Chesapeake Bay Oysters Technical Document

Published on December 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 49 | Comments: 0 | Views: 216
of 22
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


 

Chesapeake
 Bay
 Oysters:
  Population
 Decline
 

 
 
 

To:
 Robert
 Wittman,
 Virginia
 House
 of
 Representatives
 
  Subcommittee
 on
 Fisheries,
 Wildlife,
 Oceans
 and
 Insular
 Affairs
 
 
  From:
 Sarah
 Schmitt
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


 


 


 

Table
 of
 Contents
  Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 1
  Historic
 Downfalls
 of
 Commercial
 Harvesting
  Cultural
 Value
 of
 the
 Eastern
 Oyster
  Ecological
 Value
 of
 the
 Eastern
 Oyster ........................................................................................................ 2
  Economic
 Value
 of
 the
 Eastern
 Oyster......................................................................................................... 3
  Oyster
 Diseases...................................................................................................................................................... 4
  Stakeholders .............................................................................................................................................................. 5
  Past
 Policy
 and
 Current
 Restoration
 Efforts ........................................................................................... 6
  Past
 Policies
 and
 Initiatives
  Chesapeake
 2000
 Agreement
  Policy
 Option
 1:
 Introduction
 of
 Non-­Native
 Oysters......................................................................... 7
  Positive
 Facets
 of
 the
 Policy
 Option
  Negative
 Facets
 of
 the
 Policy
 Option ............................................................................................................ 8
  Supporting
 Stakeholders
  Opposing
 Stakeholders....................................................................................................................................... 9
  Policy
 Option
 Implementation ......................................................................................................................10
  Policy
 Option
 2:
 Imposing
 a
 Bay-­wide
 Harvest
 Moratorium
 on
 Native
 Oysters
 in
  Conjunction
 with
 a
 Transitional
 Program
 for
 Displaced
 Oystermen
  ....................................11
  Positive
 Facets
 of
 the
 Policy
 Option..................................................................................................... 11,12
  Negative
 Facets
 of
 the
 Policy
 Option ..........................................................................................................13
  Supporting
 Stakeholders
  Opposing
 Stakeholders.....................................................................................................................................14
  Policy
 Option
 Implementation ......................................................................................................................14
  Policy
 Option
 :
 Streamlining
 the
 Permitting
 Process
 for
 Private
 Aquaculture
 Firms
 ..15
  Positive
 Facets
 of
 the
 Policy
 Option
  Negative
 Facets
 of
 the
 Policy
 Option ..........................................................................................................16
  Supporting
 Stakeholders .......................................................................................................................... 16,17
  Opposing
 Stakeholders.....................................................................................................................................17
  Policy
 Option
 Implementation ............................................................................................................... 17,18
  Works
 Cited ....................................................................................................................................................... 19,20
 


 


 


 


 

Introduction
  The
 ecological
 health
 of
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 ecosystem
 and
 its
 keystone
 species,
 the
  Chesapeake
 Bay
 oyster
 (C.
 virginica),
 has
 been
 in
 decline
 for
 decades.1
 Together,
  oyster
 diseases
 and
 the
 commercial
 harvesting
 techniques
 created
 in
 response
 to
  the
 economically
 valuable
 oyster
 market
 have
 contributed
 to
 the
 decline
 in
 oyster
  stock
 in
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay.2
 In
 turn,
 commercial
 landings
 in
 Maryland
 and
 Virginia
  have
 sharply
 declined
 over
 the
 past
 century.
 

3
 


 
  As
 demonstrated
 by
 the
 graph,
 only
 1%
 of
 the
 oyster
 stock
 present
 in
 the
 late
 1800’s
  exists
 in
 the
 Bay
 today.
 NOAA
 and
 the
 U.S.
 Army
 Corps
 of
 Engineers
 have
 designated
  approximately
 $7
 million
 for
 the
 next
 fiscal
 year
 to
 accelerate
 oyster
 restoration
  efforts.4
 The
 main
 purpose
 of
 this
 proposal
 is
 to
 suggest
 the
 most
 feasible
 policies
 to
  which
 said
 funding
 should
 be
 appropriated.
 Consequently,
 the
 oyster
 population
  stock
 in
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 will
 increase
 to
 a
 level
 that
 would
 support
 sustainable
  commercial
 harvests
 in
 the
 future,
 renew
 the
 region’s
 oyster-­‐based
 cultural
 identity,
  and
 allow
 the
 oyster
 to
 fulfill
 its
 keystone
 ecological
 role
 in
 the
 Bay
 ecosystem.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2010.
 Print.
 
2
 A
 Dwindling
 Catch.
 Dir.
 Matt
 Danzeco.
 Perf.
 Oystermen
 Across
 the
 Bay.
 Discovery
 Channel,
 
  1
 Baker,
 William.
 2010
 State
 of
 the
 Bay.
 Annapolis,
 Maryland:
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 Foundation,
 

2008.
 Film.
 
3
 Seltzer,
 Craig.
 Final
 Programmatic
 Environmental
 Impact
 Statement
 for.
 Norfolk,
 VA:
 U.S.
 
 

Army
 Corps
 of
 Engineers,
 Norfolk
 District,
 2008.
 Print.
  2010.
 Print.
 

4
 Baker,
 William.
 2010
 State
 of
 the
 Bay.
 Annapolis,
 Maryland:
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 Foundation,
 


 

1
 

Historic
 Downfalls
 of
 Commercial
 Harvesting
  According
 to
 a
 recent
 publication
 in
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 Journal,
 commercial
  harvests
 of
 Bay
 oysters
 began
 to
 decline
 steadily
 following
 the
 development
 of
  commercial
 “dredging”
 in
 the
 1820’s
 and
 the
 rising
 popularity
 of
 “steam
 canning”
 in
  the
 1870’s.
 Namely,
 this
 decline
 is
 attributable
 to
 the
 expedited
 rate
 at
 which
  watermen
 could
 harvest
 oysters
 in
 comparison
 to
 the
 rate
 of
 harvest
 achieved
 by
  the
 traditional
 hand
 tong
 method.
 Commercial
 dredging
 is
 also
 threatening
 to
 the
  physical
 integrity
 of
 century
 old
 reefs,
 as
 the
 equipment
 is
 known
 to
 both
 break
 off
  shells
 that
 serve
 as
 the
 reef
 bottom
 substrate
 and
 to
 inadvertently
 killing
 oysters
  that
 were
 too
 small
 to
 harvest,
 thereby
 lessening
 the
 stock
 for
 future
 harvests.5
 
  Cultural
 Value
 of
 the
 Eastern
 Oyster
  The
 publication
 Nonnative
 Oysters
 in
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 indicates
 that
 the
 Eastern
  oyster
 was
 once
 so
 plentiful
 in
 the
 Bay
 that
 it
 inspired
 the
 Algonquian
 tribe
 to
 name
  the
 Bay
 “great
 shellfish
 bay”
 or
 “Chesepiook”.
 The
 oyster
 is
 also
 a
 key
 part
 of
 the
 Bay
  area
 culture
 because
 of
 its
 role
 as
 a
 valuable
 food
 resource
 to
 the
 Native
 American
  tribes
 and
 early
 European
 settlers
 that
 developed
 into
 a
 booming
 export
 commodity
  in
 the
 1800’s.
 The
 rate
 of
 harvest
 also
 increased
 at
 this
 time
 due
 to
 the
 efficiency
  provided
 by
 the
 new
 and
 popularized
 “skipjack”
 sailboats
 that
 are
 to
 this
 day
  symbolic
 of
 historic
 Bay
 culture.
 This
 vested
 interest
 in
 oysters
 by
 settlers
 in
 the
 Bay
  region
 led
 the
 Chesapeake
 oyster
 fishery
 to
 become
 the
 most
 sizable
 in
 the
 world
  during
 this
 time
 period
 due
 to
 the
 evolving
 technology
 that
 was
 becoming
  increasingly
 available.
 Furthermore,
 towns
 such
 as
 Crisfield
 and
 Saint
 Mary’s
 on
 the
  Eastern
 Shore
 of
 Maryland
 came
 to
 be
 and
 flourished
 on
 the
 premise
 of
 the
 local
  oyster
 abundance.
 The
 Eastern
 oyster
 has
 acted
 as
 a
 symbol
 of
 economic
 prosperity
  and
 rich
 Bay
 culture
 ever
 since.6
 
  Ecological
 Value
 of
 the
 Eastern
 Oyster
  The
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 Field
 Guide
 asserts
 that
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 Oyster,
 known
 as
  Crassotrea
 virginica,
 can
 be
 found
 in
 shallow
 areas
 of
 the
 Bay,
 from
 8
 feet
 to
 35
 feet.
  They
 are
 categorized
 as
 “bivalve
 mollusks”,
 which
 can
 be
 found
 in
 all
 areas
 of
 the
  Chesapeake
 Bay
 estuary
 regardless
 of
 the
 range
 of
 saline
 conditions
 present
 across
  the
 Bay.
 Oysters
 are
 seeded
 in
 concentrated
 benthic
 areas,
 and
 attach
 to
 each
 other
  to
 form
 dense
 reefs
 that
 serve
 a
 specific
 ecological
 niche,
 a
 refuge
 for
 other
 bottom-­‐ dwelling
 organisms
 such
 as
 crabs.
 They
 are
 considered
 to
 be
 a
 “keystone
 species”
  because
 of
 their
 ability
 to
 filter
 up
 to
 50
 gallons
 of
 water
 each
 day;
 in
 this
 process
 of
  nutrient
 uptake
 and
 filtration,
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 oyster
 allows
 for
 reduced
  sediment
 suspension
 and
 thus
 progressively
 higher
 water
 quality.7
 The
 oyster
 plays
  a
 vital
 role
 in
 the
 Bay’s
 ecosystem.
 Efforts
 must
 be
 made
 to
 restore
 the
 native
 oyster
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5
 Blankenship,
 Karl.
 "Chesapeake's
 Oyster
 Reefs
 Have
 Taken
 a
 Shellacking."
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 
 

Journal
 1
 Jan.
 2010:
 n.
 pag.
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 Journal.
 Web.
 14
 Sept.
 2011.
 
 
 
6
 Nonnative
 Oysters
 in
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay.
 Washington,
 D.C.:
 Committee
 on
 Nonnative
 
  7
 Eastern

Oysters
 in
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay,
 National
 Research
 Council,
 2004.
 Print.
  Oyster - Bay Field Guide - Chesapeake Bay Program. A Watershed Partnership. Chesapeake Bay Program, 2011.
 


 

2
 

population
 or
 to
 replenish
 it
 through
 other
 means
 in
 order
 for
 the
 ecological
 state
 of
  the
 Bay
 to
 be
 on
 the
 rise
 for
 the
 first
 time
 in
 decades.
 
 
  Economic
 Value
 of
 the
 Eastern
 Oyster
  The
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 Foundation
 pamphlet
 On
 the
 Brink:
 Chesapeake’s
 Native
 Oysters
  dictates
 that
 the
 harvesting
 of
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 oysters
 is
 paramount
 to
 the
 Bay’s
  economic
 health.
 In
 fact,
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 is
 one
 of
 two
 remaining
 places
 in
 the
  world
 where
 an
 industry
 based
 upon
 harvesting
 wild
 oysters
 still
 exists.
 Historically,
  the
 peak
 of
 shellfish
 harvesting
 in
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 took
 place
 around
 the
 1880’s,
  when
 about
 50,000
 oystermen
 made
 a
 living
 off
 of
 the
 120
 million
 pounds
 (or
 17
  million
 bushels)
 of
 oysters
 that
 were
 harvested
 each
 year.
 The
 last
 25
 years
 of
 the
  oyster
 industry
 has
 been
 marked
 by
 economic
 plight,
 as
 oyster
 harvests
 have
 fallen
  by
 90%
 and
 the
 number
 of
 oystermen
 have
 seen
 a
 75%
 decline.
 By
 2009,
 only
 about
  1,000
 citizens
 of
 Virginia
 and
 Maryland
 combined
 had
 oyster
 harvesting
 licenses,
 a
  mere
 2%
 of
 the
 oystermen
 count
 in
 the
 late
 19th
 century.
 Even
 more
 striking
 is
 that
  many
 of
 said
 license-­‐holders
 are
 inactive
 today
 because
 of
 the
 declining
 oysters
  available
 to
 harvest.
 Oyster
 decline
 leading
 to
 the
 destruction
 of
 the
 Bay’s
 fishing
  community
 is
 also
 evidenced
 through
 the
 disappearance
 of
 oyster
 shucking
 houses
  that
 were
 once
 commonplace
 across
 the
 Bay.
 In
 1974,
 136
 shucking
 houses
 served
  as
 a
 rich
 source
 of
 jobs
 to
 watermen
 in
 the
 Bay
 area.
 Today,
 less
 than
 ten
 remain.8
 
 
 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8
 Chesapeake

9
 

Bay Foundation, On the Brink: Chesapeake's Native Oysters. 2010.

9
 Chesapeake Bay Foundation, On the Brink: Chesapeake's Native Oysters. 2010.
 


  3
 


 

Oyster
 Diseases
 
  In
 concurrence
 with
 the
 2010
 State
 of
 the
 Bay
 report,
 the
 more
 recent
 decline
 in
  oyster
 stock
 population
 is
 partially
 attributable
 to
 the
 oyster
 diseases
 Dermo
 and
  MSX.
 Both
 diseases
 are
 caused
 by
 protozoan
 parasites
 first
 detected
 in
 the
 Bay
 in
  1949.
 While
 these
 diseases
 are
 fatal
 to
 Eastern
 oysters,
 they
 are
 harmless
 to
  humans.10
 
 
  Dermo
 is
 contracted
 amongst
 Eastern
 oysters
 as
 they
 filter
 water
 for
 food.
  Infected
 oysters
 experience
 weakening
 of
 the
 muscle
 that
 opens
 and
 closes
  the
 shell,
 and
 eventually
 die
 from
 starvation.
 The
 disease
 is
 so
 prevalent
  because
 diseased
 oysters
 have
 the
 potential
 to
 spread
 the
 parasite
 across
 a
  reef
 by
 releasing
 the
 parasites
 into
 the
 water
 after
 death.11
 More
 saline
  waters
 allow
 for
 greater
 spread
 of
 the
 disease.12
 This
 infection
 poses
 a
 threat
  to
 market-­‐size,
 adult
 oysters
 in
 particular,
 as
 their
 greater
 rate
 of
 filtration
  increase
 their
 chances
 of
 coming
 into
 contact
 with
 the
 parasite.
 The
 average
  mortality
 rate
 of
 market-­‐size
 oysters
 across
 the
 Bay
 from
 1991-­‐2004
 is
  approximately
 5%
 -­‐
 90%,
 and
 is
 highly
 dependent
 on
 the
 salinity
 and
  prevalence
 of
 the
 disease
 in
 given
 oyster
 bars.13
 
 
  MSX
 is
 an
 intravenous
 infection
 that
 causes
 difficulty
 with
 an
 oyster’s
  respiration
 and
 eating,
 eventually
 leading
 to
 death.14
 Believed
 to
 have
 been
  introduced
 by
 the
 illegal
 importation
 of
 the
 Pacific
 oyster,
 it
 poses
 a
 greater
  threat
 to
 adult
 oysters
 in
 the
 same
 manner
 as
 that
 of
 Dermis.15
 Similarly
 to
  Dermis,
 it
 thrives
 in
 higher
 salinities
 and
 water
 temperature.16
 
  Both
 diseases
 continue
 to
 threaten
 the
 native
 Eastern
 oyster
 population
 stock,
 as
  they
 both
 kill
 oysters
 prior
 to
 the
 time
 at
 which
 they
 can
 be
 harvested
 and
 eliminate
  oysters
 before
 they
 are
 at
 the
 age
 to
 reproduce.
 Namely,
 the
 oyster
 reefs
 in
 the
  Southern
 region
 of
 the
 Bay
 in
 Virginia
 suffer
 from
 the
 spread
 of
 the
 diseases,
 as
 they
  are
 subject
 to
 more
 saline
 conditions
 and
 higher
 water
 temperatures.17
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  10
 Baker,
 William.
 2010
 State
 of
 the
 Bay.
 Annapolis,
 Maryland:
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 Foundation,
 
 
2010.
 
 
11
 Nonnative
 Oysters
 in
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay.
 Washington,
 D.C.:
 Committee
 on
 Nonnative
  12
 Mackin,
 J.S.
 1956.
 Dermocystidium
 marinum
 and
 salinity.
 Proceedings
 of
 the
 National
 

Oysters
 in
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay,
 National
 Research
 Council,
 2004.
 Print.
  Shellfisheries
 Association
 46:
 116-­‐128.
 

13
 Barber,
 B.J.
 and
 R.
 Mann.
 1994.
 Growth
 and
 mortality
 of
 eastern
 oysters,
 Crassostrea
 

virginica
 under
 challenge
 from
 the
 parasite,
 Perkinsus
 marinus.
 Journal
 of
 Shellfish
 Research
  13:
 109-­‐114.
 

14
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 Foundation,
 On
 the
 Brink:
 Chesapeake's
 Native
 Oysters.
 2010.
 

15
 Mackin,
 J.S.
 1956.
 Dermocystidium
 marinum
 and
 salinity.
 Proceedings
 of
 the
 National
 

Shellfisheries
 Association
 46:
 116-­‐128.
 
16
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 Foundation,
 On
 the
 Brink:
 Chesapeake's
 Native
 Oysters.
 2010.
  17
 Mackin,
 J.S.
 1956.
 Dermocystidium
 marinum
 and
 salinity.
 Proceedings
 of
 the
 National
 

Shellfisheries
 Association
 46:
 116-­‐128.
 


 

4
 

Stakeholders
 
  All
 referenced
 “stakeholders”
 have
 played
 vital
 roles
 in
 prior
 oyster
 restoration
  efforts
 in
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 and
 would
 inevitably
 play
 a
 role
 in
 any
 policy
  proposed.18
 
  Government
 Agencies:
  Environmental
 Protection
 Agency
 (EPA),
 National
 Atmospheric
 and
 Oceanic
  Administration
 (NOAA),
 Department
 of
 the
 Interior
 (DOI)
 –
 including
 the
 Fish
 and
  Wildlife
 Service
 (FWS),
 The
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 Program
 (CBP)
 –
 Scientific
 and
  Technical
 Advisory
 Committee
 (STAC)
 and
 Citizens
 Advisory
 Committee
 (CAC)
 
  Non-­Governmental
 Organizations:
  Chesapeake
 Bay
 Foundation
 (CBF),
 Virginia
 Seafood
 Council,
 Oyster
 Reef
 Keepers
 of
  Virginia,
 Virginia
 Watermen’s
 Association,
 Maryland
 Watermen’s
 Association,
  Defenders
 of
 Wildlife,
 National
 Wildlife
 Federation
 
  Individuals
 with
 vested
 interests/donors:
  The
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 Trust,
 The
 Nature
 Conservancy,
 Restore
 America’s
 Estuaries,
  Butch
 Butt
 Memorial
 Foundation,
 The
 Cabell
 Foundation,
 The
 Keith
 Campbell
  Foundation
 for
 the
 Environment,
 Pew
 Charitable
 Trusts,
 Virginia
 Wellington
 Cabot
  Foundation19
 
  Advisory
 Commissions
 and
 Multi-­State
 Commissions:
  Virginia
 Institute
 of
 Marine
 Science
 (VIMS),
 Virginia
 and
 Maryland
 Departments
 of
  Environmental
 Quality
 (VA
 DEQ
 and
 MD
 DEQ),
 Atlantic
 States
 Marine
 Fisheries
  Commission,
 Delaware
 River
 Basin
 Fish
 and
 Wildlife
 Cooperative
 
  Businesses:
  Marinetics,
 Hazelwood
 Oyster
 Farms,
 Bevan’s
 Oyster
 Company,
 Mason
 Seafood,
  Rappahannock
 River
 Oysters,
 Oyster
 King
 1,
 Incorporated,
 the
 seafood
 restaurant
  industry
 in
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 area
 
  Oystermen
 and
 Shucking
 Houses
 on
 the
 Bay:
  The
 1,000
 citizens
 of
 Maryland
 and
 Virginia
 who
 possess
 oyster
 harvesting
 licenses
  and
 the
 10
 oyster
 shucking
 houses
 that
 remain
 in
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 region.20
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
18
 U.S.
 Army
 Corps
 of
 Engineers:
 Oyster
 Restoration
 Plan,
 2010.
 
  19
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 Foundation,
 On
 the
 Brink:
 Chesapeake's
 Native
 Oysters.
 2010.
  20
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 Foundation,
 On
 the
 Brink:
 Chesapeake's
 Native
 Oysters.
 2010.


  5
 


 


  Past
 Policies
 and
 Initiatives:
  Historically,
 efforts
 to
 restore
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 oysters
 have
 been
 made
 in
 the
  pattern
 of
 research
 followed
 by
 experimental
 implementation,
 as
 seen
 in
 Box
 6.1.21
 
 


  Past
 Policy
 and
 Current
 Restoration
 Efforts
 


  Chesapeake
 2000
 Agreement:
  Most
 recently,
 Section
 1.1.1
 of
 the
 Chesapeake
 2000
 Agreement
 (prepared
 by
 the
  Marine
 Resources
 Commission),
 states
 that
 the
 oyster
 restoration
 goal
 of
 “…by
  2010,
 at
 a
 minimum,
 a
 tenfold
 increase
 in
 native
 oysters
 of
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay,
  based
 upon
 a
 1994
 baseline.”
 In
 reaction
 to
 said
 agreement,
 little
 incremental
  progress
 has
 been
 made
 as
 of
 2008
 in
 the
 states
 of
 Maryland
 and
 Virginia.
 Both
  states
 have
 allocated
 a
 great
 deal
 of
 their
 funding
 towards
 artificial
 habitat
  construction,
 in
 which
 83
 reefs
 across
 the
 Bay
 have
 been
 restored
 with
 the
 shells
 of
  oysters
 that
 have
 been
 commercially
 harvested.
 However,
 Virginia’s
 “Blue
 Ribbon
  Oyster
 Panel”
 released
 a
 review
 in
 2007,
 criticizing
 the
 failure
 of
 current
 Bay
  restoration
 efforts
 and
 urging
 states
 to
 renew
 their
 focus
 on
 aquaculture.22
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
21
 Nonnative
 Oysters
 in
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay.
 Washington,
 D.C.:
 Committee
 on
 Nonnative
 


 

Oysters
 in
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay,
 National
 Research
 Council,
 2004.
 Print.
 

22
 "Policy:
 Ecosystem
 Based
 Fisheries
 Management
 for
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay."
 Maryland
 Sea
 

Grant.
 N.p.,
 n.d.
 Web.
 10
 Oct.
 2011.
 <http://www.mdsg.umd.edu/programs/policy/ebfm/>.
 


 

6
 


  Introducing
 sterile,
 hatchery-­‐produced
 and
 disease-­‐resistant
 non-­‐native
 oysters
  (“Suminoe
 oyster”,
 or
 native
 Chinese
 C.
 ariakensis)
 in
 order
 to
 increase
 the
 native
  Chesapeake
 Bay
 oyster
 population
 and
 prevent
 the
 complete
 demise
 of
 the
 Eastern
  Oyster
 (C.
 virginica).
 In
 lieu
 of
 introducing
 reproductive
 Suminoe
 oyster
 directly
  from
 Asia,
 this
 highly-­‐regulated
 form
 of
 sterile,
 non-­‐reproductive
 oysters
 in
 an
  aquaculture
 setting
 would
 help
 to
 boost
 the
 oyster
 industry
 while
 further
 research
  is
 being
 done
 to
 assess
 the
 risks
 of
 introducing
 the
 non-­‐native,
 reproductive
 forms
  of
 the
 Suminoe
 oyster
 into
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 ecosystem.23
 Culturally
 and
  historically,
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 Region
 is
 known
 for
 its
 shellfish
 harvests.
 Restoring
  the
 population
 in
 the
 timeliest
 manner
 possible
 would
 lead
 to
 the
 re-­‐creation
 of
 this
  identity
 that
 shapes
 the
 area’s
 culture.
  Positive
 Facets
 of
 the
 Policy
 Option:
  Research
 on
 C.
 ariakensis
 has
 supported
 the
 scientific
 notion
 that
 these
 non-­‐native
  oysters
 are
 more
 resistant
 to
 both
 DMX
 and
 dermis,
 two
 of
 the
 most
 prevalent
  oyster
 diseases
 in
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 that
 have
 partially
 contributed
 to
 the
 demise
  of
 the
 native
 C.
 virginica
 because
 the
 Suminoe
 oysters
 are
 more
 resilient
 to
  variations
 in
 water
 salinity
 than
 is
 the
 native
 oyster
 populations.24
 The
 Suminoe
  oyster
 has
 also
 been
 scientifically
 proven
 to
 grow
 faster
 than
 the
 native
 oyster
  species.25
 The
 introduction
 of
 this
 species
 could
 potentially
 help
 to
 boost
 the
 oyster
  populations
 in
 the
 southern
 part
 of
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 estuary
 in
 Virginia,
 where
  the
 salinity
 is
 known
 to
 be
 higher
 than
 the
 northern
 part
 of
 the
 Bay
 estuary.
 
  Also,
 of
 all
 other
 approaches
 proposed
 by
 the
 U.S.
 Army
 Corps
 of
 Engineers,
 this
  policy
 option
 would
 allow
 for
 the
 highest
 biomass
 increase
 of
 oysters
 in
 the
  Chesapeake
 Bay
 in
 the
 shortest
 time
 frame.26
 In
 addition
 to
 the
 U.S.
 Army
 Corps
 of
  Engineers,
 governmental
 agencies
 on
 both
 the
 federal
 and
 state
 level
 such
 as
 NOAA,
  the
 EPA,
 the
 Commonwealths
 of
 Virginia
 and
 Maryland
 would
 work
 collaboratively
  to
 foster
 this
 policy
 implementation
 plan,
 so
 that
 “agency
 and
 government
 agendas”
  would
 not
 adversely
 affect
 this
 policy.
 
  Contrasting
 with
 the
 proposed
 harvest
 moratorium
 that
 would
 need
 to
 take
 place
 to
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
23
 Nonnative
 Oysters
 in
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay.
 Washington,
 D.C.:
 Committee
 on
 Nonnative
 


  Policy
 Option
 #1:
 Introduction
 of
 Non-­‐Native
 Oysters
 

Oysters
 in
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay,
 National
 Research
 Council,
 2004.
 Print.
 
24
 Burreson,
 Eugene.
 "A
 Comparative
 Field
 Study
 of
 Crassostrea
 ariakensis
 and
 Crassostrea
 

virginica
 in
 Relation
 to
 Salinity
 in
 Virginia."
 Applied
 Marine
 Science
 and
 Ocean
 Engineering
  360
 (2000):
 1-­‐46.
 Virginia
 Institute
 of
 Marine
 Science.
 Web.
 10
 Oct.
 2011.
  25
 Wood,
 Pamela.
 "'Asian'
 Oyster
 Study
 Will
 Offer
 Few
 Answers."
 Hometown
 Annapolis
 8
 Oct.
  2009:
 C4-­‐C5.
 Print.
  26
 Seltzer,
 Craig.
 Final
 Programmatic
 Environmental
 Impact
 Statement
 for.
 Norfolk,
 VA:
 U.S.
  Army
 Corps
 of
 Engineers,
 Norfolk
 District,
 2008.
 Print.
 


 

7
 

maintain
 current
 (already
 low)
 levels,
 this
 action
 would
 not
 put
 the
 watermen
 who
  depend
 on
 the
 Bay’s
 resources
 for
 economic
 purposes
 out
 of
 work.
 In
 fact,
 if
 this
  policy
 were
 to
 increase
 yields,
 the
 watermen
 and
 the
 seafood
 market
 would
  experience
 an
 increase
 in
 business.27
  Negative
 Facets
 of
 this
 Policy
 Option:
  Although
 only
 non-­‐reproductive
 Suminoe
 oysters
 would
 be
 raised
 in
 specifically
  designated
 aquaculture-­‐based
 areas,
 the
 effects
 of
 doing
 so
 have
 not
 been
 fully
  investigated,
 as
 non-­‐native
 species
 interactions
 in
 a
 foreign
 environment
 are
  unpredictable.
 This
 scientific
 uncertainty
 leaves
 room
 for
 potential
 damages
 to
 the
  fragile
 state
 of
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 ecosystem
  It
 is
 also
 difficult
 acquiring
 a
 “Section
 10”
 permit,
 as
 it
 takes
 a
 great
 deal
 of
 time,
  research,
 and
 cooperation
 between
 the
 US
 Army
 Corps
 of
 Engineers
 and
 the
 Fish
  and
 Wildlife
 Service
 (FWS).
 The
 FWS
 conducts
 habitat
 surveys,
 and
 evaluates
 likely
  ecological
 impacts
 of
 proposed
 actions,
 and
 making
 recommendations
 to
 the
 Corps
  based
 on
 their
 findings.
 “Their
 input
 to
 the
 Corps
 is
 provided
 both
 verbally
 and
 in
  written
 documents
 such
 as
 Coordination
 Act
 Reports,
 Planning
 Aid
 Reports,
 and
  Planning
 Aid
 Letters”.28
 
 
  Supporting
 Stakeholders:
  The
 State
 of
 Maryland
 and
 the
 Commonwealth
 of
 Virginia
 are
 likely
 to
 support
 this
  proposal,
 as
 both
 have
 voiced
 support
 for
 similar
 policy
 proposals:
  “The
 State
 of
 Maryland
 and
 Commonwealth
 of
 Virginia
 propose
 to
 introduce
 the
  nonnative
 Suminoe
 oyster
 into
 the
 tidal
 waters
 of
 Maryland
 and
 Virginia
 for
 the
  purpose
 of
 establishing
 a
 naturalized,
 reproducing,
 and
 self-­sustaining
 population
 of
  this
 Asian
 species.
 Diploid
 Suminoe
 oysters
 would
 be
 propagated
 from
 existing
 third
 or
  later
 generations
 of
 the
 Oregon
 stock
 of
 this
 species,
 in
 accordance
 with
 the
 ICES
 Code
  of
 Practices
 on
 the
 Introductions
 and
 Transfers
 of
 Marine
 Organisms
 1994
 (ICES
  1995).
 Diploid
 Suminoe
 oysters
 produced
 in
 hatcheries
 would
 be
 deployed
 first
 on
  State-­designated
 sanctuaries
 (separate
 from
 native
 oyster
 restoration
 projects),
 where
  harvesting
 would
 be
 prohibited
 permanently,
 then
 on
 harvest
 reserves
 and
 special
  management
 areas,
 where
 selective
 harvesting
 would
 be
 allowed.
 The
 States
 further
  propose
 to
 continue
 efforts
 to
 restore
 the
 native
 Eastern
 oyster
 throughout
 the
  Chesapeake
 Bay
 by
 using
 the
 best
 available
 restoration
 strategies
 and
 stock
  assessment
 techniques,
 including
 maintaining
 and
 expanding
 the
 existing
 network
 of
  sanctuaries
 and
 harvest
 reserves,
 enhancing
 the
 brood
 stock,
 and
 supplementing
 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
27
 Seltzer,
 Craig.
 Final
 Programmatic
 Environmental
 Impact
 Statement
 for.
 Norfolk,
 VA:
 U.S.
 

Army
 Corps
 of
 Engineers,
 Norfolk
 District,
 2008.
 Print.
 

28
 U.S.
 Army
 Corps
 of
 Engineers.
 "Army
 Corps
 Section
 404/Section
 10."
 Section
 10
 Permits.
 

N.p.,
 n.d.
 Web.
 11
 Oct.
 2011.
 <www.in.gov/indot/files/24_army.pdf>.
 


 

8
 

natural
 recruitment
 of
 the
 species
 with
 hatchery-­produced
 spat.”
 29
 
 
  Other
 potential
 supporters
 of
 the
 policy
 include
 the
 Johns
 Hopkins
 School
 of
 Public
  Health,
 as
 it
 recently
 released
 a
 study
 supporting
 the
 introduction
 of
 non-­‐native
  oysters
 and
 the
 economic
 benefits
 that
 doing
 so
 could
 provide.
 As
 stated
 by
 the
  study,
 Suminoe
 oysters
 are
 more
 effective
 at
 filtering
 out
 algal
 blooms
 created
 by
  pollutants
 than
 are
 native
 Eastern
 oysters.30
 
  The
 Committee
 on
 Non-­‐Native
 Oysters
 in
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 would
 also
 be
  proponents
 of
 the
 policy,
 as
 is
 has
 found
 much
 research
 in
 favor
 of
 the
 notion
 and
  worked
 in
 congruence
 with
 both
 the
 Maryland
 Sea
 Grant
 and
 the
 Virginia
 Sea
 Grant.
  Politicians
 in
 Maryland
 and
 Virginia
 would
 support
 this
 notion,
 as
 it
 would
 increase
  regional
 jobs,
 foster
 regional
 industries
 and
 boost
 state
 revenue.
  Members
 of
 the
 Maryland
 Watermen’s
 Association
 and
 Maryland
 Seafood
 Council
  and
 members
 of
 the
 Virginia
 Watermen’s
 Association
 and
 the
 Virginia
 Seafood
  Council
 would
 benefit
 from
 this
 aquaculture-­‐based
 policy,
 as
 their
 future
 catches
  and
 economy
 would
 have
 potential
 to
 increase.
  Oyster-­‐Based
 Businesses
 such
 as:
 Marinetics,
 Hazelwood
 Oyster
 Farms,
 Bevan’s
  Oyster
 Company,
 Mason
 Seafood,
 Rappahannock
 River
 Oysters,
 Oyster
 King
 1,
 Inc.
  would
 benefit
 from
 seeing
 the
 potential
 economic
 gains
 and
 cultural
 reformation
  that
 would
 take
 place
 in
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 Region
 as
 a
 result
 of
 this
 policy
  increasing
 oyster
 biomass
 in
 the
 Bay.
 
 
  Opposing
 Stakeholders:
  The
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 Foundation
 would
 likely
 oppose
 this
 policy.
 It
 has
 asserted
 in
  the
 past
 that,
 despite
 the
 emerging
 evidence
 that
 such
 aquaculture
 could
 benefit
 the
  oyster
 population,
 there
 is
 not
 yet
 enough
 scientific
 research
 to
 support
 that
 the
  Suminoe
 oyster
 would
 not
 pose
 a
 potential
 threat
 to
 the
 Bay
 ecosystem.
 
  Environmental
 groups
 such
 as
 “Defenders
 of
 Wildlife”
 would
 likely
 call
 for
 more
  research
 to
 be
 done
 before
 a
 non-­‐native
 species
 is
 introduced
 to
 the
 Chesapeake
  Bay.
 
  The
 U.S.
 Army
 Corps
 of
 Engineers
 would
 likely
 be
 wary
 of
 the
 proposed
 policy
  because
 of
 the
 governmental
 regulations
 in
 place,
 such
 as
 Article
 10,
 that
 would
 be
  both
 time-­‐consuming
 and
 fiscally
 unsound.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
29
 Seltzer,
 Craig.
 Final
 Programmatic
 Environmental
 Impact
 Statement
 for.
 Norfolk,
 VA:
 U.S.
  30
 University
 of
 Miami.
 "Marine
 Conservation
 Science
 and
 Policy
 Service
 Learning
 Program."
 

Army
 Corps
 of
 Engineers,
 Norfolk
 District,
 2008.
 Print.
 

Marine
 Issues:
 Non-­native
 Species.
 N.p.,
 n.d.
 Web.
 10
 Oct.
 2011.
  <http://rjd.miami.edu/learning-­‐tools/high-­‐ school/MODULE%204%20Marine%20Issues%20-­‐ %20SECTION%205%20Invasive%20Species.pdf>.
 


 

9
 

NOAA
 may
 pose
 an
 opposition,
 as
 this
 project
 requires
 more
 research
 while
  implementing
 a
 costly
 aquaculture
 system.
 As
 the
 primary
 source
 of
 funding
 in
 the
  past,
 this
 governmental
 agency
 may
 require
 more
 research
 before
 even
 this
 trial
 of
  non-­‐reproductive
 oysters
 are
 placed
 in
 the
 Bay.31
 
  Policy
 Option
 Implementation:
  The
 National
 Environmental
 Policy
 Act
 (NEPA)
 would
 certainly
 call
 for
 a
 more
  thorough
 investigation
 of
 the
 proposed
 initiative
 and
 any
 other
 alternatives
 because
  of
 the
 potential
 impact
 that
 could
 be
 had
 on
 the
 Bay.
 
 But,
 this
 act
 and
 C.
 ariakensis
  introduction
 would
 also
 take
 place
 under
 Section
 10
 of
 the
 “Rivers
 and
 Harbors
 Act
  of
 1899”,
 which
 states
 that
 project
 authorization
 for
 in-­‐water
 structures
 necessary
  to
 harvest
 C.
 ariakensis
 would
 be
 needed
 by
 the
 US
 Army
 Corps
 of
 Engineers.
 32
  This
 project
 is
 consistent
 with
 Section
 10
 of
 the
 “Fish
 and
 Wildlife
 Coordination
 Act”,
  the
 Corps’
 take
 on
 the
 matter
 of
 non-­‐native
 species
 introduction
 would
 lead
 the
  Corps
 to
 develop
 more
 research
 on
 considering
 the
 ecological
 consequences
 of
 the
  proposed
 action.
 33
  Implementation
 over
 the
 course
 of
 the
 10
 year
 trial
 period
 would
 be
 performed
 by
  the
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 Program’s
 Goal
 Implementation
 Team
 for
 Sustainable
 Fisheries,
  which
 has
 aided
 the
 Maryland
 Sea
 Grant
 on
 their
 current
 project,
 “Ecosystem-­‐Based
  Fisheries
 Management
 –
 A
 Cooperative
 Project”.34
  Funding
 would
 be
 designated
 by
 the
 National
 Atmospheric
 and
 Oceanic
  Administration
 (NOAA),
 as
 it
 has
 been
 designating
 funding
 for
 oyster
 restoration
 in
  the
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 in
 the
 past.
 35
 
 
NOAA
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 Office
 Annual
 Funding
 for
 Native
 Oyster
 Restoration
 by
 Year
 
1997
  1998
  1998
  1999
  2000
  2001
  2002
  2003
  2004
  2005
  2006
  2007
  2008
  2009
  $26K
  $26K
  $220K
  $1.02M
  $1.03M
  $1.06M
  $2.13M
  $1.97M
  $4.08M
  $4.0M
  $5.7M
  $2.9M
  $1.7M
  $4.6M
 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
31
 Seltzer,
 Craig.
 Final
 Programmatic
 Environmental
 Impact
 Statement
 for.
 Norfolk,
 VA:
 U.S.
 

32
 Nonnative
 Oysters
 in
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay.
 Washington,
 D.C.:
 Committee
 on
 Nonnative
 
 

Army
 Corps
 of
 Engineers,
 Norfolk
 District,
 2008.
 Print.
 

Oysters
 in
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay,
 National
 Research
 Council,
 2004.
 Print.
 
33
 "Fish
 and
 Wildlife
 Conservation
 And
 Water
 Resource
 Developments-­‐Coordination."
 Fish
 

and
 Wildlife
 Coordination
 Act.
 Washington,
 D.C.:
 U.S.
 Legislature,
 1934.
 661-­‐667e.
 Print.
 
34
 "Policy:
 Ecosystem
 Based
 Fisheries
 Management
 for
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay."
 Maryland
 Sea
  35
 "NOAA
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 Office
 Annual
 Funding
 for
 Native
 Oyster
 Restoration
 by
 Year."
 

Grant.
 N.p.,
 n.d.
 Web.
 10
 Oct.
 2011.
 <http://www.mdsg.umd.edu/programs/policy/ebfm/>.
  NOAA:
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 Office.
 N.p.,
 n.d.
 Web.
 11
 Oct.
 2011.
 
 


 

10
 


 
  Policy
 Option
 #2:
 Imposing
 a
 Bay-­‐wide
 Harvest
 Moratorium
 on
 Native
 Oysters
 in
  Conjunction
 with
 a
 Transitional
 Program
 for
 Displaced
 Oystermen
 
  The
 imposition
 of
 a
 native
 oyster
 harvest
 moratorium
 in
 continuation
 with
 current
  native
 oyster
 restoration
 projects
 taking
 place
 across
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 would
  potentially
 serve
 to
 offset
 the
 historic
 oyster
 losses
 as
 demonstrated
 in
 the
 problem
  section.
 Implementing
 a
 temporary,
 (10
 year)
 bay-­‐wide
 oyster
 harvest
 moratorium
  could
 serve
 to
 increase
 the
 native
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 oyster
 population
 while
  preventing
 the
 complete
 demise
 of
 the
 Eastern
 Oyster
 (C.
 virginica).
 Such
 drastic
  policy
 implementation
 that
 was
 once
 completely
 resisted
 by
 stakeholders
 across
 the
  board
 has
 recently
 gained
 media
 attention
 through
 a
 recently
 released
 study.36
 This
  study,
 conducted
 by
 the
 University
 of
 Maryland
 Center
 for
 Environmental
 Science,
  concluded
 that
 a
 harvest
 moratorium
 would
 be
 the
 only
 way
 to
 potentially
 increase
  oyster
 biomass
 in
 the
 Bay.
 As
 stated
 in
 the
 final
 publication
 that
 appeared
 in
 the
  academic
 journal
 Marine
 Ecology
 Progress
 Series,
 over
 99%
 of
 the
 native
 Chesapeake
  Bay
 oysters
 have
 been
 eliminated
 from
 the
 bay
 since
 their
 peak
 in
 the
 early
  1800’s.37
 Reversing
 this
 trend
 would
 ultimately
 be
 the
 goal
 of
 a
 harvest
 moratorium,
  in
 which
 the
 oyster
 stock
 may
 ultimately
 be
 able
 to
 rebuild
 to
 a
 level
 that
 would
  support
 a
 sustainable
 commercial
 harvest
 in
 the
 future.
  However,
 such
 legislation
 would
 eliminate
 oyster
 catches
 for
 the
 local
 watermen
 in
  the
 short
 term,
 amongst
 other
 economic
 factors.
 In
 response
 to
 this
 concern,
 it
 is
  proposed
 that
 the
 Commonwealth
 of
 Virginia
 and
 the
 State
 of
 Maryland
 could
 each
  create
 a
 program
 under
 which
 provisionally
 displaced
 oystermen
 could
 be
 offered
  on-­‐water
 work
 in
 current
 oyster
 aquaculture
 and
 sanctuary
 programs
 across
 the
  breadth
 of
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay.
 Such
 a
 proposal
 would
 offset
 some
 of
 the
  anticipated
 economic
 burden
 that
 watermen
 in
 the
 oyster
 industry
 would
 face
 in
 the
  temporary
 elimination
 of
 their
 catches.
 
  Positive
 Facets
 of
 the
 Policy
 Option:
  Fiscal
 Benefits
 for
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 Fishery-­‐Related
 Industries
  From
 a
 fiscal
 perspective,
 a
 temporary
 oyster
 moratorium
 would
 be
 beneficial
 to
  those
 who
 depend
 on
 the
 Bay’s
 oysters
 to
 support
 their
 livelihood.
 Fiscally,
 due
 to
  the
 fact
 that
 the
 moratorium
 would
 only
 be
 a
 temporary
 imposition,
 benefits
 to
 the
  fishery
 system
 of
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 would
 be
 clear
 as
 soon
 as
 the
 moratorium
 was
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  36
 Fears, Darryl. "Study Calls for Halting Oyster Fishing in the Chesapeake Bay." The
Washington Post [Washington, D.C.] 1 Sept. 2011: D4-D6. Print.
37
 Mansfield,
 Mark.
 "Ecological
 Risk
 Assessment
 for
 Oyster
 Restoration
 Alternatives."
 Final
 
 


 
 

Programmatic
 Oyster
 Environmental
 Impact
 Statement.
 Norfolk,
 VA:
 U.S.
 Army
 Corps
 of
 
  Engineers,
 2008.
 ES1
 -­‐
 435.
 Print.
 

11
 

lifted.
 Increase
 of
 profits
 for
 oystermen,
 shippers,
 processors,
 and
 oyster-­‐based
  business
 would
 be
 expected
 in
 concurrence
 with
 the
 expected
 increase
 of
 oyster
  biomass
 in
 the
 Bay.
 Said
 biomass
 increase
 would
 be
 a
 direct
 result
 of
 the
  moratorium’s
 allowances
 for
 the
 native
 oysters
 to
 breed,
 spawn
 and
 naturally
  increase
 the
 population,
 sans
 the
 threat
 of
 commercial
 harvests
 by
 oystermen.
  Increase
 in
 profits
 would
 also
 be
 inextricably
 linked
 to
 the
 increase
 in
 oyster
  biomass
 available
 in
 specific,
 restored
 regions
 of
 the
 Bay
 because
 of
 the
 increase
 in
  individual
 oystermen
 catch
 per
 unit
 of
 effort.38
  Increasing
 the
 Ecological
 Health
 of
 the
 Bay
  A
 harvest
 moratorium
 could
 increase
 the
 overall
 ecological
 health
 of
 the
 Bay’s
 now-­‐ fragile
 ecosystem.
 According
 to
 Oyster
 Restoration
 in
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay:
 A
 Cultural
  and
 Socioeconomic
 Assessment,
 scientists
 (97%)
 and
 environmentalists
 (86%)
  support
 a
 moratorium
 because
 many
 feel
 that
 even
 the
 most
 seemingly
 negligible
  harvests
 are
 offsetting
 current
 restoration
 efforts.39
 As
 stated
 in
 the
 introductory
  section,
 oysters
 play
 a
 keystone
 ecological
 role
 in
 the
 Bay,
 serving
 as
 filters
 of
 the
  polluted
 Bay
 waters
 and
 also
 as
 a
 vital
 habitat
 for
 bottom-­‐dwelling
 organisms.
  Proponents
 of
 a
 moratorium
 claim
 that
 the
 only
 way
 to
 increase
 the
 oyster
  populations
 and,
 in
 turn,
 to
 increase
 the
 current,
 concerning
 state
 of
 the
 Bay
 is
 to
  allow
 for
 native
 oysters
 to
 increase
 in
 biomass
 and
 thus
 alleviate
 some
 of
 the
 Bay’s
  larger
 problems.
 Said
 problems
 encompass,
 but
 are
 not
 limited
 to:
 pollution,
 sewage
  treatment,
 residential-­‐based
 chemical
 runoff,
 and
 agriculture.40
 Assuaging
 these
  problems
 would
 further
 the
 underlying
 goal
 of
 a
 harvest
 moratorium:
 to
 improve
  the
 ecological
 health
 of
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay.
 
  Elimination
 of
 Commercial
 By-­‐Catch
 and
 Reef
 Damage
  Studies
 conducted
 by
 Lenihan
 and
 associates
 demonstrate
 that,
 in
 each
 harvesting
  event,
 a
 significant
 proportion
 of
 oysters
 (up
 to
 10%)
 are
 inadvertently
 killed
 but
  not
 collected
 as
 a
 direct
 result
 of
 being
 cracked,
 broken
 or
 punctured
 by
 dredging
  equipment
 or
 other
 commercial
 machinery.41
 A
 short
 term
 commercial
 halt
 in
 the
  oyster
 industry
 would
 eliminate
 this
 issue,
 allowing
 for
 native
 oysters
 to
 reproduce
  and
 thus
 increase
 oyster
 stock
 in
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  38
 Lipton, Douglas. Final Draft Economic Analysis for Oyster Restoration Alternatives.
University of Maryland, College Park: Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 2008. Print. 39
 Paolisso, Michael , and Nicole Dery. Oyster Restoration in the Chesapeake Bay: A Cultural and Socioeconomic Assessment. University of Maryland: Department of Anthropology, 2008. 40
 Paolisso, Michael , and Nicole Dery. Oyster Restoration in the Chesapeake Bay: A Cultural and Socioeconomic Assessment. University of Maryland: Department of Anthropology, 2008.
  41
 Lenihan,
 H.S.
 and
 C.H.
 Peterson.
 2004.
 Conserving
 oyster
 reef
 habitat
 by
 switching
 from
  dredging
 and
 tonging
 to
 diver-­‐harvesting.
 Fisheries
 Bulletin
 102:298-­‐305
 


 

12
 


  Negative
 Facets
 of
 this
 Policy
 Option:
  Scientific
 Uncertainty
 of
 a
 Moratorium’s
 Effectiveness
  Uncertainty
 about
 the
 past
 and
 current
 rates
 of
 exploitation
 of
 the
 oyster
 population
  makes
 it
 difficult
 to
 foresee
 the
 effect
 that
 a
 Bay-­‐wide
 moratorium
 would
 have
 on
  the
 oyster
 stock
 present
 in
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay.
 This
 major
 constraint
 arising
 from
  ambiguity
 regarding
 historical
 and
 current
 exploitation
 rates
 is
 demonstrated
 in
 a
  study
 conducted
 by
 Jordan
 and
 Coakley,
 whose
 data
 indicated
 that
 exploitation
 rates
  of
 adult
 oysters
 in
 Maryland
 from
 1986
 to
 2001
 varied
 from
 21%
 to
 73%.42
 
 
  Stakeholder
 Resistance
  As
 a
 great
 deal
 of
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 region’s
 cultural
 identity
 lies
 within
 the
  harvest
 and
 sale
 of
 the
 Eastern
 oyster,
 it
 is
 incredibly
 likely
 that
 watermen,
 locals,
  and
 oyster-­‐based
 businesses
 would
 not
 respond
 well
 to
 a
 mandated
 harvest
  moratorium.
  Supporting
 Stakeholders:
  The
 State
 of
 Maryland
 and
 the
 Commonwealth
 of
 Virginia
 are
 likely
 to
 support
 this
  proposal,
 as
 it
 would
 create
 “green”
 jobs
 for
 each
 state’s
 respective
 constituents.
  Politicians
 in
 Maryland
 and
 Virginia
 would
 likely
 agree
 with
 the
 imposition
 of
 a
  harvest
 moratorium,
 as
 a
 program
 to
 support
 provisionally
 displaced
 oystermen
  would
 be
 created
 and
 the
 ecological
 and
 cultural
 value
 of
 the
 Bay
 would
 increase
 in
  the
 process
 as
 well.
 
  97%
 of
 scientists
 and
 86%
 of
 environmentalists
 polled
 in
 the
 Oyster
 Restoration
 in
  the
 Chesapeake
 Bay:
 A
 Cultural
 and
 Socioeconomic
 Assessment
 support
 a
 moratorium
  because
 many
 feel
 that
 even
 the
 most
 seemingly
 negligible
 harvests
 are
 offsetting
  current
 restoration
 efforts.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  42
 Jordan,
 S.J.
 and
 J.M.
 Coakley.
 2004.
 Long-­‐term
 projections
 of
 eastern
 oyster
 populations
 
under
 various
 management
 scenarios.
 Journal
 of
 Shellfish
 Research
 23:
 63-­‐72.
 


 

13
 


 
  Opposing
 Stakeholders:
  Members
 of
 the
 Maryland
 and
 Virginia
 Watermen’s
 Association
 and
 members
 of
 the
  Maryland
 and
 Virginia
 Seafood
 Council
 would
 not
 support
 a
 halt
 in
 commercial
  harvest,
 as
 their
 members
 would
 be
 frustrated
 with
 their
 job
 displacement
 and
  resulting
 loss
 of
 personal
 identity.
 Table
 5.38
 highlights
 this
 anticipated
 pushback
  by
 watermen.43
 
 
Table
 5.38:
 Difficulty
 Returning
 to
 the
 Oyster
 Fishery
 if
 there
 is
 A
 7+
 year
 Moratorium
 on
 Oyster
  Harvests
 


  Oyster-­‐Based
 Businesses
 such
 as:
 Mason
 Seafood,
 Rappahannock
 River
 Oysters,
  andOyster
 King
 1,
 Inc.
 would
 certainly
 not
 be
 pleased
 with
 a
 harvest
 moratorium,
 as
  it
 would
 likely
 be
 viewed
 as
 an
 “extreme”
 conservation
 measure
 that
 could
 put
 them
  out
 of
 business
 from
 the
 complete
 halt
 in
 fiscal
 gain
 over
 the
 proposed
 10
 year
 time
  period.
 
 
  Policy
 Option
 Implementation:
  The
 duration
 of
 the
 proposed
 harvest
 moratorium
 would
 be
 approximately
 10
  years.
 It
 would
 occur
 in
 conjunction
 with
 current
 aquaculture
 initiatives
 and
 oyster
  bar
 restoration
 programs
 already
 in
 action
 across
 the
 Bay
 region.
 Respectively,
 the
  Maryland
 and
 Virginia
 Marine
 Resource
 Commission’s
 Habitat
 Management
 Division
  would
 be
 responsible
 for
 employing
 patrolmen
 of
 the
 oyster
 reefs
 during
 this
 time.
  The
 EPA
 would
 work
 in
 collaboration
 with
 the
 Virginia
 Institute
 of
 Marine
 Science
  (VIMS)
 to
 further
 its
 education
 and
 outreach
 programs
 concerning
 oysters
 and
 their
  importance
 to
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay’s
 ecosystem,
 economy
 and
 culture.
 This
  partnership
 would
 also
 be
 responsible
 for
 creating
 oyster
 restoration
 jobs
 for
 the
  watermen
 who
 will
 be
 temporarily
 displaced
 from
 their
 jobs
 during
 the
  moratorium.
 All
 parties
 would
 perform
 said
 outreach
 with
 the
 funding
 designated
  annually
 for
 oyster
 restoration
 efforts
 by
 NOAA.
 Additionally,
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  43
 Paolisso, Michael , and Nicole Dery. Oyster Restoration in the Chesapeake Bay: A Cultural
and Socioeconomic Assessment. University of Maryland, College Park: Department of Anthropology,2008.


 

14
 

Foundation
 would
 be
 encouraged
 to
 continue
 and
 expand
 its
 civic
  engagement/volunteer
 programs
 in
 oyster
 reef
 restoration
 and
 gardening
 efforts.
 
 
  Policy
 Option
 #3:
 Streamlining
 the
 Permitting
 Process
 for
 Private
 Aquaculture
 Farmers
 
  This
 policy
 option
 would
 establish
 regulated
 aquaculture
 operations
 in
 the
 State
 of
  Maryland
 and
 the
 Commonwealth
 of
 Virginia.
 Namely,
 this
 policy
 would
 serve
 to
  streamline
 the
 permitting
 process
 for
 private
 oyster
 aquaculture
 firms,
 thus
 encouraging
  more
 private
 firms
 to
 enter
 the
 market
 on
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay.
 
 
  The
 policy
 would
 allow
 for
 a
 citizen
 applying
 for
 an
 individual
 permit
 to
 easily
 obtain
 an
  established
 “general”
 permit
 if
 he
 is
 able
 to
 show
 that
 he
 can
 adequately
 satisfy
 the
  state
 and
 national
 regulations
 while
 also
 proving
 that
 his
 operations
 will
 pose
 little
  environmental
 harm
 to
 the
 Bay
 area
 in
 which
 he
 hopes
 to
 operate.
 This
 policy
 would
 be
  a
 succinct
 and
 relatively
 manageable
 manner
 from
 which
 private
 firms
 could
 be
  encouraged
 to
 participate
 in
 the
 sustainable
 practice
 while
 reaping
 a
 generous
 fiscal
  benefit.
 It
 will
 also
 serve
 as
 a
 means
 by
 which
 oysters
 could
 be
 sold
 for
 commercial
 use,
  providing
 an
 ecologically
 sound
 alternative
 to
 harvesting
 the
 wild,
 native
 Eastern
 oysters
  in
 need
 of
 population
 stock
 repletion.
 
  Positive
 Facets
 of
 this
 Policy
 Option:
 
  Encouraging
 aquaculture
 in
 the
 Chesapeake
 would
 pose
 many
 benefits,
 including:
 
  Financial
 Feasibility:
  A
 recent
 fiscal
 analysis
 of
 a
 large-­‐scale
 private
 aquaculture
 industry
 was
 recently
  conducted
 by
 the
 U.S.
 Army
 Corps
 of
 Engineers.
 The
 analysis
 stated
 that
 there
 was
  plenty
 of
 room
 for
 contribution
 to
 the
 commercial
 oyster
 industry
 by
 private
  aquaculture
 firms
 based
 on
 the
 low
 current
 oyster
 yields,
 claiming
 that
 the
 “annual
  production
 of
 the
 maximum
 economically
 viable
 oyster
 aquaculture
 in
 the
 Bay
 is
  estimated
 to
 be
 2.6
 million
 bushels”.
 44
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
44Lipton,
 Douglas.
 Final
 Draft
 Economic
 Analysis
 for
 Oyster
 Restoration
 Alternatives.
 
 

University
 of
 Maryland,
 College
 Park:
 Department
 of
 Agricultural
 and
 Resource
 Economics,
 
  2008.
 Print.
 
 


 

15
 


  Spatial
 Availability
  Within
 the
 analytical
 study,
 the
 Corps
 designated
 nine
 feasible
 locations
 in
 the
 Bay
  watershed
 in
 which
 private
 aquaculture
 firms
 could
 flourish
 based
 upon
 past
 oyster
  harvests
 and
 spatial
 availability
 for
 such
 operations,
 amongst
 other
 factors.
 
 
 


 
  Negative
 Facets
 of
 this
 Policy
 Option:
  Potential
 Loss
 of
 Aesthetic
 Value
 of
 Bayside
 Properties
 
  There
 is
 concern
 that
 perhaps
 these
 on-­‐water
 aquaculture
 operations
 could
 decrease
  the
 aesthetic
 value
 of
 Bayside
 properties
 within
 a
 close
 radius
 to
 the
 sites.
 
 
  Potential
 for
 Loss
 of
 Recreational
 Value
 of
 Bayside
 Properties
  Accompanying
 the
 introduction
 of
 aquaculture
 farms
 in
 the
 proposed
 locations
 would
  perhaps
 be
 restrictions
 on
 nearby
 recreational
 activity
 such
 as
 boating
 and
 recreational
  fishing.
 Locals
 may
 not
 respond
 well
 to
 such
 impositions.
 
  Supporting
 Stakeholders:
 
  Local
 hatchery
 programs
 would
 fiscally
 benefit
 from
 such
 a
 policy,
 as
 the
 use
 of
 their
  genetically
 altered
 spat
 would
 be
 mandated.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
of
 Engineers,
 
 

45

45
 Seltzer,
 Craig.
 Final
 Programmatic
 Environmental
 Impact
 Statement
 for.
 Norfolk,
 VA:
 U.S.
 Army
 Corps
 
 


 
  16
 

United
 States
 Senators
 Ben
 Cardin
 and
 Barbara
 Mikulski,
 Democrats
 from
 the
 State
 of
  Maryland,
 would
 be
 in
 favor
 of
 this
 option
 because
 of
 their
 prior
 joint
 appeals
 to
 the
  U.S.
 Army
 Corps
 of
 Engineers
 for
 similar
 action
 to
 take
 place.46
 
  The
 State
 of
 Virginia
 would
 ultimately
 vote
 on
 behalf
 of
 this
 policy
 as
 well,
 as
 efforts
 by
  the
 state
 over
 recent
 decades
 have
 focused
 on
 this
 sustainable
 option.
 
 
  The
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 Foundation
 has
 invested
 time
 and
 money
 into
 aquaculture
  volunteer
 programs
 over
 the
 past
 decade,
 and
 have
 advocated
 for
 aquaculture
  expansion
 in
 its
 most
 recent
 annual
 publication.
 
  The
 Virginia
 Institute
 of
 Marine
 Science
 (VIMS)
 scientists
 and
 affiliates
 have
 been
  engaged
 in
 a
 great
 deal
 of
 research
 in
 the
 past
 regarding
 the
 practicability
 of
  aquaculture
 expansion
 in
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay.
 They
 would
 certainly
 support
 this
 policy
  option
 for
 its
 sustainable
 undertones
 and
 adoption
 of
 their
 stated
 ideals.47
 
  Opposing
 Stakeholders:
 
  Citizens
 of
 the
 State
 of
 Maryland
 and
 the
 Commonwealth
 of
 Virginia
 who
 reside
 within
 a
  5-­‐10
 mile
 radius
 of
 the
 proposed
 aquaculture
 operations
 may
 oppose
 this
 policy.
 Said
  citizens
 may
 complain
 of
 new
 boating
 and
 fishing
 regulations
 that
 may
 prohibit
  recreation
 in
 these
 designated
 aquaculture
 farms
 on
 the
 Bay.
 Perhaps
 also
 the
 citizens
  would
 potentially
 claim
 that
 said
 operations
 may
 have
 a
 negative
 impact
 on
 the
  aesthetic
 value
 of
 both
 their
 personal
 properties
 and
 the
 Bay
 itself.
 
 
  Policy
 Option
 Implementation:
 
  This
 policy
 option
 would
 mainly
 serve
 to
 increase
 the
 efficiency
 of
 private
 entities
  obtaining
 aquaculture
 permits
 in
 both
 the
 Commonwealth
 of
 Virginia
 and
 the
 State
 of
  Maryland.
 Specifically,
 the
 policy
 would
 require
 a
 private
 entity
 seeking
 a
 general
 permit
  to
 formally
 agree
 to
 satisfy
 at
 least
 the
 two
 main
 “sustainability”
 guidelines
 before
  receiving
 an
 official
 licensing
 permit
 for
 private
 aquaculture
 operation
 from
 the
 U.S.
  Army
 Corps
 of
 Engineers:
 
  1. Employing
 a
 mixed-­‐use
 aquaculture
 system
 (of
 both
 on-­‐bottom
 and
 off-­‐bottom
  cages)
 that
 would
 employ
 the
 most
 conservative
 amount
 of
 land
 for
 growth.
 This
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  46
 "Cardin,
 Mikulski
 Urge
 Army
 Corps
 of
 Engineers
 to
 Expedite
 Oyster
 Aquaculture
 Permits."
 
 
Ben
 Cardin
 -­
 United
 States
 Senator
 for
 Maryland.
 N.p.,
 n.d.
 Web.
 1
 Nov.
 2011.
 
  <http://cardin.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/cardin-­‐mikulski-­‐urge-­‐army-­‐corps-­‐of-­‐
  engineers-­‐to-­‐expedite-­‐oyster-­‐aquaculture-­‐permits>.
 


 
47
 On
 the
 Brink:
 Chesapeake's
 Native
 Oysters.
 Annapolis,
 Maryland:
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 

Foundation,
 2010.
 


 

17
 

would
 be
 in
 contrast
 to
 some
 current
 growers,
 who
 only
 employ
 the
 use
 of
 off-­‐ bottom
 operations
 because
 off-­‐bottom
 operations
 have
 been
 proven
 to
  generate
 more
 than
 50%
 greater
 diploid
 and
 triploid
 oyster
 growth
 than
 on-­‐ bottom
 cages.48
  This
 current,
 unsustainable
 practice
 increases
 operational
 profits
 significantly
  while
 requiring
 more
 land
 than
 is
 actually
 necessary
 for
 the
 aquaculture
 farms
 to
  thrive.
 
  2. Utilizing
 only
 native
 oyster
 (C.
 virginica)
 spat
 produced
 by
 local
 hatcheries.
 This
  option
 is
 reactionary
 to
 current
 aquaculture
 firms
 who
 utilize
 non-­‐local
 spat
 for
  production.49
 Spat
 acquired
 from
 foreign
 or
 transnational
 firms
 is
 often
 not
  genetically
 altered
 in
 the
 same
 way
 that
 the
 local
 spat
 is
 altered,
 namely
 for
  disease
 resistance.50
 Opting
 for
 local-­‐only
 hatchery
 purchases
 would
 ensure
 that
  the
 required
 quantity
 of
 oyster
 spat
 is
 available
 to
 local
 aquaculture
 firms,
 and
  would
 also
 support
 the
 local
 economy.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  48
 Taylor,
 Jake,
 Mark
 Luckenbach,
 and
 Francis
 O'Beirn.
 An
 Introduction
 to
 Culturing
 Oysters
 
 
in
 Virginia.
 Newport
 News,
 Virginia:
 Virginia
 Marine
 Resources
 Commission,
 1999.
 Print.
 
 
 
49
 Taylor,
 Jake,
 Mark
 Luckenbach,
 and
 Francis
 O'Beirn.
 An
 Introduction
 to
 Culturing
 Oysters
 
 


 
 

in
 Virginia.
 Newport
 News,
 Virginia:
 Virginia
 Marine
 Resources
 Commission,
 1999.
 Print.
 
 
 
50
 On
 the
 Brink:
 Chesapeake's
 Native
 Oysters.
 Annapolis,
 Maryland:
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 

Foundation,
 2010.
 


 

18
 

Works
 Cited
 

  A
 Dwindling
 Catch.
 Dir.
 Matt
 Danzeco.
 Perf.
 Oystermen
 Across
 the
 Bay.
 Discovery
 Channel,
 2008.
 Film.
 
  Barber,
 B.J.
 and
 R.
 Mann.
 1994.
 Growth
 and
 mortality
 of
 eastern
 oysters,
 Crassostrea
 virginica
 under
 
  challenge
 from
 the
 parasite,
 Perkinsus
 marinus.
 Journal
 of
 Shellfish
 Research
 13:
 109-­‐114.
 
  Baker,
 William.
 2010
 State
 of
 the
 Bay.
 Annapolis,
 Maryland:
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 Foundation,
 2010.
 Print.
 
 
  Blankenship,
 Karl.
 "Chesapeake's
 Oyster
 Reefs
 Have
 Taken
 a
 Shellacking."
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 Journal
 1
  Jan.
 2010:
 n.
 pag.
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 Journal.
 Web.
 14
 Sept.
 2011.
 
 
 
  Burreson,
 Eugene.
 "A
 Comparative
 Field
 Study
 of
 Crassostrea
 ariakensis
 and
 
 
  Crassostrea
 virginica
 in
 Relation
 to
 Salinity
 in
 Virginia."
 Applied
 Marine
 
 
  Science
 and
 Ocean
 Engineering
 360
 (2000):
 1-­‐46.
 Virginia
 Institute
 of
 Marine
 
 
  Science.
 Web.
 10
 Oct.
 2011.
 
  "Cardin,
 Mikulski
 Urge
 Army
 Corps
 of
 Engineers
 to
 Expedite
 Oyster
 Aquaculture
 Permits."
 Ben
 Cardin
  -­
 United
 States
 Senator
 for
 Maryland.
 N.p.,
 n.d.
 Web.
 1
 Nov.
 2011.
  <http://cardin.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/cardin-­‐mikulski-­‐urge-­‐army-­‐corps-­‐of-­‐ engineers-­‐to-­‐expedite-­‐oyster-­‐aquaculture-­‐permits>.
 
  "Eastern
 Oyster
 -­‐
 Bay
 Field
 Guide
 -­‐
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 Program
 
 ."
 A
 Watershed
 Partnership.
 Chesapeake
  Bay
 Program,
 n.d.
 Web.
 9
 Sept.
 2011.
  <http://www.chesapeakebay.net/american_oyster.htm>.
 
  Fears,
 Darryl.
 "Study
 Calls
 for
 Halting
 Oyster
 Fishing
 in
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay."
 The
 Washington
 Post
  [Washington,
 D.C.]
 1
 Sept.
 2011:
 D4-­‐D6.
 Print.
 
  "Fish
 and
 Wildlife
 Conservation
 And
 Water
 Resource
 Developments-­‐Coordination."
 Fish
 and
 Wildlife
  Coordination
 Act.
 Washington,
 D.C.:
 U.S.
 Legislature,
 1934.
 661-­‐667e.
 Print.
 
  Jordan,
 S.J.
 and
 J.M.
 Coakley.
 2004.
 Long-­‐term
 projections
 of
 eastern
 oyster
 populations
 under
  various
 
  management
 scenarios.
 Journal
 of
 Shellfish
 Research
 23:
 63-­‐72.
 
  Lenihan,
 H.S.
 and
 C.H.
 Peterson.
 2004.
 Conserving
 oyster
 reef
 habitat
 by
 switching
 from
  dredging
 and
 tonging
 to
 diver-­‐harvesting.
 Fisheries
 Bulletin
 102:298-­‐305
 
  Lipton,
 Douglas.
 Final
 Draft
 Economic
 Analysis
 for
 Oyster
 Restoration
 Alternatives.
 University
 of
  Maryland,
 College
 Park:
 Department
 of
 Agricultural
 and
 Resource
 Economics,
 2008.
 Print.
 
  Mackin,
 J.S.
 1956.
 Dermocystidium
 marinum
 and
 salinity.
 Proceedings
 of
 the
 National
  Shellfisheries
 Association
 46:
 116-­‐128.
 
  Mansfield,
 Mark.
 "Ecological
 Risk
 Assessment
 for
 Oyster
 Restoration
 Alternatives."
 Final
  Programmatic
 Oyster
 Environmental
 Impact
 Statement.
 Norfolk,
 VA:
 U.S.
 Army
 Corps
 of
  Engineers,
 2008.
 ES1
 -­‐
 435.
 Print.
 
  Nicklin,
 Emmy.
 "Hope
 for
 Bay
 Oysters
 and
 Blue
 Crabs?."
 Save
 The
 Bay
 Summer
 2011:
 21.
 Print.
 
 
 
  "NOAA
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 Office
 Annual
 Funding
 for
 Native
 Oyster
 Restoration
 by
 Year."
 NOAA:
  Chesapeake
 Bay
 Office.
 N.p.,
 n.d.
 Web.
 11
 Oct.
 2011.
  <http://chesapeakebay.noaa.gov/oysters/oyster-­‐restoration>.
 


 

19
 


  Nonnative
 Oysters
 in
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay.
 Washington,
 D.C.:
 Committee
 on
 Nonnative
 Oysters
 in
 the
  Chesapeake
 Bay,
 National
 Research
 Council,
 2004.
 Print.
 
 
 On
 the
 Brink:
 Chesapeake's
 Native
 Oysters.
 Annapolis,
 Maryland:
 Chesapeake
 Bay
 Foundation,
 2010.
  Print.
 
 
 
  Paolisso,
 Michael
 ,
 and
 Nicole
 Dery.
 Oyster
 Restoration
 in
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay:
 A
 Cultural
 and
  Socioeconomic
 Assessment.
 University
 of
 Maryland,
 College
 Park:
 Department
 of
  Anthropology,
 2008.
 Print.
 
  "Policy:
 Ecosystem
 Based
 Fisheries
 Management
 for
 the
 Chesapeake
 Bay."
 Maryland
 Sea
 Grant.
 N.p.,
  n.d.
 Web.
 10
 Oct.
 2011.
 <http://www.mdsg.umd.edu/programs/policy/ebfm/>.
 
  Seltzer,
 Craig.
 Final
 Programmatic
 Environmental
 Impact
 Statement
 for.
 Norfolk,
 VA:
 U.S.
 Army
 Corps
  of
 Engineers,
 Norfolk
 District,
 2008.
 Print.
 
  Taylor,
 Jake,
 Mark
 Luckenbach,
 and
 Francis
 O'Beirn.
 An
 Introduction
 to
 Culturing
 Oysters
 in
 Virginia.
  Newport
 News,
 Virginia:
 Virginia
 Marine
 Resources
 Commission,
 1999.
 Print.
 
 
 
  University
 of
 Miami.
 "Marine
 Conservation
 Science
 and
 Policy
 Service
 Learning
 Program."
 Marine
  Issues:
 Non-­native
 Species.
 N.p.,
 n.d.
 Web.
 10
 Oct.
 2011.
 <http://rjd.miami.edu/learning-­‐ tools/high-­‐school/MODULE%204%20Marine%20Issues%20-­‐ %20SECTION%205%20Invasive%20Species.pdf>.
 
  U.S.
 Army
 Corps
 of
 Engineers.
 "Army
 Corps
 Section
 404/Section
 10."
 Section
 10
 Permits.
 N.p.,
 n.d.
  Web.
 11
 Oct.
 2011.
 <www.in.gov/indot/files/24_army.pdf>.
 
  Wood,
 Pamela.
 "'Asian'
 Oyster
 Study
 Will
 Offer
 Few
 Answers."
 Hometown
 Annapolis
 8
 Oct.
 2009:
 C4-­‐ C5.
 Print.
 


 


 

20
 

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close