Running Head: CHESAPEAKE BAY REDUCED POPULATIONS 1

The Cause of Declining Fish Stock in the Chesapeake Bay and Efforts to Improve the Ecology
Brendan T. Wilbur
Glen Allen High School
Chesapeake Bay Reduce Populations 2

Abstract

This paper discusses the decline in fish and shellfish stocks since the 1970s. Since the

1970s populations of various vital shellfish and gamefish species have experienced

rampant losses in their numbers. The most significant species include oysters, blue crabs,

striped bass, and menhaden. While there are various reasons for their decline, the most

significant include overfishing, and a reduction in the health of habitats. Historically,

overfishing has been to blame as allocation practices were not focused on conservation.

Despite this, excess nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus have been introduced to

the bay as a result of runoff and pollution. The preservation of Chesapeake Bay is vital to

a healthy future. A multitude of organizations push for new legislation and advocacy

within the affected communities. There are many agreements such as The Chesapeake

Bay Watershed Agreement, being one of the most significant preservation document

establishes goals to be upheld by 2025. Redefined allocation practices and pollution

control methods are vital as well.

Introduction:
The Chesapeake Bay is a symbol of the vibrant culture of the southeast. The Bay itself is the

largest Estuary in the United States with a watershed spanning across the states of Virginia,

Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, West Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and New York.

The span includes several different ecology zones featuring fresh, brackish, and saltwater

habitats. This paper seeks to answer what is the cause of the Decline of fish stocks in the
Chesapeake Bay Reduce Populations 3

Chesapeake Bay, and what can be done to restore populations. Historically, the Chesapeake Bay

has been the most productive estuary in America. The Bay used to be so productive that author

H. L. Mencken called it an immense protein factory (CBF 2008). Prior to the 20th century, the

bay was thriving and was the main spawning point for several species of fish and shellfish.

Record keeping in the Chesapeake began shortly after the conclusion of the second World War.

Since record keeping began, increased fishing and pollution is to blame for reduced stocks of

marine life which eventually reached record lows in the 1970s. The health of the Bay has

improved in some aspects since then, but other aspects such as the ecology still continued to

decline. The allocation of resources from the Bay makes up several billion dollars of local

economies annually. Lower stocks result in smaller harvests, and as a result, local communities

and consumers across the nation have shared the burden of a wounded esturary. With this in

mind, there is a need for conservation in order to ensure a healthy future.

Decline in Fish Stocks

Although Decline in stocks has been gradual over time, the 20th century marked record

lows. According the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF), many of the bays fisheries have been

reduced in productivity and efficiency (CBF 2017). The most recognized decline occurred

during the 1970s especially centered around the Chesapeakes rock fishing harvest. Although

many fish and shellfish call the bay their home, the most significant species ecologically and

economically speaking are striped bass, menhaden, blue crab, and oysters.

Striped bass (rockfish) are a gamefish that spending the majority of their adult life in

costal estuaries; the Chesapeake bay being the most significant one (Atlantic States Marine

Fisheries Commission 2017). Striped bass are one of the most recognizable fish of the Bay

distinquesed by their black stripes, and athletic appearance. The fish are highly desired by sport
Chesapeake Bay Reduce Populations 4

fisherman, offering a strong fight to anglers, and restaurateurs due to the tenderness of their

fillets. In the 1970s, Rockfish stock reached records lows. Since then their numbers are higher,

but have never fully recovered to their pre-70s amount. From 2005 to 2014, total coastal

recreational harvest of striped bass ranged from 31 million pounds in 2006 to a low of 19.2

million pounds in 2012 (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 2017). There are several

reasons as to their decline, but a loss of food is one of them. Menhaden consist of over 70% of

the Striped Bass diet. As of 2017, they are not currently overfished, they still constitute the

largest landings, by volume, along the Atlantic coast (NOAA 2015). These baitfish form a

vital link between upper and lower Chesapeake Bay food webs since they are prayed on by

striper, speckled trout, cobia, shark, rays, bluefish, and almost all predator species found in the

bay. Although the fish are unfit for human consumption, they are repeatedly caught and ground

down for their use in fish oils and animal feed. Like striped bass, they reached record lows in the

1970s as practices allowed for 300,000 to 400,000 metric tons to be caught annually (NOAA

2015).

Along with fish, shellfish species have also suffered. Blue crab fishing is the most

economically significant fishery in the bay. Unfortunately, reduced population numbers are

taking a hit on Virginia and Marylands Economies. Recently, in 2007, waterman faced the

lowest ever recorded harvest of blue crab (CBF 2008). Female crabs are not able to keep up with

the demand placed on them. As stated by Lipcius and Stockhausen (2002), there has been a

concurrent, persistent and substantial reduction in the spawning stock, recruitment, larval

abundance, and female size of the species (pg. 45). Their lack of reproduction results in an

amount of crab that cannot recover after yearly harvest. As more and more crab are allocated

each year, there is less that will be available for the following season. A lack of crab harvest
Chesapeake Bay Reduce Populations 5

cripples fishermen in the region. Within the last decade, there has been a loss of $640 million in

potential blue crab fishing revenue due to their lower stocks. The harvest has plummeted two

thirds since the 1990s resulting in a net loss of 4,486 crabbing jobs (CBF 2008). Oysters also

face threats from overfishing, but most importantly a reduction in habitat (CBF 2017). While the

Chesapeake used to be a thriving estuary, various causes have led to its gradual decline.

The causes:

Unfortunately, there is not one simple answer that explains the decline of the

Chesapeakes most vital species. Although there are various reasons for the Bays Declined

health, overfishing and habitat loss have the largest impact on the decreased populations. The

Chesapeake Bay foundation reports that overfishing is the result of conservation practices being

pressured into accommodating allocation practices (2017). This means that overfishing occurs

when the allocation of fish exceeds sustainable limits put in place by environmental experts.

Previously, fish and gamefish have been victims of this practice, but more recently, shellfish are

suffering as a result. Currently, fisherman are catching more than 62% of the bays population of

blue crab each season. Environmental scientists believe that catches over 46% are not

sustainable (CBF 2008). As species are overfished, repopulation efforts cannot keep up with

allocation.

Another significant reason for declining stocks is related to unhealthy habitats. Without a

place to respawn, it is impossible for species to repopulate while sheltering juveniles from

predators. Pollution is the largest cause of habitat destruction. According to Motley, the first

and most alarming signs of the Chesapeake's illness came during the 1970s when submerged

aquatic vegetation began disappearing (1988). Pollution typically arrives in the form of
Chesapeake Bay Reduce Populations 6

nitrogen and phosphorous which results in a breeding ground for bacteria and harmful aquatic

plants. Excess nutrients from rural, urban, and suburban runoff pollute the bay and cause surface

algae. More than half of the bays eelgrasses have disappeared since 1970 (CBF 2017). The

grasses disappear as a result of the surface algae. Grasses also play a vital role in oxygenating

the water, but recently, surface algae have gotten so bad that they block sunlight and kill bottom

grasses (Motley 1988). These grasses are vital as they provide juvenile species safety from

current and predators. As grasses decline, there is no shelter for young species to grow. As more

pollution and runoff is exposed to the bay, the quality of habitats diminishes. Where the algae is

excessively thick, no oxygen is able to reach the bay floor. In Maryland alone, pollution has

also killed over 164,000 acres of oyster habitat within the past 25 years (CBF 2008). Facing

constant threats of overfishing, and diminished habitats, there is a need for intervention in order

to return the bay to its original health.

Progress, Advocacy, and Potential Solutions

In order to restore the bay, there is a need for legislation, advocacy, and redefined

allocation practices that are focused on conservation. To reduce overfishing, governments can

establish stricter limits on what can be harvested. For example, in May of 2015, A total

allowable catch (TAC) of 187,880 metric tons per year for menhaden was established in the bay.

This significantly reduced the previous estimates of three to four hounded thousand per year

(NOAA 2017). Cutting the allowable catch by roughly one half will allow Menhaden a chance

to repopulate. In doing so, other species will have more of a food source, and a chance to come

back.
Chesapeake Bay Reduce Populations 7

No matter how many laws are introduced regulating overfishing, without enforcement,

the laws will stand for nothing. Enforcement of overfishing laws is critical to ensure that there

are no repeated offenses. Under the Lacey Act, the U.S department of justice pushes to prosecute

more fishing offenses as environmental crimes (Moore 2015). Environmental crimes are more

severe, and offer stronger punishments to offenders. While it may be viewed as harsh,

prosecution is necessary for the protection of the Estuary. Not all prosecutions must be harsh,

but strong offenders must be prevented from further transgressions. One recent and extreme

example was the prosecution of Michael D. Hayden of Tilghman Island, Md. He was part of a

four person striped bass poaching scheme that illegally harvested over 185,925 pounds of striped

bass between 2007 and 2011. Hayden must pay a $40,000 fine to the state of Maryland as well

as a $498,000 fee for restitution to the federal govt. On top of this, he must serve an 18 year

sentence in prison (Moore 2015). Although his punishment was severe, actions such as this are

essential in order to crack down on poaching. Typically, poachers ignore local and federal laws,

as well as conservation efforts in order to quickly generate a profit. Cracking down on poaching

and illegal harvesting is one of the strongest tools in the restoration of the Bay.

Despite law enforcement, redefined allocation practices may also restore original

populations as they attack issues at the source. For example, commercial fisherman in the

Chesapeake used to be able to fish as much as they wanted tacking chunks out of an allowable

quota. Since the older method of fishing was viewed as unsafe and destructive, in order to

protect Chesapeake Rockfish, NOAA introduced a catch share based system of fishing (Voice

of America 2015). In this system, individual fisherman were given a certain amount of fish to be

caught out of the total Chesapeake Quota. As a result, fisherman were very pleased as they no
Chesapeake Bay Reduce Populations 8

longer had to compete with other fisherman to get a chunk out of the large quota. This allowed

fisherman to not have to be concerned with obstacles such as weather as no other fisherman

could take their shares of the quota. Ultimately, this system leads to more responsible fishing

practices as there is less competition amount fisherman (Voice of America 2015). Allocation

practices that are focused on conservation will greatly improve the health of the bay.

Along with placing regulations on fishing, restoring the bays habitats in the form of

pollution control is the next most viable conservation action. The biggest piece of legislation is

the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. The basis of the document began with the formation

of the Chesapeake Bay Program partnership (the Partnership) 1983 when the Governors of

Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, and the Chair of the

Chesapeake Bay Commission and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency

began drafting an agreement (CBF 2014). The initial agreement recognized the historical

decline of living resources in the Chesapeake Bay and committed to a cooperative approach to

fully address the extent, complexity and sources of pollutants entering the Bay (CBF 2014).

The document as we know it was signed in June of 2014. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Agreement is most progressive conservation document as it establishes and encourages

sustainable fisheries, vital habitat, water quality, citizen stewardship, landscape and public access

goals to be carried out by 2025. (CBF 2014). According to The Chesapeake Bay program, the

purpose of the document is to envision an environmentally and economically sustainable

Chesapeake Bay watershed with clean water, abundant life, conserved lands and access to the

water, a vibrant cultural heritage, and a diversity of engaged citizens and stakeholders (2012).

The document is lengthy and establishes many goals, but the most significant are Sustainable

Fisheries and Vital Habitat Goals. For vital fisheries, the document seeks to restore and
Chesapeake Bay Reduce Populations 9

enhance finish, shellfish, and other living resources, while for Vital Habitat goals, the document

seeks to restore 150,000 acres, establish 85,000 acres of wetlands, and increase underwater

grasses by 130,000 acres (CBF 2014).

Despite the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, there are several other smaller programs and

laws that attempt to curb pollution and runoff. Another solution includes the adoption of best

management practices to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff in farms. The practice uses a

cleaner method to plant seeds, and in Virginia alone, 1,444 farmers have adopted the practice

saving 333,930 tons of potential runoff. 58,594 Virginia farmland acres have been converted to

best management practices, saving hundreds of thousands of tons of sediment from turning into

runoff (Motley 1988). BMP practices also have reduced the phosphorus soil particles carry by

over 33,760 pounds. BMP practices appeal to farmers as they also come in many different

forms. A different type of BMP called wet ponds, used in Virginia's Fairfax County has even

removed up to 87 percent of the silt and 80 percent of the phosphorus runoff from washing into

streets (Motley 1988).

Another practice, as seen in Pennsylvania, is REAP (Resource Enhancement and

Protection Act) giving farmers who adopt pollution reducing measures a tax credit as an

incentive (CBF 2008). REAP is just one of many legislative actions that are easily accepted.

Not only does it encourage farms to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff, the tax credit

provided will allow farmers to invest in cleaner more efficient growing practices. While REAP

and BMP methods are the most popular, some form of pollution control measure has been

adopted on 97% of farmlands (Southeast Farm Press 2013). Two other options are USDA's

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and the Conservation Effects Assessment

Project (CEAP). The Southeast Farm press reports that since 2006, conservation practices
Chesapeake Bay Reduce Populations 10

applied by farmers and landowners are reducing nitrogen leaving fields by 48.6 million pounds

each year, or 26 percent and reducing phosphorus by 7.1 million pounds, or 46 percent (2013).

This amounts to 15.1 million tons of eroded soil reduction, or enough too fill up 150,000 railcars

a year (Southeast Farm Press 2013). Pollution cripples the habitats of the bay, however, reducing

pollution from the source will greatly improve the amount of healthy habitats available to

species.

Conclusion

The Chesapeake Bay was once a thriving estuary. Throughout the 1900s

overfishing and pollution significantly wore down the health of the watershed as a whole. While

the Chesapeake Bay is finally recognized as a national treasure in need of conservation, there is

still much that can be done. With this in mind, the research suggests that the only way to save

the suffering Chesapeake Bay, crippled by overfishing and habitat loss, is to encourage

conservation agreements and advocacy within the governments and communities that make up

the watershed. Fortunately, more and more practices are being adopted each day that will

conserve the bay. Saving the bay is not a simple process, but the passage of additional

legislation, is a step in the right direction. When legislation is not enough, advocacy is one of the

most powerful tools of restoration. In the future, there should be a stronger outreach in the

community to avoid and prevent harmful practices. Ignoring its environmental importance, the

bay has extreme significance financially. Saving the Chesapeake Bay is an investment in the

future. Fishing in the bay makes up several billion dollars of local economy as it represents

fishing, real estate, tourism, and shipping opportunities. The bay has suffered, but it is still
Chesapeake Bay Reduce Populations 11

possible to return it to its glory. Without action, however, there will be nothing left for future

generations.
Chesapeake Bay Reduce Populations 12

References

(2017). About the Issues. Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Retrieved from

http://www.cbf.org/about-the-bay/issues/fisheries

(2017). Atlantic Striped Bass. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Retrieved from

http://www.asmfc.org/species/atlantic-striped-bass

(2008). Bad Water and the Decline of Blue Crabs in the Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Bay

Foundation. Retrieved from cbf.org/badwaters

(2015). 'Catch Shares' Aim for Sustainable Fishing. Voice of America. Retrieved from

http://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/catch-shares-aim-for-sustainable-

fishing/2927297.html

(2017). Chesapeake Bay TMDL Fact Sheet. United States Environmental Protection

Agency. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/chesapeake-bay-tmdl/chesapeake-bay-tmdl-

fact-sheet

(2014). Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Retrieved

from http://www.chesapeakebay.net/channel_files/24392/chesapeake_bay_watershed_agr

eement.pdf

(2012). Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. Chesapeake Bay Program. Retrieved from
Chesapeake Bay Reduce Populations 13

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/chesapeakebaywatershedagreement/page

Kristen, M. (2010). Nitrogen Weakens Marshes Ability to Hold Back Climate Change.

Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. Retrieved from

http://sercblog.si.edu/?p=822

Lipcius, R. N., Stockhausen, W. T. (2002). Concurrent decline of the spawning stock,

recruitment, larval abundance, and size of the blue crab Callinectes sapidus

in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 55, 45-61

(2017). Menhaden Abundance. Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Retrieved from.

http://www.cbf.org/about-the-bay/chesapeake-bay/creatures-of-the-

chesapeake/menhaden/facts

(2015). Menhaden. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved from

https://chesapeakebay.noaa.gov/fish-facts/menhaden

Motley, S. A. (1988). Chesapeake Bay Cleanup. Technology Review, 91(2), 14 retrieved from

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?

tabID=T003&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&searchTy

pe=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=4&docId=GALE

%7CA6413621&docType=Article&sort=Relevance&contentSegment=&prodId=GPS&c

ontentSet=GALE%7CA6413621&searchId=R3&userGroupName=henrico&inPS=true
Chesapeake Bay Reduce Populations 14

Moore, K. (2015). Mid-Atlantic fishermen given stiff jail sentences: violations bring federal

convictions. National Fisherman. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?

tabID=T003&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&searchTy

pe=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=2&docId=GALE

%7CA410387507&docType=Brief+article&sort=DA-

SORT&contentSegment=&prodId=GPS&contentSet=GALE

%7CA410387507&searchId=R1&userGroupName=henrico&inPS=true

(2013). Report Shows Farmers Doing Their Part To Restore The Bay. Southeast Farm Press.

Retrieved from go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=GPS&sw=w&u=henrico&v=2.1&id=GALE

%7CA35251

0057&it=r&asid=a6a388988904f2140f2d998bce1779f1