Approved 2019 Sport Fisheries Advisory Commission

Meeting Dates & Times

• Jan 22 - Tuesday 2-5 p.m. • Apr 15 – Monday 2-5 p.m. • Jul 23 – Tuesday 2-5 p.m. • Oct 22 – Tuesday 2-5 p.m.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 2019 meeting dates

• Feb 5-7 • Apr 29-May 2 • Aug 6-8 • Oct 27-31

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 2019 meeting dates

• Feb 12-14 • Apr 9-11 • Jun 4-6 • Aug 12-15 • Oct 8-9 • Dec 10-12

All meetings are tentatively scheduled to take place in the Tawes Office Building complex (DNR’s main office).

Maryland Sport and Tidal Fisheries Advisory Commissions Final Operating Guidelines Updated December 2017

Background Tidal Fisheries Advisory Commission (TFAC) and Sport Fisheries Advisory Commission (SFAC) were created in 1973 (1st Sp. Sess., ch. 4, §1) to replace the Fish and Wildlife Commission and Commission on Chesapeake Bay Affairs which were abolished by the Maryland General Assembly in 1972. Since 1973, TFAC original name (Commercial Fisheries Advisory Commission) was altered to its current title and membership has increased; duties, terms and representation were expanded. TFAC and SFAC provisions are provided for in Natural Resources Article, §4-204 Annotated Code of Maryland. Subsection (a) provides for up to 16 members for TFAC with 14 members being commercial watermen, one member from SFAC and one representative of the aquaculture industry in the state. TFAC members serve two year terms. Subsection (b) establishes duties, membership and terms for members. SFAC is charged with providing the department advice on recreational fisheries matters. SFAC is now composed of 17 members representing diversified angling interests and waters of the state, this includes one member from TFAC and one representative of the aquaculture industry in the state. SFAC members serve four year terms. Members continue to serve until a successor is appointed. Members appointed after term has begun serves only for the rest of the term. Membership The SFAC/TFAC Members shall have the following roles:

• Prepare for Meetings: Read distributed meeting information in advance of meeting; discuss pertinent issues with the constituents you represent; and prepare to communicate and discuss constituent’s viewpoints at meetings.

• Service Between Meetings: Maintain regular communication with the constituents you represent, informing them on the status of the SFAC/TFAC and representing the SFAC/TFAC accurately.

• Work in Meetings: Attend to process; follow agenda; suggest solutions or compromises; search for closure. A SFAC member shall be appointed to TFAC by a majority vote of SFAC members. A TFAC member shall be appointed to SFAC by a majority vote of TFAC members. The elected members shall represent the views of their appointed commission.

• Use the Capacities and Resources You Possess; Promote the ideas, perspectives, and constituencies you represent while adhering to the purpose of the SFAC/TFAC.

Term of Tenure As required under §4-204, TFAC members are appointed to two year terms and SFAC members are appointed to four year terms and may be reappointed. Agenda and Meeting Support Information The agenda for SFAC/TFAC meetings shall be established by the Members and approved by the Chairperson, and include any specific issues requested by the Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources. An annual meeting schedule will be announced by the department by December of each year for the following year. Additional unscheduled meetings will be announced two weeks in advance. The agenda and meeting support information shall be distributed electronically/mail one week in advance of a SFAC/TFAC meeting.

Attendance The SFAC/TFAC membership is extended to each member as an individual based upon their interest and expertise.

• Proxy Attendees. A single, designated proxy may be nominated to serve on behalf of SFAC/TFAC commissioners.

• In the event that you are unable to attend a meeting, you must notify the DNR staff person assigned to the SFAC/TFAC within 48 hours of the meeting. The DNR staff person will work with you to obtain and provide your input to the SFAC/TFAC.

• The DNR staff person will notify SFAC/TFAC members if a meeting is to be canceled for lack of a quorum.

• If a Member is unable to attend 75% of SFAC/TFAC meetings during a calendar year, the Secretary of DNR will review the situation and may recommend to the Appointment’s office that the Commissioner be removed and an alternate be designated.

Quorum A quorum is a simple majority of appointed Members. Communication Ground Rules The SFAC/TFAC is asked to consider each suggested ground rule in an effort to facilitate group discussions: 1) Only SFAC/TFAC Members (or approved proxy attendees) will sit at the meeting table. 2) Members will strive to focus on their values and interests, not their positions. 3) Only one member will speak at a time, each member will have equal opportunity to participate. 4) Each Member will focus on the agenda issue to keep the discussion moving forward. 5) Each Member will respect all other Members and individuals of the public that may be in attendance at meetings. 6) Each Member will strive to listen actively and be open-minded. 7) Public observers will be allowed to address the SFAC/TFAC at a designated time period on the agenda for each meeting. For topics that are not on the agenda, the Chairperson will use a public sign-up list in deciding how to allocate the available time on the agenda to the number of people who want to speak. For topics that are on the agenda, the Chairperson will provide limited opportunity for comment, taking into account the time allotted on the agenda for the topic. 8) Motions. Commission members may make a motion. The motion shall be written down as part of the meeting motions/action items summary. A motion shall be followed by an equitable amount of time for discussion amongst members and an equitable amount of time for public comment. Discussion shall be limited to the merits of the immediately pending question or issue. The Chairperson is responsible for allocating discussion and comment time. Following the discussion and comment period, the motion shall be seconded by a Commission member, other than the member who made the original motion. A seconded motion shall be approved by the majority of the Commission members in order to be adopted.

Decision-Making The SFAC/TFAC will strive to make its decisions on a consensus model but set forth that if consensus cannot be reached then a simple majority can decide an issue. Members with minority views can request that their views be explicitly included in any decisions and recommendations that are made to the Secretary of DNR. Meeting Minutes Meeting minutes shall be prepared as a record of any SFAC/TFAC meeting wherein official business is conducted. Meeting minutes shall be a verbatim record of meeting dialogue. Draft meeting minutes shall be distributed to Members within 10 working days following the SFAC/TFAC meeting to which the meeting minutes apply. Draft meeting minutes, with or without amendments, shall be approved by a quorum of the Members. Only approved meeting minutes of SFAC/TFAC meetings may be distributed to non-members and posted to the Fisheries website. The staff persons assigned to support the SFAC/TFAC shall maintain a master file of SFAC/TFAC meeting agendas, meeting minutes, and meeting support information. Motions/Action items from each meeting shall be disseminated electronically or by mail upon request by the next business day to members following a meeting. Public Comments If asked to comment on a matter under consideration by the SFAC/TFAC outside of a commission meeting, a member shall differentiate between personal views, and any official position taken by the SFAC/TFAC. SFAC/TFAC Positions and Recommendations Official positions or recommendations adopted by the SFAC/TFAC which members believe warrant the attention of the Secretary of DNR shall be recorded in the SFAC/TFAC meeting minutes and transmitted to the Secretary of DNR, as official correspondence. Official Correspondence Official correspondence generated by the SFAC/TFAC shall be reviewed and approved by the Chairperson. Copies of any correspondence transmitted by the SFAC/TFAC shall be provided to all Members. The staff person(s) assigned to support the SFAC/TFAC shall maintain a master file of all correspondences transmitted by the SFAC/TFAC. Travel Reimbursement: SFAC/TFAC members can receive travel reimbursement for meetings in accordance with the State of Maryland’s travel reimbursement guidelines and rates. SFAC/TFAC members will receive expense account forms at each meeting, and shall complete the requested information and provide to the DNR principal staff person. Reimbursement may take 2-4 weeks.

1

Freshwater Fisheries Monthly Report – September 2018

Stock Assessment Cove Run Fish Survey – Thirty-two students enrolled in Northern Garrett High School’s Advanced Placement (AP) Environment Science Class participated in a day-long fish population survey, aquatic macroinvertebrate survey, water quality analysis and stream habitat assessment of Cove Run downstream of the headwater restoration sites. Blacknose dace, brook trout, creek chub, longnose dace, mottled sculpin and white sucker were collected in the study station; however, brook trout numbers were less than previous years’ surveys. The macroinvertebrate community was diverse. Since the study began in 2011, the students have documented less fine sediment in the stream, indicating that the restoration work completed in the headwater area is working. The students’ overall rating based on their data showed that Cove Run was in the “non-impaired” category. Northern Garrett High School’s AP Environmental Science class will continue long term biological, physical habitat and water quality monitoring of Cove Run.

Northern Garrett High School students participating in a fish population survey in Cove Run.

Deep Creek Lake Black Bass – The annual Deep Creek Lake black bass seining survey was completed. A total of 20 stations were surveyed throughout the lake and found largemouth bass had “good” reproductive success with an average of 4.1 young of year (YOY) per 100 foot of shoreline. Smallmouth bass reproductive success was also considered “good” with an average of 2.8 YOY per 100 foot of shoreline. Other fish species such as bluegill, golden shiner and yellow perch were abundant. Steyer Run – This tributary to the North Branch Potomac River, was surveyed at the request of a landowner who recently had a forest conservation plan prepared for his

2

property. Staff documented a reproducing brook trout population (756 trout per mile, all age classes) as well as abundant numbers of blacknose dace and Blue Ridge sculpin. Hoyes Run – With assistance from students of the Garrett College Fisheries Management Class, Hoyes Run was sampled for fish populations near its confluence with the Youghiogheny River. A combined trout species density of 558 trout per mile (all age classes) was documented. Wild brook, brown and rainbow trout were present in the population. Associated fish species included blacknose dace, longnose dace, mottled sculpin, northern hogsucker, river chub and white sucker. Owens Creek – Staff conducted two trout stream surveys on sections of Owens Creek in Catoctin Mountain National Park. The brook trout population looked healthy with an average adult density of 87 fish/kilometer (km). Juvenile numbers also looked good with an average YOY density of 180 fish/km. Qualitative Electrofishing Surveys – Conducted qualitative electrofishing surveys to determine if brook trout populations are present at the following watershed sites.

• Prettyboy Reservoir watershed sites: Grave Run (brown trout) and an unnamed tributary to Grave Run (brown trout) along Grave Run Road in Baltimore County and an unnamed tributary to South Branch Gunpowder Falls near Mount Ventus Road #1 in Carroll County (no trout).

• Conewago Creek watershed: Long Arm Creek near Mich Trace Drive in Carroll County (no trout).

• Deer Creek watershed: North Stirrup Run and an unnamed tributary to North Stirrup Run below Rigdon Road and an unnamed tributary to North Stirrup Run above Rigdon Road in Harford County (no trout).

Gillis Falls – Conducted a qualitative electrofishing survey in Gillis Falls below Gillis Road in Carroll County. Gillis Falls has a known brown trout fishery, however; no trout were found during the survey. Additional sites will need to be surveyed to determine the current status of the brown trout population in Gillis Falls. Multiple-pass Electrofishing Surveys – Conducted multiple-pass electrofishing surveys in the following watershed sites.

• An unnamed tributary to the unnamed tributary to Big Pipe Creek below Old Fort Schoolhouse Road near Manchester in Carroll County - multiple year classes of brook trout were collected in the site. This marks the first time brook trout have been found on the east side of Route 27 in the watershed.

• An established station in Walker Run near Gunpowder Road in Baltimore County - two brook trout were collected during the survey. Staff conducted an additional qualitative survey upstream of the station and collected multiple year classes of brook trout.

Gunpowder Tailwater – As a result of the heavy and continuous rain that fell on central Maryland and Pennsylvania during August and most of September, the annual Gunpowder tailwater electrofishing surveys were postponed due to high releases of water and spillover from the Prettyboy Reservoir dam. It is unlikely that surveys can be conducted before the end of the sampling index period.

3

Habitat and Water Quality Stream Restoration Tour – Conducted a tour of trout stream restoration sites in Garrett County for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Trout Unlimited, including sites where those organizations potentially could take the lead in obtaining funding and completing the projects. Sites included several completed livestock exclusion fencing projects as well as fish passage removal projects. Two projects involving fish passage were given a priority for restoration – one on Wolfden Run and another on Sand Spring Run. Both streams support brook trout and removal of the stream blockages will improve connectivity of the trout populations. Watershed Implementation Plan – Attended the Maryland Department of Agriculture’s Watershed Implementation Plan public meeting. This public forum was aimed at helping the agricultural community to better understand their role in the state’s Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP). In 2010, a judicial settlement required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for the Chesapeake Bay. A TMDL is the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet federal water quality standards. Maryland and other states within the Chesapeake Bay drainage area are required to prepare detailed plans at the county level identifying reduction goals for each sector. The meeting reviewed the progress that has been made in reducing nutrients and sediments under the WIP Phase I and II. This information will be used to discuss how agriculture, in combination with wastewater treatment, septic systems and storm water management can achieve goals established by the WIP as we enter the third and final phase. Garrett County Work Group – Participated in Natural Resource and Conservation Service’s Garrett County local work group annual meeting. The purposes of the local work group is to provide input on local resource needs; make recommendations on Farm Bill programs; provide input on local work group funds; and develop ranking questions and point values. Conservation practices that provide stream protection in brook trout watersheds are given the highest priority for funding. State Forest Annual Work Plans – Reviewed the FY20 annual work plans for the Savage River, Green Ridge and Potomac/Garrett State forests. All streams within the proposed timber management areas have at least a 50 foot no cut buffer in the riparian zone for water quality protection. Environmental Review – Provided aquatic resource information for a time of year waiver request for an emergency project to eliminate a landslide that has closed Shallmar Road numerous times in the spring. The proposed project will require three temporary culvert crossings and disturbance of approximately 30 feet of stream channel in the Wolfden Run watershed for the installation of an underdrain pipe. The recommendation was made to complete and stabilize the project site during the closure period before next spring's wet weather. Lands Reclamation Committee (LRC) – Participated in Phase II bond release field evaluations for thirteen strip mines totaling 137 acres in Garrett and Allegany counties. Committee members walked these strip mine reclamation sites to ensure re-vegetation standards were met prior to the bond being released to the operator. Votes on the bond

4

releases will take place during the September monthly meeting. All but one of the reclaimed mine sites passed the inspection criteria. The site that failed re-vegetation standards will be re-planted and evaluated in the spring of 2019. Western Region Land Stewardship Committee – Provided comments for potential state acquisitions for the following parcels:

• A two-acre parcel within the Youghiogheny River Natural Resource Management Area. This property is upslope of Deep Creek stream, a tributary of the Youghiogheny River and will be preserved as a forested buffer. Fishing and Boating Services fully supports acquisition of this property as per the 2006 Maryland Department of Natural Resources Brook Trout Fisheries Management Plan (FMP). The FMP's main goal is to "restore and maintain healthy brook trout populations in Maryland's freshwater streams and to provide long-term social and economic benefits from a recreational fishery." To achieve this goal, one of the management objectives of the FMP is to increase public ownership of lands in watersheds that support brook trout populations.

• A 57-acre parcel adjacent to the Green Ridge State Forest in the Fifteen Mile Creek watershed. Public ownership would preserve and enhance valuable riparian forest buffers and enhance water quality in Fifteen Mile Creek. The remainder of the property would be managed in a sustainable way that will provide valuable wildlife habitat diversity and public recreation that supports the region’s natural resources and economy.

Water Quality Monitoring

• Removed two HOBO Water TempPro recorders from the unnamed tributary to Big Pipe Creek and one used as an air temperature recorder as a precaution before the remnants of Hurricane Florence poured rain on Maryland.

• Deployed a YSI water quality sonde in the pond at North Keys Community Park

(Prince George’s County). The park is owned and managed by Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission. The commission and Freshwater Fisheries are working to add the park to the list of put-and-take trout fishing locations in southern Maryland. A necessary first step of this process is determining if the pond can support trout during the fishing season (fall, winter, and spring). The sonde will monitor and record water quality variables such as dissolved oxygen, pH and water temperature for several months to ensure conditions are appropriate to support a seasonal trout fishery.

Deploying the YSI sonde

5

Fish Health Largemouth Bass Virus – Collected a sample of largemouth bass (ranging from 9-15 inches in length) from the tidal, freshwater Potomac River to be tested for the presence of largemouth bass virus, which has previously been found in the system. The virus, which poses no risk to humans, may reduce a fish’s tolerance to stressors. Its prevalence has ranged from 13-20 percent in samples since 2009, but the virus has not been linked to any fish kills in Maryland. Stocking and Population Management Brown Trout – Stocked sections of Antietam Creek in Washington County with 3,000 juvenile brown trout. The fish, measuring five to six inches in length, were stocked in Antietam Creek from the Pennsylvania border downstream to Hagerstown. Antietam Creek is managed as a put-and-grow fishery where juvenile fish are stocked into the stream where they can naturally grow to a catchable size. Outreach Customer Service – Provided information for a variety of requests including: fall trout stocking; stream flows after major rain events; North Branch Potomac River trout fishing; and northern pike fishing in Deep Creek Lake. Provided an article on fall fly-fishing opportunities in Western Maryland for the Fish and Hunt Maryland Magazine. Youghiogheny River – Attended the Youghiogheny River Watershed Association meeting and gave an update on the Casselman River Watershed Brook Trout Restoration Project, the Hoyes Run Riparian Zone Restoration Project and the Little Laurel Run Brook Trout Restoration Project. The Youghiogheny River Watershed Association was a major partner on all these environmental restoration projects. Deep Creek Lake – Presented a program entitled “Fishes of Deep Creek Lake” to the 18 members of the North Glade 4-H Club in Swanton. Each youth was also given a booklet on safe boating tips and how to fish.

6

Angler Access Fishery Management Areas – Continued performing land maintenance, grass mowing and litter pick-up at the North Branch Potomac River, Evitts Creek, Brownsville Pond and the Beaver Creek Fishery Management Areas.

Aquatic Vegetation Removal – Ensured readiness of locations scheduled to be stocked as part of the fall put-and-take trout fishery in southern Maryland. The work occasionally entails the manual removal of aquatic vegetation that prevents angling activities. Recently, a portion of the duckweed at Melwood Pond (Prince George’s County) was removed to allow a better fishing experience for anglers. The pond was completely covered with the aquatic plant, which makes fishing difficult. Additionally, as temperatures drop and the plant dies, subsequent decomposition can deplete dissolved oxygen degrading water quality for aquatic life.

Removal of duckweed from Melwood Pond

Invasive Species Northern Snakehead – For years fisheries biologists have observed northern snakehead (Channa argus) moving farther upstream into tributaries of the rivers where they occur, particularly in the springtime and during freshets caused by heavy rainfall. There is concern that these feisty predators may impact the aquatic fauna in smaller streams. Darters, minnows and various small fishes reside in most of our streams, some in limited numbers. In September, a private contractor conducting a stream survey documented 11 juvenile northern snakehead in Indian Creek, a tributary of the Anacostia River (Prince

7

George’s County). The photo below indicates just how well adapted to their surroundings northern snakehead have become and their full bellies show that they are quite proficient at utilizing resident forage as they prepare for the upcoming winter. Banded killifish, blacknose dace, mosquitofish, swallowtail shiner, tessellated darter and many other fish species were documented in the area where these snakehead were caught. While the juvenile snakehead were not kept to examine gut contents, snakeheads are known to be voracious predators and likely utilize many of the fishes present.

A very fat juvenile northern snakehead collected from Indian Creek

Commercial Sale of Invasive Species – Staff discussed commercial sale and opportunities with watermen to help promote and expand the fisheries for blue catfish and northern snakeheads.

Public Presentation – Worked with University of Maryland Extension to develop a presentation for the general public at the St. Mary's County Fair. The presentation conveyed information on case histories of blue catfish and northern snakehead, how to fillet the species and cooking methods. The presentation encouraged recreational harvest and consumption.

Flathead Catfish – Staff deployed hoop nets in Conowingo Reservoir to collect flathead catfish. This project is an extension of a flathead study conducted by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission into Maryland’s reaches on the Susquehanna River. Additional work was planned in the Susquehanna River, but high flow events prevented it from being completed. Four sets of baited hoop nets tied in series were deployed in the reservoir for three days. Fourteen flathead catfish were captured. Sizes ranged from 55 mm to 1125 mm. The largest flathead was 56.5 pounds, the largest flathead ever recorded from Pennsylvania or Maryland waters. All flathead catfish were removed from the system and their otoliths removed for age determination. Other species collected in the nets included white crappie, quillback, channel catfish, common carp, smallmouth bass and rock bass.

8

Thanks to the Freshwater Fisheries staff from Western Region II and Unicorn Hatchery, who assisted on the project, and to the shad and herring program that provided the perfect boat to complete the work.

L to R: Staff deploys hoops nets; A 56.5 pound flathead catfish, the largest ever recorded in Maryland. Brook Trout Program The final year of the initial five-year statewide brook trout population sampling schedule was completed. Work has already begun on data analysis and determining where our brook trout population stands in comparison to past historical surveys. Of positive note, several new brook trout populations were discovered in areas in Garrett and Carroll counties that had never been sampled previously. Staff plans to have a draft report completed by winter of 2019. Provided comments, recommendations and technical guidance on two brook trout stream restoration proposals that are being submitted for funding consideration by the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture. The main partners for the proposals are USFWS and Trout Unlimited. The Brook Trout Program also agreed to partner. The Sand Spring Run (Allegany County) proposal is to remove a fish barrier, improve riparian habitat and increase brook trout population density. The work will be done on private property but would benefit angling opportunity on state forest and other publicly open areas adjacent to the restoration area. The Wolfden Run proposal would remove a large instream barrier, improving fish passage and stream connectivity. The entire project would be on recently acquired state land in Garrett County. Both projects would start in 2019 and be completed by 2020. Attended a site meeting and provided comments in regards to a proposal by Allegany County to remove several old mine ponds/pits and restore a section of upper Georges Creek in the Shaft area (Allegany County), in an area that is degraded from past mining

9

activities. The project has the potential to reduce the amount of water that flows out of the Borden Shaft, which is the primary source of cold water to Braddock Run, one of the best brook trout fisheries in the state. The Brook Trout Program raised strong concerns that a reduction in flow to Braddock Run could harm the resident brook trout population. Maryland Department of Environments’ Bureau of Mines will provide information on what, if any, change in flow could potentially occur. Attended the Environmental Quality Incentives Program local work group meeting on behalf of Fishing and Boating Services to discuss conservation needs in Allegany County and develop a strategy to best utilize the funds available for environmental conservation work on local farms. Worked on completing federal aid grant reports for the Brook Trout Program (statewide), the Deep Creek northern pike research (Garrett County) and the annual Brook Trout Fishery Management Plan update (statewide). Assisted the Maryland Biological Stream Survey crew with an electrofishing effort on Wills Creek near Cumberland (Allegany County). Attended a public meeting for a review of the Master Plan for Jennings Randolph Reservoir (Garrett County). The objective of the meeting was to introduce the plan to the public and solicit ideas, concerns and interest in the future of Jennings Randolph reservoir and its surrounding lands. Tidal Bass Program Met with the creator of Water Reporter to discuss its use to report pollution (e.g., wastewater, fish kills) in tidal bass habitats. A presentation on Water Reporter is scheduled for October 10 during the Black Bass Advisory Subcommittee meeting.

Met with biologists and administrators from Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, District Department of Environment and Potomac River Fisheries Commission to discuss management of the Potomac River largemouth bass fishery. A technical committee was formed to discuss sources of data.

Worked to improve the storage database of survey data by refining its import feature to seamlessly allow the transfer for electronic data recorded using tablet datasheets to the networked database. This improvement reduces data entry errors and significantly reduces staff time spent entering data.

Leveraging Recreational Boating & Fishing Foundation to Increase

Recreational License Sales

SFAC MeetingOctober 16, 2018

Karen Knotts

Leveraging RBFF

• RBFF mission is to increase participation in fishing and boating.

• RBFF collaborates with stakeholders and state partners to develop, implement and evaluate effective recruitment, retention and reactivation (R3) efforts. – Campaigns (e.g. Take Me Fishing)– Toolkits & resources– R3 Program Grants

R3 Status/Next Steps

• We are in the process of using RBFF resources to evaluate and assess our current R3 efforts.

• Attend RBFF State Marketing Workshop in December 2018 to hear from industry experts, collaborate with other states and generate ideas.

• Identify R3 projects we could implement with additional funding. Submit RBFF grant proposal(s) in next cycle (March 2019)

Thank You!

Maryland Artificial Reef Initiative 2018 Update

Michael Malpezzi, Maryland DNR-Fishing and Boating ServicesTawes State Office Building, Annapolis

October 16, 2018

2018 MARI Summary

Total Deployments 8Sites 3Concrete (Tons) 4,300Reef Balls 140Spent $73,000In-kind/Match $55,000

Love Point

Tilghman Island

Tangier Sound

Deployment Locations

Love Point

• 6 Deployments• Concrete from I-895

overpass, Dundalk Marine Terminal pier, old ferry terminal pier

Tilghman Island

• 144 reef balls set with spat

• CCA, CBF, Carroll and Anne Arundel county schools, Lehigh Cement Co.

Tangier Sound

• 140’ steel barge• Murtek

• Reef ball incubations (Choptank River)

• Reef ball stratification experiment (Severn River)

• CBF, UMCES, MARI

Monitoring

• Tidewater School, Huntington• K-5 students built 4 reef balls• CCA, CBF, MARI• Deploy at Tilghman Island next

year

Outreach

Upcoming Projects

• Love Point• Reef Balls• Exelon/Plum Point• Melka Marine barges/Point No

Point• Harry Nice Bridge• Ferro-cement boat hull???

1 DRAFT – For Discussion Purposes

Oyster Management Toolbox

The Sustainable Oyster Population and Fishery Act of 2016 (Senate Bill 937, Chapter Number 703, 2016) directs the Maryland Department of Natural Resources to “…identify management strategies to address the maintenance of a sustainable oyster population and fishery.” There will be a section in the stock assessment report that provides definitions of potential management tools that could be used to manage Maryland’s public commercial oyster fishery and oyster population based on the results of the stock assessment. The report will not provide recommendations on which management strategy(s) should be selected and implemented. This list of potential tools will be assembled with input from Oyster Advisory Commission, Tidal Fishery Advisory Commission, Sport Fishery Advisory Commission and the County Oyster Committees and will provide the platform for a future public process to determine the course of management.

SFAC & TFAC Homework:

Please review the list of management tools below and provide the department with any other management tools that you think should be added to the list. Please send this to Jodi Baxter (jodi.baxter@maryland.gov) by November 2, 2018.

Depending on the tool, it may be applied separately or in conjunction with other tools in this list for effective management. Most tools are ineffective when applied independently thus are usually implemented with multiple other tools. Also, future discussions could include spatial variation in management because the stock assessment was conducted on the scale of NOAA code. Therefore, management actions that would be effective in one area could be less effective in other regions.

There are four types of management tools: output controls, input controls, habitat modification, and stock enhancement. Output controls limit the amount of oysters that can be taken out of the water. Input controls limit the amount of effort in the fishery which indirectly controls the amount of oysters harvested. Habitat modifications are measures to prevent damage to habitats, to restore damage where it has occurred, and to increase habitat where required. Since oysters create their own habitat, many of the input, output, and stock enhancement tools may also be considered habitat modification tools. Stock enhancement tools have the potential to increase the population through adding new oysters into Maryland’s portion of the Bay.

Listed below (no particular order) are potential oyster management tools that can be used to manage for a sustainable oyster population and harvest.

Output Controls

• Minimum Size Limits. Minimum size limits regulate how large an animal needs to be in order to be harvested. This tool is one of the primary means in a fishery for achieving an established target harvest rate and for avoiding exceeding an established maximum threshold harvest rate. Size limits can also be used in cases where there is no established target or threshold harvest rate to protect younger

mailto:jodi.baxter@maryland.gov

2 DRAFT – For Discussion Purposes

animals that have not reached spawning age. Generally, minimum sizes are set at or above a level where at least 50% of the population has been allowed to spawn once. Since 1927, the oyster size limit has been set at 3 inches. Generally it takes oysters three years to reach three inches, thus this size limit will allow for some reproduction at age two and three. A two-inch female oyster has the potential to produce an estimated 4.6 million eggs and a three-inch female oyster has the potential to produce an estimated 25 million eggs (Mann and Evans 1998). Changing the minimum size limit would require a change in regulation. The department would have to “notwithstand” statutes, but this is legally allowed under statute NR §4-215 and has been done in the past.

• Slot Size Limits. A slot size limits regulates a size range that an animal can be harvested. Slot limits allow the harvest of animals between a minimum and maximum size. The intent is to protect smaller-sized animals so that they can reach a reproductive age and allow at least 50% of the population to spawn once, as well as protect larger-sized animals that tend to be more fecund (produce more eggs). It can also be used to control harvest to achieve a target harvest rate or to avoid surpassing a threshold. This management technique is currently not used in Maryland for oysters. Implementation of a slot size limit would require a similar process as changing the minimum size limit. However, if the minimum size of oyster did not change (i.e. the department only added a maximum size), no subsequent legislation would be necessary.

• Bushel Limits. A bushel limit is the number of bushels of oysters a harvester or vessel can take per day for commercial harvest on public bottom. Daily bushel limits can be used to achieve a target harvest rate, avoid surpassing a threshold harvest rate, or constrain harvest to a desired total harvest amount. Bushel limits are calculated to maximize the number of daily bushel limits under average fishing conditions that will achieve the management goal (e.g., harvest rate or a desired total harvest amount). Bushel limits can be ineffective when fishing effort is not constant or known because it will only restricts an individual’s harvest, and may not impact the total industry’s harvest. Maryland currently manages the public oyster fishery using daily bushels limits which vary depending on the gear type. Currently, all gears except power and sail dredge are allowed 15 bushels/license/day, not to exceed 30 bushels/vessel. Power dredges are allowed 12 bushels/license/day, not to exceed 24 bushels/vessel. Sail dredges are allowed 150 bushels/vessel/day. The current daily catch limits have been in place since 1971 for sail dredge, 1983 for power dredging, and 1987 for hand tongs, patent tongs, and diving.

3 DRAFT – For Discussion Purposes

To change the bushel limits for one season, the department could issue a public notice. If the change was intended to last for more than one season, a regulatory change would be needed.

• Total Allowable Catch (TAC). A total allowable catch is the total harvest allowed for an animal for all harvesters during one harvest season. A TAC can also be referred to as a quota and should not be confused with individual quotas. Applying a TAC is another tool that can be used to achieve a target harvest rate or to avoid surpassing a threshold. In the case of oysters, a TAC could be set by converting the target exploitation fraction into a number of individuals to be harvested. Managing a TAC can be ineffective if harvest reports are late, incomplete and inaccurate, thus making real-time total harvest unknown. A TAC is only effective if the fishery is closed when the TAC is achieved. The use of TAC's can also lead to derby fishing and incentivize fishing in dangerous conditions, as harvesters strive to catch all they can before the TAC is reached and the fishery is closed. A TAC would likely need to be implemented in concert with a minimum size limit to maintain protection for some level of recruitment. This management tool is currently not used in Maryland public oyster fishery. Implementing a TAC would require a change in the Oyster Management Plan in which such a management system was described and proposed. This would be followed by a regulatory change to both adopt a new Oyster Management Plan as well as create new regulations to implement a TAC program and a public notice provision to open and close the fishery.

• Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs). Individual transferable quotas are an alternative to the TAC and bushel limit options described above. ITQ's assign shares (percentage of a TAC) to individual harvesters. If the TAC rises or falls, the share stays the same so that an individual's quota may be smaller or larger as conditions change, but the percentage 'owned' by an individual is constant. This type of management eliminates the derby effect. One of the most challenging aspects of ITQ management is determining which harvesters are eligible to participate in the ITQ and then how to allocate quota among the participants. ITQ's are not currently used in the Maryland public oyster fishery. Implementing this would require a change in the Oyster Management Plan in which such a management system was described and proposed. This would be followed by a regulatory change to both adopt a new Oyster Management Plan as well as create new regulations to implement ITQs.

Input Controls

• Season Limits. Season limits establish when a fishery is open and closed to harvest. They are one of the primary tools for achieving an established target harvest rate and for avoiding exceeding an established maximum threshold harvest rate. In some circumstances, it is possible to determine a season length necessary to achieve an expected harvest. Season limits may also be used to

4 DRAFT – For Discussion Purposes

protect particular life history stages of a population, for example, months when spawning is occurring. The harvest of oysters in Maryland’s public fishery is restricted to the months of October through March (power dredging is conducted November-March). To change the season limits for a single fishing season, the department could issue a public notice. If the change was intended to last for more than one season, a regulatory change would be needed.

• Time Limits. Time limits are used to restrict harvest to specific days of the week and/or hours in a day. Time limits can work alone or in concert with other management measures to control harvest but it is difficult to estimate time limits that would achieve a target harvest rate, a total annual catch, or avoid surpassing a threshold harvest rate. Since 1992, harvesting is allowed Monday through Friday from sunrise to 3 p.m., and the hours are extended to sunset in November and December. To change the time limits, this would require a regulatory change.

• Gear Limits. Gear limits restrict the type, characteristics, and operation of a fishing gear. Regulating the configuration of gear as well as when and where they are used, can be an effective tool for protecting certain size classes of an animal, protecting habitat, and controlling the efficiency of harvest. Gear limits may also be used to avoid conflict of one type of gear interfering with another type of gear. Gear limits can be ineffective if used to achieve a target harvest rate, total annual catch, or avoid surpassing a threshold harvest rate. In Maryland, there are a variety of permissible gears for the commercial harvest of oysters that are restricted both in terms of when and where they can be used as well as in their dimensions or configuration. Oysters can be harvested by multiple gear types: hand tongs, patent tongs, diving, power dredging, and sail dredging. Currently, all gears can be used from October to March, with the exception of dredging which can be used from November to March. All areas open to oystering are open to multiple gear types with the exception of hand tong-only areas and four small Power Dredge Study areas. Some oyster bars are restricted to hand tonging only, but hand tonging is permitted on all oyster bars. Most of the hand tong-only areas are located in shallow waters in more protected creeks and coves. Patent tongs are prohibited from certain county waters and most tributaries. This gear is primarily employed in the Chesapeake Bay mainstem, the lower Patuxent River, and parts of Somerset County.

5 DRAFT – For Discussion Purposes

Oyster diving was legally established as a gear type in 1973. Diving is allowed on all open bottoms except those reserved for hand tong-only and the few small Power Dredge Study areas. Divers typically work only on bars where patent-tonging and dredging are prohibited. In 1993, the power dredging gear type was discontinued but it was reestablished in 1997 and further expanded in 1999, 2003, and 2010, to include much of the lower Bay and significant parts of the middle Bay below the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. Power dredging is allowed in much of the lower Choptank River and the majority of bottoms in southern Maryland including the mainstem and much of Dorchester, Somerset, and St. Mary’s Counties. Sail dredging is the historical method used in oyster dredging employing the iconic Chesapeake Bay skipjack sailing vessel. It is similar to power dredging, however, for at least 3 of the 5 days each week the boat must be powered completely under sail. For two days a week, the skipjack can be powered using an auxiliary yawl boat to push the skipjack, effectively making it similar to power dredging. Historically skipjacks operated through the mainstem of the Chesapeake Bay as well as some tributaries such as the Choptank but in recent years, fewer than ten boats are in operation and are generally found in the Tangier Sound region. Changing the gear limits would potentially require a change in the Oyster Management Plan, regulation, or statute depending on the limits of which gears the department was changing. Certain limits on gears are statutory (i.e. size of dredge, definitions of gears). Certain limits on gears are both statutory and regulatory (i.e. areas where sail dredges are allowed). Certain limits are regulatory only (i.e. hand tong only areas, power dredge areas, power dredge study areas, and patent tong areas). Changing the definitions of gears, size of gears, or areas where gears are allowed may necessitate changing the Oyster Management Plan prior to taking regulatory action, which would require regulation to adopt a new Oyster Management Plan.

• Entry Limits. Entry limits restricts the number of individuals that are granted the opportunity to harvest animals commercially. In Maryland, individuals purchase licenses from the State in order to commercially harvest oysters. Maryland regulation limits the number of commercial oyster harvester licenses to 737. Maryland also has a cap of 2,091 commercial tidal fish licenses which enable the licensee to participate in a wide variety of fisheries including oysters. Thus, there are a total of 2,828 individuals who have the potential to harvest oysters in any given year. Along with having a license to harvest oysters, the department also requires individuals to annually purchase a surcharge of $300 if they want to harvest. The revenue from the surcharges is used to conduct seed and substrate plantings for oyster population and fishery enhancement purposes in conjunction with other state funds used for this purpose. Changing entry limits (number of participants in the oyster fishery) would require a change in regulation, the Oyster Management Plan, and would potentially require a change in statute.

6 DRAFT – For Discussion Purposes

Habitat Modification

• Sanctuaries. Sanctuaries are areas closed to harvest for the purpose of maintaining or increasing abundance and productivity of an animal, biological diversity, and protecting habitats. In addition to being closed to harvesting, sanctuaries may sometimes receive habitat and stock enhancements. In Maryland, oyster sanctuaries were first established in 1961 (Oxford Sanctuary). Sanctuary areas have been added over time and last changed in 2010. Some of Maryland’s sanctuaries are just closed to fishing, others receive restoration, and others receive large scale restoration aimed specifically at meeting aspects of the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. Changing sanctuary boundaries would require a change in regulation (after the requirements have been met from the legislation that prohibited changing the boundaries).

• Harvest Reserve Areas. Harvest reserve areas are areas that are closed to harvest for a period of time and may be opened after certain criteria are considered. The criteria are often based on desired characteristics of a population. The purpose of these areas is maximize harvest while maintaining a sustainable and healthy population. Generally, stock enhancement practices are applied in these areas. In the past, Maryland had 19 Harvest Reserve Areas. Currently there are two remaining. Biological criteria required to open an area consisted of: growth rates, disease prevalence and intensity levels, mortality threshold, and biomass threshold. Harvest Reserve Areas can be opened and closed using the departments public notice authority and would not need a regulatory change. Adding or removing Harvest Reserve Areas requires a regulatory change.

• Open and Closing Areas. Maryland occasionally opens and closes areas periodically that are normally open to the public fishery for harvest. This is generally done through recommendation of the industry for the purpose to decreasing the chance of gear mortality of planted seed or spat. Areas within Public Shellfish Fishery Areas can be opened and closed using the departments public notice authority and would not need a regulatory change.

• Rotational Harvest. Rotational Harvest involves closing an area to harvest for a set time period, then opening it to harvest for another set time period, and then closing the area again for a set time period. The closure time generally depends on the capability of a species to rebound as the success of rotational harvest depends on growth and abundance increases during the closure period being

7 DRAFT – For Discussion Purposes

greater than the levels of depletion during the harvest period. In conjunction with opening and closing areas to harvest, habitat and stock enhancement can be used in the hopes of rebounding the population quicker. Implementing rotational harvest areas would potentially require a change in regulation and the Oyster Management Plan depending on where the rotational harvest areas were located. If these areas were currently within a sanctuary and not in a Public Shellfish Fishery Area, a regulatory change would be needed. If the areas were completely located within a Public Shellfish Fishery Area, areas could be opened and closed using the departments public notice authority and would not need a regulatory change.

• Planting Substrate. Planting substrate is a form of habitat modification that adds new habitat to establish, enhance, and protect a population. For oysters, the practice is primarily used to provide more substrate for natural spat settlement and to improve the bottom for stock enhancement practices. In recent years, Maryland has been planting both shell and alternative materials as substrate. Shell has consisted of oyster shell from shucking houses, mixed shell (mixture of scallop, conch, and clam from processing plants), and fossilized shell. Alternative substrate has consisted of stone, concrete rubble, slag, and reef balls. Permits from both Maryland Department of the Environment and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are needed to conduct this type of habitat modification.

• Planting Dredged or Reclaimed Shell. Planting dredged and reclaimed shell are forms of habitat modification that dredges oyster shell in one area and plants the shell on other oyster bars for the purpose of establish, enhance, and protect a population on the bar that the shell was planted. For oysters, the practice is primarily used to provide more substrate for natural spat settlement and to improve the bottom for stock enhancement practices. This practice will also modify the habitat of where shells are dredged from. Dredged shells were planted in Maryland from 1960 to 2006 using a hydraulic dredge with a rotating head that cut into the bay bottom and brought buried shell to the surface. This was generally conducted on relict oyster bars that did not have living oysters. The shells were then planted on other oyster bars baywide. Permits from both Maryland Department of the Environment and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are needed to conduct this type of habitat modification. The program ended in 2006 primarily due to opposition to the program based on environmental and stakeholder concerns. Reclaimed shells are silted and degraded shells that are collected and replanted using watermen’s oyster dredges (same gear as is used to harvest oysters). In 2012, Maryland contracted waterman to reclaim surface and slightly buried shell. This occurred in areas where shell was previously planted, but they became silted and unavailable for spat set. The shells were then planted on other oyster bars. Permits from both Maryland Department of the

8 DRAFT – For Discussion Purposes

Environment and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are needed to conduct this type of habitat modification.

• Seed Areas. Seed areas are areas that are planted with shell for the sole purpose of obtaining a significant spat set that can later be relocated to areas of low recruitment as “seed”. The seed oysters grow and then are used to enhance harvest in those low recruitment areas. Seed areas can either be closed to prevent gear mortality from harvest as the spat grow or they can remain open if there are no harvestable sized oysters naturally occurring on the area. Maryland had a seed area program from 1960 to 2006. There were approximately 20 areas used during that timeframe located mostly in high recruitment areas with moderate to high salinity, typically in the southern counties of Dorchester, Somerset, and St. Mary’s counties. The program ended primarily due to the loss of the dredged shell program that supplied the shells needed to create the seed areas. Also, recruitment declined after the late 1990’s. To create a seed area, statute NR4-1103 requires the department to notify the Joint Committee on Administrative, Executive, and Legislative Review (AELR), publish notice at least 30 days before closing an area in one newspaper of general circulation in the State and one newspaper of general circulation in each county in which the affected waters are located, and on the website of the department. A public hearing at least 15 days prior to the closing must also be held in the county seat of the county in which the affected waters are located. If the area is in multiple counties, the hearing must be held in the county seat closest to the waters. If the area is in totally in State waters (i.e. not county waters), the hearing must be in Annapolis. If a proposed seed area was currently within a sanctuary, a regulatory change would be needed to change the boundary of the sanctuary only after the requirements have been met from the legislation that prohibited changing the boundaries.

Stock Enhancement

• Planting wild, natural seed. Planting wild, natural oyster seed is a form of stock enhancement that can be used to manipulate population levels. It involves planting young oysters on an oyster bar that were naturally recruited on another oyster bar. This practice can be used to overcome a short-term recruitment limitation and add individuals for the purpose of future harvest. Since oysters also create their own habitat, planting seed can also be a form of habitat modification (substrate addition). In recent years, Maryland has been purchasing seed from Virginia and planting it in multiple locations. This practice may enhance local populations as well as the baywide population of Maryland since oysters are being transported from outside the State. When planting oyster seed from out of state, only Crassostrea virginica may be used and an import permit must be issued by the department. Import may be limited to certain bars, based primarily on salinity and a

9 DRAFT – For Discussion Purposes

comparison of Dermo intensity and prevalence and MSX prevalence at the source and destination bars determined by each states' annual fall survey. In the past, Maryland transported seed produced in Maryland’s Seed Areas to areas that had lower recruitment. This practice may enhance localized populations of oysters, but will not enhance the baywide population since these are not new oysters to Maryland’s portion of the Bay. Futhermore, it reduces the population of oysters at the source location.

• Planting hatchery reared spat-on-shell. Planting hatchery reared spat-on-shell is a form of stock enhancement that can be used to manipulate population levels. It involves producing larvae in a hatchery facility usually using local broodstock oysters collected from Maryland’s portion of the Bay. The larvae are then placed in large setting tanks with shell. The larvae sets on shell creating spat-on-shell which is then planted on oyster bars. This practice can be used to overcome a short-term recruitment limitation and add individuals for the purpose of future harvest or to boost oyster populations. Since oysters also create their own habitat, planting hatchery spat can also be a form of habitat modification (substrate addition). Since the early 2000’s, Maryland has been planting hatchery spat on public fishery bottom, sanctuary areas, and in aquaculture leases. This practice may enhance local populations as well as the baywide population of Maryland since these oysters are considered “new” oysters to the bay.

Literature Cited

Mann, R., Evans, D.A. 1998. Estimation of oyster, Crassostrea virginica, standing stock, larval production and advective loss in relation to observed recruitment in the James River, Virginia. Journal of Shellfish Research, Vol. 17. No.1, 239-253.

1

The Sustainable Oyster Population and Fishery Act of 2016:“…identify management strategies to address the maintenance of a sustainable oyster population and fishery.”

List of Management Tools in Stock Assessment Report• Will provide definitions of potential tools that could be used to manage public

commercial oyster fishery and oyster population based on the results of the stock assessment

• Assembled with input from OAC, TFAC, SFAC and the County Oyster Committees

• Will not provide recommendations on which management strategy(s) should be selected and implemented

• Will provide the platform for a future public process to determine the course of management

Please review the list of management tools and provide the department with any other management tools that you think should be added to the list. Please send this to Jodi Baxter (jodi.baxter@maryland.gov) by November 2, 2018.

Homework

TFAC / SFAC Meeting: October 2018

mailto:jodi.baxter@maryland.gov

DATE F LOCATION DESCRIPTION

7/1/2018 F1 Dist 7 Talbot County Wye River and Tred Avon

Crabbing Patrol (1 Citation 3 warnings issued)

7/2/2018 F1 Dorchester 2 citations undersized crabs, recreational

7/4/2018 F1 AA/Chesapeake Bay During patrol officers checked (8) commercial vessels and (1) commercial truck and found (2) violations for equipment

7/6/2018 F1 Dorchester 1 citation undersized hard crabs, recreational

7/6/2018 F1 Dorchester Commercial waterman charged for undersized hard crabs, Fishing Creek

7/7/2018 F1 Dorchester Recreational crabber cited for undersized hard crabs, Key Wallace Drive

7/8/2018 F1 Dorchester Recreational crabber cited for undersized hard crabs, Slaughter Creek

7/10/2018 F1 Somerset Officers in Somerset County conducted a crab saturation patrol. A total of 26 vessels were checked(25 commercial vessels and 1 recreational vessel). 2 citations were issued for possession of undersized crabs.

7/14/2018 F1 Queen Annes County/ Wells Cove

QA County Officer issued one citation for using more than 1200 feet of trotline (recreational crabber)

7/17/2018 F1 Dorchester Commercial crabber cited for 53 undersized hard crabs, Farm Creek

7/18/2018 F1 Dorchester recreational crabber cited for undersized hard crabs, Slaughter Creek

7/19/2018 F1 Dorchester saturation patrol Little Choptank River, 1 commercial and 2 recreational crabbers cited for undersized hard crabs

7/22/2018 F1 St. Mary's County Officers conducted recreational crab saturation of St. Mary's County. 2 citations issued.

7/26/2018 F1 Dorchester Commercial crabber cited for undersized hard crabs, Honga River

8/1/2018 F1 Talbot/ Clairborne Landing - Blackwalnut

Officer specialized patrol for striped bass 4 citations for Recreational striped bass violations

8/4/2018 F1 Dorchester Recreational crabber cited for undersized hard crabs, Key Wallace Drive

8/5/2018 F1 Dorchester 2 recreational crabbers cited for crabbing on Wed. and failure to have license, Choptank River

8/8/2018 F1 Dorchester Recreational crabber cited for undersized hard crabs, Elliott Island

8/10/2018 F1 Dorchester Recreational crabber cited for undersized hard crabs, Elliott Island

8/11/2018 F1 Dorchester Recreational crabber cited for 81 undersized hard crabs, Elliott Island and another cited for 16 undersized hard crabs Hooper Island

8/14/2018 F1 Dorchester Crab saturation Bloodsworth Island area, commercial crabbers 1 citation for undersized hard crabs, several warnings issued for minor violations

8/15/2018 F1 Dorchester Recreational crabber cited for working on day off, Cabin Creek

8/15/2018 F1 Talbot County/ Clairborne Landing

Officer specialized patrol wrote 8 citations and 2 warnings for recreational striped bass violations

8/18/2018 F1 Dorchester Recreational crabber cited for undersized hard crabs, Brooks Creek

8/29/2018 F1 Dorchester Crab saturation, Honga River, Hooper Straits and Bloodsworth Island, 3 commercial crabbers cited for undersized crabs 25, 70 & 157 per bushel and 1 commercial crabber cited for over limit sooks 2 bushel over

9/1/2018 F1 St. Mary's County While on patrol for recreational crabbing activity OFC Neitzel issued 5 citations for possession of female crabs and 1 citation for undersize male hard crabs

9/1/2018 F1 St Mary's County OFC Neitzel while on patrol issued 2 PRFC citations for Undersize Striped Bass -

9/3/2018 F1 Anne Arundel / Severn River-Sullivan Cove

District 5 and 3 responded to call for service related to the theft of crabs from crab pots attached to landowner's docks. Units were able to locate the theft suspects and verified their involvement with the theft. As a result of investigation, one suspect was charged with NR 4-505 (removing fish, nets or gear of another) and COMAR 08.02.03.10B(1)(possession of female crabs(recreational) 1-5 per bushel).

9/4/2018 F1 Queen Annes's County QA county Officers issued 8 citations for possession of female crabs (Rec) and issued 2 citations for undersized male hard crabs (Rec)

9/30/2018 F1 Queen Annes County For September: QA officers issued 4 citations for possession of female crabs (REC)

9/30/2018 F1 Talbot/ Tred Avon and Broad Creek

6 early morning patrols in Talbot County for early crabbing activity (commerical and recreational) 2 Citations and 2 warnings issues (Recreational)

7/7/2018 F2 Queen Anne/ Anne Arundel County

Officers from Area 2 and Area 3 conducted a Saturation targeting Charter Boats in the Chesapeake Bay- no violations

DATE F LOCATION DESCRIPTION

7/20/2018 F2 Dorchester Recreational crabber cited for undersized hard crabs, Honga River

7/2/2018 F3 Kent Co Following a vessel stop OFC charged an indivual with 2 over the limit of SB

7/5/2018 F3 Queen Annes County For June, QA officers issued 44 citations for Striped Bass violations

7/6/2018 F3 Dorchester 1 citation 2 undersized Striped Bass, Ferry bridge, recreational

7/7/2018 F3 Dorchester 1 citation undersized Striped Bass, 1 fish, Bill Burton Pier

7/7/2018 F3 Dist 7 Talbot County / Black Walnut Pt

Officer investigated and charged 2 individuals with violations of size, creel limit, and fishing hours for striped bass (8 citations issued)

7/8/2018 F3 St Mary's County Officers, while on patrol, issued 2 citation for Undersize Striped Bass.

7/13/2018 F3 AA County Area 3 officers aggressively patrolled Rockfish activity in the area 14 citations for undersized 7/13-30

7/22/2018 F3 Dorchester Recreational fisherman cited for undersized Striped Bass 3

7/28/2018 F3 Calvert County/ Patuxent River (Broomes Island)

Area 4 Officer while on patrol issued 1 cit. for possession of under sized Striped Bass.

7/28/2018 F3 Dorchester/Talbot Recreational fisherman cited for 2 undersized Striped Bass, Chesapeake Bay

7/29/2018 F3 St. Mary's County Officers issued 1 citation for 14 undersize striped bass & 1 citation for 16 undersize striped bass.

8/1/2018 F3 Queen Annes County For July, QA Officers issued 47 citations for Striped Bass violations which include, Undersized, over the limit and possession during restricted times

8/3/2018 F3 St. Mary's County 1 citation for undersize striped bass

8/4/2018 F3 St Mary's County 5 citations striped bass related recreational

8/5/2018 F3 St. Mary'a County 3 citations striped bass related recreational

8/10/2018 F3 St Mary's County 3 citations related to striped bass recreational

8/11/2018 F3 Charles/ Wicomico River During patrol in Wicomico River Officer checked 12 vessels and issued two citation for undersized Striped Bass. A total of 3 were undersized.

8/12/2018 F3 St Mary's County 1 citation striped bass related recreational

8/14/2018 F3 St Mary's County 1 citation striped bass related recreational

8/15/2018 F3 St Mary's County 1 citation striped bass related recreational

8/16/2018 F3 Dorchester/Talbot Recreational fisherman cited for undersized Striped Bass, Chesapeake Bay

8/17/2018 F3 Dorchester 3 recreational fishermen were cited for undersized Striped Bass and over the limit Striped Bass, Fishing Creek Bridge

8/19/2018 F3 Worcester During the month of June 2018, Maryland Natural Resources Police in Ocean City received complaints related to a person or persons offering guided shark fishing trips for hire on Assateague Island in the area of the National Seashore. Through covert investigation techniques, officers were able to book a guided fishing trip for large shark species on the Over Sand Vehicle portion of Assateague Island. Charges are pending for both State-level violations related to Guiding without a License, and Federal charges related to operating a business on US Government Property without a permit.

8/25/2018 F3 Dorchester 2 recreational fishermen caught with 14 undersized Striped Bass, both cited for size and limit violations, Ferry Bridge

9/1/2018 F3 Charles/Wicomico River During the patrol, officer checked several vessels and found one violation undersized Rock-fish.

9/2/2018 F3 Charles/Wicomico During the patrol, officer checked several recreational vessels and found one undersized Rock-fish.

9/4/2018 F3 Queen Annes County QA Officers issued 19 citations for Striped Bass violations which include, undersized, over the limit and time violations

9/17/2018 F3 Charles/Patuxent River@Rt.231

During patrol, officer checked several recreational fishermen that led to two violations, three undersized Rock fish and one over the possession limit.

9/18/2018 F3 St Mary's County 2 citations striped bass related recreational

9/22/2018 F3 Anne Arundel / Chesapeake Bay and tributaries

Districts 3,4 and 5 engaged in a recreational striped bass enforcement saturation between 1700 hrs and 2100 hrs in the tidal waters of Area 3 (vessel and land patrol). 25 vessels and 76 fishermen were inspected as a result of the saturation. 1 boating related warning was issued.

9/29/2018 F3 Talbot County / Clairborne Landing

Officers wrote 5 Citations for undersized or over the limit Striped Bass (Recreational)

9/30/2018 F3 Queen Annes County For September: QA officers issued 30 citations for Striped Bass violations, which include undersized, over the limit and possession during midnight and 0500HRS

SFAC/TFAC Penalty Workgroup Meeting Minutes

September 26, 2018

Attendees: Robert T. Brown (TFAC), Bill Anderson (DNR), George O’Donnell (DNR), Jacob

Holtz (DNR), Sarah Widman (DNR), Randy Bowman (NRP), Maureen Ferguson (NRP), Drew

Wilson (NRP), Ron Cheezum (NRP)

Meeting was scheduled to begin at 5:30 p.m. in the C-1 Conference Room in the Tawes State

Office Building in Annapolis, Maryland. Present parties waited 15 minutes for other workgroup

members to arrive or join on the telephone conference line. Meeting began at 5:45 p.m.

Description of the issues to be discussed centered on the department’s commercial points system

based on the accumulation of points as a result of convictions in District Court. Discussion

began with a review of the penalty recommendations from the Aquaculture Workgroup

(attached). Commissioner Brown agreed with the suggestion from the Aquaculture Workgroup

that the penalty for working outside of a leased area should be tiered out similar to how area

violations are tiered in the commercial penalty schedule.

Commissioner Brown voiced concern over the status of oyster revocations under Natural

Resources Article, 4-1210, Annotated Code of Maryland, then focused on TFAC concerns

regarding revocations due to accumulation of points. Those concerns were twofold: 1) Certain

offenses carry too many points, and 2) Revocation (which is the permanent removal of the

individual from the commercial fishery) occurs at too low of a point-accumulation level

(currently set at 35 points). Some thoughts included removing revocation as a potential penalty,

increasing the length of suspensions and adding defined periods of probation due to higher levels

of accumulated points, or having violations result in “double” points when committed during a

period of suspension or probation, which would result in more significant penalties for repeat

offenders. A possible breakdown of the increased suspension version of the penalty system

would be: 35-40 points results in a 2-year period of suspension and a 1-year period of probation;

45-60 points results in a 3-year period of suspension and a 2-year period of probation; 65 or

more points would result in a 5-year period of suspension and a 5-year period of probation.

Another thought was to bring repeat offenders in front of TFAC and have TFAC recommend a

penalty to the department. The department would then take that recommendation under

advisement when determining an appropriate penalty. Staff recommended reviewing the

Administrative Procedures Act and the department’s agreement with the Office of

Administrative Hearings before further considering this idea.

A final recommendation was to change the penalties for a conviction of a polluted area violation

in the oyster fishery. The recommendation was to begin the penalty as a Tier I violation (5

points) at 100 feet past a polluted area line, then increase the tier for every 50 feet further into the

polluted area.

The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m.

1

Maryland Aquaculture Coordinating Council Minutes – July 12, 2018 Members Attending Donald Webster Karl Roscher Eric Wisner Lt. Catherine Medellin Kim Coulbourne Ron Buckhalt Savannah Masterson (representing Del. Mautz)

Terry Witt JD Blackwell Stephan Abel Paul Spies Kathy Brohawn Colby Ferguson Reggie Harrell

Guests Attending Allison Colden (CBF) Chris Aiken (Industry) Larry Jennings (CCA) Steve Schneider (DNR) Kari Bradberry (DNR) Alyssa Cranska (DNR) Bill Cox (Industry) Nicole Cook (UMES)

Linda Arnold (MARBIDCO) Dan Sweeney (MARBIDCO) Rob Witt (Industry) George O’Donnell (DNR) Amber DeMarr (PEARL) Andrew Rubin (Attorney) Amy Hontz (MDH) Fred Millhiser (Breton Bay MGO)

Scott Budden (Industry) Adriane Michaelis (UMD) Brian Connelly (Industry) Robin Henderson (MDH) Ronald Williams (MD Farmers Market)

Call to Order Chairman Webster called the meeting to order at 6:30pm and asked members and guests to introduce themselves. Administrative Approve May Minutes The May 10, 2018 meeting minutes were approved as submitted to the Council. Announcements Chairman Webster announced two upcoming workshops:

• July 25, 2018 - Cultchless Seed Setting and Nursery Operations - 1 - 2:30pm, Horn Point • July 25, 2018 - Water Column Gear Operations - 2:45 - 4pm, Horn Point

Ms. Coulbourne announced that the MD Department of Health has issued a press release, urging Marylanders not to consume fresh crabmeat from Venezuela. Using DNA, a Maryland State lab was able to link two recent illnesses to fresh Venezuelan crabmeat. The CDC and FDA are expected to release a public notice soon. While there has not been an official recall, many retailers are sending the crabmeat back to Venezuela. Mr. Harrell announced that the Northeast Regional Aquaculture Center (NRAC) will soon be inviting Pre-Proposals for project funding consideration. Reports Aquaculture and Industry Enhancement Division Report (Mr. Roscher, DNR) The division received six new shellfish lease applications since the last meeting. Five new Shellfish Lease Agreements have been executed since the Council’s May meeting. Since September 2010, the division has received over 500 lease applications. The state has issued 258 new commercial shellfish aquaculture

2

leases totaling about 5,550 acres. An additional 136 lease applications are in process. There are currently 420 active leases covering almost 7,000 acres. So far in 2018, 61 Shellfish Import Permit applications have been received. Five public notices have been initiated since the May ACC meeting. There are currently 20 open protests and requests for eight public information meetings. Protest updates:

• Application #302 has been forwarded to the Office of Administrative Hearings • The department is preparing to issue the lease for application #276, as the applicant and adjacent

landowners recently resolved outstanding concerns and agreed on a path forward. In future protest cases, where applicants and protestants are unable to reach an agreement in a timely manner, the department plans to forward cases to the Office of Administrative Hearings more quickly. The department is moving forward with removing the Aquaculture Enterprise Zone (AEZ) designation for two sites in the Patuxent River. The areas will be converted to Public Shellfish Fishery Areas (PSFAs). There is a strong interest by the watermen in Calvert County in planting those areas. The department surveyed the sites in April and determined that they are not highly productive oyster bars but have potential to become more productive with increased management efforts. The department is considering a regulation change that would restrict the ability of an individual who has had a shellfish aquaculture harvester permit or registration card suspended or revoked from working under the supervision of a permit holder. There is currently a loophole, due to changes made in shellfish aquaculture harvester permit requirements a few years ago, that allows previously suspended/revoked permit holders to work on permitted leases. The department is looking at scoping this idea and an update will be provided to the Council in the future. The department is also considering a regulation that would give the department the ability to take action against a leaseholder’s ability to continue to work if he/she violates the Shellfish Import Permit requirements. Shellfish Aquaculture Financing Programs (Ms. Arnold, MARBIDCO) Ms. Arnold introduced Dan Sweeney, the newest addition to the MARBIDCO team. In fiscal year 2018 MARBIDCO approved seven shellfish aquaculture loans totaling $650k and one remote setting loan for $30k. All of the capital equipment funds from DNR have been drawn down. There have been 66 shellfish aquaculture loans totaling over $3.9 million and 3 remote setting loans totaling $90k. MARBIDCO has dispersed over $3.4 million in funds in the shellfish aquaculture program and about $90k in the remote setting program. Over $1.6 million in principal repayments has been received in the regular program and approximately $46k has been repaid to the remote setting program. There is nearly $2 million remaining to lend in the shellfish aquaculture program and about $91k for the remote setting program. Interested leaseholders are encouraged to apply. Natural Resources Police (NRP) Patrol & Enforcement Activities (Lieutenant Medellin, NRP) Lt. Medellin noted that NRP has been busy but there are no aquaculture related cases to report on. MDA Marketing (Mr. Buckhalt, MDA) Mr. Buckhalt mentioned recent events, including the First Thursday Festival in Baltimore where free blue catfish was served, a NOAA fish fry hosted at the Department of Commerce, and the Drink Maryland Festival in Centreville. The upcoming 11th Annual Buy Local Cookout will also feature blue catfish. Maryland Department of Agriculture recently received funding which will be used for Maryland blue crab marketing. Many of the Maryland picking houses are suffering after not receiving any H-2B workers this season due to the new lottery system. The new marketing campaign will hopefully provide some much needed support to the industry. The True Blue program is also being pushed and the department is offering new materials (stickers, aprons, etc.) in an effort to gain some traction.

3

Presentation Maryland Shellfish Growers Network project (Dr. Colden, CBF) The Shellfish Growers Network is a resource to team veteran and incoming oyster farmers to provide resources, tools, and mentorship to improve and catalyze the growth of aquaculture in Maryland. It is supported by NOAA Fisheries and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. The Network offers individual planning assistance, farmer resources, public outreach and education, and information sharing for innovation and best practices. Membership to the Network is free and mentors can be compensated for their time and travel. Anyone interested in joining is encouraged to fill out a short application on the Chesapeake Bay Foundation website at www.cbf.org/mdshellfish. Dr. Colden encouraged interested parties to save the date for the Maryland Aquaculture Conference on February 12, 2019, to be held at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Annapolis, Maryland. Continuing Business Theft Prevention Workgroup (Mr. Ferguson, MD Farm Bureau) The Workgroup has held two meetings, with the most recent being July 11, 2018. With the help of UMD interns, the workgroup has compiled and reviewed information about practices in other states and compared them to Maryland. It has been determined that license revocation is not strict enough. In cases where individuals go to court, local judges are often lenient and the resulting punishment is inconsistent between counties. The consensus is that there is not enough of a deterrent to protect against lease theft. The Workgroup discussed the option of hearing all cases at one location, such as Annapolis, in the hope that a single court would enforce penalties consistently. It was also suggested that boat and equipment confiscation be made a penalty for those convicted. At the next Workgroup meeting, recommendations to be included in the final report will be discussed. The final report will be shared with the Coordinating Council for approval before being sent to the legislators who requested the study. DNR Aquaculture Workgroup/Tiger Team Update (Mr. O’Donnell, DNR) It has been difficult to find individuals willing to serve on a summertime workgroup but final appointments are expected soon. There will be four or five meetings to discuss a range of identified topics and outcomes are expected by fall. An internal Tiger Team will then be organized from within the Department to address the issues. 2018 Coordinating Council Annual Report (Chairman Webster) Council members were provided with a copy of the 2018 Annual Report. The report will also be provided to the Governor and Chairs of the House and Senate environment committees. Chairman Webster thanked Council members for their input. New Business Rotation of Council Officers and Election of Vice-Chair (Mr. Ferguson, MD Farm Bureau) Chairman Webster thanked the Council, noting his appreciation for their hard work, and introduced Mr. Ferguson as the new Chairman. Chairman Ferguson called on the Council to nominate a Vice-Chair. Mr. Wisner nominated Mr. Blackwell to serve as the Vice-Chair; Mr. Blackwell accepted. Chairman Ferguson thanked Mr. Webster for putting in a year of hard work and also for showing him the ropes. Motion: Wisner/Harrell The Council voted unanimously to elect Mr. Blackwell as the new Vice-Chair. Oyster Planting Data (Mr. Roscher, DNR) The team that is working on the Oyster Stock Assessment recently approached the Aquaculture and Industry Enhancement Division and requested information on lease oyster plantings. An assessment of raw data indicates that from 2012 to 2016, leaseholders reported planting an average of 250 million

http://www.cbf.org/mdshellfish

4

oysters per year on leases. Previously, the department had established an active use requirement which required the planting of 25% of a lease at 1 million oysters per acre. This was subsequently reduced to require leaseholders to plant 20% of a lease at 200k oysters per acre. The recent review of oyster planting data revealed that leaseholders have actually managed to keep up with the active use requirements established by the department. Mr. Roscher congratulated leaseholders for their effort, remarking how important oysters are for the health of the Chesapeake Bay. Public Comments There was a discussion about felony charges as they relate oyster theft. Ms. Coulbourne added that oyster harvest from restricted areas is a serious health risk and the Theft Prevention Workgroup should consider that when making their recommendations. Mr. Blackwell suggested that input from seafood handling and seafood buyers should also be considered by the workgroup. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 7:56pm. The next regularly scheduled meeting to be held on Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 6:30pm in the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, C-1 Conference Room.

Aquaculture Workgroup meeting summary 9-20-18 Bill Anderson – Introduction Still on track to have early notice process in place on October 1. Rudimentary and will be developed further. Include all leases that go through the process after October 1. Not capable to add items already in the process. 40-50 in process but not to public notice yet. George O’Donnell will call selected stakeholders as they are closer to public notice. Leases already through public notice you can find on website. George O’Donnell - How to access current public notice leases From DNR website click Fishing tab, then more resources, then public notices, then shellfish aquaculture (most recent to least recent). Can click on each one, can request informational meeting. Help cut down on costly meetings and allow protestors access to voice concerns? Bill Anderson – Summary of Last meeting Summary of meeting does not equal minutes per open meeting act. Each meeting is recorded and available for anyone to suffice open meetings act requirements. Next meeting we will address waterfowl blinds in lease area in bigger conflict resolution discussion. Blinds, administered through land resources (with their set of rules), conflicts with water resources (with their set of rules). Sarah Widman - Continuing conversation on penalty parity Regulations Process – starts with subject specific workgroup then goes to scoping (ability to get public input without having to make drastic changes, concepts) – bring to group the need for a regulation, post on website for public feedback – shows where in the process it is, drafted and economic impact, once approved by department, can be withdrawn or redrafted Penalty workgroup has annual meeting with emails in between? Last meeting summary #2 4-10-13 (dredge - not having on your person) and 4-11-a-16 (any type of activity - don’t have permission) Statutory change to make language clear or less redundant Fines/course of action different In regulation - Penalty on violation (aquaculture) vs conviction (commercial wild fishery) – discussion of making aquaculture like commercial

#3 aquaculture (outside of boundary) vs. commercial (gear in an area not supposed to be) want it to be tiered like commercial Comments discussed here will be discussed by Department, then Department will bring to Aquaculture Coordinating Council, then to penalties workgroup Gear can be seized if outside of a lease, but not usually done Can be charged with theft if someone goes onto lease. Different if a leaseholder goes off his, not theft Penalty items not reviewed last meeting #5 failure to mark a lease vs. removing markers Markers can be moved. Officers can issue warnings, particularly in an area where they are trying to address potential conflicts. Commercial may not be charged if in a leased area if one of lease markers disappeared (couldn’t determine boundary). Could we mark it by GPS only to eliminate damaged markers?

Problems: Rural areas without access to internet, rely on paper. Published leases have notice that they need to go online to get up to date information.

NRP needs to see markers and see that boat inside or outside of the markers to enforce. Some leaseholders don’t want GPS coordinates out there then it makes them a target. Not conducive – not all leases are square, they can be around other items in water. GPS markings are not in legislations. That would need to be changed for any change to occur. If violation went by GPS could we lower penalty and take away administrative penalty?

How often do you have to check lease markers? Is there any leeway for marker disappearing? Must put poles back up before actively working a lease. Can make temporary buoy marker while working lease if one is gone. Consider areas where buoys interfere with landowners or other aquatic use. Pull out book in some areas, some buoys are 4-5 miles apart, hard to determine where you are. Aquaculture – prepay side should be the same Not equitable – intentional removal vs. working without marker that may have been removed unintentionally Administrative action is based on one incident, but up to department’s discretion, give DNR flexibility for circumstances Not all leases are in close proximity, can’t work them out of season, so is it important to check buoys out of season? Currently, not issuing tickets off season. What about inspection and letter to lease owner, like property owners. 6K acres in about 350 leases across the State 3rd Friday of the month is Natural Resources Day in District Court Second addendum raises fine automatically even before 1st has gone to court. Not used a lot of the time because it may raise fine even though 1st found to be accidental.

Make them match $250 max $1k There is a review process to check amounts every year based on # of violations to law. #6 National shellfish Sanitation program, all shellfish come under control of FDA (public health) State has to be in compliance so Federal Government doesn’t shut down entire fishery. Each aquaculture lease holder or waterman has to be in compliance too. Should be a stiff penalty. Suspension is comparable to shutting a business down, concern that oysters in cages could die if no one “works” it Aquaculture is based on violation, vs commercial based on conviction Administrative hearing is not immediate. Takes time to review and get hearing set up. Can’t sublease, but can work in concert? Fix so both are must appear. Commercial revocations mean you can’t harvest ever, revocation for aquaculture is just for one lease, can still work other leases – not parity. Suggestion to make commercial suspension not revocation If we change commercial to suspension, is it parity to keep aquaculture lease specific? Sarah to find out how we in line with other states? Options if you have an emergency and can’t get oysters to shore in time. #7 & #10 specific to aquaculture #8 only in Charles Co. #9 Protest process stream