E. D. Houde University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science

1. Adopting an Ecosystem Perspective for Fisheries Management: Fisheries Ecosystem Planning in Chesapeake Bay E. D. Houde University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science Chesapeake Biological Laboratory Presented at: Living Resources Subcommittee Meeting 25 March 2004 Annapolis, MD

2. A Fisheries Ecosystem Plan • An FEP is an umbrella document containing information on the structure and function of the ecosystem in which fishing activities occur, so that managers can be aware of the effects their decisions have on the ecosystem, and the effects other components of the ecosystem have on its fisheries. -NMFS (1999) Report to Congress

3. Chesapeake Bay Program “C2K” GOAL • C2K Commitments: • By 2005, Develop Multi-Species FMPs • By 2007, Implement Multi-Species FMPs & Ecosystem • Approaches to Management • Living Resources Protection and Restoration • “Restore, enhance and protect the finfish, • shellfish and other living resources, their • habitats and ecological relationships to • sustain all fisheries andprovide for a • balanced ecosystem.”

4. FEP Technical Advisory Panel (and FEP Authors) Margaret McBride (Chair) - NCBO Herb Austin - VIMS Vicki Blazer - USGS Chris Bonzek - VIMS Denise Breitburg - ANS Mary Christman - UMCP Ratana Chuenpagdee- VIMS Steve Jordan – MDNR/EPA Derek Orner - NCBO Ed Houde (Co-Chair) - CBL James Kirkley - VIMS Jonathan Kramer - MD Sea Grant Rom Lipcius - VIMS Tom Miller - CBL Dave Secor - CBL Alexi Sharov - MDNR Bob Wood – CBL/NCBO Lisa Kline - ASMFC NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office: http://noaa.chesapeakebay.net/fepworkshop/netfep.htm

5. Timeline of FEP-Related Activities • Multi-species Workshop,1998 • FEP Workshop, July 2000 • FEP Panel Appointed, November 2000 • Panel Initiates its Work, March 2001 • Writing, Drafting, Rewriting, April 2001-March 2003 • Technical Editing, April-August 2003 • Peer Review of FEP, September-November 2003 • ‘Unveiling’ of FEP, February 2004

6. FEP GoalThe FEP will serve as an umbrella document to support ecosystem-based fishery management approaches in Chesapeake Bay. It will recommend actions to implement such approaches for Bay-resident and coastal species. And, it will recommend research to enhance knowledge of the ecosystem and its fisheries in support of long-term management objectives.This is a strategic goal and framework for Ecosytem-Based Fisheries Management.

7. FEP Vision • Emphasizes the ecosystem as the entity that must be conserved to insure sustainable fisheries • Adheres to the “Code of Conduct” for sustainable fisheries (FAO). • Recognizes that precautionary, risk-averse management is required for sustainable and profitable fisheries. • Builds on present Chesapeake Bay FMPs. • Provides recommendations to managers to guide implementation.

8. FEP OBJECTIVES • Provide managers with a clear description and understanding of the fundamental physical, biological, and human/institutional structures of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem; • Provide guidance on how information on the Bay ecosystem should be considered in FMPs for resident species, and coastal species that are seasonal Bay inhabitants; • Formulate recommendations on how management options may be developed and implemented.

9. Is the FEP Practical and Feasible? • To the extent possible, the FEP is compatible with the broader goals of the Chesapeake Bay Program • The FEP is meant to be a practical plan that allows immediate implementation of some recommended actions and incremental implementation of those that require policy decisions or further research • It should serve as a stimulus and provide guidelines for further ecosystem-based management planning

10. Ecosystem Boundaries Conceptual Model of the Food Web Habitat Requirements Total Removals Characterize Uncertainty Indices of Ecosystem Health Long-term Monitoring Data Ecosystem Effects on Fisheries Social and Economic Drivers of the Fishing Industry FEP Elements

11. The FEP Emphasizes Fisheries--Their management, compatible with other human activities and without endangering the productive capacity of the Bay --With emphasis on Trophic Relationships and Habitats for Key Species that are fished or which support fished species (e.g., prey)

12. Trends in Shellfish: Oyster Harvest Oyster harvests in the Bay have declined due to overharvesting, disease, pollution and loss of oyster reef habitat. Two diseases, discovered in the 1950s and caused by the parasites MSX and Dermo, have been a major cause of the oyster’s decline during recent times. Maryland and Virginia Commercial Landings Recent Trends (millions of lbs.) Source: NMFS Fisheries Statistics of the U.S.; calendar year data. From CBP, Environmental Indicators page

13. Striped Bass Spawning Stock GOAL: The goal for a recovered fishery was a spawning stock biomass (SSB) equal to the average SSBs recorded during 1960 - 1972. STATUS: Successful management measures led to decreased harvest pressure. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission declared the stock restored as ofJanuary 1, 1995. Baywide Female Spawning Stock Biomass Fishing moratoria: MD & DE: 1985-1990 VA: 1989-1990 Source: Advisory and Summary Reports on the Status of the Atlantic Striped Bass, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Striped Bass Technical Committee From CBP Environmental Indicators page

14. Recruitment level of Atlantic menhaden (1959-2002) based on MDNR seine survey* 12 10 8 Recruitment Index 6 Mean: 1970-1988 4 2 Mean: 1992-2002 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 * Including Upper Bay, Potomac River, and Choptank River

15. Chesapeake Bay FEP A Strategic Plan More than a Framework, but less than a Tactical Plan Key Issues Boundaries Jurisdictions, Institutional Concerns Ecosystem Indicators and appropriate Reference Points Distinguishing EBFM from EBM Are they exclusive?

16. Boundary Issues Jurisdictional Issues Practicalities from FEP

17. Bay Residents: SCB Coastal Migrants: SCST Other Estuarine: SEST

18. Total Removals? Carrying Capacity? The Bay historically may have supported landings (removals) exceeding 300,000 tons. Was that level sustainable? Total removals must be estimated. These include commercial and recreational landings, and bycatches. What is the carrying capacity and level of landings that can be taken now? How should landings be allocated among trophic levels? Fishing Effort, Habitats, and Water Quality must be considered.

19. Current Management Process Striped Bass Bluefish Weakfish Menhaden from D. Orner, NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office

20. Future Management Process A need for multi-species models Striped Bass Bluefish Weakfish Spot/Croaker Menhaden Bay Anchovy Large Zooplankton from D. Orner, NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office

21. Subwebs for other managed species also are included in the FEP Subweb of striped bass:

22. Habitats and Water Quality • Adopt Holistic View: Habitats are linked; recognize transfers, migrations, ontogenetic shifts. • --open-water and structural habitats • EFH in the FEP. Emphasis should be on protection of habitat and water quality to sustain fisheries productivity • --protection and restoration • --precautionary approach is appropriate • --greater emphasis on spatial approaches to management • Develop explicit EFH guidelines (structural habitat and water quality) • --build on federal guidelines • --need to entrain agencies other than fisheries management agencies • --should supersede federal guidelines when consistent with FMP needs • --develop a habitat classification scheme for the Bay • --use historical baselines and trends to guide decisions

23. From the FEP p.157 Fig 6 p.179 Fig 1 Spatial management is an important component of ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management

24. Bristol Bay, AK With permission, National Fisher- Man, August 2003

25. C2K Requires Multispecies Management How can we optimize yields and benefits in a multispecies fishery?

26. Recommendations • Adopt Boundaries- - Watershed to Mouth & Beyond • Adapt EFH Regulations for the Bay • Conduct Fishery-Independent Surveys • Coordinate Regional Database Management • Recognize Key Predator-Prey Relationships • Develop Ecosystem-Level Reference Points • Set Thresholds for Total Removals, Including Bycatch

27. Recommendations (cont.) • Improve Estimates of Recreational Catch • Consider all User Groups- -Determine Patterns that Promote Optimum Use of Resources • Consider Co-Management; Involve Stakeholders • Address Socio-economic Issues, Goals & Objectives within an Ecosystem-based Approach • Consider the Risks of Management Options

28. Seek Endorsement and Adoption • Seek endorsement by the Chesapeake Bay Fisheries Steering Committee and the CBP Living Resources Subcommittee • Recommend near-term actions to be taken by the FMPC-WG • Request endorsement and adoption by the CBP • Develop a long-term plan for broader implementation • Coordinate planning and actions with Bay and regional jurisdictions (institutions and agencies)

29. How Management Might Differ • A New Ethic: Conserve and Protect the Essential Properties of the Ecosystem. Consider the Broader Consequences of Management Actions • Precautionary Approach - - “Do No Harm” • FMPC WG Guided by the FEP -- Initially address Menhaden, Blue Crab, Striped Bass, Oyster, Shads • Coordinated Regional Actions • Multispecies FMPs • Harness the Energy and Resources of the CBP • Fisheries Managers Can’t Implement a FEPAlone

30. Additional Thoughts • Recognize the externalities that affect ecosystems and fisheries production/performance • Develop management strategies or plans that preserve the resiliency of the Bay ecosystem • Review the historical performance of past single-species management plans before developing new EBFMPs • Develop EBFMPs that don’t close out options. Effective EBFMPs must be adaptive plans.

31. Pathways to Implementation and Application • Begin now. Consider precautionary management actions in single-species FMPs that favor long-term sustainability over short-term landings. Shift emphasis towards multi-species management. • Supplement single-species targets and reference points with ecosystem-level indicators and reference points that emphasize productivity, carrying capacity, critical habitats, predator-prey relationships, community structure, and biodiversity. • Protect endangered and threatened species. Be wary of introducing exotic species. • Minimize bycatches. • Increase emphasis on spatially-explicit management actions. • Involve stakeholders more fully in the management process.