Menhaden Management Board of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission votes to form a work group to revise a path for management changes going forward, in lieu of approving an existing plan document for public comment

In another delay for Chesapeake Bay menhaden conservation, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s (ASMFC) Menhaden Management Board deferred advancing an addendum to revise Chesapeake Bay menhaden management at their May 5 meeting. The Board had been widely expected to advance the addendum, which offers a range of possible management changes, into a public comment period, but instead elected to merely form a work group to revise the document further.

In essence, this doesn’t mean the addendum will not advance, but it does represent another delay in the face of mounting observational evidence that menhaden management in the Bay is in need of revisions.

Draft Addendum II is the ASMFC’s latest effort to address concerns about the impacts of the menhaden reduction fishing industry in Chesapeake Bay. The addendum was initiated after years of mounting concerns that large-scale reduction fishing is removing too many menhaden from the Bay, impacting other commercial harvesters and the Bay ecosystem itself. The initiation of this process is expected to be a step toward addressing one of the most persistent challenges in Atlantic menhaden management: deciding how many menhaden, and at what times of the year, should be harvested in the Chesapeake to mitigate environmental impacts as well as impacts to other fisheries.

The draft addendum focuses squarely on the Bay, which is the most important nursery area for Atlantic menhaden and the predators that depend on them, including striped bass and ospreys. And while the coastwide menhaden stock is not currently considered overfished, how and where menhaden are harvested in this critical region matters deeply for the ecosystem and species that depend on this forage fish coastwide.

What’s in Draft Addendum II?

Currently, the reduction industry’s Bay harvest is limited by a cap of approximately 112 million pounds each year. A cap of varying tonnage has been in place since 2006, first implemented by the Board as a precautionary measure to mitigate industry impacts on the Bay. Originally, the cap was meant as a stopgap measure while research was to be conducted to identify what the appropriate Bay harvest should be – to leave enough menhaden in the water to support their critical ecosystem role as forage for the Bay’s iconic predators. However, here we are, 20 years later, without answers to these same questions.

The draft addendum proposes two key changes designed to reduce the reduction fishery’s impact on the Bay:

• Lowering the Chesapeake Bay Reduction Fishing Cap: Draft Addendum II presents options to cut the cap by 10, 20, 30, or 50 percent. Any of these reductions (the Board also can opt to maintain status quo) would help improve forage availability for striped bass, bluefish, and other species that rely on menhaden, especially at a time when we’re trying to rebuild their populations.
• Adding Seasonal Quota Periods: The addendum also includes several options for quota periods, which would distribute the annual Bay harvest throughout the fishing season. Spreading harvest out over time could improve menhaden availability for predators like stripers and ospreys, as well as other commercial industries, at various times throughout the season, and better align fishing pressure with ecosystem needs.

The Board determined that some of the options in the draft document warrant further internal discussion to clarify their original intent and feasibility, especially options which address the potential of any overharvest or underharvest of quota within individual quota periods.

What Happens Next

The Menhaden Management Board will now form a work group to revisit the draft addendum document and clarify certain sections ahead of the ASMFC meeting this August. The Board will then debate the document once more, and will hopefully officially approve Draft Addendum II, initiating a public comment period in the fall where stakeholders can weigh in on preferred management changes.

Hopefully this delay offers a silver lining and results in improvements to the clarity and intent of Draft Addendum II, and the public will still be able to make their voices heard in the coming months. Reducing the Chesapeake Bay Reduction Fishing Cap and spreading harvest across the fishing season are practical solutions to real ecological challenges. But they will only become reality if there is clear public support.

This is not just a technical adjustment to Bay harvest. It’s a chance to improve striped bass recovery efforts, ensure better forage fish availability across the Chesapeake Bay, and push management further toward real ecosystem-based approaches.

For more information about the ASMFC’s anticipated addendum timeline, visit the Draft Addendum II webpage.

All images courtesy CosmoVision Media