[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EFFORTS TO INTRODUCE NON-NATIVE OYSTER SPECIES TO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
AND THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL'S REPORT TITLED ``NON-NATIVE OYSTERS
IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY''
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, October 14, 2003, in Annapolis, Maryland
__________
Serial No. 108-67
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
89-844 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Samoa
Elton Gallegly, California Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Islands
George Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Jay Inslee, Washington
Carolina Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Vice Chairman Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Greg Walden, Oregon Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Jeff Flake, Arizona Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Rick Renzi, Arizona Joe Baca, California
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Rob Bishop, Utah
Devin Nunes, California
Randy Neugebauer, Texas
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman
FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Samoa
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Carolina Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Randy Neugebauer, Texas Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex ex officio
officio
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, October 14, 2003........................ 1
Statement of Members:
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland...................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Allen, Dr. Standish K., Jr., Professor, Virginia Institute of
Marine Science, and Director, Aquaculture Genetics and
Breeding Technology Center................................. 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 18
Anderson, James L., Ph.D., Professor, Department of
Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, University of
Rhode Island, Kingston, and Co-Chair of National Research
Council Committee on Non-native Oysters in the Chesapeake
Bay........................................................ 4
Joint prepared statement of.............................. 6
Boesch, Donald F., Ph.D., President, University of Maryland,
Center for Environmental Science, Cambridge, Maryland...... 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 15
Franks, Hon. C. Ronald, Secretary, Maryland Department of
Natural Resources.......................................... 43
Prepared statement of.................................... 46
Goldsborough, William J., Senior Scientist, Chesapeake Bay
Foundation................................................. 77
Prepared statement of.................................... 80
Hanmer, Rebecca W., Director, Chesapeake Bay Program Office,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency....................... 39
Prepared statement of.................................... 41
Kern, Dr. Frederick G., III, Acting Chief, Coastal Resource
Health Branch, Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce................................................... 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Porter, Frances, Executive Director, Virginia Seafood Council 74
Prepared statement of.................................... 76
Prettyman-Beck, Colonel Yvonne J., District Engineer, Norfolk
District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers..................... 35
Prepared statement of.................................... 37
Simns, Larry, President, Maryland Watermen's Association..... 70
Prepared statement of.................................... 73
Wesson, James A., Ph.D., Department Head, Department of
Conservation and Replenishment, Virginia Marine Resources
Commission................................................. 53
Prepared statement of.................................... 56
Whitlatch, Robert B., Ph.D., Professor, Department of Marine
Science, University of Connecticut, Groton, Member of the
National Research Council Committee on Non-native Oysters
in the Chesapeake Bay...................................... 7
Joint prepared statement of.............................. 6
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON THE EFFORTS TO INTRODUCE NON-NATIVE OYSTER
SPECIES TO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY AND THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL'S
REPORT TITLED ``NON-NATIVE OYSTERS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY''
----------
Tuesday, October 14, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Resources
Annapolis, Maryland
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:05 a.m., in
the Joint Legislative Hearing Room, Maryland House of
Delegates, Annapolis, Maryland, Hon. Wayne T. Gilchrest
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representative Gilchrest.
Also Present: Adelaide C. Eckardt, Maryland Delegate.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Gilchrest. Good morning, everyone. The Subcommittee on
Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans of the Resources
Committee will come to order.
I want to thank all of you for coming this morning. We look
forward to an informative exchange of information where we can
all learn about the different aspects of the Chesapeake Bay
ecosystem, the potential for oyster recovery of the native
species, and what may happen with a myriad of possibilities for
introduction of the Asian oyster.
And we look forward to the panel of witnesses from the
scientific community, the public service community in the form
of State officials and the Corps of Engineers, and those men
and women who make their living on the Bay. I would like to
welcome all of our witnesses and members of the Maryland
General Assembly at today's hearing.
As native oysters have declined, the introduction of non-
native oysters into the Chesapeake Bay has been tested,
contested and debated for many years.
This hearing is a part of the ongoing and in-depth
discussions I know all of you continue to have. I hope to learn
much about each of your areas of expertise today and to get an
update on the progress of both native oyster recovery and non-
native oyster recovery, aquaculture and in-water testing.
As most of you know, I have always strongly supported
efforts to recover the native oyster population in the Bay. It
is crucial to the well-being of the entire Bay ecosystem. It is
also important to the livelihood of our Maryland watermen, our
restaurants, our shucking houses, and our coastal towns and
fishing villages.
I have not taken a position on the introduction of non-
native oysters into the Bay, but am concerned about the
potential impact this may have on a fragile and troubled and,
to a large extent, degraded ecosystem. Concerns include the
impact this introduction may have on long-standing efforts to
restore the native oyster.
One of the goals of the Chesapeake 2000 agreements is to
increase native oyster populations tenfold by 2010. Federal and
State budgets are tight, and competition for funds between
oyster programs could be counterproductive for both efforts. I
also know that Maryland and Virginia oyster fisheries have
dramatically declined, and this has been a bitter blow for our
oyster industry and our Bay culture.
Like all of us, I would like to see the abundance of
oysters in the Bay reach historic proportions. As a European
visitor, Francis Louis Michel, described: ``The abundance of
oysters is incredible. There are whole banks of them so that
the ships must avoid them. They surpass those in England by far
in size, indeed they are four times as large.''
This statement was made in 1701, and 300 years later we
must use these words to inspire our oyster restoration efforts
however we decide to proceed. And if we proceed methodically,
and we are well informed and we understand the nature of our
responsibility, perhaps in this room 300 years from now people
will be blessing us for making the right decision.
Maryland and Virginia are both heavily invested in the
restoration of the Bay oysters and are now looking to non-
natives to help restore the fishery. However, the billion
dollar price tag associated with invasive aquatic species
across the Nation gives us pause and causes us to examine these
activities in the Chesapeake Bay in a national precedent-
setting context.
In March, we introduced the National Aquatic Invasive
Species Act of 2003, H.R. 1080, which reauthorizes the National
Aquatic Species Act. It proposes a screening program at the
Federal level and grant support for State screening programs
prior to the introduction of non-native aquatic species.
This legislation is intended to help our Nation prevent the
economic and environmental damage we are now experiencing as a
result of the intentional and unintentional introduction of a
relatively small number of species. And we need only look at
Maryland, whether it is nutria or snakehead, to understand the
potential damage of non-native species which actually have
become invasives.
Given that the Chesapeake Bay programs have applied a
formal screening process for the introduction of the Suminoe
oyster, its experience can be of valuable assistance to such
introductions elsewhere. Maryland, Virginia and the Chesapeake
Bay program, the Oyster Recovery Partnership, Federal agencies
and their partners are all to be commended for their dedication
to the health of the Chesapeake Bay and its oysters. They have,
to date, been a model for the rest of the Nation in
precautionary and cooperative management of a valuable and
shared resource.
We are pleased that we have a good representative mix of
experts here today to present all sides of this historic
debate, and, as always, all input is important. Together we may
be able to chart a course that will recover Chesapeake Bay
oysters and provide an abundant resource for everyone to enjoy
and help in this most important endeavor to restore the
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem upon which future generations can be
blessed.
At this point I want to thank the first panel and your
expertise that we will share this morning. We have Dr. James
Anderson, Professor, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Co-
Chair of the National Research Council Committee on Non-native
Oysters in the Chesapeake Bay; Dr. Robert Whitlatch, Professor,
University of Connecticut, Groton, member of the National
Research Council Committee on Non-native Oysters in the
Chesapeake Bay; Dr. Frederick Kern, III, Acting Chief, Coastal
Resource Health Branch, National Centers for Coastal Ocean
Science, NOAA; Dr. Don Boesch, President, University of
Maryland's Center for Environmental Science; and Dr. Standish
K. Allen, Jr., Professor of Virginia Institute of Marine
Sciences.
Gentlemen, thank you for coming this morning. We will begin
with Dr. James Anderson.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Maryland
I would like to welcome all of our witnesses to today's hearing. As
native oysters have declined, the introduction of non-native oysters
into the Chesapeake Bay has been tested, contested, and debated for
many years. This hearing is just a part of the on-going and in-depth
discussions I know all of you continue to have and I hope to learn much
about each of your areas of expertise and to get an update on the
progress of both native oyster recovery and non-native oyster
aquaculture and in-water testing.
As most of you know, I have always strongly supported efforts to
recover the native oyster populations. It is crucial to the well-being
of the entire Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. It is also important to the
livelihoods of our Maryland watermen, our restaurants, our shucking
houses, and our coastal towns.
I have not taken a position on the introduction of non-native
oysters into the Bay, and am extremely concerned about the potential
impact that this may have on a fragile and troubled ecosystem and the
environmental and economic impact of our declining native oyster. My
concerns are shared, I know, and they include the impact that this
introduction may have on our long-standing efforts to restore the
native oyster. One of the goals of the Chesapeake 2000 agreement is to
increase native oyster populations tenfold by 2010. Federal and state
budgets are tight and competition for funds between oyster programs
could be counterproductive for both efforts.
I also know that the Maryland and Virginia oyster fishery has
declined dramatically and that this has been a bitter blow for our
oyster industry and our Bay culture. Like all of us, I would like to
see the abundance of oysters in the Bay reach historic proportions as a
French visitor to the area said: ``The abundance of oysters is
incredible. There are whole banks of them so that the ships must avoid
them. They surpass those in England by far in size, indeed they are
four times as large.'' This was 1701 and 300 years later, we must use
these words to inspire our oyster restoration efforts, however we
decide to proceed.
Maryland and Virginia are both heavily invested in the restoration
of our native oyster and are now looking to non-natives to help restore
this fishery. The billion dollar price tag associated with invasive,
aquatic species across the nation should give us pause and cause us to
examine activities in the Chesapeake Bay in a national, precedent-
setting context. I introduced the National Aquatic Invasive Species
Act, H.R. 1080, which reauthorizes the National Aquatic Species Act and
would, among many other things, provide authority for federal agencies
and support for states to conduct screening programs prior to the
introduction of such species. This language is in response to growing
concern that invasive, non-native species are crippling local
infrastructure, native fisheries, and budgets. The nation is watching
the Chesapeake Bay, with one of the only formal processes similar to
such a screening process, as it cautiously moves in this direction.
Maryland, Virginia, the Chesapeake Bay Program, the Oyster Recovery
Partnership, Federal agencies, and their partners are all to be
commended for their dedication to the health of the Chesapeake Bay and
its oysters. They stand as a model for the rest of nation in
precautionary and collaborative management of a valuable and shared
resources. I am pleased that we have a good representative mix of the
experts here today to present all sides of this historic debate. As
always, everyone's view is important and together we may be able to
chart a course that will recover Cheapeake Bay oysters and provide an
abundant resource for the future for everyone to enjoy.
I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses and I am sure
this debate will continue even after today's hearing.
______
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES L. ANDERSON, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF
RHODE ISLAND, KINGSTON, CO-CHAIR OF NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
COMMITTEE ON NON-NATIVE OYSTERS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
Dr. Anderson. Thank you. My job is to give an extremely
brief summary of the NRC report on Non-native Oysters in the
Chesapeake Bay.
As everyone in this rooms knows, oyster stock in the
Chesapeake Bay has declined dramatically to less than 1 percent
of its levels in the 19th century. Fishing pressure and habitat
degradation from agriculture, industrial and residential
pollution, deforestation, and oyster reef destruction have
contributed to the decline.
But in recent decades the diseases MSX and Dermo have been
identified as the core reasons for further decline, and it
should be noted that MSX is caused by a parasite that was
introduced to the East Coast from Asia.
Fisheries management efforts and various restoration
programs have not been successful in restoring the oyster stock
to date. The loss of the oyster has been devastating to the
oyster industry and dependent communities, and those that
remain in the oyster processing sector now depend on oysters
brought from the Gulf of Mexico region and other areas for
their economic survival. Furthermore, the loss of oysters has
contributed to the decline in water quality and clarity.
The introduction of the non-native ariakensis oyster from
Asia has been proposed as a solution to these difficult
problems. Indications are that it may grow well in the
Chesapeake Bay. It is known to be resistant to MSX and Dermo.
This proposal is not without precedent. For example, in France,
the nonindigenous--I mean the indigenous--European flat oyster
was devastated by a nonindigenous disease, and now the French
industry is primarily dependent upon the non-native Pacific
cupped oyster, C. gigas. In addition, non-native C. gigas and
the Eastern oyster are both harvested in the Pacific Northwest.
And, in fact, C. gigas is the dominant species harvested in the
State of Washington.
Our committee was asked to assess the existing research on
oysters and other introduced species to determine if there is
sufficient information to analyze the ecological and
socioeconomic risks associated with the following three
management options: One, to not introduce non-native oyster C.
ariakensis at all; two, to allow for open water aquaculture of
non-native infertile oysters; or, three, the introduction of
reproductive non-native C. ariakensis oysters.
The study revealed that, despite the positive result of
some oyster introductions, some extremely negative consequences
have been observed as well. A major risk of introducing non-
native oysters comes from pathogens, such as MSX, or the
introduction of other animals or plants that may be attached to
the oysters. In Australia and New Zealand, introduced non-
native oysters have displaced native oysters.
We concluded that there are shortcomings and gaps in the
basic research on the biology of C. ariakensis and the
scientific community's understanding of the ecological
consequences of introducing C. ariakensis. Economic and
cultural research is also lacking, and the institutional and
regulatory framework currently is inadequate to monitor and
oversee non-native oyster introductions. Given these
limitations, a formal risk analysis was not possible.
However, in the judgment of the committee, option two,
aquaculture of non-native sterile oysters represents an
appropriate interim step that possesses less risk to the
Chesapeake Bay and its dependent communities than either
options one or three. However, limits and controls on the
aquaculture practices must be implemented to minimize the risk
of introducing pathogens and/or reproductive non-native oysters
during the transitional phase. Option two may provide limited
benefit to parts of the oyster industry, and it provides
decisionmakers with added information required to make future
decisions.
Moreover, this option allows more time for innovative,
science-based efforts to restore the native populations. Option
1, not allowing any introduction, fails to address industry
concerns and will not result in proved understanding of the
ramifications of non-native oysters. It may also increase the
risk of rogue or uncontrolled introductions.
Option 3, the direct introduction of non-native oysters, is
not advised given the limited knowledge of the biology of C.
ariakensis and potential irreversible consequences.
The committee cautions the decisionmakers that there is no
quick fix to the Chesapeake Bay, and that all of these
solutions will take time. I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to testify and would be glad to answer any
questions.
[The prepared joint statement of Dr. Anderson and Dr.
Whitlatch follows:]
Joint Statement of James L. Anderson, Ph.D., Co-Chair of the Committee
on Nonnative Oysters in the Chesapeake Bay, Ocean Studies Board,
National Research Council, The National Academies, and Professor,
Department of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, University
of Rhode Island, Kingston; and Robert Whitlatch, Ph.D., Member,
Committee on Nonnative Oysters in the Chesapeake Bay, Ocean Studies
Board, National Research Council, The National Academies, and
Professor, Department of Marine Science, University of Connecticut,
Groton
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. Thank
you for this opportunity to speak to you about the proposed
introduction of the nonnative oyster Crassostrea ariakensis. Our names
are James Anderson from the University of Rhode Island and Robert
Whitlatch from the University of Connecticut and we are members of the
committee that recently released the report Nonnative Oysters in the
Chesapeake Bay, the culmination of a study conducted with the oversight
of the NRC's Ocean Studies Board. As you know, the National Research
Council is the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences,
National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, and was
chartered by Congress in 1863 to advise the government on matters of
science and technology.
The oyster stock in the Chesapeake Bay has declined dramatically.
Harvest is now about one percent of what it was at the end of the 19th
century. Fishing pressure and habitat degradation resulting from
agricultural, industrial and residential pollution, deforestation, and
oyster reef destruction have contributed to the decline. In recent
decades, however, the diseases MSX and Dermo have been identified as
the core reasons for further decline. It should be noted that MSX is
caused by a parasite that was introduced to the East Coast from Asia.
Fisheries management efforts and various restoration programs have not
been successful in restoring the oyster stock to date. The loss of the
oyster has been devastating to the oyster industry and its dependent
communities. Those that remain in the Chesapeake oyster-processing
sector now rely on oysters that are brought in from the Gulf of Mexico
region and other areas for their economic survival. Furthermore, the
loss of oysters has contributed to declines in water quality and
clarity.
The introduction of the non-native Suminoe oyster, or Crassostrea
ariakensis, from Asia has been proposed as a solution to these
difficult problems. Indications are that it may grow well in the
Chesapeake and it is known to be resistant to MSX and Dermo. This
proposal is not without precedent. For example, in France the
indigenous European flat oyster was devastated by disease and now the
French industry is based primarily on the non-native Pacific cupped
oyster, or C. gigas, which was initially imported from Japan. In
addition, non-native C. gigas and the eastern oyster C. virginica, are
both harvested in the Pacific Northwest. In fact, C. gigas is now the
dominant species harvested in Washington State.
Our committee was asked to assess the existing research on oysters
and other introduced species to determine if there is sufficient
information to analyze ecological and socioeconomic risks associated
with the following three management options: one, not introducing non-
native C. ariakensis oysters at all; two, open-water aquaculture of
non-native, infertile oysters; or three, the introduction of non-native
reproductive, oysters.
Our study revealed that, despite the positive results of some
oyster introductions, some extremely negative consequences have been
observed as well. A major risk of introducing a non-native oyster comes
from pathogens, such as MSX, or the introduction of other animals or
plants that may be attached to oysters. And in Australia and New
Zealand, introduced non-native oysters displaced native oysters.
We concluded that there are shortcomings and gaps in the basic
research on the biology of C. ariakensis and in the scientific
community's understanding of the ecological consequences of introducing
C. ariakensis into the Chesapeake Bay. Economic and cultural research
is also lacking with relation to introduction of C. ariakensis,
including evaluation of production and management systems. In addition,
the institutional and regulatory framework is currently inadequate to
monitor and oversee non-native oyster introductions. Given these
limitations, a formal risk assessment is not possible.
In the judgment of the committee, option two, aquaculture of non-
native sterile oysters, represents an appropriate interim step that
possesses less risk to the Chesapeake Bay and its dependent communities
than either options one or three. However, limits and controls on
aquaculture practices must be implemented to minimize the risk of
introducing pathogens or reproductive non-native oysters during this
transitional phase. Option two may provide limited benefit to parts of
the oyster industry and it provides decision makers with the added
information required to make future decisions. Moreover, this option
allows more time for innovative, science-based efforts to restore
native oyster populations. On the other hand, option one, not allowing
any introduction, fails to address industry concerns and will not
result in improved understanding of the ramifications of non-native
introductions. It may also increase the risk of rogue or uncontrolled
introductions. Option three, or the direct introduction of reproductive
non-native oysters, is not advised given the limited knowledge base on
C. ariakensis and the potential for irreversible consequences of
introducing a reproductive non-native oyster into the Chesapeake Bay.
The committee cautions decision makers and observers that it is
unlikely that there exists any ``quick fix'' to the Chesapeake oyster
situation. It is also unrealistic to expect that the oyster industry
and the Chesapeake Bay water quality could ever be fully returned to
conditions found in the past. It must be remembered that the many
problems in the Chesapeake Bay, including the plight of the oyster,
have been the result of more than a century of fishery, land use, and
environmental mismanagement by both the public and private sectors.
However, continued commitment to responsible management and research
could ultimately yield significant benefits to the Bay economy, as well
as its environment and cultural heritage.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We would be happy to take
any questions the Committee might have.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Dr. Anderson. Dr.
Whitlatch.
STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT B. WHITLATCH, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF
CONNECTICUT, GROTON, MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
COMMITTEE ON NON-NATIVE OYSTERS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
Dr. Whitlatch. Thank you. I would like to briefly reiterate
several points that my colleague has made and that have been
articulated also in the committee report.
It is well recognized that environmental and economic
issues related to the introduction of non-native oysters in the
Chesapeake Bay are fraught with considerable uncertainty. Since
the potential risk and benefits of introducing a species are
difficult to quantify, it is not surprising that various
interest groups differ in the value of deliberately introducing
a species.
I think we all agree, however, that once a species is
introduced in an uncontrolled manner it is virtually impossible
to control its spread. Marine ecosystems have few natural
boundaries which reduce the movement of species, and the
species which may be desirable in one location may not be
desirable in other locations.
I live in the State of Connecticut, where our oyster
industry is doing quite well, thank you. We are concerned that
this is not a regional issue, but should be viewed as a
national issue. Obviously the concerns about Chesapeake Bay are
important, but we should view this in a more national means.
The committee's recommendation to adopt what we think is a
well reasoned, but conservative approach to the issue of the
introduction; namely, introducing using reproductively sterile
individuals in limited field trails, is an important
recommendation because it allows two things, one of which we
can gain information on the biology of the species and how it
potentially interacts with the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. And
using this approach also provides the opportunity for further
development of integrated science-based approaches to the
restoration of native oyster populations in the Bay.
Well, what can Congress do? Firstly, in order to accomplish
the goal that is one of our recommendations, is that we need to
establish a long-term commitment of resources in order to study
the species and how it will interact with the Bay ecosystem.
Funds need to be provided to the science community and to
resource managers so the appropriate information can be
obtained to better understand how the species will interact
with the Bay ecosystem.
This is not simply a recommendation from a research
scientist to say give us more money to do research. But as my
colleague stated, the disease problem, one of the disease
problems in the Bay right now was due to introduction of a non-
native parasite, and there are many other examples in the world
where non-native species have been affected by native parasites
and also non-native parasites.
The second recommendation is there needs to be established
appropriate biosecurity protocol procedures in order to ensure
that any studies that use a species in the Bay minimize the
risk of establishment of wild populations of the non-native
species.
These resources are needed not only to educate the science
community in terms of trying to understand how to deal with the
species, but also to educate watermen and other individuals
that are working with the species in the Bay in order to
establish appropriate biosecurity protocols in order to ensure
minimizing the potential of the species in the Bay.
Thank you--not in order to minimize the potential of the
species in the Bay, I am sorry, in order to minimize the
potential spread of the species in an uncontrolled manner in
the Bay.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Dr. Whitlatch.
Next is Dr. Frederick Kern, III. Thank you, sir.
STATEMENT OF DR. FREDERICK G. KERN, III, ACTING CHIEF, COASTAL
RESOURCE HEALTH BRANCH, NATIONAL CENTERS FOR COASTAL OCEAN
SCIENCE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Dr. Kern. Thank you, Chairman Gilchrest. My name is Fred
Kern, and I am a Research Fishery Biologist at the NOAA
Cooperative Laboratory in Oxford, Maryland. I must point out it
is located in one gem of a Congressional District.
Mr. Gilchrest. Can you say that again, sir?
Dr. Kern. It is located in one gem of a Congressional
District.
Mr. Gilchrest. Oh. Thank you.
Dr. Kern. Most recently the Chesapeake Bay Program panel,
ad hoc panel, reviewed the findings of the NRC report and
reported to the Chesapeake Bay Program and to the Norfolk
District of the Army Corps of Engineers on how the NRC
recommendations would affect the current permit of the Virginia
Seafood Council to carry out its experimental test of triploid
Suminoe C. ariakensis oysters.
My comments today address NOAA's role of native oyster
restoration and the NOAA perspective on the NRC report. On
native oyster restoration, restoring the oyster populations in
the Chesapeake Bay is a long-term venture. It is a job of
immense scope.
Historic oyster grounds in the Chesapeake Bay once
encompassed over 400,000 acres. Recent bottom surveys of
certain parts of the Bay suggest that oyster habitat is
severely degraded across all but the smallest fraction of those
historic acres. Although oyster disease and habitat degradation
are the biggest impediments to oyster restoration, other
factors associated with human activities and land use, such as
high sediment rates, poor water quality, increased frequency
and severity of freshets, are also involved.
In the last 2 or 3 years, some large scale efforts have
been initiated that already have begun to show signs of
success, especially in areas of moderate salinity regimes.
NOAA currently supports the native oyster research and
restoration work, totaling more than $4 million annually.
Restoration work is focused on increasing oyster substrate and
rearing spat for placement on rehabilitated bottom habitat.
On regional policy on the non-native species, the NRC
report identified the lack of specific authorities to control
non-native species introductions as a major inadequacy in the
existing regulatory frameworks.
Most States in the U.S. require a permit to introduce a
non-native species, but have no specific guidelines,
procedures, or penalties associated with intentional
introductions. To respond to the need for regional coordination
on non-native species introduction, the Chesapeake Bay Program
developed the policy in 1993 amongst the participating States
and cooperative units. Under this policy proposed new
introductions must be submitted for review by the ad hoc panel
comprised of representatives from State and Federal agencies as
well as scientific experts.
Since 1997, this ad hoc panel has reviewed several
proposals and permits submitted by the State of Virginia. Most
of these permits were approved, providing specific biosecurity
requirements that were incorporated into the projects.
Regarding NOAA support for non-native oyster research, NOAA
Sea Grant Office and several State sea grant programs have
funded research on the biological and ecological
characteristics of C. gigas and C. ariakensis. The National Sea
Grant Program continues to fund long-term genetic programs to
develop more resistant C. virginica oysters.
Recognizing the current need for better scientific data on
C. ariakensis, NOAA has responded by directing 1.4 million
toward research on the species in Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003.
On the National Research Council report, last year NOAA
joined several other agencies and institutions in sponsoring
the study of non-native oyster issues by the NRC. In conducting
the study, the NRC synthesized the available data from research
and case studies of non-native oyster introductions around the
globe. This synthesis represents the most comprehensive review
of non-native oyster introductions and the consequences to
date.
Dr. Anderson identified the three options in which they
were reviewed and their choice of option number two, conduct
open water aquaculture of triploid nonindigenous oysters to
continue the needed research to answer the questions that were
raised in their report.
The NRC study also calls attention to several important
misconceptions regarding the introduction of C. ariakensis. The
NRC found little scientific support for these myths that have
shaped public discourse on this subject. I won't go into the
five myths, but they should be reviewed.
At the present time, NOAA believes that the following steps
are necessary and appropriate for moving forward in an informed
decision on ariakensis:
One, develop a highly focused, short-term research plan
that will answer the key biological and ecological questions
identified by the NRC panel.
Two, develop biosecurity protocols for all in-water
deployments of triploid C. ariakensis.
Three, clarify the proposal by Maryland and Virginia to
introduce reproductive diploid C. ariakensis.
And, four, perform a full risk assessment and alternative
analysis.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Kern follows:]
Statement of Frederick G. Kern, III, Acting Chief, Coastal Resource
Health Branch, Center for Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular
Research, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on recent efforts to introduce non-native oyster
species to the Chesapeake Bay and on the National Research Council's
report entitled ``Non-native oysters in the Chesapeake Bay.'' My name
is Fred Kern, and I am a Research Fishery Biologist at the NOAA
Cooperative Laboratory in Oxford, Maryland, and have been associated
with the laboratory for more than 35 years. My research speciality
addresses shellfish diseases, and I have represented NOAA on a variety
of committees and panels that address issues of introducing non-native
organisms. I have chaired the Chesapeake Bay Program's (CBP) ad hoc
panels that review proposals by the Program's partners to introduce
non-native oysters to the open waters of Chesapeake Bay.
Most recently the panel reviewed the findings of the National
Research Council's (NRC) report, ``Non-native oysters in the Chesapeake
Bay,'' and reported to the Bay Program and the Norfolk District of the
Army Corps of Engineers on how the NRC's recommendations would affect
the current permit for the Virginia Seafood Council to carry out its
experimental test of triploid Suminoe (C. ariakensis) oysters in the
Chesapeake Bay. My comments today address NOAA's role in native oyster
restoration and NOAA perspectives on the NRC's report.
Native Oyster Restoration
Restoring the native oyster population in the Chesapeake Bay is a
long-term venture. It is also a job of immense scope. Historic oyster
grounds in the Chesapeake Bay once encompassed over 450,000 acres.
Recent bottom surveys in certain parts of the Bay suggest that oyster
habitat is severely degraded across all but the smallest fraction of
those historic acres.
The Chesapeake 2000 Agreement sets the goal of a tenfold increase
in native oysters by 2010, relative to a 1994 baseline. It has been
estimated that 15,000 acres must be restored to reach this goal.
Although oyster diseases and habitat degradation are the biggest
impediments to oyster restoration, other factors associated with human
activities and land use--such as high sedimentation rates, poor water
quality, and increased frequency and severity of freshets--are involved
as well.
Contemporary restoration efforts began in the 1990s with small
projects that were experimental in nature. While this work provided
significant advancements in our understanding of how to restore oyster
habitat and ``jump start'' oyster populations by seeding rehabilitated
bottom with hatchery spat, the scope and geographic scale of the work
was insignificant relative to the large areas of degraded oyster
habitat in need of rehabilitation. In the last two to three years some
large-scale efforts have been initiated that are already beginning to
show signs of success, especially in areas with a moderate salinity
regime.
NOAA currently supports native oyster research and restoration work
totaling more than $4M annually (Table 1). Restoration work is focused
on increasing oyster substrate and rearing spat for placement on
rehabilitated bottom habitat. These objectives are furthered through
funding of applied research and development of cooperative partnerships
among federal agencies, state agencies, research institutions, and non-
profit groups. Significant funding has also been directed toward
increasing the capacity and efficiency of hatchery production.
Complementary oyster disease research funding continues to address
disease vector mechanisms and management strategies, including the
development of potentially disease-resistant strains of native oysters.
Through cooperative projects, NOAA divers provide monitoring and
assessment expertise to validate project results, and NOAA ship-based
charting technology assists in identifying bottom substrate types and
appropriate project sites.
Regional Policy on Non-Native Species
Most states in the U.S. require a permit to introduce a non-native
species, but have no specific guidelines, procedures, or penalties
associated with intentional introductions. To respond to the need for
regional coordination on non-native species introductions the
Chesapeake Bay Program developed the ``Chesapeake Bay Policy for the
Introduction of Non-Indigenous Aquatic Species'' in 1993. Although this
policy is non-binding, it was approved and signed by the Governors of
Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware and West Virginia, the Mayor
of the District of Columbia, the Administrator of EPA (representing the
EPA as well as other federal agency partners) and the Commissioner of
the Chesapeake Bay Commission. Under this policy, proposed
introductions must be submitted for review by an ad hoc panel comprised
of representatives from the state and federal agencies as well as
scientific experts. Since 1997, this ad hoc panel has reviewed several
proposals submitted by the State of Virginia (see attachment).
NOAA Support for Non-native Oyster Research
The NOAA National Sea Grant Office and several state Sea Grant
programs have funded research on the biological and ecological
characteristics of C. gigas and C. ariakensis. National Sea Grant
continues to fund a long-term genetic research program to develop a
more resistant C. virginica oyster.
Recognizing the current need for better scientific data on C.
ariakensis, NOAA responded by directing $1.4M toward research on this
species in Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 (Table 1). For example, three
research projects in FY03 were funded through NOAA's Sea Grant Oyster
Disease Research Program. However, this Request for Proposals has a
two-year funding cycle, and the next anticipated RFP cycle would be in
2005.
National Research Council Report
Last year, NOAA joined several other agencies and institutions in
sponsoring a study of non-native oyster issues by the National Research
Council (NRC). In conducting its study, the NRC synthesized available
data from research and case studies of non-native oyster introductions
around the globe. This synthesis represents the most comprehensive
review of non-native oyster introductions and their consequences to
date (more specific conclusions attached). I would like to highlight
some of the study's findings.
The NRC panel focused its study on three options:
Option 1: Prohibit introduction of non-native oysters.
Option 2: Conduct open water aquaculture of triploid non-
native oysters.
Option 3: Introduce reproductive diploid oysters.
The panel recommended Option 2 as an interim measure that could
provide some immediate relief for certain segments of the oyster
industry, as well as a way to safely study this species' biology within
Chesapeake Bay in order to obtain the scientific data required for a
risk assessment. Option 1 was not recommended because of the risk of a
possible rogue introduction, which might be more likely if government
agencies are perceived as taking no action to address the industry's
plight. Option 3 was not recommended because ``the irreversibility of
introducing a reproductive non-native oyster and the high level of
uncertainty with regard to potential ecological hazards make Option 3
an imprudent course of action.''
The adequacy of the existing regulatory frameworks to address non-
native oyster introduction also was addressed at length in Chapter 8 of
the NRC report. With respect to federal authority, the applicability of
federal consistency provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA) will not apply unless there is both an application to issue a
federal license or permit and an enforceable policy concerning the
introduction of non-native species into state waters included in an
affected state's federally-approved Coastal Management Program.
The NRC study also calls attention to several important
misconceptions regarding introduction of C. ariakensis: ``In evaluating
the scientific evidence bearing on the potential risks and benefits of
introducing a non-native oyster into the Chesapeake Bay, the committee
finds relatively little scientific support for many of the common
assumptions that have shaped public discourse on this issue.'' The
report identifies five such ``myths.''
Myth I: Declines in the oyster fishery and water quality
can be quickly reversed.
Myth II: Oyster restoration, whether native or non-
native, will dramatically improve water quality in Chesapeake Bay.
Myth III: Restoration of native oyster populations has
been tried and will not work.
Myth IV: Crassostrea ariakensis will rapidly populate the
Bay, increasing oyster landings and improving water quality.
Myth V: Aquaculture of triploid Crassostrea ariakensis
will solve the economic problems of a devastated fishery and restore
the ecological services once provided by the native oyster.
NOAA endorses the NRC report and its recommendations. We find the
report to be of the highest scientific caliber. NOAA also concurs with
the NRC's conclusion that there is not adequate scientific information
about Crassostrea ariakensis to support a full risk assessment at this
time. As the Nation's ocean and coastal science agency, NOAA is
committed to supporting the research needed to better inform this
important decision.
Next Steps
At the present time, NOAA believes the following steps are
necessary and appropriate for moving forward to achieve an informed
decision on C. ariakensis. The first three steps can be taken
simultaneously; however, NOAA believes the fourth step is dependent
upon completion of the first three.
1. Develop a highly focused, short-term research plan that will
answer the key biological and ecological questions identified by the
NRC panel. NOAA has recommended that the Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee (STAC) of the Bay Program develop this plan. STAC
has indicated willingness to undertake this task. With adequate
resources, STAC could produce the research plan over the course of a
few months. NOAA stands ready to coordinate the implementation of this
plan across multiple academic institutions and research facilities as
soon as it is completed.
2. Develop biosecurity protocols for all in-water deployments of
triploid C. ariakensis, including both research and industry
aquaculture. As recommended by the NRC panel, these protocols should be
patterned after the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP)
approach currently used in the field of food safety, and should include
the ten points listed in the NRC report. We have begun working with our
federal agency partners and NOAA's national and state Sea Grant
programs to facilitate the formation of a panel of national experts on
the topic of biosecurity to accomplish this step.
3. Clarify the proposal by Maryland and Virginia to introduce
reproductive diploid C. ariakensis.
4. Perform a full risk assessment and alternatives analysis. The
federal and state agencies involved (ACOE, NOAA, EPA, USFWS, MD, and
VA) have agreed to cooperate in preparing an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) to address the States' joint proposal. NOAA looks
forward to serving as a Cooperating Agency on this EIS. We suggest this
effort move forward by initially addressing the alternatives, with
comprehensive risk assessment to follow at a later date when sufficient
scientific information becomes available.
This concludes my testimony. I would like to thank the Chairman and
the Members of the Subcommittee for giving me the opportunity to
testify today. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9844.001
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Dr. Kern. Dr. Boesch.
STATEMENT OF DR. DONALD F. BOESCH, PRESIDENT,
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
Dr. Boesch. Chairman Gilchrest, thank you for the
opportunity to address you today on the important issue of the
Chesapeake Bay and oysters, the very species for which this
great estuary was named.
I head the University of Maryland Center for Environmental
Science, an organization that has developed science for living
resource management for 78 years now. We have worked on oyster
biology and conservation from the very start. In fact, science
has mingled with oyster management for even longer periods of
time, going back into the 19th century with Professor Brooks at
Johns Hopkins. Unfortunately, had the science findings and
recommendations of our ancestor scientists been heeded we might
not be here today.
But here we are. We are faced with this well-considered
recommendation of the National Research Council panel. My
colleagues and I stand ready to work with the State and Federal
agencies and the stakeholders in addressing the questions
raised by the NRC report in a careful and credible way.
The University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
has been at the forefront of efforts to restore populations and
habitat of the native eastern oyster since 1994. Dr. Kern
referred to the NOAA sponsorship of those efforts. Our
scientists developed the scientific theory behind the key
element of the Maryland Oyster Roundtable action plan, which
designates oyster recovery areas into which the importation of
diseased oysters is restricted and in which active rebuilding
of reefs is pursued.
Scientists for the Maryland Department of National
Resources and watermen have learned much in the process,
leading to management approaches that avoid worsening the
spread of the Dermo disease, establish permanent oyster
sanctuaries and seed oyster reserves in which harvest is
eventually allowed.
These efforts have been locally successful in areas in
which the other oyster disease, MSX, does not occur. In this
regard, we are more fortunate than in Virginia in that we have
extensive areas of low salinity habitat in Maryland, which is
only threatened by MSX in occasional dry years. Rates of
acquisition of Dermo disease by disease free young oysters
planted on fresh shell beds are greatly reduced compared to
other areas in which oyster production is supplemented by
repletion of naturally occurring, but disease carrying oysters.
The growth rates on these restored oyster bars have ranged from
an inch to an inch-and-a-half per year. The oysters grow
vertically, providing home to substantially greater populations
of associated animals.
The accompanying photograph, which I have attached to my
testimony, shows 5-year-old oysters in the Chester River,
growing in the Chester River from a reef restored by the Army
Corps of Engineers in 1997 and 1998. What you will see is a
dense colony of oysters, each five or more inches long, at a
density of 100 to 400 per square meter.
The efforts to restore the native oysters, Eastern oysters,
have been successful, as I said, only on a local scale. Disease
mortality at high salinities remains a problem, and the scale
of the restoration effort to date has been modest compared to
the scale of the problem. The successes that we have realized,
however, would have not been possible without the greatly
expanded production of disease-free spat at the Center's oyster
culture facility at our Horn Point Laboratory. We have doubled
the production each year, with over 150 million spat-on-shell
produced in 2003.
The just opening Aquaculture and Restoration Ecology
Laboratory, which we hope, Congressman, you will visit soon, it
is just about to open, at Horn Point, which is also located in
the First Congressional District, will greatly increase our
capacity as we work together with the Oyster Recovery
Partnership, an amazing organization that does all of the heavy
lifting, both literally and figuratively, and the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, the Corps of Engineers, and
NOAA. The new laboratory facility also has unique quarantine
facilities that will allow our scientists to work on oyster
diseases in non-native oyster species under near natural
conditions without the risk of accidental introduction.
The previous speakers have commented on scientific and
management issues related to the Suminoe oysters as addressed
in the NRC report. I will not say much more about that, other
than to indicate that my colleagues and I are committed to
responsible and probing research on the key questions
identified in the NRC report under appropriate levels of
biosecurity.
Working together with Dr. Allen and his colleagues at
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, we have already begun
some of this research, and look forward to working with
responsible agencies and scientists throughout the region as
the challenging questions of introduction is addressed.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Boesch follows:]
Statement of Donald F. Boesch, Ph.D., President, University of Maryland
Center for Environmental Science, Cambridge, Maryland
Chairman Gilchrest and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to address you today on the important issue of the
Chesapeake Bay and oysters--the very species for which this great
estuary was named.
I head the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science,
an organization that has developed science for living resource
management for 78 years now. We have worked on oyster biology and
conservation from the very start--in fact, science has mixed with
oyster management even before that extending to the days of Professor
Brooks at Johns Hopkins University. Unfortunately, had all of the
scientific findings and recommendations been heeded we would not be in
the predicament we are today. But here we are, with a fresh set of
well-considered recommendations from the National Research Council. My
colleagues and I stand ready to work with state and federal agencies
and the stakeholders in addressing the questions raised in the NRC
report in a careful and credible way.
The University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science has
been at the forefront of efforts to restore populations and habitats of
the native Eastern Oyster since 1994. Our scientists developed the
scientific theory behind the key element of the Maryland Oyster
Roundtable action plan, which designates Oyster Recovery Areas into
which the importation of diseased oysters is restricted and in which
active rebuilding of reefs is pursued. Scientists, the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, and watermen have learned much in the
process, leading to management approaches that avoid worsening the
spread of the Dermo disease, establish permanent oyster sanctuaries,
and seed oyster reserves in which harvest is eventually allowed.
These efforts have been locally successful in areas in which the
other oyster disease, MSX, does not occur. In this regard we are more
fortunate than in Virginia in that we have extensive areas of low-
salinity habitat, which is only threatened by MSX during occasional dry
years. Rates of acquisition of Dermo disease by disease-free young
oysters planted on fresh shell beds are greatly reduced compared to
other areas in which oyster production is supplemented by repletion of
naturally occurring, but disease-carrying seed oysters. Growth rates on
these restored oyster bars range from an inch to an inch-and-a-half per
year. The oysters grow vertically producing the complex structure of a
natural reef, providing home to substantially greater populations of
associated animals. The accompanying photograph shows five-year-old
oysters from a reef restored by the Army Corps of Engineers in 1997 and
1998. What you see is a dense colony of five-year-old oysters, each
five or more inches long and at a density of 100 to 400 per square
meter.
The efforts to restore native Eastern Oysters have been successful
on only a local scale at this point. Disease mortality at higher
salinities remains a problem and the scale of the restoration effort
has to date been modest. The successes that have been realized,
however, would have not been possible without the greatly expanded
production of disease-free spat by the Center's oyster culture facility
at our Horn Point Laboratory. We have doubled production each year,
with over 150 million spat-on-shell produced in 2003. The just opening
Aquaculture and Restoration Ecology Laboratory at Horn Point will
greatly increase our capacity as we work together with the Oyster
Recovery Partnership--an amazing organization that does all the heavy
lifting, both literally and figuratively--and the Department of Natural
Resources, Corps of Engineers and NOAA. The new laboratory facility
also has unique quarantine facilities that will allow our scientists to
work on oyster diseases and non-native oyster species under near-
natural conditions without the risk of accidental introductions.
The previous speakers have commented on scientific and management
issues related to the Suminoe oyster. I will not say much more other
than to indicate that my colleagues and I are committed to responsible
and probing research on the key questions identified in the NRC report.
We have already begun some of this research and look forward to working
with the responsible agencies and scientists in other states as the
challenging question of introduction is addressed.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Dr. Boesch. Dr. Allen.
STATEMENT OF DR. STANDISH K. ALLEN, JR., PROFESSOR,
VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE
Dr. Allen. Good morning. I would like to move forward with
this from this NRC report. So my testimony focuses on the scope
of use of these so-called sterile or triploid ariakensis in
the Chesapeake Bay. That is, within the recommendation to
deploy diploids only by the NRC report, there is a wide scope
of possible activity with varying levels of attendant risk. In
general, the more valuable the information sought for research
or aquaculture, the larger the risk, even using triploids. At
the current level of risk aversion in the community, that is,
extremely risk averse, the level of useful information is
potentially low for both research and aquaculture.
Full assessment of the biological and ecological characters
of C. ariakensis.
Mr. Gilchrest. I am sorry, Dr. Allen, I don't mean to
interrupt, but I just want to make sure I understood your last
statement.
The recommendation from NRC, which I think is number two,
you are saying would not be very helpful in understanding
this--the process of using ariakensis in the Chesapeake Bay and
its ramifications?
Dr. Allen. My thesis is that there is a tremendous range of
things that we can do under this particular recommendation, and
I intend to amplify that range. I am saying that if we limit
the range extraordinarily through restrictions on trials, then
the information we are capable of gaining are consequently
limited, and the information we can gain from it. Let me try to
expand.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Dr. Allen. Clearly the biological and ecological characters
of C. ariakensis are difficult to evaluate. It is made all of
the more difficult by the Catch-22 of intentional
introductions, which is that you can't know the true impact of
an introduction until you have actually made it, and you can't
make an introduction until you can predict the environmental
impact.
In the case of shellfish introductions of the past, a full
evaluation, at least an ecological one, was absent.
Introduction was primarily based on economic considerations.
For the most part, and as reviewed by the NRC report, these
introductions became economically important and generally
ecological innocuous. But we are in a different era now, one
more cognizant of the downside of introduced and non-native
species. We are also in a different era of technology vis-a-vis
shellfish genetics, which allows us to take an intermediate
course between no introduction and complete introduction. That
intermediate course invokes the use of triploids as a tool for
ecological and economic evaluation of non-native introduction
so that it is not irreversible.
In my testimony, written testimony, I summarize the major
research recommendations by NRC and suggested approaches for
their empirical determination. More than half of the issues
that need attention can be addressed by using sterile progeny
in the field as a proxy for diploids.
Answers to research and other categories requires some
aspect of reproductive biology to be fully operational, such as
reproductive output in various environments or recruitment
dynamics. Some research can be limited to laboratory work, with
the rather large caveat that lab studies cannot always be
extrapolated to relevance in the field. Some research, like
evaluation of population genetics, is completely doable in the
lab.
The NRC report clearly indicates that adoption of a careful
approach to open water triploid aquaculture should be
considered an interim action to provide researchers an
opportunity to obtain critical data on non-native oysters for
risk assessment. I am not sure that the report envisioned the
full potential of triploid experiments for this purpose.
It seems to me that they framed the recommendation for open
water aquaculture on, quote, the inclusion of parallel
ecological experiments designed to generate information
critical to evaluating the risks that triploids won't lead to
diploid population, unquote.
More directed ecological research, not necessarily
resembling or associated with commercial aquaculture, is
possible; that is, there is a range of experiments that could
be designed using triploids that have no relationship to how
triploids may be grown in commercial aquaculture.
Envision an experiment designed to test the ecological
function of C. ariakensis reefs, for example. Hatchery
production of culch could be produced and placed into one or
more estuaries with or without C. virginica interspersed and
community structure examined over the course of several years.
New year classes of triploids could be, quote-unquote,
recruited to the reef by subsequent hatchery spawns and
deployment, all of the while obviating colonization, or at
least decreasing its risk to diminutive levels for the sake of
gaining the information.
Such creative experiments using triploid, not diploid, C.
ariakensis could be enormously instructive. While research with
triploids is highly promising as an alternative to diploid
studies, it is not risk free. At the present time, however, it
is my opinion that the regulatory environment is too risk
averse to entertain anything other than highly restrictive
trials.
As in research, there is a tremendous opportunity to learn
of the economic potential of aquaculture by a slightly less
risk averse environment. For example, deployment on-bottom with
triploids that could be dredged at market size would yield
information on the viability of this species to standard
practices in use for C. virginica. It would yield information
on the hardiness of this species for fisheries use,
anticipating the possibility of a diploid introduction for
fisheries purposes. On-bottom trials could indicate the
feasibility of extensive repletion aquaculture, already
practiced by the State of Maryland, of triploids. More
interestingly, trials of this sort, carefully integrated with
scientists, could yield fishery, aquaculture and ecological
data simultaneously, but not without some risk.
Currently VIMS is embarked on a unique collaboration with
the industry, the Army Corps of Engineers, Virginia's Center of
Innovative Technology, and the Virginia Marine Resources
Commission in a comprehensive trial of about 1 million triploid
C. ariakensis.
In short, scientific evaluation of reproduction, disease
incidence, reversion, comparative growth and economic impact
have been coupled with the commercial scale trials of
triploids. I have suggested some avenues of integrated research
above. It would be helpful to encourage such programs as well
as finding mechanisms to enable interstate collaboration among
Virginia, Maryland and North Carolina, by providing resources
and allowing reasonable levels of risk.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Allen follows:]
Statement of Standish K. Allen, Jr., Director, Aquaculture Genetics and
Breeding Technology Center, Professor of Marine Science, Virginia
Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary
Thesis of this Testimony
Recently the National Research Council (NRC) of the National
Academy of Sciences released their report ``Non-native Oysters in the
Chesapeake Bay.'' In it was a thorough analysis of existing data for C.
ariakensis and recommendations for specific research needs. The report
also evaluated three management options for C. ariakensis given the
breadth and quality of existing research on this species. The three
options were: (1) no use of non-native oysters; (2) open water
aquaculture of triploid oysters; and (3) introduction of reproductive
diploid oysters.
Of these three choices, the report concluded that ``[T]he risks of
proceeding with triploid aquaculture in a responsible manner, using
best management practices, are low relative to some of the risks posed
under the other management options.''
They went on to indicate that contained aquaculture of triploid C.
ariakensis provided an opportunity to further evaluate the risk of
introducing non-natives by serving as a proxy for the reproductive form
of the oyster. Contained aquaculture of triploids also allows
exploration of the potential for extensive triploid-based aquaculture.
My testimony focuses on the scope of use for triploid C. ariakensis
in the Chesapeake Bay. That is, within the recommendation to deploy
triploids only, there is a wide scope of possible activity with varying
levels of attendant risks. In general, the more valuable the
information sought for research or aquaculture, the larger the risks,
even using triploids. At the current level of risk aversion in the
community (i.e., extremely risk averse), the level of useful
information is potentially low for both research and aquaculture.
Statement of conflict of interest
I share co-authorship of a patent on tetraploid technology obtained
in my previous appointment at Rutgers University. The patent was
obtained because of the broad utility of tetraploids in shellfish
aquaculture and before its application to the current situation (i.e.,
before the development and application of tetraploidy to C. ariakensis)
in Chesapeake Bay.
Brief background on triploidy in C. ariakensis
Field research on the Asian (Suminoe) oyster, C. ariakensis, began
in 1998 at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) in response
to a resolution from the Virginia Legislature to initiate
investigations on alternative species. All field trials have employed
sterile triploids. Initial research indicated promising performance in
C. ariakensis in a variety of salinities for growth and disease
resistance (Calvo et al., 2001). Research on this species is still
ongoing at VIMS. With harvests of C. virginica at record lows, there is
intense pressure to submit to the introduction of this non-native
species. VIMS, and specifically the Aquaculture Genetics and Breeding
Technology Center (ABC), has been working on options for the use of C.
ariakensis in a non-reproductive form: We have developed the technology
for creating 100% sterile triploids in anticipation C. ariakensis might
be useful in research, grown in commercial aquaculture, or both.
Triploid aquaculture is enabled by the development of tetraploid
oysters (Guo and Allen 1994b). Tetraploids have four sets of
chromosomes. Since the complement of chromosomes in a tetraploid is
divisible by two, which is essentially what meiosis accomplishes during
gamete formation, tetraploids are fertile. Moreover, gametes produced
from tetraploids contain two sets of chromosomes. (Normal reproduction
in diploids yields gametes with a single set of chromosomes.)
Therefore, one highly efficient method of making triploid oysters is to
breed tetraploids with diploids in the hatchery (Guo et al. 1996).
Triploids created in this way are referred to as genetic triploids. The
major manifestation of triploidy in oysters is the disruption of normal
reproductive physiology, rendering triploids functionally sterile
(Allen, 1986; Allen and Downing, 1990; Guo and Allen, 1994a; Erskine,
2003).
Despite the effectiveness of creating triploids using tetraploids,
the process is not perfect. There are three aspects of the biology of
triploids that engender some risk for establishing reproductive
populations.
Fertility--Triploids produce gametes but are generally considered
sterile
Reproductive potential of triploid Crassostrea gigas has been
studied extensively for a number of reasons, ranging from documentation
of their sterility for commercial purposes (Allen and Downing, 1990) to
estimation of their reproductive capacity for population control (Guo
and Allen, 1994a). Estimation of reproductive likelihood in triploid
oysters was not quite as simple as the case for fish (cf. Allen et al.,
1986). Triploid Pacific oysters do, in fact, make significant numbers
of eggs and sperm (Allen and Downing, 1990). However, it is fair to
say--based on the principals of meiosis generally and the information
we have specifically from Pacific oysters--that triploidy will be
similarly effective as a reproductive control measure for C.
ariakensis.
Our analysis of reproductive potential of triploid Pacific oyster
revealed that although gametes from triploids were fully capable of
fertilization, aneuploid progeny resulted (Guo and Allen, 1994a). When
triploids were crossed with themselves, the ploidy of resulting embryos
was 2.88n on average, that is, hypotriploid. Survival of fertilized
eggs to metamorphosis and settlement was only about 0.0085%. More
recent data showed that triploid males are about 1000-fold less fecund
than diploid males; triploid females about 20 times less fecund. So,
although triploid oysters are not sterile in terms of gamete
production, their reproductive potential is extremely low, by all
practical measures, 0.
Fidelity``100%'' triploids
Until recently, the production of spawns of 100% triploids seemed
all but impossible. This is because the state of the art for making
triploids involved an induction procedure in which the newly fertilized
egg is poisoned with an antibiotic, usually cytochalasin B (CB), to
cause the failure of cytokinesis during the elimination of the second
polar body (PB2) (Allen et al., 1989). The chromosome contained in the
polar body contributes the third chromosome set to the embryo. Because
the treatment (whether CB or anything else) has to be coordinated with
the elimination of the second polar body and because PB2 elimination in
a population of newly fertilized eggs is subject to inherent variation,
some eggs escape treatment and remain diploid. This imprecision gives
rise to broods of oysters with varying proportions of triploids. For
perfect biological containment, pure triploid populations are
necessary.
In summer of 1993, Dr. Ximing Guo and I were successful in creating
the first viable tetraploid bivalves, specifically C. gigas (Guo and
Allen, 1994b). Tetraploids, crossed to diploids, are very effective in
producing large numbers of pure triploids. Fecundity of tetraploid
females seems relatively high, only slightly lower than diploids (Guo
et al., 1996). Fecundity of males is sufficient to fertilize about 50
million eggs with a single 2-3'' male. Survival of 4n x 2n crosses
(both reciprocals) in the larval stage were at least as high as the
diploid controls, and two orders of magnitude higher than triploids
produced by standard induction procedures. These initial data indicate
that it is feasible to create 100% triploids using a tetraploid
breeding population.
Since this work on C. gigas, subsequent work at VIMS has shown that
the production of triploids is not exactly 100%. In a 2000 year class
of ``100%'' triploids for industry trials in Virginia, 4 diploid
(normally reproductive) oysters were found among about 3400 examined
(0.12%). Two spawns in 2003 indicated 4 diploids among 3000 (0.13%) and
2 diploids among 3004 examined (0.07%). Thus as a general rule, we can
say that ``100%'' triploid spawns to date are actually about 99.9%
triploid. While this is still very good, say, compared to induced
triploids, it is not perfect. Furthermore, when even a very low
probability of diploid occurrence is multiplied by large numbers of
oysters--e.g., 1,000,00 or 100,000,000--substantial numbers of normal
diploids can obtain (see below).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9844.002
Stability--reversion and mosaics
Certified triploid C, gigas were deployed in Delaware and
Chesapeake Bays in 1993. After about 9 months of exposure, we found a
relatively high proportion of mosaics--that is, oysters with both
diploid and triploid cells in the somatic tissue--among our triploid
oysters. The occurrence of mosaics themselves is not particularly
surprising since the triploid induction process (then based on
induction) effectively poisons newly dividing embryos. Abnormal
progeny, such as mosaic individuals with two cell types, might be
expected as a matter of course.
The surprising result was that the frequency of mosaics in several
triploid populations increased over time, suggesting that some
triploids have a tendency to lose chromosome sets. We have called this
process reversion.
The classic definition of mosaicism is the presence of two or more
cell types in the same organism. In our case, it is the presence of
triploid and some other cell type(s) within the same oyster. This other
cell type is generally diploid, although (i) whether or not the
``diploid'' cells contain balanced sets of chromosomes is unknown; (ii)
there can be more than one other cell type, as has been recently found
in our lab among tetraploid oysters; and (iii) some mosaic conditions,
like that found in the gonad of triploids, is natural because of the
process of meiosis. The presence of mosaics among triploid populations
is generally unappreciated for two major reasons. First, it requires
some level of sophistication in ploidy analysis, for example, flow
cytometry (FCM), to find mosaics. With FCM, the frequency distribution
histograms of mosaics appear as distinct ploidy types, usually triploid
and something else. The second reason mosaics have gone unnoticed is
that they generally occur in very low frequency (e.g., 5%), although if
sample size is large enough they always seem to be found.
In recent evaluations of populations of triploids, both induced and
genetic, shows that the process of reversion is quite slow, taking a
year or so to begin affecting the population (Zhou, 2002). The process
is progressive, however, such that populations of triploids left for
longer periods of time produce more and more mosaics. The frequency of
mosaics ranges from 2-5% in the first year, perhaps reaching about 10%
by year three. The frequency of reversion in genetic triploids is about
1/3 that of induced triploids. The salient risk in the process of
reversion is whether or not the ``unstable'' triploids will eventually
yield reproducing oysters. To date, there has been no evidence that
normal reproduction occurs in mosaics. This risk is especially low in
animals less than, or equal to, typical market size (3'') (Chandler et
al, 1999).
Application of triploidy to recommendations by the National Research
Council report
Application to research
Full assessment of the biological and ecological characters of C.
ariakensis for the purpose of evaluating the risk of introduction is
clearly a difficult task. It is made all the more difficult by the
Catch-22 of intentional introductions: You can't know the true impact
of an introduction until you have actually made it; you can't make an
introduction until you can predict the environmental impact. In the
case of shellfish introductions of the past, a full evaluation--at
least an ecological one--was absent. Introduction was primarily based
on economic considerations. For the most part, and as reviewed in the
NRC report, these introductions became economically important and
generally ecologically innocuous.
But we are in a different era now, one more cognizant of the
downside of introduced and non-native species. We are also in a
different era of technology, vis a vis shellfish genetics, which allows
us to take an intermediate course between ``no introduction'' and
``complete introduction.'' That intermediate course invokes the use of
triploids as a tool for ecological and economic evaluation of non-
native introduction before it is irreversible.
The table below summarizes the major research recommendations made
by NRC and suggested approaches for their empirical determination. More
than half of the issues that need attention can be addressed by using
sterile (triploid) progeny in the field as a proxy for diploids.
Answers to research in other categories require some aspect of
reproductive biology to be fully operational, such as reproductive
output in various environments or recruitment dynamics. Other research
can be limited to laboratory work, with the rather large caveat that
lab studies cannot always be extrapolated to relevance in the field.
And some research, like evaluation of population genetics of the
species, is completely doable in the lab.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9844.003
The NRC report clearly indicated that adoption of a careful
approach to open water triploid aquaculture should be considered an
interim action to provide researchers an opportunity to obtain critical
data on non-native oysters for risk assessment. I'm not sure that the
report envisioned the full potential of triploid experiments for this
purpose. It seems to me that they framed the recommendation for open
water aquaculture on the ``inclusion of parallel ecological experiments
designed to generate information critical to evaluating the risk that
triploid aquaculture will eventually produce a diploid population.''
More directed ecological research, not necessarily resembling or
associated with commercial aquaculture, is possible. That is, there is
a range of experiments that could be designed using triploids that have
no relationship to how triploids may be grown in commercial
aquaculture.
Envision an experiment designed to test the ecological function of
a C. ariakensis reef, for example. Hatchery produced spat on cultch
could be produced and placed into one or more estuaries, with or
without C. virginica interspersed, and community structure examined
over the course of several years. New year classes of triploids could
be ``recruited'' to the reef by subsequent hatchery spawns and
deployment, all the while obviating colonization, or at least
decreasing its risk to diminutive levels for the sake of gaining the
information. Such creative experiments using triploid, not diploid, C.
ariakensis could be enormously instructive.
While research with triploids is highly promising as an alternative
to diploid studies, it is not risk free. (The risk of reproduction
among triploids was briefly discussed above.) At the present time,
however, it is my opinion that the regulatory environment is too risk
averse to entertain anything other than highly restrictive trials.
Perhaps that stems in part from the NSC report's admonition that
``stringent regulations will be necessary to ensure that aquaculture of
triploid C. ariakensis does not result in the establishment of a self-
reproducing population...'' Ensure is a powerful word.
Application to aquaculture
In fact, the NRC report used a number of descriptors to describe
the scope of aquaculture recommended by the panel: they include
``ensure,'' ``contained,'' ``confined,'' ``careful,'' ``responsible,''
and ``open water.'' Depending on interpretation, these terms could
entail different levels of risk (see below). How do we define that
level? What is reasonable? What is acceptable?
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9844.004
For the industry aquaculture trials recently approved in Virginia,
the level of permissibility has been to ``ensure''--ensure that
aquaculture does not result in a self-sustaining population. In
addition to the conditions placed on the growers themselves, which
includes double containment of oysters, bonding, and additional
investments, there has been a host of other conditions placed on the
trial that can only be satisfied with stringent sampling regimes
accomplished by researchers, in this case VIMS. At this phase in the
evolution of C. ariakensis trials, these provisions seem appropriate.
However, it is probably unreasonable to think that this level of
restriction on aquaculture can yield meaningful economic data, other
than marketing information. That is to say, the expense to growers for
raising oysters greatly exceeds what might be expected with lesser
restriction. With highly restrictive aquaculture, it will be impossible
to show economies of scale that would accrue if there were, for
example, no restrictions. In short, it will be difficult to realize the
considerable economic potential of this species.
No one expects ``no restrictions,'' for the time being, but there
seem to have been some expectations in the NRC report for limited
success in aquaculture. They listed some of the benefits of open water
aquaculture as determining viability of aquaculture, aquaculture
employment, and retention of fishery benefits to the Bay. So, which of
the descriptors (i.e., what levels of risk) apply to these expectations
and how open water can open water aquaculture be?
As in research, there are tremendous opportunities to learn of the
economic potential of aquaculture by a slightly less risk averse
environment. For example, deployment on-bottom with triploids that
could be dredged at market size would yield information on the
viability of this species to standard practices in use for C.
virginica. It would yield information on the heartiness of this species
for fisheries use, anticipating the possibility of a diploid
introduction for fisheries purposes. After all, there is a general
assumption that the introduction of this oyster will provide a similar
fishery to C. virginica. On bottom trials could indicate the
feasibility of extensive, repletion aquaculture--already practiced by
the State of Maryland--of triploids. An on-bottom trial might yield
information on density dependent growth. More interestingly, trials of
this sort, carefully (Is this what the NRC report meant by this word?)
integrated with scientists, could yield fishery, aquaculture and
ecological data simultaneously--but not without some risk.
The ``H-bomb'' effect
It seems that one of the tacit assumptions among those who
enthusiastically oppose non-native trials is what I call the ``H-bomb
view'' of risk. There seems to be a feeling that any reproduction at
all stemming from open water aquaculture is the ``big one,'' the final
consequence. But in fact, reproduction episodes stemming from triploid
trials (or for that matter, open water triploid aquaculture) will be
much more gradual and are not necessarily cataclysmic. What might
happen if there was some reproduction as a consequence of research or
commercial aquaculture?
For one thing, recruitment likely would be severely hampered by
impediments to colonization (the NRC reports calls it ``barriers to
successful introduction'') such as, water quality, lack of substrate,
sedimentation, habitat loss, and suitability of C. ariakensis to
Chesapeake Bay. If populations did establish, what is likely to be
their size, considering that triploids were used and security was
breached by a potentially very small number of individuals? Would not
the very process of ``escape'' give rise to research opportunities? Are
reproduction episodes truly un-eradicable? Could eradication be favored
with careful placement of these trials in specific estuaries? If
eradication was ``ensured,'' could small populations of diploids be
used to gather data?
Integration of research and commercial trials
I bring up these issues because the need to understand the risks
and benefits--for fisheries and aquaculture--probably is going to
involve the need for more aggressive trials yielding critical data in a
timely fashion. Perhaps it is time to pay serious attention to well-
integrated programs.
Currently, VIMS is embarked on a unique collaboration with the
industry, the Army Corps of Engineers, Virginia's Center for Innovative
Technology and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission in a
comprehensive trial of about 1,000,000 triploid C. ariakensis. In
short, scientific evaluation of reproduction, disease incidence,
reversion, comparative growth (with triploid C. virginica), and
economic potential have been coupled with the commercial scale trials
of triploids. I have suggested some other avenues of ``integrated''
research above. It would be helpful to encourage such programs, as well
as finding mechanisms to enable interstate collaboration among
Virginia, Maryland and North Carolina, by providing resources and
allowing reasonable levels of risk.
References
Allen, Jr., S.K. 1986. Gametogenesis in three species of triploid
shellfish: Mya arenaria, Crassostrea gigas, and C. virginica.
In K. Tiews (ed.) Selection, Hybridization and Genetic
Engineering in Aquaculture, Proceedings of a World Symposium,
Schriften der Bundesforschungsanstalt fur Fischerei Hamburg
Band 18/19, Berlin.
Allen, Jr., S.K., Downing, S.L., and Chew, K.K. 1989. Hatchery Manual
for Producing Triploid Oysters. University of Washington Press,
27 pp.
Allen, S.K., Jr., and S.L. Downing. 1990. Performance of triploid
Pacific oysters, Crassostrea gigas: gametogenesis. Can. J.
Fish. Aquat. Sci. 47: 1213-1222.
Calvo, G.W., M.W. Luckenbach, S.K. Allen, Jr., and E.M. Burreson. 2001.
Comparative field study of Crassostrea ariakensis (Thunberg,
1793) and Crassostrea virginica (Gmelin, 1791) in relation to
salinity in Virginia. J. Shellfish. Res. 20: 221-229.
Chandler, W., A. Howe and S.K. Allen Jr. 1999. Mosaicism of somatic and
gametic tissues in Crassostrea gigas and C. ariakensis. J.
Shellfish Res., 18: 29 (abstract).
Erskine, A.J. 2003. Gametogenesis in genetic triploid C. ariakensis.
M.S. Thesis, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, 129 pp.
Guo, X. and S.K. Allen, Jr. 1994a. Reproductive potential and genetics
of triploid Pacific oysters, Crassostrea gigas. Biol. Bull.
187: 309-318.
Guo, X. and S.K. Allen, Jr. 1994b. Viable tetraploid in the Pacific
oyster (Crassostrea gigas Thunberg) produced by inhibiting PB I
in eggs from triploids. Mol. Mar. Biol. Biotechnol. 3: 42-50.
Guo, X., G.A. DeBrosse, and S.K. Allen, Jr. 1996. All-triploid Pacific
oysters (Crassostrea gigas Thunberg) produced by mating
tetraploids and diploids. Aquaculture 142: 149-161.
Zhou, M. 2002. Chromosome set instability in 1-2 year old triploid
Crassostrea ariakensis in multiple environments. M.S. Thesis,
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, 69 pp.'
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Dr. Allen. In your proposal, your
scope of research, based on the National Research Council's
recommendations, do you have a timeframe for understanding some
of the critical questions as far as pathogens are concerned,
and whether or not these ariakensis will become invasive?
Dr. Allen. Regarding the pathogen issue, we have conformed
to a series of protocols that have been recommended by the
International Council for the Exploration of the Seas, which is
designed specifically to minimize or reduce as much as humanly
possible the introduction of diseases from outside the area.
Mr. Gilchrest. So that can be done before the triploids are
actually put in the water?
Dr. Allen. That has already been done, Mr. Gilchrest. We
have practiced that in order to get the animals presently in
the field.
Regarding the other issue, that is the $64 million
question, is what level of risk can we accept without allowing
the ultimate introduction of this animal by accident? And, at
present, we are relying on models that been produced by members
of our faculty at VIMS, Dr. Luckenbach and Dr. Mann, to
evaluate the likelihood that reproduction may be a by-product
of some of these triploid trials.
We are basically applying every tool that we have at our
disposal to minimize these risks and still gain the
information. I think that is the point, is we can't gain the
information risklessly.
Mr. Gilchrest. But at this point, so that I understand,
VIMS is moving forward with ariakensis to continue to use the
triploid to evaluate its impact on whether or not it will be
invasive and to see if it is, in fact, compatible with the
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and that you are not recommending a
diploid introduction?
Dr. Allen. VIMS's official policy on this issue, which was
issued almost 2 years ago, is that at this time we do not
support a diploid introduction, but that triploid aquaculture,
carefully designed to gather information, can be fostered with
the use of biosecurity. It is basically parallel to what the
NRC report said.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is your goal, then, to refine a triploid
introduction to be solely used for aquaculture, or is part of
your goal to see whether or not ariakensis can be compatible
with the ecosystem so eventually the diploid oysters would be
introduced?
Dr. Allen. The goal of the current research that we are
embarked on is to develop this triploid aquaculture idea to its
fullest potential and reduce the risk as much as possible. I
don't think it is for one institute or another to say
unilaterally that this is a good thing for introduction.
We have already said that diploids are not appropriate at
this time, and we would, I am sure, join in the research to
evaluate that, given the appropriate resources. But our goal
right now is specifically to try to focus on the industry
problem of lack of resources and to provide an alternative
while not making an introduction at the same time, which is a
big task, but we are making some progress in that way.
Mr. Gilchrest. So at this point you are not involved in
research determining whether ariakensis as a diploid
introduction would be invasive?
Dr. Allen. My lab personally is not. But the other members
of VIMS, particularly Mark Luckenbach, who directs the Eastern
Shore lab, has been working in that arena as well. But it is
basically a question of limitation of resources. We are
applying precious State funds to do what work is available at
the present time.
Mr. Gilchrest. Do you have a timeframe for when your
research will have some final conclusions so that ariakensis
triploid aquaculture can go full steam ahead in Virginia?
Dr. Allen. I don't believe that we are setting any
deadlines for ourselves. We are just trying to iterate the
improvements in the sterile technology to try to make it as
safe as possible. There is sort of two levels that we are
working from here.
One is the level of trying to make the technology perfect,
which is, you know, kind of hard to do, and the other is the
level of risk that we are allowed to take in implementing the
technology. And I think it is my overall thesis that that level
of risk tolerance is very low right now, and there is somewhere
to meet in the middle that could yield greater information and
more productive economic evaluations for the industry.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. Thank you.
Dr. Boesch, are you involved in similar research projects
specific to triploid for aquaculture use only? Are you involved
in any research that deals with the potential introduction of
diploid ariakensis into the Maryland waters of the Chesapeake
Bay?
Dr. Boesch. Yes, Mr. Gilchrest. We, until very recently,
the Maryland State policy was very risk averse, to use Dr.
Allen's term, about ariakensis research, and that has changed
of late. And we have now initiated several projects, one
working very closely with Dr. Allen, which is essentially an
extension of work they are doing there with the industry of
outplanting--not outplanting, but in controlled devices
planting sterile triploids into Maryland waters.
Our scientists have, like Dr. Allen indicated, have gone
through a process of getting an agreement and permit authority
to do this work. In addition to that, we are staging, we are
able to do laboratory work on diploid animals in a biosecure
environment to answer some questions regarding their
reproductive biology, and also with a new research project just
underway, to understand the degree to which some important
predators of oysters, of the native oyster, might be a
controlling factor on the Suminoe oyster as well.
That is done in the controlled environment in the
laboratory. We have just been--had a meeting with the
Department of Natural Resources to look at the NRC report
recommendations concerning the questions one would have to
address, you know, to make that decision, and we have been
exchanging ideas with the Department about the priorities of
that research, emphasizing the key issues that would make or
break a decision. What are the adverse, potentially adverse
consequences? Addressing some of the potential of the non-
native oyster, not only in aquaculture but in ecological
restoration, using these criteria to prioritize the work and
discuss with them how that research can be done.
But you have to understand that our work, in contrast to
Dr. Allen's, is just beginning on Suminoe oysters, because of
this change of policy that I referred to.
Mr. Gilchrest. So you feel that the University of Maryland
is a little bit behind VIMS in understanding ariakensis as far
as the aquaculture is concerned, the introduction of triploids
versus diploid is concerned?
Dr. Boesch. They have been working on this issue for longer
than we have for sure. So they have more experience.
Mr. Gilchrest. Do you feel that your relationship with the
Department of Natural Resources and the State of Maryland,
which will ultimately to a large extent make this decision,
triploid versus diploid, is integrated well, you have a good
relationship with the State as far as what priorities are
concerned?
Dr. Boesch. I think we do. As I indicated, we have
recently, just as of last week, had some dialog with them about
the priorities, and our role with the University is to be
supportive in working with the departments, the State
departments, but also to be independent in the conduct of
research and in the conclusions and recommendations that we
draw from that research. So I think there is a good
understanding of that.
But to foster that relationship, and to also use our
resources wisely, for example, the Department has come to us
and offered help to support our new research facility of the
oyster culture facilities and so on, put some of their
resources into that so we can jointly work on not only the
questions of Suminoe oyster introduction or aquaculture, but
also, and very importantly, advance the state of knowledge that
we have been able to gain on the reestablishment or
rehabilitation of native oyster populations.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is there any feeling that research on non-
native oysters is taking money away from research on native
oysters, and is there in your judgment some real possibility
that in the future native oysters, virginica, can be disease
resistant?
Dr. Boesch. On the first question, I would say that is a
general concern that I have heard voiced, that the great
attention on the Suminoe oyster will consume all of the
resources so we will not advance our understanding, scientific
understanding, and also our restoration activities on native
oysters.
So far that hasn't happened. I think we have to guard
against it, and I think the NRC report has a firm
recommendation on that, to continue to work on native oyster
disease issues and restoration.
With respect to the second question, our center, in
cooperation and collaboration with Dr. Allen and folks at VIMS
and our colleagues at Rutgers University, have for several
years now been engaged in extending Dr. Allen's work on disease
resistant strains of--strains of native oysters that are
resistant to either MSX or Dermo or both, and we are continuing
to advance that research.
And we have been particularly engaged in working with Dr.
Allen and using some of those disease resistant oysters, native
oysters in various outplantings and field trails in various
parts of Maryland with mixed success. They can do reasonably
well under management situations in which they are challenged
primarily with Dermo. But if there is heavy MSX infection,
there is a bit greater survival but it is still pretty severe.
But it is still a work in process. And I think Dr. Allen, I am
sure, this is sort of his life's work, and we are still
optimistic about that line of research.
Mr. Gilchrest. Now, I am not asking for a deadline, but is
there a timeframe upon which the potential for understanding a
particular strain of virginica to be resistant to MSX and
Dermo, and under what context might that be? For example, do
native oysters seem to do a lot better when they are on reefs
close to the surface as opposed to oyster bars? Do they do
better the larger they are when they are in the process of
reproduction? And a timeframe for when we might see some
progress where we actually have oyster reefs with native
oysters in large numbers in the Chesapeake Bay?
Dr. Boesch. Disease resistant? We are still working with
disease resistant strains. If it is OK, Dr. Allen is the expert
on this. I am not.
Dr. Allen. We are basically trying to find an oyster that
will work. I mean, that is why we left the wild oyster in favor
of an oyster that has been selectively bred to become disease
resistant in hopes that that oyster will be more successful in
recruiting its young to the system than the wild oyster is,
which by the way is not very successful at doing that. The non-
native oyster represents simply another alternative in that
possible selection of candidates for this particular purpose.
Mr. Gilchrest. Can a non-native oyster and the native
oyster interbreed?
Dr. Allen. They can fertilize each other, but they don't
form viable progeny. So there is--but, by the way, if they
could, we would be embarked on a program now to hybridize the
two of them and improve our native oyster by bringing in some
of the effective genes that the non-native oyster seems to
have. And that is an approach that is standard aquacultural
selection techniques. But I think it is important to realize
here that, whether it is the non-native oyster or it is a
selectively bred native oyster on this very slow course of
selective breeding, they are both two artificial solutions over
and above what we have already been used to.
In other words, we are replacing the wild oyster with an
entirely artificial oyster one way or the other. So as to a
timeframe, which was your original question, you have got to
realize that the process of selective breeding can yield an
improvement between 5 and 10 percent per generation over and
above the last. And you can understand that that is a
relatively slow progress for the native oyster selection;
whereas, the non-native starts with a level of disease
resistance that we only wished our oysters had.
And so, you know, the race between these two, the non-
native has already won, and we are dealing with this issue of
whether it is a wise choice or not. The race that we are doing
for the native oyster is one to try to make it effective before
we make it moot.
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Anderson, would you agree with the
statement that the non-native oyster, ariakensis, the Asian
oyster, after some period of study, as a result of the near
elimination of the native species, would be an appropriate
course to take after some of the issues are vetted as far as
pathogens and some idea of invasive, that a diploid ariakensis
would be an appropriate action course to take for Virginia and
Maryland?
Dr. Anderson. Well, first of all, I would like to say that
there is no doubt that these institutions can do the research
to get the information to improve our ability to make the
decision as to how extensively we use either sterile or
nonsterile oysters, ariakensis.
However, I think basically it is a value judgment when it
comes to that point. You get more and more information, but at
some point you decide, do you want this oyster in the Bay? And
you may be able to say, well, we can put it in the Bay without
disease. We can put it in the Bay so there is no introduction
of, shall we say, hitchhikers or other species, and we can, you
know, more or less manage it.
But the final decision really starts to be a value
judgment. Do you really want a new oyster in the Bay?
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Whitlatch, can you tell us whether or
not--you said you were from Connecticut?
Dr. Whitlatch. Yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. I suppose the oyster industry up there is
the Long Island Sound.
Dr. Whitlatch. Yes, it is.
Mr. Gilchrest. And you seemed to say that you had some
concern with the introduction of ariakensis in the Chesapeake
Bay because it might pose a regional problem, including Long
Island Sound?
Dr. Whitlatch. I think that, if the Suminoe oyster becomes
reproductively viable in the Chesapeake Bay, it is only a
matter of time before it will spread to other estuaries along
the East Coast, and so while we look at this as initially a
regional issue; you know, what is the well-being of the oyster
industry in the Chesapeake Bay, I think this should be viewed
more as a national issue.
The species has all of the life history attributes of what
we would think an invasive species should have. It grows fast,
it has high reproduction, it has a number of modes of being
dispersed, both naturally and by humans, and so it is, as I
said, a matter of time before the species has a strong
potential of being found throughout other parts of the
Northeast region.
Mr. Gilchrest. I guess this question would be to anybody.
Where did this Asian oyster come from? Where has it been
introduced before? Has it been successful? Has it--I think I
read somewhere last night, it was in somebody's testimony,
perhaps it was in NRC, that the introduction into--or someone
said it here this morning--the introduction into Australia and
New Zealand has been not successful.
Was that the introduction of ariakensis, or was that the C.
gigas?
Dr. Whitlatch. The ariakensis was used in research purposes
in Oregon, at the Oregon State University Marine Laboratory, in
the mid-1970's as a potential new aquaculture species. There
were several attempts to introduce the species into several
embayments in Oregon, and to this date there are no wild
populations. It has notsuccessfully reproduced in those
embayments.
Dr. Whitlatch. The general wisdom is that the temperatures
in that environment are too cold for it to reproduce. There
were oysters from that same stock that were introduced that
were brought in from China to Oregon that were then brought
into France. And, for again, for research purposes. However,
the species became--was very vulnerable to a parasite and it
was not--has no longer been considered for aquaculture
purposes.
Mr. Gilchrest. So that was ariakensis?
Dr. Whitlatch. Yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. And that was introduced in Oregon but the
water temperature wasn't compatible--
Dr. Whitlatch. Yes.
Mr. Gilchrest.--in France, but they had a problem with
parasites that it wasn't compatible with. But at this point,
does it appear, based on the last few years of research, that
ariakensis is compatible with the temperature and the parasites
in the Chesapeake Bay or don't we know that yet?
Dr. Whitlatch. Limited. There has been a lot of laboratory
studies done on its temperature salinity requirements and in
the Bay. And it looks, to date, using that laboratory
information, that it could survive and reproduce in most of the
salinities and temperature regimes in which the native oyster
exists.
Mr. Gilchrest. Do you have a native oyster in the Long
Island Sound?
Dr. Whitlatch. Yes, C. virginica.
Mr. Gilchrest. Oh. So it is the same.
Dr. Whitlatch. Same species, yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. And you don't have MSX and Dermo up there?
Dr. Whitlatch. We do have those problems, but not to the
same degree that Virginia and Maryland have.
Mr. Gilchrest. Why is that?
Dr. Whitlatch. That is an excellent question. I don't know
the answer to that.
Mr. Gilchrest. So it is not--I am sure that the Long Island
Sound is as--what is the salinity?
Dr. Whitlatch. It is more like Virginia's salinity.
Mr. Gilchrest. And the MSX and Dermo is not?
Dr. Whitlatch. There are problems. We have had outbreaks in
the past, but for some reason, they have not persisted at the
same degree of intensity as you have them in the State of
Virginia and Maryland.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is your oyster industry mainly aquaculture?
Dr. Whitlatch. It is virtually all aquaculture. It is
leased bottom aquaculture relying on natural set of the spat
fall. The spat are collected on shell culch, and then moved to
leased tracts of land where they are cultured until they are
ready to market.
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Allen, will Virginia--and maybe this is
more appropriate for the next panel. And Dr. Boesch as well.
The kind of oyster industry in Connecticut, I would assume is
vastly different than the oyster industry in the Chesapeake
Bay, both Virginia and Maryland. So are there--is there a
process that we would have to go through if we chose to a
greater extent to use aquaculture? Is there a potential for
that to be successful in Virginia and Maryland the way it is in
Connecticut?
Dr. Allen. My opinion here is that aquaculture is the way
in which the Chesapeake Bay will realize resource in the
immediate future, in the mid-future, maybe not in the long-term
future, depending on revitalization of natural stocks, and if
aquaculture were to be given a shot here in Chesapeake Bay, you
need an oyster, of course, and that is why the people are
attracted to the non-native. But you also need a regulatory
environment that enables that. It is more--it is closer to that
enablement in Virginia because of the history of leased bottoms
there than it is to Maryland. But even there we need more
regulatory authority and mechanisms to allow the farming of the
Bay in a way that they do it in many other parts of the world
very successfully.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Dr. Boesch.
Dr. Boesch. I would agree, in fact, every, I believe every
successful oyster commercial production aquaculture, production
around the world is based on aquaculture of some sort. It could
be of the type that Dr. Whitlatch mentioned where there is a
natural spat set in some areas, and then the shell of the
oysters are removed before they are grown out. That occurs in
Connecticut. It occurs in some sort of combination in the very
successful oyster industry in Louisiana. Many parts of the
world.
Other parts of the world supplement the natural
recruitment, which sometimes there is none, with hatchery
production and then they are grown out in the field, either on
racks or on bottom. So those opportunities exist, and I think
they have to be part of the solution as we deal with trying to
increase the commercial output potential of the native oyster
as well as we move forward.
We need some innovation in terms of how we manage that into
the future. And there are traditional obstacles, you know,
policy obstacles that prevent that as Dr. Allen indicated.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. Dr. Kern, virginica in the Long
Island Sound, vervus virginica in the Chesapeake Bay, do you
have any idea why one is more resistant to MSX and Dermo than
the other? Is it that the strain of those diseases is weaker in
Long Island Sound? And can, as Dr. Allen suggested, it is not a
question of--well, Dr. Allen probably didn't suggest this. I
might ask this question. Can you mate Long Island Sound
virginica with the Chesapeake Bay native oysters? Has that
already been done? Does that show any promise to resistance?
Dr. Kern. There have been a number of studies that have
looked at various resistances, specifically to perkinsus. There
are different races, the Gulf Coast races of C. virginica. You
have to realize that until the Chesapeake Bay interruption I
guess that C. virginica is the temperate coral reef system for
the United States. It extends from Maine to Mexico. When we
lose oysters, we don't just necessarily lose oysters, we lose
all of the organisms associated with an oyster reef. And there
has been a great deal of movement of oyster seed back and forth
through hatcheries and exchange of materials.
So the various oysters strains are there, but there is not
a lot of difference between the two. There are areas in New
England when MSX was probably introduced through the movement
of seed oysters or what have you that suffered severe
mortalities. But due to the fact that they are hatchery-based
aquaculture private industry for the most part, they can
basically control their stocks, remove them, replace them,
start all over again, put them on their own bottoms and remove
them. We are talking about a paradigm shift here in Maryland to
be able to go from a natural production of oysters and
harvesting to a hatchery-based aquaculture system. I mean, you
are talking apples and oranges here when you are talking--you
are comparing the two. And that is what is going on in New
England and Connecticut and even Maine and the Gulf Coast. It
is--they are much more oriented toward aquaculture.
Mr. Gilchrest. So you are saying that there is a--the
paradigm for the Chesapeake Bay at this point, and I guess this
would be a good question for the next panel, is hatchery
produced vs. harvesting wild produced oysters. And is that an
inevitable shift?
Dr. Kern. I have a sign in my office that says it is the
ecosystem, stupid. And I want to go back to that point where it
is the fact that the oysters in Chesapeake Bay are facing a
system that did not exist 300 years ago. The nutrient loads,
the siltation loads, everything else that is going on on top of
that produced a system which is not conducive to producing
oysters. I don't care whether it is ariakensis or C. virginica.
They have to have adequate substrates in order to settle. They
have to have water clean enough to be able to filter so they
don't drown in their own pseudo feces. They have to have a
quality of shell structure to be able to settle on.
You get away, around all that, by putting them in trays in
aquaculture systems and growing them out in the laboratory and
putting them overboard. But at what cost? I mean, you are
increasing the overall handling and everything else. There is
a--the system has to be able to pay for itself. It hasn't been
adapted in Chesapeake Bay. But I, just on an off note, that if
ariakensis diploids are trying to find a place in the Choptank
River where they used to be, they would have a difficult time
finding the oyster bed that is not choked with siltation.
Mr. Gilchrest. So there is a great deal more work that
needs to be done prior to a thriving oyster population
filtering the Bay in a few days. And that is an understanding
of the ecosystem, based on human activity and how the Bay has
been degraded over a century or more. Are those--well, I could
keep asking this panel questions. I think I will close with
this question though and ask any one of you that wants to ask
it or answer it, in this paradigm shift in the State of
Maryland, wild oyster harvest vs. hatchery raised oysters, are
we at a fork in the road, do you think, that we have one or the
other? Can there be a mix of that in the Chesapeake Bay, and if
it is all hatchery raised, what are the benefits to the other
organisms in the ecosystem versus the benefits of natural
oyster reefs?
Dr. Boesch. I may be foolish enough to try to answer that
question. I think the answer if you gave me those three
choices, it is probably a mixture. For example, the production
that we have had from the hatchery at Horn Point this year,
given the kind of mortality you see after the spat are planted,
would actually still yield more harvestable oysters in 2 years,
2 to 3 years than we are able to harvest for the last several
years for the whole State. So the potential of producing viable
commercial culture of oysters if the economics are right, you
know, your cost has to be, as Dr. Kern has indicated, the cost
has to be less than the value of the commodity is there.
Having said that, hatchery production is not going to, in
and of itself, replenish the natural environment or natural
habitat of oysters. It can help. It can help by jump-starting
the process, by creating an oyster reef, creating the
structure. But the success of that over the long time is going
to be dependent upon the natural recruitment from surviving
oysters. And so we will have good years when we have good
recruitment and we will have bad years and in the future
because the oysters are sort of at the margin of where they
were historically in terms of size of their population. The
other very important thing that Dr. Kern indicated is the
limitation of available habitat. You asked whether we can
restore oysters so they can again filter the Bay in 3 days.
I think the answer to that is clearly not in your and my
lifetime. The oysters that once existed in the Chesapeake when
Europeans arrived here, those reefs took thousands of years to
develop. Thousands of years to develop. They were very
extensive physically. They were very extensive vertically. And
those were destroyed by our wanton harvest strategies,
initially. Removed not only oysters, but removed the very
habitat, the coral reefs of the east coast, as Dr. Kern
indicated in the process. If this Suminoe oyster or engineered
oyster, native oyster is successful, it is not going to rebuild
that structure, that habitat the organism themselves create
overnight. It is going to take similarly centuries to do that.
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Allen.
Dr. Allen. Thank you. I would like to reiterate that the
course of commercially based hatchery produced aquaculture and
restoration are not mutually exclusive. They actually go quite
well hand in hand. And there is no reason why you can't have a
viable industry based on aquaculture that has been built by
entrepreneurial dollars as well as having a publicly focused
restoration program at the same time. It is a question of
whether or not the aquaculture operations can be made
commercially viable, which I think it is clear it can't be with
the native oyster the way it is, wild, so it is either going to
be a selectively bred one or an alternative one, either as a
diploid or a triploid. It doesn't matter. But they are not
mutually exclusive.
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Anderson.
Dr. Anderson. I would just like to say, I think ultimately
the Bay has to--the oysterman industry has to manage sort of as
a portfolio and I would like to back up with--
Mr. Gilchrest. What industry did you say was a portfolio?
Dr. Anderson. The oyster industry. Basically you have to
look at the technologies as a portfolio of options, and one
should not preclude the others, and I think a lot can be
learned from aquaculture in terms of disease resistance for
enhancement or re-establishment of the native. But it can work
the other way. And the other thing, it is not really an either/
or. There is a continuum in aquaculture. And in Connecticut,
most of their oysters come from a wild set and there are wild
harvesters that get a lot of those seed oysters to be put on
the sites and then there is very minimal aquaculture there.
There are not big racks floating all over Connecticut. You can
ski over the oyster sites and things like that. So on the other
hand, there could be all kinds of racks and gear in the water
and intensive hatchery stuff. And I think you really have to
look at the solution as a portfolio. It is not like one goes
and the other stays.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. Thank you very much. I guess this
definitely will either be a question or a comment. You don't
have to answer it. Dr. Boesch said that the development of
oyster reefs in the Chesapeake Bay happened over thousands of
years and created a bay that John Smith knew. If we move, and
it is likely I suppose that we will, to a different genetic--an
oyster that is, to some extent, non-native or genetically
altered by us so that it is disease resistant and a fairly
flourishing, we hope, economically viable hatchery-raised
aquaculture industry in the Chesapeake Bay which offers some
ecosystem help to water quality, if--I suppose the next
question I would have, do we give up on trying to fully restore
the Chesapeake Bay, and do we say because of human population,
it can never be what it was in the past, or is another
possibility an oyster reef corridor in the Bay for the purpose
of the ecosystem for filtering water for home for other
organisms which can be the principle upon which the rest of the
aquaculture industry can draw the interest from?
So is there any thought in this process of creating
corridors from the mouth of the Bay up to the Susquehanna River
for the purpose of, you know, just reconnecting this ecosystem?
Dr. Boesch. Well, a few years ago, scientists from research
institutions throughout the Bay region, including mine as well
as VIMS, got together to assess the prospects of oyster
restoration. We weren't at that time talking about the Suminoe
oysters. The native oysters. And out of that, and some thought
by a lot of people came this concept. I wouldn't characterize
it as a corridor, but a sort of constellation, if you will, of
sanctuaries, an oyster sanctuary which would be built and
managed and never be harvested. But that would produce
offspring, you know, would produce a genetic selection
naturally, and also help reseed the other areas. And then
around that would be essential reserves which would be managed
oyster areas which would be harvested.
So that may be something close to the concept that you
mention. It wouldn't necessarily, you know, extend down the
length of the Bay. But it would be located in certain, you
know, well-managed areas in which there is again a
constellation of a sanctuary and then reserve areas that are
managed for harvest.
Mr. Gilchrest. So that is an ongoing process right now.
Dr. Boesch. That is a recommendation. And--
Mr. Gilchrest. Is that a recommendation to the Chesapeake
Bay program or a recommendation to--
Dr. Boesch. We named this the Chesapeake Bay Research
Consortium, which is a consortium of the research institutions
at the request, actually of the then-secretaries of natural
resources of Maryland and Virginia.
Mr. Gilchrest. Has that recommendation been acted upon?
Dr. Boesch. Well, in some ways it has, because in
Maryland's program we have gone--it hasn't been the same way
geographically. But in Maryland--has since then, in its oyster
recovery program, designated sanctuaries. You know, in fact,
with Congressional support, these sanctuaries have been
developed and then we have these other areas which we are
replenishing with disease-free hatchery produced seed oysters,
but the intent of which is that those will ultimately be
available for harvest. In fact, there was a strategy that is
based upon if we see the disease incidence grow so that we
expect mortality of those oysters, then they will be open to
harvest at that time, so the oysters can be removed before they
succumb.
So there are lots of approaches like that that are
essentially managing with nature that allow you to preserve
some bits of the earth for their biodiversity values and
instructional values and the like, while at the same time,
managing other parts of the environment in consort with that.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Dr. Allen.
Dr. Allen. Well, if I understand your question correctly, I
think what I heard you say is can we give up on the other Bay
cleanup efforts and establish this oyster corridor.
Mr. Gilchrest. No. I don't think I meant to say give up on
any clean up efforts.
Dr. Allen. Good.
Mr. Gilchrest. That includes what we do on the land. That
includes what we receive from Ohio, from power plants.
Dr. Allen. But, you know, certainly the NRC report made the
point that you know it isn't just oysters that are going to
make a significant improvement. It is the overall, all the
issues put together and, you know, corridor or no corridor, all
the other cleanup has to go or the Bay is dead, of course.
Mr. Gilchrest. I think that everything has to be integrated
and instead of making priorities, that we are now going to take
a look at aquaculture and triploid oysters, and we put all our
efforts into that or somebody puts all their efforts into
diploid oysters, I don't think this would be worthy of those of
us in public service or in scientific institutions because of
the full array of issues, whether it is more construction, more
impervious surfaces, more air deposition, more commercial
recreational fishing, agriculture, power boats in shallow
fragile estuaries, the full range of issues, I think, need to--
I don't think we have the benefit of picking or choosing what
we are going to prioritize. I guess it is time now that we
looked at this in the big picture and understand the details of
the big picture.
Well, gentlemen, thank you very much. This has been very
informative. Our next panel is Colonel Yvonne J. Prettyman-
Beck, District Engineer, Norfolk District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Welcome Colonel; Ms. Rebecca Hanmer, Director,
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; Honorable Mr. C--I should say Dr. Ronald Franks. Dr.
Franks, Secretary, Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
Welcome Ron; Dr. James A. Wesson, Department Head, Conservation
Replenishment Department, Virginia Marine Resource Commission
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you all very much for coming this
afternoon. We look forward to your testimony. It is 12:30. I
guess we have been going for about an hour and 15 minutes or
so. So I think what I will do I will announce at the end of
this panel, unless I see a different opinion, we will take a
10-minute break at the end of this panel just to pace the
hearing. Thank you all very much for coming. We look forward to
your testimony on this fascinating and critical issue. Colonel
Prettyman-Beck, you may go first, ma'am.
STATEMENT OF COLONEL YVONNE J. PRETTYMAN-BECK, DISTRICT
ENGINEER, NORFOLK DISTRICT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Colonel Prettyman-Beck. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman and members
of the Subcommittee, I am currently District Engineer for the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District. With me today
is Christina Coarreale, Claire O'Neill and Jeff Lorenz of the
Baltimore Engineer District, and Peter Kube and Doug Martin of
the Norfolk District. We are here today representing the
Honorable John Paul Whitley, Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Civil Work. We are very proud of the restoration work we
have accomplished to date, as well as our future plans. My
objective during this testimony will be to provide you with an
overview of the Chesapeake Bay native oyster recovery program
and a brief assessment of the proposed introduction of non-
native oyster species to the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries.
A copy of the Corps of Engineers October 2001 testimony has
been provided as an exhibit. As previously testified, our
planned formulation is based on coordination and consultation
among many project partners and stakeholders, Federal and State
resource agencies, watermen, Chesapeake Bay Foundation,
academics, community-interested citizens, as well as nonprofit
groups, such as the Oyster Recovery Partnership, Virginia
Seafood Council, Lynnhaven 2007 and others. The plan includes
the creation of new oyster reefs, rehabilitation of non-
productive reefs, development of seed-producing reefs, planting
of disease tolerant seed oysters and follow-on project
monitoring. Subsequent to the Corp's 2001 testimony, the
Norfolk District has completed the Tangier/Pocemoke Sound
project in Virginia waters. This involved the construction of
158 acres of oyster reefs and the seeding of 30 million disease
tolerant spat on shell.
Total cost for construction seeding and monitoring in the
Virginia portion of the project area to date is $2.9 million.
We are currently monitoring the project site to determine
sustainability of the young oysters and to determine if changes
in the management of the newly created reefs are necessary.
Future projects planned within the Commonwealth of Virginia
include the Great Wicomico and the Piankatank and Lynnhaven
Rivers. Additionally, the Baltimore District has been funding
oyster restoration at a cost of approximately $1 million a year
for 2002 and 2003.
Our focus in Maryland is mostly toward the development of
sanctuaries. In addition, the Baltimore District has directed
funding toward harvest reserves that will allow limited
harvest. During 2002, 95 acres of shell and 35 million spat
were planted in the Choptank and Patuxent Rivers. In 2003, 85
acres and 120 million spat were also planted. Future projects
planned within the State of Maryland include the Chester and
Choptank Rivers. We are currently developing a master plan for
the Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration programs. The draft plan
is scheduled to be completed in Fiscal Year 2004 with approval
in Fiscal Year 2005.
The purpose of the master plan will be to guide future
development in the Bay, provide a focus for policy and
decisionmaking and to map the way for oyster restoration of the
Chesapeake Bay. My assessment of the Chesapeake Bay native
oyster recovery program is positive. Data collected from
monitoring and analysis of this data indicates the native
oyster restoration is working. We are seeing historical record-
setting spat set on new constructed reefs seeded with disease
tolerant oyster seed. We are also seeing increases in the
survivability of young oysters that indicates the new breeds of
native oysters are increasing their disease tolerance,
representing the beginning metrics for success.
My testimony will now focus on the non-native Suminoe
oyster, C. ariakensis. In the spring of 2002, the Virginia
Seafood Council applied for a permit under section 10 of the
rivers and harvest and section 404 of the Clean Water Act to
introduce a million non-native triploid sterile Asian oysters
into the waters of the Chesapeake Bay and the ocean. After a
thorough multi-agency evaluation of the proposal, which
resulted in major changes to the project, a permit was issued
to the Virginia Seafood Council in the spring of 2003. The
permit contains 15 rigorous conditions that minimize the risk
of accidental release of a reproducing population of non-native
oysters.
The oysters are now in the water and are being raised by
eight experienced seafood growers using a variety of
aquaculture grow-out methods. During the permit evaluation
process, the Corps agreed with other Federal, State and private
agencies, that an environmental impact statement to evaluate
the impacts of future large-scaled introductions of Asian
oysters into the Bay would be needed. The State of Maryland and
Commonwealth of Virginia have proposed to introduce and
establish a reproducing self-sustaining population of non-
native oysters into the Chesapeake Bay to improve the
ecological health of the Bay and revitalize the oyster
industry.
Opinions vary with regard to the idea of introducing Asian
oysters in the Bay. At one end of the spectrum are those who
are opposed to any introduction of non-native species based on
history of unintended and sometime disastrous consequences
associated with introductions of other non-native species over
the years. This group believes the obvious safe choice is not
to allow the Asian oyster to be introduced but to continue and
augment native oyster restoration efforts. At the other end are
those who believe the Asian oyster is the last best chance for
not only reviving the commercial oyster industry in the
Chesapeake but for also restoring the Bay's historic water
quality.
To this group, introduction of reproductive Asian oysters
is the obvious answer for both the economic and environmental
reasons. And every day of delay, while additional studies are
conducted, represents another wasted opportunity. Right now, we
simply do not know what the long-term effects of introducing
reproductive Asian oysters in the Bay would be. This was the
conclusion of the recently released National Academy of
Sciences report, which was to recommend for additional study.
The report indicated proposals to offset the decline of native
oysters in the Chesapeake Bay by introducing a reproductive
population of oysters from Asia should be delayed until more is
known about the potential environmental risk.
In the meantime, carefully regulated aquaculture of sterile
Asian oysters could help the industry and generate information
necessary for assessing the risks of future large-scale
introductions. The NAS report and Federal Agency Committee of
the Chesapeake Bay program has validated the approach the Corps
has taken to date by its authorization of restricted control
aquaculture project designed to not only help an ailing oyster
industry, but to generate valuable scientific research to help
answer future questions. In summary, the Corps of Engineers,
with the help of our sponsors, Federal, State and local
agencies and many stakeholders is committed to aggressively
restoring the native oyster to the Chesapeake Bay per existing
Congressional authority and funding.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, we would like to thank you and the Committee and
Congress for this opportunity to speak on this important issue.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Colonel Prettyman-Beck.
[The prepared statement of Colonel Prettyman-Beck follows:]
Statement of Colonel Yvonne Prettyman-Beck, District Engineer,
Norfolk District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am Colonel Yvonne
Prettyman-Beck, District Engineer, Norfolk District. With me today is
Ms. Christina E. Correale, Chief, Operations Division, Baltimore
District. We are here today representing the Honorable John Paul
Woodley, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. I am pleased
to represent the Army and the Corps of Engineers on this important
matter.
I appreciate the opportunity to inform you of the Corps' activities
in support of the Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration efforts. I am very
proud of the restoration work that the Baltimore and Norfolk Districts
have accomplished to date in waters of the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributary rivers. I am looking forward to seeing more positive results
as our completed projects continue to provide their benefits, and as
new projects come on-line in support of oyster restoration.
My objective during this testimony is to provide you with an
assessment of the Chesapeake Bay Native Oyster Recovery Program
starting with a summary of the last testimony given to this body, a
report on actions conducted by the Corps and others since that
testimony was given, and plans for the next time frame. I will also
present a brief overview of another facet of the program that involves
the proposed introduction of a non-native oyster species to the
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.
On 22 October, 2001, my predecessor, Colonel David Hansen, District
Engineer of the Norfolk District, and LTC Scott Flanigan, Deputy
District Engineer of the Baltimore District, provided this Subcommittee
testimony on the Chesapeake Bay Native Oyster Recovery Program. A copy
of that testimony is provided to you as an exhibit.
In 1995 Congress directed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
improve the Chesapeake Bay's native oyster population and appropriated
funds to initiate a project. Congress directed this action due to the
rapid decline in the Bay's native oyster population that had reached a
level of less than 2% of what it was 100 years earlier. In addition,
oyster harvests in the mid-1990's were only 1/8 of the harvest of a
decade earlier. The precipitous decline is attributed to over
harvesting, sedimentation, pollution, and disease. Not only has the
region's water-based economy been impacted, but the Chesapeake Bay has
been depleted of natural filtering organisms that are critical to the
sustenance of a healthy and vibrant marine ecosystem, particularly in
the major tributaries such as the Potomac, Rappahannock, Patuxent,
Choptank, Chester, Lynnhaven, Great Wicomico, and James Rivers.
The Corps authorization for the current native oyster restoration
program is included in Section 704(b) of WRDA 1986 (Chesapeake Bay
Oyster Restoration), as amended. Originally the authorization was
limited to the Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay, but was later
modified to include the Virginia watershed. The Federal funding
authorization limit is currently $20 million. Cost sharing is required
under the program, with the non-Federal sponsors providing 25 percent
of the project costs. The sponsors may meet their cost sharing
responsibilities through in-kind services. The program's non-Federal
sponsors are the Maryland Department of Natural Resources and the
Virginia Marine Resources Commission
As previously testified, the Chesapeake Bay Oyster Recovery Program
was formulated based on coordination and consultation among many
project partners and stakeholders, Federal and State resource agencies,
watermen, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the academic community,
interested citizens, as well as non-profit groups such as Oyster
Recovery Partnership, VA Seafood Council, Lynnhaven 2007, etc. The
oyster restoration plan includes the creation of new oyster reefs,
rehabilitation of non-productive reefs, development of seed-producing
reefs, planting of disease tolerant seed oysters, and follow-on project
monitoring. The use of disease tolerant strains of the native oyster
such as DEBY and CROSBreed will be used.
Subsequent to the Corps October 2001 testimony, the Norfolk
District completed the Tangier/Pocomoke Sound project in Virginia
waters. This involved the construction of 158 acres of oyster reefs and
the seeding of 30 million disease tolerant spat on shell. This is the
largest single seeding to date for ecosystem restoration within the
Commonwealth of Virginia. Total cost for construction, seeding, and
monitoring in the Virginia portion of the project area to date is $2.9
million. We are currently monitoring these sites to determine
sustainability of the young oysters and to determine if changes in
management of newly created reefs are necessary.
The next restoration area within the Commonwealth of Virginia is
located in the Great Wicomico River, a tributary on the west side of
the Chesapeake Bay. The scope of work for this project includes the
construction of new reefs and the seeding of the new and existing reefs
with 5-million disease tolerant large adult brood stock oysters. These
reefs will become ``breeder reefs'' producing hundreds of millions of
disease tolerant spat-on-shell oysters that will be used for seeding
future projects within the Chesapeake Bay. The decision document has
been approved and the Project Cooperation Agreement is now being
coordinated with the Commonwealth of Virginia. We anticipate the start
of reef construction and oyster seeding during the spring/summer of
2004. The cost of the Great Wicomico River project is currently
estimated at $2.4 million.
Future projects planned within the Commonwealth of Virginia include
the Painkatank and Lynnhaven Rivers. We are currently coordinating
project scopes of work with the sponsor, VIMS, Chesapeake Bay
Foundation, Lynnhaven 2007, and others.
Since the October 2001 testimony the Baltimore District has been
funding oyster restoration at a cost of approximately one million
dollars a year for 2002 and 2003. Our focus in the Maryland portion of
the project area is mostly towards the development of sanctuaries. In
addition, the Baltimore District has directed funding towards harvest
reserves that will allow limited harvest. During 2002, the total area
planted with shell was 95 acres. This included 15 acres of sanctuary
and 60 acres of harvest reserves in the Choptank River and 5 acres of
sanctuary and 15 acres of harvest reserve in the Patuxent River. During
2002, the total spat planted was 35 million. In 2003 the area planted
with shell totaled 85 acres. This area included 20 acres of sanctuary
and 15 acres of harvest reserves in the Chester River, and 35 acres of
sanctuary and 15 acres of harvest reserve in the Choptank River. The
total spat planted in 2003 was 120 million. The Maryland Department of
Natural Resources is our local cost-sharing sponsor and is doing
similar activities to the extent of $350,000 per year.
Our plans for future activities, in the Maryland portion of the
project area, will be to pursue restoration opportunities throughout
the bay with our focus being the Chester and Choptank Rivers to help
meet the oyster habitat goal of the 2000 Chesapeake Bay Agreement
(which calls for a 10-fold increase in oyster biomass by the year
2010). Previous project activities have been in the Chester, Choptank,
Severn, Magothy, and Patuxent Rivers, and the Smith Island area.
We are currently developing a Master Plan for the Chesapeake Bay
Oyster Restoration Program. The draft plan will be completed in FY-04
with approval in FY-05. The purpose of the master plan will be to guide
future development of oyster restoration efforts in the Bay, provide a
focus for policy and decisionmaking, and to map the way for oyster
restoration of the Chesapeake Bay.
My assessment of the Chesapeake Bay Native Oyster Recovery Program
is positive. Data collected from monitoring and analysis of this
program indicates that native oyster restoration is working. We are
seeing historical record-setting spat set on new constructed reefs
seeded with disease-tolerant oyster seed. We are also seeing increases
in the survivability of young oysters that indicates the new breeds of
native oysters are increasing their disease tolerance. These are the
beginning metrics for success.
My testimony will now focus on the non-native Suminoe oyster,
Crassostrea ariakensis.
In the Spring of 2002, the Virginia Seafood Council applied for a
permit under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404
of the Clean Water Act, to introduce a million, non-native, triploid,
(sterile) Asian Oysters (Crassostrea ariakensis) into the waters of the
Chesapeake Bay and the Ocean. After a thorough multiagency evaluation
of the proposal, which resulted in some major changes to the project, a
permit was issued to the Virginia Seafood Council, in the Spring of
2003 authorizing the deployment. The permit contains 15 rigorous
conditions that minimize the risk of an accidental release of a
reproducing population of non-native oysters. The oysters are now in
the water and are being raised by 8 experienced seafood growers using a
variety of aquaculture grow-out methods.
During the permit evaluation process, the Corps agreed with other
Federal, state and private agencies to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to
evaluate the impacts of future large-scale introductions of Asian
oysters into the Bay. The State of Maryland and Commonwealth of
Virginia have proposed to introduce and establish a reproducing, self-
sustaining population of non-native oysters into the Chesapeake Bay to
improve the ecological health of the Bay and to revitalize the oyster
industry.
Opinions vary with regard to the idea of introducing Asian oysters
into the Chesapeake Bay. At one end of the spectrum are those who are
opposed to any introduction of non-native species, based on the history
of unintended, and sometimes disastrous consequences associated with
introductions of other non-native species over the years. This group
believes the obvious safe choice is to not allow the Asian oyster to be
introduced, but to continue and augment native oyster restoration
efforts. At the other end are those who believe that the Asian oyster
is the last best chance for not only reviving the commercial oyster
industry in the Chesapeake, but also for restoring the Bay's historic
water quality. To this group, introduction of reproductive Asian
oysters is the obvious answer for both economic and environmental
reasons, and every day of delay while additional studies are conducted
represents another wasted opportunity.
The Chesapeake Bay is an economic and ecological asset of national
importance. Decisions affecting the Bay are too important to be made
precipitously. Right now we simply do not know what the long-term
effect of introducing reproductive Asian oysters into the Bay would be.
This was the conclusion of the recently released study of the National
Academies of Science (NAS) and their recommendation was for additional
study. The report indicated that proposals to offset the decline of
native oysters in the Chesapeake Bay by introducing a reproductive
population of oysters from Asia should be delayed until more is known
about the potential environmental risks. In the meantime, carefully
regulated aquaculture of sterile Asian oysters could help the oyster
industry and generate information necessary for assessing the risks of
future large-scale introductions. The NAS report and the Federal
Agencies Committee of the Chesapeake Bay Program has validated the
approach the Corps has taken to date by its authorization of a strictly
controlled aquaculture project designed to not only help an ailing
oyster industry but generate valuable scientific research to help
answer future questions. The National Academies of Science recommended
that additional study is needed before a decision is made whether or
not to introduce reproductive Asian oysters into the Bay.
In closing, the Corps of Engineers, with the help of our sponsors,
federal, state and local agencies, and many stakeholders, is committed
to aggressively restoring the native oyster to the Chesapeake Bay per
existing Congressional authority and funding.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Corps of Engineers, I would like to
thank you, the Committee and Congress for the opportunity to testify
today on these important issues.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Ms. Hanmer.
STATEMENT OF REBECCA HANMER, DIRECTOR, CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
OFFICE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. Hanmer. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Rebecca
Hanmer, and I am director of the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program
Office. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today
and I have with me Mike Fritz, who is our Living Resources
Program Coordinator. In our Chesapeake Bay program master plan,
which is the Chesapeake 2000 agreement, the Executive Council
made a commitment to achieve at a minimum, a tenfold increase
in native oysters in the Chesapeake Bay by 2010. This
commitment is focused on native oysters and is a keystone of
our program. Thanks to increased funding from the Congress, the
Army Corps of Engineers, and NOAA, collaborating with Maryland
and Virginia, we are now implementing restoration projects that
are orders of magnitude larger than the earlier pilot projects.
We have a long way to go. But we believe we are making progress
and should continue to accelerate native oyster restoration
efforts.
In the Chesapeake Bay program, our framework for
considering introduction of non-native oysters is the
Chesapeake Bay policy for the introduction of non-indigenous
aquatic species adopted by the Chesapeake Executive Council in
1993. It says, in part, it shall be the policy of the
jurisdictions in the Chesapeake Bay basin to oppose the first-
time introduction of any non-indigenous aquatic species unless
environmental and economic evaluations are conducted, and that
risks are acceptably low. This policy was motivated by our
experience with other intentionally introduced species which
turned out to be very harmful.
EPA, like other Federal agencies, also has obligations
under the 1999 Presidential Executive Order 13112 regarding
invasive species. Specifically we may not authorize fund or
carry out actions that we believe are likely to cause or
promote introduction or spread of invasive species unless we
have determined that the benefits of such actions clearly
outweigh the potential harm.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, the EPA joined with others to
support a study by the National Resource Council, and we
received an excellent report. As the NRC points out, there is
no quick fix, no silver bullet and no shortcut, not for the
oyster industry or for water quality restoration. We agree with
the management option that was chosen by the report. We agree
with the conclusion that it is currently not predictable--
possible to predict the effect of introducing reproductive C.
ariakensis on the ecology of Chesapeake Bay and that the
irreversibility of introducing a reproductive non-native oyster
and the high level of uncertainty with regard to potential
ecological hazards makes an imprudent course of action.
EPA has joined with other Bay program partners and the
Corps of Engineers to support preparation of a full
environmental impact statement before any deployment of
reproductively capable C. ariakensis into bay waters. A strong
scientific analysis is a necessary precondition for sound
decisionmaking and will be vital to a strong environmental
impact statement.
The adequacy of existing regulatory frameworks for non-
native oysters introduction was also addressed in the NRC
report, including applicability of Clean Water Act sections 404
and 402, which are subject to the purview of EPA. These and
other potential areas of Federal and State jurisdictions will
be evaluated during the development of the environmental impact
statement. We also look forward to the environmental impact
statement as a mechanism for evaluating alternatives including
importantly native oyster aquaculture as an alternative that
has received too little attention to date.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to comment on the
importance of the Chesapeake Bay program as an institution. The
NRC report suggested that the Bay program's precautionary
approach to introduction of non-native species could serve as a
model for elsewhere in the country. The 1993 policy, the report
says, is consistent with the precautionary approach to non-
native introductions in its requirement for environmental and
economic evaluations to be conducted in order to assure that
risks associated with first-time introductions are acceptably
low. It illustrates a clean list approach to introductions
which the NRC committee generally recommends for all levels of
decisionmaking about non-native introductions.
Mr. Chairman, we will continue to pursue a precautionary
approach with our partners as we move forward with careful
study of contained C. ariakensis aquaculture until the
evaluation review and risk limitation requirements of our Bay
policy are met. EPA believes that the Chesapeake Bay program
partners should oppose the introduction of non-native oysters
in the Chesapeake Bay beyond what is currently being done on an
experimental basis.
Meanwhile we look forward to collaborating with our
partners on an environmental impact statement to continue the
evaluation of the benefits, risks and consequences of and
alternatives to non-native oyster introduction. We appreciate
the opportunity to testify and I will be happy to answer any
questions that you have.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Ms. Hanmer.
[The prepared statement of Rebecca Hanmer follows:]
Statement of Rebecca Hanmer, Director, Chesapeake Bay Program Office,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Rebecca
Hanmer. I am the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) Chesapeake Bay Program Office. I appreciate the opportunity to
be here today to discuss efforts to introduce non-native oyster species
to the Chesapeake Bay and the National Research Council's (NRC's)
report titled ``Non-native Oysters in the Chesapeake Bay.''
In the Chesapeake 2000 agreement, the Chesapeake Executive Council
made the following commitment: ``By 2010, achieve, at a minimum, a
tenfold increase in native oysters in the Chesapeake Bay, based upon a
1994 baseline.'' This commitment is focused on native oysters. While
our collective effort to develop and implement a Chesapeake Bay Program
comprehensive bay-wide oyster management plan is behind schedule, we
have a draft plan, the principal guidelines of which are being
implemented by Federal and State agencies engaged in native oyster
restoration. Our oyster restoration initiative is now emerging from a
phase of experimentation and pilot project, and is entering a phase of
accelerated implementation with an adaptive management approach. Thanks
to increasing funding from the Congress, the Army Corps of Engineers,
in collaboration with Maryland and Virginia, is now engaging in the
implementation of restoration projects that are orders of magnitude
larger than the earlier pilot projects. We have a long way to go, but
we believe we should stay the course.
In the Chesapeake Bay Program, our framework for the consideration
of the introduction of non-native oysters is another document signed by
the Chesapeake Executive Council, the 1993: ``Chesapeake Bay Policy for
the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Aquatic Species.'' The Chesapeake
Bay Program's policy is simply stated as follows:
``It shall be the policy of the Jurisdictions in the Chesapeake
Bay basin to oppose the first-time introduction of any non-
indigenous aquatic species into the unconfined waters of the
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries for any reason unless
environmental and economic evaluations are conducted and
reviewed in order to ensure that risks associated with the
first-time introduction are acceptably low.''
The establishment of this policy was motivated by our experience with
other intentionally introduced species, including nutria and mute
swans, which are among the six most harmful aquatic species in the
region for which we are very near completion of basin-wide control
plans.
EPA also has obligations under Executive Order 13112 regarding
Invasive Species (February 3, 1999). Specifically, we may not
authorize, fund, or carry out actions that we believe are likely to
cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species in the
United States or elsewhere unless we have determined, and made public
our determination, that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh
the potential harm caused by invasive species, and that all feasible
and prudent measures to minimize risk of harm will be taken in
conjunction with these actions.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, in the interest of obtaining an
independent, objective and expert assessment of the risks and potential
benefits of the introduction of non-native oysters, EPA joined with
others to support a study by the National Research Council. We received
an excellent report and I submit it for the record as part of my
written testimony.
The NRC report identifies five commonly held ``unrealistic
expectations and common misconceptions'' also called ``myths,'' which I
believe we should keep in mind. I would summarize the useful messages
derived from those myths as follows: There is no quick fix, no silver
bullet, no shortcut, not for the oyster industry and not for water
quality restoration. And native oyster restoration is not an exercise
in futility, we should continue our aggressive pursuit of new
technologies, good stock, and new methods, always remembering that this
will be a long-term project.
The report also provides conclusions with respect to the three
options the study committee was asked to evaluate.
Option 1. Status quo, no introduction of non-native
oysters. The report emphasizes the risk that a prohibition on any
activity with non-native oysters could lead to a harmful illegal
release. I suggest that it may be important to proactively educate
members of the oyster industry that oyster restoration is going to be a
long-term project with any species, while developing economic
alternatives for watermen and others in the industry (e.g., engagement
in restoration).
Option 2. Open water aquaculture of triploid oysters. The
report concludes that ``contained aquaculture of triploid C. ariakensis
provides an opportunity to research the potential effects of extensive
triploid-based aquaculture or introduction of reproductive non-native
oysters on the ecology of the Bay and offers some additional economic
opportunities for the oyster industry and the watermen.'' The report
supports the track we are currently following, although it may be
necessary to define acceptable project size limits and continually
improve the nature of the strict control protocols as we proceed.
Option 3. Introduction of reproductive diploid oysters.
The report concludes that ``it is not possible to predict if a
controlled introduction of reproductive C. ariakensis will improve,
further degrade, or have no impact on either the oyster fishery or the
ecology of Chesapeake Bay.'' And says: ``In sum, the irreversibility of
introducing a reproductive non-native oyster and the high level of
uncertainty with regard to potential ecological hazards make Option 3
an imprudent course of action.'' I agree with that conclusion.
The Chesapeake Bay Program partners are vitally engaged on this
issue. Under the terms of a joint agreement, the partners agreed to
undertake an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prior to any decision
to go ahead with Option 3. That process has now begun.
The Bay Program prides itself on its reliance on sound science to
guide all our activities. That is why we called for and helped
underwrite the cost of the National Research Council's study.
Similarly, we have asked our Scientific and Technical Advisory
Committee to establish a panel of experts to develop the research plan.
A strong scientific analysis is a necessary pre-condition for sound
decision making and will be vital to a strong EIS.
The adequacy of existing regulatory frameworks to address non-
native oyster introduction also was addressed at length in Chapter 8 of
the NRC report. With respect to federal authority, the applicability of
Clean Water Act Sections 404 and 402 are subject to the purview of the
EPA. The critical issue with respect to Section 404 jurisdiction is
whether an introduction would involve the discharge of dredged or fill
material. Appropriately, the Army Corps of Engineers asserted 404
jurisdiction over the Virginia Seafood Council proposal because the
proposal clearly involved the in-water discharge of dead shell material
(i.e, fill) to establish a hard substrate on which to place some of the
experimental oysters. What is less clear is whether introduction of
oysters without the discharge of dead shell material would involve a
discharge of fill material at all. Similar to the Army Corps of
Engineers, EPA would need to see the details of a specific proposal
before the applicability of Section 404 could be determined. For
purposes of interagency consistency, we have asked the Corps to consult
with EPA before they make any project-specific determination in this
regard.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to comment on the importance of
the Chesapeake Bay Program as an institution with important potential
in the consideration of this issue. The NRC report also suggested that
Chesapeake Bay Program's 1993 policy, and the ad hoc advisory panel
review process under that policy, could serve as a model for elsewhere
in the country. ``The 1993 policy,'' the report says, ``is consistent
with a precautionary approach to non-native introductions, e.g., in its
requirement that environmental and economic evaluations be conducted in
order to ensure that risks associated with first-time introductions are
acceptably low.'' ``Also'' the report continues, ``the 1993 policy
illustrates a 'clean list' approach to introductions, an approach which
the committee generally recommends for all levels of decision-making
about non-native introductions as contrasted with the 'dirty list'
approach. Under the 1993 policy, and many State laws, introductions of
non-native species are prohibited unless specifically approved.
Utilizing a clean list is a key step in implementing a precautionary
approach.''
Mr. Chairman, we will continue to pursue a precautionary approach
with our partners in the Chesapeake Bay Program as we move forward with
careful oversight and study of contained aquaculture, as supported by
the NRC report. Based on the numerous findings and policy and research
recommendations of the NRC report, it is clear that we still have work
to do to fulfill the evaluation, review, and risk minimization
requirements of the 1993 Chesapeake Bay Program policy. Therefore, in
keeping with the 1993 policy, we conclude that until those requirements
are met, Chesapeake Bay Program partners should oppose the introduction
of non-native oysters in Chesapeake Bay beyond what is currently being
done on an experimental basis. Meanwhile, in order to meet the
evaluation and review requirements, we look forward to collaborating
with our partners on an Environmental Impact Statement to continue the
evaluation of the benefits, risks and consequences of--and alternatives
to--non-native introduction. We are all committed to working together,
which will serve the partnership of the Chesapeake Bay Program well in
the EIS process.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Delegate Eckardt just walked in. I don't
know if, Addie, you want to come up to the dais and ask
questions. We have this and one more panel left, but you are
welcome to come up. Dr. Franks. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. C. RONALD FRANKS, SECRETARY, MARYLAND
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Franks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for inviting
me to testify on this critical issue facing the State of
Maryland, Virginia and the Chesapeake Bay. Oysters have been a
keystone species here for as long as we have documented history
of the Bay and today, restoration of an oyster population in
the Bay is a top priority for the Department of Natural
Resources and Governor Ehrlich. Restoration of oysters,
restoration of bay grasses and the reduction of nutrients are
the three critical activities comprising the cornerstone of
Maryland's Bay restoration efforts.
Today, I would like to provide you with a brief overview of
Maryland's past and continuing efforts to restore native
oysters, and why we believe it is time to evaluate the
introduction of a second oyster species that should be part of
our bay restoration efforts. The importance, both ecologically
and economically, of restoring a viable population of oysters
to the Chesapeake Bay, cannot be overstated. Nevertheless, if
we are to take this road, it must be done in a responsible and
timely manner.
Environment. Oysters provide specific ecological benefits
for the Bay. When abundant they provide the Bay's foundation
linking other species together and enriching the ecosystem. A
healthy population of oysters is to the Chesapeake Bay as
healthy trees to our landscape. Without these essential
components that filter pollutants and ensure healthy habitat
for other living things, their respective ecosystems cannot
fully function and these benefits critical to other living
communities are lost.
The end result is a fundamental change in the ecosystem.
And I will underline that. Which today for the Bay means an
ecosystem dominated by algae and bacteria, rather than by
oysters and bay grasses. The result, degraded water quality,
clarity and habitat. Today, Maryland's oyster industry is
economically extinct. The Chesapeake Bay is no longer
considered a viable source of oysters for the national or even
local market. These financial realities impact harvesters
processors, shippers, restaurants and family businesses.
The oysters we eat in Maryland today are being imported
from the Gulf Coast to meet the local market demand. We expect
this year's harvest to fall below last year's 53,000-bushel
low, and we are seeing watermen continue to drop out of the
fishery.
In 1999, there were 2,520 harvesters. In 2004, we estimate
that less than 200 will harvest oysters today. Over the past 12
to 15 years, many restoration initiatives have been undertaken
based upon a recommendation from scientists and
environmentalists. The aquatic reef habitat restoration plan
was implemented in 1993 to set aside thousands of acres of
bottom habitat for rehabilitation as oyster reef sanctuaries.
The Maryland Oyster Roundtable of 1993, that still exists
today, recommended shell and seed plantings, hatchery
development, fish, management and sanctuary creation to reverse
the decline. The 1999 scientific consensus document that was
written by Maryland, Virginia and other marine scientists
supported these and other recommendations. It served as the
scientific voice and foundation of the 2000 Chesapeake Bay
agreements which made a commitment to restore oysters to 10
times their 1994 level by 2010.
Yet, in spite of this tremendous commitment to oyster
restoration, the bi-state efforts under the Chesapeake Bay
program have not increased numbers or the biomass of oysters in
the Chesapeake Bay. Actually, as measured by the oyster biomass
index, the levels are below the all-time low baseline of 1994.
Every opportunity currently known has been attempted or made
available to increase the biomass of C. virginica, but so far
we have been unsuccessful. In fact, 8 million State and Federal
dollars will be spent in Fiscal Year 2004 on Chesapeake Bay
oyster restoration. And, since 1994, a total of nearly $41
million has been spent in Maryland alone with no measurable
Bay-wide success.
When considering the future of the native oyster population
and the efforts to restore it, we must be realistic and base
our strategy on what we know. There are no cures for the
diseases MSX and Dermo that are killing the native oyster
population. The areas where disease becomes entrenched never
sees the disease abate, and the oyster beds never improve to
pre-disease levels. The best science has been applied to
restoration with less than positive outcomes.
Most scientists agree that it will take many decades to
make any real progress in restoring native oysters to the
Chesapeake Bay if it can be done at all. Everyone, scientists
government, watermen, citizens, does agree that the Bay needs
an oyster that can survive and multiply. The only question is
if it will be our native oyster or an introduced species. C.
ariakensis is a current--is in a proposal that is on the table
to potentially introduce in oyster, the Oregon strain of the
oyster to the Chesapeake Bay. Here is where that proposal
stands.
In July, 2003, Virginia's DNR Secretary and I submitted a
request to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Norfolk to
coordinate the evaluation and the introduction of this second
species of oysters to the Bay through the preparation of
environmental impact statement. Since that time, both
departments have been working with the Corps to do the
preparatory work necessary for this comprehensive and extensive
public review of our proposal.
A formal planning meeting is scheduled to convene tomorrow,
Thursday, that will include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, NOAA, and representatives from Virginia and Maryland
to begin the process of preparing an EIS. Preparation of this
EIS will be aided by the recently issued National Academy of
Sciences report, including the funding of a specific research
directed to the questions and uncertainties identified therein.
A central function of the EIS will be to analyze the risk
of unknown or unanticipated consequences to introducing a non-
native oyster in the Chesapeake Bay. The Commonwealth of
Virginia has already begun research and experimentation with
this non-native species which has been raised in Oregon waters
for the last 30 years. Results of the Virginia experiments to
date indicate this species is resistant to diseases decimating
the Bay's native oysters and can adapt very readily to the
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. And it has the potential to thrive
here.
There is some question on the part of the Corps as to
whether we have the legal jurisdiction to conduct an EIS on C.
ariakensis, recognizing that Maryland, and hopefully Virginia,
is willing to conduct a State EIS that include the same
parameters as the Federal EIS process. Mr. Chairman, a common
goal has brought us here today and we, like you, have one
priority, and that is the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay.
And while we, like you, understand that true Chesapeake
restoration is an ecosystem approach that relies on several
components, including nutrient reduction and bay grass
restoration, we are fully focusing today on the oyster.
We estimate the cost of the EIS and non-native research to
be approximately $3 million over the next 12 to 18 months, and
we believe there is urgency in completing it. Congress has
recognized the need funding the Bay restoration programs and
has directed Federal agencies to assist us. We are very
appreciative of the support we have received to date and ask
that judgment be held until all the science is in.
We invite our Federal agencies to partner with us in
completing a full unbiased assessment of the risks involved and
the benefits to be gained. Again, thank you for the opportunity
to appear. We look forward to a full and informative public
dialog on our proposal and a balanced decision that will serve
our environment and our citizens resulting in a healthy
productive Chesapeake Bay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Dr. Franks.
[The prepared statement of Ronald Franks follows:]
Statement of The Honorable C. Ronald Franks, Secretary,
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
On behalf of the Department of Natural Resources, the Governor, and
the State of Maryland, thank you for the opportunity to testify today
and for your interest in the Chesapeake Bay.
The Chesapeake Bay oyster is the cornerstone of the Bay's ecology
and water quality, serving as the Bay's main filtration system and rich
habitat for many other species. Tragically, the Bay's oyster population
has been decimated by disease, which has crippled the Bay's ability to
filter nutrients entering its waters through watershed runoff and
waste-water treatment discharges. As a result, restoring the Bay's
oyster population is an essential element of the Ehrlich
Administration's plan to improve the quality of the Bay's waters. While
the ecological and economic importance of oysters cannot be overstated,
attempts to overcome diseases, such as Dermo and MSX, continue to fail.
At this time an alternative, disease-resistant oyster, such as the
Crassostrea ariakensis, is the only viable option for scientists and
policymakers to effectively and efficiently restore the Bay's oyster
population.
OYSTER HISTORY SINCE THE 1900s
The history of oysters in Chesapeake Bay is closely tied to our
national efforts to conserve and manage natural resources. During the
decade of the 1910s, the state took action to reverse the decline in
oyster harvesting: Maryland conducted experimental seed and shell
plantings and took regulatory action that would eventually form the
backbone of oyster management in Maryland.
During the 1920s, just as the harvest declines were being reversed,
a typhoid outbreak in the major population centers of Chicago, New York
and Washington, that was attributed to oysters, received a lot of
negative publicity and resulted in oyster sales crashing. During this
period, the oyster market was also undergoing a long-term, gradual
shift from a mass-market dietary staple to more of a luxury food item.
Additionally, the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory was established, and
two major engineering projects affecting the hydrology of the Upper
Chesapeake Bay were completed: Conowingo Dam and the conversion of the
Chesapeake & Delaware Canal to a water-level shipping route.
During the 1930s, oyster harvests were affected by the Great
Depression and by competition from cheaper seafood brought about by
improved transportation and refrigeration. As the nation emerged from
the Depression, oyster harvests in Chesapeake Bay climbed to their
highest point in almost 20 years.
During the 1940s and World War II, a large number of watermen left
their boats for U.S. military service. Oyster harvests declined, but
the Chesapeake Bay remained the dominant source of oysters in the
United States.
During the 1950s, the oyster parasite Dermo was discovered in
Maryland. Also, a series of hurricanes caused considerable damage that
severely depressed oyster reproduction.
During the 1960s, Maryland began large-scale planting of old shell,
and harvests increased to the highest since the 1930s in spite of
oyster disease outbreaks.
During the 1970s, a series of natural catastrophes and changes in
the industry set the stage for a tailspin from which oyster abundance
and the oyster harvest have yet to recover. As a result of more than
half-a-decade of reduced salinities, a nearly complete spat-set failure
occurred during this decade. The Virginia oyster industry declined
sharply as a result of disease, which, in turn, increased harvesting
pressure in Maryland to meet the demand for oysters.
During the 1980s, several years of low rainfall allowed oyster
diseases to return with a vengeance, and MSX and Dermo both became
chronic infections on most oyster bars in the state. The mid-1980s were
a pivotal point for the oyster. In 1987, the Maryland oyster harvest
declined to below one million bushels, the lowest harvest since the
mid-nineteenth century, and in 1988, harvests plummeted even further--
by more than 60 percent from 1987 levels to 363,000 bushels. The
dockside value fell from $16 million in 1987 to $7 million in 1988.
Since 1988, oysters have continued their decline with far fewer bushels
harvested in the years thereafter. An Executive Order in 1985
established the Maryland Bay Cabinet to coordinate Bay recovery
programs to improve water quality and Bay health.
In the 1990s, the oyster harvest declined to a 150-year low in
spite of a series of record high spat falls. The mortality of mature
oysters approached 90 percent, which severely reduced the benefits that
the record spat falls provided. We also saw the creation and signing of
the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, which established new goals for the
reduction of nutrients and restoration of oysters and Bay grasses. The
price tag for restoration of the Bay is now estimated at $18.7 billion,
with Maryland's portion being $6.8 billion.
PRESENT DAY: DEFINING THE PROBLEM
It is clear that we are at a pivotal point in Bay restoration
efforts, particularly the restoration of the Bay through an abundant
population of self-reproducing oysters. In spite of a massive effort
and expenditures of tens of millions of state and federal dollars to
restore native oyster populations, populations are now one-half of what
they were in 1994, a reference year for rebuilding oyster populations.
The oyster diseases Dermo and MSX are a dominant influence, and unless
they are substantially controlled--and no evidence suggests that they
can be--the trend and the outlook for the native oyster is bleak. There
is little reason for optimism and even less evidence that we are making
any progress in defeating these oyster diseases.
A look at the historical data reveals a crucial trend. Oyster
harvests remained between 2 million and 4 million bushels from 1920 to
1982, thereby showing the ability of the Chesapeake Bay to support an
abundant population in balance with a significant fishery.
However, that is not now the case. As a result of more than 15
years of disease pressure, Maryland has a record-low oyster population
estimated to be less than 1 percent of historic levels. MSX and Dermo
have expanded in range and prevalence, reaching record-high levels
farther up the Bay and tributaries, depending on the year. In 2002, the
average oyster-mortality rate for Maryland was 58 percent, and many
areas experiencing 80- to 100-percent mortality. The typical mortality
rate without disease pressure is 10 percent or less. This difference is
vital and critical to our restoration efforts. Oyster survival is key
to establishing an abundant oyster population in the Bay.
One problem is the intense disease conditions that prevent the
sporadic natural sets of young oysters from realizing their potential
to sustain the population for the long term. As the spat grow to become
larger oysters, diseases kill them by the ages of 3 to 4 years, thereby
mitigating their ecologic and economic benefits. Unlike spat or young
oysters, larger and older oysters produce more brood, filter more
water, and create more valuable hard-bottom habitat critical to the
growth of oyster bars. Conversely, low mortality rates allow successive
year classes, or spat sets, to live many years and to develop abundant
populations upon the oyster bars.
Against this background and history, the Commonwealth of Virginia
began research and experimentation with the non-native species
Crassostrea ariakensis, which has been raised in Oregon waters for the
last 30 years but was originally from Southeast Asia. Results of the
Virginia experiments to date indicate that this species of oyster is
resistant to the diseases decimating the native oysters, can adapt very
readily to the Chesapeake Bay, and has the potential to thrive in the
Chesapeake Bay.
The decline of the oyster makes it all the more imperative to
recall its ecological and economic importance:
Ecological Importance
Oysters provide specific ecological benefits for the Bay, but these
benefits have declined to insignificance due to the loss of oysters.
Only by restoring an abundant population can we restore these
ecological functions.
Oyster populations are a keystone species when they are in
abundance, linking other species together and enriching the Bay's
ecology. A healthy population of oysters is to the Chesapeake Bay as
healthy trees are to a forest. Without these essential components, the
respective ecosystems do not fully function, and the benefits that
extend to, and are critical to, other living communities in the
ecosystems are minimal to nonexistent. The ultimate result is a
fundamental change in the ecosystem. The Bay's ecosystem today is
dominated by algae and bacteria rather than by oysters and SAV,
resulting in degraded water quality and poor water clarity.
Oysters create hard-bottom habitat that is essential to many
sessile, attached organisms such as mussels, barnacles, bryozoans, and
anemones, which filter the water and provide food for larger animals.
The hard, shelly habitat is also important for many small organisms,
such as mud crabs, blennies, gobys, and worms, that require the niches
provided by the shells and oyster clumps. These organisms attract
larger organisms, such as blue crabs and commercial and recreational
fin fish, illustrating that oyster reefs are an important component of
the Bay's food web.
Oysters and other filter feeders eat algae and sequester silt,
clearing the water. They remove algae, eat it, and convert it to
biomass, reducing nutrients in the water column. Nutrient enrichment
and algae blooms are two of the Bay's major problems that were
especially prevalent this year. By clearing the water and reducing
nutrients, oysters, when in great abundance, could help Bay underwater
grasses.
It has been estimated by leading oyster scientists that the once-
abundant pre-1870 oyster population required only about 3 days to
filter a volume of water equivalent to the Bay's volume. By 1988, that
changed to 325 days; today, our remnant population requires an
estimated 700 days.
Scientists generally agree that it will take decades, if it can be
done at all, to increase the number of C. virginica to ecological
significance.
Economic Issues
The oyster industry is economically extinct, impacting harvesters,
processors, shippers, restaurants, and family businesses. Oysters are
being imported into Maryland by processors and restaurants from the
Gulf Coast and the West Coast to meet the local market demand.
Chesapeake Bay is no longer considered a viable source of oysters for
the national market.
DNR expects the harvest to fall below last year's 53,000 bushels
and oystermen to continue dropping out of the fishery. In 1999, there
were 2,520 harvesters, followed by 915 in 2002 and 437 in 2003. For
2004, it is estimated that less than 200 will harvest oysters. Maryland
processors have already suffered and will continue to decline. There
were 58 in 1974, they fell to 20 in 1990, and only a handful are left
now.
OUTLOOK FOR NATIVE OYSTERS & RESTORATION
The long-term goal of the Chesapeake Bay Program to restore an
abundant and a healthy Chesapeake Bay oyster population is essential.
Attaining a self-sustaining oyster population is necessary to provide
ecological benefits significant enough to reach the water-quality
improvement goals prescribed for the Chesapeake Bay, as well as to
improve the Bay's fishery.
Restoration efforts must address the entire Bay and not just the
improvement of a few sites, or even many sites. Restoration is not
repeatedly restocking these sites time and time again to replenish
failed efforts. None of the efforts address the disease solution
because there is no cure. Maryland does not have the luxury to hope
that the native oyster will recover or that they should be given more
time to recover, or that even larger-scale efforts should be
undertaken. The Bay's future is dependent on a robust oyster
population, and the risk is too great to base the entire Bay
restoration strategy on a idea that is significantly contingent on the
re-emergence of the native oyster.
When considering the future of the native oyster population and the
efforts to restore it, we must be realistic and base our strategy on
what we know. There is no cure for the diseases MSX and Dermo that are
killing the native oyster population. The areas where disease becomes
entrenched never see the disease abate, and the oyster beds never
improve to pre-disease levels. The best science has been applied to
restoration with less than positive outcomes. Scientists generally
agree that it will take decades to make progress in restoring oysters,
but even they have doubts if it can be done within decades, if at all.
Everyone does agree that the Bay needs an oyster that can survive and
multiply. The issue is whether it is to be the native oyster or a
second oyster species.
The oyster population, its ecological contributions, and the
fishery are at record-low levels, and only a dramatic change can
improve the situation. Oyster populations will continue to decline for
at least 4 years due to recent low spat sets, continued mortality, and
the expectation that mortality will occur in the future. The high
rainfall in 2003 lowered salinity and will deter disease and improve
survival, but stocks are so low and recent sets so poor that any large-
scale significant increase in stocks will not occur. If a strong set
occurs in the summer of 2004, it will take about 3 years for the set to
grow, but even a strong 2004 year class may not produce any significant
change because MSX and Dermo can easily impact those oysters as it did
the strong year classes of 1985, 1986, 1991, and 1997.
The oyster's demise in the Bay is similar to what has happened in
other East Coast areas. The Delaware Bay has experienced only a remnant
oyster population and fishery since the 1940s, and MSX and Dermo have
spread north and south along the Atlantic coast. Around the world where
oyster diseases have impacted native stocks, there have been no cases
where the situation has reversed.
NATIVE OYSTER RESTORATION EFFORTS
During the past 12 to 15 years, many restoration initiatives have
been undertaken that were based upon recommendations from scientists
and environmentalists. The Aquatic Reef Habitat Restoration Plan was
implemented in 1993 to set aside thousands of acres of bottom habitat
for rehabilitation as oyster reef sanctuaries. The Maryland Oyster
Roundtable of 1993, which still exists today, recommended shell and
seed plantings, hatchery development, fishery management, and sanctuary
creation to reverse the decline.
The 1999 Scientific Consensus document that was written by
Maryland, Virginia and other marine scientists supported these and
other recommendations. It served as the scientific voice and foundation
of the 2000 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, which made a commitment to
restore oysters to 10 times the 1994 levels by 2010.
Progress towards the 2010 oyster goal is measured by an oyster
biomass index that is calculated by scientists using data from DNR's
annual Fall Oyster Survey. Biomass is a measure of living oysters in
the Bay. For Maryland, the biomass index has declined 70 percent during
the last few years, and it is now below the previous all-time-low
baseline of 1994. In spite of the tremendous commitment to oyster
restoration, the Bi-state efforts under the Chesapeake Bay Program have
not increased the number or biomass of oysters in the Chesapeake Bay.
The native restoration program costs have exceeded tens of millions
of dollars. Maryland and federal dollars will total about $8 million
for Fiscal Year 2004. A few years earlier, it ranged between $4 million
and $5 million annually. Every opportunity currently known has been
attempted or made available to increase the biomass of C. virginica,
but so far, we have been unsuccessful.
Restoration efforts have and continue to include:
Establishing a network of sanctuary and reserve areas
where oysters are protected from harvest in order to protect brood
stock, maintain ecological function, and ``jumpstart'' recovery;
Planting shell for habitat and setting of young oysters;
Cleaning silted bars;
Planting natural seed oysters on old and new shell
habitat; and
Planting potentially resistant strains of hatchery-
reared, disease-free oysters.
Some of the major initiatives of the native oyster restoration
include:
1. Sanctuaries and Reserve Areas
Sanctuaries, or non-harvest areas, are the foundation of the
restoration initiative. They are designed to protect brood, deliver
ecological benefits, and yield recovery in non-sanctuary areas as
oysters spread through larval dispersal. Reserve areas are also
designated for these purposes, but they are also opened for periodic,
limited harvest; then the area is closed again to achieve the
ecological benefits. Together with reserve areas, they allow scientists
to monitor oysters that are free from harvesting pressure and to
evaluate their experiments and the concept of controlled harvesting as
a recovery method. Maryland presently has 29 sanctuary areas, ranging
in size from entire tributaries, such as the Severn River, down to
about 10 acres, and 4 major reserve areas.
To date, some sanctuaries have received good natural sets of spat
on planted shells, indicating a strong start for the restored sites.
Other sanctuaries in lower setting areas were planted with hatchery
seed, and these populations too have experienced good initial growth
and survival. Unfortunately, most of these sanctuaries were impacted
over time by the diseases and have suffered high oyster-mortality rates
in both the planted seed and natural oysters. The net total of the
oyster populations have not increased under a sanctuary strategy: They
have decreased.
2. Hatchery Seed Oysters
Hatchery seed oysters are a key component of the restoration
program for sanctuaries and reserves. The seed oysters that are disease
free when they leave the hatchery are planted to stock restoration
sites. At times, natural spat set occurs to populate a site, but
hatchery seed is the dominant source of oysters for restoration sites.
Seed plantings in lower salinity areas, which are also low-disease
areas, have survived and grown well, while the hatchery seed placed in
higher-disease areas have been infected and essentially lost to
disease. In 2003, Maryland planted more than 100 million hatchery seed
compared to less than 15 million about 5 years ago. To achieve the
ultimate goal of restoring the Bay, hundreds of billions of oysters are
needed. This requires oysters to successfully reproduce and survive in
the wild in all areas of the Bay.
3. Habitat
Habitat improvement has been the foundation of oyster restoration
for more than 100 years. Oysters need clean habitat on which to set and
grow. Habitat improves a spat set, so in an effort to increase the spat
set and the overall oyster population survival, shell plantings have
been made in restoration areas. However, spat-setting areas are also
disease-prone areas, and we are seeing high mortality rates in the
third and fourth years. The habitat strategy does not address disease;
therefore, habitat initiatives are helpful but not the answer for total
oyster restoration.
Currently, about 100 acres of habitat are shelled each year for
restoration goals compared to less than 20 just a few years ago.
Thousands of acres still need improvement.
A variation on the habitat theme was the construction of 3-D
habitat in the form of large shell piles to elevate oysters in the
water column, thereby encouraging a healthier stock. The theory was
that such habitat would aid restoration, but thus far, the diseases
also impact these oysters, showing that 3-D habitat alone is not a
viable solution. Another variation was using non-shell materials. They
have been planted on restoration sites, but they do not attract spat as
effectively as shell. Even if they equaled or surpassed shells, disease
would undermine the populations.
4. Harvest Control
Reducing or ceasing harvest has been recommended and reviewed as a
viable method to restore Bay wide stocks. Sanctuaries are a form of
harvest reduction, as are limitations on the harvesting season, the
daily bushel limit, and the gear that is used. During the past 10
years, though sanctuaries have increased, we have not seen improvement
in oyster abundance in closed areas that have been off limits to
harvesting. In wide areas of the Bay, including most of Virginia's and
Maryland's waters, there has been a de facto moratorium on harvesting
due to disease impacts, yet oysters have not recovered in the absence
of a fishery. One could conclude that harvesting is not the cause of
the problem and therefore not the solution.
A method related to controlling harvest that was implemented and
monitored was to buy back large oysters harvested by watermen and
replant the oysters in sanctuaries to encourage these disease survivors
to produce better progeny for the Bay. The buyback oysters that were
purchased and returned to the waters were themselves highly infected,
and they quickly died.
EFFORTS TO CONSIDER AND INTRODUCE A NON-NATIVE OYSTER
Due to the lack of ecologically and economically significant
results and the inability of current strategies to mitigate and address
the diseases, a new approach must be considered to restore the entire
Bay--the solution must enable oysters not only to survive but also to
reproduce successfully and thrive. Hundreds of billions of oysters are
required to help restore the Bay.
Maryland is currently reviewing a proposal to introduce a second
oyster species, the Oregon strain of the oyster Crassostrea ariakensis
(C. ariakensis) to the Chesapeake Bay.
This oyster, also known as the Asian Oyster, has been in U.S.
waters since 1957 and was imported again in 1972 to Oregon for
aquaculture and has since been under evaluation in Virginia and North
Carolina. The current West Coast brood stocks are in their fifth
generation since the original stocks were imported. Our proposal would
use only the Oregon strains of C. ariakensis. The ICES protocols have
been met, and the introduction of diseases, viruses, or pathogens from
outside the United States has already been addressed and minimized in
accordance with the NAS recommendation. To date, no significant
mortalities due to diseases or other causes were noted during the
sustained commercial production on more than 100 acres of beds in
Oregon.
Its environmental requirements are much like our native oyster,
indicating it is a good candidate for consideration to restock the Bay.
Results from Virginia show that the Crassostrea ariakensis is not
infected by MSX, but is by Dermo. However, it survives well even though
it has Dermo. Mortality rates are extremely low, as the native oyster
was before disease appeared in the Bay. The C. ariakensis filters water
a little less efficiently than a same-sized native oyster, but because
it grows twice as fast and given its expected longer life span, the
population would still filter more water than the native population.
Tests in Virginia also confirm that native spat will set upon the
shells of C. ariakensis and grow, indicating that large populations of
C. ariakensis could provide the needed clean, hard-bottom habitat to
assist native oyster populations.
In July, 2003, the Secretaries of Virginia's and Maryland's
Departments of Natural Resources submitted a request to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers in Norfolk, Virginia, to coordinate the evaluation
of an introduction of this second species of oyster to the Bay by
preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Since that time,
both Departments have been working with the Corps to do the preparatory
work necessary for this comprehensive and extensive public review of
our proposal.
A formal planning meeting will convene October 15 and 16, 2003,
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Virginia, and Maryland to begin the process
of preparing an EIS for public review and comment. Preparation of this
EIS will be aided by the recently issued report by the National Academy
of Sciences, including the funding of specific research directed at the
questions and uncertainties identified in the NAS report. DNR would
like to complete the EIS in 12 to 18 months, an ambitious but doable
time frame
POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF INTRODUCING A NON-NATIVE OYSTER
A central feature of the Environmental Impact Statement to be
developed is to analyze the risk of unknown or unanticipated
consequences in introducing a non-native oyster in the Chesapeake Bay.
Many of the potential effects are not currently known and will be
addressed in the EIS, including:
Where will the C. ariakensis grow in the Bay, and how
might the oyster affect other resident species, especially the native
Eastern oyster?
Will C. ariakensis provide ecosystem services to the Bay
similar to those provided by the native oyster?
Will C. ariakensis become a nuisance species, which would
result in negative impacts on the Bay ecosystem?
What are the chances of the non-native oyster dispersing
to regions outside the Bay?
If an illegal introduction of C. ariakensis occurs, is
there an increased concern that disease agents or other species that
may be attached to the oysters would be introduced into the Bay?
The NAS report that will be discussed shortly includes discussion
on each of these questions and on possible economic and social effects.
A table included in the NAS report assesses the short-term (1-5 years)
potential outcomes for biological and social factors likely to be
affected by selection of three options presented in the report, a
caveat being that there are uncertainties associated with each outcome.
Using ICES protocols, the NAS report identifies positive and
negative factors (see chart below) associated with a large, managed
diploid (reproducing) introduction of C. ariakensis. These initial
assessments will be a point of reference as the EIS is prepared.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9844.005
REGULATORY ISSUES SURROUNDING THE INTRODUCTION OF A NON-NATIVE OYSTER
The primary concern regarding the introduction of a non-native
oyster is that it could be considered an invasive species. The National
Invasive Species Act of 1996, which governs the introduction of non-
native species through ballast water, defines ``aquatic nuisance
species'' as a ``nonindigenous species that threatens the diversity or
abundance of native species or the ecological stability of infested
waters, or commercial, agricultural, aqua cultural or recreational
activities dependent on such waters.'' 16 U.S.C. 4702 (1). Ultimately,
the EIS will address this issue in detail, but evidence is not
available to conclude that C. ariakensis would be an invasive species:
1. No harmful effects have been observed after more than 30 years
of C. ariakensis being in Oregon waters. Oyster stocks have been
tracked and raised from brood stock, which were imported to Oregon from
Ariake Bay, Japan, in 1969-71. No other imports have been recorded
since then.
2. No diseases have been reported in these stocks since their
importation to Oregon or in studies conducted by Virginia. No natural
spawning occurs in these stocks due to high (near full sea water)
salinities in the region. No setting occurs in larvae from these stocks
at 35 ppt (full-strength sea water). The oyster requires moderate (15-
20 ppt) salinities and high temperatures (>60 F) for successful
spawning and larval survival.
3. From East Coast field studies and other sources, C. ariakensis
eats algae, which is overabundant and a serious problem in the
Chesapeake Bay. C. ariakensis provides hard-shell habitat, which the
Bay has lost by the thousands of acres and which many organisms need.
C. ariakensis provides habitat for native oyster spat as documented in
Virginia studies.
To virtually eliminate foreign disease risks, oysters will NOT be
brought from Asia but from Oregon stocks. Virginia Institute of Marine
Sciences brood stock and would be the parentage for large-scale
introductions to the Bay.
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (NAS) REPORT
On August 14, 2003, the Committee on Non-native Oysters in the
Chesapeake Bay, Ocean Studies Board, and National Research Council of
the National Academy of Sciences released the prepublication version of
their report on Non-native Oysters in Chesapeake Bay.
The Academy was asked to examine the ecological and socioeconomic
risks and benefits of open-water aquaculture and the direct
introduction of the non-native oyster Crassostrea ariakensis in the
Chesapeake Bay. The report reviews how C. ariakensis might affect the
ecology of the Bay, including effects on native species, water quality,
habitat, and the spread of human and oyster diseases and possible
effects on recovery of the native oyster. The Committee assessed
whether the breadth and quality of existing research on oysters and
other introduced species is sufficient to support risk assessments of
three management options: 1) no use of non-native oysters; 2) open
water aquaculture of triploid (non-reproducing) oysters; and 3)
introduction of reproductive diploid oysters. Where current knowledge
was considered inadequate, the committee recommended additional
research priorities.
In brief terms, the executive summary of the report states that,
because relatively little is known about C. ariakensis, it is difficult
for scientists and resource managers to decide whether this oyster has
the potential to help or hurt conditions in the Chesapeake Bay, either
for the industry or the ecosystem. Hence, opinions range from the hope
that this oyster will revive a threatened industry and restore some of
the filtering capacity of the original oyster population to the fear
that it will be an invader that outgrows the commercial demand for
oysters and upsets the ecology of the Bay. The report addresses a wide
range of issues and concludes, given the present state of knowledge,
that they are currently unable to predict the long-term impacts of this
oyster if it is introduced to the Bay.
Even though the Committee rejected the option of ``no use of non-
native oysters,'' they warned that there is a risk of a rogue
introduction. The report further concluded, ``Our review of the case
studies clearly indicates that greater ecological or economic harm
typically arises from organisms that are inadvertently introduced with
the foreign oyster.''
The NAS report sums up the situation we face: ``...nevertheless, a
decision must be reached about whether or not to proceed with the use
of the non-native oyster despite uncertainty in the type and magnitude
of the potential risks involved.'' It will only be through an
Environmental Impact Statement that a final decision will be made and
that the risks will be weighted against the benefits.
DNR appreciates the advice and guidance offered by the NAS report
and will be utilizing that guidance in determining research priorities
and in preparing the Environmental Impact Statement. We have already
begun, in cooperation with the University of Maryland and Virginia
research institutions, to prioritize the needed research and have
identified funds to begin this research.
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION NEEDED
One issue examined in the NAS report dealt with ``the regulatory
framework for managing proposed introductions'' and local, national,
and international jurisdiction. The report points out that ``...EPA
does not consider `a non-native organism' a `pollutant' for NPDES
permitting purposes, and that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approval
is required only if an introduction involves structures or fill.''
We are uncertain why jurisdiction should be a matter of concern or
needs to be further debated. The states will, as indicated in the joint
letter to the Norfolk District of the Corps, prepare a full EIS in
accordance with federal guidelines and in cooperation with the federal
agencies, including consideration of possible impacts beyond the
Chesapeake Bay. We will conform to the ICES protocols regarding
introductions of non-native species to minimize the introduction of any
``hitchhikers.'' Furthermore, we will be inviting the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission to be the interstate forum where interstate
interests can be addressed as we proceed with the EIS.
CONCLUSION
Our priority is the restoration of the entire Chesapeake Bay. That
restoration has many facets because the Chesapeake Bay is important in
so many ways. Maryland's comprehensive approach to restoring the Bay
includes: nutrient reduction, SAV restoration, and oyster restoration.
The Oyster is the cornerstone of Maryland's restoration strategy
because it is an absolutely essential element of the Bay's ecology.
While Maryland will continue native oyster restoration efforts, the
catastrophic levels of this specie demand that we consider alternative
efforts. Our only alternative is whether the naturalized Oregon strain
of C. ariakensis should be introduced into the Chesapeake Bay. To that
end, it will take full cooperation and support of the federal
government to ensure that all necessary steps are taken to ensure the
decision process is comprehensive and expeditious.
The key decision points we will be focusing on are:
1. Will an introduction cause harm to the ecology of the Bay;
2. Are there ecological and economic benefits to be derived from
an introduction;
3. Will introduction interfere with efforts to recover the native
oyster; and,
4. If introduced in Chesapeake Bay, will there be impacts on other
coastal areas outside of Chesapeake Bay?
We estimate the costs of the EIS and non-native research to be
approximately $3 million over the next 12 to 18 months. A longer-term
research program may be required to investigate whether different
strains of C.a. brought in from outside the U.S. would be a feasible
alternative.
We also believe there is some urgency. While the outlook for the
native oyster from both an ecological and economic perspective is
bleak, it will take time to do the EIS and conduct the necessary
research. Nevertheless, time is of the essence, and it is our hope that
the EIS can be completed within a 12 to 18 month time frame. The
situation is urgent and we are prepared to assist in a way deemed
necessary--to protect the health of the Chesapeake Bay.
Thank you for the opportunity to explain our rationale and need for
a decision on oysters. We look forward to a full and informative public
dialogue on our proposal and a balanced decision that furthers the
restoration of Chesapeake Bay.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Franks.
Mr. Franks. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. As Maryland moves along to consider the
Asian oyster ariakensis, as part of a solution to the
restoration of water quality in the Chesapeake Bay, and I think
it is my understanding that Maryland, more so than Virginia, at
this time is considering the introduction of diploid as opposed
to triploid oysters; is that correct?
Mr. Franks. We are after the EIS. If it shows that it is
possible to do that with minimal risk.
Mr. Gilchrest. And Dr.--so Dr. Wesson, oh, I am sorry. I
missed--OK. Let me hold off on the questions until Dr. Wesson
is done. Thank you.
Mr. Franks. Yes, sir.
STATEMENT OF JAMES A. WESSON, DEPARTMENT HEAD, CONSERVATION
REPLENISHMENT DEPARTMENT, VIRGINIA MARINE RESOURCE COMMISSION
Dr. Wesson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing the
Commission to testify today. Everybody has mentioned the
keystone value of the oyster to the Chesapeake Bay. But they
are also extremely important to the health of the Commonwealth,
and they provided livelihoods for untold numbers of Virginians,
especially in the rural and the Bay shore communities.
In the 1890's, because of their significant economic value,
the Commonwealth actually set aside more than 200,000 acres of
bay bottom for public use. But all the rest of the acreage was
made available for private leasing, and we have had an
aquaculture industry in continuous use for more than a hundred
years. Oyster production in Virginia declined dramatically
around the turn of the century into the early 1920's as it did
in Maryland before we knew that the shells were so valuable to
the oyster, and we had to put them back overboard.
But once the public and the private industry began
returning shells back to the Bay, from the 1920's to the
1950's, the oyster production was actually increasing in
Virginia's part of the Bay. In the late 1950's, as we have all
heard, that was when the disease was introduced to the Delaware
and Chesapeake Bays, there was a rapid and sustained decline in
oyster production and population levels to the lowest point
that now exist in Virginia. The newly introduced disease MSX,
in combination with the native disease Dermo, have almost
totally decimated the oyster industry and reduced the current
populations in Virginia to less than a half a percent of what
it was just 45 years ago.
The small oyster processing industry that remains in the
Commonwealth survives almost exclusively on the processing of
imported oyster shell stock. The industry remains at a
competitive disadvantage in the marketplace due to the cost of
importation and more shucking houses close with each passing
year. In the late 1950's, there were 400 shucking houses in
Virginia, and currently there are less than 15 that actually
have any significant shucking activity at all.
The Virginia Institute of Marine Science, along with the
Virginia Marine Resources Commission, have implemented
countless strategies, research products and restoration
programs to combat the disease-induced decline in the oyster
population since the 1950's. The private oyster industry has
invested and lost millions of dollars using various strategies
to grow oysters within the disease-dominated conditions in the
Bay.
Private investment has mostly been suspended because of the
inherent risks and losses. State restoration activities have
continued throughout the decline and have included the best
science and management strategies that were available at any
given time. The oyster restoration effort has been especially
ambitious since the early 1990's with the combination of 3-D
oyster reef restoration projects, the setting aside of large
acreages of sanctuaries, the strict control of the wild
harvest, and the implementation of quantitative statistically
sound oyster monitoring programs. The 3-D oyster reef
restoration and sanctuary program that was implemented at the
VMRC has become the model for Bay-wide restoration efforts. The
3-D sites that we have built, they duplicate the conditions
that the oysters were in before harvesting began, and we have
found that the reefs improve the juvenile spat, juvenile
survival and spat set because they protect the oysters from
predation.
The oysters on the reefs grow faster which increases the
fecundity, and we know that on the reefs we have improved their
fertilization rates because the oysters are close to one
another. The broodstock oyster population on these reefs have
either been allowed to develop naturally, or in many cases,
have been augmented with the best genetic stocks that we had at
the time. And since we have begun this work, it has become the
Bay-wide consensus that the restoration of the 3-D reefs and
the establishment of sanctuaries is throughout the Bay is the
best way to achieve the 2000 tenfold increase in the native
oyster population goal by 2010.
And there has been a significant influx of the State,
Federal and private monies to rebuild these reefs in Virginia
and, in fact, we have built more than 70 of these reefs in the
Commonwealth throughout the Bay, and there has been a
significant outlay of money and effort to build these reefs,
and we have not seen any increase in oyster populations
associated with this effort, nor have there been any increase
in oyster harvests.
In fact, since we began this work in 1993, the population
of oysters are actually only 40 percent of where we began.
Oyster disease still dominates the survival and can be seen
from the minor results on the restored reefs. Once we build the
reefs, we get a large spat set. We see the populations grow
quickly. But within 2 to 3 years, the number of large oysters
has returned to the levels that we see throughout other parts
that we haven't restored in the local areas. There has been all
sorts of research efforts to understand the diseases and to
selectively breed tolerant oysters and we have been working on
this for more than 40 years, and there has been some progress
in disease tolerance, but the risks still remain too great for
any significant private investment.
To date, the selective genetic improvement of disease
tolerance did not appear to transfer into the wild populations.
And Virginia began this work on considering the non-native
oyster in the late 1980's. It has not been a new process for
us. We have been slow and deliberate in the efforts that we
have done through private industry and research institutions
and the government entities.
We filed an international protocol for testing of non-
native aquatic species and all the, as you have heard, all the
broodstock has been quarantined throughout these projects. The
tests have been--we started off with actually the Pacific
oyster, and found very quickly that they didn't like the Bay
very much and, actually, the industry is not very interested in
using them because of the taste.
But in the mid 1990's, with the results that we have seen
with the second oyster, the ariakensis that we are talking
about now that have been done, the research the Virginia
Seafood Council petitioned the Commission to do some industry
trials, and the results on those trials have been excellent,
whether we have worked in low middle or high salinity areas and
that the oysters grew fast.
They had a very similar taste to the Chesapeake Bay
oysters, and we didn't see any problems with diseases in them
in all the areas that they were tested. These projects have
grown as we started with 600 oysters, then we went to 6,000--
600 oysters per site, and about 6,000 oysters, and then we went
to 60,000 oysters in the second project, and now we are into
the project that we have been hearing about today where we are
testing a million oysters, but you still have to keep in mind
that the million oysters are still not even one week's worth of
material for a moderately large shucking house in Virginia.
VMRC is currently monitoring the project closely and all
future requests that would come to VMRC for regulatory approval
also must be approved through the Corps of Engineers. We are in
the process of completing the environmental impact statement or
beginning that process. And VMRC will be an active participant.
It is critically important to the survival of the beleaguered
industry to move this process as quickly as possible.
Congress can be instrumental to the success of these
efforts by fully funding the process to allow the projects to
occur simultaneously and quickly. Currently, nearly all the
important functions of oyster and Chesapeake Bay area are
either lost or severely diminished. Oysters are critically
important to filter the Bay's waters as we heard to provide
this complex habitat for the oyster as well as other species,
and to provide sustainable economically viable product for the
historic industry. All available resources that the Congress
can possibly bring to bear on this effort would be immensely
important to the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Dr. Wesson.
[The prepared statement of James Wesson follows:]
Statement of James A. Wesson, Ph.D., The Virginia Marine Resources
Commission, Division of Fisheries Management, Department of
Conservation and Replenishment
Oysters are keystone contributors to the ecological health of the
Chesapeake Bay and barrier island/lagoon system of Virginia. They also
have been extremely important to the health of the economy of the
Commonwealth, as they have provided livelihoods for untold numbers of
Virginians, especially in rural, bayshore communities. In the 1890s,
because of the significant economic value, the Commonwealth of Virginia
surveyed and set aside more than 200,000 acres of oyster ground for
public use. The remaining areas of bay bottom are available for private
lease and have been in continuous use for private oyster production,
for more than a century.
Oyster production in Virginia has declined dramatically, since the
turn of the century, owing to several factors. From 1880 through the
1920's, the decline in harvest was directly related to harvesting
activities. The value of the harvested shell, as a building commodity
on land, resulted in lost reef volume, as the reef shells were not
returned to the bay. These activities resulted in a significant decline
in oyster populations. Oyster restoration began when the Commission of
Fisheries (currently the Virginia Marine Resources Commission) and the
private oyster industry in Virginia started returning harvested shells
to the oyster ``rocks'' or reefs in the late 1920's. At that time, the
value of the shell as a building material had declined, due to the
availability of quarry stone and a better highway transportation system
to the bayshore communities. As shells were returned to the oyster
rocks, oyster production actually increased significantly between the
late 1920's and the late 1950's. Oyster management and private oyster
husbandry maintained and increased oyster production and Virginia
became a worldwide leader in oyster production.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9844.006
In the late 1950's, a new oyster disease was introduced to the
Delaware and Chesapeake Bays, and this disease caused a rapid, and
sustained decline in oyster production and population levels to the
lowest point that currently exists in Virginia's waters. The newly
introduced disease called MSX, in combination with the native disease
called DERMO, have totally decimated the oyster industry and have
reduced current population levels of oysters in Virginia to less than
one half of one percent of levels only 45 years ago. The small oyster
processing industry that remains in the Commonwealth survives almost
exclusively from the processing of imported oyster shellstock. The
industry remains at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace, due
to the costs of importation, and more oyster shucking houses close with
each passing year. There were more than 400 shucking houses in Virginia
in the late 1950's, while currently no more than 15 still continue any
significant amount of shucking activity.
The Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) and the Virginia
Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) have implemented countless
strategies, research projects, and restoration programs to combat the
disease-induced decline in oyster populations since the 1950's. The
private oyster industry has invested and lost many millions of dollars,
using various strategies to grow oysters within the disease-dominated
conditions in the Bay. Private investment has mostly been suspended
because of the inherent risks and losses. State restoration activities
have continued throughout the decline and have included the best
science and management strategies that were available at any given
time. The oyster restoration effort has been especially ambitious since
the early 1990s, with a combination of 3-dimensional (3-D) oyster reef
reconstruction projects, the setting aside of large acreages of
sanctuary areas, the strict control of wild oyster harvest, and the
implementation of a quantitative, statistically sound oyster-monitoring
program.
The 3-D oyster reef restoration and sanctuary program implemented
by VMRC has become the model for baywide oyster restoration efforts.
These 3-D reef restoration sites duplicate oysters reefs that were
observed prior to any significant harvesting activities. These
constructed reefs improve juvenile oyster survival (resulting in
improved spatset), allow oysters to grow faster (resulting in improved
fecundity or reproductive capacity), and physically position oysters in
the most optimal configuration for spawning success (resulting from
improved fertilization rates). Broodstock oyster populations on these
reefs have been allowed either to develop naturally, or, in many cases,
have been augmented with genetically selected oyster broodstock. Since
there has been baywide consensus that the restoration of 3-D reef
structures and the establishment of oyster sanctuaries throughout the
Bay is the best way to achieve the Chesapeake Bay 2002 goal of a 10-
fold increase in native oyster populations by 2010, there has been an
extremely significant influx of State, federal and private monies to
rebuild these reefs in Virginia. Since 1993, more than 70 of these
reefs have been constructed throughout the Bay. The significant outlay
of money and effort to rebuild oyster reefs has not increased oyster
populations in the Bay or provided any increase in the associated and
direly needed oyster harvest in the Commonwealth. Since the reef
restoration effort began in 1993, the standing stock of oysters in
Virginia's portion of the Bay has actually decreased by almost 60
percent. Oyster diseases still dominate oyster survival, as can be seen
from the monitoring results from all of the restored reefs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9844.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9844.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9844.009
Newly-constructed reefs are rapidly populated by oysters, and the
oysters grow very fast for the first one to 2 years, but most oysters,
even on the ideally constructed reefs, succumb to disease within 2 to 4
years. The very expensive, constructed, 3-D reefs lose their value as
clean, oyster habitat, as the oysters die off on the reefs, and quickly
return to the background population levels of the surrounding,
unrestored areas.
Significant efforts by research institutions, such as the Virginia
Institute of Marine Science, have been made to understand oyster
diseases and selectively breed disease tolerant native oysters. After
more than forty years, MSX is still poorly understood, especially its
method of transmission from oyster to oyster, and there is no
dependable selected strain of genetically improved, disease tolerant
oysters that can sustain a commercial aquaculture industry in Virginia.
Some progress has been made in disease ``tolerance'', but the risks
remain too great to entice significant private investment. To date, the
selected, genetic improvement in disease tolerance does not appear to
transfer into wild populations of oysters.
In the late 1980s, Virginia began discussing a non-native oyster
introduction, as possibly the only strategy to counteract the impacts
of disease on native oyster populations and as a way to save the
associated, valuable industry. The process of considering a non-native
introduction has been slow and deliberate, with much input from private
industry, research institutions, and governmental entities.
International protocols for the testing of non-native aquatic species
have been followed during this time period. Introduced broodstock has
been quarantined during all projects, and only sterilized oysters have
been tested in the waters of the Commonwealth. The earliest tests were
always conducted under research protocols by VIMS. The Pacific oyster
(Crassostrea gigas), the most widely used and introduced oyster in the
world, has been tested and found not acceptable in the Chesapeake Bay,
in both performance and industry acceptance. In the late 1990s, another
closely related and similar looking species called the Suminoe or
Chinese oyster (Crassostrea ariakensis) was tested in Virginia's
portion of the Chesapeake Bay and coastal bays. Research results were
very good, with this oyster exhibiting significant resistance to
disease and exceptional growth rates, at a number of sites. Taste tests
for the oyster were also very positive.
Based on these results, the Virginia Seafood Council petitioned the
Virginia Marine Resources Commission in 1999 to allow industry tests
with the Suminoe oysters using very controlled methods. The first tests
involved a direct, ``on-bottom'' comparison between the Suminoe oyster
and the native oyster at 6 locations. All of the oysters were triploid
(sterile) and contained within bags and cages. In low, mid, and high
salinity areas, C. ariakensis grew to market size faster than the
native oysters (most of the native oysters never reached market size),
with most of the oysters reaching market size in one year or less.
Only 600 oysters were grown at each of the six sites in this
project, and the results were so positive that a second, larger growout
project was requested in 2000. In the second Virginia Seafood Council
trial, 60,000 triploid (sterile) oysters were deployed by various
methods at 10 sites throughout Virginia's portion of the Bay and
coastal bays. This test was designed specifically to evaluate market
acceptance of the new oysters by the industry participants. Growth
rates were exceptional again. There was no evidence of any significant
mortality, and the consumers found the oyster very acceptable as a food
product. With the poor condition of our native oyster in the Bay,
bushels often shuck less than 5 pints of oyster meat. In the winter,
local oysters can shuck up to 10 pints per bushel. The Suminoe oyster
consistently shucked more than 12 to 13 pints per bushel, so the
attractiveness to the industry cannot be overstated.
Concurrent with the exceptional results with the non-native oyster
were the disappointing results with the native oyster. Imported
shellstock from the northeast and Maryland has been unavailable because
of poor oyster survival. Competition in Virginia markets from west
coast oyster imports is much more severe than previously, as local Bay
shellstock has become unavailable and many long-held accounts have been
lost by the local industry. Processors from the Gulf Coast States have
become more competitive, as they have been processing more oysters
locally and taking markets away from the Chesapeake Bay industry. The
processors in Virginia's portion of the Bay must import shellstock,
with all of the attendant transportation costs, and compete with oyster
producers nationwide. The combination of the dire situation of a
continued lack of local shellstock and the impressive results with the
non-native oyster trials have resulted in a desperate situation for the
remaining industry and its need to move this project along as quickly
as possible.
The Virginia Seafood Council has continued with requests to test C.
ariakensis with a proposal to use 1,000,000 triploid oysters in the
current project. This appears to be a large project; however, this
quantity of oysters is used by one moderately large shucking house in a
single week. This project, now underway, triggered the review process
that has led to this hearing and triggered the National Academy of
Sciences study that was completed this summer. An exhaustive State and
federal review has resulted in significant modifications to the
originally proposed project. The Virginia Seafood Council has been
persistent in moving this project forward and has made modifications
and coped with the associated delays. The National Academy of Sciences
review has supported the conservative direction of the studies using
the sterile triploid, non-native oyster that have been approved by VMRC
and other federal agencies.
The VMRC is monitoring the current project closely. All future
project requests will require VMRC regulatory approval, as well as
approval from the Army Corps of Engineers. The process of completing an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is beginning, and VMRC will be an
active participant in that effort. It is critically important to the
survival of the beleaguered oyster industry to move this process as
quickly as possible. Congress can be instrumental to the success of
these efforts, by fully funding the EIS process, to allow all of the
projects to occur simultaneously and quickly. It is also important that
non-native oyster species be exempted from House Bill 1080, the
National Aquatic Invasive Species Act, so that no unnecessary
regulatory hurdles are added to the process.
Currently, nearly all the important functions of the oyster in the
Chesapeake Bay are either lost or severely diminished. Oysters are
critically important in their ability to filter the Bay's waters, to
provide a complex habitat for other species in the Bay, and to provide
a sustainable, economically viable product for an historic industry.
All available resources that Congress can apply to this effort are
immensely important to the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Wesson, Virginia's goal as far as
ariakensis is concerned, now I know that it is complicated.
There is myriad of multiple things to do. Is the essence at
this point though the goal of the State of Virginia with
ariakensis to continue working with triploid oysters over a
certain timeframe before considering the introduction of
diploid oysters in Virginia waters?
Dr. Wesson. Yes, sir. That is the current state that we are
in. Where all the projects that have been considered this far
have been with triploids and none have come before the
Commission as a request to do triploids to date.
Mr. Gilchrest. Are you going to have, or has there been, a
discussion on a timeframe for experimentation research with
diploids, or is it all dealing right now with triploids?
Dr. Wesson. Well, some of the research is going on with
triploids in quarantine. But all the end water testing that we
are considering right now is with triploids, and there is
really not a time schedule that has been set up per se, but the
clock is ticking on the industry if we have any hope that they
will be able to survive through the effort. So there is a sense
of urgency.
As the industry has seen their ability to compete in the
marketplace where now the west coast oysters are in our
marketplace almost everywhere. The Gulf industry has become
much more active in marketing their own product rather than
sending it to the Chesapeake Bay for us to shuck. And the
ability for the industry in Virginia and Maryland to compete
will only depend on the availability of local shell stock.
Mr. Gilchrest. Now, are you looking at local shell stock
being triploid? Do you see in a year or two, in 10 years that
triploid oyster being replaced with diploid? Do you think the
oyster industry in Virginia can be saved with triploid
ariakensis?
Dr. Wesson. It is impossible to know at this point. It is
very hard to imagine that no other industry in the world has
been--had a hand tied behind its back and told that you can
only use sterile oysters and compete in a world marketplace.
So, if you would ask the industry, I think they are certainly
willing and able to bring their own financial resources to bear
to move triploid aquaculture along as fast as possible. But for
our Bay, we have always had an industry that is built on a
shucking product. And because of that, the costs are set by the
rest of the world whatever the costs are in the Gulf or what
the costs are on the west coast.
And in order for these facilities to survive, they are
going to have to have a product that they can shuck at a cost
that is competitive. And a part of that can be made up by the
fact that the triploid ariakensis is much meatier or fatter and
that for the Virginia oyster, right now if you shuck a Virginia
oyster, you get four to five pints per bushel production.
In the wintertime, when they are really fat, you might get
up to 8 to 10. With the triploid ariakensis, we have seen
regularly 13 pints, 12 or 13 pints of meat per bushel. Now,
when you have that combination of the very meaty nature of the
oyster, then you can have some slack in the amount of
production that you have to have and it makes triploid
aquaculture seem to be possible.
Mr. Gilchrest. Did you bring some samples for us to taste?
Dr. Wesson. Unfortunately, our samples have run out. The
product now has been separated between the last one we had 2
years ago. The oysters were big, and they are gone. You
wouldn't want to eat them as big as they are now, the few that
are left.
Mr. Gilchrest. I would like to try one of those big ones.
Dr. Wesson. The new ones have just gone out.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Dr. Franks, how would you categorize Maryland's approach to
this issue? Similar to what Virginia is doing? Virginia, if I
can paraphrase, is looking, at least in the immediate future,
the timeframe of the next few years, dealing with making
triploid the priority, and Maryland is looking to make the
diploid the priority; and, if we are, is it for traditional
wild harvest, is it for hatchery-raised, farm-raised
aquaculture, or a combination of the two?
Mr. Franks. It is a combination of the two, Mr.
Congressman.
I think right now we are looking at some triploid
possibilities that exist currently. They are not large scale,
but they might offer a little bit of relief to the oyster
industry that has been devastated so heavily. But the primary
point of focus for us is conducting a thorough and complete EIS
to see whether or not it is possible to introduce a self-
reproducing oyster without further detriment to the Chesapeake
Bay.
That is the long-term direction that we are taking. We just
want to be sure that we are not going to introduce something
that will be harmful to us. If that is the case and if the EIS
supports that, then I think we are going to move ahead very
vigorously in introducing a diploid oyster.
Mr. Gilchrest. Do you have a timeframe for the EIS?
Mr. Franks. The EIS, I have heard some very interesting
timeframes, all of the way from a year to 10 years. We are
trying to do with the most frugal use of time that we can,
without being reckless. We want to be thorough and complete,
but we don't want to just establish a time that has
historically been accepted as a time that it takes to do that
kind of a project.
We want to know exactly what needs to be done. We want to
do it in as frugal a timeframe as we can, because we consider
the situation that exists in Maryland, and I will say in
Virginia as well, to be an emergency situation, a situation
where our oyster population has been reduced to a level that it
no longer is a filter for the Bay.
If you combine that with the fact--and I don't want to
introduce another subject, but if you combine that with the
fact that menhaden are not or as populated in the Bay as they
once were or filtering ability is dramatically changing, and we
do not want to become an algal system where algae dominates and
not oysters dominate. So we are moving ahead with all of the
haste that is possible, without being reckless.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
As you move ahead with an EIS, do you see this EIS being
conducted solely by the State of Maryland? Do you see the State
of Maryland, through this EIS, partnering with other Federal
agencies, the Chesapeake Bay program; and, in the end, do you
see the necessity for a permit being issued before diploid
oysters are introduced?
Mr. Franks. Well, let's take the EIS process first. It was
our original intention to partner with Virginia, and they
agreed, and we sent the appropriate letter to the Corps of
Engineers in Norfolk. They--and I can let them answer for
themselves--evidently did not feel that they had jurisdiction.
Mr. Gilchrest. The Corps of Engineers?
Mr. Franks. The Corps of Engineers felt that they did not
have jurisdiction. Recognizing that, we came to a point where
we had to make a decision. So from that point we decided that
Maryland, and hopefully in partnership with Virginia, would
move ahead with a State EIS following the exact same guidelines
you would follow if you did a Federal EIS.
We have invited all of the appropriate agencies to be
partners with us, to look over our shoulder, to be there to ask
questions, to make sure that the EIS meets the criteria that we
have set for it. So at that point, we have taken it on
ourselves in Maryland, and hopefully with Virginia, to move
ahead with a State EIS with Federal partners.
Mr. Gilchrest. And this would be an EIS for the
introduction of diploids?
Mr. Franks. Correct.
Mr. Gilchrest. OK. I have some other questions, but I will
yield to, if she has any questions, Delegate Eckart for the
panel.
Ms. Eckart. Thank you very much. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here with you. I had a welfare reform update,
so that is where I was. So I just wanted to commend you not
only for your work in this area but I think for the fact that
we all appreciate the urgency of what we are about.
I guess my comment--I guess my question would be, you
certainly--for Dr. Wesson, you have worked on this for a long
time in Virginia; and, as I understood your testimony, you said
that, in fact, you have not seen a significant impact of the
non-native oysters in your waters. Is that correct? Did I hear
that clearly or not?
Dr. Wesson. You are talking about non-natives then?
Ms. Eckart. The ariakensis.
Dr. Wesson. The non-native tests that we have done thus far
have been highly controlled, everything in cages, sterile
oysters. So, no, we have not seen any impact on anything else
because they have all been retrieved.
Ms. Eckart. OK. But the other efforts that you have made in
restoring your oyster population have not been beneficial or
productive. That you have--I thought I heard you say you
continued to see a decline in the population despite efforts to
turn that around?
Dr. Wesson. That is correct. As we have spent more money,
the numbers have actually gone down.
Ms. Eckart. That is what thought I heard. I think we are
all concerned about the impact of our efforts, that we want to
make sure that we do make a good investment, a good return on
our dollar; and I would hope, Mr. Secretary Franks, that we
would move forward with the EIS study and, as you said, be
deliberative with that but not careless or reckless.
So I appreciate those efforts. I look forward to hearing
more.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Ms. Eckart.
Ms. Hanmer, Dr. Wesson and Secretary Franks--and Dr. Wesson
and Secretary Franks, if I misconstrued your earlier statement
by paraphrasing it wrong as far as the tenfold increase program
for native oysters, please correct me.
Ms. Hanmer, it appears that Dr. Wesson and Secretary Franks
have alluded to the fact that the process and the policy and
the program to increase the native oysters tenfold by 2010 has
not been successful at all. Would you agree with that
assessment? And, as a result of that, if you agree, based on
the 1993 policy, would you also agree with Virginia, but
especially Maryland, that we should move forward with
ariakensis?
Ms. Hanmer. First, I can't say that the efforts to date to
restore--that there is universal agreement, obviously, on the
success or nonsuccess of the efforts to date. If you look at
the broad picture and count the numbers, I have no reason to
disagree with the numbers that Dr. Wesson has given you or Dr.
Franks has given you. Those are the numbers. If you talk to
other people in smaller operations, they say, well, we are
beginning to learn a lot more at the individual technique
basis. Things are becoming more successful. So I don't think
that it is appropriate at this time to say that we want to pull
the plug on the native oyster restoration program. I think it
is just beginning to show us what we can do.
As I mentioned in my prepared testimony, I also think that
evaluation of native oysters aquaculture--and this is not
universally shared, so I will say it is EPA's opinion that
evaluation of native oyster aquaculture does have a place in
the native oyster restoration program and should be looked at
in a more concerted manner than it has to date.
Mr. Gilchrest. Now, you say the evaluation of native oyster
aquaculture?
Ms. Hanmer. Yes. As you heard the description of the native
oyster restoration activities to date, that has not been a
focus. I am suggesting that we could focus more attention on
native oyster aquaculture as a part of a host of approaches
that the last panel discussed. So perhaps we have been too
narrow in our discussion of what we mean by native oyster
restoration.
The second part of your question was, would we abandon the
precautionary approach? And the answer is no. I think that--I
don't want to make a hackneyed saying, but, you know, act in
haste, repent in leisure is actually--
Mr. Gilchrest. Say that again.
Ms. Hanmer. Act in haste, repent in leisure has certainly
been the history of some of our activities where agencies have
introduced non-native species.
I just wrote a grant request just the other day for money
to try to eliminate zebra mussels in a quarry in Virginia. So
the issue of getting rid of invasive species is very serious,
and that is why we think that it is extremely important to
approach the deliberate introduction of a possibly invasive
species with great care. That is why we are committed to the
environmental impact statement and to working kind of
cooperatively with our Bay program partners on the research.
Mr. Gilchrest. Would you want to be a part of the Maryland
EIS process? And are you a part of the Maryland EIS process?
Ms. Hanmer. Yes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
championed the idea of the development of an environmental
impact statement.
Mr. Gilchrest. Now, the development of an environmental
impact statement on the introduction of diploid oysters?
Ms. Hanmer. On the introduction of non-native oysters
generally--generally.
Mr. Gilchrest. If you do an--I apologize for interrupting.
But if you do an EIS statement and you are in support of an EIS
statement of the introduction generally of non-native oysters,
does that specifically mean diploid oysters and then
ariakensis?
Ms. Hanmer. It means reproductively capable oysters; and
under certain circumstances, triploid oysters introduction
could be--also produce a reproducing population in the Bay.
Mr. Gilchrest. What is the status now with that as far as
you, Maryland and Virginia are concerned?
Ms. Hanmer. The status is this spring the--we went through
the ad hoc panel process of our Chesapeake Bay panel policy,
and the Federal agencies got together with Virginia and
Maryland in connection with working on our recommendations for
the research proposals, the research marketing proposals in
Virginia. So that in the context of working out conditions for
the permit that was issued to the Virginia Seafood Council by
the Norfolk District this spring, a number of safeguards were
built into that permit at the instigation of the Federal
agencies like our own Fish and Wildlife Service, National
Marine Fisheries Service. So we reached agreement on the types
of precautionary practices that should be associated with the
current research on triploid oysters.
As the years progressed, there may be proposals for a much
larger scale triploid oyster aquaculture. Depending on how
those proposals are framed and also how the safeguards are
carried out, those could introduce a reproducing population,
and therefore we will have to subject those to the same kind of
review as diploid oysters.
It is a question of time. The general scientific agreement
was that, over time, triploid oyster populations placed in the
Bay could, over time, if not controlled, become reproducing
diploid populations. That is why we don't make as fine a
distinction.
So the issue is, do we have to introduce a non-native
species in the Bay in order to have both a naturally viable
oyster population and an economically viable oyster population?
That is the question we see at the heart of the environmental
impact statement.
Mr. Gilchrest. So, EPA is or isn't a part of that EIS?
Ms. Hanmer. At the time we proposed the environmental
impact statement, it was clear that there was a Section 404
jurisdiction. We were in Virginia, we were talking about a
particular situation, and, in that context, then it was clear
Federal jurisdiction and therefore an environmental impact
statement under the Federal jurisdiction.
A question has since been raised whether all--whether any
and all methods of introducing diploid oysters would also be
subject to Section 404. And that has been a question.
Mr. Gilchrest. That hasn't been answered yet?
Ms. Hanmer. It depends on exactly what the method is.
Mr. Gilchrest. So Section 404 applies to triploid
introduction to aquaculture?
Ms. Hanmer. It would apply to any method that could be
viewed as the discharge of fill material. So if you use a
method that could be defined as fill material, then Section 404
of the Clean Water Act would apply. In the meantime, however, I
think--
Mr. Gilchrest. But you are not sure whether it applies to
the introduction of diploids?
Ms. Hanmer. It is a--it could apply to the introduction of
diploids. It depends on how it is done. Whether shell are used,
whether shell are placed on the bottom, whether shell are
placed on a reef would be one of the considerations.
Mr. Gilchrest. So Section 404 doesn't apply to the spat, it
only applies to the shell?
Ms. Hanmer. Possibly, yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. Colonel Prettyman-Beck, do you have a
comment on the Federal role in the EIS based on the Clean Water
Act?
Colonel Prettyman-Beck. Well, sir--
Mr. Gilchrest. Now you issued a permit, it is my
understanding, to--I don't want to use the word allow, but to
enable Virginia to pursue the triploid research they are doing
right now, correct?
Colonel Prettyman-Beck. That is correct, sir. Virginia
Seafood Council back in, I believe, April of this year. With
the issuance of that particular permit, we put very stringent
conditions upon that permit pending the release of the National
Academy of Science's report. Those particular conditions were,
if there was anything that came out of that report that was
recommended or would change the avenue or the information we
gave to Virginia Seafood Council, that we would make those
changes. But when the report was released we did not have to
modify or make any particular changes because everything was
consistent with the way that we issued that particular permit.
With regards to the EIS, Congress has to authorize and
appropriate us as a Federal agent to conduct the EIS. We are
standing ready, if approved and appropriated, to be a lead
member in that particular study.
Back prior to the permit process, or when this was ongoing,
it is my understanding--and I just came on board in the past 2
months--but it is my understanding the Federal Committees Group
that Ms. Hanmer has mentioned all met and decided that an EIS
was the way to go.
Mr. Gilchrest. The EIS was the way to go for?
Colonel Prettyman-Beck. For additional study in terms of
whether or not the outcome would be to introduce additional
triploid oysters, the C. ariakensis or just do additional study
for that.
Mr. Gilchrest. Was there discussion about an EIS on
diploids?
Colonel Prettyman-Beck. Sir, I was not there, so I would
have to defer to someone who was at that particular meeting and
discussion.
Mr. Gilchrest. I guess what I am trying to pull together
here in my mind so I understand this, the Corps of Engineers
issued permits for Virginia to pursue this research with the
triploid ariakensis. That is not now, or is it, an EIS? That is
just research on triploids?
Dr. Wesson. They permitted the structures themselves to do
the project.
Mr. Gilchrest. Now, in your mind, Secretary Franks, you
made a comment that the State of Maryland, while the Feds
looked over your shoulder, would pursue its own EIS as far as
understanding the ramifications of the introduction of
ariakensis diploids.
Mr. Franks. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. And as far as EPA and the Corps of
Engineers, you don't yet know the status of your regulatory
jurisdiction in that EIS?
Ms. Hanmer. We would participate with the environmental
impact statement development process, whether it was termed as
a Federal environmental impact statement under the lead of the
Corps of Engineers, because the jurisdiction was clear, whether
it was a Federal EIS because the Corps was authorized to do it,
or whether or not it is an environmental impact statement
carried out cooperatively by Maryland and Virginia, in which
case I would characterize it as an environmental impact
statement carried out cooperatively under the aegis of the
Chesapeake Bay program.
That would be one way to do it, to bring all of the
agencies together.
Mr. Gilchrest. Now, given that statement, Ms. Hanmer or
Colonel Prettyman-Beck, is there--is it clear or unclear who
has the authority to introduce non-native oysters in the form
of diploids to the Chesapeake Bay? Who has the authority to
issue that permit?
Colonel Prettyman-Beck. The State of Maryland.
Mr. Gilchrest. The State of Maryland can do it without EPA
and the Corps?
Ms. Hanmer. There is a way--the discussion has been that
there is a way in which the oyster could be introduced, spat
with no shell, simply off the back of the boat, that might not
conform to the regulatory definition of fill under Section 404.
EPA's position is that we really need to look at the details.
And, of course, we also have been asked whether or not
Section 402, which is the discharge of pollutants from a point
source, might be applicable. Unfortunately, our answer would
have to be the same, and that is these are very--these are
considerations that are based on a set of facts. We would need
to see the specific proposal for how the work was to be done in
order to determine whether 404 or 402 jurisdiction applied in a
case like that.
In almost all cases I can envision, our opinion would be
that Section 404 would apply. In other words, that the
introduction would be subject to 404 as a discharge or fill
material.
Mr. Gilchrest. I have no doubt in my mind, based on my
relationship with Secretary Franks and the State of Maryland
and also the past history of Virginia, that there will--that
there would be no problem with full cooperation between the Bay
program, the Corps of Engineers and any research understanding
of ariakensis.
I would like, Secretary Franks, just--I think I asked
this--I asked a question earlier, in which you said, or you
made--I asked a question about whether we were pursuing
diploids for traditional harvest, hatchery raised or a
combination of the two and you made a comment that it would be
a combination of the two.
If and when Maryland and then subsequently, I am sure,
Virginia pursues ariakensis, whether it is in aquaculture with
triploids or whether it is in introduction with the diploids
Bay-wide, do you envision us continuing to work on the tenfold
increase of native oysters? Would we continue to do that in the
form of creating sanctuaries around the Bay or would the
program of increasing the native oysters by tenfold with
sanctuaries be abandoned?
Mr. Franks. No, it would not be abandoned. We see, if the
EIS goes as we think it should go and will go, that we will be
able to introduce--
Mr. Gilchrest. Or hope goes.
Mr. Franks. Or hope goes. We will be able to introduce
reproducing diploid ariakensis. We see them as self-limiting,
as far as their spread is concerned; and we see a symbiotic
relationship between the ariakensis as well as virginicus in
the Bay--virginicus having a home where they are less affected
by the diseases which have ravished them over the years.
We would certainly hope that both of them would thrive in
their particular area, as conditions allowed. We do not see one
replacing the other.
Mr. Gilchrest. The gentleman from Connecticut seemed to
raise some concern about the introduction of ariakensis in the
Chesapeake Bay in which he said it would be inevitable before
they were--became a part of their ecosystem. Is there anything
you can say--and maybe, Dr. Wesson, you might comment on this--
to allay the fears of--I think it was Dr. Whitlatch that made
that comment?
Mr. Franks. I am not an expert in their spread, so I am
going to move this microphone over here and hope that he can
answer that question.
Dr. Wesson. Well, one thing to keep in mind is, when he was
talking about the Connecticut industry thriving, you have got
to keep it in perspective. The thriving Connecticut industry
has moved itself to a half-shell, high-end, market-type oyster;
and the quantities of oysters that they produce are not
acceptable to us in the Chesapeake Bay. They are just too
small.
We used to buy oysters in Virginia to shuck from the
Northeast, Connecticut, New Jersey. Now they are so expensive
because of the problems they have with diseases and growing
oysters and all of the effort they have to put into growing the
oyster out, they are only imported to our processing facilities
now for half-shell product; and then most of them don't even
mess with those.
There is no way--you have to know that if a reproducing
animal is introduced in the Chesapeake Bay that it has the
likelihood that it will move farther, both accidentally and
because that industry, if they see us making progress, is going
to be interested in having it in their waters just so they have
oysters to produce again.
Mr. Gilchrest. Can you tell us the difference between
virginica and ariakensis as far as its growth rate, its size,
its marketability, its taste, is concerned?
Dr. Wesson. Well, again, the work that has been done to
date has been done with oysters that have been grown in
intensive aquaculture situations where they have been allowed
to grow in floats, which is the optimum place for either our
oyster or that oyster; and in all cases ariakensis outgrows, in
those aquaculture facilities, the virginica. They are much
faster, much more meat, they don't die from diseases, which a
lot of the same oysters, side by side of our oyster, would have
died from.
On the bottom, in the limited amount of work that we have
done in some controlled tests, it is not as obvious, the growth
rate differences between the two species, because it is--they
are not in the optimal place for them to grow in a tray. That
is some of the work that we need to do very quickly, to
evaluate how they do on the bottom.
Mr. Gilchrest. Would there be any difference in the growth
rate between a triploid and a diploid?
Dr. Wesson. We don't know that yet. We certainly suspect
that there would be differences between triploids and diploids.
Triploids generally grow throughout the summer, where
diploids do not, because diploids are putting body effort into
reproducing. So the triploids are used in other places in the
United States, so that they are fat in the summer, because they
don't put any effort into reproduction, so they grow faster.
They are meatier through the summer.
So you would not imagine that a triploid would not grow
faster than a diploid.
Mr. Gilchrest. Where in the U.S. are there ariakensis right
now that are successful in being harvested both in the wild
form and aquaculture?
Dr. Wesson. In the United States, they are not being used.
That is one of the unique things about using them in the Bay in
some ways.
But as they were tested in the West Coast, as was mentioned
earlier, they do not do as well with their husbandry methods
that they have that are very, very successful on the West Coast
of doing 5 and 6 million bushels of oysters per year, as the
workhorse that they have in the Pacific oysters.
It is just a better aquaculture species for them, likes
cold water, likes clean water. But that oyster did not like
living in the Chesapeake Bay, where we have more turbid water
and warmer water. So that oyster was really not available to us
as a product, unless we used it on our coastal bays or had some
applicability.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
Ms. Hanmer, you made some--in your testimony, you made
reference to something called the precautionary approach as far
as pursuing--specifically as far as pursuing this policy of
introducing either triploid or diploid oysters. Can you give us
some specifics as to what the precautionary approach is, and
are there general scientific parameters to this concept that
you would like to see used in an EIS?
Ms. Hanmer. I think that the essential difference--and I am
not an invasive species expert, so I will describe it as a
political scientist understands it. That is, that you do a lot
of studying up front, and the burden of proof is shifted so
that in the precautionary approach you assume that the
introduction of a nonindigenous aquatic species could cause a
problem and the burden of proof is to demonstrate that the
risks will be minimized and are acceptable.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
Ms. Hanmer. Whereas the other way around would be to say
that studies would be done of certain species, and they would
only be controlled after they were lifted. That is the opposite
approach.
Mr. Gilchrest. I guess maybe my last question would be to
Colonel Prettyman-Beck. Is the Army Corps positive--do you have
a positive perspective on the restoration of native oyster? It
seems that Maryland and, to some extent, Virginia are fairly
pessimistic about restoration of native oysters.
Would you care to comment? Does the Corps have a--is the
Corps positive about some day restoring the native oysters in a
tenfold capacity by 2010?
Colonel Prettyman-Beck. The first part of that question I
could say absolutely yes, sir. Tenfold capacity in 2010, not
quite sure.
As you--as I stated earlier in my testimony, on the
Virginia side, we recently, in the year 2000, have implemented
restoration--native restoration projects within the
Commonwealth of Virginia and in coordination with VIMS, who
will be analyzing, looking at the data that is coming in, will
provide us feedback so that we can produce that in a public
forum.
Our Baltimore District has been doing this for a longer
period, I believe since 1997; and we have been informed that
there has been some positive results in terms of the native
oyster program which we are executing. So we feel positive with
that particular program and would recommend that that program
continue.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Ms. Eckart, any further questions?
Ms. Eckart. No.
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Wesson, Secretary Franks, Ms. Hanmer,
and Colonel Prettyman-Beck, thank you all for your testimony.
We look forward to continuing to work on this issue with all of
you.
The Subcommittee will now take a 10-minute recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Gilchrest. The hearing will come to order.
We appreciate the patience of the last panel. Mr.
Goldsborough said it is always nice to have the last word.
We have today Mr. Larry Simns, President of Maryland
Watermen's Association. Welcome, Larry. Ms. Frances Porter, the
Executive Director, Virginia Seafood Council. Welcome. And Mr.
Bill Goldsborough, Senior Fisheries Scientist, Chesapeake Bay
Foundation. Thank you all for coming and attending.
Mr. Gilchrest. We will start with Mr. Larry Simns.
STATEMENT OF LARRY SIMNS, PRESIDENT,
MARYLAND WATERMEN'S ASSOCIATION
Mr. Simns. Thank you for this opportunity to testify before
the committee. My name is Larry Simns. I am President of the
Maryland Watermen's Association, and my testimony today relates
to the issue on introduction of non-native oyster species to
the Chesapeake Bay.
Millions of dollars have been spent over the past 50 years
trying to figure out a way to get around the two parasites that
have attacked the Chesapeake Bay oyster resource, MSX and
Dermo. Today, in a waterman's humble opinion, we are no closer
to solving that problem of how to grow more oysters in the wild
than we were when we started.
If we are going to come close to reaching a tenfold
increase in oysters in the Bay by the year 2010, as set forth
in the Chesapeake Bay agreement in 2000, the only chance we
have is to bring in an oyster that disease is not going to
kill. Five years of that time frame have already gone by, and
we have made no progress.
The ariakensis oyster is not an exotic species. It has been
in this country for over 40 years, being bred in hatcheries in
the USA and raised in Oregon waters. No adverse effects have
been determined in placing it with and/or growing it with other
species, such the problems found with the introduction of
gigas.
We need to be cautious, working with closed systems
studies, and we need Congress to help us get moving on these
studies. We need funding to start and then to continue the
studies that will either prove or disprove the potential
effects of the introduction of the ariakensis oyster into the
Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay.
This oyster would not only help the industry but, as
oysters are filter feeders, an abundance of healthy oysters
would help clean the Bay waters. Septic system runoff is a big
problem in the Bay right now, along with sewage treatment plant
overflows, development and population growth. Left in the state
it is now, without assistance, the Bay dead zones will become
larger and larger until the Chesapeake Bay is nonproductive.
It is imperative that Federal funds become available to
bring sewer treatment plans up to grade. As long as we continue
to have overflows and sewage spills that load waterways with
nutrients, we cannot expect to have a healthy Bay. Good water
is essential to reproduction of our resources; and no matter
what steps we take to help the oyster stocks recover, without a
healthy environment they will not prosper.
The studies anticipated would work with the diploid and the
triploid ariakensis oyster, the ariakensis which are treated so
as to be unable to reproduce. However, we need to have an
oyster that is capable of reproducing in the wild, as no amount
of hatcheries will be able to take the place of natural oyster
reproduction.
At first glance, we know the ariakensis tastes as good and
looks much like our virginica. It grows fast, and MSX and Dermo
doesn't kill them before they grow to market size. Also, to
date no harm has been shown to exist in areas where it is being
grown.
We are not saying we want to give up on our virginica
oyster. In some areas they will continue to grow and prosper
but not in the numbers to sustain the oyster industry or to be
an effective tool in cleaning the water, both of which are
equally important.
I will use this picture that was presented to you earlier
of the successful--and you heard a lot of about successes of
the virginica. But I want to caution you on those successes.
That is a very narrow view at certain areas. We are fortunate
that the Congressman and myself are living in an area that
oysters virginica will grow and prosper, and that is the
Chester River area. That is where this picture was taken.
They have lived for 5 years, and they have grown to lengths
of 6 to 8 inches. If you put that same effort in the lower
Choptank River or the lower portion of the Chesapeake Bay or
the 90 percent of the Bay that has diseases in it that kill the
oysters, they wouldn't be there. They would be small shells
that died before they reached maturity.
I heard all of the testimony here, and everybody has got
blinders on. They are looking at a specific area or their
specific expertise. They are not looking at the broad range. We
heard the gentleman from Connecticut--the scientist from
Connecticut saying that aquaculture was the way to go because
they had oysters, and the disease didn't seem to bother them
that much, only at certain times.
I would invite those aquaculturists and that scientist to
come to Maryland and try to have an aquaculture culture product
here with virginica. He will fail like all of our other
aquaculturists have. Because no matter who grows it, whether
Mother Nature is growing it or man is growing it, the disease
wipes it out.
So we have to be very careful when you listen to all of
those success stories that you put them in the right context.
They are not in the Chesapeake Bay. They work where they are.
But they won't work here.
So we need to focus our virginica studies or efforts to
restore the oysters back in areas that we know they grow. That
is what we are doing with the ORP. With other parts of the Bay,
every time we try, it is not successful. So I just need to
point that out.
Just want to point out--I will speed up here a little bit--
in France, when they lost their native species, which was the
flat oyster, we took a trip over there and talked to the
scientists and the bureaucrats and the oyster growers. And I
asked them one question. I said, when the disease, which was
MSX, came in and wiped your oysters out, how long did it take
you to introduce a non-native species, which is the Japanese
oysters? They said 2; and I said, 2 years? They said, no, 2
months; and they was up and running that year and producing
oysters. Right now, they have a full-blown industry of non-
native oysters.
We went to Ireland, same thing. When they lost their native
oysters, and they are--99 percent of their oysters produced in
Ireland are non-native oysters. They only produce 5,000 bushels
of their native oysters.
So we have to look at these things. The West Coast right
now, the oysters that they produce, they have got 50 percent of
their market or better in the whole country, are non-native
species. So we have to put this in perspective; and what we
want to do is speed these studies up to find out, to disprove
or prove this oyster so we can get on with it.
Because we don't have time. Forget the industry, if you
would for a minute, for just thinking of--we don't have time
for the environment to wait to see if the scientists will come
up with a virginica that will live here.
In my lifetime alone, I have seen 5,000 licensed oystermen
go down to less than 200 right today. I have seen harvests of 5
million bushels go down to 50,000 bushels last year. That tells
me we have gone past the time of waiting and looking. We need
to do something drastic now. If it is proved that this oyster
is terrible and is harmful, then we don't want to do it. But we
need to find that answer out. We need to do it within a year.
We don't need to wait 5 years, 3 years. We need to do it within
a year. There is no reason with the knowledge that we have
today that we can't do that.
Thank you for this opportunity.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Simns.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Simns follows:]
Statement of Larry Simns, President, Maryland Watermen's Association
My name is Larry Simns, President of the Maryland Watermen's
Association and my testimony today relates to the issue of introduction
of a non-native oyster species to the Chesapeake Bay.
Millions of dollars have been spent over the past fifty years
trying to figure out a way to get around the two parasites that have
attacked the Chesapeake Bay oyster resource--MSX and Dermo. Today, we
are no closer to solving the problem of how to grow more oysters in the
wild than we were when we started.
If we are going to come close to reaching a tenfold increase in
oysters in the Bay by 2010, as set forth in the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement in 2000, the only chance we have is to bring in an oyster
that diseases are not going to kill. Five years of that time frame have
already gone by and we have made no progress.
The Ariakensis oyster is not an exotic species. It has been in this
country for over forty years being bred in hatcheries in the U.S.A. and
raised in Oregon waters. No adverse effects have been determined in
placing it with and/or growing it with other species, such as the
problems found with the introduction of Gigas.
We need to be cautious, working with closed system studies, and we
need Congress to help us get moving on these studies. We need funding
to start and then to continue the studies that will either prove or
disprove potential effects of the introduction of the Ariakensis oyster
into the Maryland portion of Chesapeake Bay.
This oyster would not only help the industry but, as oysters are
filter feeders, an abundance of healthy oysters would help clean the
Bay waters. Septic system runoff is a big problem in the Bay right now,
along with sewage treatment plant overflows, development, and
population growth. Left in the state it is now, without assistance, the
Bay dead zones will become larger and larger until the Chesapeake Bay
is nonproductive.
It is imperative that federal funds become available to bring
sewage treatment plants up to grade. As long as we continue to have
overflows and sewage spills that load the waterways with nutrients, we
cannot expect to have a healthy Bay. Good water is essential to
reproduction of our resources and no matter what steps we take to help
the oyster stocks recover, without a healthy environment they will not
prosper.
The studies anticipated would work with the diploid and triploid
Ariakensis oyster, which are treated so as to be unable to reproduce.
However, we need to have an oyster that is capable of reproducing in
the wild, as no amount of hatcheries will be able to take the place of
natural oyster reproduction.
At first glance, we know that the Ariakensis tastes as good and
looks much like our Virginica. It grows fast, and MSX and Dermo doesn't
kill them before they grow to market size. Also, to date no harm has
been shown to exist in areas where it is being grown.
We are not saying we want to give up on our Virginica oyster--in
some areas they will continue to grow and prosper but not in numbers to
sustain the oyster industry, or to be an effective tool in cleaning the
water. Both of which are equally important.
We do need the studies but we all know that scientists can study
data for many years and still not come to a conclusion. Time is crucial
to the livelihoods of our watermen, dealers, shuckers and packers.
Maryland is all but out of the oyster business and now is the time to
look to the future. Maybe Ariakensis is the future, but we will not
know that for sure until funding is in place and the studies are done.
The one thing that we don't need is for this issue to get bogged down
in scientific studies and bureaucratic jargon that could delay the
introduction of this oyster.
In France they were able to get a non-native oyster species
introduced in only two months. The West Coast was not far behind that
time frame. With the right funding level and the right people in place,
Maryland should move ahead in working with the diploid and triploid
species. We need to determine the environmental impact of introducing
this non-native oyster into the Chesapeake Bay, with a time frame of no
more than one year of study before actual introduction of the
Ariakensis oyster into Chesapeake Bay.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Ms. Frances Porter. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF FRANCES PORTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
VIRGINIA SEAFOOD COUNCIL
Ms. Porter. Mr. Chairman, I am Frances Porter of the
Virginia Seafood Council. The Seafood Council is a trade
association, nonprofit and incorporated, which represents the
interests of the commercial fishing industry in Virginia; and I
appreciate the opportunity to be here to represent the industry
today.
The Seafood Council is a strong advocate for a clean and
healthy Chesapeake Bay. Membership in the Seafood Council
includes packers, processors, shippers, harvesters and
aquaculturists.
Dr. Franks and Dr. Wesson have done a thorough job of using
my script today and leaving me not a lot to say that hasn't
already been said. But I would like to try to put a face on the
industry, the oyster industry in Virginia.
You asked, Representative Gilchrest, earlier if someone had
sampled or if you could sample an oyster. I had the
opportunity, just 10 days ago, to shuck and cook and eat four
ariakensis about this size. No, I beg your pardon, two. It was
adequate for a meal, a very substantial meal, very tasty, very
tender. So that is a face to this ariakensis.
Then if I could have with me today one of the second or
third generation oyster packers from Virginia, they would say
to you in a very impassioned way how this industry continues in
a downward spiral. They would give you numbers that would say,
from a high in the mid-1980's of a million bushels a year, they
are down in 2002 to less than 20,000 bushels.
I am going to try to tell you how Virginia is working to
restore the oyster industry. The Virginia Seafood Council
approached the State Legislature in 1990 to seek help with the
industry, at that time primarily with restoration of the native
oyster, though we had already been engaged with VIMS in
research on the gigas oysters.
Since 1990, private industry and the State of Virginia has
spent millions of dollars in restoration efforts, but the
return of the native oyster is not happening. Oysters survive
one or two summers, but then they become victims of the
disease, and they just cannot reach market size.
In 1995, the Virginia State Legislature mandated that VIMS,
and I quote, begin the process of seeking approvals in
conformance with State, Federal and international laws and
protocols for the in-water testing of oyster species not native
to Virginia waters. And at that time, we really geared up the
process. The Seafood Council helped to secure funds for VIMS to
hire world-class geneticist, Dr. Allen, and to build their
aquaculture genetics and breeding technology center.
Today, Virginia is on a parallel track to restore an oyster
industry with three resources: the native oyster, the
aquaculture triploid ariakensis, and eventually the diploid
ariakensis.
Virginia has not abandoned native restoration, nor does it
have any intention to do that. We continue to plant shells,
move seeds, work the beds. But the process is stalled, and the
industry is dying. The oyster industry has great value to the
Commonwealth in its economic impact, as a part of the heritage
and culture of the State and, most important, its ecological
action in filtering the Bay.
It seems so simple. If the native oyster cannot overcome
the forces of the diseases in the Bay, then we need to find a
species that can. We believe we have found that in the
ariakensis, and so we are seeking permission to grow it in the
Chesapeake Bay. But it seems to me that all around us there is
great focus on the risk of introducing the oyster, with
inadequate focus on the benefits of introducing a non-native
oyster.
You are aware that we have had two generally successful
projects in 2000 and 2001 with small numbers of the oysters.
From those projects we learned that it is disease-resistant,
that it grows rapidly, that it tastes real good, and that it is
marketable. We also know theoretically that it is filtering the
Bay.
We know these things about the ariakensis now, so we need
to have them in quantities sufficient to have an impact on a
faltering industry. This fall we have put close to a million
ariakensis in the Bay, operating under a permit issued by the
Virginia Marine Resources Commission and the United States Army
Corps of Engineers. The permit includes numerous conditions
that were requested by State and Federal agencies and
environmental organizations.
The Seafood Council is appreciative of the National Academy
study and believes it has opened the door for more aggressive
support for contained aquaculture or ariakensis, and we
anticipate in Virginia proceeding aggressively with larger and
larger projects of contained triploids until we create a
significant impact on the packing and processing industry.
The State of Virginia and the Seafood Council support the
environmental impact statement; and I, like you, don't know
exactly where that stands today. But the Seafood Council in the
last 2 weeks has effectively lobbied our United States
Senators. We have met with both of them. We believe that the
money has been appropriated. We know it has been placed in the
budget for the Corps of Engineers to proceed rapidly with the
EIS.
Now I may be a little behind the times in understanding
what that situation is now. But perhaps the most important
thing I can tell you today is how the Virginia Seafood Council
in its pilot projects has consistently and precisely followed
all of the laws, regulations, protocols and conditions to
safely conduct the grow-outs. The Virginia Seafood Council has
no desire to proceed with any non-native introductions outside
existing guidelines and legal constraints. Rather, we would
favor modifying and improving the guidelines.
There is very little time left to salvage this important
industry. Only about 20 processing houses remain in Virginia,
and so much of the infrastructure has been lost. Inadequate
resource will force the closure of more shucking houses in the
very near future.
So VFC requests the rapid completion of the EIS and any
additional research deemed necessary, and I will be most
appreciative if you can help to solve the mystery of how to
move forward with the EIS. When that is completed, the Virginia
Seafood Council will request permission to grow more non-
natives and eventually in the open waters of the Commonwealth
even as a self-sustaining stock.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Porter follows:]
Statement of Frances W. Porter, Executive Director,
Virginia Seafood Council
The Virginia Seafood Council is a trade association, non-profit and
incorporated, which represents the interests of the commercial fishing
industry in Virginia. VSC membership includes packers, processors,
shippers, harvesters, and aquaculturists of seafood.
Virginia Seafood Council, recognizing the stead and drastic decline
in Virginia oyster harvest, approached the Virginia State Legislature
in 1990 to seek help for the restoration of a native oyster population
in Chesapeake Bay. That beginning has resulted in innovative attempts
to restore native oyster populations while also pursuing the newest and
best technologies of a non-native resource.
With restoration of the native oyster stalled, the State
Legislature passed a resolution in 1995 mandating that the Virginia
Institute of Marine Science ``begin the process of seeking approvals in
conformance with State, Federal and International laws and protocols
for the in-water testing of oyster species not native to Virginia
waters.''
Today, Virginia is on a parallel track to restore the oyster
industry with three different resources--the native C. virginica, the
triploid C. ariakensis, and the diploid C. ariakensis. Virginia has not
abandoned, and has no plan to abandon, the native oyster. In fact, she
continues to aggressively plant shells, move seeds and work existing
beds.
The oyster industry has great value to the Commonwealth. First, it
has significant impact on the state's economy. That economic impact now
comes from oysters brought in for shucking from the Gulf Coast,
Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey, most of whom are also experiencing
declining resources.
Next, the oyster industry is valued for its heritage and tradition;
people come to Virginia to eat Virginia seafood, including the famous
Virginia oyster. There is an important cultural tradition in harvesting
and shucking the oyster and sharing the stories of great oyster reefs
rising above the surface of creeks and rivers in colonial times.
Third, the oyster industry is very, very important to the health of
the Bay. It is an integral part of the Bay's ecosystem and is
constantly filtering the Bay of nutrients and sediments. Basically,
Virginia has not benefitted from the ecological action of a healthy
oyster population in the past ten years.
As the Virginia Seafood Council worked with the Legislature, we
helped to secure funds to bring a world-class geneticist to the staff
of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science and to secure funds to
build the Aquaculture Genetics and Breeding Technology facility at
VIMS.
It is the genius of VIMS that has brought us to the threshold of a
new commercial oyster industry in Virginia. It has been a tedious road
and Virginia is keenly aware that its project with triploid C.
ariakensis is under very close scrutiny from many State and Federal
agencies, environmental oversight organizations and individuals.
The science of the project is best explained by the scientists, who
will probably precede me with testimony during the hearing.
Virginia Seafood Council has been aware for more than fifteen years
of the national and international protocols related to non-native
species introductions. Virginia has proceeded cautiously and
meticulously with its non-native project. Seafood Council members
selected to be growers of the C. ariakensis have been versed in the
necessity to follow every known rule regarding non-natives and to
follow precisely a11 the conditions of the Virginia Marine Commission/
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit.
In 2000 and 2001, Virginia Marine Resources Commission permitted
the Council highly controlled introductions of C. ariakensis. Valuable
information has been learned. This non-native species is disease
resistant, grows rapidly and is flavorful. We also know, theoretically,
that it benefits the Bay with its filter-feeding habits. Marketable,
healthy, rapid growth, disease resistant able to filter the Bay--an
excellent combination.
With his knowledge available, the next step is to introduce large
enough quantities of C. ariakensis to make a significant impact on a
faltering industry.
The 2003 ``Economic Analysis and Pilot-scale Field trials of
triploid C. ariakensis Aquaculture'' proposed the introduction of
1,000,000 oysters in the spring of 2003. Some delays were experienced
as the scientists worked to produce a million oysters with a diploid
rate of no more than one in one thousand. That was accomplished in the
summer and 800,000 oysters have been placed in the water between
September 29 and October 9. Two growers experienced extensive damage on
September 18 from hurricane Isabel and were unable to participate in
this year's field trials.
Virginia Seafood Council is appreciative of the National Academies'
study. The Academies have opened the door for more aggressive support
for contained aquaculture of triploid C. ariakensis. We anticipate
proceeding aggressively with much larger quantities of triploids in
containment to create a significant economic impact on the Virginia
oyster industry.
At the same time, the Commonwealth of Virginia supports the
Environmental Impact Statement and has joined the State of Maryland in
triggering the study. Virginia Seafood Council had effectively lobbied
the Virginia Congressional delegation to release up to $500,000 to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers this month to fund the EIS.
It is important to note that Virginia Seafood Council, in its pilot
projects, has consistently and precisely followed all laws, regulations
and conditions to safely conduct the grow outs. VSC has no desire to
proceed with any non-native introductions outside existing guidelines
and legal constraints.
It is also important to note that Virginia oyster growers and
processors have very little time left to salvage an important industry.
With only 21 processing houses now operating in Virginia, much of the
infrastructure has been lost and inadequate resources will force the
closing of more shucking houses in the near future.
Virginia Seafood Council requests rapid completion of the
Environmental Impact Statement and any additional research deemed
necessary. Completion of these projects should culminate with the
permission to grow non-native Crassostrea ariakensis in the open waters
of the Commonwealth as a self-sustaining stock.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Goldsborough.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. GOLDSBOROUGH, SENIOR SCIENTIST,
CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION
Mr. Goldsborough. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
opportunity to address the Subcommittee on this important
issue. My name is Bill Goldsborough. I am a scientist on the
staff of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, a nonprofit
conservation organization.
As an environmental organization that supports oyster
restoration, CBF is confronted with quite a dilemma on this
issue. If the Asian oysters hold the promise that some believe
it does, it could dramatically help the Bay ecosystem as well
as the commercial oysters fishery.
Native oyster stocks in the Bay are at about 1 percent of
what they were historically, and the Bay suffers for lack of a
dominant filter feeder and a building block for rich reef
communities. The oyster fishery, well, it was the most valuable
fishery in the Bay for over a hundred years and as recently as
1980 contributed over half of the Nation's production of
oysters. Now, as has been said, it is suffering dramatically.
However--and this is the flip side of our dilemma--as a
non-native species, the Asian oyster also has potential to
cause ecological havoc in the Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coast
waters. The introduction of exotic species into new
environments is second only to habitat loss as a contributor to
species depletion and extinction.
It has been estimated that exotic species that become
invasive cost the United States $137 billion annually, more
than earthquakes, floods and fires combined--not to suggest
that this issue necessarily is in that kind of a category but
to put a perspective on the abstract issue of these potential
impacts that have been discussed. It is a real issue that has
to be considered.
This serious dilemma is compounded by the fact that very
little is known about the Asian oyster, even in its native
waters. Thus, we have the National Research Council report--
study and report--which we fully supported from the beginning;
and I am happy that there is consensus across the Chesapeake
Bay community in support of that work.
In CBF's view, the NRC report offers a responsible road map
to oyster restoration in the Chesapeake Bay. In our view, the
primary message in that report was that more needs to be known
about this oyster.
I chose one brief quote to make that point from the report:
Quote, it is impossible, given the present state of knowledge,
to predict whether the Asian oyster will be a boon or an
ecological disaster. Unquote.
The report goes on to list a sequence of priority areas of
research that might address this problem of lack of information
and allow us to make more responsible public policy decisions
in the future. Addressing these information needs by the
development and the implementation of a research plan is, in
our view, the number one priority before us now.
CBF strongly recommends that the Scientific and Statistical
Advisory Committee of the Chesapeake Bay program be tasked with
developing this research plan. In our view, they are the most
qualified and appropriate body for doing this. We have written
the Chesapeake Bay program in support of this action.
Another key finding of the NRC report is that the
regulatory framework applicable to marine introductions is,
quote, a patchwork with significant gaps. I think this is quite
clear from the fact that nobody seems to know where we stand
with an EIS now and who would have authority over it. There is
a lack of Federal jurisdiction over marine introductions, which
is an astounding thing to realize. Many of us did not realize
that until recent deliberations on this issue.
The nonbinding nature of the regional review processes also
seems to hamper the ability to get hold of this issue.
So CBF supports establishing the appropriate mix of
increased Federal and/or regional authority over marine
introductions, would defer to the NRC report for more detail on
what those options might be and for a variety of other people
with various expertise to contribute to that deliberation.
But I would note that the NRC report did mention the
Chesapeake Bay program in particular as appropriate for
increased authority on this matter with respect to the
Chesapeake Bay, and I would support that. But I would also want
to note that the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
should be considered as a possible vehicle, because it is a way
that other coastal States could bring their views to bear on
this issue; and they do have various concerns and interests at
stake as well.
I would also note that the NRC report has a very important
chapter entitled Unrealistic Expectations and Common
Misconceptions. I won't go into the details of that but would
refer folks to that.
The basic message is that there are no quick fixes for
either the Chesapeake or the oyster fishery embodied in either
the native or the Asian oyster. Progress in reversing long-term
declines in oyster populations will take a long time. It took a
long time to get where we are now, and there are a lot of
stressors out there.
As to whether or not we approach oyster restoration with
native or non-native oysters, CBF's view is that native oyster
restoration continues to have promise if it is funded
sufficiently for a sustained period of time.
With respect to non-native oysters, CBF believes that, at
some point in the future, the Asian oyster might be judged
appropriate for use in Chesapeake Bay, but in the near term it
should only be used in controlled aquaculture using sterile
oysters, and this is the view point that is reflected in the
NRC report.
I do also want to point out that--and I was happy to hear
both Dr. Boesch and Secretary Franks mention this--the
Chesapeake Research Consortium in 1999 put forth a document
which I can provide a copy of--I was not able to find an
electronic copy to submit--which basically provides a consensus
of scientific experts on a road map or formula for oyster
restoration in the Bay. In our view, this is still
scientifically supported and is beginning to show positive
results in the record spat sets around sanctuary reefs in
Virginia and the modest disease levels found on harvest
reserves in Maryland. It is our view that, to fully evaluate
and investigate the potential for the native oyster, we need to
scale up these approaches. It is a matter of scale.
You noted that Colonel Prettyman-Beck from the Corps of
Engineers described one initial effort to do this with their
Tangier Sound/Pokemoke Sound Project. We need more of that. We
need to scale up these strategies that seem to be showing some
success.
The CRC reports basic principles of permanent reef
sanctuaries combined with proper disease management can show
some success in the long term, in our view, if support is
sustained for their application.
I also want to say that the Bay Foundation supports a
collaborative, federally led environmental impact statement. I
say ``federally led'' because there are implications for the
whole coast, indeed for the whole country. We are bringing in
an oyster to the Atlantic Ocean that is not there now
potentially. So whether it--or where the Federal jurisdiction
should be, I am not sure. I am hearing that EPA may be
interested in taking on that jurisdiction, if the
interpretation supports it; and we would support that.
In the short term, though, this seems like the most viable
approach is for the authorization language that Ms. Porter
referred to to pass through Congress authorizing the Corps of
Engineers and funding the Corps of Engineers to undertake that
process; and we fully support that.
Beyond the questions of whether the Asian oysters' life
history would be compatible with the Chesapeake system, I just
want to leave you with this one thought. Nobody knows how it
would respond to the low-dissolved oxygen conditions prevalent
in Chesapeake Bay in the summer due to massive nutrient
pollution. The Chesapeake dead zone, where water commonly is
completely devoid of oxygen and no fish or shellfish can live,
expanded to be 150 miles long in 2003, the largest such habitat
depletion on record. No attempt to rehabilitate the biota of
the Bay will be fully successful until steps are taken to stem
the nutrient pollution from sewage effluent, agriculture runoff
and atmospheric inputs.
Now, one final note, Mr. Chairman, to answer the question
in the letter about testifying at this hearing. It was asked
whether or not there are any recommendations on Congressional
action on this issue. I noted one already, that the
authorization language for the Corps of Engineers be passed. It
is enclosed in the Senate version of the energy and water
appropriations bill, which as of last week, I understand, was
in conference committee. I don't know the status today, so we
would support quick passage of that authorization language.
Also, funding to support the research recommendations by
the NRC studies is important; and again, in our view, that
should be begun with a stack committee under the Bay program
developing a research plan. Funding for that could come through
the authorization for an EIS through the Corps of Engineers,
but it appears that the next cycle for that mechanism will take
too long.
In the short term, we recommend consideration of the NOAA
Chesapeake Bay studies program as a logical funding vehicle.
This program is designed to support mission-oriented fishery
research.
On a somewhat longer timeframe, Federal legislation will
clearly be needed to fill the gaps in oversight for marine
introduction. Several options for that are mentioned in the NRC
report.
I will also just mention that native oyster restoration
programs again must be expanded. Congress has stepped up as a
key partner in this endeavor over the last 3 years. We are in
the third year of a 10-year program which grew from the CRC
report, the formula for restoration; and it is way premature to
judge that effort, I would offer. But I suggest that, given the
feedback so far, that the stage is set for a very appropriate
scaling up of native oyster restoration; and Congress can play
a key role in supporting that effort.
Finally, again, nutrient pollution. We will not get
anywhere with restoring Chesapeake Bay biota if we don't
address that problem on a large scale as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Dr. Goldsborough.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Goldsborough follows:]
Statement of William J. Goldsborough, Senior Scientist,
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, for the
opportunity to address you on an issue of critical importance to the
future of Chesapeake Bay: the potential introduce of non-native
oysters. My name is Bill Goldsborough. I am a staff scientist and
director of the fisheries program for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation
(CBF). CBF is a private, non-profit conservation organization dedicated
to saving the Chesapeake Bay. We have been ardent advocates for oyster
restoration as a key element of Bay restoration since the mid-1980s,
and I have served on several oyster management committees in both
Maryland and Virginia during that time. I also serve as Chairman of the
Habitat Committee of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
(ASMFC), which co-sponsored a workshop on the use of Asian oysters in
Chesapeake Bay in May of 2002.
As an environmental organization that supports oyster restoration,
CBF is confronted with quite a dilemma with the proposed introduction
of the non-native Asian oyster into Chesapeake Bay. If the Asian oyster
(Crassostrea ariakensis) holds the promise that some believe it does,
it could dramatically help the Bay ecosystem as well as the commercial
oyster fishery. With the Bay's native oyster stocks at about 1% of
their historic abundance, the Bay suffers from the lack of a dominant
filter feeder and a building block for rich reef communities. The
oyster fishery was the most valuable fishery in Chesapeake Bay for over
100 years and as recently as 1980 contributed half the nation's
production of oysters.
However, as a non-native species, the Asian oyster also has the
potential to cause ecological havoc in Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic
coast waters. The introduction of exotic species into new environments
is second only to habitat loss as a contributor to species depletion
and extinction. It has been estimated that exotic species that become
invasive cost the United States $137 billion annually-- more than
earthquakes, floods and fires combined.
This serious dilemma is compounded by the fact that very little is
known about the Asian oyster, even in its native waters. Fundamental
aspects of life history, such as its reproductive ecology, are very
poorly understood. Given this reality, a broad consensus was reached
among agencies, institutions and oyster interests in this region almost
two years ago that an independent, technical assessment of the issue
was needed, and the National Research Council (NRC) study was
commissioned.
National Research Council Report
CBF believes that the NRC report, ``Non-native Oysters in the
Chesapeake Bay,'' released in August 2003, offers a responsible roadmap
for oyster restoration. Its recommendations mirror the approach
embodied in CBF's position statement on non-native oysters first
released in December 2001 (updated version attached). The report
clearly indicates that more needs to be known about the Asian oyster:
``It is impossible, given the present state of knowledge, to
predict whether the [Asian] oyster will be a boon or an
ecological disaster [if introduced to Chesapeake Bay]...''
It goes on to provide a detailed listing of priority areas of
research to develop the information necessary for making responsible
public policy decisions about how to utilize the Asian oyster.
Addressing these information needs through the development and
implementation of a research plan is the single most important action
now before us. CBF strongly recommends the Scientific and Statistical
Advisory Committee (STAC) of the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) as the
most qualified and appropriate body for developing a research plan
based on the NRC recommendations. CBF has written the CBP (attached) in
support of this action, and at its last meeting STAC indicated a
willingness to make this a priority. Additional funding will be
necessary to support this research.
Another key finding of the NRC report is that the regulatory
framework applicable to this issue is a ``patchwork with significant
gaps.'' Most noteworthy are the lack of federal jurisdiction and the
non-binding nature of regional review processes under some
circumstances. CBF supports action to address these weaknesses by
identifying and establishing the appropriate mix of increased federal
and/or regional authority over marine introductions. The ASMFC should
be evaluated as a possible avenue for binding deliberation among
coastal states for any marine introduction that has implications for
multiple states.
The NRC report also perfectly characterizes the ultimate source of
political contention regarding the Asian oyster in a section entitled,
``Unrealistic Expectations and Common Misconceptions.'' The basic
message is that there are no quick fixes for either the Chesapeake or
the oyster fishery embodied in either the native or the Asian oyster.
``Progress on reversing the long-term declines in oyster
populations and water quality will be achieved only when
unrealistic expectations for a quick fix are replaced with a
long-term commitment to systematic approaches for addressing
the Bay's complex, multi-dimensional problems.''
It goes on to describe the ``myths'' that native oyster restoration
will not work and that the Asian oyster will rapidly populate the Bay.
Native vs. Non-native Oysters
CBF believes that native oyster restoration continues to have
promise if it is funded sufficiently for a sustained period of time.
This sentiment is echoed in the NRC report:
``Although restoration efforts have made limited progress in
establishing sustainable oyster populations, there remains some
optimism that a more comprehensive management approach will
ultimately achieve recovery of the oyster resource.''
In 1999 the Chesapeake Research Consortium (CRC) convened a meeting
of the Chesapeake area's top oyster scientists and charged them with
developing a formula for native oyster restoration based on the best
available science. Their report (CRC 1999) remains a viable, if
unfulfilled, guide for oyster restoration. This consensus document
played a major role in convincing Congress to expand the Federal
funding for oyster restoration in 2000. And in the same year the CBP,
based in part on the same scientific consensus, adopted a ten-year
commitment to expand native oyster stocks tenfold. We are only in the
third year of that initiative. In fact, record reproduction around
sanctuary reefs in Virginia and modest disease levels in harvest
reserve areas in Maryland are measures of success that suggest these
strategies should be applied on a larger scale. The CRC report's basic
principles of permanent reef sanctuaries combined with proper disease
management continue to be supported by science, and large scale plans
for applying them have been proposed (Allen, et al. 2003).
In CBF's view, the Asian oyster may, at some point in the future,
be judged appropriate for use in Chesapeake Bay, but in the near term
should only be used in controlled aquaculture using sterile oysters
until its biology and the risks of its introduction are much better
understood. This viewpoint is consistent with a key conclusion of the
NRC report:
``[Contained aquaculture of sterile Asian oysters] ... should
be considered a short term or interim action that provides an
opportunity for researchers to obtain critical biological and
ecological information on the non-native oyster required for
risk assessment ... [and] allows for more management
flexibility in the future depending on the status of the native
oyster and the success of restoration efforts.''
CBF supports the development of a collaborative, federally-led
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to thoroughly assess the risks and
benefits of introducing Asian oysters to the Chesapeake Bay and
Atlantic Ocean. The EIS should incorporate the research plan developed
by STAC (see above) and should fully evaluate the available
alternatives for native oyster restoration. Authorization and funding
for the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) to take on the lead role in an
EIS should be a high priority.
The information about the Asian oyster that has ignited so much
interest from the oyster industry is that field trials have shown that
it grows faster and survives better than the native oyster under some
circumstances. This knowledge tells us that the Asian oyster could
possibly be a good aquaculture animal, but it is a huge leap of faith
to assume that it would also reproduce, multiply effectively, and
establish substantial wild stocks in Chesapeake Bay. Beyond the
questions of whether its life history would be compatible with the Bay
system, no one knows how it would respond to the low dissolved oxygen
conditions prevalent in Chesapeake Bay in the summer due to massive
nutrient pollution. The Chesapeake ``dead zone,'' where water commonly
is completely devoid of oxygen and no fish or shellfish can live,
expanded to be 150 miles long in 2003, the largest such habitat
depletion on record. No attempt to rehabilitate the biota of the Bay
will be fully successful until steps are taken to stem the nutrient
pollution from sewage effluent, agricultural runoff and atmospheric
inputs.
Congressional Action
Congress has been a key player in oyster restoration and must
continue to be engaged if restoration goals are to be met. The
deliberations about introducing the Asian oyster into Chesapeake Bay
have highlighted several ways that Congress can assist:
1. Statutory authorization and appropriations for the ACE to
conduct an EIS are needed. Language currently in the Senate version of
the Energy and Water Appropriations bill should be adopted into the
final version of the bill. While this language is sufficient to start
the process, subsequent years' appropriations should stand alone and
not be co-mingled with native oyster restoration funding.
2. Funding to support the research recommended by the NRC study
and described in the proposed STAC research plan is urgently needed.
Such funding could be part of the EIS appropriation for the ACE,
however, the next cycle for that statutory mechanism will not provide
the needed funds soon enough. CBF recommends consideration of the NOAA
Chesapeake Bay Studies program as a logical funding vehicle. This
program is designed to support mission-oriented fishery research.
3. On a somewhat longer time frame, federal legislation will
probably be needed to fill the gaps in oversight for marine
introductions. As identified in the NRC report, two possibilities are,
amending existing legislation, such as the Lacey Act or the Invasive
Species Act, and vesting authority in a regional body, such as ASMFC or
CBP.
4. Funding for native oyster restoration programs should be
expanded. The potential for restoration success is embodied in larger
scale application of certain approaches now showing promise. NOAA and
ACE are both important partners through which federal funding for
native oyster restoration is dedicated.
5. Congress should seek ways to address nutrient pollution in the
Chesapeake watershed as an integral part of programs to restore the
Bay's biota. The Bay's dead zone represents severe habitat loss for
oysters, blue crabs and finfish. State-federal cooperation in funding
sewage treatment plant upgrades should be the first priority.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee on this
important issue.
References
Chesapeake Research Consortium, 1999. ``Chesapeake Bay Oyster
Restoration: Consensus of a Meeting of Scientific Experts.''
Allen, S.K., R. Brumbaugh, & D. Schulte, 2003. ``Terraforming the
Chesapeake.'' Virginia Marine Resource Bulletin, Volume 5,
Number 1.
NOTE: The following attachments to Mr. Goldsborough's statement
have been retained in the Committee's official files.
Chesapeake Bay Foundation Position Statement On The Use
of Non-native Oysters in Chesapeake Bay, August 2003.
Letter from Theresa Pierno (CBF) to Rebecca Hanmer (CBP),
September 12, 2003.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Goldsborough, do you agree--does the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation agree with the program now under way
in Virginia as far as the ariakensis oysters are concerned?
Mr. Goldsborough. Yes, in a word. Given the biosecurity
safeguards that have been applied--and I would note that we
have been involved monitoring the non-native research that has
gone on in Virginia during the last 10 years, started with the
Pacific oyster, and so we have been involved in those
deliberations. Each step of the way we have ended up supporting
the research that was undertaken. That includes the latest
proposal by the Seafood Council with those safeguards, and I
would--
Mr. Gilchrest. Do you see ariakensis being--do you see the
Asian oyster as being a definite part of the oyster industry in
the Chesapeake Bay?
Mr. Goldsborough. I think it is premature to say a definite
part. We simply don't know enough about it; and that, again, is
the primary recommendation from the NRC report.
Mr. Gilchrest. I guess as far as the triploid fish hatchery
aquaculture part of this is concerned, is it likely that the--
in your mind, that ariakensis will be or can be a significant
part of the economy of the aquaculture in the Chesapeake Bay.
Mr. Goldsborough. I don't think you can say that it would
at this time. I think all you can say is that it would be a
very small part. Because the contained, small-scale aquaculture
using triploids that is suggested as a possible interim action
in that report simply would not be a major part of the
industry. I am sure it would be important for many folks, and I
think we ought to go somewhat down that road and look at that a
little bit further as long as we are able to minimize risk
while we learn more about that animal and its prospects and its
life history and while we attempt further scaling up of the
native oyster restoration work.
Mr. Gilchrest. Are you still positive about the restoration
of disease-resistant native oysters in the Bay?
In the context of that question, I think it was Dr. Allen
who said earlier, and he can tell me if I paraphrase his
comment wrong, that it is not a matter of ariakensis or native
oysters. It is a matter of we are genetically altering, if I
can use that correctly, that term correctly, we basically to
some extent, from a layman's perspective, we have given up on
the native oysters, and we are now looking for genetically
altered native oysters.
Mr. Goldsborough. I do think that is a fair
characterization. I think it is a useful perspective to put on
all this.
Mr. Gilchrest. So are you optimistic to increasing tenfold
the genetically altered native oysters?
Mr. Goldsborough. I believe it is possible. And I believe,
and I think most folks that were involved in that commitment
believe, that that restoration on that 10-year timeframe would
not be linear. It would come slow at first, and it would
increase in rate later during the 10-year period by virtue of
biological multipliers kicking in. You do see some application
of that strategy, particularly in Virginia, and some results
from it and in several of the tributaries where they are
getting record spat sets around the sanctuary reefs.
Mr. Gilchrest. Ms. Porter, how do you see the triploid
oyster being used in Virginia and in the context of
aquaculture? Do you see that as the very beginnings of the
restoration of the oyster industry so that eventually it would
move to diploid oysters being used for aquaculture or diploid
oysters being used in the traditional wild harvest way?
Ms. Porter. Well, I certainly see great promise for the
oyster industry with the ariakensis oyster. It will be very
difficult in the aquaculture setting to grow a million bushels
a year. It would be a very long time before we could reach that
goal. Not that that has been defined as a goal, but that is
where we were in the mid-80's.
I really don't know about the diploid. We are cautious
about the diploid. Certainly, the processors are anxious to
find a product that will be plentiful in the Bay; and it would
seem that a diploid in the wild would be--if in fact it is
adaptable to the Bay, that it would be the best way to get the
greatest number. But we are still very much on an aquaculture
triploid track until we know the risk and the benefits.
Mr. Gilchrest. Do you think Virginia is moving more in the
direction that Connecticut--Connecticut apparently is almost
exclusively hatchery-raised oysters in Long Island Sound; and
they changed that some I don't know, several decades ago. Is
Virginia moving in that direction, more toward an industry that
relies on hatchery-raised aquaculture type business, as opposed
to the traditional wild harvest?
Ms. Porter. I believe that--yes, I believe that we are
moving in that direction. That is not particularly good news
for the traditional watermen, and they are not supportive of
that. It would be relatively good news for the packinghouses.
Mr. Gilchrest. Would that be the--similarly to what they do
in Connecticut where the--where someone would lease a certain
area, a certain bottom and that would be their area for raising
oysters?
Ms. Porter. Well, there are many private growers in
Virginia leasing bottom today, yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Simns, what direction do you see
Maryland watermen going in as far as the oyster industry is
concerned? Do you envision aquaculture becoming a small part of
the industry? Do you see us moving in that direction,
especially if we introduce ariakensis?
Mr. Simns. If we had an oyster that would live, whether it
is ariakensis or hybrid generic or one that is disease-
resistant, you would see almost overnight--the 10,000 acres
that is leasable today in the State of Maryland, you would see
a good portion of that being leased and being worked and jump
into production. The reason it is not being used is because you
can't afford to invest your money and put seed out there and it
is going to die. If we were--
Let's use the ariakensis, for example. What we see is both
would come up together. The aquacultures and the public rock
system would come together, especially if we--the diploid were
to reproduce on its own.
And just a clarification about Connecticut. Connecticut,
the major part of their oyster, if I am correct, is not
produced in hatcheries. It is produced in the wild and
harvested by the oystermen and sold to the--or planted on the
leaseholder's bottom. So it is a wild aquaculturist type of
thing. They do have some hatchery-based oysters, but I can tell
you that there is not--
Mr. Gilchrest. Is the wild harvest sold?
Mr. Simns. The leaseholders hire the local watermen, and
sometimes they are also using harvest gear to go on the public
seed bottom and harvest the seed and put it on their lease
bottom. So it is a combination.
Mr. Gilchrest. It is a collaborative effort between the
wild harvest and the hatcheries.
Mr. Simns. Right. And the same thing in the Gulf of Mexico.
When those--they get their seed, well, they have a natural-
producing seed on their lease bottom, but they also get their
seed off of State bottom. They are allowed to harvest it and
put it on their bottom. So almost anyplace where the
aquaculture are surviving it is subsidized somewhat by the
State because they are allowed to use the public rock to
subsidize the seed.
There is not too many areas that I know of that get their
total production from hatcheries. They actually get a lot of it
from the natural reproduction. I mean, there might be some
people that do just depend on hatchery-raised seed. But if you
look at the bulk of the oysters coming out of the Gulf of
Mexico, most of them are naturally reproduced, but they are
grown on private tracts of bottom. There is not a whole lot of
difference from growing it aquaculturally on a large tract of
bottom that you, as an individual, own or a company owns,
versus the State owned it and it being harvested. The only
difference is that they rotate.
We could do the same thing. That is what we see coming in
the State of Maryland. We are experimenting with on the
reserves. You heard a little bit about the reserve part.
What we are doing is we are cleaning these bars off and the
same way they do in Connecticut. They go in, and they take
every existing oyster off of it, because it has diseases in it.
They take all the big oysters off, all the little oysters. They
take them all ashore. They shuck what they can. They leave it
on the shell pile until it dies and it cleans itself up before
they put the shells back in the water. They leave them there
about a year or so. So there is no disease on that bar.
Then when you plant your disease-free oysters there,
whether they come out of the hatchery or they come from
somewhere else, it has a better opportunity of growing to
maturity before it catches disease.
Now, this is just a plain waterman's example. It is not
scientific. But we are doing the same thing with the ORP and
the reserve areas. We go in. We hire the watermen to clean
these areas off. We catch all the existing oysters on the area
and take them to another place. Then we go down and plant
shells or hatchery seeds, and we are seeing good results of
that.
But I have to remind you that these areas we are seeing
good results are areas that we have the least amount of problem
with disease. In areas that we have tried to where disease is
pretty heavy, the oysters will go longer without catching the
disease because you cleaned it off, but eventually they get it.
So the success in Connecticut has been because they cleaned the
bars off and they plant either natural seed or hatchery seed.
In Maryland, we see the same thing happening. If we start
rotating our bars where we have cleaned them down to, you know,
after you harvest them, get all of your harvestable out, then
you go in and clean up all the existing oysters and get the
disease away from there before you plant anything else back.
They seem to last longer before they catch the disease, which
gives them time to mature and be harvested again.
Leaving them lay there for long periods of time until they
die, in the watermen's perspective--and the scientists would
disagree with me--we think you are harboring disease, and you
have got a place that is infested with disease, and it keeps
the disease there. We think, although there is places for
sanctuaries that we should experiment with, we feel that
sanctuaries is probably going to be where the disease comes
from if you leave them there and don't ever harvest them.
Mr. Gilchrest. So you are saying that sanctuaries might not
be a good idea because there is not enough rotation.
Mr. Simns. Yeah, and that is a debatable issue. I don't
want to say that sanctuaries aren't good, because there are
some other things that they might produce of oysters that are
more resistant to the disease.
Mr. Gilchrest. Would sanctuaries be OK for diploids?
Mr. Simns. Yes, I think so.
Mr. Gilchrest. Do you have an opinion of oyster bar versus
oyster reef?
Mr. Simns. Well, it is not a lot of difference. You know,
you heard testimony that Chester Bay doesn't have enough reefs
to support an oyster system. Well, it does. We don't have as
many as they had in the 1800's, probably, because a lot of them
silted over; and the upper Bay is no longer productive because
it is too fresh water. But there is a lots of oyster bars or
oyster reefs in the Chesapeake Bay. They don't have many
oysters on them now, but the substrate is there, and they could
be, you know, put back to life.
In fact, that is what we are doing at ORP. We are putting
oysters in places that is not producing many oysters. We are
taking off what few oysters are there, and then we put shells
back down and put seed oyster on top of them, and that works.
What I see, whether it is ariakensis or virginica--I would
love for it to be virginica, but I don't see that happening
over 100 percent of the Bay. What I see is how an aquaculture
industry that both uses triploids and diploids--because they
will use triploids because in the summertime they will have a
good marketable oyster when the season is out because the
triploid doesn't reproduce and in the summertime when the other
oysters are reproducing they are not a very good oyster to
sell. So they will use triploids for specific times of year
when the season is closed to sell. They will use diploids so
they don't have to continually be buying oysters from a
hatcher.
Mr. Gilchrest. So you do see Maryland moving toward--
Mr. Simns. I see it being parallel. I don't see it doing
more. Because in my life history again, when we had 10,000
acres of oyster bottom as leaseholders, I would say in my
lifetime over 50 percent of them are very productive.
Mr. Gilchrest. Would the Maryland Watermen's Association be
receptive to similar ideas that Virginia has as far as--not
only as far as aquaculture is concerned, but as far as the
process Virginia is following pursuing first the triploid
process and then, later on down the road, diploids? Or do you
feel that the Watermen's Association thinks that that interim
step of dealing specifically with triploids is not necessary?
Mr. Simns. Well, I think there is a short--I think in their
mind that should be a shorter time span than what I was saying,
because I am not going to live long enough or the rest of my
people I represent.
Mr. Gilchrest. We should have this done in 40 or 50 years.
Mr. Simns. Yeah. That is what I am talking about.
Mr. Gilchrest. So you will still be around.
Mr. Simns. I am not going to live long enough to see the
diploid being enough production out there to keep my people
alive.
Mr. Gilchrest. On that issue, if we find that the diploid
is suitable and does not become invasive and does not become an
environmental catastrophe, what is your sense of a realistic
timeframe for diploids revitalizing the oyster industry and
becoming an important, positive aspect in restoring the ecology
of the Bay? Is it 5 years, 10 years, decades?
Mr. Simns. If we were allowed today to both use the diploid
and the triploid, then I would say in 5 years time we would see
definite improvement. Because we wouldn't want to harvest the
triploid right away, even when it reached maturity, because we
want to let it reproduce once at least so that it is helping
spread. You wouldn't want to go in there and harvest it all.
Mr. Gilchrest. Would you need sanctuaries in the beginning?
Mr. Simns. I think we would need sanctuaries. I am talking
about with the ariakensis because you are not worried about the
disease. I think that you should have places in each area of
the Bay where you have some sanctuaries for reproduction
purposes, and then you should have your harvestable areas. And
I wouldn't just say harvestable area like we see it today. I
would say that you should have what we are talking about in the
reserve.
What we are doing in the reserves is, when we put those
oysters there, we don't open them up to harvest right away. We
wait until pretty close to 50 percent of them are four inches
or longer, and we also put a bigger size limit on them so that
we are getting two for the price of one. You know, you take a
three-inch oyster and let it go to four, you get two bushels
for one.
So that is what our strategy is on the reserve areas with
virginica.
On the ariakensis, because it grows faster you might not
need to do that. But I still would say I think you have got to
do different with the virginica than you do with ariakensis
because you don't have the disease to worry about. So you might
just be able to have sanctuaries for reproduction purposes and
then open areas and then your leaseholders, also.
The other thing about having the leaseholders is, if you
allow them to do diploids too, then you have got another influx
of reproducing oysters in there, that they are not just going
to reproduce on the lease bottom, they are going to reproduce
all over the Bay. So I think if we work that altogether, then I
see us really doing--really doing well.
I think the other thing is, if we had the ariakensis, then
we could take our resources that we are spending on virginica
now and hopefully get more resources for that. But you would
concentrate that money into areas that you know the virginica
is going to have a better chance of living and not spread it
all over the Bay doing little experiments where you know they
are going to die. Because what you are doing right now with the
little bit of money we have, half of it gets spent in areas
that we know they are going to die.
So you know if you put all your efforts, say, in Chester
River to upper Choptank River in the upper Bay and kept that
just for virginica, you could have a specialized oyster that
people would be willing to pay a whole lot more money for
because it is a local specialized oyster; and you could have
the ariakensis in the other 90 percent of the Bay for the
shucking business and for the countrywide market.
But in other countries, in Ireland, for instance, they
produce 5,000 bushels of their native oysters, and they get a
premium price for them, and they spend a lot of money to have
them there. They have a co-op that works on that, and then the
rest of the oysters are sold to the rest of the world.
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, that is an interesting idea.
Mr. Simns. So we are looking at this thing not from a
narrow perspective, keeping everything like it is. We are
looking at the future of expanding it so everybody is included
and so that we really have a viable industry from all aspects
of it.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mr. Simns.
Just a couple of more quick questions. I know everybody's
probably ready to go have dinner since you skipped lunch.
Mr. Goldsborough, in this research that has been done for
ariakensis or triploids/diploids, the native oysters, and based
on your understanding as a scientist, these kinds of incidents
that have happened around the world, whether it is Oregon,
France, New Zealand or whatever, can you give us some--I am
going to focus as a pessimist for a second. I want to leave
this hearing, though, as an optimist. Is there some
understanding of the type of havoc that an invasive oyster
could cause in the Chesapeake Bay? Can you give us some
examples of that? And how do we go about finding out whether
those examples that you are going to give us will actually
happen, and how long might that research take?
Mr. Goldsborough. Well, on the last point, I would have to
defer to some of the scientific community as to how long it
would take. I believe the Co-Chair of the NRC report suggested
on the order of 5 years, but I can't verify that, not being a
research scientist. But you have put your finger on the million
dollar question, no doubt about it. The experience worldwide
have been varied, and in some cases imported oysters have
become invasive and others not.
Mr. Gilchrest. Now could you explain for us ``they have
become invasive''? Now an oyster doesn't move. So what kind of
invasive havoc is--give us some possibilities that could happen
in the Chesapeake Bay.
Mr. Goldsborough. Well, what that means is, as a new
organism to a local ecosystem, it has not evolved within that
system with a series of checks and balances. It comes in and as
those things get sorted out it does not have limiting factors
to control its growth and distribution. So it goes wild, and
the end result is you see plenty of terrestrial examples like
fragmites. You end up with a monoculture that does not have
anywhere near the habitat value of the native ecosystem, so the
possibility is that it overruns native organisms and
communities. And I must say--
Mr. Gilchrest. So would a zebra mussel in the Great Lakes
be an example of that--
Mr. Goldsborough. Yes.
Mr. Gilchrest.--or would that be beyond the parameters of
what could happen here?
Mr. Goldsborough. I don't think that we can say that it is
beyond the parameters now. And this is quite a dilemma, no
doubt about it. Because who wouldn't like to see more oysters
in the Bay filtering the water? But there are downsides that we
have to factor into this as well, and the main thing about it
is that it is unpredictable and probably irreversible.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. Thank you.
I think what we hope to--I guess the next step as far as
the Congress is concerned is to collaborate in a very rigorous
way with the scientists, with the industry, with the other
Federal agencies, certainly with the State agencies to move
along in as harmonious a fashion and with all deliberate speed
that is reasonable under the circumstances.
Now that is easier said than done. But I think all of us,
if we can agree with an opening statement that we want to
restore the Chesapeake Bay--and one of the ways to do that is
to restore the oyster population, not forgetting, like Larry
said in the beginning, septic tanks, air deposition,
construction, development, agriculture, probates in sensitive
shallow areas, overharvesting. So all of these things I think
we need to collaborate together on. I would hope that, as we
continue to pursue this, that each of us that has a certain
area of interest become as responsible and as knowledgeable as
we can to move along.
I don't have any other questions, I don't think, at this
particular point. If any of you want to make a closing comment
or a recommendation to us, we are open for that.
Larry.
Mr. Simns. Yeah, if I may.
One thing I would like to--
Mr. Gilchrest. Larry gave me some good recommendations in a
shopping plaza in Chestertown a couple of days ago. So I still
remembered those, Larry.
Mr. Simns. One thing I would like to point out, and what
Bill is talking about, you know, if we were to be fortunate
enough to have a catastrophe that we had a bloom of these
oysters in the Chesapeake Bay, there is one predator out there
that that oyster would have a hard time keeping up with, and
that is the Maryland watermen. We would keep that stock down so
that they didn't overrun. So that is one thing I would like to
see us have, a problem of too many oysters.
Somebody said, what will happen if the oyster gets so big
that, you know, it is not good for market? Well, I can tell you
we would develop a market for it, because Campbell soup would
love to have an oyster to grind up and make oyster chowder out
of. So I don't think the problem of an overabundance of oysters
is going to be a problem like the zebra mussel is because the
zebra mussel doesn't have a predator of a Maryland watermen and
the oystermen--the oyster does. So keep that in mind.
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, Larry, you are sitting next to
somebody from Virginia. So now she's going to say something
about the Virginia watermen.
Mr. Simns. Well, Virginia, too. We will take care of the
overabundance.
But I would just say that time is of the essence, and
certainly we don't want to do anything wrong here. We don't
want to do anything that we can't turn around. So we need to be
cautious. But I don't think that being cautious means we have
got to take 5 years to find out. Because if you put the money
and the effort you can find out in a year what you can find out
in 5 years. We found out in 50 years that we haven't been able
to get a disease-free oyster yet that will work in the wild. So
I don't want to wait 50 years to find out whether this oyster
is going to work or not.
And thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Larry.
Mr. Goldsborough.
Mr. Goldsborough. Thank you for the opportunity for a final
comment, Mr. Chairman.
I guess I would just refer to science and say that I would
certainly support conducting the science as expeditiously as
possible and get the answers we need. No question about it.
But I would note that the history of oyster management,
starting with Dr. William Brooks, who was mentioned earlier in
the late 19th century, all the way through some of the recent
committees during the last decade that were mentioned, during
that history, in virtually every case, science has in one way
or another been compromised. So I guess my final comment is,
let's just not let the science be compromised this time and
let's see what it can do. I think the NRC report is a big
foundation for that, the CRC document I mentioned is another,
and the science that we have yet to conduct in the next couple
of years pursuant to the NRC report as well.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Ms. Porter, you have the last word.
Ms. Porter. I don't have a last word. I guess more than
anything I would encourage you to do whatever you can to get
this EIS on track and under way.
Mr. Gilchrest. All right. Well, thank you very much, Mr.
Goldsborough, Ms. Porter and Mr. Larry Simns. We appreciate
your testimony. It has been very enlightening.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:52 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]