ML070170114

VYNPS - SEIS Web Reference - Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Shad & River Herring

ML070170114
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date:	04/30/1999
From:	Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
jmm7
References
Download: ML070170114 (87)

Text

Fishery Management Report No. 35of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Shad & River HerringApril 1999 Fishery Management Report No. 35 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries CommissionAmendment 1 to the Interstate FisheryManagement Plan for Shad & River Herring April 1999 Amendment 1 to the Interstate FisheryManagement Plan for Shad & River HerringApproved by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries CommissionOctober 1998This document was prepared in cooperation with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

=s Shad &River Herring Management Board, Shad & River Herring Technical Committee, Shad & River Herring Plan Development Team, Shad & River Herring Stock Assessment Subcommittee and the Shad & River Herring Advisory Panel.A report of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission pursuant to U.S. Department of Commerce,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award Nos. NA87 FGO 025 and NA97 FGO 0034.

AcknowledgementsThis fishery management plan was developed through the concerted and dedicated efforts ofseveral individuals, groups, and agencies. The Plan Writer was Carol Markham (Maryland Dept.

of Natural Resources). The Plan Development Team was chaired by John Field, ASMFC, and consisted of Kathy Hattala (New York Dept. of Environmental Conservation), Kurt Finsterbusch (University of Maryland), Bonnie Martin (South Carolina Dept. of Natural Resources), Najih Lazar (ASWC), and Richard St. Pierre (USFWS).Dr. Victor Creeco (Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection) was the chair of theShad and River Herring Stock Assessment Subcommittee and principal author of the stock

assessment of American shad from selected Atlantic coast rivers, without which this plan could not have been initiated. Dr. Crecco was assisted by members of the Shad and River Herring Technical Committee (chaired by Kathy Hattala, New York Dept. of Environmental Conservation (1994-1995) and Dale Weinrich, Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources (1996-1997)). The Plan Development Team is extremely grateful to these individuals for their contributions, expertise, and support during the development of this document.The Management Board was chaired by Roy Miller (Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources andEnvironmental Control) in 1995-1996, and Byron Young (New York Dept. of Environmental Conservation) in 1997-1998. While receiving the various drafts of the amendment, the Management Board consulted frequently with the Advisory Panel (chaired by Patricia Jackson, Virginia).The Plan Development Team is grateful to the many individuals who made contributions to the preparation of Amendment 1. These include the professional and technical staff of the various state and federal agencies involved in the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission who provided the editorial comments and suggestions to the Team. In addition, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission extends its gratitude to the numerous dedicated conservationists, commercial fishermen, and anglers who have written letters and attended public hearings to express their opinions and ideas about Amendment 1.

vTable of ContentsACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.........................................................................................................ivTABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................................................vLIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................................ixLIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................................................xSECTION 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................1 1.1_ BACKGROUND INFORMATION........................................................................................11.1.1 BENEFITS AND IMPLEMENTATION........................................................................2 1.1.1.1 Social and Economic Benefit......................................................................................2 1.1.1.2 Ecological Benefits.....................................................................................................

21.2 DESCRIPTION

OF THE RESOURCE.............................................................................41.2.1AMERICAN SHAD AND HICKORY SHAD LIFE HISTORIES...............................4 1.2.2ALEWIFE AND BLUEBACK HERRING LIFE HISTORIES....................................5 1.2.3AMERICAN SHAD STOCK ASSESSMENT

SUMMARY

.......................................51.3HABITAT CONSIDERATIONS........................................................................................81.

3.1 DESCRIPTION

OF HABITAT ....................................................................................81.3.1.1 Spawning Habitat.......................................................................................................

8 1.3.1.2 Nursery Habitat .........................................................................................................9 1.3.1.3. Adult Resident Habitat and Migratory Routes........................................................101.3.2PRESENT STATUS OF HABITATS AND IMPACTS ON FISHERIES.................11 1.3.2.1 Quantity....................................................................................................................11 1.3.2.2 Quality......................................................................................................................12 1.3.2.3 Loss and Degradation..............................................................................................12 1.3.2.4 Current Threats .......................................................................................................14 1.3.2.5 Effect on the Ability to Harvest and Market.............................................................141.3.3IDENTIFICATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ESSENTIAL HABITATS..............1

41.4DESCRIPTION

OF THE FISHERIES............................................................................181.4.1COMMERCIAL FISHERY........................................................................................18 A. American Shad .............................................................................................................18B. Hickory Shad ................................................................................................................19 C. Alewife and Blueback Herring .....................................................................................191.4.2RECREATIONAL FISHERY.....................................................................................20A. American Shad ............................................................................................................20B. Hickory Shad............................................................................................................... 21C. Alewife and Blueback Herring....................................................................................211.4.3SUBSISTENCE FISHING..........................................................................................21 1.4.4 NON-CONSUMPTIVE FACTORS............................................................................21 1.4.5INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER FISHERIES, SPECIES, AND OTHER USERS..211.5TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION FOR NEW AMENDMENT................................28SECTION 2.AMENDMENT vi1 GOAL AND OBJECTIVES....................................................................................................302.1AMENDMENT I GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.............................................................302.2MANAGEMENT UNIT.....................................................................................................312.3DEFINITION OF OVERFISHING .................................................................................31SECTION 3.ENHANCEMENT AND MONITORING PROGRAM SPECIFICATIONS 323.1ASSESSING ANNUAL RECRUITMENT..................................................................... 323.1.1 CALCULATION OF JUVENILE ABUNDANCE INDICES.......................................32 3.1.2 REQUIREMENTS FOR MEASUREMENT AND USE OF JUVENILE INDICES ...32 3.1.3 JUVENILE ABUNDANCE INDEX SURVEYS REQUIRED.....................................333.2ASSESSING ADULT POPULATION SIZE AND DISTRIBUTION...........................333.2.1ADULT STOCK RESTORATION GOALS FOR AMERICAN SHAD......................33 3.2.2ADULT SPAWNING STOCK SURVEYS REQUIRED..............................................34 3.2.3MIXED STOCK CONTRIBUTION SURVEYS REQUIRED......................................343.3ANNUAL FISHING MORTALITY TARGET AND MEASUREMENT....................343.3.1 DEFINITION..................................................................................................................343.3.2 BIOLOGICAL REFERENCE POINTS.........................................................................35 3.3.3 REQUIREMENTS FOR FISHING MORTALITY RATE CALCULATION...............353.4

SUMMARY

OF MONITORING PROGRAMS.............................................................363.4.1 BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION...................................................................................36 3.4.2 SOCIAL INFORMATION.............................................................................................37 3.4.3 ECONOMIC INFORMATION......................................................................................373.5 STOCKING/RESTORATION..........................................................................................373.5.1 STOCKING TECHNIQUES..........................................................................................38 3.5.1.1 Culture and Marking................................................................................................39 3.5.1.2 Trap and Transport..................................................................................................39 3.5.1.3 Evaluation................................................................................................................403.6 BYCATCH MONITORING AND REDUCTION..........................................................40SECTION 4. MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION...................................504.1 COMMERCIAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT MEASURES....................................504.2RECREATIONAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT MEASURES................................514.3 HABITAT CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION.................................................514.3.1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FISH HABITAT CONSERVATION /RESTORATIONS.........................................................................................................................56 vii4.4ALTERNATIVE STATE MANAGEMENT REGIMES...............................................574.4.1 MANAGEMENT PROGRAM EQUIVALENCY.........................................................574.5ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT..........................................................................................584.5.1 GENERAL PROCEDURES..........................................................................................58 4.5.1.1 Procedural Steps......................................................................................................584.5.2 CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH CHANGE MAY OCCUR..............................594.6EMERGENCY PROCEDURES.......................................................................................594.7MANAGEMENT INSTITUTIONS..................................................................................594.7.1ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION AND ISFMP POLICYBOARD..........................................................................................................................

594.7.2SHAD AND RIVER HERRING MANAGEMENT BOARD.......................................60 4.7.3PLAN REVIEW TEAM.................................................................................................60 4.7.4TECHNICAL COMMITTEE.........................................................................................60 4.7.5STOCK ASSESSMENT SUBCOMMITTEE................................................................60 4.7.6ADVISORY PANEL.....................................................................................................61 4.7.7SECRETARIES OF COMMERCE AND THE INTERIOR..........................................614.8 DE MINIMIS STATUS.....................................................................................................614.9RECOMMENDATIONS TO SECRETARIES...............................................................61SECTION 5.COMPLIANCE...................................................................................................635.1MANDATORY COMPLIANCE ITEMS FOR STATES...............................................635.1.1REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS.............................................................................63 5.1.1.2 Monitoring Requirements.........................................................................................635.1.2 COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE........................................................................................63 5.1.2.1 Transition to Amendment 1......................................................................................63 5.1.2.2 Reports On Compliance Submitted to PRT Annually...............................................645.2PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING COMPLIANCE..............................................64SECTION 6. MANAGEMENT RESEARCH NEEDS..........................................................696.1STOCK ASSESSMENT AND POPULATION DYNAMICS........................................696.2HABITAT INFORMATION NEEDS/RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURERESEARCH.................................................................................................................................696.3STOCKING........................................................................................................................706.4SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH NEEDS.......................................................70 viiiSECTION 7.LITERATURE CITED.......................................................................................72 ix List of TablesTable 1.Estimates of F 30 (overfishing mortality rate) for selected stocks of American shad......31Table 2.Summary of mandatory fishery independent monitoring programs for American shad42 Table 3.Mandatory fishery-dependent monitoring programs for American shad.......................44 Table 4.Summary of recommended fishery-dependent monitoring programs for adult Riverherring and Hickory shad..............................................................................................................46Table 5.Summary of recommended fishery-independent monitoring programs for adult Riverherring and Hickory shad..............................................................................................................47Table 6.Summary of recommended monitoring programs for juvenile River herring and Hickoryshad49Table 7.Commercial regulations for American shad - Inriver fisheries (as of Jan. 97) .............52Table 8.Commercial regulations on American shad - Ocean fisheries (as of Jan. 97)................54 Table 9.Recreational fishing regulations for American shad - Inriver (as of Jan. 97)................55 Table 10. Format required for Annual State Report......................................................................66 Table 11. Format for state fishing/recovery plans.........................................................................68 x List of FiguresFigure 1. New England Estuarine and Embayment Distribution of Adult shad...........................15Figure 2. Mid-Atlantic Estuarine and Embayment Distribution of Adult shad...........................16 Figure 3. South Atlantic Estuarine and Embayment Distribution of Adult shad.........................17 1Section 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background InformationHistorically, American shad (Alosa sapidissima), hickory shad (Alosa mediocris), alewife (Alosapseudoharengus), and blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) (collectively termed alosines) wereextremely important resource species and supported very large commercial fisheries along the east coast of both the United States and Canada. Coastwide landings of American shad at the turn of the century were approximately 50 million pounds. However, by 1980, they decreased dramatically to 3.8 million pounds, and by 1993, only 1.5 million pounds were landed. Total landings of river herring varied from 40-65 million pounds from 1950-1970; however, they declined steadily thereafter to less than 12 million pounds by 1980, and by 1996, only 1.4 million pounds were landed. These large declines in commercial landings were perceived as an indication that management action would be required to restore alosine stocks to their former levels of abundance. Therefore, the members of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) recommended the preparation of a cooperative Interstate Fishery Management Plan (Plan) for American Shad and River Herrings. This recommendation was adopted by the Commission in 1981 and the Plan was completed in 1985. A supplement to this American Shad and River Herrings Plan was approved by the Commission in 1988. The document included reports prepared by the Shad and River Herring Stock Assessment

Subcommittee, and summaries of material presented at an 1987 Anadromous Alosine Research Workshop. The 1988 supplement also documented changes to management recommendations and research priorities based on new research findings. The 1985 Plan specified recommended management measures, focused primarily on regulating exploitation and enhancing stock

restoration efforts. At the time of the 1985 Plan, implementation of its recommendation was at the discretion of the individual states and the Commission did not have direct regulatory authority over individual state fisheries.The decline in stocks continued, and in 1994, the Plan Review Team and the Management Boarddetermined that the original 1985 Plan was no longer adequate for protecting or restoring the remaining shad and river herring stocks. These declines are possibly due to overharvest by inriver and ocean-intercept fisheries, excessive striped bass predation (Savoy and Crecco 1995), biotic and abiotic environmental changes, and loss of essential spawning and nursery habitat due to water quality degradation and blockages of spawning reaches by dams and other impediments.

Although improvement has been seen in a few stocks, alosine populations remain severely

depressed.Depressed stock conditions are unlikely to change under current management because the 1985Plan does not require any specific management approach or monitoring programs within the management unit, asking only that states provide annual summaries of restoration efforts and ocean fishery activity. Moreover, the Plan does not provide for adaptive management in light of stock growth or declines. In addition, to address the problem of voluntary Plan implementation, the 1993 Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (ACFCMA) requires states to 2adopt management guidelines in approved Commission Plans. In the event that a state does notimplement a Commission fishery management plan, the law provides that the U.S. Secretary of Commerce may impose a moratorium in that state

=s particular fishery. Under this law, all Commission Plans must include specific measurable standards to improve the status of the stocks and to determine if states comply with these standards. Amendment 1 to the 1985 Plan will provide management guidance, ad required by ACFCMA, by setting specific standards to be met by the states.Because of the scarcity of reliable data on river herring and hickory shad populations, theASMFC member states decided to focus Amendment I on American shad regulations and monitoring programs. However, the amendment requires states to initiate fishery-dependent monitoring programs for river herring and hickory shad while recommending continuance of current fishery-independent programs for these species. As data become available for river herring and hickory shad fisheries, states will develop a better understanding of stock status and may take regulatory action at a future date.1.1.1 Benefits and Implementation 1.1.1.1 Social and Economic Benefits Restoring populations of American shad would be beneficial because such management actionwould generally increase the total use and non-use (existence) values of this species in the ASMFC member states and the nation. Increases in consumptive use values could include future allowances for commercial and recreational fishing harvest, while improvements in non-consumptive use values might include increases in ecotourism activities related to the restored American shad stocks (e.g. bird and fish watching at fish passage facilities). Population restoration of American shad might also stabilize harvesting and related commercial markets.1.1.1.2 Ecological Benefits American shad play an important ecological role in freshwater, estuarine and marine food chainsby preying on some species and serving as prey for others, at all life stages (Facey et al. 1986, MacKenzie et al. 1985, Weiss-Glanz et al.1986). They also historically played a significant role, especially in South Atlantic coastal river systems where the percentage of spawning is low andmany of the shad die after spawning, in transferring nutrients from the marine system into the freshwater interior rivers. Durbin et al. (1979) conducted a study of the effects of postpawing alewife on freshwater ecosystems. It was suggested that the potential influence of alosine migrations on the energetics and nutrient dynamics of Atlantic coastal ecosystems is equivalent to effects documented for similar systems in the Pacific Northwest. In additional, Garman (1992) studied the fate and potential significance of postpawning anadromous fish carcasses in the James River, Virginia. He hypothesized that, before recent declines in abundance, the annual 3input of marine-derived biomass via alosine migrations was an important episodic sources ofenergy and nutrients for the non-tidal James River.As predators, American shad consume a variety of invertebrate organism at each life stage andmay consume small fishes as adults. As larvae in the Holyoke pool of the Connecticut River, shad consume copepods, midge larvae, midge pupae and small crustaceans (Facey and Van Den Avyle 1986). In the same location, juveniles consumed crustacean zooplankton, midge larvae and pupae, caddis fly larvae and adult insects. Juvenile shad appear to be opportunistic feeders

that consume most of their food from the water column, rather than from the bottom or surface.

In some areas, however, juvenile shad were clearly selective choosing water fleas (Daphnia) and bosmids over other available prey (MacKenzie et al. 1985). Juveniles in Virginia consumed amphipods, aquatic insects and terrestrial insects. Studies of juveniles from Florida, Georgia and North Carolina also documented insects and crustaceans as primary food items in the diet of juveniles. Once they leave coastal rivers and estuaries and move to the nearshore Atlantic Ocean, the diet of juvenile American shad shifts to include small fishes. Juveniles off the North Carolina coast consumed striped anchovy (Anchoa hepsetus). In the St. Johns River, Florida, juveniles ate bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchelli) and mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis). As adults offshore, shad are believed to be primarily planktivorous, consuming mainly copepods, mysid shrimp, and other zooplanktors. The stomachs of 41 adults caught off the North Carolina coast all contained zooplankton, including amphipods, copepods, isopods, crustaceans and larval

decapods. There were fish remains in 39 of the stomachs, however, which indicates that shad are not exclusively planktivorous. Adult shad in the Bay of Fundy consumed copepods and mysid shrimp. It is still unclear whether adult shad eat during the spawning migration. Chittenden (1976) found that the stomachs of most shad captured in freshwater were empty, but a few did contain mayflies. This finding of little or no food is similar to the reports of Hildebrand and Schroeder (1928) and Moss (1946) that adult shad take little or no food while ascending rivers.

Chittenden

=s (1976) observations suggest, however, that adult shad would opportunistically feedin freshwater if suitably large planktonic forms were readily available.As prey, American shad are important for other species that are themselves importantcommercially, recreationally and ecologically. American eels prey on American shad eggs, larvae, and juveniles in freshwater, and striped bass consume juveniles (Facey et al. 1986, Mansueti and Kolb 1953, Walburg and Nichols 1967). Savoy and Crecco (1995) also suggest a direct linkage between increased striped bass predation and the recent dramatic drop in American shad and blueback herring abundance in the Connecticut River. Predation on juvenile American shad by bluefish and other large predators (e.g. weakfish, striped bass) is also perhaps a minor factor that could be delaying the recovery of American shad stocks in the Chesapeake Bay (Klauda et al. 199 1). Once in the ocean, as a schooling species with no dorsal or opercular spines, American shad are undoubtedly preyed upon by many species including sharks, tunas, king mackerel (Scomberomorus regales) and seals and porpoises (Melvin et. al. 1985, Weiss-Glanz et al. 1986).

41.2 Description of the Resource A comprehensive description of the Atlantic coast stocks of American shad, hickory shad,alewife, and blueback herring can be found in the 1985 Interstate Fishery Management Plan (Plan) for American Shad and River Herrings. This provides the basic information necessary to understand how anadromous alosines relate to their essential habitats, and the significance of the commercial and recreational alosine fisheries to the economy and culture of the Atlantic coast.1.2.1American Shad and Hickory Shad Life Histories American shad and hickory shad are anadromous fish that spend the majority of their life at sea and only enter freshwater in the spring to spawn. Shad are river-specific; that is, each major river along the Atlantic coast appears to have a discrete spawning stock. Shad spawning can occur as early as November in southern states and as late as July in New England and Canada. Depending on geographical location, shad may spawn once and die, or they may survive to make several spawning runs per lifetime. Repeat spawning in hickory shad runs varies among river systems.

In American shad, differences occur as shad move north. Most American shad native to rivers south of Cape Fear, North Carolina, die after spawning (Carscadden and Leggett 1975), however, in rivers to the north, the incidence of repeat spawning increases with latitude.Spawning American shad broadcast a large quantity of eggs into the water column. Fertilizedeggs are carried by river currents and hatch within 2-17 days depending on water temperatures (Jones, et. al. 1978). Larvae drift with the current until they mature into juveniles. Juveniles remain in nursery areas, feeding on copepods, other crustaceans, zooplanktors, chironomid larvae, and aquatic and terrestrial insects (Levesque and Reed 1972, Marcy and Jacobson 1976).

By late fall, most juvenile shad migrate to nearshore coastal wintering areas. Immature shad will remain in the ocean for three to six years before returning to spawn. Little information is available on the life history of subadult and adult American shad and hickory shad after they emigrate to the sea.Both American shad and hickory shad are schooling species and highly migratory. Afterspawning, iteroparous adult American shad return to the sea and migrate northward to their summer feeding grounds in the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy (Dadswell et. al. 1987). Here, they primarily feed on zooplankton and small fishes. Overwintering (winter habitat) occurs along the mid-Atlantic coast, particularly from Maryland to North Carolina. Hickory shad historically spawned in rivers and tributaries along the Atlantic coast from the Bay of Fundy, Canada to the Tomoka River, Florida. Current presence in waters north of Chesapeake Bay is uncertain; however, recent spawning has been documented as far north as the Connecticut River. Studies suggest that hickory shad migrate in a pattern similar to the coastal migrations of American shad, feeding on small fish, squid, fish eggs, small crabs, and pelagic crustaceans.

51.2.2 Alewife and Blueback Herring Life HistoriesAlewife and blueback herring (collectively termed river herring because fishermen do notdistinguish between them) are relatively small anadromous fish, spending their adult lives at sea,returning only to freshwater areas to spawn in the spring. Alewife spawn in rivers and tributaries

from northeastern Newfoundland to South Carolina, but are most abundant in the mid-Atlantic and northeastern states. Blueback herring spawn from Nova Scotia to northern Florida, but are most numerous in warmer waters from Chesapeake Bay south. The onset of spring spawning is related to temperature and thus, varies with latitude. Alewife spawn in a diversity of habitats that includes large rivers, small streams, ponds, and large takes over a range of substrates such as gravel, sand, detritus, and submerged vegetation. Blueback herring prefer to spawn in swift flowing sections of freshwater tributaries, channel sections of fresh and brackish tidal rivers, and Atlantic coastal ponds over gravel and clean sand substrates, especially in northeastern rivers where alewife and blueback herring co-exist. In southeastern rivers where alewife are few, blueback herring exhibit more of a variety in their spawning sites including shallow areas covered with vegetation, in rice fields, in swampy areas, and in small tributaries upstream from the tidal zone. Mature river herring broadcast their eggs and sperm simultaneously into the water column and over the substrate. Immediately after spawning, adults migrate rapidly downstream.

Larvae begin to feed externally three to five days after hatching, and transform gradually into the juvenile stage. Juveniles remain in freshwater nursery areas in spring and early summer, feeding mainly on zooplankton. As water temperatures decline in the fall, juvenile move downstream to more saline waters, eventually to the sea. Little information is available on the life history of subadult and adult river herring after they emigrate to the sea as young-of-year or yearlings, and before they mature and return to spawn.

1.2.3 American Shad Stock Assessment Summary Given the pronounced drop in coastwide shad landings and stock abundance from severalAtlantic coast rivers after 1990, a revised stock assessment was clearly warranted to determine the root cause(s) of the recent shad declines along the Atlantic coast. A coast-wide assessment was prepared by Vic Crecco, chair of the Shad Stock Assessment Subcommittee (SAS). This report chose an overfishing definition (F 30), reviewed stock trends, and estimated current andhistoric coastal (Fc) and inriver (F R) fishing mortality rates on American shad from seven riversystems located from Maine rivers in the north to the Altamaha River, Georgia to the south.Trends in total mortality (Z), which include fishing and natural mortalities, were examined for the Pawcatuck River, Rhode Island, upper Chesapeake Bay, Maryland, and tributaries of Albemarle Sound, North Carolina.. Crecco also examined trends in commercial landings for

Maine rivers, as well as for North Carolina rivers (Albemarle Sound, Neuse, Panilico, and Cape Fear Rivers) and South Carolina rivers (Waccamaw-Pee Dee, Savannah, Edisto, and Santee Rivers). Crecco examined trends in relative adult stock abundance in the Merrimack River Massachusetts-New Hampshire based on fishway counts and for Virginia rivers based on commercial catch-per-effort (CPUE). A Thompson-Bell yield-per-recruit (YPR) was used to determine the overfishing definition (F

30) for each shad stock.

6Based on historic trends in commercial CPUE, fishway counts and population estimates, there isevidence of recent and persistent stock declines in three of 12 rivers or systems [Hudson, New York (1992-1996), York and Rappahannock, Virginia (1980-1993)]. Stock declines were evident in the Pawcatuck River, Rhode Island from 1992 to 1994, but stock abundance has risen sharply in the Pawcatuck during 1995 and 1996. Similarly, although shad stock abundance in the Connecticut River has declined to low levels from 1992 to 1995, stock size has risen steadily in 1996 and 1997 to levels approaching the long-term average (800,000 fish). Inriver commercial landings in the Edisto River, South Carolina have declined since 1990, but shad stock abundance in the Edisto exhibited no apparent decline from 1989 to 1996. This strongly suggests that the drop in commercial landings in the Edisto River was largely due to a reduction in fishing effort

and not stock abundance. There was no evidence of recent stock declines for seven additional stocks including the Merrimack River, Massachusetts-New Hampshire, the Delaware River, Delaware-New Jersey, Upper Bay tributaries, Maryland, James River, Virginia, Santee River, South Carolina, and the Altamaha River, Georgia. Presumed stock declines inferred solely from declining trends in inriver commercial landings were evident for seven additional stocks including the Neuse, Pamlico, and Cape Fear Rivers, North Carolina, Waccamaw-Pee Dee and

Savannah Rivers, South Carolina, for tributaries of Albemarle Sound, North Carolina, as well as

for rivers in the state of Maine.Recent (1992-96) coastal fishing mortality rates (FC) on seven shad stocks (Connecticut,Hudson, Delaware, Upper Bay, Edisto, Santee, and Altamaha Rivers) were relatively low (FC range: 0.02 to 0.24) and well below our overfishing definitions (F 30 range: 0.39 - 0.48). Average(1992-1996) total fishing mortality rates (FT), which include inriver and coastal fishing mortalities, were below overfishing definitions (F

30) for all seven shad stocks for which inriver(FR) and coastal (FC) fishing rates could be estimated. The recent (1994-1997) average FT level (FT=0.45) on Edisto River shad was only slightly below the overfishing definition (F 30 = 0.48)for southern stocks, indicating that fishing mortality rates on Edisto River shad should be monitored closely over the next few years. Based on the analysis, there is no evidence thus far that the coastal intercept fishery has had an adverse impact on these seven shad stocks. In the absence of population data, it is impossible to quantify the impact the ocean-intercept fisheries have on other shad stocks. Like all mixed stock fisheries, small stocks can be at risk under these

conditions.There are no direct fishing mortality estimates on the Pawcatuck River stock. However, totalmortality rates declined by about 50% in the Pawcatuck River between 1989 and 1992. Since total mortality estimates have not risen recently and fishing mortality rates on the Pawcatuck shad stock have not increased, the recent (1992-1994) stock decline in the Pawcatuck may not be due to overfishing. The ability to rule out overfishing for the Pawcatuck River stock is tempered somewhat by the fact that no stock origin studies have ever been conducted on the coastal Rhode Island shad landings which, in theory, could easily have overharvested the small (stock size:

1000-2000 fish) Pawcatuck stock. Moreover, total mortality estimates are not available for the Pawcatuck stock after 1992. In order to address potential overfishing in the Pawcatuck, it would be beneficial to estimate fishing mortality directly and to conduct a tagging study on the Rhode Island coastal fishery to determine stock origin.

7Relative exploitation rates from the coastal intercept fishery on the York, Rappahannock andJames Rivers, Virginia exhibited no apparent trends from 1980 to 1993. This suggests that the

coastal intercept harvest was not related to the shad declines in the York and Rappahannock Rivers. The ability to directly link the coastal intercept fishery to stock declines for these rivers is somewhat limited by the lack of CPUE data in 1994, 1995 and 1996, and by the fact that relative exploitation rates cannot be directly compared to our overfishing definition (F 30). Inaddition, it is difficult to assess recent trends in relative exploitation on the Rappahannock orJames Rivers origin shad because shad fishing effort declined markedly in these rivers by 1986 as compared to the 1980-85 period. There are no direct estimates of current fishing mortality for seven rivers that have exhibited a recent decline in shad landings. These include shad stocks from Maine rivers, Albemarle Sound, Neuse, Pamlico, and Cape Fear Rivers (North Carolina),

and the Waccamaw-Pee Dee and Savannah River (South Carolina). Given the limitations in using landings trends to infer stock trends, there is no way to adequately link inriver and coastal fisheries with presumed stock declines in these rivers. Total mortality estimates have been

estimated for shad tributaries of Albemarle Sound between 1980 and 1995. Since these total mortality estimates have varied without trend, there is no indication here that a rise in fishing mortality was related to the decline in commercial shad landings in Albemarle Sound. Shad stock sizes in the Hudson River have declined rather steadily from 1988 to 1996, although current average fishing mortality (mean F = 0.33) was still below the estimated overfishing

definition(F 30 = 0.39). As a result, the Hudson River stock is considered to be fully exploited.

Shad stock abundance in the Merrimack River (Massachusetts-New Hampshire), Santee River (South Carolina), Altamaha River (Georgia), Delaware River (Delaware-New Jersey) and upper Bay Rivers (Maryland) have either recently risen to high levels (i.e., Santee, Altamaha and upper Bay stocks) or have remained stable (i.e., Delaware and Merrimack stocks). Current (mean 1992-96) fishing mortality rates (FT) on these stocks have either approached our overfishing

definition (F 30 level) (i.e., as in the case of the Altamaha and Edisto stocks), or were far belowthe estimated F 30 level (i.e., as in the case of the upper Bay, Delaware River and Santee Riverstocks). No fishing mortality estimates are available for the Merrimack River stock.There is no evidence of recent (1990-96) recruitment failure for any of the eight shad stocks(Maine Rivers, Pawcatuck, Connecticut, Hudson, Delaware, Upper Bay tributaries, Altamaha, and Virginia Rivers) for which a continuous time series of juvenile indices could be examined.

This assessment estimated fishing mortality rates for nine shad stocks and general trends in abundance for 13 American shad stocks. The total range of extant American shad populations includes additional populations in small river systems, as well as depleted populations in larger river systems that are actively being restored. Also, much historical habitat is currently void of American shad and may be targeted for restoration in the future. For these stocks, individual states have targeted minimal fishing mortality to protect small stocks and rebuild others. This assessment cannot quantitatively address these systems because of limited biological data, as

well as associated uncertainties in stock composition of small populations in fisheries.

8 1.3 Habitat Considerations1.3.1Description of HabitatHabitats used by all Atlantic anadromous alosine species include spawning sites in coastal riversand nursery areas, which include primarily freshwater portions of the rivers and their associated bays and estuaries. In addition to the spawning and nursery areas, adult habitats also consist of the nearshore ocean. Adult American shad have also been found to migrate up to 60 miles off the coast (Neves and Depres 1979). These habitats are distributed along the East Coast from the Bay of Fundy, Canada to Florida. Use of these habitats by migratory alosines may increase or diminish as the size of the population changes.1.3.1.1 Spawning Habitat A. American Shad American shad spawn in rivers throughout the species' range. Historically, the species probablyspawned in virtually every accessible river and tributary along the Atlantic coast. However, blockage of spawning rivers by dams and other impediments and degradation of water quality and physical habitat in spawning reaches have severely depleted suitable American shad spawning habitat. American shad migrate from the sea to coastal rivers in the spring and begin spawning when water temperatures range from about 16-19 0C. Water temperature is the primaryfactor that triggers spawning, but photoperiod, current velocity, and turbidity also exert some influence (Leggett and Whitney 1972). American shad can spawn as early as mid-November in Florida to as late as July in some Canadian rivers (MacKensie et al.1985). If possible, adults migrate far upstream and typically spawn in freshwater areas dominated by extensive flats and over sandy or rocky shallows, including the mouths of larger tributary streams (Davis et al.

1970). However, substrate type should be relatively unimportant to successful American shad spawning since the eggs are broadcast into the water column over a range of substrates and most are carried downstream (Mansueti and Kolb 1953; MacKenzie et al. 1985). Only in areas where the eggs settled to the bottom, were covered by silt or sand and then smothered would substrate become a critical habitat problem.

2. Hickory ShadHistorically, hickory shad spawned in rivers and tributaries along the Atlantic coast from the Bayof Fundy, Canada to the Tomoka River, Florida, but now the species

= range is uncertain. Themost detailed information available on spawning habitat comes from Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia. Hickory shad are anadromous and begin to ascend freshwater streams for spawning in early spring. Spawning can occur between March and early June, depending on latitude, over a water temperature range of 12 to 22 oC (Rulifson et. al. 1982). Adult hickory shadappear to spawn in a diversity of physical habitats ranging from backwaters and sloughs, to tributaries, to mainstem portions of large rivers in tidal and non-tidal freshwater areas. Major 9hickory shad spawning sites in Maryland and Virginia occur in mainstem rivers at the fall line,but some appear to spawn further downstream and also in tributaries. In North Carolina, the freshwater reaches of coastal rivers are the major spawning sites for hickory shad. However, shad have been found in the Neuse River in flooded swamps and sloughs off the channels of tributary creeks and not in the mainstem river. In Georgia, hickory shad apparently spawn in

flooded areas off the channel of the Altamaha River, and not in the mainstem of the upper

reaches.3. Alewife and Blueback Herring Alewife spawn in rivers and tributaries from northeastern Newfoundland to South Carolina, butare most abundant in the mid-Atlantic and northeastern states. At the extreme southern end of their range, alewife begin spawning in late February, but they may not commence spawning until late April or early June at the northern end of their range (Loesch 1987). Blueback herring spawn in rivers and tributaries from Nova Scotia to northern Florida, but are most numerous in warmer waters from Chesapeake Bay south (Scott and Scott 1988). At the extreme southern end of their range, spawning can begin in December or January, but may not commence until June near the northern end of their range and can continue through August (Marcy 1976). Alewife spawn in a diversity of physical habitats that includes large rivers, small streams, ponds, and large lakes over a range of substrates such as gravel, sand detritus, and submerged vegetation. Blueback herring spawning sites include swift flowing sections of freshwater tributaries, channel sections of fresh and brackish tidal rivers, and Atlantic coastal ponds over gravel and clean sand substrates, especially in northeastern rivers where alewife and blueback herring coexist. In southeastern rivers where alewife are few, blueback herring exhibit more of a variety in their spawning sites including: shallow areas covered with vegetation, rice fields, swampy areas, and in small tributaries upstream from the tidal zone. Upstream distribution of adults is a function of habitat suitability and hydrologic conditions permitting access to these sites (Loesch and Lund 1977).

Immediately after spawning, surviving adult river herring migrate rapidly downstream

.1.3.1.2Nursery Habitat

1. American ShadNursery habitats for American shad are downstream of spawning grounds because juvenilesbegin to disperse downstream upon transformation from the larval stage (Chittenden 1969).

These nursery habitats usually occur in deep pools away from the shoreline in non-tidal areas, although juveniles occasionally move into shallow water areas (Chittenden 1969). In the Chesapeake Bay system, juveniles are usually found in tidal freshwater reaches of the spawning rivers. Juvenile American shad leave the nursery areas by late fall and may remain in the estuaries and nearshore ocean until they reach one year of age. As young-of-year, they presumably join other schools of young shad in the ocean, where they grow and develop for three to six years before returning to their natal streams to spawn. Subadults appear to migrate farther offshore than sexually mature adults (Neves and Depres 1979).

10 2. Hickory ShadDocumentation of hickory shad nursery area is difficult because capture of juveniles is rare. Studies suggest that most juveniles leave freshwater and brackish areas in early summer and migrate to estuarine nursery areas (Mansueti 1962). Other studies completed in North Carolina suggest that juveniles migrate directly to saline areas; they do not use the oligohaline portion of the estuary as a nursery area (Pate 1972).

3. Alewife and Blueback HerringNursery habitats for alewife and blueback herring occur in non-tidal and tidal freshwater andsemi-brackish areas during spring and early summer, moving upstream during periods of decreased flows and encroachment of saline waters. Juvenile alewife and blueback herring begin migrating from their nursery areas as water temperatures decline in the fall. However, in some instances, it appears that a high abundance of juveniles may trigger very early (e.g., summer) emigration of large numbers of small juveniles from the nursery area (Richkus 1975).1.3.1.3Adult Resident Habitat and Migratory Routes

1. American ShadAmerican shad are currently distributed from the Bay of Fundy, Canada southward to the St.Johns River in Florida, and move along the Atlantic coast between summer feeding grounds in the Gulf of Maine and coastal wintering areas mainly off the mid-Atlantic states (Leggett and Whitney 1972). Adult shad migrate to spawning grounds beginning as early as mid-November for southern stocks (Florida) and as late as July in some Canadian rivers (MacKenzie et al. 1985).

Those fish return to rivers north of Cape Hatteras usually begin migration later in the spring and follow a route farther seaward into the Mid-Atlantic Bight where water temperatures have risen sufficiently. After spawning is complete, adult and immature shad migrate out of tributaries and rivers and proceed northward along the Atlantic coast to their summer feeding grounds in the Gulf of Maine, Bay of Fundy, the St Lawrence estuary and along the Labrador coast (Dadswell et al. 1987), and remain in that vicinity throughout the summer into fall. In mid-fall , a southward migration begins, with overwintering occurring off Florida, in the mid-Atlanticarea, and in the Scotian Shelf-Gulf of Maine (Leggett and Whitney 1972; Dadswell et al. 1987)

.B. Hickory ShadHickory shad are currently distributed from the Connecticut River to the Tomoka River, Florida.The distribution and movements of adult hickory shad at sea are essentially unknown. Adultshave been captured along the southern New England coast during summer and fall. These observations suggest that hickory shad may migrate northward from the mid-Atlantic and southeast Atlantic spawning rivers in a pattern that is similar to the coastal migrations of

American shad (Dadswell et al. 1987).

11 3. Alewife and Blueback HerringAlewife are currently distributed from northeastern Newfoundland to South Carolina, but aremost numerous in the mid-Atlantic and northeastern states. Blueback herring are distributed from Nova Scotia to northern Florida, and are most abundant from the Chesapeake Bay south.

However, little information is available concerning the distribution and movements of adult and subadult alewife and blueback herring once they emigrate to the sea. Various studies have determined that alewife and blueback herring are capable of migrating long distances (over 2000 km) in ocean waters of the Atlantic seaboard, and that patterns of river herring migration may be similar to those of American shad (ASMFC 1988).1.3.2Present Status of Habitats and Impacts on FisheriesFisheries management measures cannot successfully sustain anadromous alosine stocks if thequantity and quality of habitat required by all the species are not available. Harvest of fisheries resources is a major factor impacting population status and dynamics, and is subject to control and manipulation. However, without adequate habitat quantity and quality, the population cannot exist.Concerns that the declines in anadromous alosine populations are related to habitat degradationhas been alluded to in past evaluation of these stocks (Mansueti and Kolb 1953; Walburg and Nichols 1967). However, it has never been possible to rigorously quantify the magnitude of this

contribution.

1.3.2.1 Quantity Little information exists which quantifies the area of existing or historical anadromous alosinehabitat. No attempt has been made to quantify the existing area of alosine habitat coastwide.Nursery areas for anadromous alosines consist of areas in which the larvae, postlarvae, andjuveniles grow and mature. These areas include the spawning grounds and areas through which the larvae and postlarvae drift after hatching, as well as the portions of rivers and adjacent estuaries in which they feed, grow, and mature. Juvenile alosines which leave the coastal bays and estuaries prior to reaching adulthood also use the nearshore Atlantic Ocean as a nursery area.Sub-adult and adult alosine habitat consists of the nearshore Atlantic Ocean from Bay of Fundy,Canada to Florida, inlets which provide access to coastal bays and estuaries, and riverine habitat upstream to the spawning grounds. American shad generally tend to move north to the Gulf of Maine during the summer, and southward and inshore off the Mid-Atlantic states in the winter.

Hickory shad are believed to follow a similar migratory pattern to that of American shad. Adult alewife and blueback herring may be capable of migrating along the Atlantic coast, but little information exists on their movements and distribution after they migrate to the ocean. Coastal habitats for adult American shad are depicted in Figures 1-3.

121.3.2.2QualityThe quality of alosine habitat has been compromised largely by impacts resulting from humanactivities. Impacts that may have contributed to declines in alosine populations include blockage of spawning rivers by dams and other impediments, pollution of spawning rivers resulting in reduced oxygen levels, elevated levels of heavy metals and toxic contaminants, low pH from acidic deposition, siltation of spawning areas, turbidity, changes in temperature and flow from hydropower or flood control discharge regimes, thermal pollution, and power plant entrainment and impingement. Specific examples of the effects of these impacts on alosine populations can be found in Walburg and Nichols (1967), Mansueti and Kolb (1953), DBFWMC (1981), Johnson (1982), Dadswell et al. (1983), and Gordon and Longhurst (1979).Recently, stock displacement or enhanced mortality among alosine stocks due to colder thannormal ocean water temperatures has also been suggested to explain the recent declines of these stocks. A decline in ocean temperature since 1990 along the Atlantic coast during winter and spring months could have caused a disruption of normal spring migration patterns, resulting in a direct mortality of alosines, or a displacement and/or poor food availability (Jesien et al. 1992).1.3.2.3Loss and Degradation It is generally assumed that anadromous alosine habitat has undergone some degree of loss ordegradation; however, few studies exist which quantify impacts in terms of the area of habitat lost or degraded.

1. Water QualityLoss due to water quality degradation is evident in the northeast Atlantic coast estuaries. In mostalosine spawning and nursery areas, water quality declines have been gradual and poorly defined, and it has not been possible to link those declines to changes in alosine stock size. In cases where there have been drastic declines in alosine stocks, such as in the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland, water quality problems have been implicated, but not conclusively demonstrated to have been the single or major causative factor.Toxic materials such as heavy metals and various organic chemicals (e.g., insecticides, solvents,herbicides) occur in anadromous alosine spawning and nursery areas and are believed to be potentially harmful to aquatic life, but have been poorly monitored. Similarly, pollution or nearlyall estuarine waters along the east coast has certainly increased over the last 30 years, due to industrial, residential, and agricultural development on the watersheds. The general degradation of water quality is a coast-wide problem, although the levels of sewage nutrients discharge into coastal waters during the past 30 years have decreased. This decrease in organic enrichment would benefit water quality conditions; however, it probably would not result in a reduction of other types of pollutant discharges into these waters such as heavy metals and organic

compounds.

13American shad eggs and larvae have been found to be sensitive to various levels of acid andaluminum (Klauda 1994). American shad stocks that spawn in poorly buffered Eastern Shore Maryland rivers, like the Nanticoke and Choptank, were found to be vulnerable to storm-induced, toxic pulses of low pH and elevated aluminum, and may therefore recover at a much slower rate than well-buffered Western Shore stocks, even if all other anthropogenic stressors are removed. (Klauda 1994) hypothesized that whenever the abundance of an acid-sensitive fish species like American shad is as low as most Maryland stocks are today and annual climatic conditions are less than favorable for good reproduction, even infrequent and temporary episodes of critical or lethal pH and aluminum exposures in the spawning and nursery areas could contribute to significant reductions in egg or larval survival and thereby slow stock recovery

.Riverine areas serve as routes for migration and as spawning and nursery habitats for mostalosine stocks. However, alterations of flow caused by human water use activities in these areas can have serious effects on alosine populations. Facilities using water for cooling purposes (e.g.,

power plants) or large volume water withdrawals (e.g., drinking water, pumped storage hydroelectric projects, irrigation, snow-making) may deny access to spawning and nursery areas and alter habitat characteristics such as flow (due to peaking operation and imposition of low flows) and water quality (due to impoundment effects such as decreases in dissolved oxygen and changes in temperature)

.2. Water UseImpacts of impingement, expressed as reductions in year-class abundance, were calculated forHudson River American shad in 1974 and 1975. The maximum estimated reductions in year-class abundance were 0.04 in 1974 and 0.06 in 1975. These extremely low impingement impacts on American shad are related to the brief period that this species was concentrated in the vicinity of major power plants during their emigration from the estuary in autumn. It was determined that impingement is probably not a biologically important source of mortality except, perhaps, when added to other, more serious stresses (Barnthouse and Van Winkle 1988).A large tidal hydroelectric project is currently in use at the mouth of the Annapolis river inportions in the Bay of Fundy, Canada. Dadswell et al. (1983) have found that this particular basin and other surrounding waters are used extensively by American shad from all runs along the east coast of the United States as foraging areas during summer months. Since these are tidal hydroelectric projects, fish may move into and out our the impacted areas with each tidal cycle.

Thus, although these turbines cause a relatively small percentage mortality with one passage, the cumulative mortality resulting from repeated tidal passage into and out of these impacted areas

would result in substantial mortalities (Scarratt and Dadswell 1983).In addition, hydroelectric darns exist in several states that only allow one-way passage or nopassage of spawning adult American shad. Dams with no passage of fish have substantiallyreduced the amount of spawning habitat available to spawning American shad and have likely contributed to long-term stock declines. It is also assumed that with darns that allow only one-way passage that most, if not all, adult fish transported above dams are unsuccessful at passingthrough the hydroelectric stations during outmigration and hence, are lost as returning adults.

14 1.3.2.4 Current ThreatsPotentially serious threats stem from the continued alteration of freshwater flows and dischargepatterns to spawning and nursery habitats in rivers and estuaries. Other threats in the form of increased mortality resulting from the placement of additional intakes in spawning and nursery areas will occur, although the impacts may be mitigated to some degree through the use of the best available intake screen technology. Placement of jetties, which disrupt current flow patterns into and out of coastal estuaries and lagoons, may also affect migration patterns or habitat use.1.3.2.5 Effect on the Ability to Harvest and Market Impacts which result in mortality over and above that which would occur naturally at any lifestage will reduce the size of the population and thereby ultimately reduce the size of the allowable harvest. Such impacts include pollution of spawning rivers, siltation of spawning areas, blockages or other changes in spawning grounds, and overharvesting which could reduce or eliminate reproductive success. Impacts that may not increase mortality, but reduce or eliminate marketability include non-lethal limits of contaminants that may render fish unfit for human consumption, or changes in water quality that may reduce fish condition or appearance to a point where they are unmarketable

.1.3.3 Identification and Distribution of Essential Habitats All habitats described above are deemed essential to the sustainability of the four anadromousalosine stocks as they presently exist. These habitats are depicted in Figures 1-3. Due to decreasing stock sizes of all alosine species along the Atlantic coast, it is difficult to determine if adequate spawning, nursery, and adult habitat presently exist to sustain the stocks at recovered levels.Without a specific goal for restoration of historic or potential alosine habitat, it is difficult todescribe all "essential habitat" along the Atlantic coast. States may wish to identify areas targeted for restoration as essential habitat. These additional areas may be necessary for achieving historic alosine production levels in those jurisdictions.

15Figure 1. New England Estuarine and Embayment Distribution of Adult American shad.

16Figure 2. Mid-Atlantic Estuarine and Embayment Distribution of Adult American shad.

17Figure 3. South Atlantic Estuarine and Embayment Distribution of Adult American 18 shad.1.4 Description of the Fisheries 19American shad, hickory shad, and river herring formerly supported important commercial andrecreational fisheries along the entire Atlantic coast. However, all of these fisheries have declined dramatically. Two types of fisheries exploit spring spawning migrations of anadromous alosines:

inriver and coastal ocean. Inriver fisheries have been traditionally accepted because they only exploit their stock of origin, whereas ocean fisheries begin earlier in the winter and exploit mixed stocks of different river origins. Although inriver fisheries have traditionally dominated the catch, coastal ocean fisheries have increased in recent years.Catch statistics for both ocean and inriver alosine fisheries on the Atlantic Coast are compiled bythe National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and state agencies for both commercial and recreational fisheries. Information provided below is based on the state reports which are on file with the Commission.1.4.1 Commercial Fishery A. American Shad Historically, American shad supported very large commercial fisheries along the East Coast ofboth the United States and Canada. Even though total commercial landings (coastal ocean and inriver) of American shad have shown long-term declines, coastal ocean landings of American shad have increased more than four-fold since 1978. In 1980, coastal ocean landings equaled approximately 623,000 pounds; however, by 1989, this number had peaked to 2.1 million pounds and, in 1996, landings were 1.1 million pounds. Ocean harvest contributed about 11 % of total East Coast landings in 1978; however, this contribution increased yearly to approximately 67%

by 1996.The commercial coastal ocean fishery for American shad is primarily gillnet, with exceptionsoccurring in Rhode Island (floating trap), Connecticut (bottom otter trawl), and New York (pound net and trawl).Even though only a few states dominate ocean harvest of American shad, the ocean fishery forthe species is an important component of the fishery for most East Coast states. From 1980-1996, the majority of commercial coastal harvest was taken in Virginia (24 percent), Delaware (19 percent), New Jersey (18 percent), South Carolina (14 percent) and Maryland (nine percent).

All other fisheries were below five percent of the total ocean landings. American shad ocean harvest for states north of New Jersey is from a bycatch fishery, and from New Jersey south, the fishery is directed for American shad. Florida, Georgia, Potomac River Fisheries Commission (PRFC) - District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut do not have coastal ocean

fisheries.American shad landings from commercial inriver fisheries have been steadily decreasing, basedon individual state landings records. In 1980, three million pounds of American shad were 20landed; however, by 1996, this figure had dropped to approximately 594,000 pounds. From1980-1996, the majority of commercial American shad harvest from inriver fisheries was taken in New York (33 percent), North Carolina (17 percent), Connecticut (15 percent) and Virginia (14 percent). Recently, dramatic declines in landings have occurred even in some of these river systems. In the Connecticut River, 1.6 million American shad were estimated to have returned to the river in 1992. However, as of 1995, this number had dropped dramatically to 304,500.

Maine and New Hampshire runs continue to remain at low levels of abundance, and Delaware

personnel reported the 1996 adult population estimate of 792,000 fish was well below the 1992 high. American shad inriver fisheries are not allowed in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, and a moratorium on the capture and sale of American shad has existed in Maryland since 1980, and in Virginia, since 1994.However, some river systems appear to show signs of improvement. Maryland's stocks stillremain at historic lows, although the upper Chesapeake Bay 1995 shad run of 336,000 fish represented a 159% increase from the 1994 estimate of 129,500. In addition, Virginia reported excellent runs in the Pamunkey River. Personnel in South Carolina reported the 1995 run of shad up the Santee-Cooper system had greatly improved over the last few years. In general, shad stocks remain depressed with some improvement occurring in rivers such as the Altamaha in Georgia and the Savannah River between South Carolina and Georgia.B. Hickory shad Atlantic coast (Maryland to Florida) hickory shad commercial landings (reported by state) arepoorly monitored. This is primarily because of mixing with American shad upon landing, poorly understood geographic ranges, and a lack of monitored recreational fishing areas. Report ed commercial hickory shad landings have ranged from a high of 349,980 pounds in 1961 to 95,282 in 1980 to a recent low of 24,114 in 1991. The most recent and complete hickory shad data are for North Carolina, which has historically dominated the commercial fishery. From 1980-1996, North Carolina has accounted for the majority (88%) of the total hickory shad landed from New Jersey to Florida. Hickory shad landings of 125,871 pounds in 1996 were up dramatically from the 11,389 pounds landed in 1990. Hickory shad numbers have been increasing in the last three to four years in the upper Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, and increases have been evident in both North Carolina and Georgia commercial landings data. However, the lack of accurate commercial harvest data makes it difficult to ascertain the actual status of the stocks.C. Alewife and Blueback Herring Total commercial landings of river herring from the Gulf of Maine to Florida were approximately11 million pounds in 1980. However, total landings decreased to 5.7 million pounds in 1988, and in 1996, they only equaled 1.4 million pounds. Overall, river herring landings data may not accurately represent stock abundance. The many factors influencing river herring-reported commercial landings may explain the large degree of variability observed in data on a state-by-

state basis.

21River herring commercial inriver landings have been steadily decreasing from a high of 14.1million pounds in 1985 to 1.4 million pounds in 1996. During the past decade, North Carolina, Virginia, and Maine have accounted for approximately 81 percent of coastwide landings. Inriver herring fisheries are nonexistent in New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Georgia.Reliable data on river herring fisheries in the Mid-Atlantic region and Southeast are scarce. Evenso, it has been reported that river herring landings from North Carolina increased from approximately 6.2 million pounds in 1980 to 11.6 million pounds in 1985. However, commercial landings have been rapidly decreasing since then, and by 1996 only 529,474 pounds were harvested. A similar situation was seen in Virginia where landings increased to a high of

18.4 million pounds in 1983 and continued to decrease to 141,008 pounds in 1996. Since 1976, Maine has been the major contributor to New England river herring landings. However, these numbers have shown a major downward trend since the early 1970's, and in the past four years, Maine landings have declined dramatically in those rivers which traditionally contributed the majority of the catch.The river herring fishery was exclusively an U.S. inshore fishery until the late 1960s whendistant-water fleets began fishing for river herring off the Mid-Atlantic coast. Commercial ocean harvest of river herring occurs as bycatch in other fisheries of various gear types: gillnet, bottom otter trawl, and menhaden purse seine. From 1980-1996, the majority of the river herring harvest (inriver and ocean) was taken in North Carolina (65 percent), Maine (14 percent), and Virginia (12 percent). Four Atlantic coast states do not have river herring fisheries in ocean waters:

Delaware, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Apparently, Georgia is the only state that has no river herring fishery, either inriver or ocean.1.4.2 Recreational Fishery It is not known if recreational fisheries exist in the coastal ocean for any of the four alosinespecies in any state along the Atlantic coast.A. American Shad Recreational fisheries for all alosines are poorly documented. It is widely known that Americanshad do support fairly intensive recreational fisheries in many East Coast rivers; however, very little harvest and catch/effort data exists.Fisheries occur in the Delaware River (New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania) and in theConnecticut River, where recreational harvest accounts for approximately more than 10% of total American shad landings. The magnitude of recreational harvest in these two rivers is probably suggestive of the impact of fairly intensive recreational fisheries on American shad stocks.

Recreational fishing is growing in popularity in many other river systems along the coast

.A June 1995 angler utilization and economic survey of the American shad fishery in theDelaware River found that anglers caught 83,141 shad and harvested an estimated 16,387 shad 22during the 10-week survey period (Miller and Lupine 1996). Although angler effort wasapparently reduced during the 1995 season, and the American shad population estimate, determined by the New Jersey Division of Fish, Game, and Wildlife, indicated fewer shad in the river, the catch rate was slightly greater than during the 1986 season. Catch rates varied substantially from lows of 0.04 fish per hour to a high of 0.45 fish per hour.B. Hickory Shad Although good recreational catch/effort data does not exist, it is widely known that hickory shad do support substantial recreational fisheries in some East Coast rivers.C. Alewife and Blueback Herring There are extensive recreational fisheries for river herring in many rivers along the East Coast.While some are hook and line fisheries (i.e., Delaware River), many states permit various types of dip nets and seines. The total quantity of fish landed by these recreational netters for personal use (i.e., bait and consumption) may be quite large. All of these landings are unreported and thus, represent a large potential error in recorded recreational river herring harvests.1.4.3 Subsistence Fishing There are known subsistence fisheries for all alosine species, but the extent of effort and harvest is undocumented.1.4.4 Non-consumptive Factors People interested in conservation and wildlife have been known to observe alosine migrationsthrough natural corridors and fish passage facilities. In some regions, this non-consumptive use of the alosine resources is an important part of public education, local heritage and outdoor recreation.1.4.5 Interactions with other fisheries, species, and other users

Catch of anadromous alosines that occurs in fisheries directed at other species is referred to asbycatch. Bycatch also refers to illegal or unmarketable alosines caught in directed fisheries.

Estimates of bycatch are difficult to obtain since few studies have focused specifically on that issue. Bycatch losses contribute to the overall mortality of alosines and are important to consider in the current and future management of these fisheries.Few data exist on a state-by-state basis for bycatch of any anadromous alosine in othercommercial and recreational fisheries. Bycatch in commercial fisheries has occurred in those states with Atlantic mackerel fisheries. Alosines captured in pound nets and gillnets experience high mortality unless the nets are checked often.

23The State of Maine, in cooperation with the NMFS, collects landings data from variouscommercial fisheries in state territorial and the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) waters.

Offshore American shad landings from southwestern Maine (Jeffery

=s Ledge) occur as a bycatchto the groundfish gillnet fishery. From 1978-1995, 420,616 pounds of American shad were captured; however, these landings have been declining since 1988.River herring bycatch does occur in the Atlantic mackerel commercial fishery. This offshorecommercial venture involves either a directed U.S. fishery, or a joint venture between U.S. and foreign vessels operating under a quota restriction. For Joint Venture mackerel fisheries operating south of lat. 37 0 30=N, r. herring by catch may not exceed 0.25% of the over-the-sidetransfers of Atlantic mackerel. However, these fisheries do focus on small, immature fish and a low percentage in terms of total poundage can represent a larger percentage in terms of numbers of individuals. Although the potential for problems with offshore fisheries exists, the problem appears minimal at present.In addition, bycatch of river herring in Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) fisheries is a potentialconcern, especially for the recovery of depressed alosine stocks of the Chesapeake Bay and waters further south. A report was completed summarizing the results from 36 sea sampling trips aboard commercial small-mesh trawlers during July through November 1995 in an area that had been previously closed by the NMFS to this type of fishing. This area was opened to small-mesh trawling by the NMFS after extensive analyses that predicted bycatch of regulated species would fall below a five percent threshold, a standard approved by the New England FisheryManagement Council to address groundfish conservation. A total of 77 shad (<0.1%), 177alewife (0.1%), and 3511 blueback herring (1.9%) were captured during the entire sampling.Recreational bycatch of alosines has not been documented in many states. A hickory shad catchand release experiment was conducted in 1996 by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) in Deer Creek, a tributary to the Susquehanna River. This study showed that no short-term mortality (within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />) was observed from catch and release fly fishing (Lukacovic and Pieper 1996). In addition, a catch and release mortality study of American shad was also completed in the Susquehanna River by MDNR in 1997. Results of this study showed that short-term mortality (within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />) experienced by American shad was less than 1.0%,

with all deaths occurring in less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. Deaths occurred in fish that bled heavily from hook wounds or suffered damage to the gills (Lukacovic, personal communication).Protected Species Considerations:

A. Marine Mammals In October 1995, Commission member states, NMFS and USFWS began discussing ways toimprove implementation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in state waters. Historically, these policies have been only minimally implemented and enforced in state waters (0-3 miles). It was agreed that the Commissions Plans describe impacts of state fisheries on certain marine mammals and endangered species 24(collectively termed "protected species", and recommend ways to minimize these impacts.Section 117 of the MMPA requires that NMFS complete stock assessment reports for all marine mammal stocks within U.S. waters. Each stock assessment report is required to estimate the annual human-caused mortality and serious injury of the stock by source, and for a strategic stock other factors that may be causing a decline or impeding recovery of the stock, including effects on marine mammal habitat and prey and commercial fisheries that interact with the stock.A strategic stock is defined as a stock: (1) for which the level of direct human-caused mortalityexceeds the potential biological removal (PBR) level; (2) which is declining and is likely to be listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) within the foreseeable future; or (3) which is listed as a threatened or endangered species under the ESA or as a depleted species under the

MMPA.Section 3(20) of the MMPA defines the term "potential biological removal (PBR) as:"the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from amarine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable

population."For a strategic stock, Section 118(f) of the MMPA requires NMFS to appoint a Take ReductionTeam and this TRT must develop a Take Reduction Plan (TRP) designed to assist in the recovery or to prevent the depletion of the strategic stock which interacts with a commercial fishery.As a result of draft stock assessment reviews developed under Section 117 of the MMPA, NMFSrecognized the need to establish a Team(s) that would focus on reducing the bycatch of coastal bottlenose dolphin, harbor porpoise and humpback whales in several coastal gillnet fisheries of the mid-Atlantic and southeastern United States.Section 118 (f)(2) of the MMPA states that the immediate goal of a TRP for a strategic stockshall be to reduce, within six months of its implementation, the incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals incidentally taken in the course of commercial fishing operations to levels less than the PBR level established for that stock under Section 117.There are strategic stocks of marine mammals that are taken by gillnets in coastal state waters atthe time the American shad fishery occurs. NMFS proposed that the geographic definition for the mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery to be bounded on the east by the 72'30'W. longitudinal line, running south from the southern Long Island shoreline, and on the south by a line drawn from the North Carolina-South Carolina border east to the 72'30' line (61 FR 37035, July 16, 1996). The following are the strategic stocks of marine mammals that are taken by gillnets in coastal state waters at the time mixed stock American shad fisheries occur. There are three strategic stocks that interact with coastal fisheries in state waters on an annual basis: the harbor porpoise, humpback whale, and the coastal migratory stock of bottlenose dolphin.

25 1. Harbor PorpoiseHarbor porpoise that are found along the eastern United States are considered to be one stock orpopulation. This population was proposed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on January 7, 1993, and the bycatch of the Gulf of Maine population of harbor porpoise (approximately 1300 per year in 1992 and 1993) is significantly greater than the calculated PBR (approximately 400). The distribution of this population extends through at least North Carolina in the winter and early-spring, and then moves northward to the Bay of Fundy/Gulf of Maine in summer.A total of 124 stranded porpoises have been examined from the Mid-Atlantic states since 1993.Most of the animals taken in state waters are taken in the months of March, April and May, from North Carolina to New Jersey. Fifty percent of those porpoise which stranded in Virginia and

North Carolina, and for which a cause of death could be determined, had net marks indicative of gillnet entanglement. Nine porpoise that stranded in Virginia had further indications of mutilation. The timing and location of these stranding data follow the timing and location(s) of the intercept shad fishery as it moves north along the coastline.2. Humpback WhaleDuring the past several years there has been a fourfold increase in the number of strandings ofhumpback whales in the mid-Atlantic region, many with indications of fishing gear entanglement. Between 1989 and 1992, 31 humpback whales stranded from New Jersey through Virginia (Wiley et. al. 1994). Significantly more strandings occurred between Chesapeake Bay and Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Strandings increased from February through April and 25 percent had scars consistent with net entanglement. Between 1990 and 1996, 10 humpbacks stranded in Virginia. Three of the animals showed evidence of rope abrasion consistent with entanglement.3. Bottlenose DolphinThere are at least two stocks of bottlenose dolphin along the eastern coast of the United States: acoastal migratory stock that occurs in coastal waters of the eastern United States; and an offshore stock which is larger and occurs farther offshore than the coastal stock. The coastal bottlenose dolphin stock is designated as depleted under the MMPA as a result of a significant die-off in 1987-1988 that reduced the size of this stock by an estimated 50 percent. At least part of the coastal migratory stock moves north of Cape Hatteras in approximately mid-April and returns south of Cape Hatteras in late October-early November.Coastal bottlenose dolphin strandings in North Carolina follow the pattern of gillnet fishingeffort. Strandings from Cape Hatteras to New Jersey follow the seasonal occurrence of the stock in local waters. Strandings in North Carolina generally occur January through May (peaking in March-May), then again from October through December. This stranding pattern also follows increased fishing effort from Virginia to New Jersey and the seasonal occurrence of bottlenose dolphins in these waters (i.e., late spring through fall from Virginia north). The only known fishery mortalities of this stock occur in state waters. Many of these occur when the shad fishery 26is in operation in many of these states, as well as other coastal gillnet fisheries. The PBR for thisstock (based on stranding data and estimated percentage of these animals taken in gillnet fisheries in state waters) is exceeded by gillnet mortalities each year in North Carolina and northward. Therefore, the estimated bycatch of the coastal stock of bottlenose dolphin in state waters needs to be reduced by greater than 50 percent in order to get below PBR for this stock.B. Sea TurtlesSea turtles that occur in U.S. waters are listed as either endangered or threatened under the ESA.Five species occur along the Atlantic coast of the United States; the loggerhead (Caretta caretta),Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), green (Chelonia mydas), leatherback (Dermochelyscoriacea), and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricate).Shad are harvested primarily with anchored, staked and drift gillnets; however there is also apound net, trawl, and hook and line component. All of these gear types are documented to impact sea turtles. Because the fishery occurs inshore and in nearshore waters, it is likely to interact with sea turtles depending on the location and season.GillnetsStranded loggerhead and Kemp's ridley sea turtles have been partially or completely entangled in gilinet material, and are most likely to come in contact with the gear in shallow coastal waters.

Green sea turtles are present in small numbers in these areas and could also be taken in this fishery. Leatherbacks are also present especially when warmer waters bring jellyfish, their preferred prey, into coastal areas. Hawksbill sea turtles are only rare visitors to the areas where fishing effort occurs, preferring coral reefs with sponges for forage, so interaction would be limited. However, entanglement in gillnets has been identified as a serious problem for hawksbills in the Caribbean (NMFS and USFWS 1993).Spring and fall gillnet operations have been strongly implicated in coincident sea turtle strandingevents from North Carolina through New Jersey. On average, the highest numbers of interactions occurred in spring, followed by summer and fall. The southern states appear to have had more spring interactions, while the northern states had more summer interactions, probably due to the northern migration of sea turtles in the warmer months.Netting gear found on stranded turtles varied widely, from 2 - 11.5" (5-29 cm) stretch mesh, andranged from small, cut pieces of net, to lengths (up to 1200'(365m)) of abandoned net. Net gear was of various materials including nylon, cotton, and propylene, and in various colors including blue, black, and green. Gear type included flounder, sturgeon, and mullet nets, monofilament, twine, gillnets, pound nets, trammel nets, seines, sink nets, and nets attached to anchors, cork floats, and buoys.

Pound Nets 27Most of pound net fishery interactions result in live releases and are documented primarily fromNorth Carolina, Virginia, Long Island and Rhode Island. In Chesapeake Bay, Virginia, turtles become entangled in pound nets starting in mid-May with increasing numbers of entanglements until late June. The construction of leaders in pound nets was found to be a significant factor in these entanglements (Musick et. al. 1987). Entanglement was found to be insignificant for small mesh (8-12-inch mesh = small; >12-16-inch mesh = large). Large mesh nets and nets with stringers spaced 16-18 inches apart entangled a large number of turtles. Therefore, the potential to entangle sea turtles in pound nets could be alleviated by decreasing the mesh size in the leaders (Musick et. al. 1987). The pound net component of the shad and river herring fishery for North Carolina occurs in Albemarle Sound that is not frequented by turtles due to the relatively

low salinities found there.Hook and LineFrom 1991 through 1995, a total of 112 turtles stranded with fishing hooks associated with somepart of its body. Thus, hook and line fishing does impact sea turtles.

Recommendations for Sea Turtle Protection:1. A conservation plan and application for a section ten ESA incidental take permit should bedeveloped for those states where the fishery occurs when sea turtles are present.

2. Research into gear development/deployment for gillnets should be conducted to minimizethe impact on sea turtles.3. Pound net leaders should be no larger than 12-inch mesh.

4. Public outreach material should be developed to improve awareness of sea turtleentanglement with hooks and monofilament line.C.Migratory Coastal BirdsAn unknown, but possibly significant, number of migratory birds are drowned each year inanchored gillnets in the nearshore marine waters of the mid-Atlantic region during the American shad coastal intercept fishery. Preliminary estimates, based on a study underway by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and incidental mortality data from the Service

=s Madison Wildlife Health Laboratory, indicate that many thousands of loons and sea ducks are killed each year. Most of these shad/bird interactions occur during January through March from North Carolina to New Jersey. South Carolina banned anchored gillnets in their coastal fishery because of excessive bird mortalities.

All of the species listed are diving birds which pursue fish underwater or feed on benthic invertebrates. Fish eating birds are especially vulnerable to drowning in gillnets because they pursue prey underwater. Additionally, fish eating birds may be attracted to the vicinity of nets that are anchored for days at a time to feed on forage fish feeding near the nets. All of the birds listed are present along the Atlantic coast from October through April, depending on weather and 28timing of migration. Double-crested cormorants are present throughout the year but are mostabundant in the middle and northern Atlantic states during the summer.The actual populations of most migratory coastal birds are largely unknown. Except for somediving ducks (Aythya), current surveys sample only a small portion of the populations of seaducks and do not survey for non-game birds such as loons and grebes. The U.S. Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits the take and possession of protected migratory birds, except as may be permitted by regulations. Take means to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect.

Possession means to detain and control.A list of protected bird species most likely to interact with American shad fisheries along theAtlantic coast are listed below:I. Protected birds in nearshore marine coastal waters most likely to interact with American shadgillnets:Common Loon (Gavia immer)Red-throated Loon (Gavia stellata)

Homed Grebe (Podiceps auritus)Red-necked Grebe (Podiceps grisegena)

Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus)

Northern Gannet (Sula bassanus)

Oldsquaw (Clangula byemalis)Black Scoter (Melanitta nigra)Surf Scoter (Melanitta perspicillata)Red-breasted Merganser (Mergus serrator)II. Protected birds in coastal bays most likely to interact with American shad gillnets and East Coast population status.Species: Status:Common Loon (Gavia immer)

UnknownRed-throated Loon (Gavia stellata)

Unknown, 50,000+ winter S. of NJHomed Grebe (Podiceps auritus)UnknownRed-necked Grebe (Podiceps grisegena)

Unknown Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus)

Abundant and increasingRedhead (Aythya americans) Depressed but increasing slightly Canvasback (Aythya valisineria) Slightly increasingGreater Scaup (Aythya marila)DecreasingLesser Scaup (Aythya affinis)StableRing-necked Duck (Aythya collaris)

UnknownRed-breasted Merganser (Mergus serrator)StableCommon Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula)StableBufflehead (Bucephala albcola)Increasing 29 Oldsquaw (Clangula hyemalis)StableBlack Scoter (Melanitta nigra)Probably decliningWhite-winged Scoter (MelanittafuscaProbably decliningSurf Scoter (Melanitta perspicillata)Probably decliningRuddy Duck (Oxyurajamaiccasis)StableC.Shortnose Sturgeon The shad gillnet fishery has long been know to capture large numbers of sturgeons (Leland1968), including adult shortnose sturgeon (Collins and Smith 1995). In the southeast, the shadfishery is likely the primary source of injury and direct mortality of shortnose sturgeon (Collins et a1. 1996). Existing data indicate that in the southeastern U.S., this species occurs in the shad gillnet bycatch in every river system that supports both a shad gillnet fishery and a shortnose sturgeon population. In addition to consistent records from the riverine and estuarine segments of the fishery, bycatch of this species has been recorded from the coastal ocean segment of the shad fishery in certain areas (e.g., off Winyah Bay, South Carolina, unpublished data).The riverine shad gillnet season and the shortnose sturgeon spawning migration normallycoincide in the southeastern U.S., resulting in capture of individuals intending to spawn (females apparently spawn only once every 2-3 years). Preliminary data suggest that non-lethal encounters of migrating sturgeon with gillnets may result in fallback (i.e., individuals abort the migration, move back downriver, and presumably resorb their gametes) (unpublished data; personal communication, M. Moser, UNC Wilmington). Thus, in addition to causing injury and direct mortality of spawners, the non-lethal capture of sturgeon in the shad gillnet fishery may cause reduced spawning success and low year class strength.Recommendation for Shortnose Sturgeon Protection:

A conservation plan and application for a section ten ESA incidental take permit should bedeveloped for those states where the fishery occurs when shortnose sturgeons are present.1.5Technical Documentation For New AmendmentIn order to reduce the length of Amendment I and restrict its content to major revisions and a minimum of explanatory text, supporting documentation can be found in the 1985 Interstate Fishery Management Plan (Plan) for American Shad and River Herrings. This Plan, along with the 1998 American Shad Stock Assessment Peer Review Report, contain extensive materials that depict essential habitats and provide detailed explanations of the science behind the American shad and river herring management process.Other supporting documents such as socioeconomic and law enforcement studies may be prepared as needed.

30 31Section 2. AMENDMENT 1 GOAL AND OBJECTIVES2.1 Amendment 1 Goal and ObjectivesGoal: Protect, enhance, and restore east coast migratory spawning stocks of American shad,hickory shad, and river herrings in order to achieve stock restoration and maintain sustainablelevels of spawning stock biomass.Objectives:1. Prevent overfishing of American shad stocks by constraining fishing mortality below F 30.2. Develop definitions of stock restoration, determine appropriate target mortality rates andspecify rebuilding schedules for American shad populations within the management unit.3 .Maintain existing or more conservative regulations for hickory shad and river herringfisheries until new stock assessments suggest changes are necessary. This should keep fishing mortality sufficiently low to ensure survival and enhancement of depressed stocks and the maintenance of stabilized stocks.

4. Promote improvements in degraded or historic alosine habitat throughout the species

=range. State and federal managers should consider the following methods to achieve thisobjective:A. Improve or install passage facilities at dams and other obstacles to provide upstreampassage to historic spawning areas, or remove these obstacles entirely.B. Improve water quality in areas where water quality degradation may have affected alosine stocks.C. Evaluate current fish passage facilities for efficiency.

D. Ensure that decisions on river flow allocation (e.g., irrigation, evaporative loss, out ofbasin water transport, hydroelectric operations) take into account flow needs for alosine migration, spawning, and nursery usage.E. Ensure that water withdrawal (e.g., cooling flow, drinking water) effects (e.g.,impingement and entrainment mortalities, turbine mortalities) do not affect alosine stocks to the extent that they result in stock declines.F. Evaluate and improve downstream passage for adults and juveniles.

G. Promote and coordinate alosine stocking programs for:

32a) reintroduction to historic spawning areab) expansion of existing stock restoration programs c) initiation of new strategies to enhance depressed stocks.

H. Promote cooperative interstate research monitoring and law enforcement.

Establish criteria, standards, and procedures for plan implementation as well as determination ofstates= compliance with management plan provisions.2.2Management UnitAll migratory American shad, hickory shad, and river herring stocks of the east coast of theUnited States.Recommendations on management for migratory alosines in the EEZ (3-200 nautical miles offshore) can be found in Section 4.9.2.3Definition of OverfishingFor the purposes of this Amendment, a stock of American shad is considered overfished if itexhibits a fishing mortality rate at or above F

30. A fishing mortality rate of F 30 will result in 30%of the maximum spawning potential (biomass per recruit) in the female component of an unfished population.A conservative overfishing definition of F 30 was calculated for each of seven studied riversystems (Table 1). The overfishing definition mentioned above is not a target for commercial or recreational fisheries to achieve, nor is it suitable for rebuilding depleted stocks. For the purposes of this Amendment, the overfishing definition of F 30 will serve as a reference point thatshould not be exceeded in any given year. Target fishing mortality rates for rebuilding or protecting individual stocks shall be developed and monitored by the Technical Committee as data become available and restoration goals are established.Table 1. Estimates of F 30 (overfishing mortality rate) for selected stocks of American shadConnecticut River043Hudson River0.39Delaware River0.43Upper Chesapeake Bay0.43Edisto River0.48Santee River0.48Altamaha River0.48 33Section 3. ENHANCEMENT AND MONITORING PROGRAMSPECIFICATIONSThis section describes the operational (as opposed to regulatory) procedures for states to followin implementing Amendment 1. The requirements described below concern both fishery-independent and fishery-dependent monitoring programs as well as stocking and hatchery

operations.In both regulatory and operational considerations, Amendment 1 makes a distinction betweenproducer areas and coastal areas. Producer areas are typically estuaries or river systems in which a discreet population of American shad, hickory shad and/or river herring spawn each spring.

Each state shall delineate areas in their jurisdictions where single-stock or inriver fisheries are believed to occur, while differentiating these areas from coastal areas where mixed-stock fisheries occur. States shall report these descriptions when implementing this Amendment under

Section 5.1.2.Newly restored or recolonized producer areas can be designated at the discretion of theManagement Board. The term "coastal areas" refers to all other regions within the Management

Unit.3.1Assessing Annual RecruitmentAnnual juvenile recruitment (appearance of juveniles in the ecosystem) of American shad,hickory shad, and river herring is measured in order to assess juvenile production to predict future year-class strength, provide a signal for recruitment failure or major habitat changes, and assessment of hatchery-released larvae. Recruitment is measured by sampling current year

juvenile fish abundance in producer areas.3.1.1Calculation of Juvenile Abundance Indices While much data on juvenile alosine abundance in the various river systems exists and CPUEindices are regularly calculated, most of the time series of indices have not been validated against relative abundance of adults in subsequent spawning runs and none have been validated to the same extent as have been striped bass indices. Nonetheless, these indices are still important indicators of juvenile production throughout the management unit.All juvenile abundance indices, or JAIs, shall be reported as a geometric mean. The method forcalculating the geometric mean is described in ASWC (1992) and Crecco (1992). Use of the geometric mean will reduce the probability of a single value unduly influencing management

action.3.1.2Elements for Measurement and Use of Juvenile IndicesThe sampling protocol (stations, sampling intensity and gear type) should be consistent through 34time for the period for which the index is to be used. For new sampling programs, the followinginformation will be required: details of the sampling design, a description of the analyses performed, and a presentation of the results of those analyses. The Technical Committee shall review any such submittal and either accept or reject it. If rejected, the Committee will provide a written explanation to the sponsor explaining the reasons for the rejection.Validation is not required for any particular JAI survey. Validation of American shad juvenileindices has been proven difficult and will not be a criteria for accepting or rejecting any given JAI survey.Indices can be used to guide the management of individual stocks in individual producer areas. The Management Board may require juvenile abundance surveys in new producer areas, or for any other alosine species not currently monitored for juvenile production.The Technical Committee shall annually examine trends in all required JAI surveys. If any JAIshows recruitment failure (i.e., JAI is lower than 90% of all other values in the dataset) for three consecutive years, then appropriate action should be recommended to the Management Board.

The Management Board shall be the final arbiter in all management decisions.3.1.3Juvenile Abundance Index Surveys RequiredThe states that will be required to report an annual juvenile abundance index for American shadare listed in Table 2. When possible, states should report JAIs for other alosine species obtained from the required surveys listed in Table 2. Results of all JAI surveys shall be reported as per

Section 5.1.2.2.3.2Assessing Adult Population Size and DistributionIndices of adult spawning stocks are important when determining the efficacy of a particularmanagement approach. Coupled with juvenile abundance indices and fishing mortality estimates, they clarify population dynamics and progress toward restoration goals. Adult stock indices can include mark/recapture studies, enumeration at fish passage facilities, catch-per-unit effort, and measurement of mortality and survival rates.In addition to examining the adult stock abundance, scientists and managers must alsounderstand how those populations are distributed in mixed-stock fisheries. In the case of American shad, this is particularly important for determining the effects of ocean-intercept fisheries on small, hatchery-supplemented stocks.3.2.1Adult Stock Restoration Goals for American ShadThis Amendment is intended to prevent overfishing of alosine populations (including Americanshad) within the management unit. Although some stocks of American shad are not currently 35overfished, almost all of them are believed to be at or near historically low levels and far fromcomplete restoration. Nonetheless, definitions of individual stock restoration (e.g. minimum acceptable spawning run size) have not been established by the Technical Committee and approved by the Management Board. This situation has been perpetuated by a poor understanding of actual landings, stock/recruitment relationships and habitat carrying capacity.

Therefore, the Technical Committee shall annually review new information obtained by the mandatory monitoring programs in Section 5, and use these data to recommend stock-specific restoration goals and suitable fishing mortality targets to the Management Board. The Management Board shall be the final arbiter in deciding these goals and targets, and may change the regulatory requirements of this Amendment under Section 4.5.3.2.2 Adult Spawning Stock Surveys Required States are required to implement the surveys shown in Table 2. Each year, the TechnicalCommittee shall review the results of these surveys and analyze progress made toward any individual stock restoration goals. If restoration milestones for a particular stock are not achieved within five years after they have been established under Section 3.2.1, then the PRT shall recommend to the Management Board appropriate regulatory changes to be implemented

under Section 4.5.States may employ a variety of survey techniques in adult spawning stock surveys in riversystems within their jurisdiction. These include gillnet surveys, mark-recapture studies, hydroacoustic surveys, and fish passage CPUES. As part of spawning stock surveys, states are required to take representative samples of adults to determine sex and age composition, repeat spawning (for states north of South Carolina), and size distribution of each stock within their jurisdiction. States must submit proposals to initiate these programs under Section 5.1.2 and changes to required monitoring programs as per Section 4.4.3.2.3 Mixed Stock Contribution Surveys Required Each year (beginning in the year 2000), states will be required to take part in a coastwide analysisof mixed stock contribution to ocean landings. The best available technique has been a cooperative coastwide tagging program to determine the origin of fish landed in ocean-intercept fisheries. If states allow a bycatch fishery, they will be required to subsample for tags and/or otoliths (see Section 4. 1). The Technical Committee will recommend the proper methodology or any changes in methodology to the Management Board on an annual basis. The Management Board may institute these changes under Section 4.5.3.3 Annual Fishing Mortality Target and Measurement 3.3.1 DefinitionTotal mortality of alosines has essentially two components: natural mortality and fishingmortality. Fishing mortality is the rate at which fish are removed from the population by human 36activities. These activities include both intentional legal harvest (Fdir , or directed fishingmortality) and background or non-harvest activities which include poaching, bycatch, and hook-and-release mortality. Fishing mortality arises from both inriver and ocean fisheries. Non-directed mortality and directed mortality constitute total fishing mortality. Fishing mortality rates are estimated using a variety of fishery-dependent and fishery-independent data. These include catch curve analyses from commercial fisheries and tag/recapture studies. Unfortunately, the linkage between most harvest regulations and F rates is difficult to predict: the success of regulations in attaining target fishing mortality rates is usually determined through retrospective analysis (i.e., examining the previous years results).It is critical that intensive fishery monitoring be initiated through this Amendment. If fishingmortality rates are too high (i.e., overshooting the target rate), the Management Board can consider imposing more strict regulations coastwide. It should be noted that bycatch of

American shad and other alosines in oceanic fisheries, as well as undocumented ocean harvest,could severely bias estimates of total fishing mortality

.3.3.2Biological reference pointsBiological reference points (overfishing definitions) were estimated for American shad in sevenAtlantic coast rivers including the Connecticut, Hudson, Delaware, upper Chesapeake Bay, Edisto, Santee, and Altamaha systems (Crecco 1998). Although American shad stocks exist in more than 30 river systems within the management unit, only these seven systems generated sufficient data to permit current F estimates.A conservative overfishing definition of F 30 was calculated for each of the seven studied riversystems (Table 1). F 30 is t le fishing mortality rate that will result in 30% of the maximumspawning potential (biomz ss per recruit) of an unfished population. The overfishing definition mentioned above is not a target for commercial or recreational fisheries to achieve, nor is it suitable for rebuilding depleted stocks. For the purposes of this Amendment, the overfishing

definition of F 30 will serve as a reference point that shall not be exceeded in any given year. Target fishing mortality rates for rebuilding or protecting individual stocks shall be developed by the states and monitored by the Technical Committee as data become available and restoration goals are established by the states (Section 4).3.3.3Requirements for Fishing Mortality Rate Calculation States that re-open or establish new inriver or ocean bycatch fisheries will have to implement these requirements.1) Catch composition data will be gathered by those states with inriver commercial fisheries for American shad. Samples shall be representative of location and seasonal distribution of catch, and appropriate biological data shall be collected including size, sex and age composition of landings. Catch composition data will be gathered by those states with coastal commercial

fisheries (directed and non-directed) for American shad. Samples shall be representative of 37location and seasonal distribution of catch, and appropriate biological data shall be collectedincluding size and sex and age composition of landings.2) Representative catch and effort data will be gathered by those states with inriver commercialfisheries. Programs should include an evaluation of harvest under-reporting. This reporting element will apply to fisheries for American shad, hickory shad, and river herring.Representative catch and effort data will be gathered by those states with ocean-interceptcommercial fisheries. Programs should include an evaluation of harvest under-reporting.States are encouraged to gather catch and effort data from inriver subsistence fisheries, including personal consumption and bait harvest.3) Existing monitoring programs for American shad recreational catch and effort shall becontinued every 5 years (see Table 3). New programs to monitor recreational catch and effort in areas not covered by the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) should be developed for anadromous alosines, and NMFS should work to develop ways to differentiate between anadromous alosines in current and future management programs.States should report any hickory shad incidentally intercepted in creel surveys for American shad.4) For those river systems listed in Table 2, states must also provide annual estimates ofsurvivorship and/or fishing mortality on American shad using a variety of techniques including catch curve analysis and tagging.5) The Technical Committee may recommend additional monitoring programs for newlyrestored or colonized American shad populations as stock status or habitat improvements

warrant.6) Existing programs to monitor catch, effort, mortality, fish passage, migration, and/or stockcomposition in hickory shad and river herring fisheries shall be continued, and expanded as noted above. Any change to a state's monitoring program for these species must first be reviewed by the Technical Committee and approved the Management Board (see Sections 4.4 and 5)3.4Summary of Monitoring Programs3.4.1Biological InformationStates are mandated to implement the fishery-dependent and independent monitoring programsoutlined in Tables 2 and 3. In addition, states are encouraged to continue or augment the monitoring programs for river herring and hickory shad listed in Tables 4-6.Whenever practical, state harvest and effort reporting requirements will coincide with current andfuture mandates of the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Survey (ACCSP). Data needs not 38covered by the ACCSP will still be covered by annual reports submitted in conjunction with thisFMP.3.4.2Social InformationConsumptive use (e.g. commercial fishing activities before closures) and non-consumptive use(e.g. ecotourism activities) surveys focusing on social data should be conducted periodically in a manner consistent with the intent of the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (ACFCMA) and the ACCSP Implementation Plan.3.4.3Economic InformationConsumptive use (e.g. commercial fishing activities before closures) and non-consumptive use(e.g. ecotourism activities) surveys focusing on economic data should be conducted periodically in a manner consistent with the intent of the ACFCMA and the ACCSP implementation Plan.3.5Stocking/RestorationMost ASMFC jurisdictions are actively involved in alosine habitat surveys, identification ofstream blockages and fish passage development, management planning, permit review, and stock assessment related to recovery efforts. Although potential exists in many rivers for stock supplementation and re-introductions using adult transplants and cultured fish, few jurisdictions not already involved in these techniques have plans to use them.Ongoing stocking efforts include:New England StatesMaine conducts active shad restoration programs in many of their river systems. Prespawningadult American shad are stocked in the Androscoggin and Kennebec Rivers, and cultured American shad fry are being stocked in the Kennebec, Medomak, and Saco Rivers. A shad restoration plan is being prepared for the Penobscot River. New Hampshire participates in cooperative American shad passage assessment at major facilities on the Connecticut and Merrimack Rivers. New Hampshire has also been stocking adult American shad from the

Connecticut River into various coastal rivers since the 1980s. Massachusetts has been stocking American shad in the Charles, Agawam, and Nemasket Rivers, and the Connecticut River above Vernon Dam. Rhode Island has stocked adult American shad taken from the Holyoke Dam to the Pawcatuck River. Connecticut has long been active in the state-federal cooperative program to restore anadromous fishes to the Connecticut River; however, no stocking of shad currently

occurs in Connecticut waters.Mid-Atlantic StatesNew York conducts a very limited alosine stocking program; however, further restoration activityin the Hudson River and Long Island tributaries may be planned pending results of ongoing habitat surveys. New Jersey has been stocking adult shad into the Raritan River for several 39years; however, a new fish ladder with a viewing window has been in operation at the first darnon this river since 1996. Pennsylvania is not only actively involved in the Susquehanna River shad and herring restoration program, but they have also stocked up to one million cultured Delaware River source shad larvae above the Easton and Glendon dams on the lower Lehigh, and several hundred thousand cultured shad larvae in the Schuylkill River above dams. The most extensive shad stock rebuilding programs occur in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. On the Susquehanna River, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, USFWS, and NMFS have worked closely with private utility companies since 1969 to restore alosine populations returning to Conowingo Dam in Maryland. Following several years of shad egg stocking with limited results, Pennsylvania has been able to stock over 145 million larvae and fingerling shad from Delaware, Hudson, and Connecticut stocks into the river. Maryland also has an active culture and stocking program which includes American shad for the upper Bay and the Patuxent, Choptank, and Nanticoke rivers, and hickory shad for the Patuxent and Choptank rivers. Virginia has stocked American shad to the Pamunkey River and James River above Richmond. In addition, for several decades, the Pamunkey Indians had released a total of 22 million larvae into adjacent waters in Virginia. The Potomac River Fisheries Commission stocked 3.2 million shad larvae into the upper Potomac above Little Falls Dam in 1995-1996.South Atlantic StatesNorth Carolina currently stocks American shad in the Roanoke River. None of the remainingSouth Atlantic states (South Carolina through Florida) have active alosine restoration programs that involve fish stocking.3.5.1 Stocking Techniques Three basic elements of ongoing restoration efforts for anadromous alosines along the Atlanticcoast include: (1) control of harvest to allow sufficient spawning escapement; (2) removal of barriers to migration or development of fish passage facilities at dams; and (3) active stock rebuilding, which typically involves fish juvenile or larval) introductions into waters above blockages. Harvest controls may be comprehensive as in state-wide or river-specific fishery closures, or they may be localized as in seasonal or gear restrictions, angler creel limits, or area closures near fishway entrances. Depending on the nature and size of the barrier to migration, the amount of available upstream habitat, and the target population size to be restored, eliminating in-stream obstructions may involve darn removal or breaching, barrier reconfiguration, or construction of fish ladders, lifts, or locks. Although each barrier to migration warrants individual attention from fishery managers and engineers, techniques for providing fish passage are now well established and readily available. Population rebuilding techniques most frequently used include culture and stocking of larvae or juveniles or stocking of pre-spawned adults which have been netted or trapped from nearby or distant waters.

403.5. 1.1Culture and MarkingModem American shad culture techniques have been largely developed and refined since themid-1970s by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) for the Susquehanna River restoration program. Using eggs stripped and fertilized from spawning adult shad on many east coast rivers (and the Columbia River), PFBC researchers developed or improved incubation and hatching techniques, first feeds and artificial diets, larval rearing densities, flow and water quality requirements, mass-marking using oxytetracycline, and handling and stocking procedures sufficient to produce 10-20 million shad larvae each year. Pennsylvania and Maryland have also refined techniques for rearing and marking fingerling shad in ponds using artificial and natural diets. One of the high costs associated with culture and stocking programs relates to collection and delivery of eggs. Large-scale programs such as those on the Susquehanna and James rivers may require 15-20 million shad eggs to produce ten million fry. Since spawners are not yet sufficiently abundant in rivers undergoing restoration, these eggs are taken and delivered nightly during spawning seasons from neighboring rivers such as the Delaware, Hudson, and Pamunkey.

Strip spawning produces 10,000-30,000 eggs per female and viability averages 60-75%. Of those shad that hatch, 90% or more typically survive to stocking.In the past few years, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has successfullyused tank spawning techniques for shad which were initially developed for striped bass in cooperation with the University of Maryland's Center for Marine Biotechnology. This method involves use of timed-release hormone implants in gravid fish and free-spawning in tanks over a several day period. An air-lift system delivers eggs to collection boxes for incubation on-site or delivery to distant hatcheries. With individual females providing 50,000- 100,000 eggs, high fertilization rates, and very little labor requirement, fewer adult fish are needed and costs are greatly reduced. This technique has also proven effective for hickory shad - but has thus far been unsuccessful with river herring because of the adhesive nature of their eggs.Cultured shad larvae are typically stocked at seven to 22 days of age and carry one to severalfluorescent tags on their otoliths. Marking involves a two-four hour immersion in 200 ppm oxytetracycline antibiotic and can be repeated at three-four day intervals. In addition to allowing discrimination between wild and hatchery fish, use of distinct marks allows for analysis of relative survival or abundance based on egg source, stocking location, time of release or other parameters. Tetracycline marking is 100% effective and the tags appear to stay with the fish throughout their lives. Fish being analyzed for marks must be sacrificed for otolith removal and processing. MDNR has also had success placing binary coded wire tags in fingerling shad.3.5.1.2 Trap and TransportTrapping and live transfer of adult shad and river herring has been used by many jurisdictionssince the 1960s. These activities may occur within a specific river system, such as taking fish from lifts at downstream hydroelectric projects for stocking above blockages as in the Connecticut and Susquehanna rivers, or they may involve collecting fish with nets or traps in one 41river for transport and release in another. Examples include shad transfers from Holyoke Dam onthe Connecticut to spawning rivers in Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and eastern Massachusetts, and herring transfers from Conowingo Dam on the Susquehanna to the Patapsco and Patuxent rivers in Maryland. Shad and river herring have also been netted and hauled to upstream or distant spawning waters undergoing restoration (e.g., Hudson River shad to the Susquehanna River; Delaware River shad to the Raritan River). Hauling techniques are well-developed using insulated circular tanks with oxygenation. A properly equipped 1,200 gallon tank can handle 150 adult shad or 1,000 river herring for two-four hour trips with minimal mortality.3.5.1.3 EvaluationStates with active hatchery programs for American shad or other alosines shall report annually onhatchery contributions (% wild vs. hatchery). States in this category shall submit proposals for

these evaluations under Section 5.1.2. 1, and provide annual reports as per Table 10 and Section 5.1.2.2. States should work in cooperation with appropriate federal or regional programs to ensure unique marking in their operations.3.6Bycatch Monitoring and ReductionStates and federal agencies shall make every effort to assess the magnitude of alosine bycatchdiscard mortality (including hook and release mortality) occurring in waters under their jurisdiction. In cases where excessive alosine bycatch is documented, the involved jurisdiction(s) shall make such documentation available immediately to the Technical Committee, Advisory Panel, and Management Board. Any documentation shall include, at a minimum, the following information:1) location, target species, and season of fishery or fisheries involved;2) gear and gear specifications used in the fishery (e.g., gillnets, 4.5" mesh size);

3) an estimate of pounds or numbers and size or age of American shad taken per unit of effort inthe fishery (e.g., lb. per trip), as well as an estimate of total American shad bycatch in the fishery;4) an estimate of how long (e.g., years, months, weeks) American shad bycatch has occurred inthe fishery.Where appropriate, NWS and/or USFWS shall assist states with preparing the required report.The Technical Committee and Advisory Panel shall review such information, and prepare reports for the Management Board. After reviewing these reports, the Management Board may recommend remedial steps to be taken by the involved jurisdictions) (i.e., gear restrictions, seasonal/geographic closures, etc.), and may ask the jurisdictions) to continue documenting the problem until it is resolved to the Management Board

=s satisfaction.

42In general, states shall undertake every effort to reduce or eliminate the loss of American shadfrom the population due to bycatch discard mortality. When data are available, the Technical Committee shall examine trends in estimated bycatch annually. The Technical Committee will cooperate with the ACCSP to develop a system to collect bycatch data for American shad and other alosine species.Atlantic Sturgeon Bycatch in Shad and River Herring FisheriesAtlantic sturgeon have been documented as bycatch in coastal gillnet fisheries for Americanshad, and Amendment I to the 1990 Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Sturgeon (ASMFC, 1998) stipulates that states will annually report on Atlantic sturgeon bycatch to the ASMFC Sturgeon Management Board (Sturgeon Board).Jurisdictions within this Amendment's management unit shall report any estimates of Atlanticsturgeon bycatch in their shad or river herring fisheries to the Sturgeon Board, regardless of thefishery location. If the Sturgeon Board determines that unacceptable levels of sturgeon bycatch occur in these fisheries, it will stipulate corrective measures for the jurisdictions involved (e.g.,area/season closures, gear modification, etc.). If the named jurisdictions do not comply with theconservation measures recommended by the Sturgeon Board, the Sturgeon Board may intervene to close the given shad or river herring fishery under the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (ACFCMA) until the bycatch reduction measures are implemented. Please refer to Amendment I to the ASMFC Fisheries Management Plan for Atlantic Sturgeon for more detail.

43Table 2. Summary of mandatory fishery independent monitoring programs for American shad.STATESYSTEMSAMPLING PROGRAM (annual unlessotherwise noted)MaineAndroscoggin &Saco RiversAnnual spawning stock survey and representativesampling for biological data Calculation of mortality and/or survival estimatesRecovery of any visibly marked animalsNew HampshireLamprey andExeter RiversAnnual spawning stock survey and representativesampling for biological data Calculation of mortality and/or survival estimatesRecovery of any visibly marked animalsMassachusettsMerrimack RiverAnnual spawning stock survey and representativesampling for biological data Calculation of mortality and/or survival estimatesRecovery of any visibly marked animalsRhode IslandPawcatuck RiverAnnual spawning stock survey and representativesampling for biological data Calculation of mortality and/or survival estimatesRecovery of any visibly marked animalsConnecticutConnecticut RiverAnnual spawning stock survey and representativesampling for biological data Calculation of mortality and/or survival estimates JAI: Juvenile abundance survey (GM)Hudson RiverAnnual spawning stock survey and representativesampling for biological data Calculation of mortality and survival estimatesJAI: Juvenile abundance index (GM)New YorkDelaware RiverAnnual spawning stock survey and representativesampling for biological data Calculation of mortality and/or survival estimatesJAI: Juvenile abundance index (GM)New JerseyDelaware RiverAnnual spawning stock survey and representativesampling for biological data Calculation of mortality and/or survival estimatesJAI: Juvenile abundance index (GM)SusquehannaRiverAnnual spawning stock survey and representativesampling for biological data Calculation of mortality and/or survival estimatesRecovery of any visibly marked animals JAI: Juvenile abundance index (GM)

Hatcherv evaluationPennsylvaniaLehigh RiverAnnual spawning stock survey and representativesampling for biological data Calculation of mortality and/or survival estimatesHatcherv evaluation 44 Table 2 (cont

====d). Summary of mandatory fishery independent monitoring programs forAmerican shad.PennsylvaniaDelaware RiverAnnual spawning stock survey and representativesampling for biological data Calculation of mortality and/or survival estimates JAI: Juvenile abundance index (GM)DelawareDelaware RiverAnnual spawning stock survey and representativesampling for biological data Calculation of mortality and/or survival estimatesUpper Ches. BayAnnual spawning stock survey and representativesampling for biological data Calculation of mortality and/or survival estimatesJAI: Juvenile abundance index (GM)Hatchery evaluationMarylandPotomac RiverJAI: Juvenile abundance index (GM)D.C.Potomac RiverAnnual spawning stock survey and representativesampling for biological data Calculation of mortality and/or survival estimatesVirginiaJames, York, andRappahannock RiversAnnual spawning stock survey and representativesampling for biological data Calculation of mortality and/or survival estimatesJAI: Juvenile abundance index (GM)Hatchery evaluationNorth CarolinaAlbemarle Soundand its tributaries, Tar-Pamlico, Neuse, and Cape Fear RiversAnnual spawning stock survey and representativesampling for biological data Calculation of mortality and/or survival estimates South CarolinaSantee-Coopersystem, Edisto River, Winyah Bay and tributaries (Waccwnaw and Pee Dee Rivers),

Combahee, Ashepoo, Coosawhatchie, and Savannah RiversAnnual spawning stock survey and representativesampling for biological dataCalculation of mortality and/or survival estimates*State may elect to sample these systems on arotational basis (i.e., one system evaluated per year)GeorgiaAltamaha RiverAnnual spawning stock survey and representativesampling for biological data Calculation of mortality and/or survival estimatesFloridaSt. Johns RiverAnnual spawning stock survey and representativesampling for biological data Calculation of mortality and/or survival estimates 45Table 3. Mandatory fishery-dependent monitoring programs for American shad

.STATESYSTEMSAMPLING PROGRAMInriverRecreational catch and effort using MRFSSMaineAtlantic OceanMandatory reporting of catch (numbers and weight) and effort fromcommercial fisheries; subsamples shall indicate size, age, and sex composition of catch.

Participate in ocean landings stock composition study.New HampshireInriver/coastal-Recreational catch and effort using MRFSSConnecticutConnecticut RiverMandatory reporting of catch (numbers and weight) and effort fromcommercial fisheries

subsamples shall indicate size, age, and sexcomposition of catch.

Biannually monitor recreational landings in CT and MA - age, sex ratio, and fishing effort (hours fished) until annual catch > 1,000 fishPawcatuck RiverMandatory reporting of catch (numbers and weight) and effort from commercial fisheries; subsamples shall indicate size, age, and sex composition of catch.

Monitor recreational catch and effort every 5 years.Rhode IslandAtlantic OceanMandatory reporting of catch (numbers and weight) and effort fromcommercial fisheries; subsamples shall indicate size, age, and sex composition of catch.

Participate in Ocean landings stock composition study.Hudson RiverMandatory reporting of catch (numbers and weight) and effort from commercial fisheries; subsamples shall indicate size, age, and sex composition of catch.

Monitor recreational landings, catch, and effort every 5 years.New YorkDelaware RiverMonitor recreational landings, catch, and effort every 5 years. (Cooperative effort between New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,and Delaware)Delaware River and BayMandatory reporting of catch (numbers and weight) and effort from commercial fisheries; subsamples shall indicate size, age, and sex composition of catch.

Monitor recreational landings, catch, and effort every 5 years.

(Cooperative effort between New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Delaware)New JerseyAtlantic OceanDelawareDelaware River and Bay(RM 0-75)Mandatory reporting of catch (numbers and weight) and effort fromcommercial fisheries; subsamples shall indicate size, age, and sex composition of catch.

Participate in Ocean landings stock composition study.Mandatory reporting of catch (numbers and weight) and effort fromcommercial fisheries; subsamples shall indicate size, age, and sex composition of catch.Monitor recreational landings, catch, and effort every 5 years.(Cooperative effort between New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Delaware) 46 Table 3 (cont

====d). Mandatory fishery-dependent monitoring programs for American shad.Nanticoke River Ches. Baytributatry, upstream portion)Mandatory reporting of catch (numbers and weight) and effort fromcommercial fisheries; subsamples shall indicate size, age, and sex composition of catch.

Monitor recreational landings, catch, and effort every 5 years.DelawareAtlantic OceanMandatory reporting of catch (numbers and weight) and effort from commercial fisheries; subsamples shall indicate size, age, and sex composition of catch.

Participate in Ocean landings stock composition study.PennsylvaniaDelaware RiverMonitor recreational landings, catch, and effort every 5 years.

(Cooperative effort between New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Delaware)InriverMonitor recreational landings, catch, and effort every 5 years.MarylandAtlantic OceanMandatory reporting of catch (numbers and weight) and effort fromcommercial fisheries; subsamples shall indicate size, age, and sex composition of catch.

Participate in Ocean landings stock composition study.VirginiaInriverMonitor recreational landings, catch, and effort every 5 years.Atlantic OceanMandatory reporting of catch (numbers and weight) and effort from commercial fisheries; subsamples shall indicate size, age, and sex composition of catch.

Participate in Ocean landings stock composition study.Albemarle Sound and itstributaries, Tar-Pan-dico, Neuse, and Cape Fear RiversMandatory reporting of catch (numbers and weight) and effort fromcommercial fisheries; subsamples shall indicate size, age, and sex composition of catch.

Monitor recreational landings, catch, and effort every 5 years.North CarolinaAtlantic OceanMandatory reporting of catch (numbers and weight) and effort fromcommercial fisheries; subsamples shall indicate size, age, and sex composition of catch.

Participate in Ocean landings stock composition study.Santee-Cooper system,Charleston Harbor and its tributaries (Ashley and Cooper Rivers), Edisto River, Santee River, Winyah Bay and its tributaries (Waccwnaw and Pee Dee Rivers)Mandatory reporting of catch (numbers and weight) and effort fromcommercial fisheries; subsamples shall indicate size, age, and sex composition of catch.Monitor recreational landings, catch, and effort every 5 years.*State may elect to sample these systems on a rotational basis (i.e., one system evaluated per yearSouth CarolinaAtlantic OceanMandatory reporting of catch (numbers and weight) and effort fromcommercial fisheries; subsamples shall indicate size, age, and sex composition of catch.

Participate in Ocean landings stock composition study.GeorgiaOgeecheeMandatory reporting of catch (numbers and weight) and effort from commercial fisheries; subsamples shall indicate size, age, and sex composition of catch.

Monitor recreational landings, catch, and effort every 5 years.FloridaSt. Johns RiverMandatory reporting of catch (numbers and weight) and effort from commercial fisheries; subsamples shall indicate size, age, and sex composition of catch.

47Monitor recreational landings, catch, and effort every 5 years.Table 4. Summary of recommended fishery-dependent monitoring programs for adultriver herring and hickory shad

.StateSystemSpeciesSampling ProgramMaineAll riversRiver herringTowns must submit an annual harvesting plan andlandings to the Department of Marine ResourcesNew HampshireLamprey, Oyster,Cocheco, Taylor, Exeter Rivers, and Great Bay EstuaryRiver herringMandatory reporting by all Coastal NettersPermittees of catch and effort information. Coastal Netters Permits are required by all fishermen using nets, traps, or weirs in New Hampshire

=s openocean and coastal estuariesMassachusettsOver 125 active natalriver herring runsRiver herringSome periodic sampling of runs harvested underLocal controlDelawareDelaware River(RM 0-75)Nanticoke River (Ches Bay tributary, upstream portion)River herringMandatory catch reports of the commercialfisheries for landings and effortMarylandNanticoke RiverRiver herringMonitor annually the commercial pound and fykenet river herring bycatch for catch, effort, sex ratio, length/weightVirginiaJames River, York Riversystem (includes Pamunkey and Mattaponi Rivers), and Rappahannock RiverRiver herringMonitor the commercial pound net and haul seinefisheriesNorth CarolinaAlbermarle Sound areaRiver herringAnnually monitor the commercial herring fisheryfor catch composition age, length, and sex, Annually monitor the catch effort of the Chowan River pound net fishery. Annually monitorAnnually monitor the size, age and sex compositionof hickory shadSantee-Cooper systemRiver herringAnnually monitor the commercial herring fisheryfor age, length, weight, sex ratio and effortSouth CarolinaSantee RiverRiver herringA hoop, drop and cast net fishery targeting herringhas developed in the Re-diversion canal below St.

Stephen Dam since completion of the Re-diversion Project. Landings from this fishery collected by the Freshwater Division.

48Table 5. Summary of recommended fishery-independent monitoring programs for adultriver herring and hickory shad

.StateSystemSpeciesSampling ProgramSaco Androscoggin,and St. Croix RiversRiver herringEstimated number of spawning adults returning to thefishway are made and samples of length, age, and sex are collectedMaineKennebec,Anndroscoggin, and Union RoversAlewifeNumbers of adults stocked in each lake/impoundmentare recorded. Samples are collected for length, age, and sex in the Kennebecand Androscoggin Rivers.Lamprey RiverRiver herringEstimated number of spawning adults returning to fishladders are made via absolute counts, timed counts, or electronic counting tubes. Samples of 150 lengths by sex are taken three times during the spawning runs (beginning, middle, end). Fifty of the fish from each of the three samples are aged.Oyster RiverRiver herringEstimated number of spawning adults returning to fishladders are made via absolute counts, timed counts, or electronic counting tubes. Samples of 150 lengths by sex are taken three times during the spawning runs (beginning, middle, end). Fifty of the fish from each ofthe three samples are aged.Cocheco RiverRiver herringNumber of spawning adults returning to fish ladder iscounted by hand. Samples of 150 lengths by sex are taken three times during the spawning runs (beginning, middle, end). Fifty of the fish from each of the three samples are aged.Exeter RiverRiver herringNumber of spawning adults returning to fish ladder ismade via timed counts or absolute counts. Length measurements by sex, and scales for aging are taken in some years on an opportunistic basis.New HampshireTaylor RiverRiver herringEstimated number of spawning adults returning to fishladders are made via absolute counts, timed counts, or electronic counting tubes. Length measurement by sex and scales for aging have been taken in some years on an opportunistic basisMassachusettsOver 125 active natalriver herring runsRiver herringConnecticut River - see Connecticut River RestorationProgram annual progress report Merrimack River - See USFWSAnadromous Fish Restoration Program progress report Monument River - Bourne Local Control MR Spring spawning stock survey electronic counters, dip netting, haul seines Programs run annually, expected tocontinue 49 Table 5 (cont

====d). Summary of recommended fishery-independent monitoring programsfor adult river herring and hickory shad

.ConnecticutConnecticut RiverBlueback herringStock abundance derived from Holyoke fish liftRhode IslandPawcatuck RiverVarious AlosinesFishway trap and count at first dam on system since 1979.VirginiaJames River, YorkRiver system (includes Pamunkey and Mattaponi Rivers),

and Rappahannock RiverRiver herringSpring spawning stock survey from pound netsNorth CarolinaAlbemarle Soundand tributariesRiver herring andhickory shadSpawning area assessment work - gillnets of variousmesh sizes (not continuous) were set in certain systems for a season (March to May) to capture adults participating in spawning migration. Species, number, length and age data are available for some years.

50Table 6. Summary of recommended monitoring programs for juvenile river herring and hickory shad

.StateSystemSpeciesSampling ProgramMaineKennebec andAnddroscoggin Rivers Alosa spp.Annual juvenile Alosine surveyConnecticutConnecticut RiverBlueback herringAnnual geometric mean (catch/seine haul)Rhode IslandPawcatuck River Alosa spp.Juvenile index at 5 stations in estuary, Sept-OctweeklyNew YorkHudson River Alosa spp.Annual juvenile Alosine surveyDelawareDelaware River(RM 0-75)

Nanticoke River (Ches Bay tributary, upstream portion)

Alosa spp.Annual juvenile fish trawl survey - Delaware Riverand Bay, April through NovemberData used to determine year class strength ofprimarily demersal fishes CPUE, length frequencyNew JerseyDelaware River and Bay Alosa spp.Striped bass annual JAI seine surveyPennsylvaniaSusquehanna River Alosa spp.Weekly seining July-Oct (300' x 6' x 3/8")Twice weekly lift net at Holtwood (8' x 8' x 1/2")MarylandChesapeake Baytributaries Alosa spp.Striped bass annual JAI seine surveyNorth CarolinaAlbemarle Soundand tributaries Alosa spp.Annual trawl surveys conducted at set stations, attimes year round or seasonal June-October.Three different types of trawls were employed. Trawlsampling dropped due to reduction in force and funds.

Annual seine surveys June-October. Number of stations varies, but core station of 11.Data used as relative abundance index of age zero.Arithmetic mean calculated monthly and annually.

Mean size data determined monthly and annually.Santee-Cooper systemRiver herring andshadAnnual beach seine survey, July-September - numbercaught per seine haul in Lake Marion Cast netting data from forbay in front of St. Stephen Dam -

number caught, length, weight for shad and herringSouth CarolinaCharleston harborand tributaries (Ashley and Cooper Rivers)Alosa spp.Limited Alosine data is available for the lowerportions of the Charleston Harbor system from catches made during the conduct of annual shrimp sampling programs. This data is primarily related to time of occurrence, with some size by date information available.

51Section 4. MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION4.1Commercial fisheries Management MeasuresMandatory reporting on catch and effort in active commercial fisheries for all alosines(American shad, hickory shad, and river herring) will be required as per Section 3.Whenever practical, state harvest and effort reporting requirements will coincide with current andfuture mandates of the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Survey (ACCSP). Data needs not covered by the ACCSP will still be covered by annual reports submitted in conjunction with the FMP.A.Ocean-intercept commercial fisheriesBegin a phase-out reduction plan for the commercial ocean-intercept fishery for American shad(outside state-defined producer areas - see beginning of Section 3.1) over a five-year period.

States must achieve at least a 40% reduction in effort in the first three years, beginning January 1, 2000. States with directed ocean-intercept fisheries will determine how to achieve this effort

reduction and submit proposals as per Sections 5.1.2.1 and 5.1.2.2.States with non-directed harvest of American shad in ocean fisheries (outside state-definedproducer areas - see beginning of Section 3.0) can permit the landing of this shad bycatch, provided that American shad do not constitute more than 5% of the total landings (in pounds) per trip. States permitting the landing of American shad ocean bycatch must annually document that the 5% trip limit is not exceeded, report the extent and nature of the non-directed fisheries, and the total landings of American shad bycatch. In addition, these jurisdictions must subsample all American shad bycatch for size, age, sex distribution as per Section 3.3.3, except as exempted

under de minimis provisions of Section 4.8.All jurisdictions shall maintain existing or more conservative regulations for commercial riverherring and hickory shad fisheries in ocean waters.Jurisdictions currently managing under a moratorium in producer areas may shift effort fromocean-intercept fisheries to inriver fisheries, provided that the total mortality for a givenexploited stock does not exceed the target mortality (F 30 or restoration target rate) for that stock

.2. Inriver commercial fisheriesStates may conduct inriver fisheries for American shad at levels not to exceed F 30 for thefollowing systems: Connecticut, Hudson, Delaware, Upper Chesapeake Bay, Santee, Edisto, and Altamaha. States with jurisdiction over these systems must submit proposals on how to maintain F at or below F 30 as per Section 5.1.2. 1. For all other stocks, or any stock of American shadidentified for restoration, states must develop and adopt recovery plans as per Section 5.1.2.1 below. States shall not exceed any specified target F suitable for attaining adopted restoration goals.

52All jurisdictions shall maintain existing or more conservative regulations for commercial riverherring and hickory shad fisheries, except for expanded monitoring programs outlined in Section 3.3.3.4.2 Recreational Fisheries Management MeasuresAll jurisdictions shall not exceed an aggregate 10 fish daily creel limit in recreational fisheries for American shad or hickory shad. For American shad or hickory shad stocks under restoration, states must adopt recreational creel limits consistent with restoration targets. Creel limits should be described in state recovery/fishing plans as per Section 5.1.2. 1.

4.3 Habitat Conservation and RestorationShad and river herring stocks along the Atlantic coast are greatly diminished compared to historic levels. Much of this reduction is related to spawning and nursery habitat degradation brought on by effects of human population increase (sewage and stormwater runoff, industrialization),

increased erosion, sedimentation and nutrient enrichment associated with agricultural practices, and losses of riparian forests and wetland buffers. All Atlantic coast jurisdictions and several federal agencies routinely review and comment on water development project permits and licenses for activities which adversely affect alosine habitat or interfere with upstream or downstream migrations. Legislation, such as the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts, address these concerns and both water and air quality has shown substantial improvements since the 1960s.

Thousands of kilometers of historic anadromous alosine habitat were lost due to development ofdams and other obstructions to migration. These impediments take many forms including large hydroelectric darns on mainstems of rivers, water storage and flood protection projects, small dams erected in tributaries to supply water to historic mills or to meet local water supply or industrial needs, culverts at highway crossings, gauging station weirs, and others. Passage success at these barriers often depends on individual stream flow characteristics during the fish migration season. Shad and river herring may be blocked by a structure only 20-30 centimeters in height above water.Many state and federal fishery agencies are involved in habitat improvement programs aimedspecifically or indirectly at rebuilding stocks of shad and river herring. In most cases, these involve characterizing habitat suitability, defining historic spawning and nursery areas, inventory of blockages to migration, and provision of fish passage facilities. Frequently, these efforts are accompanied by re-stocking above dams to imprint alosines to return and recolonize these waters. Depending on the quality and size of the habitat being restored and the nearness and migratory patterns of suitable source stocks, restoration can occur quickly and at relatively small cost (e.g., adult alewife introduction to a coastal pond), or it can take decades and cost tens of millions of dollars (e.g., large rivers with multiple mainstem dams).

53Table 7. Commercial regulations for American shad - Inriver fisheries (as of Jan. 97)STATESYSTEMSEASONGEAR LIMITSMandatoryreportingOtherRestrictionsMaineAll riversHook/Line Only2 fish per dayNew HampshireAll riversHook/Line Only2 fish per dayMassachusettsAll riversClosedRhode IslandAll riversClosedConnecticutAll riversApr 1 - Jun 15Multifilament andmonofilament gillnets only; monofilament net - nights onlyYes48hr.escapement period/weekNew YorkHudsonMar 15-Jun 15Net length: 1200 ft.max Mesh: 3.5 in to 5 in. Not allowed Gear restrictions in defined

areasyes36hr.escapement period/week -

closed area in spawning reachDelaware RiverNoneNoneNoneDelaware BayFeb 1-Dec 15Mesh: 5" from Feb 1-Feb 29 Net length 2400 ft.- Feb 1-May 15 1200 ft.-May 16-

Dec 15NoneNew JerseyRaritan/Sandy Hooks BaysFeb 1-Dec 15Mesh: 5" from Feb 1-Feb 29 Net length 2400 ft.- Feb 1-May 15 1200 ft.-May 16-

Dec 15NonePound netseason: open all year roundNew JerseyHudson RiverMar 15-Jun 15Net length: 1200 ft.Mesh 5 in.Gear restrictions in defined

areasyes36hr.escapement period/week -

closed area in spawning reachDelawareDelawareRiverNoneNo fixed gillnets (Jan1-May 31)

No Drift gillnet Sat.,

1600 hrs Sun. (May 10-Sep 30)yesLimited entryon licenses 54 Table 7 (cont

====d). Commercial regulations for American shad - Inriver fisheries (as of Jan.

97).DelawareBayNoneNo anchor gillnet-May 10-Sep 30 No drift gillnet Sat., 1600 hrs Sun. May 10-Sep

30YesLimited entryon LicensesPennsylvaniaClosedMarylandClosed (since 1980)PRFCClosed (Since 1982)VirginiaClosed (since 1994)North CarolinaJan 1-Apr 14Varies by systemMesh Size and net length/yardage restricts Closed

areas to gillnettingYes;Trip ticketNoneSouth CarolinaJan or Feb-Apr (varies by system)Varies by systemMesh Size: 4.5-5.5 in. Net length limits Closed

areasYes, fromdealers Volunteer from othersWeeklyescapement varies by river (72-108hr)GeorgiaJan 1-Mar 31Net length limitby gear type Mesh 4.5 in. Minimum restricted area for nets by systemWeeklyescapement varies by river (48-120hr)FloridaClosed 55Table 8. Commercial regulations on American shad - ocean fisheries (as of Jan. 97)

.STATESEASONGEAR LIMITSMandatoryreporting OtherRestrictionsMaineHook and Line only2 fish per dayNew HampshireNONEMassachusettsClosedRhode IslandNONEConnecticutNONENew YorkNONENew JerseyFeb 1-Dec15Mesh: 5" from Feb 1 -Feb 29 Netlength: 2400 ft. - Feb 1 -May 15 1200 ft. May 16-Dec 15 NONEPennsylvaniaN/ADelawareNONESame as inriver No gillnets<0.5 mioffshore form May 10-Nov 30YesLimited entry onlicensesMarylandFeb 2-Apr 30NONEYesLimited entry onlicensesPRFCN/AVirginiaNONENONENONENorth CarolinaJan 1-Apr 14NONEYes, TripticketArea restrictionsSouth CarolinaFeb 1-Sat. beforeEaster or Mar 25Mesh Size4. MinimumDrift net only Some restricted & closed areasWeeklyescapement: 48 hrGeorgiaClosedFloridaClosed 56Table 9.Recreational fishing regulations for American shad - Inriver (as of Jan. 97)

.STATESEASONDAILY LIMITGEAR LIMITOther RestrictionsMaineNONE2 fish/dayH&L onlyNew HampshireNONE2 fish/dayH&L onlyMassachusettsNONENONEH&L only, marinewatersRhode IslandCatch and release onlyConnecticutApr 1-Jun 306 fish/day - includesMA water of CT RiverH&L onlyNew York- Hudson RiverMar 15 - Jun 15NONEH&L onlyNo License required- Delaware RiverNONE6 fish/dayNONENew Jersey- Delaware RiverNONENONENONEPennsylvania- Delaware RiverNONE6 fish/dayH&L only- Other systemsNONELehigh: 1 fish/day;Susquehanna: C&R Schuykill: 6 fish/dayH&L onlyDelaware- Delaware RiverNONENONEH&L only- Other systemsNONE NONEH&L only<2 lures/line and 1hook/lureMarylandClosedPRFCClosedVirginiaClosedNorth Carolina- Inland

- Coastal NONEJan 1 - Apr 1410 fish/day(Aggregate Am. and hickory shad) 10 fish/day (Aggregate Am. and hickory shad)H&L, Licenserequired H&L License requiredSouth CarolinaNONENONEH&L in most rivers,small nets in others with restrictionsGeorgiaNONE8 fish/dayH&L onlyFloridaNONE10 fish aggregate(hickory/American

/dayH&L onlyLicense required 574.3.1Recommendations for Fish Habitat Conservation/Restoration1.State marine fisheries agencies should identify state permitting and planning agencies thatregulate those activities identified in Section 1.3.2 as likely to adversely affect habitat areas of particular concern (H.A.P.Cs) and habitats, either by destruction of habitat or degradation of quality. The marine fisheries agency should work with the relevant permitting or planning agency in each state to develop permit conditions and planning considerations to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts on H.A.P.C.s or other habitats necessary to sustain the species.

Standard permit conditions and model policies that contain mitigation techniques should be developed. The development of Memoranda of Understanding (MOUS) with other state agencies are recommended for joint review of projects and planning activities to ensure that habitat protections are adequately incorporated. For example, dredging windows should be established to avoid impacts to susceptible life stages. Dredging windows should be coordinated to ensure practical opportunities for permitted dredging to take place.2. When it is expected that impacts will occur from an activity described in Section 1.3.2, butprobably not above some de minimum level, prohibition of the activity may not be warranted, butthe marine fisheries agency should request that the appropriate agency consider requiring application of Best Management Practices for the activity.3. State marine fisheries agencies should coordinate with state water quality agencies and statecoastal zone management agencies to ensure that Clean Water Act Section 319 non-point source control plans and Coastal Zone Act Re-authorization Amendment Section 6217 coastal non-point

source control plans are developed and implemented so as to minimize adverse impacts of non-point source pollution on the species. In particular, marine fisheries agencies should consider whether areas merit designation as critical coastal areas under state 6217 programs (non-point source pollution control under the Coastal Zone Management Act amendments of 1990) due to water quality impacts to fish habitat, and should provide input to the 6217 lead agencies..4. State marine fisheries agencies should coordinate with appropriate state agencies to strengthencompliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permits.5. State marine fisheries agencies should work with state coastal zone management agencies to determine whether: 1) additional state policies for habitat protection should be adopted under the state coastal management program; 2) additional federal activities should be added to the state coastal management programs list of activities subject to state consistency review; and 3) the state is fully utilizing the Coastal Zone Management Act federal consistency process for

protection of fish habitats.

586. When states have identified habitat restoration as a need, state marine fisheries agenciesshould coordinate with other agencies to ensure that habitat restoration plans are developed, and funding is actively sought for plan implementation and monitoring.7. State marine fisheries agencies should coordinate with and provide input to the state waterquality agency in development and updating of the Clean Water Act section 303(d) list (priority list of water not meeting state water quality standards). In addition, state marine fisheries agencies should review the adequacy of water quality standards to protect the species of concern and should participate in the triennial review of the state water quality standards.8. State marine fisheries agencies should review oil spill prevention and response plans forpreventing accidental release and recommending prioritized response in H.A.P.C.s.9. State marine fisheries agencies should work closely with the appropriate Coast Guard DistrictOffice in the development, amendment, and implementation of areawide oil spill contingency

plans.10. State marine fisheries agencies should work closely with water quality agencies in thedevelopment or revision of river basin plans to identify degraded or threatened resources and recommend preventative, remedial or mitigation measures.11. State marine fisheries agencies should work with the appropriate agencies to developcontaminated sediment re-mediation plans or active sediment pollution prevention programs for areas with or susceptible to sediment contamination.12. State marine fisheries agencies should coordinate with appropriate National Estuary Program(NEP) committees to ensure that NEP Comprehensive Coastal Management Plans (CCMPS) identify and implement habitat protection and restoration needs.Other information regarding habitat restoration and conservation goals, and water qualityrequirements for American shad can be found in the 1985 Fishery Management Plan for American Shad and River Herrings (ASMFC 1985).4.4 Alternative State Management RegimesA state may, with the approval of the Management Board, vary their regulatory specifications contained in Sections 4.2 and 4.3, so long as that state can show to the Boards satisfaction that the target fishing mortality rate or the overfishing definition (see Section 3.3) will not be exceeded.4.4.1Management Program Equivalency 59Alternative management regimes may also include other indices of their equivalency (e.g., eggs-per-recruit, yield-per-recruit, etc.), in addition to fishing mortality protection.States shall submit proposals for altering their regulatory program for American shad, hickoryshad, or river herring to the Technical Committee and Advisory Panel for review prior to implementing any changes. The Technical Committee and Advisory Panel shall prepare reports on the proposal for the Management Boards. The Management Board shall then accept or reject the changes and establish implementation schedules for any approved changes.4.5Adaptive ManagementThe term "adaptive management" means that fishery managers evaluate the response of a population to the regulatory measures employed and react to resulting changes to ensure that the goal and objectives of a FMP are met. Adaptive management requires that the fishery and population is monitored to an extent sufficient to allow an assessment of how well the plan is performing. Necessary corrections must be made to the management regime if indications are that the population is declining, or that target fishing rates exceed levels desired. If target F is too high or the population is not stable or growing, additional restrictions on harvest must be imposed. If, on the other hand, landings are low and population growth is high, harvests may be increased. Amendment 1 will use this adaptive management approach.4.5.1General ProceduresThe Management Board may vary the requirements specified in this Amendment as a part ofadaptive management in order to achieve the goals and objectives specified in Section 2.

Specifically, the Management Board may change target fishing mortality rates, creel limits, seasonal restrictions, commercial fishery quotas and the restoration status of producer areas. Such changes will be instituted to be effective on January 1 or on the first fishing day of the following year, but may be put in place at an alternative time when deemed necessary by the Management Board.4.5.1.1Procedural Steps

1. The Plan Review Team (PRT) will continually monitor the status of the fishery and theresource and report on the status to the Management Board on or about May 1. The PRT will consult with the Technical Committee, the Stock Assessment Subcommittee (SAS) and the relevant Advisory Panel, if any, in making such review and report. The report will contain recommendations concerning proposed adaptive management revisions to the management program.2. The Management Board will review the report of the PRT, and may consult further with theTechnical Committee, the SAS or the Advisory Panel. The Management Board may direct the 60PRT to prepare an addendum to effectuate any changes it deems necessary. The addendum shall contain a schedule for the states to implement its provisions, 3. The PRT will prepare a draft addendum as directed by the Management Board, and shalldistribute it to all states for review and comment. A public hearing will be held in any state that requests one. The PRT will also request comments from federal agencies and the public at large. After a 30-day review period, the PRT will summarize the comments and prepare a final version of the addendum for the Management Board.D.The Management Board shall review the final version of the addendum prepared by the PRT,and shall also consider the public comments received and the recommendations of the Technical Committee, the SAS and the Advisory Panel; and shall then decide whether to

adopt or revise and adopt the addendum.E. Upon adoption of an addendum implementing adaptive management, states shall prepareplans to carry out the addendum, and submit them to the Management Board for approval, according to the schedule contained in the addendum.4.5.2Measures Subject To Change Management measures that may be modified under this adaptive management framework includechanges in regulatory measures such as size limits, possession limits, seasonal closures, and area closures; alteration of EEZ recommendations; creation of Special Management Zones; and modification of individual state commercial and recreational management program requirements.The Management Board may make changes to the state implementation schedule in accordancewith adaptive management provisions. Each jurisdictions

= shad and river herring regulations andmanagement program must be approved by the Management Board. States may not implement any regulatory changes concerning shad and river herring, or any management program changes that affect their responsibilities under this Amendment, without first having those changes reviewed by the Technical Committee, Advisory Panel and approved by the Management Board.

Also, any jurisdiction using a fishery model is required to submit any changes to its input parameters, including tuning procedures and model formulation, to the Technical Committee for its review and the Technical Committee will report its findings to the Management Board. See Section 4.4, Alternative State Management Regimes, for reporting procedures.4.6Emergency ProceduresThe Shad and River Herring Management Board may authorize or require emergency action thatis not covered by, or is an exception or change to, any provision in Amendment 1. These actions are based on unanticipated changes in the ecosystem, alosine stocks or alosine fisheries that result in significant risks to public health, alosine conservation, or attainment of alosine fishery management objectives. Procedures for implementation are addressed in the ASMFC Interstate Fisheries Management Charter, Section 6(c)(10) (ASMFC 1998).

614.7Management Institutions4.7.1Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and ISFMP Policy BoardThe Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) and the Interstate FisheriesManagement Program (ISFMP) Policy Board are generally responsible for the oversight and management of the Commission's fisheries management activities. The Commission must approve all fishery management plans and amendments thereto, including this Amendment 1; and must also make all final determinations concerning state compliance or noncompliance. The ISFMP Policy Board reviews recommendations of the various Management Boards and, if it

concurs, forwards them on to the Commission for action.4.7.2Shad and River Herring Management Board The Shad and River Herring Management Board is established by the Commission's ISFMPPolicy Board and is generally responsible for carrying out all activities under this Amendment. It establishes and oversees the activities of the PRT, the Technical Committee and the SAS; and requests the establishment of the Commissions Shad and River Herring Advisory Panel. Among other things, the Management Board makes changes to the management program under adaptive management, and approves state programs implementing the amendment and alternative state programs under Section 4.4. The Management Board reviews the status of state compliance with the FMP at least annually, and if it determines that a state is out of compliance, reports that determination to the ISFMP Policy Board under the terms of the ISFMP Charter.4.7.3Plan Review Team The Plan Review Team is a small group whose responsibility is to provide all necessary staffsupport to carry out and document the decisions of the Management Board. This team will be chaired by an ASMFC Shad and River Herring Coordinator. The PRT is directly responsible to the Management Board for providing all of the information and documentation necessary to carry out the Boards decisions.4.7.4Technical Committee The Shad and River Herring Technical Committee will consist of representatives from eachjurisdiction and federal agency with an interest in shad and river herring fisheries. Its role is to act as a liaison to the individual state agencies, providing information to the management process and reviewing and making recommendations concerning the management program. The Technical Committee will report to the Management Board, normally through the PRT.4.7.5Stock Assessment Subcommittee 62The Stock Assessment Subcommittee (SAS) will consist of those scientists with expertise in theassessment of shad and river herring populations. Its role is to assess shad and river herring populations and provide scientific advice concerning the implications of proposed or potential management alternatives, or to respond to other scientific questions of the Management Board.The SAS will report to the Management Board as well as the Technical Committee.

4.7.6 Advisory Panel The Shad and River Herring Advisory Panel is established according to the Commission'sAdvisory Committee Charter. Members of the Advisory Panel are citizens who represent a cross-section of commercial and recreational fishing interests and others who are concerned about shad and river herring conservation and management. The Advisory Panel provides the Management Board with advice directly concerning the Commissions shad and river herring management program. Normally, the Advisory Panels meetings will be held at and in conjunction with selected Management Board meetings.4.7.7 Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior Under ACFCMA, if the Commission determines that a state is out of compliance with the FMP itreports that finding to the Secretary of Commerce. The Secretary of Commerce must determine that the measures not taken by the state are necessary for conservation and if such a finding is determined, he/she is then required by the federal law to impose a moratorium on fishing for shad and/or river herring in that states

= waters until the state comes back into compliance. In addition,the Commission has accorded NMFS and USFWS voting status on the ISFMP Policy Board and the Shad and River Herring Management Board; and the federal agencies participate on the PRT, the Technical Committee and the SAS.

4.8 De minimis statusStates that report recreational or commercial landings of American shad that are less than 1% ofthe coastwide recreational or commercial total are exempted from sub-sampling this catch for biological data, as outlined in Section 3.3.3, paragraph 1.4.9Recommendations to SecretariesSecretary of InteriorASMFC requests that the Secretary of Interior provide necessary funding to expand the state/federal cooperative tagging program for migratory and mixed stocks of American shad. An enhanced program would greatly improve the current understanding of stock contributions to mixed stock fisheries, annual survivorship, migration, growth rates, and the efficacy of state

restoration plans.

63In addition, ASMFC recommends that the Secretary of Commerce direct the National MarineFisheries Service (NMFS) to examine existing databases for information on distribution and habitat use of offshore areas by alosines. In addition, the NMFS should expand at-sea observer programs to further quantify the extent of alosine bycatch in oceanic fisheries. Finally, ASMFC recommends that NMFS expand MRFSS coverage to include riverine or estuarine areas used by anglers to intercept alosines.

64Section 5. COMPLIANCEUnder the provisions of ACFCMA, all states (including Washington, D.C. and Potomac RiverFisheries Commission (PRFC)) are required to implement the provisions of this Amendment.

This section sets forth the specific requirements with which states must comply under the law, and the procedures that will govern the evaluation of compliance.5.1Mandatory Compliance Items For States5.1.1Regulatory RequirementsA state will be found out of compliance if it's regulatory and management programs for shad andriver herring have not been approved by the Management Board.All state programs must include a regime of restrictions on commercial and recreational fisheriesconsistent with the requirements of Sections 4.1 and 4.2. Except, a state may propose an alternative management program under Section 4.4, which if approved by the Management Board, may be implemented as an alternative regulatory requirement for compliance under the law.5.1.1.2Monitoring RequirementsAll state programs must include the mandatory monitoring requirements contained in Section3.4. 1. States must submit proposals for all intended changes to required monitoring programsthat may affect the quality of the data, or the ability of the program to fulfill the needs of the Plan. State proposals for making changes to required monitoring programs will be submitted to the Technical Committee at least two weeks prior to its spring or fall meeting. Proposals must be on a calendar year basis. The Technical Committee will make recommendations to the Management Board concerning whether the proposals are consistent with Amendment 1.5.1.2Compliance Schedule5.1.2.1 Transition to Amendment 1 States must implement this Amendment according to the following schedule:

July 1, 1999: States must submit state recovery/fishing plans (see Table 1) to implementAmendment 1 for approval by the Management Board. Plans, including monitoring programs, must be implemented according to schedule approved by the Management Board.January 1, 2000: All states must have an approved recovery/fishing plan to implementAmendment 1 in place.

655.1.2.2 Reports On Compliance Submitted to PRT AnnuallyEach state must submit an annual report concerning its shad and river herring fisheries andmanagement program on or before July I each year, beginning July 1, 1999. The report shall cover: the previous calendar years fishery and management program including activity and results of monitoring, regulations which were in effect and harvest, including estimates of non-harvest losses, following the outline contained in Table 10.All state programs must include the mandatory monitoring requirements contained in Section 3.4and Tables 2-3. States must submit proposals for all intended changes to required monitoring programs which may affect the quality of the data, or the ability of the program to fulfill the needs of the fishery management plan. State proposals for making changes to required monitoring programs will be submitted to the Technical Committee at least two weeks prior to its spring or fall meeting. Proposals must be on a calendar year basis. The Technical Committee will make recommendations to the Management Board concerning whether the proposals are

consistent with Amendment 1.In the event that a state realizes it will not be able to fulfill its fishery independent monitoringrequirements, it should immediately notify the Commission in writing. The Commission must be notified by the planned commencement date of the monitoring program. The Commission will work with the state to develop a plan to secure funding or plan an alternative program that will satisfy the needs outlined in Amendment 1. If the plan is not implemented 90 days after it has

been adopted, the state will be found out of compliance with Amendment 1.5.2Procedures for Determining ComplianceDetailed procedures regarding compliance determinations are contained in the ISFMP Charter,Section 7 (ASMFC 1998).

1. The PRT will continually review the status of state implementation, and advise theManagement Board at any time that a question arises concerning state compliance. The

PRT will review state reports submitted under Section 5.1.2 and prepare a report by October 1 for the Management Board summarizing the status of the resource and the fishery (see Section 4.5. la) and the status of state compliance on a state-by-state basis.

2. Upon review of a report from the PRT, or any time by request from a member of theManagement Board, the Management Board will review the status of an individual state

=scompliance. If the Management Board finds that a state's approved regulatory and management program fails to meet the requirements of this section, it may recommend that

the state be found out of compliance. The recommendation must include a specific list of the state=s deficiencies in implementing and enforcing the Amendment and the actions thatthe state must take in order to come back into compliance.

66 3. If the Management Board recommends that a state be found out of compliance as referred toin the preceding paragraph, it shall report that recommendation to the ISFMP Policy Board for further review according to the Commissions Charter for the Interstate Fisheries Management Program.D.The state that is out of compliance or subject to a recommendation by the ManagementBoard under the preceding subsection may request at any time that the Management Board reevaluate its program. The state shall provide a written statement concerning its actions that justify a reevaluation. The Management Board shall promptly conduct such reevaluation, and if it agrees with the state, shall recommend to the ISFMP Policy Board that the determination of noncompliance be withdrawn. The ISFMP Policy Board and the Commission shall deal with the Management Board's recommendation according to the Commission's Charter for the Interstate Fisheries Management Program..

67Table 10. Format required for Annual State Report

.1. Harvest and lossesA. Commercial fishery1. Characterization of fishery (seasons, cap, gears, regulations)2. Characterization of directed harvest for all alosinesa. Landings and method of estimation

b. Catch composition

1. Age frequencyiiLength frequency iiSex ratio ivDegree of repeat spawning (estimated from scale data)c. Estimation of effort3. Characterization of other losses (poaching, bycatch, etc.)

a. Estimate and method of estimation

b. Estimate of composition (length and/or age)B. Recreational fishery1. Characterization of fishery (seasons, cap, regulations)

2. Characterization of directed harvesta. Landings and method of estimation

b. Catch compositioni. Age frequency ii. Length frequency (legal and sub-legal catch)c. Estimation of effort3. Characterization of other losses (poaching, hook/release mortality, etc:.)

a. Estimate and method of estimation

b. Estimate of composition (length and/or age)C. Other losses (fish passage mortality, discarded males, brood stock capture, research losses,etc.)D. Table 1. Harvest and losses - including all above estimates in numbers and weight(pounds) of fish and mean weight per fish for each gear typeE. Protected species I Atlantic sturgeon bycatch estimates11. Required fishery independent monitoringA. Description of requirement as outlined in Amendment 1, Table 2 B. Brief description of work performed 68 Table 10 (cont

====d).Format required for Annual State Report

.C. Results1. Juvenile indicesa. Index of abundance

b. Variance2. Spawning stock assessmenta. Length frequency

b. Age frequency

c. Sex

d. Degree of repeat spawning3. Annual mortality rate calculation

4. Hatchery evaluation (%wild vs. hatchery juveniles) 69Table 11. Format for state fishing/recovery plansI..Inriver or estuarine fisheriesA. Description of inriver management areas (including geographic boundaries)

B. Restoration targets for stocks (e.g., spawning run size, population targets, etc.)

C. Restoration target mortality rate for individual stocks

D. Timeline for restoration of individual stocks E. Management measures to achieve restoration1. Commercial quotas, seasons, gear restrictions

2. Recreational possession limits, seasons

3. Hatchery programs 4. Other programs (habitat improvement, fish passage, etc.)II .Ocean-intercept fisheriesA. Description of fisheries (season, location, regulations, etc.)

B. Phase-out plan (five year timeline for effort reduction)

C. Mixed stock evaluation (i.e., programmatic details for evaluating stock contribution tostate ocean landings of American shad).

70Section 6. MANAGEMENT RESEARCH NEEDSStates are strongly encouraged to implement the management measures contained in Section 3.4(stocking/restoration), Section 4.1 (habitat requirements), and Section 6 (research).6.1Stock Assessment and Population Dynamics1) Initiate studies to document fishing mortality rates and to establish if density dependentcatchability exists.2)Improve records of catch and effort, particularly on inland recreational fisheries of American shad, and establish the amount of harvest reported as American shad and/or river herring that is actually hickory shad.3)Develop standard procedures for developing and validating juvenile abundance indices.

4)Design and implement a coordinated interstate coastal tagging research program.

5)Conduct studies on energetics of feeding and spawning migrations of shad on the Atlanticcoast.6)Analyze American shad growth.

7)Determine and partition annual mortality rates for A major exploited stocks, 8)Ensure that domestic Atlantic mackerel, squid, butterfish fisheries, and joint venturefisheries for Atlantic herring, Atlantic mackerel, and Atlantic menhaden are closely monitored for river herring and immature American shad bycatch and discard.9)Encourage research on hickory shad.10)Additional bycatch research and the effects of the shad gillnet fishery on protected species.6.2Habitat Information Needs/Recommendations for Future Research

1) Identify and quantify potential American shad spawning and nursery habitat not presentlyutilized and analyze the cost of recovery within those areas.

2) Define restrictions necessary for implementation of projects in spawning and overwinteringareas and develop policies on limiting development projects seasonally or spatially.

3) Conduct historical characterization of socioeconomic development (potential pollutantsources and habitat modification) of selected shad rivers along the East Coast.

71 4) Document the impact of power plants and other water intakes on larval, postlarval, andjuvenile mortality in spawning and nursery areas, and calculate the resultant impact to adult population size.

5) Review studies dealing with the effects of acid deposition on anadromous alosines.

6) Evaluate state water quality standards and criteria to ensure accountability for the specialneeds of anadromous alosines.

7) Analyze optimum habitat utilization of American shad.

8) Determine the effects of pollution, passage impediments, and other anthropogenic impactson all life history stages of shad and river herring.

9) Determine utilization/effectiveness of constructed passage devices to evaluate continued use and/or further construction.

10) Determine biotic effects of alosine passage into previously restricted habitats (i.e., lakes, ponds, strearns).6.3Stocking

1) Conduct studies of egg and larval survival and development.

2) Determine biotic and abiotic mechanisms affecting the stock/recruitment relationship.

3) Examine early juvenile stages of anadomous alosines.

4) Develop a long-term mark or tag for juvenile American shad.

5) Develop stock ID procedures to permit identification of specific river stocks in mixed-stock intercept fisheries.

6) Conduct research to identify effective methods for restoration stocking programs.

7) Determine biotic effects of alosine stocking on other native species into previouslyrestricted habitats.6.4Social and Economic Research NeedsSocial data needs might include the following for consumptive and non-consumptive users:demographic information (e.g. age, gender, ethnicity/race, etc.), social structure information (e.g. historical participation, affiliation with NGOS, perceived conflicts, etc.), emic culture 72information (e.g. occupational motivation, cultural traditions related to resources use), andcommunity information.

73Section 7. LITERATURE CITEDASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 1985. Fishery Management Plan for the Anadromous Alosid Stocks of the Eastern United States: American Shad, Hickory Shad, Alewife, and Blueback Herring: Phase II in Interstate Management Planning for Migratory Alosids of the Atlantic Coast. Washington, D.C. XVIII + 347 pp._____.1988. Supplement to the Fishery Management Plan for the Anadromous Alosid Stocks ofthe Eastern United States: American Shad, Hickory Shad, Alewife, and Blueback Herring. Washington, D.C. 210 pages._____.1992. Supplement to the striped bass FMP - Amendment #4. Addendum III - Calculationof juvenile indices. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, D.C. 5

pp._____.1998. Interstate Fisheries Management Program Charter - February 1998. Atlantic StatesMarine Fisheries Commission, Washington, D.C. 24 pp.

_____.1998. American Shad Stock Assessment Peer Review Report - March 1998. AtlanticStates Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, D.C. 217 pp.Barnthouse L. W. and W. Van Winkle. 1988. Analysis of Impingement Impacts on HudsonRiver Fish Populations. American Fisheries Society, Monograph 4:182-190.Carscadden, J. E. and W. C. Leggett. 1975. Meristic differences in spawning populations ofAmerican shad, Alosa sapidissima: evidence for homing to tributaries in the St. John River, New Brunswick. Fisheries Research Board of Canada Bulletin 32:653-660.Chittenden, M. E., Jr. 1969. Life history and ecology of the American shad, Alosa sapidissima

,in the Delaware River. PhD Thesis, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.Chittenden, M. E., Jr. 1976. Weight loss, mortality feeding, and duration of residence of adultAmerican shad, Alosa sapidissima, in fresh water. Fishery Bulletin 74(l):151-157.Collins, M. R., S. G. Rogers, and T. I. J. Smith. 1996. Bycatch of sturgeons along the southernAtlantic coast of the U.S. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:24-29.Collins, M. R., and T. I.. J. Smith. 1995. Characteristics of the adult segment of the SavannahRiver population of shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Proceedings of theSoutheastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 47:485-491.Crecco, V. 1992. Revised striped bass juvenile indices from the Maryland survey based on thegeometric mean. Report to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, D.C.

74 Crecco, V. 1998. Stock assessment of American shad from selected Atlantic coast rivers. Report to the External Peer Review Panel, March 1998.Dadswell, M. J., G. D. Melvin and P. J. Williams. 1983. Effect of turbidity on the temporal andspatial utilization of the inner Bay of Fundy by American shad (Alosa sapidissima)(Pisces:Clupeidae) and its relationship to local fisheries. Canadian Journal of Fisheries

and Aquatic Sciences 40:322-330.Dadswell, M. J., G. D. Melvin , P. J. Williams and D. E. Themelis. 1987. Influences of origin,life history, and chance on the Atlantic coast migration of American shad. American Fisheries Society Symposium 1:313:330.Davis, J., J. P. Miller, and W. L. Wilson. 1970. Biology and utilization of anadromous alosids.Completion Report 1967-1970. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point.DBFWMC (Delaware Basin Fish and Wildlife Management Cooperative). 198 1. Amanagement plan for the American shad (Alosa sapidissima) in the Delaware River basin.Durbin, A. G., S. W. Nixon, and C. A. Oviatt. 1979. Effects of the spawning migration of thealewife on freshwater ecosystems. Ecology 60:8-17.Facey, D. E. and M. J. Van Den Avyle. 1986. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (South Atlantic) - American shad. U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82 (11.45). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 18 pp.

Garrnan, G. C.

1992. Fate and potential significance of postspawning anadromous fish carcassesin an Atlantic coastal river. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 121:390-394.Gordon, D. C. and A. R. Longhurst. 1979. The environmental aspects of a tidal power project inthe upper reaches of the Bay of Fundy. Marine Pollution Bulletin 10:38-45.Hall, L. W., Jr., S. A. Fischer, W. D. Killen, M. C. Ziegenfuss, R.

D. Anderson, and R. J.

Klauda. 1993. Assessing the relationship between critical acidic conditions in Maryland coastal plain streams and predicted mortality of early life stages of migratory fish.

AquaticToxicology 26:239-272.Hildebrand, S. F. and W. C. Schroeder. 1928. Fishes of Chesapeake Bay. U.S. Bureau ofFisheries Bulletin 43:1-366.Jesien, R. V., S. K. Gaichas, J.

E. Serafy, and C. H. Hocutt. 1992. Stock composition of coastalMaryland and Virginia American shad fisheries: 1992 tagging study. Final Report No.

F267-92-008 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, December 1992, 24 pages.

75Johnson, H. 1982. Status of American shad in North Carolina. North Carolina Division ofMarine Fisheries, Elizabeth City, North Carolina.Jones, P. W., F. D. Martin, and J. D. Hardy, Jr. 1978. Development of fishes of the mid- AtlanticBight. An atlas of egg, larval, and juvenile stages. Vol 1. Acipenseridae through Ictaluridae. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-78/12.Klauda, R. J. 1994. Lethal and critical effects thresholds for American shad eggs and larvaeexposed to acid and aluminum in the laboratory, with speculation on the potential role of habitat acidification on stock status in Maryland. Pages 7-39 in J. E. Cooper, R. T. Eades, R. J. Klauda, and J. G. Loesch, editors. Anadromous Alosa Symposium, TidewaterChapter, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.Klauda, R. J., S. A. Fischer, L. W. Hall, Jr., and J. A. Sullivan. 1991. American shad andhickory shad, Alosa sapidissima and Alosa mediocris. In Habitat Requirements forChesapeake Living Resources, ed. S. L. Funderburk, S. J. Jordan, J. A. Mihurky, and D.

Riley. Living Resources Subcommittee, Chesapeake Bay Program, Solomons, Maryland.Leggett, W. C. and R. R. Whitney. 1972. Water temperatures and the migrations of Americanshad. Fisheries Bulletin 70:659-670.Leland, J.

G. 1968. A survey of the sturgeon fishery of South Carolina. Contributions fromBears Bluff Laboratories 47.Levesque, R. C. and R. J. Reed. 1972. Food availability and consumption by young Connecticut River shad Alosa sapidissima. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 29:1495-1499.Loesch, J. G. 1987. Overview of life history aspects of anadromous alewife and blueback herringin freshwater habitats. American Fisheries Society Symposium 1:89-103.Loesch, J. G. and W. A. Lund. 1977. A contribution to the life history of the blueback herring, Alosa aestivalis. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 106:583-589.Lukacovic, R. and L. Pieper. 1996. Short-term mortality of hickory shad, Alosa mediocris,caught and released by fishermen in Deer Creek, Maryland. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Service. Technical Report Number 19.MacKenzie, C., L. S. Weiss-Glanz and J R. Moring. 1985. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Mid Atlantic) --

American shad. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82 (11.37). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-82-4. 18 pp.

76Mansueti, A. J.

1962. Eggs, larvae, and young of the hickory shad, Alosa mediocris, withcomments on its ecology in the estuary. Chesapeake Science 3:173-205.Mansucti, A. J. and J. D. Hardy. 1967. Development of fishes of the Chesapeake Bay region: Anatlas of egg, larval, and juvenile stages, Part 1. Natural Resource Institute, University of Maryland, Solomons.Mansueti, A. J. and H. Kolb. 1953. A historical review of the shad fisheries of North America.Maryland Department of Research and Education. Chesapeake Biological Laboratory Publication 97:1-293, Solomons, Maryland.Marcy, B. C., Jr. 1976. Planktonic fish eggs and larvae of the lower Connecticut River and theeffects of the Connecticut Yankee plant including entrainment. American Fisheries Society Monograph 1:115-139.Marcy, B. C., Jr. and P. Jacobson. 1976. Early life history studies of American shad in theLower Connecticut River and the effects of the Connecticut Yankee plant. American Fisheries Society Monograph 1:141-168.Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC). 1998. Annual Quota Specifications forAtlantic Mackerel, Loligo, Illex, and Butterfish for 1999. Dover, Delaware.Miller J. and A. Lupine. 1996. Creel survey of the Delaware River American shad recreationalfishery. Delaware River Shad Fishermen

=s Association, Hellertown, Pennsylvania.

Moss, D. D.

1946. Preliminary studies of the shad (Alosa sapidissima) catch in the lowerConnecticut River, 1944. Transactions of the North American Wildlife Conference

11:230-239.Musick, J. A., S. A. Bellmund, R. C. Klinger, R. A. Byles, J. A. Keinath, and D. E. Bernard.1987. Ecology of sea turtles in Virginia. Special Scientific Report Number 199. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia.National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Recovery Plan forHawksbill Turtles in the U.S. Caribbean Sea, Atlantic Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico.

National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg,.Florida.Neves, R. J. and L. Depres. 1979. The oceanic migration of American shad, Alosa sapidissima,along the Atlantic coast. Fisheries Bulletin 77:199-212.Nichols, P. R. 1959. St Johns shad fever. Florida Wildlife 2:22-39.

Pate, P. P. 1972. Life history aspects of the hickory shad, Alosa mediocris (Mitchill), in theNeuse River, North Carolina. M.S. Thesis. North Carolina State University, Raleigh.

77Richkus, W. A. 1975. Migratory behavior and growth of juvenile anadromous alewives, Alosapseudoharengus, in a Rhode Island drainage. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 104(3):483-493.Richkus, W. A. and G. DiNardo. 1984. Current status and biological characteristics of theanadromous alosid stocks of the eastern United States: American shad, hickory shad, alewife and blueback herring. Interstate Fisheries Management Program, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, D.C.Rulifson, R. A., M. T. Huish and R. W. Thoesen. 1982. Anadromous fish in the southeasternUnited States and recommendations for development of a management plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia.Savoy, T. and V. Crecco. 1995. Factors affecting the recent decline of blueback herring andAmerican shad in the Connecticut River. A Report to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, D.C. 48 pp.Scott, W. B. and M. G. Scott. 1988. Atlantic fishes of Canada. Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 219, 731 p.Scarratt, D. J. and M. J. Dadswell. 1983. New approaches to tidal power. Fisheries andEnvironmental Sciences, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Biological Station, St.

Andrews, New Brunswick, Canada.Walburg, C. H. 1960. Abundance and life history of the shad, St Johns River, Florida. U.S. Fishand Wildlife Fisheries Bulletin 60:487-501.Walburg, C. H. and P. R. Nichols. 1967. Biology and management of the American shad and thestatus of fisheries, Atlantic coast of the United States, 1960. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special Report - Fish 550.Weiss-Glanz, L.S., J.G. Stanley and J.R. Moring. 1986. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (North Atlantic) --

American shad. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82 (11.59). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 16 pp.Wiley, D. N., R. A. Asmutis, T. D. Pitchford and D. P. Gannon. 1994. Stranding and mortalityof humpback whales, Megaptera novaengliae, in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast United States, 1985-1992. Fisheries Bulletin 93:196-205.