U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

89-844 PS 2004

EFFORTS TO INTRODUCE NONNATIVE 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 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska 

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Ken Calvert, California 

Scott McInnis, Colorado 

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming 

George Radanovich, California 

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania 

Jim Gibbons, Nevada, 

Vice Chairman 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Greg Walden, Oregon 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona 

Tom Osborne, Nebraska 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana 

Rick Renzi, Arizona 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Devin Nunes, California 

Randy Neugebauer, Texas 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Calvin M. Dooley, California 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Tom Udall, New Mexico 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Anı ́bal Acevedo-Vila ́, Puerto Rico 

Brad Carson, Oklahoma 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Dennis A. Cardoza, California 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas 

Joe Baca, California 

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

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 

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina 

Randy Neugebauer, Texas 

Richard W. Pombo, California, ex officio 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia, ex officio 

(III)

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

(1)

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. 

2

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 

3

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 inwater 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. 

4

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 NONNATIVE 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 

5

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, sciencebased 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:]

6

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 oysterprocessing 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 

7

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 NONNATIVE 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 sciencebased approaches to the restoration of native oyster populations in 

the Bay. 

8

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 

9

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 restora- tion 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. 

10

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 

11

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.’’

12

• 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. 

13

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 


89844.001
14

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:]

15

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 diseasefree 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-onshell 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 nonnative 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 

16

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. 

17

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. 

18

[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 commerVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:27 May 17, 2004 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\89844.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
19

cial 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).

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 


89844.002
20

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.

21

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 aquaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:27 May 17, 2004 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\89844.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY

89844.003
22

culture 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?

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 selfsustaining 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 


89844.004
23

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.’

24

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? 

25

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. 

26

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. 

27

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 

28

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. 

29

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 

30

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 

31

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 

32

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 

33

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 

34

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. 

35

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 followon 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 

36

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 growout 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 

37

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 inkind services. The program’s non-Federal sponsors are the Maryland Department of 

Natural Resources and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission 

38

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 FY05. 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, 

39

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 

40

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 nonnative 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 introVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:27 May 17, 2004 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\89844.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
41

duction 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 

42

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 nonnative 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 inwater 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 

43

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. 

44

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 

45

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:]

46

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 longterm, 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. 

47

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 pre1870 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. 

48

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 recordlow 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. 

49

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 

50

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 nonVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:27 May 17, 2004 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\89844.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
51

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.

REGULATORY ISSUES SURROUNDING THE INTRODUCTION OF A NONNATIVE 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 


89844.005
52

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: 

53

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 

54

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 diseasedominated 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. 

55

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 

56

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.

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 


89844.006
57

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.

58


89844.007 89844.008
59

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 


89844.009
60

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? 

61

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. 

62

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? 

63

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 

64

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? 

65

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 

66

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. 

67

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 BayVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:27 May 17, 2004 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\89844.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
68

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, 

69

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. 

70

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 

71

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 

72

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 nonnative 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 fullblown 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 

73

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. 

74

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 inwater 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. 

75

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:]

76

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. 

77

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 

78

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. 

79

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. 

80

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. 

81

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 nonnative 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 

82

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 

83

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, 

84

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? 

85

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, 

86

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 

87

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 

88

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 

89

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. 

90

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 

91

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.]

Æ