Submitted by the Chesapeake Legal Alliance and the Southern Maryland Recreational Fishing Organization, to the Virginia Marine Resources Commission
Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) are a keystone forage species in the Chesapeake Bay and along the Atlantic coast. Their ecological function as primary prey for striped bass, bluefish, weakfish, red drum, marine mammals, and seabirds places them at the center of ecosystem stability. Peer-reviewed research demonstrates that forage fish generate greater long-term economic and ecological value when managed conservatively and when predator support is prioritized over industrial reduction extraction (Pikitch et al. 2012, 1146–1147; Konar et al. 2019, 226–229).
The Chesapeake Bay serves as the primary nursery ground for Atlantic menhaden (SEDAR 2020, 12–15). Concentrated purse-seine harvest within this nursery creates elevated risk of localized depletion that is not fully captured in coastwide stock assessments.
• Coastwide harvest levels are too high to sustain predator needs. ERP modeling shows predator biomass declines as menhaden harvest increases beyond ecosystem-based targets (ASMFC, 2025, pp. 1–247).
• The most recent stock update, 2025 Atlantic Menhaden Single-Species Stock Assessment Update borders on a finding of ‘overfishing’. The ASMFC found high fishing mortality, low fecundity, and low juvenile abundance (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 2025a).
• Chesapeake Bay experiences localized depletion. Potomac River Fisheries Commission landings data demonstrate dramatic regional reductions compared to long-term averages, suggesting nursery-area impacts not captured in coastwide biomass indices (PRFC, 2024, p. 1).
• Regional predator populations show measurable stress. Osprey demographic collapse and striped bass condition studies provide independent biological indicators of forage limitation (Watts et al., 2024, p. 108).
• Previous stock assessments likely understated fishing pressure. The correction of natural mortality rates significantly alters inferred fishing mortality and suggests harvest pressure has been higher than previously believed (Ault & Luo, 2025, p. 41). The Ault & Luo study conclusively shows that the natural mortality rate (M) used in the SEDAR 69 benchmark (1.17 yr?¹) was likely substantially overstated, with corrected estimates near 0.52 yr?¹ (Ault and Luo 2025, 25–31). Inflated M artificially increases recruitment and biomass estimates and masks fishing mortality (Mannini et al. 2020, 4–6).
Simultaneously, osprey reproductive collapse in the lower Chesapeake Bay is strongly correlated with menhaden abundance decline (Watts et al. 2024, 6–10). Striped bass growth and condition are highly dependent on menhaden availability (Hartman and Brandt 1995, 826–829; Walter et al. 2003, 63–66).
The scientific record supports precautionary action.
Under Virginia Code § 28.2-203, fisheries management measures must: 1) Be based upon the best scientific information available; 2) Prevent overfishing; 3) Maintain abundant, self-sustaining stocks; 4) Promote conservation; and 5) Be equitable to all users, so that no single entity captures a disproportionate share.
The Commonwealth holds marine fisheries in public trust for present and future generations. When scientific uncertainty exists concerning stock status or ecosystem impacts, precaution is required under well-established fisheries management principles (Virginia Code § 28.2-203; National Marine Fisheries Service 2016, 9–12; FAO 1995, Article 7.5).
Failure to act in the face of structural uncertainty and documented menhaden and predator impacts would conflict with statutory duties.
Atlantic menhaden function as energy converters in marine ecosystems, transforming plankton production into lipid-rich forage biomass. Because they school densely and possess high caloric content, they provide efficient energetic return to predators relative to dispersed alternative prey (Hartman and Brandt 1995, 818–822). Essington et al. (2006) describe forage fish as trophic “energy conduits” linking lower and upper food web levels (Essington et al. 2006, 3172–3173). Pauly et al. (1998) characterize forage fish as central to food web structure and resilience (Pauly et al. 1998, 861–862).
Pikitch et al. (2012) conclude that forage fish warrant precautionary harvest rules because of their disproportionately large ecosystem impact (Pikitch et al. 2012, 1147; Chagaris et al. (2020) model menhaden–striped bass trophic coupling, showing measurable predator response to forage variation; Anstead et al. (2021) outline ecosystem-based forage management pathways that prioritize predator stability over single-species yield maximization). The 2020 SEDAR 69 Benchmark Stock Assessment confirms that Chesapeake Bay is the most important nursery area for Atlantic menhaden along the U.S. East Coast (SEDAR 2020, 12–15).
Industrial removal from nursery habitat increases risk beyond coastwide averages.
The update shows elevated fishing mortality through 2023 (ASMFC, 2025 Update, pp. 100–102). Sustained high fishing mortality reduces the stock’s reproductive buffer and increases dependence on strong recruitment years.
The 2025 Atlantic Menhaden Single-Species Stock Assessment Update (ASMFC 2025a) reports:
• F above ERP target (ii; Fig. 14, 24).
• Fecundity below ERP target and declining since 2012 (ii; Fig. 13, 23).
• Recruitment variability and declining reproductive output (11–13).
Although the stock is not classified as overfished under ERP thresholds, exceeding F target reduces precautionary buffer. Declining fecundity is particularly concerning in a short-lived forage species whose resilience depends on reproductive surplus.
Fishing mortality for the reduction fleet (north and south) remains significant (ASMFC, 2025 Update, pp. 110–120). Reduction fishing constitutes the majority of total removals and disproportionately targets large schooling biomass.
When ERP targets are applied, fishing mortality exceeds ecosystem-based targets in recent years. This exceedance indicates that harvest levels acceptable under single-species MSY may still be ecologically excessive.
Projected analyses indicate substantial reductions (>50%) are necessary to maintain predator biomass targets (ASMFC, 2025, sensitivity analyses). Such reductions would align fishing mortality with ERP thresholds designed to sustain striped bass recovery.
Natural mortality (M) is one of the most influential parameters in age-structured stock assessment models (Mannini et al. 2020, 1–2).
Ault & Luo identify five major errors in Liljestrand et al. (2019): Overstated tag releases. Inflated release counts distorted survival estimates; Underreported tag recoveries (13%). Recovery undercounting biases mortality calculations; Overstated magnet recovery efficiency. Incorrect efficiency assumptions inflated M; Underreported fishing effort (−47.8%). Underestimated effort masks true fishing pressure.
These errors inflated M = 1.17 yr?¹ (Ault & Luo, 2025, p. 29), instead of the corrected estimate: M = 0.52 yr?¹ (Ault & Luo, 2025, p. 41). Lower M implies:
• True fishing mortality is higher than previously believed. Adjusted calculations shift responsibility for stock removals toward fishing rather than natural causes.
Because overestimation of M leads to underestimation of F (Ault & Luo, 2025, p. 9), previous stock health conclusions were overly optimistic. The natural mortality (M) adopted by SEDAR 69 (M = 1.17 yr?¹; SEDAR 2020, 189) exceeded acceptable M estimates by fourteen standard deviations. This is analogous to seeing a 6-foot man and insisting he is over 9-feet tall.
The result is that harvest pressure was underestimated, and resulted in quotas based on an inflated M, which allowed for excessive catch levels. That is, reduction quotas were set too high.
The ERP benchmark explicitly states that stock status should be evaluated by comparing single-species outputs to ecosystem-derived ERPs (ASMFC, 2025, p. 3). This statement recognizes that traditional MSY-based targets may allow harvest levels that compromise predator biomass objectives.
Key conclusions:
- Predator biomass declines as menhaden harvest increases. The models show that increasing menhaden fishing mortality reduces striped bass biomass relative to target levels, indicating direct trophic linkage (ASMFC, 2025, pp. 160–170).
- ERPs require maintaining higher menhaden abundance than single-species MSY. Ecosystem reference points are more precautionary than MSY because they incorporate predator forage requirements rather than maximizing yield (ASMFC, 2025, pp. 180–190).
- Ecosystem-based targets are more precautionary than historical harvest levels. Historical quotas often exceeded ERP-derived fishing mortality thresholds, particularly during peak reduction years.
These values are the benchmark’s quantified expression of “how much menhaden harvest pressure is compatible with striped bass meeting biomass objectives,” i.e., the practical “recommendation” for menhaden abundance/availability to striped bass in the ERP framework. Because the 2019 harvest was inflated, sending the stock toward overfished status, F must be reduced.
Striped bass (Morone saxatilis) exhibit strong trophic dependence on Atlantic menhaden.
Striped bass consume large quantities of menhaden (Uphoff, 2003; Chagaris et al., 2020), and Scharf et al. (2004) documented Atlantic menhaden as primary prey of large striped bass (Scharf et al. 2004, 1147–1149). Hartman and Brandt (1995) demonstrated that striped bass growth and bioenergetic efficiency are maximized when menhaden dominate diet composition (Hartman and Brandt 1995, 826–829). Uphoff (2003) linked striped bass condition factor directly to menhaden availability (Uphoff 2003, 190–192).
Regionally, menhaden frequently dominate adult striped bass diet biomass in Chesapeake Bay, and Walter et al. (2003) found that menhaden comprised the dominant biomass fraction of striped bass diet in Chesapeake Bay (Walter et al. 2003, 63–66).
Hartman and Brandt (1995) demonstrated that striped bass growth and bioenergetic efficiency are maximized when menhaden dominate diet composition (Hartman and Brandt 1995, 826–829). Uphoff (2003) linked striped bass condition factor directly to menhaden availability (Uphoff 2003, 190–192). Reduced menhaden abundance forces striped bass to shift to lower energy prey, reducing growth and potentially affecting recruitment.
Watts et al. (2024) documents a direct link between reduced regional menhaden availability with dramatic declines in osprey reproductive rates:
• 35-fold menhaden abundance fluctuation (1).
• Decline in reproductive rate over study period (6–8).
• Brood reduction and nest failure exceeding 50% in higher salinity areas (8–10).
• Transition from source to sink population (11).
These findings align with Cury et al. (2011), who found seabird reproductive collapse when forage fish biomass falls below approximately one-third of historical levels (Cury et al. 2011, 1704–1705). Menhaden historically comprised ~75% of osprey diet by weight (Watts et al., 2024, p. 11). Such dietary specialization increases vulnerability to forage decline and reduced fish delivery frequency directly affected chick survival (Watts et al., 2024, p. 37). This corresponded with results of experimental supplementation, which restored nest productivity (Watts et al., 2024, p. 33).
This experimental evidence establishes causality between forage supply and reproductive success.
Localized depletion is defined by ASMFC as a reduction in population size or density below levels sufficient to maintain ecological functions. Concentrated industrial harvest within nursery habitat increases localized depletion risk even if coastwide biomass appears adequate.
The SEDAR 69 Atlantic Menhaden Benchmark Stock Assessment Report identifies Chesapeake Bay as the most important nursery region along the Atlantic coast (SEDAR 2020, 12–15). Juvenile recruitment indices are heavily influenced by Bay conditions.
Industrial removal within nursery habitat disproportionately affects future year classes.
Recent data from the Potomac River demonstrate a dramatic reduction in menhaden landings compared to long-term averages (PRFC, 2024, p. 1). The 2024 Potomac River Fisheries Commission Commercial Finfish Landings Report documents 2024 menhaden landings of 692,078 pounds compared to a historical maximum of 20,820,945 pounds and historical average of 7,028,354 pounds (PRFC 2024, 1). Although landings do not perfectly measure abundance, long-term contraction in availability within tributaries suggests spatial depletion relative to historical distribution.
Localized nursery depletion disproportionately affects resident predators that rely on Chesapeake Bay forage rather than coastwide biomass.
Reduction fishing is spatially concentrated in Virginia waters and the Chesapeake Bay mainstem. Purse-seine harvest occurs primarily within three nautical miles of shore, particularly within nursery habitat (NOAA Fisheries 2021, 4–6).
Forage fish industrial harvest also alters school structure and predator foraging efficiency (Pikitch et al. 2012, 1146–1147). Concentrated purse-seine harvest may disproportionately remove older age classes or densely aggregated schools, potentially affecting predator encounter rates. That is, spatially concentrated removal also increases the probability that local predator communities experience forage insufficiency despite previous (and incorrect) coastwide biomass assumptions.
Peer-reviewed industrial purse-seine fishery studies document bycatch rates between 2–5 percent (e.g., Smith et al., Fisheries Research; NOAA technical reports). Given Chesapeake Bay annual removals in hundreds of millions of pounds, 2–5% implies tens of millions of pounds of predator species lost annually, representing additional unaccounted mortality.
Removal of predator species compounds forage depletion ecosystem effects.
The economic analysis of Atlantic menhaden must extend beyond dockside value of reduction landings and incorporate ecosystem service valuation, predator-supported industries, and long-term intersectoral impacts.
Pikitch et al. (2012) argue that forage fish generate greater long-term economic value when left in the ecosystem to support predator species rather than removed for industrial reduction (Pikitch et al. 2012, 1146–1147). The authors conclude that forage fish harvest control rules should be substantially more conservative than traditional single-species MSY frameworks because their ecological leverage magnifies downstream economic consequences.
Konar et al. (2019) estimated that ecosystem services provided by forage fish—including predator support, tourism, and non-market ecosystem functions—exceed direct industrial harvest value (Konar et al. 2019, 226–229). The authors emphasize that reduction fisheries often underestimate opportunity costs associated with predator-dependent industries.
Pikitch et al. (2014) further stress that ecosystem-based management of forage fish must incorporate indirect economic benefits through predator support and food web stabilization (Pikitch et al. 2014, 45–49). These findings apply directly to Atlantic menhaden in Chesapeake Bay, where striped bass and associated recreational industries dominate economic output.
Recreational striped bass fisheries supported by menhaden generate vastly greater economic activity than reduction fishing, both nationally and in the Bay region. In 2016, American recreational striped bass fishing supported 104,867 jobs and $7.7 billion in GDP, compared to 2,664 jobs and $103 million GDP from commercial landings (Southwick Associates 2019, 1–2).
The economic asymmetry between predator-supported industries and reduction fishing is substantial:
• Recreational striped bass fishing supported 104,867 jobs (Southwick Associates 2019, 2).
• Recreational striped bass fishing generated $7.7 billion in GDP (Southwick Associates 2019, 2).
• Commercial striped bass landings supported 2,664 jobs and $103 million GDP (Southwick Associates 2019, 2).
Even if only a portion of striped bass productivity depends directly on menhaden availability, the economic leverage effect is enormous. By contrast, Virginia’s industrial reduction operations generate approximately $100 million annually and employ roughly 400 workers, many seasonal.
When evaluated on employment, GDP, and economic multiplier basis, predator-supported industries exceed reduction sector value by orders of magnitude.
In Virginia, striped bass recreational fishing supports:
• Marinas — through docking fees, maintenance, and storage services.
• Boat manufacturers — via vessel sales and upgrades.
• Charter fleet — providing guided fishing experiences.
• Hospitality — including hotels and restaurants tied to fishing tourism.
• Tackle retailers — supplying gear and bait to anglers.
Reduction industry employment is concentrated and limited. Omega Protein employs fewer than 300 full-time workers regionally, according to corporate filings.
Recreational angling supports tens of thousands of jobs in the Bay region, distributing economic benefits across coastal communities rather than concentrating them within a single industrial sector, within a single county.
Several Atlantic states prohibit purse-seine reduction fishing within state waters, including New Jersey and New York. Spatial restrictions in those states have coincided with notable increases in visible menhaden aggregations and predator presence, including humpback whale occurrences. Although correlation does not prove causation, spatial harvest controls reduce localized depletion risk and provide ecological buffer.
Virginia remains the only Atlantic coastal state permitting large-scale purse-seine reduction fishing in state waters. To date, the VMRC has not regulated the industry.
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2025a. Atlantic Menhaden Single-Species Stock Assessment Update. Arlington, VA.
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 2025b. Ecological Reference Point Benchmark Stock Assessment for Atlantic Menhaden. Arlington, VA.
Ault, J.S., and J. Luo. 2025. Reevaluation of Natural Mortality Estimates for Atlantic Menhaden. Manuscript in review.
Cury, P.M., et al. 2011. “Global Seabird Response to Forage Fish Depletion.” Science 334: 1703–1706.
Essington, T.E., et al. 2006. “Fishing Through Marine Food Webs.” PNAS 103: 3171–3175.
FAO. 1995. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Rome.
Hartman, K.J., and S.B. Brandt. 1995. “Trophic Resource Partitioning and Growth of Striped Bass.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124: 815–832.
Hilborn, R., et al. 2017. “When Does Fishing Reduce Trophic Cascades?” Fish and Fisheries 18: 131–142.
Hsieh, C.H., et al. 2006. “Fishing Elevates Variability in Fish Populations.” Nature 443: 859–862.
Konar, B., et al. 2019. “Economic Value of Forage Fish.” Marine Policy 100: 223–231.
Mannini, A., et al. 2020. “The Elephant in the Room: Natural Mortality Uncertainty.” Frontiers in Marine Science 7: 585654.
NMFS. 2016. Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standard Guidelines.
Pauly, D., et al. 1998. “Fishing Down Marine Food Webs.” Science 279: 860–863.
Pikitch, E.K., et al. 2012. “Little Fish, Big Impact.” Science 338: 1146–1147.
Pikitch, E.K., et al. 2014. “The Global Contribution of Forage Fish to Marine Ecosystems.” Fish and Fisheries 15: 43–64.
SEDAR. 2020. SEDAR 69 Atlantic Menhaden Benchmark Stock Assessment Report.
Southwick Associates. 2019. Economic Contributions of Recreational and Commercial Striped Bass Fishing.
Walter, J.F., et al. 2003. “Diet Composition of Striped Bass in Chesapeake Bay.” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23: 59–69.
Watts, B.D., et al. 2024. “Demographic Response of Osprey within the Lower Chesapeake Bay.” Frontiers in Marine Science 10: 1284462.