The Commission’s DecisionIn the face of this conflicting and potentially equivocal expert testimony,

VMRC votes to deny the permit.The fishing moratorium and local efforts to restore depleted stocks of American shad were viewed as decisive issues that contributed to the rejection of the permit. While there are many examples of environmental, especially biodiversity, issues that have affected utility and agricultural projects, there are few instances of a fishery regulation producing such an unanticipated result. The March 2003 decision to deny the permit may have only temporarily thwarted the project. Litigation has required the VMRC to hold another public hearing.

American shad eggs 19.6%American shad larvae 58.6%Herring Eggs 1.5%Herring Larvae 39.5%Striped Bass Eggs 1.4% Striped Bass Larvae 9.9% White Perch Eggs 15.8% White Perch Larvae 38.1%

Yellow Perch Larvae 34.4%

Expert advice contrastedTestimony at the VMRC Public Hearing for the Intake Permit

APPLICANT Applicant argues that the available fisheries data could be extrapolated to show that the impacts to fish are small relative to the public benefit.

STATE AGENCY VIMS scientists argue for the application of the precautionary principal leading to conservative interpretation of the available fisheries data.

Need Assessment —How significant is the need for new water supply?

Economics and population forecast models by a Regional Raw Water Study group indicate that water need will far outstrip available supplies within the immediate future (20 yrs).

VIMS scientists did not review these models and did not comment of the need for the reservoir. Other agencies (Norfolk District of the Army Corps of Engineers) refuted the applicant’s claim.

Impact assessment—What are the effects on fish stocks?

Consultants argue that concentrations of larval American shad are low at the intake site and used adult equivalency models to predict that only 6 adult fish would be lost due to pumping. Recent research on wedge-wire screen intake designs using other species suggests the entrainment and impingement of shad larvae would be insignificant. Substantial financial and time investment in the project thus far argues against relocation of intake.

Scientists say that there is too little quantitative information to support a rigorous analysis of loss. Available data suggest that larvae are concentrated at the proposed intake site, maximizing potential impact. Lacking specific data on the impact of intake screens on shad larvae, the potential for mortality is unknown. The proposed location is the worst possible choice as it is within the central spawning area for shad on a tributary with the highest juvenile production of all Virginia Rivers.

Mitigation effectiveness—Can the intake operation be modified to minimize the potential for impact on American shad?

Consultants say that a withdrawal schedule that includes cessation of pumping for 60 d during spring spawning periods is practical and that a monitoring program to record environmental conditions and larval occurrence could be implemented to provide a trigger for seasonal cessation of withdrawal.

Little is known about the temporal patterns of larval shad distributions in the area of the proposed intake. Evidence that late spawned larvae constitute a large portion of the year class adds to potential risks. A 60-d cessation of pumping might not avoid significant impact under all future conditions.

Surveys of juvenile American shad indicate that relative abundance is usually greater on the Mattaponi River than it is on its sister tributary, the Pamunkey River. These data provide evidence of the Mattaponi River’s importance as a shad spawning and nursery ground within the larger York River system. For reasons yet unknown, total American shad production in the York River watershed is more heavily influenced by reproduction in the Mattaponi River than in the Pamunkey River.

Juvenile production on the James and Rappahannock rivers is low compared to the York River. Currently, the York River watershed is the most productive tributary in Virginia for American shad.

Ichthyoplankton surveys (1997-1999) indicated that eggs and larvae of a number of species occurred near the proposed intake site. Of these species, larval American shad constituted the highest proportion of the catch.

Ratios of Juvenile Abundance (Mattaponi/Pamunkey)

Year

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Mat

tap

oni:

Pam

un

key

Ju

ven

ile

Ab

un

dan

ce I

nd

ex (

JAI)

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Ratios (Mattaponi/Pamunkey) of juvenile abundance of American shad (30-60 mm total length). The index is calculated as a geometric mean number of juveniles per tow. Juveniles were collected at night on the nursery grounds with a push net mounted on the bow of a small boat.

Tributary Specific Historic Juvenile Abundance Data

Relative egg and larval shad distributions from 1997-1999

Available scientific information to aid in formulation of a decision by VMRC

In-river moratoriu

m

Abundance of American shad eggs and larvae in the intake zone of influence, a section of river stretching 2.5 nautical miles upriver and downriver of the proposed intake site.

Historic Landings Data and Current Fishery Information

Landings data since the 1890’s depict a steady decline until the collapse of the fishery in the 1980’s. An in-river ban on possession of American shad was imposed by the VMRC in spring 1994.

BackgroundIn March 2003, the City of Newport News, Virginia requested a permit from Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) to withdraw water from a pristine freshwater river, the Mattaponi. The intake and its storage reservoir were designed to serve a projected 600,000 people in the year 2040. A central issue in the ensuing debate was the conservation of American shad (Alosa sapidissima). The species is currently under an in-river fishing moratorium.

American shad is an anadromous alosine clupeid, its native range extending on the U.S. east coast from maritime Canada to Florida. Mature fish migrate annually from mixed stock assemblages at sea to their natal rivers. In Virginia tributaries, shad spawn in February-June, producing batches of eggs every 2-3 d. After hatching, young remain in the freshwater nursery area, then migrate to sea at age-1.

AcknowledgementsThanks to the participants in discussions regarding potential impacts including members of VMRC, VIMS and representatives of the City of Newport News. D. Perry (VIMS) contributed substantially to the process. Ichthyoplankton distribution data were obtained from Bilkovic, D.M. 2000. Assessment of Spawning and Nursery Habitat Suitability for American Shad (Alosa sapidissima) in the Mattaponi and Pamunkey Rivers. Doctoral Dissertation. Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Juvenile index data were obtained from Wilhite et al. 2003. Toward validation of a juvenile index of abundance for American shad in Virginia. American Fisheries Society Symposium 35:285-294. Information on the fishing moratorium is summarized in Olney, J.E. and J.M. Hoenig. 2001. Managing a fishery under moratorium: assessment opportunities for Virginia’s stocks of American shad. Fisheries 26:6-12.

A Fishing Moratorium on American Shad Thwarts a Controversial Municipal Reservoir Project in Virginia, USA

Olney, J.E., D.M. Bilkovic, C.H. Hershner, L.M. Varnell, H. Wang, and R.L. Mann; Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA.

and 600,000 thirsty folks

Fish6• Adopted by Virginia and other participating states in 1998• Coast-wide stock assessment (1996-1997) provided evidence of persistent declines in several Chesapeake Bay stocks• Amendment 1 mandates fishery-independent monitoring and the establishment of restoration targets for stocks under moratorium• A revised coast-wide stock assessment is planned for 2005

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Management Plan for American shad

MattaponiRiver

Location of proposed reservoir and intake structure

River Mile from the Mouth of the York River

37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 690

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

American shad eggs

Yolksac larvae

Post-yolksac larvae larvae

3.3mm

5mm

Site ofproposed

intake

Ab

un

dan

ce (

#/10

0m3 )