MENU

Sections

More

June 16, 2025

Chestertown Spy

Nonpartisan and Education-based News for Chestertown

Archives Eco Homepage

Money Comes Through to Resume Oyster Reef Work on the Tred Avon

by

Share

The money, included in the annual workplan that the Army Corps submitted on Monday to Congress, is designated for oyster restoration work in Virginia as well as Maryland. But the Corps’ Baltimore District said it plans to use most of the funds to complete reef construction in the Tred Avon, one of an extensive network of sanctuaries in Maryland off limits to harvest.

That work, begun in 2015, aims to restore 147 acres of oyster habitat in the Eastern Shore river. The Corps and its state, federal and nonprofit partners have restored about 85 acres so far at a combined cost of $5.9 million. They have planted a total of 440 million hatchery-spawned seed oysters on new or existing reefs, where the bivalves are left alone to grow and reproduce, help clean the water and provide habitat for fish, crabs and marine creatures.

The Tred Avon is one of five Maryland waterways targeted for large-scale oyster restoration. With Bay oyster populations depleted to 1% or 2% of their historic abundance by pollution, overfishing and disease, Maryland and Virginia have each pledged to rebuild oyster populations and habitat in five of their Bay tributaries by 2025.

Restoration work has been completed so far in just one of Maryland’s tributaries, Harris Creek. Nearly 2.5 billion hatchery-spawned oysters have been planted there on 350 acres of restored reef, at a cost of more than $28 million. Work is nearing completion in the Little Choptank River and is planned for the St.Mary’s and Manokin rivers. Restoration has also been completed in just one of Virginia’s five tributaries, with work under way or planned in the others.

But the Tred Avon project, paid for primarily with federal funds, got hung up early on by disputes over the materials and methods the Corps used to rebuild oyster reefs. More recently, it has been virtually stalled by a lack of Corps funding to complete it.

For about two decades, the Army Corps regularly received funding to build oyster reefs in the Bay. But the flow of money ended in 2016, shortly after Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan’s administration asked the Corps to halt work in the Tred Avon.

The holdup was prompted by some watermen objecting to the use of granite to build reefs in the Tred Avon and in Harris Creek. They complained that granite reefs snagged crabbing gear and that improperly constructed granite reefs in Harris Creek were damaging boats.

The watermen also argued that reefs should be replenished exclusively with oyster shells. They contended that those are the only suitable surface on which spat, or baby oysters, can settle and grow.

Research has shown, however, that oyster spat will do well on other hard surfaces in the water, and monitoring of the granite reefs built so far in Maryland has found oysters in great numbers on them, and even at higher densities than on reefs rebuilt with shells.

The Hogan administration later lifted its hold on the Tred Avon project, and work resumed in April 2017. But further delays and cost overruns ensued because of the state’s insistence at that time that no more granite be used in the reef construction. By the time the state withdrew its objections, federal funding from past budgets had been depleted.

Some restoration advocates have said the disputes factored in the loss of funding for Corps reef construction work in the Bay. In the last few years, the Hogan administration has joined with Maryland’s congressional delegation in pressing the White House to restore that funding, without success.

Appeals also have been made to the Corps to use some of its discretionary funding to revive reef construction in the Bay. Last year, in approving the fiscal year 2020 federal budget, Congress called for the Corps to put toward oyster restoration some of the unallocated money it received. The Corps did so in the work plan it submitted to Congress Monday.

The Corps needs to build about 40 more acres of reefs in the Tred Avon to reach the minimum 125-acre threshold needed to consider the restoration project complete. The Baltimore District hopes to award a construction contract by September and begin work on the reefs in December, said spokeswoman Sarah Lazo.

The oyster restoration money is part of an $18.2 million infusion of funds to the Corps Baltimore District for work not specifically listed in the federal budget for fiscal year 2020, which ends Sept. 30. Also included are $1.9 million for the restoration of seven miles of stream habitat in the Anacostia River watershed and $500,000 to continue planning to restore vanishing James and Barren islands with sand and silt dredged from shipping channels in the Bay.

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Environmentalists, Shore Officials Oppose Conowingo Settlement

by

Share
The Conowingo Dam controversy isn’t settled just yet.

Environmental groups and some rural Maryland officials are calling on federal regulators to reject the deal that the state has reached with the owner of the Conowingo Dam to address the harm the hydropower facility has caused to the Susquehanna River and the Chesapeake Bay. Spurred by that opposition, a bipartisan group of state lawmakers is making a bid to block the agreement through legislation.

Nearly 60 comments, the vast majority critical, have been filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission concerning the dam relicensing agreement announced in late October between the Maryland Department of the Environment and Exelon Corp. Along with a petition bearing more than 600 names, they argue that the settlement falls far short of remedying the ecological harm the dam has caused in the lower Susquehanna River and Upper Bay.

According to MDE and-Exelon announcements, the company pledged to spend more than $200 million over the next 50 years on projects intended to rebuild eel, mussel and migratory fish populations in the Susquehanna and to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution flowing into the Upper Bay.

But the Nature Conservancy, Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Waterkeepers Chesapeake have filed extensive critiques of the settlement, saying that’s nowhere near enough. So did the Clean Chesapeake Coalition, a group representing local elected officials in five Eastern Shore counties, which has long argued that the dam is a major unaddressed cause of the Bay’s woes.

Also writing in were dozens of individuals, most of whose comments were form letters, though many appended personal pleas.

The critics argue that the MDE, in its agreement with Exelon, has abdicated its legal authority and responsibility to protect downstream waters from the hydro facility’s operations. They also contend that the state agency abandoned without explanation many of the conditions it originally imposed when it issued a water quality certification for the relicensing in 2018.

Instead, they say, state officials have settled for much weaker pledges from Exelon of remedial action and financial compensation, which don’t come close to repairing the damage the dam has done and continues to do.

“We recognize that the settlement would reduce some of the project impacts on water quality and the ecosystem,” said Mark Bryer, Chesapeake Bay program director for The Nature Conservancy. “The issue we’re concerned with is whether the settlement mitigates the impacts enough.”

The Bay Foundation, Waterkeepers Chesapeake and Lower Susquehanna Waterkeeper argue that it would violate federal law to accept the settlement. They contend that the agreement imposes “scant” requirements on Exelon to fix the problems the dam has caused. What’s more, they say, many of the things the company has pledged to do are part of a side agreement that won’t be written into Conowingo’s federal operating license, which they say makes them unenforceable.

The Clean Chesapeake Coalition shares many of those concerns. By accepting this deal, the group contends, the state is squandering a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to measurably and cost-effectively improve chances for Bay restoration and lasting water quality improvement.”

The critics are calling on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to send the state and Exelon back to the negotiating table, or to convene a technical conference or some other proceeding to address their complaints about the shortcomings.

“The Susquehanna River is a public resource and should not be sold off to a private company for exclusive use without ensuring that the impacts to the public, waterways, and aquatic life have been properly mitigated,” wrote Lydia Meeks, a social studies teacher at a Queen Anne’s County school, in one of the individual comments filed protesting the deal.

Ecosystem impacts

Arguments over what to do about Conowingo’s ecological impacts have been going on for decades. The 94-foot high dam straddles the lower Susquehanna in Maryland, about 10 miles from the mouth of the Bay. Exelon describes it as the state’s largest source of clean, renewable energy, producing enough electricity to power 165,000 homes.

But since the dam’s completion in 1928, it has effectively blocked many migratory fish from getting upriver to spawn. It’s also impaired the upriver migration of American eels, which in turn has depleted freshwater mussels that once helped filter nutrients and sediments out of the river.

Moreover, it has complicated Bay restoration efforts because the 14-mile reservoir it creates has reached its capacity to trap sediment from upstream sources that flow down the river.

As a result, nutrients and sediment from farm runoff, municipal wastewater and stormwater now flow into the Chesapeake, where they contribute to algae blooms and other water quality woes. Plus, whenever a storm hits or heavy rains fall, as they did in 2018, the surge in river flow scours out sediment and nutrients that have built up behind the dam and flushes them downriver. Those pulses also carry a mass of natural and manmade trash and debris that winds up clogging marinas and littering shores farther down the Bay.

The way in which the river’s flow is harnessed also causes ecological harm. The dam’s retention of water, especially during dry summer months as well as frequent large releases to generate electricity, wind up stranding and killing many fish, studies show. It also impairs habitat for freshwater mussels and other aquatic creatures, according to reports cited by The Nature Conservancy.

Exelon agreed nearly four years ago to upgrade its main fish lift at Conowingo to help more spawning American shad and river herring  move upstream. But that deal was contingent on the company getting a new 50-year license to generate electricity there.

That was held up until last year by prolonged closed-door negotiations and public posturing over how much responsibility Exelon bears for the pollution. Environmentalists contended the company could easily afford to spend tens of millions of dollars on cleanup, while the company countered that the dam barely breaks even.

Conditions and counterpoints

Gov. Larry Hogan, meanwhile, declared Conowingo a major unaddressed threat to the cleanup of the Bay — a position advocated by the rural elected officials of the Clean Chesapeake Coalition. He vowed to tackle it and demanded an exploration of dredging the nutrient-laden sediment that has built up behind the dam.

Maryland had leverage because under the federal Clean Water Act, no license could be issued unless the state certified that it would not harm water quality. In early 2018, the MDE issued that certification, under the condition that Exelon either clean up the pollution itself or pay the state $172 million a year to have it done.

Exelon sued shortly thereafter, challenging the legality of the state’s demands. It complained of being forced to shoulder an “unfair burden” for pollution from upriver that the dam did not actually generate.

The state won the early rounds in court, but Exelon also filed a petition with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission arguing that Maryland failed to act within the specified timeframe and forfeited its right to put conditions on the Conowingo license. Then a federal court ruling in another hydropower licensing dispute came along that might support Exelon’s position. Trump administration officials also announced moves to limit states’ authority to use environmental objections to hold up energy projects.

In late October, Maryland and Exelon announced they’d struck what both sides called a comprehensive agreement to address the downstream pollution and other ecological impacts. But it quickly became clear the state had settled for far less than it originally demanded.

The settlement agreement itself showed that less than half of the $200 million Exelon pledged was in cash, with the rest representing the value of facilities or services the company would provide. Actual cash payments would be $61 million over the entire 50-year license, the Waterkeepers argue, with much of that going to species and habitat restoration rather than water quality.

Critics say the agreement also falls short in a couple other key respects. It doesn’t require Exelon to alter its dam operations enough to prevent harm downriver to fish, freshwater mussels and wildlife.

The Bay Foundation and Waterkeepers also say the deal doesn’t address the impacts to water quality downriver and in the Upper Bay from storms scouring sediment and nutrients from behind the dam.

Federal decision pending

The MDE defends the agreement and urges the federal commission to ignore the critics who say the deal does too little to address the dam’s environmental impacts.

“Many commenters seem to believe it would have been easy for MDE to address those impacts by unilaterally imposing huge environmental mitigation burdens on Exelon through the water quality certification process,” lawyers for the agency wrote, “but in reality, such an approach would have undoubtedly resulted in many years of protracted litigation, during which time the environmental impacts of the dam would have languished without any solutions.

“MDE believes Maryland’s citizens and the Chesapeake Bay are best served by the proposed settlement,” they added, “which allows environmental improvements to begin soon, and not by years of expensive and highly uncertain litigation.”

Exelon, in its response, notes that the settlement has the support of the U.S. Department of Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Pennsylvania state agencies responsible for protecting the environment and fish populations and the Susquehanna River Basin Commission. The company disputed much of the criticism, citing studies done by it and the federal commission staff, and said other claims by critics “are unsupported by the law.”

The company called the agreement reached in October the “last piece of the relicensing puzzle” for Conowingo that it has been pursuing for a decade. Contrary to what critics say, it concluded “there is no compelling reason for additional information, technical conferences, or further proceedings.”

The window to comment on the deal closed Jan. 31. A spokesman for the commission said there is no way to tell when it will rule on the case.

With the deal not yet finalized, its critics hope the state’s lawmakers can act quickly to block it from being approved. Legislation has been introduced in the Maryland General Assembly that, if passed, would prohibit the state from agreeing to waive its authority under federal law to determine whether projects that could impact water quality — such as the Conowingo relicensing — can go forward. The Senate bill has 17 cosponsors from both parties, the House version, 44 sponsors. Hearings on both measures are scheduled for Feb. 19.

“We’re going to have impacts from what happens with this relicensing until 2070, perhaps longer,” said Betsy Nicholas, executive director of Waterkeepers Chesapeake, “so getting it right is really important.”

By Timothy B. Wheeler

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

White House Targets Chesapeake Cleanup Funding for 91% Cut in 2021 Budget

by

Share
Undeterred by previous rebuffs by Congress, the Trump administration has once again proposed slashing funding for the Chesapeake Bay restoration.

The budget released Monday by the White House would provide $7.3 million to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program in the 2021 fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1. That’s a 91% reduction from this year’s funding for the federal-state effort.

It’s the fourth time that the Trump administration has proposed slashing the Bay Program. In President Trump’s first year in office, he called for completely eliminating its federal funding. The last two years, he has proposed 90% reductions.

Congress rejected those proposals, and last year actually increased funding to $85 million for fiscal year 2020, up from $73 million in recent years.

Given that history, it’s likely Congress will restore much if not all of the funding for the Bay Program, which coordinates regional efforts to restore the Chesapeake and provides grants to states, local governments, universities and nonprofit organizations.

Even so, the administration’s proposal drew quick rebukes from environmentalists.

“This action continues President Trump’s assault on the Chesapeake Bay and clean water,”  William Baker, president of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said in a statement. The Trump administration also is seeking to roll back or weaken many regulations aimed at protecting water quality, he added.

Baker noted that there are only five years left for all of the Bay watershed states to meet their cleanup obligations under the “pollution diet” that the EPA crafted in 2010. He warned that “this drastic cut could be the final nail in the coffin for science-based restoration efforts.”

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, pledged to work with other governors to restore Bay funding. “While the Trump administration continues to turn its back on the Bay, we will keep fighting to protect one of our most precious natural assets.”

He noted that the EPA Administrator stated at his confirmation hearing that he was committed to supporting the Bay Program. “Instead,” Hogan said, “the Trump administration recklessly and repeatedly proposes gutting Chesapeake Bay funding.”

As it has in previous years, the White House proposes to eliminate federal funding for most place-based ecosystem restoration efforts, including those focused on the Gulf of Mexico and the Long Island and Puget sounds. The budget summary suggests the work of these programs is best left to others. “State and local groups are engaged and capable of taking on management of cleanup and restoration of these water bodies,” it says.

The White House spending plan would continue full funding for the Great Lakes restoration effort of $320 million. Likewise, it would renew the $3.2 million for restoration work in Florida’s Everglades and the Keys. It said the “limited” funding proposed for the Bay Program would support “critical basinwide monitoring and state and local capacity building.”

A White House budget summary says these restoration efforts, apparently in contrast with the others, require a “uniquely federal role” focused on continuous long-term monitoring of the watersheds, given the “current lack of capacity for non-Federal groups to take on this role.”

The proposed Bay Program cut is part of a larger, continuing effort by the Trump administration — also mostly rebuffed in past by Congress — to make sweeping reductions in federal spending on environmental programs and agencies. The EPA overall would get nearly $6.7 billion under the White House proposal, which is 26% less than the current funding level.

The U.S. Geological Survey is targeted for a 24% cut overall, but its ecosystems research efforts would be reduced by almost half.

Details of the administration’s funding proposal remain unknown for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which works on everything from fisheries management to climate research. The Commerce Department’s budget summary says NOAA’s spending remains under review.  The White House budget summary, though, says “lower priority” NOAA grant and education efforts would be zeroed out, including coastal zone management and the Sea Grant program, which among other things funds coastal and Great Lakes research.

Elsewhere in the federal budget, funds for land acquisition at the Department of Interior and in the U.S. Forest Service would be slashed by more than 90%, from $227 million this year to $18 million in fiscal 2021. The budget document cites the need for those departments to focus on core missions like fighting fires and addressing a maintenance backlog on existing federal lands.

By Timothy B. Wheeler

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Striped Bass Fishing Cuts to Hit Bay Anglers Harder than Watermen

by

Share

Anglers in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries will be limited to landing just one striped bass a day under new rules approved this week by East Coast fishery managers.

The only exception is in Maryland, where state officials plan to let those who can afford to pay for charter fishing trips bring home two of the highly prized rockfish, as they are known in the Bay.

And there’s still more controversy about Maryland’s plan to stem the slide of the East Coast’s most popular finfish. The state has shortened but not closed its spring “trophy season,” when anglers can go after the biggest of the species, even though those happen to be the most productive spawners. And the state is planning to crack down on anglers who “target” rockfish for catch-and-release during times when it’s illegal to keep them.

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, which regulates fishing for migratory species in near-shore waters, on Tuesday authorized a patchwork of catch restrictions to be imposed along the coast and in the Bay aimed at halting a troubling decline in the species. They did so only after a lengthy and at-times querulous debate about the efficacy and fairness of states’ varied rules.

Maryland’s proposed catch restrictions came in for particular scrutiny from critics who questioned the science behind the proposal and whether it would actually meet the commission’s requirements.

The action approved this week comes after scientists warned nearly a year ago that the Atlantic striped bass population was overfished, with the number of spawning age females at a worrisome low.

The commission last fall called for states to make an 18% reduction in the catch of striped bass as well as in their deaths after being caught and released. The panel directed that all anglers be limited to catching one fish a day. It also set uniform size limits for keeping fish caught along the Atlantic coast and in the Bay, a major spawning and nursery ground for the species.

States were permitted, though, to deviate from those cutbacks, as long as their rules reduced overall fish losses by the same amount.

Most of the states from Maine to North Carolina took advantage of that “conservation equivalency” provision, submitting dozens of varied options in all for regulating recreational fishing in their waters. The commission’s striped bass management board spent hours reviewing and debating them.

Chris Moore, senior regional ecosystem scientist for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said he was heartened by the “robust discussion” of state proposals. While acknowledging the merits of finding state-specific solutions, Moore said that “these plans must meet the required conservation objectives and provide a means of ensuring accountability if conservation targets are not met.”

That’s especially important in the Bay, Moore added, because about 70% of the coastwide stock of striped bass are spawned there.

Fishery managers in the Bay states of Maryland and Virginia proposed curtailing the recreational catch more than the commercial harvest, even though the commission had called for both sectors to share equally in the reductions.

Managers did so in large part to protect the livelihoods of watermen, but they also noted that recreational fishing accounts for a larger share of the striped bass losses. Anglers catch many more of the fish than their commercial counterparts, and still more die at anglers’ hands after being caught and then released because they were undersized or hooked out of season.

In Maryland and in the Potomac River, regulators proposed shaving the commercial harvest by only 1.8%, while aiming for a recreational catch 20.6 % below 2017 levels. The Virginia Marine Resources Commission, meanwhile, acted last year to reduce the commercial catch in the Bay by nearly 8%, while going for a 24% overall reduction in recreational losses in both the ocean and the Bay.

Virginia eliminated its spring trophy season for striped bass last year shortly after the scientists’ warning came out. The state commission also adopted recreational rules last summer limiting anglers, including charter customers, to one fish per day year-round, down from two before.

Under the Maryland plan, its trophy season remains in place, though it’s delayed and shortened. There will also be a roughly two-week closure in late August, and the season will close for the year five days early in December.

Anglers also will be forbidden to “target” striped bass for catch-and-release during the late summer closure and throughout April, just before the trophy season starts on May 1.

State officials say they want to curtail catch-and-release, a popular sport fishing practice, because scientists have found a significant percentage of fish die after being hooked and returned to the water. That mortality is highest in summer, when warm water and lower oxygen levels add to the stress of being caught and handled.

But the commission’s technical committee expressed a lack of confidence that a “no targeting” rule would reduce catch-and-release as much as Maryland managers calculated it would. The committee also questioned how well the rule could be enforced, because there’s often not one fishing method or gear that’s uniquely used for hooking striped bass.

Michael Luisi, the DNR’s director of fishery monitoring and assessment, defended the state’s plan. He said the spring trophy season represented the only opportunity for Maryland anglers to catch the larger fish that can be caught most of the rest of the year roaming the coast.

He said that charter boat customers would be allowed to keep twice as many fish as private anglers because charter captains fear that a one-fish-a-day limit would kill their businesses.

Luisi also said the state has had a “no targeting” rule in effect for years in certain parts of the Bay and has cited anglers for violating it.

Dan McKiernan, a Massachusetts fisheries official and board member, still expressed dismay that Maryland and Virginia had shifted so much of the reductions to recreational anglers.

“It really surprises me that states can manipulate that rule and favor commercial over recreational,” he said. “I think that that shouldn’t have been allowed. No one communicated to us that you didn’t have to comply with that rule. That’s disturbing.”

Maryland’s plan won the board’s approval, by a 10–3 vote, with two abstentions.

Environmental and sportfishing advocates questioned the decision.

“Unfortunately, serious concerns remain that Maryland’s plan will achieve the needed conservation benefit,” the Bay Foundation’s Chris Moore said. He noted that Maryland has failed in the past to limit striped bass harvest as much as it said it would, and he called for a “more risk-averse approach.”

David Sikorski, executive director of the Coastal Conservation Association Maryland, representing about 1,400 saltwater anglers, likewise questioned the adequacy of the plan. He also complained that it placed an unwarranted and unfair share of reductions on sports anglers.

Allowing charter fishing clients to keep more fish “pits portions of the recreational fishery against each other,” he said. He also contended that there’s no justification for barring catch-and-release fishing in April, when the greatest mortality threat is midsummer. He likened that restriction to “holding the lettuce on a double bacon cheeseburger and pretending you’re on a diet.”

The DNR will soon publish its proposed regulatory changes for the summer and winter striped bass seasons. Once the regulations are proposed, the public will get a chance to comment. The states’ rules for curtailing striped bass mortality are to be in place by April 1.

By Timothy B. Wheeler

Don’t miss the latest! You can subscribe to The Chestertown Spy‘s free Daily Intelligence Report here.

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Results of Crab Pot Placement Research Too Close to Call it Either Way

by

Share
Kyle Wood hauled the metal cage up from its resting place at the bottom of the Patuxent River in Maryland.

There was no telling how many blue crabs it held until the crab pot broke the surface. Wood shook the cage over a black plastic tray until the nine crabs inside finished tumbling out.

He picked them up one by one with a gloved hand and called out their gender to his two crewmates. Then, he used a metal ruler to measure them from one far tip of the shell to the other.

Eight were big enough for keeping, perhaps to be boiled and eaten over a paper tablecloth at a seafood joint in Baltimore or beyond. But that was not to be these crabs’ destiny.

Wood is an undergraduate student at the College of Southern Maryland, but his work on this overcast November morning was part of a study led by Morgan State University. Along with two veteran Chesapeake Bay researchers, he is hoping to inject some science into what heretofore has been an art: determining how far apart crab pots should be placed from one another.

That is, if the crabs were willing to give up their secrets. And that was anything but assured.

Crab pots are end-table-size traps with a funnel that allows the catch to enter but not escape. They are the backbone of the Bay’s commercial crabbing industry — some watermen fish several hundred at a time to make a living.

Tom Ihde is a fisheries ecologist at Morgan State as well as Wood’s mentor and co-author on the study. He has long wondered if the pots compete for the same crabs if they’re placed too close to each other. But placing them too far apart could cause watermen to spend needless time and diesel on the water.

It isn’t merely an academic matter, Ihde said. At the height of the Bay’s crab season in the summer and early fall, the buoys marking the location of crab pots are often so thick “you have to zigzag around to get your boat through,” he said. Solving the aquatic mystery could save untold expenses in a region home to more than one-third of the nation’s blue crab catch, he said.

“Every little bit matters on the water,” said Ihde, who began studying the Bay as a graduate student in 1997. “The profit margins are small. Every little bit of fuel you can save by not traveling as far, all of that is going to help the bottom line.”

Two watermen contacted for this article, though, were skeptical that science can explain something as inscrutable as the whims of blue crabs.

When told about the Morgan State study, Blair Baltus laughed heartily. “Answer me one question: How much grant money did they get to do this?” he asked. “This is about the most entertaining story I’ve heard of in my whole life.”

(Morgan State dipped into its own funds to cover the study, Ihde said. No grants were used.)

A lifelong crabber, the Baltimore County-based Baltus said it costs him $600 a day for bait, fuel and hired help, a figure that doesn’t include health insurance, boat maintenance, gear and other costs. But a robust rise in crab abundance — scientists estimate nearly 600 million crabs populated the Bay before last season began and the highest total since 2012 — helped to keep his business afloat.

“I can tell you three things” about crabs, Baltus said. “They swim, they feed every now and then and they taste good. Other than that, everything else about a Chesapeake blue crab is a hypothesis.”

Bill Kilinski, a Charles County waterman, called the study an “interesting concept,” but he also doubted that it would bear fruit.

For his part, Kilinski keeps things simple on the water. If crabs are plentiful in an area, he makes sure his crab pots are plentiful, too.

“Normally, as a waterman, it kind of takes care of itself,” he said.

The crab pot study is a side project of the venerable blue crab population survey conducted annually by Morgan State’s Patuxent Environmental and Aquatic Research Laboratory (PEARL). The research, begun in 1968 and supported in recent years by Dominion Energy Solutions, represents one of the longest-running studies of marine populations in the world.

Wood graduated with an associate’s degree at the end of the fall semester and plans to enroll in the fisheries and wildlife biology program at Frostburg State University in the fall. He snagged an internship at PEARL last summer.

In Wood, Ihde found a fellow traveler with a curiosity about crab pots. They tried their study in the summer, but the results were fouled because of low dissolved oxygen conditions at one of the pot locations.

So, they tried again from September through November. They used eight crab pots. Four were spaced a half-mile apart from one another, far enough to theoretically simulate harvesting crabs without interference from other pots.

To test the opposite scenario, the team lashed one pot to another, then repeated the process with the two remaining pots. Those “paired” traps were lowered into the water in separate locations.

They conducted the experiment in the Patuxent River, a Chesapeake Bay tributary, about three miles upstream from Maryland Route 4 bridge near the town of Solomons. They didn’t have to worry about commercial traps getting in their way because the state prohibits commercial fishermen from using crab pots in Bay tributaries. Using crab pots for research purposes is allowed.

“It’s a near-perfect laboratory for us,” Ihde said.

The study involved setting the pots by boat nine times over the course of the three months and checking them about 24 hours later for crabs. Wood tossed any crabs they caught back into the water after performing his check.

If the team’s research showed a difference between the two types of pot settings, their reward would be getting to do more research. They planned to conduct a second phase, cataloging catches at varying pot distances to determine which yields the most crustaceans.

But the second phase wasn’t needed. By early December, the results were in. The watermen appeared to be right. There was no difference between the paired pots and their far-apart cousins, according to Ihde’s initial review of the data.

“They’re not the results we expected or thought we’d see, but they’re results,” Ihde said. “From a scientific perspective, though, that’s exactly what the process is supposed to do.”

Maybe blue crabs don’t care whether traps are nestled tightly together or flung widely across the Bay’s dusky floor. Because the study was conducted in the fall, when crabs are migrating, the time of year may have affected the results, Ihde said, adding that he might test the question again during a future summer.

But there’s another positive outcome from the just-completed study, he noted.

“To me, from the get-go, the real product of the project was Kyle himself and what he got out of it,” Ihde said. “He came in here with an interest in science but no real experience. Through his work with us over the last eight months now, he’s leaving this as an experienced field biologist.”

By Jeremy Cox

Don’t miss the latest! You can subscribe to The Chestertown Spy‘s free Daily Intelligence Report here.

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Override of Hogan Veto Sets New Course for Oyster Management

by

Share

Overriding a veto by Gov. Larry Hogan, Maryland lawmakers enacted legislation Thursday requiring a more consensus-based approach to managing the state’s beleaguered oyster population.

The new law is the latest round in a years-long tug of war between the Hogan administration and legislators over oyster management. It directs the Department of Natural Resources to work with scientists, mediators and an expanded roster of stakeholders to seek agreement where little has existed to date on how to increase the abundance and sustainability of the Chesapeake Bay’s keystone species.

The bill cleared the House by a vote of 95 to 43. That was a few votes less than it got when originally passed last year but still more than the three-fifths majority needed for a veto override. The Senate quickly followed suit, voting 31-15 to make it law despite the governor’s objections.

Supporters of the measure said it was needed to direct the DNR to revamp the oyster management plan it had adopted last year. Environmentalists and their allies in the General Assembly have complained that the administration has favored watermen’s interests in seeking to open oyster sanctuaries to harvest and is not moving forcefully enough to end the overfishing found in a 2018 scientific assessment.

“It’s time to work together toward the common goal of increasing Maryland’s oyster population to improve the state’s environment and the fishery’s long-term outlook,” said Alison Prost, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s Maryland executive director.

The bill requires the DNR to reorganize its Oyster Advisory Commission, then work with it and the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science to develop recommendations for maintaining a sustainable harvest and rebuilding the depleted oyster population, estimated to be 1–2% of historic levels. Any recommendations would have to be approved by 75% of the members.

Republican lawmakers who opposed the override contended that the measure wasn’t needed and that it would only delay action and drive a deeper wedge between environmentalists and watermen.

“The department has a plan, or is working on a plan, to get to a sustainable fishery in the next eight to 10 years,” said Sen. Stephen S. Hershey, Jr., who represents the Mid– and Upper Eastern Shore. The new decision-making process the legislation prescribes “has pushed the goalpost back even farther.”

In vetoing the legislation last year, Hogan had used similar language, accusing lawmakers and environmental advocates of making an “end run” on his administration’s efforts to forge “thoughtful and science-based” oyster management policies.

But lawmakers supporting the measure said the oyster management plan the DNR adopted last year doesn’t put enough emphasis on restoring oysters for their ecological value and doesn’t move quickly enough to end overfishing. A scientific stock assessment finished in 2018 found that the stock of harvestable adult oysters in Maryland’s portion of the Bay had declined by half since 1999 and that they were being overharvested in more than half of the public fishery areas.

The bill’s chief sponsor, Sen. Sarah K. Elfreth, D-Anne Arundel County, said “a new approach was needed” in light of the continuing conflict between environmentalists and watermen. She noted that the legislation awards nearly 60% of the seats on the advisory commission to watermen and other seafood industry representatives.

Elfreth noted that many of her constituents in the Annapolis area have urged her to push for a total moratorium on oyster harvests to rebuild the state’s depleted population. But she said the science doesn’t support that.

“I think this bill presents the right balance,” she said, “and makes sure we have an oyster fishery for generations to come.”

Because the measure sat in limbo for a year, proponents say the timeline it specifies for revisiting the oyster management plan needs to be adjusted. Legislation is to be introduced to do that, as well as remove a provision authorizing the advisory commission to close its meetings to the public.

Anticipating the veto override, DNR Secretary Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio had already moved to reconstitute the department’s Oyster Advisory Commission in line with the membership prescribed by the legislation. She also brought in a pair of mediators late last year to begin a new round of discussions among the oft-disputing parties over what they would change in the state’s oyster restoration efforts and in its management of the public fishery.

But Haddaway-Riccio has warned that the measure could tie the DNR’s hands, because it bars the agency from changing the boundaries of the state’s oyster sanctuaries until the commission has revised its oyster management plan. She has indicated it could take two years to complete that process.

After Thursday’s vote, Haddaway-Riccio issued a statement saying that the “real consequences of this vote are delaying our ability to enhance our state-managed oyster sanctuaries and further straining the relationship between the very stakeholders the legislature wants to come to consensus. Both of these things will delay us from reaching our goals on oyster restoration.

“Regardless of this misguided vote,” she added, “we will continue to implement our Oyster Management Plan and remain focused on our goal of a sustainable harvest and population in eight to 10 years.”

By Tim Wheeler

Don’t miss the latest! You can subscribe to The Chestertown Spy‘s free Daily Intelligence Report here

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Winter Turkey Season Harvest Increase; Birds Bagged Birds in 22 Counties

by

Share

Photo courtesy of DNR.

Hunters reported taking 82 wild turkeys during Maryland’s 2020 winter turkey season, which was open statewide Jan. 23-25.

The Maryland Department of Natural Resources reports turkeys were harvested in 22 of the state’s 23 counties, with St. Mary’s and Garrett counties reporting the highest numbers.

The harvest was higher than the 73 turkeys taken last year. Adult males, or gobblers, comprised 42% of the harvest with the remainder being adult females and juveniles. Seventy-three percent were taken with a shotgun, but some hunters harvested their bird with a crossbow or vertical bow.

The winter turkey season was established in 2015 to provide hunters an additional hunting opportunity while minimizing conflicts with other hunting seasons. Turkey populations at one time were limited in Maryland. In the 1980s and 1990s, an extensive program to trap and relocate wild flocks successfully established populations in every county.

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

EPA Letter Criticizes Maryland over Chesapeake Lawsuit Threat

by

Share

In a letter to members of Congress, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday maintained its support for Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts while criticizing Maryland, which has threatened to take the agency to court.

The letter was the latest salvo in an escalating battle over whether the federal agency is doing enough to prod Pennsylvania, which is far behind its Bay commitments, to take greater action.

It’s a dispute that appears increasingly likely to head to court. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation on Monday announced its intent to sue the EPA for failing to use its Clean Water Act authority against Pennsylvania.

That followed a Jan. 9 call from Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan calling for his state attorney general to initiate legal actions against Pennsylvania, citing the “obvious inadequacy” of its Bay cleanup plan, and against the EPA, which he said has “no intention” of forcing his northern neighbor to do more.

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam has also said his state may take legal action.

The EPA’s letter said it “will continue to work diligently and professionally with all the jurisdictions and stakeholders engaged in supporting restoration of the Bay.”

But it also took aim at Maryland for threatening to sue the agency and Pennsylvania. “Diverting our collective resources to litigation will undoubtedly distract from efforts to restore the Bay and harm the existing partnership among the parties that has been the hallmark of the effort,” said the letter from EPA Region III Administrator Cosmo Servidio.

It was in response to a letter from 20 members of Congress sent earlier in the month questioning the agency’s commitment to Bay restoration.

The agency has come under increasing fire for not doing enough to press Pennsylvania to do more. The state is far behind in its efforts to reduce nutrient pollution and last year submitted a cleanup plan that fell 25% short of achieving its nitrogen reduction goals and identified an annual funding gap of $324 million.

In reviewing Pennsylvania’s plan at the end of last year though, the agency acknowledged the shortfall but did not announce any new regulatory actions. Instead, it offered the state more technical and financial support.

In its letter to Congress, the EPA pointed out that five of the Bay jurisdictions, not just Pennsylvania, must “do more to achieve their goals” — the others being Maryland, Virginia, New York and Delaware. Only the District of Columbia and West Virginia are on track to meet cleanup goals by the 2025 deadline.

In December, the EPA called on the others to provide more detailed cleanup plans, but its recent letter singled out Maryland — the first to threaten legal action — for criticism, saying it needs to do more “to provide confidence that it can comply with its own responsibilities” to meet 2025 goals.

The letter contended that the state was a year behind schedule in submitting a number of stormwater permits for approval and, when it finally did so near the end of 2019, the EPA rejected them for being incomplete.

Meanwhile, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-MD, a key author of the Congressional letter, issued a statement saying he was “frustrated and concerned” with the EPA’s response.

“Their response ducks the main question we asked: do they plan to enforce the pollution reduction targets in the Bay Agreement? Failure to enforce these targets puts the health of the Bay at risk. And without stronger assurances, we must take them to court.”

Note: This article has been updated to incorporate comments from Sen. Chris Van Hollen.

By Karl Blankenship

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

EPA Assurance Fails to Mollify Concerns over PA Cleanup

by

Share

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials on Friday asserted their intent to achieve Chesapeake Bay cleanup goals by 2025, but they stopped short of promising any new regulatory actions aimed at prodding greater actions from Pennsylvania, where pollution control efforts are far behind schedule.

“I just want to assure everyone, we are fully committed to working with this partnership to meet the goals of 2025. Nothing has changed,” said Cosmo Servidio, administrator of EPA Region III, which includes most of the Bay watershed.

Servidio’s comments to leaders of state environmental agencies came as Maryland and Virginia are contemplating legal action against both the EPA and Pennsylvania. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation on Monday also said it is preparing to sue the EPA for not enforcing the Clean Water Act with regard to the Bay cleanup. “Failing to hold Pennsylvania accountable undermines the success we have seen in recent years,” CBF President William Baker said.

Tension within the Bay restoration effort spiked after Pennsylvania submitted an updated cleanup plan last summer that fell 25% short of its pollution reduction goal for nitrogen, and $324 million a year short in funding.

An EPA review released in December acknowledged the shortfalls, but the agency declined to take any of the regulatory actions it had repeatedly threatened, such as ratcheting down on the discharges allowed by industries and wastewater plants.

Shortly thereafter, EPA Bay Program Director Dana Aunkst described the region’s 2025 cleanup deadline as “aspirational” at a meeting of the Chesapeake Bay Commission and said that the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load, which set pollution reduction goals, is “not an enforceable document.” The environmental community widely saw those comments as stepping away from the EPA’s support for the cleanup. The agency quickly issued a statement that it “remains steadfast in its commitment” to the Bay.

After those developments, 20 members of Congress in January fired off a letter to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler demanding “immediate steps to demonstrate EPA’s commitment and accountability to the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay.”

Despite Servidio’s comments Friday to the Bay Program Principals’ Staff Committee, which includes senior state and federal agency representatives, Maryland Department of the Environment Secretary Ben Grumbles told the group that legal action by his state was “very likely,” and Virginia Natural Resources Secretary Matt Strickler expressed disappointment that the EPA provided no specifics about possible further action.

Servidio said he hoped lawsuits could be avoided. “I have always found litigation to be something that can only stymie things,” he said. “That is my opinion.”

He noted that the EPA has taken actions against Pennsylvania, including the recent rerouting of $4 million of unspent money away from the state Department of Environmental Protection to other agencies and organizations that were better able to get projects implemented.

Servidio said the EPA is committed to providing more money and technical assistance to help control runoff from the state. But, he said, the EPA would not discuss any other potential actions in public.

Grumbles acknowledged the agency would want “some degree of confidentiality” when considering an enforcement action. But, he said, other states — which have invested huge sums to meet cleanup goals and committed more in the future — need assurance that the EPA will take tougher regulatory actions against Pennsylvania.

“The gist of it is really trying to get specificity and enforceability for an intervention,” Grumbles said.

Pennsylvania contributes, by far, the greatest amount of water-fouling nutrient pollution to the Chesapeake. The state has long been criticized for having inadequate programs and not dedicating enough funding for the cleanup — its legislature has been cutting environmental programs over the years. Those challenges are further complicated because the vast majority of nutrients in Pennsylvania originate from farmland, a source of pollution that all states in the Bay watershed have struggled to control.

Some have hoped that the threat of litigation would spur Pennsylvania’s legislature to provide more money, but Pat McDonnell, secretary of the state Department of Environmental Protection, said legal action could have the opposite impact.

“We have a number of legislators who have been very actively trying to work to get funding,” he said. “This conversation has not been helpful.”

While McDonnell acknowledged the state had a significant funding shortfall, he said he “bristled” at comments that its plan had an actual shortfall in nutrient reduction.

To meet its 2025 cleanup goals, Pennsylvania needs to reduce the annual amount of nitrogen reaching the Bay by 34 million pounds from estimated 2018 levels. Its latest plan missed that mark by more than 9 million pounds — more than the entire reduction needed by most other states from now to the deadline.

But McDonnell insisted that the 9 million pound shortfall was the result of a problem with the computer model estimates used to track pollution reduction efforts. He said the model did not capture the full extent of Pennsylvania’s activities.

“We have a model gap,” McDonnell said. “We do not believe we will have an actual gap. We believe there are practices currently undercounted or not counted in terms of the credits received for Pennsylvania.”

That drew skepticism from Strickler. While models might have some uncertainty, he said, it was unlikely to be that large — and if it was, other states could make the same claim.

“By that logic, [Virginia] could have closed our entire gap,” he said, and have no need to plan new efforts.

He said Pennsylvania and the EPA need to demonstrate how the state is going to accelerate actual progress. “I think punting for two years and just saying we are going to make some accounting tweaks is unacceptable,” Strickler said.

By Karl Blankenship

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

MD, VA Mulling Options to Halt Decline in Striped Bass Population

by

Share

Prompted by a scientific finding that the East Coast’s most prized finfish are in trouble, Maryland, Virginia and the Potomac River are all moving to adopt new catch restrictions aimed at stemming the species’ decline.

But many anglers are complaining about the complexity, fairness and even the adequacy of the cutbacks under consideration, which range from a quota tuck of less than 2% for commercial fishermen in Maryland to a 24% reduction in fish removed by recreational anglers in Virginia.

The two states are taking somewhat different tacks to comply with a directive from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, which regulates fishing for migratory species from Maine to Florida. Last October, the interstate panel ordered an 18% decrease  in mortality of striped bass coastwide, including in the Chesapeake Bay, which serves as the main spawning ground and nursery for the species.

Striped bass aren’t in as bad a shape as they were in the 1980s, when Maryland imposed a total fishing moratorium on them for nearly six years. But scientists have warned that after rebounding from that earlier swoon, the number of spawning-age female fish has fallen once more to a worrisome level, and the species is again being overfished.

The interstate commission decided that commercial and recreational fisheries should share equally in the cutbacks it ordered. But it agreed to consider letting states curtail the two sectors by differing amounts, as long as the net effect achieves a “conservation equivalency.”

The commission meets again in early February to review and decide whether to approve the alternative approaches states have come up with.

All of the Bay jurisdictions are looking to throttle back recreational fishing pressure on striped bass because it’s considered the chief culprit in the population decline. Regulators are weighing a variety of combinations of rules that would shorten the fishing season or restrict the size and number of fish that can be caught. Maryland is also proposing to clamp down on the widespread practice of catch-and-release fishing when it’s otherwise not legal to keep striped bass.

The Potomac River Fisheries Commission recently posted the options it was considering, so anglers on the Bay’s second largest tributary will have a chance to comment at a Feb. 19 meeting of the bi-state commission’s finfish advisory committee. But the plans already aired for Maryland and Virginia waters have drawn the ire of anglers in both states. One oft-heard objection is over the recreational catch being cut more than the commercial harvest.

In Maryland and in the Potomac River, regulators have proposed trimming the commercial harvest by just 1.8%, while the recreational catch is targeted for a cutback of 20.6% below what was caught in 2017. The Virginia Marine Resources Commission, meanwhile, voted last year to reduce the commercial catch in the Bay by nearly 8%, while going for a 24% overall reduction in recreational losses in both the ocean and the Bay.

“Effectively, this will be transferring fish from the recreational sector to the commercial sector,” complained Tom Powers, a Poquoson-based angler. The Virginia Saltwater Sportfishing Association flooded the state commission’s email inboxes with more than 300 messages from its members, lobbying for equity.

But fisheries scientists say it’s recreational rather than commercial fishing that’s bringing striped bass down. Studies indicate that anglers catch many more striped bass, also known as rockfish, than commercial fishermen. Anglers kill still more when they release fish they’ve hooked that are too small to legally keep or are caught out of season. In 2017, more died after being released than were kept, scientists have estimated.

Alex Aspinwall, a data analyst with the VMRC, noted that the recreational harvest accounts for about three out of every five striped bass caught in Virginia waters. In Maryland, the breakdown is similar.

Bay jurisdiction regulators are loath to make deep cuts in the Chesapeake’s commercial striped bass fishery because it provides a livelihood for hundreds of people.

The Virginia commission did support a modest cut in that state’s commercial catch, extending by 11 days the period in the spring when larger fish are protected from being netted. The goal, Aspinwall said, was to improve the chances for big reproductive females to survive to spawn future generations of fish.

Cutting back on recreational fishing is trickier because regulators have to rely on what anglers want to tell them, rather than hard data. The hundreds of thousands of people who get recreational fishing licenses every year are not required to report their catch, as commercial fishermen are.

Some steps have been taken already to try to reduce the release mortality of striped bass. The Maryland Department of Natural Resources trimmed the minimum catchable size from 20 inches to 19 inches, reasoning that would result in fewer fish being thrown back and dying.

The state has also required the use of rounded “circle” hooks, which cut down on potentially lethal injuries to the fish’s mouth when caught. The Atlantic States commission has directed all East Coast states to mandate the use of circle hooks by 2021.

The VMRC, meanwhile, canceled its spring “trophy” season last year — a shutdown extended this year. Traditionally, for about four weeks in May and June, recreational anglers and charter boats have pursued the large striped bass that enter the Bay from the Atlantic to spawn. Virginia regulators said they shut down their trophy season to protect the big female fish, which produce the most eggs.

Maryland and the Potomac River, in comparison, are keeping their trophy seasons, though Maryland has cut its monthlong season nearly in half to match the two-week season in the Potomac.

Michael Luisi, the DNR’s director of fishery monitoring and assessment, defended keeping the season targeting the big spawners. The trophy fishery doesn’t take that many fish, he said, and it’s the only chance Maryland anglers have at the really large mature rockfish that anglers in other states can go after the rest of the year.

Virginia also adopted other conservation measures last year — adjusting catchable size limits, and most significantly, reducing the number of striped bass an angler could keep from two a day to one.

Some Virginia charter boat captains say the changes, imposed last fall, have caused bookings to dry up.

“I’m not going to pay $800 to go out on a boat and be only able to keep one of the fish I catch and it can only be 36 inches,” charter operator John Satterly said of his clients.

Regulators elsewhere in the Bay are weighing closing their striped bass fishery at different points of the year. In Maryland, they’re also looking to give charter fishing a break, even while restricting private anglers.

The Potomac River Fisheries Commission is eyeing four options, all focused on closing the striped bass fishery for varying lengths of time in the summer. That’s when fish are most stressed by high air and water temperatures and low dissolved oxygen levels in the water, noted Martin Gary, the commission’s executive secretary.

Depending on which option is chosen, Potomac anglers would not be allowed to keep any striped bass in most or all of July and August and possibly even later. They’d still be able to take two fish a day in the rest of the summer and in the fall.

Maryland’s DNR is considering a different set of options, which would close the summer striped bass season for shorter periods of two to three weeks in July or August. But it’s also looking at barring anglers from “targeting” striped bass during those closures, meaning that they could be cited for a fishing violation if spotted repeatedly catching and releasing the fish. That’s something no other Bay jurisdiction has proposed.

The DNR’s Luisi said that enforcing the “no targeting” rule could be challenging, because an angler can’t control what fish get hooked. But one fishing method that would be automatically suspect, at least in the spring, would be trolling, which involves towing multiple fishing lines through the water behind a boat.

“There’s nothing else in the Bay during March and April that people would be trolling up and down for,” he said.

Like Virginia, the Maryland DNR is weighing limiting all anglers to keeping one fish a day, down from two previously. But state regulators have indicated they’re leaning toward letting charter boat customers continue to keep two fish.

David Sikorski, executive director of Coastal Conservation Association Maryland, representing about 1,400 saltwater anglers, complained that the DNR is “picking haves and have nots.” He contended that if the DNR goes ahead with that option, “the charter and commercial fisheries are giving up much less than private anglers.”

Luisi acknowledged the uneven treatment. But he said that DNR officials sought to “strike a balance” that would keep the state’s 600-boat charter fishing fleet afloat.

“The one fish [limit], it would have been a death sentence for us,” said Ken Jeffries, acting president of the Maryland Charter Boat Association. Jeffries, who is based in Severna Park, said there are few other species to fish for in the Upper Bay.

Anglers complain Maryland’s proposed ban on catch-and-release makes little sense in early spring, when cooler weather means fish returned to the water are less likely to die. And, they argue that the charter-friendly plan the DNR favors is not protective enough, because it would only close the summer fishery for a couple of weeks in late August, rather than in July, normally the hottest time of the year.

“You’ve got to close during the time you’re killing the most to have the most positive conservation impact,” Sikorski said.

The larger problem, Sikorski said, is that the Maryland DNR is making regulatory decisions without reliable information on the state’s anglers. The East Coast states have compiled recreational catch estimates based on surveying anglers at marinas, boat ramps, beaches and other places. But the survey was designed to assess fishing activity coastwide, critics say, and it provides a much less accurate picture of what’s going on in any state or part of the year.

“We know the system we have right now is not working,” Sikorski said. “We deserve better.”

Luisi acknowledged the shortcomings of the survey, but he said it’s all regulators have to work with. He said the DNR is talking with Sikorski’s group and others about launching some type of voluntary electronic reporting for anglers that would give regulators more data to work with.

Jeffries of the Maryland charter boat association said he, too, is worried that the restrictions the DNR is considering don’t go far enough to reduce losses from catch-and-release fishing. But, he said, “this was the best plan we could come up with that was easily manageable.”

By  Timothy B. Wheeler & Jeremy Cox
Don’t miss the latest! You can subscribe to The Chestertown Spy‘s free Daily Intelligence Report here

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.