As the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission considers several measures to strengthen Bay menhaden management, we offer specific guidance for submitting comments

As we explained in our Aug. 7 blog, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) has an opportunity this November to strengthen protections for Atlantic menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay through Draft Addendum II, which is now officially open for public comment until Oct. 9.

TRCP is recommending the following options that we believe will best achieve that goal:

• Make the amount of Bay harvest responsive to coastwide management on the Atlantic.
• Make the timing of harvest more precautionary to protect menhaden predators.
• Make those timing limits actually mean something, by not allowing overharvest in certain periods.
• Make the entire system adaptable, with regular intervals to review how management is working.

If you agree, simply click the link below to sign a petition to the ASMFC telling managers that you support precautionary management for menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay. (Note that this petition is separate from one you may have already signed asking for coastal menhaden reallocation; for better menhaden management, it is important to sign both.) More details on each option are provided below, listed by relevant sections in the addendum.

Addendum II includes options for fishery managers to reduce the Chesapeake Bay Reduction Fishery Cap, spread harvest pressure across the fishing season via quota periods, and create a process for revisiting the cap at required regular intervals – but not all of the proposed options provide the same level of protection. So the ASMFC can elect to do more than simply cut the Bay Cap. It can build a smarter, more precautionary management system that protects menhaden when and where they are most important, keeps Bay harvest limits tied to the coastwide quota, and adapts as science improves. The ASMFC is considering a range of possible options for various potential actions, including the option to make no new management changes.

Section 3.1 – Chesapeake Bay Reduction Fishery Cap Amount

TRCP’s preferred option: C1e – Link the Bay Cap to the TAC, with C2a limits

Don’t just lower the Bay Cap – fix the problem. The Chesapeake Bay Reduction Fishery Cap is currently set at 51,000 metric tons. But the coastwide total allowable catch (TAC) can change over time as managers respond to the best available science – just as it did last year, when the ASMFC reduced the TAC by 20%, with no corresponding reduction to the Bay Cap.

Because the Bay Cap remained the same, the Chesapeake Bay now accounts for a larger share of the total coastwide harvest than it did previously. If managers are reducing the amount of menhaden that can be harvested coastwide, it doesn’t make sense for the Bay Cap to remain disconnected from those decisions. And this decision could be especially important this November when further TAC cuts are possible.

Total allowable catch (TAC): The maximum amount of Atlantic menhaden that can be removed coastwide, from all East Coast states, each year

Option C1e in the addendum would link the Bay Cap to approximately 13.6% of the annual coastwide TAC, with Option C2a establishing an upper annual harvest limit of 51,000 metric tons. At the current TAC, that would mean a Bay Cap of approximately 25,500 metric tons – a 50% reduction from the current cap.

And Option C1e does more than provide an immediate catch reduction. It fixes the disconnect between Bay and coastwide management. If the TAC decreases in the future, the Bay Cap would automatically decrease as well, preventing the Bay from accounting for an increasingly large share of the remaining harvest.

Section 3.2.1 – Chesapeake Bay Cap Distribution – Quota Periods

TRCP’s preferred option: B2 – 25% / 25% / 50% quota periods

How many menhaden are harvested matters. But when those fish are harvested also matters. Option B2 in this section would divide the Bay Cap into three equal-length periods, with 25% of total harvest allowed during the first period, 25% during the second, and 50% during the third. This would reduce the amount of industrial harvest that can occur early in the season (May to early July), when menhaden are particularly important as forage for predators, especially breeding ospreys — which have seen historically low chick survival rates in recent years due to a lack of menhaden.

The goal here isn’t to eliminate the reduction fishery from operating early in the season. It is to reduce the risk of concentrated harvest during periods when predators may have high forage needs. This is the essence of precautionary management: while scientists are still working to understand exactly how menhaden harvest affects forage availability and predators in the Bay, and waiting on the necessary research results, managers should reduce the risk of concentrated harvest during potentially sensitive periods rather than wait for all of the answers.

Section 3.2.2 – Chesapeake Bay Cap Distribution – Quota Period Overages & Underages

TRCP’s preferred option: B – Quota period overage payback

If there are quota periods, they need to mean something. Dividing the Bay Cap into quota periods only works if those periods actually limit when menhaden can be harvested.

Imagine if the ASMFC establishes a 25% limit for the first harvest period, but allows the fishery to exceed that amount without consequence as long as it stays below the overall annual cap. The quota period would effectively become a voluntary pacing target – not a meaningful management measure.

Under Option B, if the fishery exceeds its allocation during the first or second quota period, that overage would be deducted from the same quota period in the following year. At the same time, unused quota from the first two periods could roll into the third period. This provides flexibility while preventing the fishery from simply concentrating more harvest during an early period.

The question is simple: Should quota periods be enforceable management measures or merely voluntary pacing targets? TRCP believes they need to be meaningful management controls.

Section 3.3 – Chesapeake Bay Reduction Fishery Cap Revisit Provision

TRCP’s preferred option: B – Three-year revisit provision

There is another important piece of this draft addendum: making sure the ASMFC will be required to regularly examine adjusting management as scientists learn more. There is still uncertainty about menhaden’s ecological role within the Chesapeake Bay and the appropriate level and timing of harvest. That’s a reason to take precautionary action now, but also to ensure management can change as scientists learn more.

Option B would require the ASMFC to revisit the Chesapeake Bay Reduction Fishery Cap every three years. A scheduled review would give managers a predictable opportunity to evaluate whether the cap is working and to incorporate new data. This is particularly important if the ASMFC adopts Option C1e to link the Bay Cap to the coastwide catch limit. Linking the Bay Cap to the coastwide TAC would create a new management approach, and the Board should have a formal opportunity to evaluate that approach and adjust as new science becomes available. That is adaptive, ecosystem-based fisheries management in practice.

Coastwide TAC and Chesapeake Bay Protections Should Work Together

In addition to Draft Addendum II, the ASMFC will vote in November to set the 2027–2028 coastwide menhaden catch limit. TRCP supports setting this limit (the TAC) at a level with a 50% or less probability of exceeding the fishing mortality target based on the needs of striped bass and other predators. This approach would reduce the risk of fishing mortality reaching levels that could undermine menhaden’s important role as forage for other species.

The coastwide TAC and Chesapeake Bay management should work together. If the best available science supports reducing coastwide harvest to protect the ecosystem, the Bay harvest should respond accordingly, rather than remain disconnected from the coastwide TAC. That is why TRCP supports the options above, which would link the Bay Cap to the coastwide TAC while maintaining an upper limit on Bay harvest.

Together, these measures would create a more consistent approach to menhaden management – one that uses the best available science to limit fishing mortality coastwide while ensuring Chesapeake Bay harvest reflects those same conservation goals.

If you provide personalized comments to the ASMFC, be sure you are specific in stating your preferred option for each section of the addendum.

Make Your Voice Heard

The public comment period that runs until Oct. 9 is your chance to tell the ASMFC what you want commissioners to do before they make their final decision. If you care about healthy Chesapeake Bay fisheries, abundant forage for predators like striped bass, and a strong future for recreational fishing, tell the ASMFC to choose the strongest available protections for menhaden.

If you’d prefer to submit personalized comments to the Commission in a different way, there are multiple options to get involved. Here are five ways to submit comments:

• In-person: Attend a hearing in-person or online (schedule)
• Online: Survey
• Online: Comment box on the Addendum II webpage (Please be specific on your preferred options for each section if you choose this option.)
• Email: comments@asmfc.org (Use the email subject line: Atlantic Menhaden Draft Addendum II)
• Mail: James Boyle, ASMFC, 1050 N. Highland Street, Suite 200-N, Arlington, VA 22201

Be sure that however you provide comment, you are specific in stating your preferred option for each section of the addendum.

Thank you for your support for menhaden conservation in the Chesapeake Bay and along the Atlantic coast. Your voice matters.

Banner image courtesy Joanna Steidle