restoring oysters to the chesapeake bay

Restoring Oysters to the Chesapeake Bay

Chesapeake Bay Restoration

Our Overall Goal is a HEALTHY, PRODUCTIVE

CHESAPEAKE BAYRoad to success Bay Restoration Strategy

Require a multifaceted approach based on science; and

Sustained commitment of resources.

Oyster Restoration Major component of strategy to improving the

quality of Chesapeake Bay Not viewed as a substitute, but rather as a

supplement.

Further declines in Bay water quality;

Continued or accelerated losses of SAV and oyster

reef habitats, with cascading effects on the structure

and stability of the Bay’s estuarine communities

Continued decline of the oyster fishery and erosion

of traditional economies and cultures of Bay

watermen;

Need to Evaluate Alternatives

NRC identified the following risks with continuing status quo

Native oyster restoration has not been fully successful.

C. ariakensis appears to have similar environmental

tolerances that make it well suited for growth and

reproduction in the Chesapeake Bay (NRC, 2003).

Not a new idea. Nonnative introductions of shellfish have

occurred worldwide for hundreds of years.

The oyster industry on the U.S. West Coast relies

almost exclusively on nonnative species.

International protocols (ICES) now exist to minimize risks

associated with nonnative introductions.

Why Consider a Nonnative Oyster?

States’ Decision to Prepare Federal EIS

Significant and controversial issue.

Federal EIS characterized by both scientific

integrity and process integrity (transparency).

Provides an open public forum to discuss the

issues and identify a preferred oyster

restoration alternative based upon sound

science.

Landmark opportunity to evaluate the risks

and benefits that should be addressed by

decision makers.

• In the past, introductions of nonnative

species were not subjected to this level of

scrutiny.

Lead (Decision-Making) Agencies

Cooperating Federal Agencies

Agencies Involved In Preparing EIS

EIS Framework

Scope of EISPublic Scoping

Research Framework

NRC Recommendations

Discussions with UMD and VIMS

Pre-Scoping

CBP STAC Recommendations

Public Scoping

PDT meetings

NRC and CBP STAC Research Recommendations

Risk Assessments(ecological, economic, cultural)

Modeling(larvae transport, demographic,

ecosystem impact)

Technical AdvisoryGroups

(PDT, SAC, PRG, ASMFC ISTC, ERAAG, OAP)

Pre-Draft EIS

Independent OysterAdvisory Panel

Draft EISPublic Review

Record of Decision

Final EIS

MD Public HearingReport to MD General Assembly

30 Day Waiting Period

MD Legislative Required 60 Day Waiting Period

30 Day PublicComment Period

The purpose of this EIS is to identify a preferred

alternative(s) for establishing an oyster population

that reaches a level of abundance in Chesapeake

Bay comparable to levels seen between 1920–1970.

A need exists to restore the ecological role of

oysters in the Bay and the economic benefits of a

commercial fishery through native oyster

restoration and/or an ecologically compatible

nonnative oyster species that would restore those

lost functions.

Purpose and Need of EIS

Alternatives for EIS Evaluation

Proposed – introduce Oregon strain of C. ariakensis in Action accordance with ICES protocols, and continue

native oyster restoration. Alternative 1 – continue native oyster restoration program. Alternative 2 – expand native oyster restoration program. Alternative 3 – implement temporary harvest moratorium

on native oyster and an oyster industry compensation (buy-out) program in

Maryland and Virginia. Alternative 4 – establish and/or expand native oyster

aquaculture program. Alternative 5 – establish nonnative aquaculture program. Alternative 6 – introduce and propagate an alternative

oyster species, or strain of C. ariakensis. Alternative 7 – introduce C. ariakensis and discontinue

native oyster restoration. Alternative 8 – combination of alternatives.

EIS Framework


Research Framework

NRC Recommendations


Pre-Scoping


Public Scoping

PDT meetings




ecosystem impact)



Pre-Draft EIS



Record of Decision

Final EIS





January 5, 2004 - Notice of Intent published to prepare

Oyster EIS.

2004 - Oyster EIS Project Delivery Team develops EIS

framework and establishes technical and advisory groups to

support EIS.

December 15, 2004 - Office of Management and Budget

establishes new regulations to enhance peer review of

scientific information upon which Federal decisions are

based.

2005 – Clarification of applicability of new peer review

regulations, and development of peer review plan.

February 28, 2006 – Oyster EIS Peer Review Plan approved

for compliance with OMB peer review regulations.

Oyster EIS Peer Review

Research Findings

Scientific Advisory CommitteeASMFC Interstate

Shellfish Transport Committee

Peer Review Group

Ecological Risk Assessment Team(UMD, Versar Inc. and ERAG) Oyster Advisory Panel

Peer review comments are forwarded through the Project Delivery Team.

Responsible for Peer Review

Provide technical support

EIS Component

Modeling Projects

Oyster Larvae TransportAnd

Demographic ModelOyster Ecosystem Impact Model

Scientific Advisory CommitteeASMFC Interstate

Shellfish Transport Committee

Oyster Advisory Panel




EIS Component

Modeling Project

Assessment Projects

Cultural Analysis Economic AnalysisEcological Risk

Assessment

ASMFC InterstateShellfish Transport Committee



Dr. James Anderson and Team of NaturalResource Economists

Team of Environmental Anthropologist

(To Be Determined)

Ecological Risk Assessment Advisory Group

Oyster Advisory Panel Oyster Advisory panel Oyster Advisory Panel




EIS Component

Modeling Project

•NEPA documents (i.e. Environmental Impact Statements) are

not subjected to the OMB peer review guidelines. However,

an Oyster Advisory Panel has been established to review the

Draft EIS. The Panel’s charge includes:

•Review the adequacy of data and assessments used to

identify the ecological, economic, and cultural risks and

benefits, and associated uncertainties for each EIS

alternative;

•Provide advice on the degree of risk that would be

involved for each EIS alternative if a decision were made

based on the available data and assessments; and

•Recommend additional research, and associated

timeline, that could be obtained to reduce the level of risk

and uncertainty.

Review Sufficiency of EIS

Oyster EIS Advisory Panel

Member Affiliation Expertise

Brian Rothschild Director, School for Marine Science and Technology, Univ. of MA at Dartmouth

Population dynamics, biological oceanography, fisheries mgt. and natural resources policy

Jim Anderson Professor, Dept. of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics at Univ. of RI

Fisheries and aquaculture economics

Mark Berrigan Chief of the Bureau of Aquaculture Development, Division of Aquaculture, FL Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Aquaculture, shellfish restoration, and multi-dimensional resource management.

Maurice Heral Director, Scientific Research, IFREMER, France Shellfish biology, aquaculture, non-native introductions, and fishery management.

Roger Mann Director, Marine Research and Advisory Services, Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences

Oyster biology and ecology.

Eric Powell Director, Haskin Shellfish Research Laboratory, Rutgers University

Shellfish physiology and parasite/disease processes and in numerical modeling and statistical analysis.

Mike Roman Director, Horn Point Laboratory, University of Maryland’s Center for Environmental Studies

Zooplankton ecology and biological oceanography.

EIS Framework


Research Framework

NRC Recommendations


Pre-Scoping


Public Scoping

PDT meetings




ecosystem impact)



Pre-Draft EIS



Record of Decision

Final EIS





http://www.dnr.state.md.us/dnrnews/infocus/oysters.asp

For More Information:

restoring oysters to the chesapeake bay

Documents