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
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.
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.
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
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."
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.
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.