VMRC denies petition to regulate Atlantic menhaden reduction fishery in Chesapeake Bay after extended hearing

The Virginia Marine Resources Commission on April 22 denied a petition asking the agency to initiate rulemaking that would impose precautionary limits on the Atlantic menhaden reduction fishery in Chesapeake Bay and the bay mouth.

David Reed, representing the Chesapeake Legal Alliance and a coalition of conservation groups, opened the petition presentation by telling the commission the public record and a growing body of scientific work show signs of localized depletion in the bay and harm to predators that depend on menhaden. "We believe continued inaction is itself a decision not to regulate," Reed said, urging the commission to adopt shoreline buffers, lower the bay cap and other measures while a coastwide reassessment is completed.

Reed cited recent scientific papers and described concerns about reanalysis of a coastwide stock assessment; he told commissioners that an independent review had identified large errors in a key parameter and that the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) technical committee had begun reexamination of the assessment. He also pointed to recent peer‑reviewed work on osprey productivity and to declining juvenile abundance indices as evidence supporting precautionary measures.

VMRC fisheries staff told the commission its role is to weigh the petition under Virginia law and the agency’s rulemaking process. Chief of Fisheries Pat Gere summarized the staff response and the state and interstate management context, noting that ASMFC and the federal Atlantic States processes set coastwide caps and allocations that states follow. "The proposal cites recent analyses that are still under peer review and under technical committee review," Gere said, adding that VMRC had worked with Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) and federal partners during the petition review.

Dr. Robert Latour of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science told the commission that while recent studies raise important questions, the scientific debate over stock assessment parameters is ongoing. "It's way too premature to base rulemaking on results that are still in scientific discourse," Latour said, noting the need for concurrent sampling that links predator declines directly to menhaden availability before drawing causal conclusions.

Industry speakers and local watermen, including Monte Deal of Ocean Harvesters, urged the commission to reject new regulations. Deal said menhaden biomass indicators were strong and that the industry and its supply chain support local jobs. "This is a viable, well‑managed fishery and we rely on predictable access to both bay and ocean grounds," he said.

Public comment was extensive, with conservation organizations, anglers and scientists pressing for constraints, and dockside businesses and fishery workers warning of economic harm. Phil Zalczak of the Southern Maryland Recreational Fishing Organization said reductions in menhaden take directly threatened striped bass and the recreational fisheries that depend on them. Several speakers representing fish processing and crew emphasized job impacts if the reduction fishery were restricted.

After extended deliberation, a motion to deny the petition passed. The motion to deny was made by Commissioner Preston and seconded by Associate Member Headley. The recorded vote in the meeting minutes lists Kellum, Erskine, Branson, Headley, Edwards and Preston voting to deny; Hand and White opposed. The commission's written decision required under the Virginia petition process will be published in the Virginia Register of Regulations, closing the 90‑day period for a formal agency response.

The denial does not foreclose future rulemaking. Commissioners and staff repeatedly urged continued monitoring and stressed the need to fund targeted studies in the bay that would reduce uncertainty about localized effects. VMRC staff and VIMS said they would continue to pursue study funding and collaborative monitoring to address the outstanding scientific questions raised during the hearing.

Why it matters: Atlantic menhaden are a key forage species in the Chesapeake Bay food web. The petitioners argued that recent science and declining local indices justify precautionary local measures. Industry and some scientists countered that coastwide assessments — the basis for current quotas — do not indicate overfishing. The commission’s decision leaves the current regulatory regime intact and directs participants to continue collecting data and pursuing funding for targeted studies that petitioners and some staff said are needed to reduce uncertainty.

Ending note: The commission’s denial will be followed by a written agency decision, which must explain reasons for denying the petition. Petitioners signaled they may pursue additional advocacy or legal avenues; staff flagged opportunities for increased monitoring and cross‑agency collaboration pending future funding.