Restoring Oysters to the Chesapeake Bay

1. Restoring Oysters to the Chesapeake Bay

2. First, Some Observations Need to be more effective in how the “science” is communicated to facilitate policy. Need to agree upon the metrics by which we evaluate the performance of our management and restoration efforts? Need to more fully implement the operational of the OMP. Need to work more closely together, openly discuss our differences, agree to disagree, and where we disagree, agree upon an approach to resolve our differences.

3. EIS Trivia Questions • What is the formal “kick-off” data of this EIS (Notice of Intent published in Federal Register)? • January 5, 2004 • How many MD and VA Department of Natural Resources Secretaries, and VA Army Corps of Engineer Colonel’s have been involved with this EIS? • 7 (MD Secretary Ron Franks and John Giffin, VA Secretaries Tayloe Murphy and Preston Bryant, and VA ACOE Colonel’s David Hansen, Yvonne Prettyman-Beck, and Dionysious (Dan) Anninos) • How many times has the EIS been delayed? • 6 (May 2005, August 2005, January 2006, June 2006, May 2007, May 2008) • How many people believe I am pro-introduction of diploid C. ariakensis?

4. Our Overall Goal is a HEALTHY, PRODUCTIVE CHESAPEAKE BAY Road to success Bay Restoration Strategy Require a multifaceted approach based on science; and Sustained commitment of resources. Oyster Restoration Major component of strategy to improving the quality of Chesapeake Bay Not viewed as a substitute, but rather as a supplement. Chesapeake Bay Restoration

5. Further declines in Bay water quality; Continued or accelerated losses of SAV and oyster reef habitats, with cascading effects on the structure and stability of the Bay’s estuarine communities Continued decline of the oyster fishery and erosion of traditional economies and cultures of Bay watermen; Need to Evaluate Alternatives National Resource Council (NRC) identified the following risks with continuing status quo

6. Native oyster restoration has not been fully successful. C. ariakensis appears to have similar environmental tolerances that make it well suited for growth and reproduction in the Chesapeake Bay (NRC, 2003). Not a new idea. Nonnative introductions of shellfish have occurred worldwide for a hundreds of years. The oyster industry on the U.S. West Coast relies almost exclusively on nonnative species. International protocols (ICES) now exist to minimize risks associated with nonnative introductions. Why Consider a Nonnative Oyster?

7. States’ Decision to Prepare Federal EIS • Significant and controversial issue. • Federal EIS characterized by both scientific integrity and process integrity (transparency). • Provides an open public forum to discuss the issues and identify a preferred oyster restoration alternative based upon sound science. • Landmark opportunity to evaluate the risks and benefits that should be addressed by decision makers. • In the past, introductions of nonnative species were not subjected to this level of scrutiny.

8. Lead (Decision-Making) Agencies Cooperating Federal Agencies Potomac River Fisheries Commission and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Agencies Involved In Preparing EIS

9. EIS Framework Public Scoping Scope of EIS NRC and CBP STAC Research Recommendations NRC Recommendations Discussions with UMD and VIMS Pre-Scoping CBP STAC Recommendations Public Scoping PDT meetings Research Framework Technical Advisory & Peer Review Groups (PDT, SAC, PRG, ASMFC ISTC, ERAAG, OAP) Modeling (larvae transport, demographic, ecosystem impact) Pre-Draft EIS Risk Assessments (ecological, economic, cultural) Independent Oyster Advisory Panel 30 Day Waiting Period Final EIS Public Review Draft EIS Record of Decision Report to MD General Assembly MD Public Hearing 30 Day Public Comment Period MD Legislative Required 60 Day Waiting Period

10. The purpose of this EIS is to identify a preferred alternative(s) for establishing an oyster population that reaches a level of abundance in Chesapeake Bay comparable to levels seen between 1920–1970. A need exists to restore the ecological role of oysters in the Bay and the economic benefits of a commercial fishery through native oyster restoration and/or an ecologically compatible nonnative oyster species that would restore those lost functions. Purpose and Need of EIS

11. Proposed – introduce Oregon strain of C. ariakensis in Action accordance with ICES protocols, and continue native oyster restoration. Alternative 1 – continue native oyster restoration program. Alternative 2 – expand native oyster restoration program. Alternative 3 – implement temporary harvest moratorium on native oyster and an oyster industry compensation (buy-out) program in Maryland and Virginia. Alternative 4 – establish and/or expand native oyster aquaculture program. Alternative 5 – establish nonnative aquaculture program. Alternative 6 – introduce and propagate an alternative oyster species, or strain of C. ariakensis. Alternative 7 – introduce C. ariakensis and discontinue native oyster restoration. Alternative 8 – combination of alternatives. Alternatives for EIS Evaluation

12. EIS Framework Public Scoping Scope of EIS NRC and CBP STAC Research Recommendations NRC Recommendations Discussions with UMD and VIMS Pre-Scoping CBP STAC Recommendations Public Scoping PDT meetings Research Framework Technical Advisory and Peer Review (PDT, SAC, PRG, ASMFC ISTC, ERAAG, OAP) Modeling (larvae transport, demographic, ecosystem impact) Pre-Draft EIS Risk Assessments (ecological, economic, cultural) Independent Oyster Advisory Panel 30 Day Waiting Period Final EIS Public Review Draft EIS Record of Decision Report to MD General Assembly MD Public Hearing 30 Day Public Comment Period MD Legislative Required 60 Day Waiting Period

13. December 15, 2004 - Office of Management and Budget establishes new regulations to enhance peer review of scientific information upon which Federal decisions are based. February 28, 2006 – Oyster EIS Peer Review Plan approved for compliance with OMB peer review regulations. Peer review of the following will occur: Research Modeling Assessment Pre-Draft EIS Oyster EIS Peer Review

14. Review Sufficiency of EIS • An Oyster Advisory Panel has been established to review the pre-Draft EIS. The Panel’s charge includes: • Review the adequacy of data and assessments used to identify the ecological, economic, and cultural risks and benefits, and associated uncertainties for each EIS alternative; • Provide advice on the degree of risk that would be involved for each EIS alternative if a decision were made based on the available data and assessments; and • Recommend additional research, and associated timeline, that could be obtained to reduce the level of risk and uncertainty.

15. Oyster EIS Advisory Panel

16. EIS Framework Public Scoping Scope of EIS NRC and CBP STAC Research Recommendations NRC Recommendations Discussions with UMD and VIMS Pre-Scoping CBP STAC Recommendations Public Scoping PDT meetings Research Framework Technical Advisory Groups (PDT, SAC, PRG, ASMFC ISTC, ERAAG, OAP) Modeling (larvae transport, demographic, ecosystem impact) Pre-Draft EIS March 2008 Risk Assessments (ecological, economic, cultural) OAP; CBP STAC, CAC, LGAC, ASMFC ISTC 30 Day Waiting Period Final EIS Public Review Draft EIS May 2008 Record of Decision Report to MD General Assembly MD Public Hearing 30 Day Public Comment Period MD Legislative Required 60 Day Waiting Period

17. Extracts from August 2007 Press Release • “The idea of the EIS is to provide multiple options,” said Col. Dionysios Anninos, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Norfolk District Commander. “As the EIS nears completion, it’s important for us, as a partnership, to focus and develop actionable and achievable objectives by site and by option that address a two-pronged approach to accomplish both oyster restoration as well as harvesting goals. They are two distinct, but equally important, efforts and should be treated as such. The options and sites chosen will be based on risk and probabilities of success. This action along with the resources must be synchronized towards achieving structured restoration and harvesting objectives.”

18. Extracts from August 2007 Press Release • "While I am anxious to see the efforts of years of scientific oyster research come to completion, as I have stated before, it is critical that the end product be scientifically grounded, comprehensive, and provide a useful tool to help us ascertain policy options for reviving the Bay's oyster population,” states Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources L. Preston Bryant, Jr. “Virginia has recently completed our own Blue Ribbon Panel analysis of potential actions to rejuvenate the native oyster population throughout the Commonwealth's waters and the completion of the draft EIS next spring will dovetail perfectly - allowing for a comprehensive analysis of all the restoration options available to the Bay partners,”

19. Extracts from August 2007 Press Release • "Critical to our success in increasing the Bay's oyster population will be ensuring our efforts are science based and action-oriented, and will not pose a threat to our fragile ecosystem." said Maryland Department of Natural Resources Secretary John R. Griffin. "The comprehensive data provided by the EIS will help us determine the best, most responsible strategies for moving forward collaboratively, with our partners across the watershed."

20. For More Information: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/dnrnews/infocus/oysters.asp Mark Mansfield (757)201-7764 Tom O’Connell (410)260-8261 Jack Travelstead (757)247-2247