Atlantic Menhaden – Chesapeake Bay Foundation

Report on the Status and Management of Atlantic Menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay

Executive Summary

The Atlantic menhaden, a foundational forage fish, is critical to the ecological health of the Chesapeake Bay and the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 14 (Life Below Water). This species supports a wide range of marine predators and is integral to the marine food web. However, intensive harvesting by the industrial reduction fishery poses a significant threat to the menhaden population and the broader ecosystem. This practice raises concerns regarding SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production). Management efforts are hampered by scientific deficiencies, political influence, and institutional challenges, undermining principles of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions). This report outlines the ecological role of menhaden, the impacts of the reduction fishery, current management failures, and advocacy efforts aimed at aligning fishery practices with global sustainability targets.

Ecological Significance and Contribution to SDG 14: Life Below Water

The conservation and sustainable use of menhaden are directly linked to the targets of SDG 14, which aims to protect marine ecosystems and end overfishing. Menhaden are a keystone species in the Chesapeake Bay, performing a vital function in maintaining marine biodiversity.

Life Cycle and Ecosystem Role

Atlantic menhaden are small, nutrient-rich fish that transfer energy from the bottom of the food chain (plankton) to the top. They spawn in offshore Atlantic waters, with their larvae drifting into estuaries like the Chesapeake Bay, a major nursery area. Through filter-feeding, they are fundamental to the marine food web, supporting the health and abundance of predator populations.

Pillar of Marine Biodiversity

Menhaden are a primary food source for a diverse array of marine wildlife, directly supporting the biodiversity targets within SDG 14. Key predators include:

• Striped bass
• Bluefish and redfish
• Osprey and pelicans
• Humpback whales and dolphins

The health of these predator populations is intrinsically linked to the availability of menhaden, making sustainable management of the menhaden fishery essential for the entire coastal ecosystem.

Industrial Exploitation and Challenges to SDG 12: Responsible Production

The industrial-scale harvesting of menhaden presents a direct challenge to SDG 12, which calls for sustainable production patterns. The reduction fishery’s methods and scale are a primary concern for the long-term health of the Chesapeake Bay.

The Reduction Fishery

The Atlantic coast’s last remaining reduction fishery, operated by Omega Protein in Reedville, Virginia, accounts for the majority of menhaden harvested. In 2024, this single operation caught approximately 70 percent of all menhaden along the Atlantic Coast, totaling nearly 300 million pounds. The process involves:

1. Using spotter planes to locate large schools of fish.
2. Employing large vessels and purse seine nets to capture menhaden in massive quantities.
3. Processing the fish into fishmeal and fish oil for industrial products like aquaculture feed and pet food.

This high-intensity practice concentrates immense fishing pressure on the Chesapeake Bay, a critical nursery habitat, raising concerns about localized depletion and unsustainable production.

Management, Governance, and Institutional Challenges (SDG 16)

Effective, accountable, and transparent institutions are a cornerstone of SDG 16. The management of the menhaden fishery has been characterized by a lack of science-based decision-making and significant political influence, hindering progress toward sustainable governance.

Coastwide Management Framework

Menhaden are cooperatively managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). However, Virginia, which holds 75 percent of the coastwide harvest allocation, distributes 90 percent of its quota to the reduction fishery. The Chesapeake Bay Reduction Fishery Cap is based on historical landings rather than current scientific assessments of what the ecosystem can sustain.

Scientific Deficiencies and Political Influence

There is a critical lack of scientific data specific to the menhaden population within the Chesapeake Bay, a situation described by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science as “woefully inadequate.” The reduction industry has consistently opposed and delayed efforts to fund and initiate necessary research. This political influence over resource management undermines the principles of strong, science-based institutions required by SDG 16 and prevents the implementation of precautionary conservation measures.

Ecological Impacts and Threats to Biodiversity (SDG 14 & SDG 15)

The concentrated fishing pressure in the Chesapeake Bay is creating an ecological imbalance, threatening marine life (SDG 14) and interconnected terrestrial species (SDG 15). Warning signs of ecosystem distress are becoming increasingly apparent.

Indicators of Ecological Imbalance

• Osprey Reproduction Crisis: Osprey chicks are dying at alarming rates, which leading scientists link to poor menhaden availability. This decline impacts biodiversity on land, a key concern of SDG 15.
• Decline in Small-Scale Fisheries: Small-scale fishermen have reported sharp declines in their menhaden catch rates, impacting local livelihoods.
• Stress on Striped Bass: The iconic striped bass population, highly sensitive to menhaden abundance, is showing signs of stress.

Compounding Stressors

The impacts of industrial fishing are exacerbated by climate change, pollution, and habitat loss. These cumulative pressures further compromise the Bay’s ability to support a healthy menhaden population, making immediate management reform and scientific investment imperative to build resilience.

Advocacy and Partnerships for Sustainable Management (SDG 17)

In line with SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), a coalition of stakeholders is advocating for science-based conservation and management reform. Public support for these measures is overwhelmingly strong.

Recent Developments and Public Opinion

• Regulatory Action: In October, the ASMFC voted to reduce the 2026 coastwide catch limit by 20 percent, falling short of the 54 percent reduction recommended by scientific analysis. However, the commission did initiate an action to explore management reform specific to the Chesapeake Bay.
• Public Support: A September 2025 bipartisan poll revealed that 92 percent of Virginia voters support leaving more menhaden in the water to support the Bay’s ecosystem.

Strategic Conservation Efforts

Conservation organizations are actively working to achieve sustainable management through a multi-pronged approach that fosters partnerships and public engagement. Key strategies include:

1. Advocating for a Pause: A formal policy position calls for a pause on menhaden reduction fishing inside the Chesapeake Bay until science can determine a sustainable harvest level.
2. Expanding Awareness: Educating the public and decision-makers on the complexities of menhaden management to build support for conservation.
3. Building Networks: Collaborating with partners along the Atlantic coast to empower a broad base of advocates for policy change.

Recommendations and Call to Action

To align menhaden management with the Sustainable Development Goals and ensure the long-term health of the Chesapeake Bay, the following actions are recommended:

1. Implement a Precautionary Pause: Halt reduction fishing within the Chesapeake Bay until Bay-specific scientific studies can establish sustainable catch limits.
2. Invest in Science: Prioritize and fund independent scientific research on the menhaden population and its ecological role within the Bay.
3. Strengthen Governance: Reform management processes to be transparent, science-based, and free from undue industry influence, in accordance with SDG 16.
4. Engage Stakeholders: Decision-makers must respond to the widespread public demand for conservation and work collaboratively to protect this vital public resource for future generations.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article on menhaden conservation in the Chesapeake Bay addresses several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) due to its focus on marine ecosystems, industrial practices, institutional governance, and collaborative action.

• SDG 14: Life Below Water: This is the most prominent SDG in the article. The entire text revolves around the conservation of menhaden, a key marine species, the health of the Chesapeake Bay marine ecosystem, the impacts of overfishing, and the need for science-based management of fisheries.
• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production: The article discusses the “reduction industry,” which harvests vast quantities of a natural resource (menhaden) for industrial products like fishmeal and fish oil. This directly relates to patterns of natural resource use and the sustainability of production practices by large companies like Omega Protein.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article highlights issues of governance and institutional effectiveness. It points to the “political influence” of a single industry on decision-making bodies like the Virginia legislature and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC), which has hindered the implementation of science-based conservation, raising questions about the accountability and transparency of these institutions.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: The role of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) exemplifies this goal. The article describes how CBF works with “partners throughout the Atlantic Coast and Chesapeake Bay region,” builds networks of advocates, and engages the public and decision-makers to achieve its conservation objectives, demonstrating a multi-stakeholder partnership approach.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 14.2: By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience, and take action for their restoration in order to achieve healthy and productive oceans.
   • The article’s core argument is the need to protect the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem, a “major nursery area” for menhaden. The “ecological imbalance” described, including the “productivity crisis” for osprey and “signs of stress” in the striped bass population, are the “significant adverse impacts” this target aims to prevent.
2. Target 14.4: By 2020, effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and destructive fishing practices and implement science-based management plans, in order to restore fish stocks in the shortest time feasible, at least to levels that can produce maximum sustainable yield as determined by their biological characteristics.
   • This target is directly addressed through the discussion of setting catch limits (e.g., the 20% reduction for 2026), the debate over whether this is sufficient compared to the science pointing to a “54 percent reduction,” and the call to “pause menhaden reduction fishing” until science can determine its sustainability. The description of the reduction fishery using “spotter planes” and “massive purse seine nets” to vacuum up schools of fish relates to regulating harvesting practices.
3. Target 14.a: Increase scientific knowledge, develop research capacity and transfer marine technology, taking into account the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission Criteria and Guidelines on the Transfer of Marine Technology, in order to improve ocean health and to enhance the contribution of marine biodiversity to the development of developing countries, in particular small island developing States and least developed countries.
   • The article repeatedly emphasizes the critical lack of scientific knowledge, quoting the Virginia Institute of Marine Science’s description of Bay-specific menhaden science as “woefully inadequate.” The effort to pass a “Menhaden Study Plan,” which was ultimately blocked, is a direct attempt to achieve this target.
4. Target 12.2: By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.
   • The conflict between the industrial-scale harvesting of menhaden for fishmeal and fish oil and the need to leave them in the water to support the ecosystem is a clear example of the challenge of achieving sustainable management of a natural resource.
5. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.
   • The article contrasts the “immense influence” of the “foreign-owned Omega Protein” with overwhelming public opinion, where “92 percent of Virginia voters would prefer to leave more menhaden left in the water.” CBF’s efforts to empower stakeholders and encourage public outreach to leaders are actions aimed at making the decision-making process more inclusive and representative of the public interest, not just industrial interests.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions or implies several quantitative and qualitative indicators that can be used to measure progress:

• Menhaden Catch Limits and Quotas: The article provides specific figures, such as the “20 percent” reduction in the 2026 catch limit and Virginia’s “345-million-pound menhaden quota” in 2025. These numbers are direct indicators for tracking the regulation of harvesting (Target 14.4).
• Ecosystem Health Metrics: The reproductive success of predator species is used as a key indicator. The article states, “Osprey are facing a productivity crisis—chicks are dying in nests at rates worse than during the DDT crisis.” This serves as a powerful, albeit negative, indicator of ecosystem health and the availability of forage fish (Target 14.2). The health of the striped bass population is another mentioned indicator.
• Status of Scientific Research and Management Plans: A key indicator is the existence of a science-based management plan for the Bay. The article indicates a lack of progress by stating “no such science exists in the Chesapeake Bay” and that the “Menhaden Study Plan” was “blocked.” The future adoption and funding of such a plan would be a positive indicator (Target 14.a).
• Public Opinion Data: The bipartisan public opinion research showing that “92 percent of Virginia voters” support conservation is a quantitative indicator of public will. This can be used to measure the gap between public preference and policy outcomes, reflecting the responsiveness of decision-making institutions (Target 16.7).
• Catch Rates for Small-Scale Fisheries: The observation that “small-scale menhaden fishermen have seen their catch rates sharply decline” is an indicator of localized depletion and the economic impact on smaller fishing operations, which can be tracked to measure the effects of industrial fishing (Target 14.4).

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: cbf.org