ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION Our Fishery Management Plan for American Eel
ASMFC’s interest in Eel due to decline in abundance l Recently, various indicators of abundance show a decrease (1980s to 1990s) l Historically eel were very abundant - possibly providing 25 to 50% of total fish biomass in coastal streams (Smith and Saunders 1955; Ogden 1970)
Process through which a species is considered for management by the ASMFC l Interjurisdictional species found in the Atlantic coastal area l Significant decrease in abundance l Decrease in average age and size l Calculated mortality rate high l Economic concerns
Process for FMP l States identify their interest - Management Board formed l Technical Committee established l Plan Development Team formed –Draft plan written, reviewed/input by l public hearings l resource experts l habitat managers l law enforcement l Draft plan out for public hearings
Summary of Resource Concern l Stock abundance recently decreasing l States identifying economic losses l Concern expressed at Public Hearings that habitat impairments need to be identified
OUTCOME - DRAFT FMP l Through its preparation we learned that stock assessment –fishery dependent data are weak –fishery independent data also weak l Habitat quantity has been restricted l Habitat quality was degraded but is improving
Generic “mission” statement for most governmental agencies Provide for healthy, diverse, and productive fish community(ies) based self-sustaining native populations, occupying historic ranges, fulfilling their ecosystem functions, and allowing for a sustainable harvest.
External P roblems and Challenges l Improved team approach with “partners” –Shared understanding of the issues –Shared goals and objectives l Standardization of data l Data sharing (not selling) in a timely fashion
An Exciting Time for Resource Management l Ecosystem approach has strong science support l New tools allow better data collection and data management (GPS, GIS) l All agencies are being moved towards the ecosystem approach
Eel have a unique life history l Catadromous - therefore up and down stream passage is important l Panmictic - therefore dealing with one population throughout its range l Range from Labrador to Panama, however, main concentration in Mid-Atlantic region
The following habitat data were compiled for FWS by W.D.N.Busch, S.J. Lary, and C.M. Castiglione (1998) l USEPA - 1:100,000 hydrology database for entire east coast (Reach Files Version 3 (rf3-alpha). l USACOE - National Inventory of Dams Database( CD). l USGS - Daily streamflow for the entire east coast.
Assumptions in addressing eel habitat l Glass eel (elvers) inhabit tidal salt, mixed and freshwaters (Tesch 1977) l Yellow eel (juvenile) inhabit rivers and impoundments (Hardy 1978; Fahay 1978) l Silver eel (maturing adults/adults) inhabit rivers and impoundments until sexually mature for return to the ocean (Wenner 1973; Facey and Van Den Avyle 1987)
Historic or Potential Habitats RegionStream Length Estuary Area (km)Fresh Mixed Seawater (km 2 ) South Atlantic Mid Atlantic North Atlantic Great Lakes/St. Law NDND ND TOTAL
Assumptions for this preliminary attempt to quantify habitat lost to eel l Upstream - dams restrict or prevent eel movement l Locks for navigation do not provide complete access l Downstream survival is also critical
The Watersheds with Dams Est. Avg. Annual water flow = 44,000 cfs
The Watersheds showing historic eel access and current, unrestricted access
North Atlantic Region: HUC# Descriptive Name Historic Current% lost # dams 101 St. John River Penobscot R. basin Kenebec R. basin Androscoggin R. basin Maine Coastal Area Saco Area Merrimack R. basin Connecticut R. basin Mass.-Rode Isl. Area Connecticut Area St. Francois River
The Watersheds with Dams Est. Avg. Annual water flow = 23,000 cfs
The Watersheds showing historic eel access and current, unrestricted access
Mid Atlantic Region HUC# Descriptive Name Historic Current % lost # dams 201 Richelieu L.Champl Upper Hudson Lower Hudson Delaware C. Area Susquehanna basin Upper Chesapeake Potomac R. basin Lower Chesapeake
The Watersheds with Dams Est. Annual Avg. water flow = 44,000 cfs
The Watersheds showing historic eel access and current, unrestricted access
South Atlantic Region HUC# Descriptive Name Historic Current % lost # dams 301 Chowan-Roanoke D Neuse-Pamlico D Cape Fear C. Drain Pee Dee Coastal D Edisto-Santee C.D Ogeechee-Savannah Altamaha-St. Marys St. Johns Coastal D Southern Florida C.D
The Watersheds with Dams Est. Avg. annual water flow = 300,000 cfs
Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Region HUC# Descriptive Name Historic Current % lost # dams 412 Niagara R/E. Erie SW Lake Ontario 7, SE Lake Ontario 14, L.Ontario/St. Lawren. 18, Lost due to dams on the St. Lawrence River
Summary of Findings Types and Numbers of Dams by Region Region <10 ft HydroE. North Atlantic Mid Atlantic South Atlantic Great Lakes/St. Law
Summary of Potential Habitat Loses (Worse Case Scenario) RegionStream Length (km) Per Cent North Atlantic101,13491 Mid Atlantic174,78188 South Atlantic190,13677 Great Lakes/St. Law. 39, TOTAL466,05178
Potential Habitat Loses (Worse Case Scenario) RegionStream Length Per Cent (km) Atlantic Coast (Total)466,05178 of 596,738
Cumulative Impact from Restricted Access
Downstream Issues Although many areas of eel life history are still not well documented, one fact is certain - recruitment requires parents.
Eel not only need upstream passage to reach habitat to grow and mature, but adults need safe downstream passage in order to reproduce.
Turbine Mortality - St. Lawrence River
ASMFC’s Management activities: 1. Complete and approve FMP 2. Implement fishery dependent and fishery independent assessment programs 3. Update data on obstructions to up- and down-stream movements 4. Update data on contaminants and effect on reproduction 5. Make recommendations to minimize anthropogenic impacts 6. As year-class strength data become available assess cause/effect and minimize “causes”