Sometimes known as Atlantic Shad, Common Shad, Connecticut River Shad, Herring Jack, North River Shad, Potomac Shad, Shad, White Shad

Transcription

1 AMERICAN SHAD Alosa sapidissima Sometimes known as Atlantic Shad, Common Shad, Connecticut River Shad, Herring Jack, North River Shad, Potomac Shad, Shad, White Shad SUMMARY American Shad are naturally found from Florida to Canada, but have also been introduced into U.S. West Coast waters. American Shad hatch in freshwater, spend part of their life in the ocean, and then return to freshwater rivers to spawn. Historically they spawned in almost every accessible river and tributary on the Atlantic coast, but blockage of these rivers has significantly reduced their spawning habitat. Despite the closure of ocean fisheries in 2005 and management measures throughout their range, abundances of American Shad are greatly reduced compared to historical levels and do not appear to be recovering. The commercial fisheries that still exist capture American Shad with gillnets and pound nets, which cause little damage to bottom habitat. Criterion Points Final Score Color Life History Abundance Habitat Quality and Fishing Gear Impacts Management 2.25 Bycatch 2.00 Final Score 1.85 Color

2 LIFE HISTORY Core Points (only one selection allowed) If a value for intrinsic rate of increase ( r ) is known, assign the score below based on this value. If no r-value is available, assign the score below for the correct age at 50% maturity for females if specified, or for the correct value of growth rate ('k'). If no estimates of r, age at 50% maturity, or k are available, assign the score below based on maximum age Intrinsic rate of increase <0.05; OR age at 50% maturity >10 years; OR growth rate <0.15; OR maximum age >30 years Intrinsic rate of increase = ; OR age at 50% maturity = 5-10 years; OR a growth rate = ; OR maximum age = years. American Shad reach sexual maturity around 5 years old (Haas-Castro 2006) and have a maximum age of around 13 years (ASMFC 2007A). Growth rates from the Potomac River are estimated to be around 0.6 (ASMFC 2007c). While in the James, York and Rappahannock Rivers of Virginia, growth rates range from 0.44 to 0.54 and in North Carolina, growth rates vary from 0.36 to 0.59 (ASMFC 2007C). American Shad can attain a length of 75 cm and a weight of 5.5 kg (Robins et al. 1986). Although American Shad grow fast, they have an average life span and age of sexually maturity for fin-fish so a score of 2 was awarded Intrinsic rate of increase >0.16; OR age at 50% maturity = 1-5 years; OR growth rate >0.30; OR maximum age <11 years. Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed) Species has special behaviors that make it especially vulnerable to fishing pressure (e.g., spawning aggregations; site fidelity; segregation by sex; migratory bottlenecks; unusual attraction to gear; etc.). Once they reach maturity American Shad return to the natal streams they were hatched in to spawn although straying does occur with some individuals (~3%) spawning in nearby non-natal rivers (Mansueti and Kolb 1953; Williams and Daborn 1984; Melvin et al. 1985; Facey and Van Den Avyle 1986). There is good evidence that discrete spawning populations exist (Walburg and Nichols 1967; Thorrold et al. 1998; Hoenig et al. 2008). The in-river commercial and recreational fisheries along the coast occur during the springtime migration, when the fish move into the rivers to spawn (ASMFC 2007A). American Shad is targeted for its meat and roe. The popularity of the fish is reflected in its Latin name, Alosa sapidissima, which translates as most delicious herring. Female fish are also extremely prized for their roe (Olney et al. 2001). Populations south of Cape Hatteras are almost completely semelparous (i.e. the fish spawn once and then die) (ASMFC 2009). Males arrive on the spawning grounds before females (Leim 1924).

3 While Shad are known to spawn repeatedly as they move upriver during the spawning season (Glebe and Leggett 1981), roe fisheries specifically targeting the females can intercept them before any spawning has occurred (ASMFC 2009b). Populations of American Shad are at very low levels (see section on Abundance below for more detail) and continued removal of females from populations before they are able to spawn could hamper recovery efforts Species has a strategy for sexual development that makes it especially vulnerable to fishing pressure (e.g., age at 50% maturity >20 years; sequential hermaphrodites; extremely low fecundity) Species has a small or restricted range (e.g., endemism; numerous evolutionarily significant units; restricted to one coastline; e.g., American lobster; striped bass; endemic reef fishes) Species exhibits high natural population variability driven by broad-scale environmental change (e.g. El Nino; decadal oscillations). Wide scale environmental change is one theory used to explain declines in the number of American Shad passing through dams from South Carolina to Maine from the late 1990 s to the early 2000 s (ASMFC 2007A). The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission recognizes that modifications to American Shad habitat are likely to occur as a result of climate change, which could result in changes to large-scale distribution patterns of American Shad (ASMFC 2010) Species does not have special behaviors that increase ease or population consequences of capture OR has special behaviors that make it less vulnerable to fishing pressure (e.g., species is widely dispersed during spawning) Species has a strategy for sexual development that makes it especially resilient to fishing pressure (e.g., age at 50% maturity <1 year; extremely high fecundity). American Shad hatch in fresh water, spend part of their life (2-6 years) in the ocean and return to fresh water to spawn (Talbot and Ykes 1958; Walburg and Nichols 1967; Bilkovic et al. 2002a; Haas-Castro 2006). Shad in the southern range usually die after spawning but those found north of Cape Hatteras can spawn for several years (Haas- Castro 2006). Spawning appears to be related to water temperature (O Leary and Kynard 1986), so American Shad in the south spawn earlier than those in the northern part of their range (Leggett and Whitney 1972; Quinn and Adams 1996; Limburg et al. 2003). It is generally thought American Shad begin migrating into rivers in their southernmost region to spawn in January and this continues until July in the northernmost rivers (Haas- Castro 2006). The temperature range for spawning American Shad is 8-26 C (Walburg and Nichols 1967; Stier and Crance 1985), with optimum spawning occurring from C (Ross et al. 1993).

4 American Shad historically spawned in almost every accessible river and tributary on the Atlantic coast, but blockage of these rivers has significantly reduced this habitat (discussed in more detail under Habitat section below) (ASMFC 1999). In the Chesapeake Bay, American Shad spawn in freshwater areas of estuaries from March through June, with peaks occurring in April (Klauda et al. 1991). In the Susquehanna River, spawning runs begin in March but peak from May through June (ASMFC 2007A). In Maine, American Shad spawn in the Saco, Androscoggin and Kennebec Rivers from May through August, with peak spawning occurring in June or July (ASMFC 2007A). In the Hudson River, American Shad spawn from Kingston to Troy (upper half of river estuary) over sandy and gravelly shoals and in shallow waters (ASMFC 2007B). Spawning occurs from Stump Neck, Maryland to Cockpit Point, Virginia in the Potomac River and the three main spawning areas in Virginia are the Rappahannock, York and James Rivers (ASMFC 2007A). Spawning in these rivers occurs from March through June, and peaks in April (ASMFC 20007). In Florida, spawning occurs during the winter months (ASMFC 2007C). American shad populations south of Cape Hatteras are typically semelparous (= spawn once then die) while populations in the northern range exhibit a higher occurrence of repeat spawning. As a result of the semelparity, American Shad in the southern range are generally more fecund (produce more eggs) than those found in the northern range. It is estimated that females can produce around 300,000 eggs per female in their southern range, while in the northern range first-time spawners produce on average 125,000 eggs in a season (Haas-Castro 2006). However, the number of eggs produced also increases with female age (ASMFC 2007A). American Shad have medium to high fecundity so no points were added Species is distributed over a very wide range (e.g., throughout an entire hemisphere or ocean basin; e.g., swordfish; tuna; Patagonian toothfish). American Shad are native to the east coast of the US and Canada (Florida to New Brunswick) but have also been introduced on the US west coast (Haskell et al. 2006). Along the US east coast, American Shad are most abundant from North Carolina to Connecticut (Facey and Van Den Avyle 1986). American Shad begin their life in freshwater rivers where they remain until the fall, before migrating to the sea (Facey and Van Den Avyle 1986). There are some individuals that overwinter in the Mid-Atlantic and southern rivers and estuaries (Hoffman et al. 2007). Shad have large seasonal migrations: in January and February they are found in offshore waters from Florida to Nova Scotia, with spawning occurring from Florida to South Carolina. In March and April they move onshore and north towards Nova Scotia with spawning occurring from North Carolina to the Bay of Fundy. In late June, they are found in large concentrations in the inner section of the Bay of Fundy, Gulf of St. Lawrence, throughout the Gulf of Maine and off Newfoundland and Labrador, with spawning occurring from the Delaware River to St. Lawrence. During the fall months, they leave these northern locations and begin migrating south towards Georgia and Florida (Dadswell et al. 1987; Hattala et al. 1998). The main overwintering locations are off the Scotian Shelf, in the Mid-Atlantic Bight and off the Florida coast (Dadswell et al. 1987; Hoffman et al. 2007).

5 While American shad exhibit large seasonal migrations along the Atlantic coast, rivers are believed to support genetically distinct population (Hasselman et al 2010). Management needs to focus on maintaining genetic diversity on both river and regional scales (Hasselman et al 2010). American Shad currently have a medium distribution range so no points were added Species does not exhibit high natural population variability driven by broad-scale environmental change (e.g., El Nino; decadal oscillations) Points for Life History ABUNDANCE Core Points (only one selection allowed) Compared to natural or un-fished level, the species population is: 1.00 Low: Abundance or biomass is <75% of BMSY or similar proxy (e.g., spawning potential ratio). American Shad abundances have declined in many areas, most specifically in the mid- Atlantic and southern New England States (ASMFC 2007A). Past fishing in both coastal and estuarine areas, continued bycatch in ocean fisheries, increased juvenile and adult predation by fish and mammals, and habitat damage from dams have all been suggested as reasons for these declines (ASMFC 2007A). A complete population assessment of American Shad was last conduced on 31 populations (out of 64) in 2007 and the specific results are presented herein. Abundances of American Shad in Maine are below both historic levels and current restoration goals and in New Hampshire, adult returns to the Exeter River have been very low in recent years (ASMFC 2007A). The status of American Shad populations in the Merrimack River (Massachusetts) is unknown but the population in Pawcatuck River (Rhode Island) is in recovery (ASMFC 2007A), while the status of the population in the rest of Rhode Island waters is unknown (ASMFC 2007B). The Connecticut River population is considered depressed relative to historic levels (ASMFC 2008B) and American Shad populations in the Hudson River are at the lowest levels in 125 years (ASMFC 2007A). The number of adult American Shad in the Delaware River is far below target levels and in Maryland rivers, populations of American Shad are at historically low levels (ASMFC 2007A). In the Potomac River, American Shad populations have been increasing over time and this population shows the most promising signs of recovery among the Chesapeake Bay population (ASMFC 2007A). Populations in most parts of the

6 Susquehanna River have recovered over the last 30 years and appear to be near restoration goals (ASMFC 2007C), while in Virginia, the James River population has not yet recovered, the York River population is well below the high abundances of the 1950 s, and the Rappahannock River population is considered stable and increasing (ASMFC 2007A). American Shad abundance in Albemarle Sound, North Carolina is below historic levels and the population status in the Pamlico, Neuse and Cape Fear Rivers is unknown (ASMFC 2007A). Populations of American Shad appear to be increasing in Winyah Bay, and in the Santee River South Carolina but populations in the Edisto, Savannah and Combahee River appear to be declining (ASMFC 2007A). The population of American Shad in the Altamaha River, Georgia appears to be depressed compared to levels from the 1960 s and levels in the Ogeechee, Satilla and St. Marys Rivers are unknown (ASMFC 2007A). American Shad populations in St. Johns River, Florida are considered low but stable (ASMFC 2007A). Overall, the 2007 population assessment found American Shad populations have substantially declined compared to historic levels and are not recovering (ASMFC 2007D). We have therefore assigned a score of Medium: Abundance or biomass is % of BMSY or similar proxy; OR population is approaching or recovering from an overfished condition; OR adequate information on abundance or biomass is not available High: Abundance or biomass is >125% of BMSY or similar proxy. Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed) The population is declining over a generational time scale (as indicated by biomass estimates or standardized CPUE). Trends in abundance over time vary between regions but show an overall declining trend. For example, abundance of American Shad in the Connecticut River and Long Island Sound show no trend over time but abundance from the Hudson River declined from 1986 to 1999 and declines over the past 17 years were also seen in areas of the Delaware River (ASMFC 2007A). In the Nanticoke River (Chesapeake Bay) abundance from the pound net fishery has increased since 1988 and in the Potomac River gillnet fishery abundance has also increased (ASMFC 2007A). No real trend has been evident over time in the York or Rappahannock Rivers of Virginia (ASMFC 2007A). Abundance of American Shad caught in gillnets in Albemarle Sound (North Carolina) has increased over the past years (ASMFC 2007A). No trends were evident in the Winyah Bay or Pee Dee River (South Carolina) drift gillnet fishery. Abundance did increase in the Waccamaw River gillnet fishery and in the lower Santee River drift net fishery but abundance declined in the Edisto River (ASMFC 2007A). Abundances from the Combahee, Altamaha and Savannah Rivers in Georgia showed no trend over time (ASMFC 2007A). Abundances of American Shad in the Saco, Kennebec, Exeter,

7 Pawcatuck, Hudson, Susquehanna, James, Edisto, Altamaha, and St. Johns Rivers are all declining (ASMFC 2007A) Age, size or sex distribution is skewed relative to the natural condition (e.g., truncated size/age structure or anomalous sex distribution). Changes in the mean length of American Shad have been variable over time and between rivers. For example, the mean length of American Shad from the Saco River in Maine declined from but remained variable over time in the Exeter River of New Hampshire, the Merrimack River of Massachusetts, and the Paweatuck River of Rhode Island (ASMFC 2007A). Mean length of American Shad increased slightly since the late 1990 s in the Hudson River of New York, the Susquehanna River of Maryland, the Rappahannock, James and York Rivers of Virginia, and the Edisto River of South Carolina, while the mean length decreased in recent years in the Roanoke, Tar-Pamlico and Albermale Rivers of North Carolina (ASMFC 2007A). From the mean length of American Shad in St. Johns River (Florida) was less than the historical (1958) mean as were the proportions of females (McBride and Holder 2008). No real trends in mean length were apparent in other rivers within American Shad s range (ASMFC 2007A). Due to the conflicting trends in mean length we have not subtracted any points, although it is likely that the overall closures of the fisheries had protected the agestructure in recent history Species is listed as "overfished" OR species is listed as "depleted", "endangered", or "threatened" by recognized national or international bodies Current levels of abundance are likely to jeopardize the availability of food for other species or cause substantial change in the structure of the associated food web. American Shad are opportunistic feeders, typically feeding on zooplankton and aquatic insects in rivers (Haskell et al. 2006). For example, in the Connecticut River, American Shad larvae eat copepods, midge larvae and pupae and small crustaceans (Levesque and Reed 1972; Crecco and Blake 1983). Juvenile American Shad in this river also eat small crustaceans, midge larvae and pupae, adult insects, fly larvae (Levesque and Reed 1972) and shrimp (Hoffman et al. 2007). Adult American Shad consume mostly plankton while offshore, but also fish and zooplankton (Hildebrand 1963; Vinogradov 1981; Rulifson et al. 1982). Juvenile American Shad are preyed on by American eels and striped bass in freshwater and tunas, porpoises and sharks offshore (Walburg and Nichols 1967). Once adults return to rivers to spawn, they are preyed on by fish, birds and wildlife species (ASMFC 2010). There have been links made between increased striped bass predation on American Shad and a decrease in their abundance in the Connecticut River (Savoy and Crecco 1995). They have historically played an important ecological role in both freshwater and marine food chains during all life stages (Facey and Van Den Avyle 1986; MacKenzie et al. 1985; Weiss-glanz et al. 1986). It is likely their decreased abundance over time has impacted the food webs throughout their range, so we have subtracted points.

8 +0.25 The population is increasing over a generational time scale (as indicated by biomass estimates or standardized CPUE) Age, size or sex distribution is functionally normal Species is close to virgin biomass Current levels of abundance provide adequate food for other predators or are not known to affect the structure of the associated food web Points for Abundance HABITAT QUALITY AND FISHING GEAR IMPACTS Core Points (only one selection allowed) Select the option that most accurately describes the effect of the fishing method upon the habitat that it affects 1.00 The fishing method causes great damage to physical and biogenic habitats (e.g., cyanide; blasting; bottom trawling; dredging) The fishing method does moderate damage to physical and biogenic habitats (e.g., bottom gillnets; traps and pots; bottom longlines) The fishing method does little damage to physical or biogenic habitats (e.g., hand picking; hand raking; hook and line; pelagic long lines; mid-water trawl or gillnet; purse seines). American Shad directed fisheries in Atlantic Ocean waters closed in 2005 but commercial river fisheries still exist (ASMFC 2007A). In 2008, commercial landings from North and South Carolina made up 80% of the total commercial landings (ASMFC 2009b). The remaining 20% came from Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Virginia and Georgia (ASMFC 2009b). In the Connecticut River, gillnets are primarily used to capture American Shad in rivers (ASMFC 2007A) but American Shad are also caught using pound nets in some marine waters of Connecticut (ASMFC 2007B). In the Potomac River, bycatch of American Shad is allowed in the pound net (a visible stationary gear used to entrap fish) and gillnet fisheries (ASMFC 2007A). American Shad are also caught by gillnets in Albemarle Sound and the Neuse, Pamlico and Cape Fear Rivers of North Carolina (ASMFC

9 2007A). In South Carolina, American Shad commercial fisheries (gillnet) still occur in Winayh Bay and the Pee Dee, Black, Waccamaw, Santee, Edisto, Combahee and Savannah Rivers (ASMFC 2007A). Commercial gillnet fisheries also occur in the Altamaha, Ogeechee and Savannah Rivers of Georgia (ASMFC 2007A). In Canada, American Shad commercial fisheries occur in the spawning rivers of Saint John, Miramichi and St. Lawrence and in the embayment s of the upper section of the Bay of Fundy (DFO 2009). Gillnet, trap nets and scoop nets are used to capture American Shad in these waters (DFO 2009). Gillnets and pound nets cause low to medium amounts of damage to bottom habitat depending on where they are placed in the water column (Morgan and Chuenpagdee 2003). In the American Shad fishery, they are staked and/or floating, therefore fishing at or near the surface and causing minimal damage to the bottom habitat. We have therefore awarded a score of 3. Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed) Habitat for this species is so compromised from non-fishery impacts that the ability of the habitat to support this species is substantially reduced (e.g., dams; pollution; coastal development). Spawning habitat includes sand, gravel and mud in freshwater rivers (Rulifson et al. 1982) and juveniles are most often found over boulders, cobble, gravel and sand (Walburg and Nichols 1967; Odom 1997). Research suggests current velocity, dissolved oxygen, depth, sediment type, woody debris, forested shoreline and land use features are important for American Shad larvae (Bilkovic et al. 2002b). Many potential threats to American Shad habitat have been identified including: barriers to migration, water withdrawals, toxic and thermal wastewater discharge, channelization, dredging and instream construction, land use, atmospheric deposition, climate change, competition and predation, fisheries activities and instream flow regulations (ASMFC 2010). Some of these are discussed in other sections of this report (competition and predation, fisheries activities and climate change) and some are discussed in more detail below. The use of dams in rivers has blocked the upstream migration of American Shad to spawning areas and has been a critical factor in American Shad s disappearance from many areas (Haas-Castro 2006). Restoration efforts have included the use of fish passage systems, stocking, transfer programs and habitat improvement (Haas-Castro 2006). In Maine, some dams still block American Shad passage in the Saco, Androscoggin and Kennebec Rivers and have reduced American Shad habitat to 5% of historic levels (ASMFC 2007A;B). In the Merrimack River, Massachusetts, which is the major American Shad coastal run, there are five hydroelectric dams, three of which (lower dams) allow fish passage (ASMFC 2007A). These passages include fish lifts and ladders, although there are still issues related to upstream and downstream passage of fish at these locations (ASMFC 2007A). American Shad were extirpated from Rhode Island s

10 Pawcatuck River for close to 100 years due to dams and were reintroduced through stocking efforts from 1975 to 1985 and there is now one fishway present (ASMFC 2007A). In the Connecticut River, a fish passage facility exists at the Holyoke Dam, which is the first barrier to American Shad upriver migrations (ASMFC 2007A). Approximately 57% of shallow water habitat for American Shad has been lost in the Hudson River of New York due to dredge and fill operations during the early 1900 s (ASMFC 2007B). However, little habitat has been lost due to dams in this river (ASMFC 2007B). Four main sections of the Susquehanna River (Pennsylvania and New York) have fish-lifts or ladders, which allow passage of American Shad (ASMFC 2007A). A fish passageway has been installed in the Potomac River, which allows American Shad to move upstream and a fishway is present on Bosher s Dam in the James River (Virginia) (ASMFC 2007A). Pollution was historically a contributing factor to the declines of American Shad in many areas (Haas-Castro 2006). For example pollution and the introduction of chemicals such as PCB s were pervasive in the Hudson River and in Maryland, pollution has also been cited as a concern to American Shad populations (ASMFC 2007B). Although improvements have been made to American Shad habitat, the loss of habitat due to damn construction and pollution were both identified as primary causes for population declines of American Shad (ASMFC 2007D). A panel set up to review the most recent population assessment suggested more research needs to be conducted on how to substantially improve upstream and downstream passages for fish, including American Shad (ASMFC 2007D). Specifically, it was recommended that states develop effective upriver and downriver passage for adults and at all barriers downriver passage for juveniles should be developed. Additionally, water quality needs to be maintained at a suitable level for all stages of life and rivers with flow regulations must maintain the flows at acceptable levels for American Shad passage (ASMFC 2007D). Under Amendment 3, states must comply with habitat restoration, enhancement and use protection recommendations (ASMFC 2010) Critical habitat areas (e.g., spawning areas) for this species are not protected by management using time/area closures, marine reserves, etc No efforts are being made to minimize damage from existing gear types OR new or modified gear is increasing habitat damage (e.g., fitting trawls with roller rigs or rockhopping gear; more robust gear for deep-sea fisheries) If gear impacts are substantial, resilience of affected habitats is very slow (e.g., deep water corals; rocky bottoms) Habitat for this species remains robust and viable and is capable of supporting this species.

11 +0.25 Critical habitat areas (e.g., spawning areas) for this species are protected by management using time/area closures, marine reserves, etc. US Atlantic waters were closed to commercial fishing for American Shad in 2005 (ASMFC 1999). Additionally most states along the Atlantic coast that support in-river spawning populations also regulate access to fish when they are on the spawning grounds or limit fishing in areas where Shad school (e.g. near dams and fishways) Gear innovations are being implemented over a majority of the fishing area to minimize damage from gear types OR no innovations necessary because gear effects are minimal If gear impacts are substantial, resilience of affected habitats is fast (e.g., mud or sandy bottoms) OR gear effects are minimal Points for Habitat Quality and Fishing Gear Impacts MANAGEMENT Core Points (only one selection allowed) Select the option that most accurately describes the current management of the fisheries of this species Regulations are ineffective (e.g., illegal fishing or overfishing is occurring) OR the fishery is unregulated (i.e., no control rules are in effect) Management measures are in place over a major portion over the species' range but implementation has not met conservation goals OR management measures are in place but have not been in place long enough to determine if they are likely to achieve conservation and sustainability goals. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) manages American Shad under the Fishery Management Plan for American Shad and herring, which was first implemented in Amendment 1 of this plan required individual states to develop fishing and recovery plans for American Shad and required all ocean-intercept fisheries to be phased out by the end of 2004 (ASMFC 1999). Additionally, American Shad ocean bycatch was limited to no more than 5% of total landings on a per trip basis (ASMFC 1999). Amendment 1 also required that mortality rates be reduced in river fisheries (ASMFC 1999). This Amendment also established monitoring requirements and imposed a 10-fish per day per angler creel limit coastwide (with the exception of the Santee- Cooper River (SC) which has a 20-fish per day per angler creel limit) (ASMFC 1999).

12 Member states and jurisdictions must comply with ASMFC Management Plans, and states are allowed to enact more conservative measures as deemed necessary. Amendment 3, which was instituted in 2010, requires additional fishery independent and dependent monitoring in some states, as well as annual monitoring of bycatch and discard of American Shad in rivers and estuaries coastwide. Additionally, the plan recommends that monitoring of open ocean bycatch should be cooperative between fishery management councils and NOAA Fisheries and that states should increase coordination of data collection among states that have shared water resources as well as between freshwater and marine sections of state agencies (ASMFC 2010). States with open commercial fisheries must submit sustainable management plans for approval by the Shad & River Herring Management Board or their commercial and recreational fishery will be closed beginning January 1, Sates must also develop a habitat plan that addresses the major threats to Shad habitat within the state. Specific regulations by state are outlined below. In Maine, management and monitoring of American Shad populations occurs in the Saco, Androscoggin and Kennebec Rivers through the Maine Department of Marine Resources (ASMFC 2007A;B). Maine s restoration goal is to allow American Shad to return to their historic spawning areas by stocking larvae in the Saco River, and larvae and pre-spawn adults into the Androscoggin and Kennebec Rivers (each considered a separate management unit) (ASMFC 2007A;B). Commercial fishing no longer occurs in the state of Maine (ASMFC 2007B) and the recreational fishery is restricted to a two-fish per person per day creel limit. Additional gear and area restrictions apply (see In New Hampshire, restoration efforts, through the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, include helping American Shad over barriers and stocking adults in the Exeter River and while commercial harvest is still allowed landings are primarily from bycatch in federal waters. (ASMFC 2007A;B). The recreational fishery is restricted to a two-fish per person per day creel limit. In Massachusetts, commercial American Shad fishing has been banned since 1987 but the state has a restoration program in place aimed at maintaining a selfsustaining population of American Shad (ASMFC 2007A;B). There is also a six fish per day per angler recreational creel limit in place. The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management manages American Shad in both fresh and marine waters of Rhode Island (ASMFC 2007B). Commercial and recreational fishing for American Shad (with the exception of catch and release recreational fishing) is not allowed in Rhode Island waters and there is currently a restoration program in place (ASMFC 2007B). American Shad can still be commercially fished from April 1 to June 30 in the Connecticut River as well as in marine waters (ASMFC 2007A) and management efforts for the river fisheries is coordinated by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and includes two required rest days per week, reporting requirements and gear restrictions (ASFMC 2007A;B). The recreational fishery is managed with a six fish per day per angler creel limit and additional time and gear restrictions apply. Connecticut also has a restocking program in place (ASMFC 2007B). The commercial harvest of American Shad from the Hudson River and state marine waters in New York ended in March 2010 (ASMFC 2007A;B). Limited entry, reporting requirements and gear

13 restrictions are used as management techniques for the commercial fishery in the Delaware Bay and River in New Jersey and Delaware, but Pennsylvania and New York do not allow commercial fishing in their respective sections of the Delaware River (ASMFC 2007A). The recreational fishery for shad in all waters of the Delaware River are regulated by a 10 fish per day per angler (for Delaware waters), a 6 fish per day per angler (for Pennsylvania and New Jersey waters) and a 3 fish per day per angler (New York waters) creel limit. There are restoration programs in the Delaware River (ASMFC 2007B). Commercial and recreational in-river fishing of American Shad in state waters ended in 1980 in Maryland (ASMFC 2007A) and Maryland has a restoration program in place that includes restocking three main tributaries with juvenile American Shad (ASMFC 2007A;C). In Pennsylvania, the directed commercial American Shad fishery was closed in 1980 and there is a one fish per day per angler limit in the Lehigh River. The state currently has a restocking program in place (ASMFC 2007A). American Shad in the Potomac River are managed by the Potomac River Fisheries Commission and there are an additional five fishery management authorities on the river (ASMFC 2007A). Each of these authorities manages a separate area and utilizes American Shad monitoring and restoration programs (ASMFC 2007A). Directed fishing of American Shad in the Potomac River ended in 1982, but bycatch is still allowed: pound nets have a tolerance of 2% by volume of the total catch in possession, not to exceed one standard bushel per licensee, of American or hickory shad, and for gill nets a tolerance of one standard bushel per licensee of American or hickory shad. (ASMFC 2007A). Recreational fishing is prohibited. These bycatch fisheries have limited entry programs and reporting requirements (ASMFC 2007A). The Virginia Marine Resources Commission, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science monitor American Shad populations in Virginia (ASMFC 2007C). American Shad are stocked in the James, Pamunkey and Rappahannock Rivers of Virginia (ASMFC 2007A). Fisheries for American Shad in Virginian rivers of the Chesapeake Bay were closed in 1994 and the marine fisheries were closed at the end of 2004 (ASMFC 2007A) but there is still a Native American fishery in the York River and restoration programs are in place (ASMFC 2007A;C). A limited bycatch fishery has been allowed since 2006, with gear, trip, catch composition, time and area limits. Recreational fishing has been prohibited since North Carolina s American Shad marine fishery was closed in In-river fisheries still exist in North Carolina which are managed by the North Carolina Department of Marine Fisheries in marine and estuarine waters and by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission in inland waters (ASMFC 2007C). A commercial gill net fishery occurs within Albemarle Sound from January 1st April 14th, although certain additional time, area and gear restrictions are additionally enforced. Only commercial hook and line fishing is allowed from April 15th December 31st. The recreational fishery is limited by a 10 fish, aggregate hickory and American Shad, per angler per day creel limit (With the exception of the Roanoke Rive which has a one fish per day per angler creel limit). American Shad commercial fisheries in South Carolina are managed by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, which uses area, season and gear restrictions, as well as catch limits (ASMFC 2007A), and restoration programs are in place in this state (ASMFC 2007C). The recreational fishery is managed by a 10 fish per day per angler creel limit, with the exception of the Santee Cooper River which has a 20 fish per

14 day per angler creel limit and gear restrictions in place. American Shad are managed by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, through gear limits, reporting requirements and closed seasons and there is a restoration program in place (ASMFC 2007A;C). The recreational fishery is limited by an 8 fish, aggregate hickory and American Shad, per angler per day creel limit In Florida, the commercial American Shad fishery was eliminated due to a prohibition on the use of nets in coastal waters (ASMFC 2007C). A hook and line recreational fishery is allowed in the St. John s River with a 10 fish (aggregate hickory, American or Alabama shad) per day per angler creel limit. There are no restoration programs for American Shad in Florida (ASMFC 2007C). In Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans manages American Shad through closed seasons, specified fishing locations and gear restrictions (DFO 2009). Despite widespread management for American Shad, the Stock Assessment Subcommittee suggested future management needs to reduce total mortality, develop recovery plans for populations with high mortality rates, identify all fisheries where bycatch occurs, develop observer programs among, collect year estimates of catch, and characterize fish passage efficiency etc. (ASMFC 2007D). This combined with their low populations sizes throughout their range are cause for a medium score Substantial management measures are in place over a large portion of the species range and have demonstrated success in achieving conservation and sustainability goals. Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed) There is inadequate scientific monitoring of stock status, catch or fishing effort. Individual states are required to conduct annual fishery independent and dependent monitoring programs, including juvenile abundance index surveys, annual spawning stock surveys and hatchery evaluations (ASMFC 1999; 2010). For example, in Maine annual fish passage counts, near-shore ocean trawl surveys and estuarine surveys are used to assess American Shad abundance (ASMFC 2007B). New Hampshire monitors adult migration and conducts seine surveys in two estuaries for juvenile American Shad, while Rhode Island monitors adults as they return to spawn and conducts beach seine surveys to assess the abundance of juvenile American Shad (ASMFC 2007B). Connecticut annually assesses the adult spawning population and in-river beach seine surveys are conducted to determine juvenile abundances (ASMFC 2007B). A spawning population survey is conducted on adult American Shad returns in the Hudson River, New York and juvenile abundances in estuaries are estimated through sampling programs (ASMFC 2007B). Abundance estimates of juvenile American Shad are collected by New Jersey and Delaware in the Delaware River and information on adult spawners is also collected from this river (ASMFC 2007B). Adult abundances are assessed in the Susquehanna River as they return to spawn, and fishery independent surveys of adult American Shad returning to the Potomac River to spawn and of juveniles are conducted individually by the five management authorities (ASMFC 2007C). Juvenile and adult abundance surveys are also

15 conducted in Virginia and North Carolina rivers (ASMFC 2007C). Adult abundances are estimated in South Carolina rivers and juvenile abundances are estimated in George Rivers (ASMFC 2007C). Commercial landings data is also collected from areas where commercial fishing is still allowed (ASMFC 2007B). However, due to American Shad s low priority listing among various monitoring agencies, there is a lack of long-term fishery independent data sets, information on recreational fishing, bycatch and discards and problems with the fishery dependent data sets (i.e. focusing on gear instead of catches) (ASMFC 2007A). There are 84 known rivers along the coast that have Shad populations, but the assessment only discusses the 31 rivers that had information available, and could only determine population trends for 17 of these rivers. Therefore only 20% of the population range has enough information for assessment. In addition, there are uncertainties associated with mortality rates and how high these rates are for spawning individuals, as well as concerning how much predation American Shad suffer and over how much American Shad are taken in ocean fisheries (ASMFC 2007A). In addition, there are problems with aging American Shad (ASMFC 2007A) Management does not explicitly address fishery effects on habitat, food webs, and ecosystems This species is overfished and no recovery plan or an ineffective recovery plan is in place Management has failed to reduce excess capacity in this fishery or implements subsidies that result in excess capacity in this fishery There is adequate scientific monitoring, analysis and interpretation of stock status, catch and fishing effort Management explicitly and effectively addresses fishery effects on habitat, food webs, and ecosystems This species is overfished and there is a recovery plan (including benchmarks, timetables and methods to evaluate success) in place that is showing signs of success OR recovery plan is not needed. American Shad populations are well below historic levels. However, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has recently implemented Amendment 3 to the fishery management plan to address this problem (ASMFC 2007D;2010). Under this plan, states that do not have an approved sustainable fishery plan in place will have to terminate their American Shad commercial fisheries by January 1, 2013 (ASMFC 2010).

16 +0.25 Management has taken action to control excess capacity or reduce subsidies that result in excess capacity OR no measures are necessary because fishery is not overcapitalized. Commercial fishing for American Shad has been closed in US Atlantic waters since 2005 and has been stopped in many rivers as well Points for Management BYCATCH Core Points (only one selection allowed) Select the option that most accurately describes the current level of bycatch and the consequences that result from fishing this species. The term, "bycatch" used in this document excludes incidental catch of a species for which an adequate management framework exists. The terms, "endangered, threatened, or protected," used in this document refer to species status that is determined by national legislation such as the U.S. Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act (or another nation's equivalent), the IUCN Red List, or a credible scientific body such as the American Fisheries Society Bycatch in this fishery is high (>100% of targeted landings), OR regularly includes a "threatened, endangered or protected species." 2.00 Bycatch in this fishery is moderate (10-99% of targeted landings) AND does not regularly include "threatened, endangered or protected species" OR level of bycatch is unknown. There is little information available on bycatch levels within commercial American Shad fisheries but bycatch of Atlantic sturgeon, which are currently being considered for listing by the National Marine Fisheries Service on the endangered species list, does occur in American Shad gillnet fisheries (Anonymous 2011). In addition, it is likely that some bycatch of other freshwater fish such as herring occurs. However, the small size of the fishery suggests there would be few overall bycatch concerns. We have selected a medium score to account for the lack of information Bycatch in this fishery is low (<10% of targeted landings) and does not regularly include "threatened, endangered or protected species."

17 Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed) Bycatch in this fishery is a contributing factor to the decline of "threatened, endangered, or protected species" and no effective measures are being taken to reduce it Bycatch of targeted or non-targeted species (e.g., undersize individuals) in this fishery is high and no measures are being taken to reduce it Bycatch of this species (e.g., undersize individuals) in other fisheries is high OR bycatch of this species in other fisheries inhibits its recovery, and no measures are being taken to reduce it. According to the 2007 American Shad population assessment, there is little to no information available on the overall (freshwater and marine) quantity of bycatch or discards (ASMFC 2007A). However, Amendment 1 to the fishery management plan for American Shad requires individual states to document that American Shad ocean bycatch is no more than 5% of total landings (ASMFC 1999). In 2008, American Shad bycatch was 3.6% of the coastwide total and 93% of the bycatch came from New York (ASMFC 2009b). Bycatch fisheries occur in New York and from Massachusetts to Maine and in the Chesapeake Bay and it is thought American Shad bycatch could be very high in the Gulf of Maine Atlantic herring fisheries (ASMFC 2007A). Bycatch of American Shad occurs in both the pound net and gillnet fisheries of the Potomac River (ASMFC 2007A) and American Shad are also caught as bycatch in the groundfish gillnet fisheries off the US east coast (ASMFC 2007B). In-river net fisheries in New Hampshire may catch American Shad as bycatch during their spring river runs and low levels of American Shad bycatch have been reported in the Long Island Sound commercial trawl fishery (ASMFC 2007B). In Maryland waters, bycatch of American Shad in pound nets is thought to be minimal and there are high survival rates associated with this type of gear (ASMFC 2007C). Bycatch also occurs in the Chesapeake Bay striped bass gillnet fishery, but quantitative estimates are not available (ASMFC 2007C). There is very little bycatch of American Shad in the Georgia shrimp fishery because bycatch reduction devices are required (ASMFC 2007C). We have subtracted points to account for the lack of information on bycatch and discard rates for American Shad and to account for the number of fisheries in which they could be caught as bycatch The continued removal of the bycatch species contributes to its decline.

18 +0.25 Measures taken over a major portion of the species range have been shown to reduce bycatch of "threatened, endangered, or protected species" or bycatch rates are no longer deemed to affect the abundance of the "protected" bycatch species OR no measures needed because fishery is highly selective (e.g., harpoon; spear). North Carolina has adjusted the seasons of the American Shad fishery to avoid sea turtle interactions (Anonymous 2011). Because North Carolina is an important area in the fishery, points were added There is bycatch of targeted (e.g., undersize individuals) or non-targeted species in this fishery and measures (e.g., gear modifications) have been implemented that have been shown to reduce bycatch over a large portion of the species range OR no measures are needed because fishery is highly selective (e.g., harpoon; spear) Bycatch of this species in other fisheries is low OR bycatch of this species in other fisheries inhibits its recovery, but effective measures are being taken to reduce it over a large portion of the range The continued removal of the bycatch species in the targeted fishery has had or will likely have little or no impact on populations of the bycatch species OR there are no significant bycatch concerns because the fishery is highly selective (e.g., harpoon; spear) Points for Bycatch

19 REFERENCES Anonymous Blue Ocean Institute, American Shad reviewer. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) Amendment 1 to the interstate fishery management plan for shad and river herring. Atlantic States Fishery Commission, Washington, DC. 76 p. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2007A. American shad stock assessment report for peer review volume 1. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, DC. 238 p. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2007B. American shad stock assessment report for peer review volume II. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, DC. 422 p. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2007C. American shad stock assessment report for peer review volume III. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, DC. 572 p. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2007D. Stock assessment report No of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission; terms of reference and advisory report of the American shad stock assessment peer review. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, DC. 37 p. ASMFC 2009a. Atlantic Coast diadromous fish habitat: A review of utilization, threats, recommendations for conservation and research needs. ASMFC Habitat Management Series No. 9, Washington, DC. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2009b. Review of the Atlantic states marine fisheries commission fishery management plan for shad and river herring (Alosa spp.). Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, DC. 12 p. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) Amendment 3 to the interstate fishery management plan for shad and river herring (American shad management). Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, DC. 160 p. Bilkovic, D.M., Olney, J.E. and Hershner, C.H. 2002a. Spawning of American shad (Alosa sapidissima) and striped bass (Morone saxatilis) in the Mattaponi and Pamunkey Rivers, Virginia. Fishery Bulletin 100: Bilkovic, D.M., Hershner, C.H. and Olney, J.E. 2002b. Macroscale assessment of American shad spawning and nursery habitat in the Mattaponi and Pamunkey Rivers, Virginia. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:

20 Crecco, V.A and Blake, M.M Feeding ecology of coexisting larvae of American shad and blueback herring in the Connecticut River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 112: Dadswell, M.J., Bradford, R., Leim, A.H., Melvin, G.D., Appy, R.G. and Scarratt, D.J A review of fish and fisheries research in the Bay of Fundy between 1976 and 1983, pp In: D.C. Gordon, Jr., and M.J. Dadswell (eds) Update on the marine environmental consequences of tidal power development in the upper reaches of the Bay of Fundy. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Dadswell, M.J., Melvin, G.D., Williams, P.J. and Themelis, D.E Influence of origin, life history, and chance on the coastal migration of American shad, pp In: M.J. Dadswell, R.J. Klauda, C.M. Moffitt, R.L. Sanders, R.A. Ralifson and J.E. Cooper (eds) Common strategies of anadromous and catadromous fishes. American Fisheries Society Symposium 1. Bethesda, MD. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Underwater World: American shad. 9 p. Online: Facey, D.E. and Van Den Avyle, J Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (South Atlantic) American shad. US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report p. Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) Shad and river herring: repeal of Section (3), F.S., and repeal of Chapter 21417, Laws of Florida (1941), chapter 29466, Laws of Florida (1953), and chapter , Laws of Florida (1959); prohibited gear; bag limits; definitions. Online: 20RIVER%20HERRING&ID=68B Glebe, B. D. and W.C. Leggett Temporal, intra-population difference in energy allocation and use by American shad during the spawning migration. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 38: Haas-Castro, R American shad. In Status of the Fishery Resources of the Northeastern United States. 6 p. Available at Hasselman, D.J., R.G. Bradford and P. Bentzen Taking stock: defining populations of American shad in Canada using neutral genetic markers. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 67: Hattala, K., Kahnle, A., Smith, D.R., Jesien, R. and Whalon, V Total mortality, population size and exploitation rates of American shad in the Hudson River Estuary. Special interim report to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission from the NY State Department of Environmental Conservation, New Platz.