Oyster Advisory Commission Meeting

February 10, 2021

6:00 PM – 9:00 PM

Virtual Online Meeting

1. Welcome, Introductions, and Review of the Agenda (OAC Facilitators) 6:00

2. Approval of Past Meeting Summary (OAC Facilitators)

(see Appendix A)

3. Update on Model Development and Results (Dr. Wilberg, UMCES) 6:15

(see Appendix B)

4. Breakout Groups 6:30

(see Appendix C)

Overview: Commissioners to discuss different management options to model regarding

public fishery harvest.

Objective: Develop a detailed list of management options regarding public fishery

harvest. These options will be modeled and presented to the commission at a later

meeting.

5. Order to Present Model Results in Future Meetings 7:40

(see Appendix D)

Overview: There is now a long list of different management options to be modeled. After

showing the commissioners this list, commissioners will decide on 10 to 15 options to be

modeled next. These results will be presented at a future meeting. Note: all management

options will be modeled during the course of the year.

Objective: Provide the modeling team with the next 10 to 15 management options to be

modeled.

6. Details on Management Options to Model 8:00

Overview: From past meetings, there is now a list of different management options to be

modeled. Some of these options require more detail prior to being modeled. The

commissioners will review this list and provide suggestions to modelers.

Objective: Develop a more detailed list of management options to model in the future.

7. Announcement: PSFAs (Chris Judy, DNR) 8:40

8. Announcement: Manokin Sanctuary Public Meeting (Chris Judy, DNR)

9. Public Comment (OAC Facilitators) 8:45

10. Adjourn 9:00

DRAFT Appendix A

Meeting Summary

Oyster Advisory Commission (OAC) Meeting

Webex Virtual Meeting

January 13, 2021

LIST OF ATTENDEES

Commissioners Present:

Voting Members

Robert T. Brown Maryland Watermen’s Association (MWA)

Mark Bryer The Nature Conservancy

Allison Colden Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF)

Jack Cover National Aquarium

Simon Dean Calvert County Oyster Committee

Matt Fowler Charles County Oyster Committee

Jeff Harrison Talbot County Oyster Committee

Jesse Iliff Arundel Rivers Federation

Scott Knoche Morgan State University- Patuxent Environmental and Aquatic

Research Laboratory (PEARL)

Tom Miller University of Maryland Center for Environmental

Science (UMCES)

Jim Mullin Maryland Oysterman’s Association (MOA)

Matt Pluta ShoreRivers

Jason Ruth Harris Seafood

Johnny Shockley Blue Oyster Environmental

Dave Sikorski Coastal Conservation Association (CCA)

Ann Swanson Chesapeake Bay Commission (CBC)

Daniel Webster Somerset County Oyster Committee

Rob Witt Anne Arundel County Oyster Committee

Non-voting Members

Sean Corson National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Steve Hershey State Senator

Chris Judy Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Johnny Mautz State Delegate

Angie Sowers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Baltimore District

DRAFT Appendix A

Commissioners Unable to Attend:

Voting Members

Keith Bradley Wicomico County Oyster Committee

Keith Busick Baltimore County Oyster Committee

Bill Cox Aquaculture Coordinating Council

Ron Fithian Kent County Oyster Committee

Brian Hite St. Mary’s Oyster Committee

Vincent Leggett Blacks of the Chesapeake Foundation

Larry Powley Dorchester County Oyster Committee

Troy Wilkins Queen Anne’s County Oyster Committee

Non-voting Members

Sarah Elfreth State Senator

Marvin Holmes State Delegate

* Both BaySavers and Oyster Recovery Partnership have recused themselves from the commission

Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR): Ms. Jodi Baxter,

Mr. Bill Anderson, Sec. Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio, Ms. Rebecca Thur, Mr. Marvin Mace

Citizen: Ms. Aiman Raza, Mr. Larry Jennings, Mr. Matt Ogburn, Jerelle Jesse, Brigit Sharp, Bob

Lewis, Ms. Kathy Brohawn, Ms. Lani Hummel, Mr. Chip MacLeod, Mr. Dan Watson, Rob

Newberry, Ken Lewis, Ron Hartman, Dave Magines, Jerella Ann Wolfe, Wendy Znaniex, Chloe

Obara, Stephanie Westby, Rachel Paccella

University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science (UMCES): Dr. Mike Wilberg, Dr.

Elizabeth North, Dr. Lisa Wainger

Morgan State University- Patuxent Environmental and Aquatic Research Laboratory (PEARL):

Brittany Wolfe

Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC): Ms. Allison Tracy

The Bay Journal: Mr. Tim Wheeler

Friends of the Wicomico River, Charles Denton

Some members of the public were not identified.

Handouts:

o Meeting Agenda

o December 14 OAC Draft Meeting Summary

o Upper Bay Management Options

Note: Meeting agendas, handouts and approved meeting summaries will be available on the OAC

webpage: http://dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/Pages/mgmt-committees/oac-meetings.aspx

DRAFT Appendix A

MEETING SUMMARY:

MEETING BEGAN AT 6:00 PM

Meeting Operating Procedures Mr. Paul Genovese, DNR

Mr. Genovese discussed the meeting procedures and decorum.

Welcome, Introductions, and Agenda Review OAC Facilitators

The December meeting minutes were approved

Reminders for the OAC Meetings:

- OAC is empowered under Maryland law

- Working toward consensus is important. Any consensus recommendations will have

weight with both the Executive and Legislative branches

- Consensus recommendations have a better chance of receiving future implementation,

and please no end runs during Session to get oyster bills dropped and passed

- Online only environment is once again used, and we must address connectivity issues

o Hotel rooms and laptops available as an option

- Must focus on the agenda topics moving forward

- Agenda requests will be pushed back a few months

- Any items subject to a poll will have the issue fully described and voting options fully

explained

- Facilitators will work to simplify breakout groups

Nitrogen & Phosphorus Removal in Oysters Dr. Jeff Cornwell, UMCES

Dr. Cornwell discussed the water quality benefits of oysters in the Chesapeake Bay, and

explained how oysters affect water quality. Humans adding nitrogen and phosphorus have

greatly increased nutrient inputs in rivers and bays, and the primary concern in the Chesapeake is

input of too much nitrogen and phosphorus. This causes loss of water clarity, loss of seagrass,

loss of oxygen from the water during summer (seasonal dead zones), blooms of harmful algae,

and loss of habitat for fish and shellfish.

Nitrogen comes in many different forms – some forms are nutrient nitrogen that cause these

problems and there is also nitrogen gas that doesn’t cause these problems. Algae use nitrogen,

generally the ammonium and nitrate act as fertilizer, to grow and when oysters consume algae,

the nitrogen is assimilated into their shells and in their meats. When oysters are harvested, that

nitrogen is effectively removed from the system. This is why planting and removing oysters is

considered a Best Management Practice – because the oysters soak up the nutrient nitrogen and it

is removed from the bay.

Oyster reef communities can also remove nitrogen by changing the nutrient nitrogen that is in the

water into nitrogen gas, a process called denitrification. Although scientists have measured this

process, the exact mechanism is poorly understood. Denitrification (changing nutrient nitrogen to

nitrogen gas –N2) occurs in the mud near oyster reefs and importantly, around living oysters and

the animals that live on oyster reefs – this occurs on the bottom, in aquaculture cages, and on reef

DRAFT Appendix A

balls and oyster castles. Denitrification is under consideration as part of a certified Best

Management Practice.

A certified Best Management Practice means that the practice can be credited as a nutrient

removal process. The Bay states have set up nutrient “markets” that allow monetization of these

credits. This means that agencies and companies that have very high costs of meeting a nitrogen

pollution goal within their own systems can pay someone to plant and harvest oysters in order to

help them meet their permit requirements or nutrient reduction goals.

Com. Sikorski asked what were the numbers on the bars on the graph for Harris Creek? What are

the whiskers representing?

o Dr. Cornwell: Those were measurements of densities of the reef balls per reef

ball. It’s not exactly per square meter. There are lots of ways we are trying to take

this data. The line in the middle is for the percentiles, 25 to 50 and then 50 to 75.

The extreme numbers are the whiskers, this presents variability.

Com. Miller: How did you go about estimating it when you’ve now got oysters being harvested

in different seasons if the rate is temperature dependent?

o Dr. Cornwell: At some level, we are powering through that, we are seeing

variability of those things. We are now focusing on warm season findings.

Com. Iliff: The oyster habitat may be doing well because of the castles and the reef balls because

they are not so close to the bottom.

o Dr. Cornwell: Yes, one of the highest rates we’ve seen was from one of the

castles and away from shoreline. It’s the largest value we’ve ever seen.

Com. Knoche: This is different than traditional BMPs. I’m just wondering what the additionality

is there with the compensation for something you are already doing. Because of that increase in

revenue, what would be the number of additional oysters that would be put in the Bay that would

not have been there if it had not been for the additional payments.

o Dr. Cornwell: The dollar value associated with nitrogen credits for aquaculture is

not large, however, it could increase profitability of aquaculture somewhat. We

consider the benefits in better water quality as well as the marketing aspect, this is

a green project. You are contributing to the health of the bay.

Management Options Breakout Group DNR & OAC Facilitators

The goal of the breakout groups is to create a detailed list of additional management

options for the 46 sanctuaries to model to reduce complexity of discussions so they are

more focused.

Group 1 - Com. Iliff (speaker), Com. Harrison, Com. Brown, Com. Sowers, Com. Cover, and

Com. Ruth

1. Model spat and shell or wild seed of sanctuary areas in the upper bay for the purpose of

rotational harvest, with spat on shell upstream of the Choptank and then further south for

DRAFT Appendix A

fossil shell planting. There’s an area from Love Point to Rock Hall in the main stem that

hasn’t had any restoration and has been in sanctuary and would be informative to model

planting that area.

2. Upstream of the Choptank it would be worthwhile to model spat on shell in those areas

and looking at rotational harvest; downstream of the Choptank where the salinity was

higher, it wouldn’t be necessary to plant spat on shell, could be wild seed and or just shell

planting, either clean shell or fossil shells.

3. There were a few different locations that were mentioned for places that could benefit or

the question was could we model what it would look like to, for instance in the Miles

River, dredged shell that was part of the shell replenishment program from the 60s, and

dredge it up in place and set it back down and hope for natural recruitment is that

something that could be modeled.

Group 2 – Com. Corson (speaker), Com. Pluta, Com. Dean, Com. Swanson, and Com. Miller

1. Modeling runs should cover some sort of biologically based target for linked to different

management objectives whether that be harvest or restoration. That could be MSY

(maximum sustainable yield) or restoration objective thresholds like 15 and 50 oyster per

square meter. Having some sense of how many oysters you need to say that you have

successfully restored or how many oysters you need in place to say this is a good area to

harvest is something that we would like to include in model runs.

2. There was also discussion about wanting to make sure that bagless dredging was

considered as a method to make more habitat available. We noted that having scenarios

with or without these types of things would be important to demonstrate the boost that

they may give to recruitment. We noted that we didn’t see areas where you might use

alternative substrate and areas where you might not and so we suggested that use of

alternative substrate might be something worth including in model runs.

Group 3 – Com. Knoche (speaker), Com. Shockley, and Com. Witt

1. Modeling sanctuaries - the notion of opening up sanctuaries, some perhaps all, to hand

tonging and then also some value in rotational harvest. The consensus perhaps can be

helped along by looking at the extremes and then each side moving a little to the middle

in the interim process.

2. Incorporate nutrient trading to the wild public fishery.

Group 4 – Com. Mullin (speaker), Com. Colden, and Com. Fowler

1. Investment in the sanctuaries moving forward. There would have to be some levers

pulled in either direction if you give up an area, you take an area and if so what does that

look like. So that was something we wanted to get into the modeling process.

2. Increase the habitat through cleaning shell using a power dredge and bagless dredging.

We have a question mark on that if that can be modeled. And then similar to Jeff’s point

early on is a discussion of what south of the Choptank would that look like compared to

north of the Choptank. You would mostly use shell south of the Choptank and maybe

spat on shell or seed up north.

Com. Colden clarified that investment in underperforming sanctuaries are separate from

investing in sanctuaries with shell plantings through community organizations or the state.

DRAFT Appendix A

Dr. Wilberg stated that he is unsure what the effectiveness of bagless dredging is, and needs to

find more information to specifically address the model before providing an answer.

Group 5 – Com. Sikorski(speaker), Com. Bryer, and Com. Judy

1. Investing in shell and alternative substrates and things like reef balls. They had some

questions about how the model looks at things, it is really just an increase in volume of

habitat or is there any value to relief being up off the bottom -- does it affect the model in

any way?

2. Removing sanctuaries from the model in one of two ways. First, simply removing poorly

performing sanctuaries that haven’t progressed, as based on the 5 year review. Second, by

removing such under-performers but then adding new sanctuary acres to balance what

was removed (trading bottom). For both methods, then see what the modeling result is on

the population - perhaps status quo, or an increase or a decrease. It could change one

year and the next and next year is a point we wanted to make. We discussed that any

portion of a sanctuary with an investment (habitat or seed or both) would remain

untouched (still a sanctuary) and the modeling should consider this. Is there a way to split

bar by bar in the model? Same concept of sanctuaries in the rotational harvest system and

then it would be important in rotational harvest to understand what investments were

made after year 2 year 3. Can we model that and then can we model when harvest occurs

under different management criteria.

3. The nutrient credit system can inject some capital into the aquaculture industry. Is there a

way to build in the model these mitigation banks and what that would mean economically

for harvest and so forth.

4. Modeling aquaculture - If we take a sanctuary, especially underperformers, and just

assume a policy change that aquaculture can happen anywhere in them (remove the

current restrictions), can we add that to the model to look at ecological, nutrient, and

economic results? We’ve got a triploid and diploid situation so does the diploid potential

spawning relate to the model in some way, versus the triploid providing a different

service? And then cage versus bottom -- there are these two different kinds of aquaculture

and of course they perform differently so how does that play into that general concept?

5. One idea regarding substrate is to use shell or other material where spat set occurs. Areas

that aren’t getting a natural set should get spat on shell.

Conducting a Consensus Example Dr. Elizabeth North, UMCES

This exercise was based on a hypothetical (not real) river system. It was for demonstration only

and was designed for Commissioners to practice rating options.

The Consensus Process steps are:

Step 1: OAC members rate an option.

Step 2: OAC members suggest ways to improve the option.

Step 3: OAC members rate the revised option.

Example: *not real, for demonstration purpose only*

There are three oyster bars in Blue River in different salinities (low, medium, high). These bars

need replenishment. There are equal volumes of shell and spat-on-shell for replenishment.

DRAFT Appendix A

This was the hypothetical starting option: Example Option O1: Conduct replenishment by

spreading shell and spat-on-shell evenly across all bars.

Dr. North showed the group a spreadsheet that was used to track their ratings for the example

option, and Dr. Diriker asked each OAC member to rate the option with a number (1 = strongly

agree, 2 = agree, 3 = disagree, 4 = strongly disagree). The initial option (O1) did not reach the

75% agreement threshold which was automatically calculated by the spreadsheet. Members who

did not agree with the option were asked how it could be improved. Based on this conversation,

the option was modified and the following option was put forward:

Example Option O1a: Conduct replenishment by putting shell in high salinity areas, spat-on-

shell in low salinity area, and a mix in the middle.

OAC members then rated this second example option (O1-a) and it achieved the 75% agreement

threshold. Note that in reality, it is possible that an option would need additional discussions and

ratings before the agreement threshold was reached, or it might not be reached.

This exercise demonstrated how options will be developed and improved by OAC

commissioners. It also allowed testing the spreadsheet for rating options.

Public Comment OAC Facilitators

Del. Mautz brought a topic to the OAC for feedback. He stated that there was a bill last year to

increase the oyster bushel tax from a dollar to two dollars, but COVID disrupted Session. He has

a bill this year to do the same. There are no restrictions or conditions, it’s just a basic blanket

increase. It only applies to oysters taken from the public bottom and Del. Mautz wants to know if

there are any objections.

Com. Colden requested the bill number from last year, and Del. Mautz did not recall the bill

number off hand.

**OAC Facilitators will send a copy of the bill to the commissioners**

Com. Sikorski agrees that it makes sense to support the funding of spat-on-shell.

Captain Robert Newberry:

When the meeting started, the first thing on the agenda was the gentleman talking about the

issues of the nutrient influx into the bay. One thing I think everyone needs to understand is that

after Christmas, 18 gates were opened and over a million tons of nutrient sediment was thrown

into the Chesapeake Bay. These are the kind of things we need to keep looking at. We have crabs

buried in the mud up there, more than last year. Oysters are covered in sediment – more than

we’ve seen since 2018. The city of Baltimore dropped 2 million gallons of untreated sewage into

the Patapsco River – and these things aren’t even being considered. I can’t believe none of these

organizations have come out and shamed them.

My second comment is on the opening statements. There’s an issue with the end running. My

comment is that if you look at the bay report card, there are two issues in there: the

mismanagement of oysters and the mismanagement of the fisheries concerning striped bass. I

would like us to focus on the issues of the Northern Bay.

DRAFT Appendix A

Com. Sikorski asked for clarification regarding Capt. Newberry’s ‘end run’ comment.

Capt. Newberry stated that the end run is in place by the comments on the report card about the

mismanagement of fisheries.

Com. Sikorski stated that for the purpose of OAC, we have talked about an end run being a

legislative action outside of OAC discussions, not an opinion of an organization. I just want to

make sure we’re clear on what ‘end run’ means.

Com. Colden concurs with Com. Sikorski’s comments.

MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:00PM

The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 10, 2021.

Make lists of potential options to be modeled

Consider model results and evaluate model and options

Rate and improve options and use the model to evaluate options

Develop package of consensus recommendations

Vote on the package of recommendations

Schematic of Consensus Process

Review objectives

Learn about simulation model

Advise modelers on aspects of simulation model

Appendix B

Appendix C

Agenda Item 4. Breakout Groups

Overview: Commissioners to discuss different management options to model regarding public

fishery harvest.

Objective: Develop a detailed list of management options regarding public fishery harvest.

These options will be modeled and presented to the commission at a later meeting.

Breakout Group Charge:

1. Select a note taker and discussion leader. The note taker will report the breakout group’s

recommendations to the full OAC and send their notes to the facilitators. The discussion

leader will ensure that all breakout group members have the opportunity to contribute their

ideas.

2. Provide specific information for the model on public fishery management options that were

identified in previous meetings by answering the questions below:

Shell planting

• Where should shell plantings occur (which bars)?

• How often should a bar receive shell?

• How much shell (per area) should be placed?

• Are there metrics you would use to determine if shell should or should not be planted

in a given year?

Spat on Shell planting

• Where should spat on shell plantings occur (which bars)?

• How often should a bar receive spat on shell?

• How much spat on shell (per area) should be placed?

• Are there metrics you would use to determine if spat on shell should or should not be

planted in a given year?

Natural Seed planting

• Where should natural seed plantings occur (which bars)?

• How often should a bar receive natural seed?

• How much seed (per area) should be placed?

• Are there metrics you would use to determine if seed should or should not be planted

in a given year?

Artificial substrate planting

• What types of alternate substrate should be used for each purpose (e.g., fishery

replenishment, sanctuary restoration, etc.)?

• Where should artificial substrate plantings occur (which bars)?

• How often should a bar receive artificial substrate?

• How much artificial substrate (per area) should be placed?

Appendix C

• Are there metrics you would use to determine if artificial substrate should or should

not be planted in a given year?

Rotational Harvest

• Which bars should have rotational harvest?

• How often should the rotational harvest bars be open to harvest (e.g., every 3rd year)?

• Should other management actions happen in years when the bar is not open to harvest

(e.g., planting shell or spat)?

3. Brainstorm about additional management options to improve public fishery harvest.

DRAFT Appendix D

1

Agenda Item 5. Order to Present Model Results in Future Meetings

Overview: There is now a long list of different management options to be modeled. After

showing the commissioners this list, commissioners will decide on 10 to 15 options to be

modeled next. These results will be presented at a future meeting. Note: all management options

will be modeled during the course of the year.

Objective: Provide the modeling team with the next 10 to 15 management options to be

modeled.

OAC Member Charge: Please review the list of model options that were combined from

breakout group discussions at the October, December and January meetings (the notes from these

meetings are on pages 3 to 8 of this appendix.) Commissioners will discuss, combine, and rank

these options. Note, many of these options are for sanctuaries and some are for the fishery and

upper Bay. Additional fishery options are going to be discussed at the Wed Feb 10 meeting and

will be added to this list.

Draft List of Options to Model

Upper Bay (from October mtg)

a) Increase oyster abundance and biomass by planting hatchery spat-on-shell, wild seed, and

broodstock (reproductive oysters)

b) Restart DNR’s old seed and shell program

c) Use oysters that tolerate freshwater as broodstock for producing hatchery spat

d) Protect areas where natural recruitment is ongoing

e) Locate new efforts near areas where there is natural spat set

f) Use power dredging and bagless dredging to remove silt from existing shells

g) Dredge Man-O-War Shoal for shell

h) Use hand tong and diver harvest in the upper Bay

i) Use power dredging harvest in the upper Bay

j) Open up areas within upper Bay sanctuaries that have good hard bottom and plant oysters

for rotational harvest

k) In upper Bay, use rotational harvest both inside and outside of sanctuaries, open a planted

area to harvest every 4 years to hand tong and diver harvest. Can focus on specific bars

within sanctuaries (Old Fields, Piney, Spaniards, Ebb, Cliff)

l) Use the upper Bay as an insurance policy in case there is another disease breakout

m) Identify sites that retain larvae and shelter oysters from detrimental weather patterns

n) Use aquaculture, public fishery, and restoration in upper bay together

o) Use nutrient credit opportunities to help finance restoration and replenishment work in

upper Bay

p) Test oysters and shell prior to moving them into upper bay for pathogens and

contaminants

DRAFT Appendix D

2

Seed and Shell Planting (from Dec. mtg)

a) Plant oysters in the upper bay to increase the number of oysters in low salinity areas in

case of disease

b) Create seed areas to provide spat for public fishery, sanctuaries, and aquaculture

c) Restart the old seed and shell program.

d) Incorporate nutrient trading to the wild public fishery

e) Model hand tong only for all of the bay

f) Model should predict whether options or combination of options meet biologically-based

targets

Sanctuaries (from Jan. mtg)

a) Plant spat on shell or wild seed in sanctuary areas upstream of the Choptank (esp. Love

Point to Rock Hall) where natural recruitment is rare.

b) Downstream of the Choptank, place wild seed or just shell in sanctuaries where natural

recruitment occurs often.

c) Dredge up shell that was part of the shell replenishment program in places where there

could be natural recruitment in sanctuaries

d) Use bagless dredging in sanctuaries to expose shell in areas with natural recruitment.

e) Use alternative substrate and reef balls in sanctuaries

f) Open up sanctuaries to hand tonging on a rotational basis

g) Keep five major sanctuaries in place and open the rest of the sanctuaries to harvest

h) Invest in underperforming sanctuaries that are not currently supplemented by community

organizations or the state

i) Remove poorly performing sanctuaries based on the 5-year review.

j) Remove poorly performing sanctuaries and adding new sanctuary acres to balance what

was removed

k) Allow aquaculture in sanctuaries

l) set aside a bar for cleaning and see how it works

m) evaluate bagless dredging and power dredging (fluff the shell)

n) set aside an area in the Manokin that is outside of where the sanctuary work is occurring

and use it to study rotational harvest

DRAFT Appendix D

3

Upper Bay management options (from October mtg)

• Increasing oyster abundance and biomass

• Plant hatchery spat-on-shell

• Plant wild seed

• Plant broodstock (reproductive oysters)

• Restart DNR’s old seed and shell program

• Use oysters that tolerate freshwater as broodstock for producing hatchery spat

• Protect areas where natural recruitment is ongoing

• All efforts should be linked to areas where there is natural spat set

Increase habitat

• Use power dredging to remove silt for existing shells

• Use harvest by power dredging to increase habitat by removing silt

• Use bagless dredging to increase habitat by removing silt

• Plant shell

• Do not plant shell

• Dredge Man-O-War Shoal for shell

• Restart DNR’s old seed and shell program

Public Fishery Harvest

• Hand tong diver harvest

• Power dredging harvest

• Do not use power dredging harvest

• Open up areas within sanctuaries that have good hard bottom and plant oysters for rotational

harvest

Rotational Harvest

• Every four years open a planted area to harvest

• Inside and outside sanctuaries

• Only specific bars within sanctuaries (Old Fields, Piney, Spaniards, Ebb, Cliff)

• Hand Tong and Diver harvest

Use the area as an insurance policy in case there is another disease breakout

Identify sites that retain larvae and shelter oysters from detrimental weather patterns

Use aquaculture, public fishery, and restoration in upper bay together

Education which inform minorities to be more inclusive

DRAFT Appendix D

4

Translate science for individuals to understand

Use nutrient credit opportunities to help finance restoration and replenishment work

Do not use oyster co-ops

Test oysters and shell prior to moving them into upper bay for pathogens and contaminants

DRAFT Appendix D

5

Seed and Shell Plantings (from Dec mtg)

Dr. Wilberg stated that the (3) options proposed are the following:

• Model what happens if we continue current management

• Model implementing a version of the old seed and shell program

• Model what would happen if the tributary restoration programs for the St. Mary’s and

Manokin Rivers were completed

These are (3) initial options and we need feedback on other option that commissioners would

like to model.

Feedbacks on other options:

Com. Harrison would like the option where the five major sanctuaries were kept in place, and the

rest of the sanctuaries were opened up and able to be harvested.

o Dr. Wilberg confirmed that this is possible to model.

Com. Sowers asked is there is a run that can be undertaken to try to identify the percentage of

habitat at a sanctuary that should be retained for some level of a value to the population,

community that might guide other decisions?

o Dr. Wilberg considers this as an analysis to scope out the model to try and see how the

benefits would scale. It would require running multiple options to get at that question,

and he requests this be placed in the second level of options to consider.

Com. Mullin requested modeling the creation of seed areas to provide spat for public fishery,

sanctuaries, and aquaculture.

Com. Colden requested modeling hand tong only harvest for all of the bay.

Com. Wilkins requested modeling rotational harvest in sanctuaries and restarting the old seed

and shell program.

Com. Brown requested modeling the planting of large oysters in the upper bay to increase the

number of oysters in low salinity areas in case of disease.

Com. Sowers wrote Mike, is what we want at the first level of modeling to run scenarios of full

measures to understand the extent of value/benefit each would have individually; and then work

to develop second/third level analyses that have mixes of the first runs to maximize benefits?

Also, does it make sense to model some historic scenario given the current situation and that all

past efforts have contributed to where we are today.

Dr. Wilberg stated that all of the options will be explored and results will be presented, but the

focus now is on the first (3) options.

DRAFT Appendix D

6

Initial Options to Model:

These would be the options we are planning on presenting at the February OAC meeting. We

will add to these options (or modify them) as the modeling continues after the February meeting

based on OAC feedback.

1. Status quo – Keep the same management regulations that are currently in place.

2. Implement a new version of the seed and shell program that is similar to the old seed and shell

program.

3. Complete the tributary restoration efforts in the St. Mary’s and Manokin Rivers.

Second Round Options to Model: The OAC offered several additional options of interest during

the 12/14 meeting. These options will be implemented in the model after the OAC reviews the

initial options.

1. Open all non-restoration sanctuaries.

2. Evaluate several levels of the fraction of bars in sanctuaries.

3. Create new seed areas to provide spat for the fishery, aquaculture, and restoration.

4. Restrict harvest to hand tong only.

5. Implement rotational harvest in non-restoration sanctuaries.

6. Plant oysters on large bars in the northern Bay to increase the number of oysters in low

salinity areas in case of disease.

DRAFT Appendix D

7

Sanctuaries (from Jan mtg)

Management Options Breakout Group DNR & OAC Facilitators

The goal of the breakout groups is to create a detailed list of additional management

options for the 46 sanctuaries to model to reduce complexity of discussions so they are

more focused.

Group 1 - Coms. Iliff (speaker), Harrison, Brown, Sowers, Cover, and Ruth

1. Model spat and shell or wild seed of sanctuary areas in the upper bay for the purpose of

rotational harvest, with spat on shell upstream of the Choptank and then further south for

fossil shell planting. There’s an area from Love Point to Rock Hall in the main stem that

hasn’t had any restoration and has been in sanctuary and would be informative to model

planting that area.

2. Upstream of the Choptank it would be worthwhile to model spat on shell in those areas

and looking at rotational harvest; downstream of the Choptank where the salinity was

higher, it wouldn’t be necessary to plant spat on shell, could be wild seed and or just shell

planting, either clean shell or fossil shells.

3. There were a few different locations that were mentioned for places that could benefit or

the question was could we model what it would look like to, for instance in the Miles

River, dredged shell that was part of the shell replenishment program from the 60s, and

dredge it up in place and set it back down and hope for natural recruitment is that

something that could be modeled.

Group 2 – Coms. Corson (speaker), Pluta, Dean, Swanson, and Miller

1. Modeling runs should cover some sort of biologically based target for linked to different

management objectives whether that be harvest or restoration. That could be MSY

(maximum sustainable yield) or restoration objective thresholds like 15 and 50 oyster per

square meter. Having some sense of how many oysters you need to say that you have

successfully restored or how many oysters you need in place to say this is a good area to

harvest is something that we would like to include in model runs.

2. There was also discussion about wanting to make sure that bagless dredging was

considered as a method to make more habitat available. We noted that having scenarios

with or without these types of things would be important to demonstrate the boost that

they may give to recruitment. We noted that we didn’t see areas where you might use

alternative substrate and areas where you might not and so we suggested that use of

alternative substrate might be something worth including in model runs.

Group 3 – Coms. Knoche (speaker), Shockley, and Witt

1. Modeling sanctuaries - the notion of opening up sanctuaries, some perhaps all, to hand

tonging and then also some value in rotational harvest. The consensus perhaps can be

helped along by looking at the extremes and then each side moving a little to the middle

in the interim process.

2. Incorporate nutrient trading to the wild public fishery.

Group 4 – Com. Mullin (speaker), Com. Colden, and Com. Fowler

1. Investment in the sanctuaries moving forward. There would have to be some levers

DRAFT Appendix D

8

pulled in either direction if you give up an area, you take an area and if so what does that

look like. So that was something we wanted to get into the modeling process.

2. Increase the habitat through cleaning shell using a power dredge and bagless dredging.

We have a question mark on that if that can be modeled. And then similar to Jeff’s point

early on is a discussion of what south of the Choptank would that look like compared to

north of the Choptank. You would mostly use shell south of the Choptank and maybe

spat on shell or seed up north.

Com. Colden clarified that investment in underperforming sanctuaries are separate from

investing in sanctuaries with shell plantings through community organizations or the state.

Dr. Wilberg stated that he is unsure what the effectiveness of bagless dredging is, and needs to

find more information to specifically address the model before providing an answer.

Group 5 – Com. Sikorski(speaker), Com. Bryer, and Com. Judy

1. Investing in shell and alternative substrates and things like reef balls. They had some

questions about how the model looks at things, it is really just an increase in volume of

habitat or is there any value to relief being up off the bottom -- does it affect the model in

any way?

2. Removing sanctuaries from the model in one of two ways. First, simply removing poorly

performing sanctuaries that haven’t progressed, as based on the 5 year review. Second, by

removing such under-performers but then adding new sanctuary acres to balance what

was removed (trading bottom). For both methods, then see what the modeling result is on

the population - perhaps status quo, or an increase or a decrease. It could change one

year and the next and next year is a point we wanted to make. We discussed that any

portion of a sanctuary with an investment (habitat or seed or both) would remain

untouched (still a sanctuary) and the modeling should consider this. Is there a way to split

bar by bar in the model? Same concept of sanctuaries in the rotational harvest system and

then it would be important in rotational harvest to understand what investments were

made after year 2 year 3. Can we model that and then can we model when harvest occurs

under different management criteria.

3. The nutrient credit system can inject some capital into the aquaculture industry. Is there a

way to build in the model these mitigation banks and what that would mean economically

for harvest and so forth.

4. Modeling aquaculture - If we take a sanctuary, especially underperformers, and just

assume a policy change that aquaculture can happen anywhere in them (remove the

current restrictions), can we add that to the model to look at ecological, nutrient, and

economic results? We’ve got a triploid and diploid situation so does the diploid potential

spawning relate to the model in some way, versus the triploid providing a different

service? And then cage versus bottom -- there are these two different kinds of aquaculture

and of course they perform differently so how does that play into that general concept?

5. One idea regarding substrate is to use shell or other material where spat set occurs. Areas

that aren’t getting a natural set should get spat on shell.

Com. Webster: set aside a bar for cleaning and see how it works; evaluate bagless dredging and

power dredging (fluff the shell); set aside an area in the Manokin that is outside of where the

sanctuary work is occurring and use it to study rotational harvest (would identify the area after

the ground truthing exercise is complete).