunity for Chesapeake fisheries to either remain open or one day re-open under ASMFC’s Amendment 2.   

Of course, adopting a stronger community-based management system will not guarantee sustainability.  Maine has many other advantages promoting healthy shad and river herring populations, including lower population density and associated watershed impacts.  Also, Maine’s rivers are in closer proximity to the major oceanic habitats for alosines during the non-spawning seasons (Fig. 1B), which likely minimizes the strain of migration and allows better physiological condition during the spawning run.  Despite these advantages, several of Maine’s river herring populations are declining, while others remain stable but at low abundance compared to recent historical maxima (Brown 2008). 

Furthermore, Massachusetts has a system similar to Maine in which much management authority is ceded to municipalities, yet Massachusetts was the first state to close its river herring fisheries.  This might reflect poor coordination of fisheries management with other aspects of local environmental management, or it might reflect impacts outside the watershed and beyond local or state control, underscoring the need to address impacts at all relevant ecological and management scales.  Still, adopting a stronger community-based management approach that attends to both environmental and socio-economic needs particular to a given locality, and allows and encourages local attention to and responsibility for those needs, is a critical step in building the multi-scale management system needed to ensure sustainability while maintaining ecosystem functions of alosine populations.   

References

Brown M (2008) Status of river herring in Maine. pp 132-167 in: ASMFC (2008) 2008 River Herring Stock Status Report. Washington, D.C., 662pp.

Brown, C.L. and J.M. Terhune. 2003. Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina, Linnaeus) abundance and fish migration in the Saint John Harbour. Northeastern Naturalist 10: 131-140.

Buckel, J.A., D.O. Conover, N.D. Steinberg, and K.A. McKown (1999) Impact of age-0 bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) predation on age-0 fishes in the Hudson River estuary: evidence for density-dependent loss of juvenile striped bass (Morone saxatilis). Fishery Bulletin 56: 275-287.

Cieri M, Nelson G, Armstrong M (2008) Estimates of river herring bycatch in the directed Atlantic herring fishery.  pp 245-662 in: ASMFC (2008) 2008 River Herring Stock Status Report. Washington, D.C., 662pp.

Gessner, D (2002) Return of the Osprey. New York: Ballantine Books.

Harrington JM, Myers RA, Rosenberg AA (2005) Wasted Resources: Bycatch and Discards in U. S. Fisheries. Report prepared by MRAG America, Inc. for Oceana.

Neves RJ (1981) Offshore distribution of alewife, Alosa pseudoharengus, and blueback herring, Alosa aestivalis, along the Atantic coast. Fishery Bulletin 79: 471-485.

Palkovacs EP, Dion KB, Post DM, Cacone A (2008) Independent evolutionary origins of landlocked alewife populations and rapid parallel evolution of phenotypic traits. Molecular Ecology 17: 582–597

Walter, J.F., A.S. Overton, K.H. Ferry, and M.E. Mather (2003) Atlantic coast feeding habits of striped bass: a synthesis supporting a coast-wide understanding of trophic biology. Fisheries Management and Ecology 10: 349-360.

McClanahan TR, Castilla JC, White AT, Defeo O (2009) Healing small-scale fisheries by facilitating complex socio-ecological systems. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 19: 33–47.