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

75-984 PS 2002

CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RESTORATION, MANAGEMENT &

RESEARCH

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION,

WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

October 22, 2001 in Annapolis, Maryland

Serial No. 107-70

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

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman

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

Don Young, Alaska,

Vice Chairman

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana

Jim Saxton, New Jersey

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Joel Hefley, Colorado

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Ken Calvert, California

Scott McInnis, Colorado

Richard W. Pombo, California

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

George Radanovich, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Mac Thornberry, Texas

Chris Cannon, Utah

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania

Bob Schaffer, Colorado

Jim Gibbons, Nevada

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Greg Walden, Oregon

Michael K. Simpson, Idaho

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

C.L. ‘‘Butch’’ Otter, Idaho

Tom Osborne, Nebraska

Jeff Flake, Arizona

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana

George Miller, California

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Calvin M. Dooley, California

Robert A. Underwood, Guam

Adam Smith, Washington

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands

Ron Kind, Wisconsin

Jay Inslee, Washington

Grace F. Napolitano, California

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey

James P. McGovern, Massachusetts

Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico

Hilda L. Solis, California

Brad Carson, Oklahoma

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel

Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director

Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana

Jim Saxton, New Jersey,

Vice Chairman

Richard W. Pombo, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

(III)

CONTENTS

Page

Hearing held on October 22, 2001 .......................................................................... 1

Statement of Members:

Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland ................................................................................................... 1

Underwood, Hon. Robert A., a Delegate to Congress from Guam ................ 2

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3

Statement of Witnesses:

Baynard, Sherman, Past Chairman, Maryland Coastal Conservation

Association ..................................................................................................... 74

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 76

Frentz, Charles S., Executive Director, Oyster Recovery Partnership ........ 69

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 72

Grasso, Thomas V., U.S. Director for Marine Conservation, World Wildlife Fund ........................................................................................................ 50

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 52

Gudes, Scott B., Acting Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere/

Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.

Department of Commerce ............................................................................. 4

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6

Hansen, Colonel David, District Engineer, Norfolk District, Army Corps

of Engineers, U.S. Department of the Army ............................................... 19

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 21

Hirshfield, Michael F., Vice President of Resource Protection, Chesapeake

Bay Foundation ............................................................................................. 78

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 80

Luckenbach, Dr. Mark W., Director, Eastern Shore Laboratory, Virginia

Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary ....................... 32

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 35

Oertel, Karen, Owner/Partner, W.H. Harris Seafood, Inc. ........................... 81

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 86

Roberts, Dr. Susan, Ocean Studies Board, Division on Earth and Life

Sciences, National Academy of Sciences ..................................................... 45

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 46

Schwaab, Eric C., Director, Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Fisheries Service ........................................................................................... 16

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 17

(1)

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON CHESAPEAKE BAY

OYSTER RESTORATION, MANAGEMENT AND

RESEARCH

Monday, October 22, 2001

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans

Committee on Resources

Annapolis, Maryland

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in Environmental Matters Committee Room, Lowe House Office Building, Annapolis, Maryland, Hon. Wayne Gilchrest [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Mr. GILCHREST. The hearing will come to order. I want to welcome everyone for coming this morning. We look forward to the

witnesses and the information we will gather to make some continuing understanding of man’s impact on a number of ecosystems.

This morning we will deal pretty closely with the Chesapeake Bay

and Watershed, and how we have made progress in recent decades

to understand the nature of the ecosystem, human impacts on that

ecosystem, positive or negative, whether we are restoring habitat

or fragmenting habitat, whether we are cleaning habitat or polluting habitat, whether we are reinvigorating the species or overharvesting the species. These are all very carefully difficult and

complex issues that we take extremely serious so that future generations will be able to live in a more pristine, understood, habitable ecosystem.

These are very difficult times for all of us pending the difficult

issues in the Middle East, our virtual war with the stain of madness that inflicts a tiny fraction of the human population, the difficulties now in the United States with biowarfare, but we appreciate all your steady, calm and deliberate efforts to be here today.

The Congress, as Mr. Underwood will attest, is orderly, calm,

still functioning, but as in other arenas you have a few people that

will say otherwise, but basically this Government, this Administration, is functioning as well as it can be, and we appreciate all the

efforts of all of you coming here today to continue life as usual. We

appreciate the Administration and the Congress and the troops and

the people of this country.

So, today we will discuss, I think, efforts that will be implemented, and have been implemented, on a very timely, efficient, expedited scale, so that if there is any identifiable John Smith’s relVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:32 Feb 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 J:\DOCS\75984.SF HRESOUR2 PsN: HRESOUR2
2

atives still living in the Mid-Atlantic region, in the not too distant

future they can take a canoe or a sailboat—we will stay away from

the motorized craft because they cause turbidity on the shoreline,

and we know what that does—sail up the Chesapeake Bay and, in

a very pleasant way, maneuver their craft around the fully functioning oyster reefs.

At this point, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Guam,

Mr. Underwood, for a few words.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROBERT UNDERWOOD, A

DELEGATE TO CONGRESS FROM GUAM

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I, too, echo

your remarks and endorse your statement. I am remaining engaged

in being normal. I daresay that we might be the only House subcommittee doing business today, and I guess it is testimony to the

fact that you as a schoolteacher going directly into politics and me

essentially following the same route, me as a schoolteacher going

into politics—other people know better, but I do want to congratulate you for having this hearing and for continuing the work of the

subcommittee. Thank you, and good morning to all of you. It is a

pleasure to join you here in Annapolis today to learn more about

the status of oyster research and restoration in the Chesapeake

Bay. In fact, I hope that we will get a chance to taste the fruits

of those efforts later on this afternoon.

I applaud you for the dedicated interest that you have shown in

scheduling field hearings to allow the members of this subcommittee opportunities to be exposed more directly to the important fish and wildlife issues that come before the committee. I am

certain that such experiences will help make us more insightful

legislators as we grapple with a number of authorization and reauthorization issues.

I regret that my schedule prevented me from attending the subcommittee field hearing held earlier this year at the Blackwater

National Wildlife Refuge near Cambridge. I understand that this

hearing was a very informative session concerning the local impacts caused by the refuge system’s operation and maintenance

budget backlog. I am sorry that I missed that. I hope to sit down

with you, Mr. Chairman, to discuss how we might be able to get

you and other members of the subcommittee out to Guam and the

Western Pacific, to learn more about the unique ocean and coastal

resource issues that define that region. I want you to know that the

staff is also pushing for that, on both sides of the aisle.

[Laughter.]

We, too, have problems with invasive species and, believe me, as

much as you dislike your furry friend, the nutria, just wait until

you meet a brown tree snake up close and personal.

Let me close by saying that the efforts made since the early

1980’s to restore the Chesapeake Bay have been guided by a remarkable commitment by the Federal Government and the affected

States and communities that span across the entire Chesapeake

Bay Watershed. And if any one factor can be used as a benchmark

to judge the success of those efforts, oysters would be a good keystone species.

3

In that regard, I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses

to learn more about what is being done to restore the oyster population and, by association, to restore the health of the Chesapeake

Bay. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Underwood follows:]

Statement of Hon. Robert A. Underwood, a Delegate to Congress from

Guam

Thank you, and good morning Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be able to join

you in Annapolis today to learn more about the status of oyster research and restoration in the Chesapeake Bay. In fact, I hope that we get a chance to taste the

fruits of those efforts later this afternoon at lunch.

More seriously, I applaud you for the dedicated interest you have shown in scheduling field hearings to allow the members of this subcommittee opportunities to be

exposed more directly to the important fish and wildlife issues that come before us.

I am certain that such experiences will help make us more insightful legislators in

the future.

I sincerely regret that my schedule prevented me from attending the subcommittee’s field hearing held earlier this year at the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge

near Cambridge, Maryland. I understand that this hearing was a very informative

session concerning the local impacts caused by the Refuge System’s operations and

maintenance budget backlog. I am sorry that I missed it.

I hope soon to sit down with you to discuss how we might be able to get you and

the other members of the subcommittee out to Guam and the Western Pacific Ocean

to learn more about the unique ocean and coastal resource issues that define that

region. We, too, have problems with invasive species. And believe me, as much as

you dislike your furry friend, the Nutria, just wait until you meet a Brown Tree

Snake up close and personal.

Let me close by saying that efforts made since the early 1980s to restore the

Chesapeake Bay have been guided by a remarkable commitment by the Federal

Government and the affected States and communities that span across the entire

Chesapeake Bay watershed. And if any one factor can be used as a benchmark to

judge the success of those efforts, oysters would be a good keystone species. In that

regard, I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses to learn more about what’s

being done to restore the oyster population, and by association, to restore the health

of Chesapeake Bay.

Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mr. Underwood said

that we should trade visits to each other’s districts. So, Mr. Underwood comes to Annapolis and we will eventually get to Guam. That

is a fairly balanced mutual beneficial relationship.

I would like to introduce now a good friend, Mr. George Owings,

who represents Southern Maryland extremely well. I first met

George when I had the idea as a schoolteacher to run for Congress

back in 1988, and at some of the interesting debates between our

then opponent, Mr. Dyson, George would often give me some advice

in breaks between the debate, which was always appreciated. Mr.

Owings.

Mr. OWINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen,

I am here today as a member of the Environmental Matters Committee, the group who are sitting now representing Chairman John

Hurst and the entire committee. Congressman, I would like to

thank you very much for the invitation. I have a special interest

in this as Eric Schwaab, Tom Grasso, and some of you know, I am

the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Environment

and Natural Resources on this committee, and so I have a keen interest in that. In fact, Mr. Chairman, it was because of your leadership in this very room that steps were taken to ensure that the

charge you were leading on Bay dumping had a satisfactory ending

4

to it, at least to this point in time. And so, again, I would like to

thank you on behalf of the Chairman and the Committee for the

kind invitation to join you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Owings.

Our first panel is Mr. Scott Gudes, Acting Under Secretary for

Oceans and Atmospheric Administration for NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce; Mr. Eric Schwaab, Director, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Service; and Col. David Hansen, District Engineer, Norfolk District, Army Corps of Engineers.

Gentlemen, welcome this morning. Mr. Gudes, you may begin.

STATEMENT OF MR. SCOTT B. GUDES, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, ADMINISTRATOR,

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Mr. GUDES. Thank you, Chairman Gilchrest, Congressman

Underwood, Chairman Owings. On behalf of Secretary Don Evans

and the 12.5 thousand men and women at your NOAA, I would like

to thank you for this opportunity to testify today on oyster restoration, Marine Protected Areas and, of course, the Chesapeake Bay.

As I have said to this committee before, the Chesapeake Bay is

the nation’s largest estuary. It is the backyard for NOAA Headquarters. It is something that is quite special to us. We have some

3,000 of our 12,500 employees at NOAA work in Maryland, and so

this is something we take very seriously and this is actually quite

an honor to be here in the State House.

I have personally been able to be involved in restoration efforts

around the Bay, including oyster restoration, and have a strong

personal commitment to this issue we are talking about today.

These are, of course, State-managed fisheries, and I am pleased

to be here with Eric Schwaab and the Department of Natural Resources. At NOAA, we are in the mode of working with Maryland

and Virginia and assisting the States with oyster restoration and

disease. The fact that NOAA does not directly manage fisheries in

the Chesapeake Bay, I think, gives our Chesapeake Bay office and

agency a role as a nonbiased advocate for overall sustainability of

Bay fishery resources, including oysters.

We are concerned about the loss of oyster stocks in the Bay. In

the mid-1950’s, the Bay produced some 34 million pounds per year,

and the harvest at that time actually was fairly even between

Maryland and Virginia. Last year the harvest was only 2.5 million

pounds, with only about 6 percent in Virginia.

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation has noted that we are at something like 2 percent of historical levels—and you were talking

about John Smith before—historical levels of oysters overall in the

Bay.

Oysteries provide habitat and structure for other shellfish, for

crabs, for finfish. They are a natural filtering machine removing

plankton, sediment and improving water quality. In fact, a mature

oyster can filter as much as 60 gallons of water per day.

NOAA has worked aggressively to get to the root of many of the

factors on declining oyster levels—overfishing, alteration and degradation of habitat, and disease, MSX and Dermo. Let me speak to

habitat first.

5

Habitat loss or alteration continues to be a significant problem,

and our goals are centered around, one, meeting the Chesapeake

2000 goal to restore oysters to 10 times their current biomass by

2010, and, two, furthering the science of restoration techniques.

The handout I have provided and the chart up here indicates location where our oyster restoration activities have focused. This

chart shows oyster reserves, oyster sanctuaries, harvest bars, bar

cleaning and hatcheries.

We have worked closely with the Oyster Recovery Partnership I

know you will hear from later today, and many partners in the Bay

to re-establish oyster beds with clean shell and spat, recondition

oyster bars coated by sediment, and to field test disease-resistant

strains oysters. Just last week, some people from my office, Dr.

Becky Alley, our head of Legislative Affairs, Mary Beth Nethercut,

and a lot of the folks who are here from the Chesapeake Bay office

worked with you to do an oyster recovery project in the Chester

River. A significant effort has gone into increasing the production

of spat-on-shell young oysters and placing them on reconditioned

bars.

To date, through NOAA and partner-funding, more than 25 bars,

representing over 380 acres, have been reconditioned and seeded

with 70 million oysters. We have supported research on the optimal

design and shape of oyster beds, and NOAA has provided vessel

support and scuba divers for restoration. Of course, our Community-Based Restoration Program, which leverages 5-to-1 in private

funds, is actively involved. The Restoration Center in our Fishery

Services provided some $350,000 for these efforts and, as you

know, our slogan is ‘‘Restoration is habitat-forming’’.

As the committee knows, we are developing multiple species ecosystem models for the Chesapeake Bay that will provide insights

into the interactions of fish and shellfish populations, habitat, and

loss to disease, and we are using NOAA hydrographic expertise—

John Rayfield, who is up there in front, and you and the committee

and the Congressmen have shown so much leadership in this

area—we are using that same sort of technology to identify bottom

substrate for oyster planting and restoration.

Let me talk a little about diseases. Diseases represent one of the

threats to oyster populations in the Chesapeake Bay. The MSX

parasite, which thrives in high salinity waters, arrived in the

1950’s, and Dermo, which can tolerate lower salinity, arrived later.

NOAA has been supporting oyster disease research since 1989,

at about $1.5 to $2 million per year, and since 1995 this program

has been administered through the Sea Grant program at both

VIMS and at University of Maryland. Through research and input

from our constituents, the program has developed oyster strains

that are more disease-resistant. Next year, the Sea Grant programs

of those two States will be holding a Shellfish Summit in Washington, D.C., with resources managers and Federal officials and

State officials and others, to discuss disease and restoration efforts.

Now let me talk a little bit about Marine Protected Areas. One

such approach that the summit will no doubt discuss are long-term

conservation measures for habitat and protected areas. This could

include measures similar to those used by State managers for oyster and crab management.

6

This general issue of Marine Protected Areas, or MPAs, as we

say, I think is not well understood. An MPA can be any number

of protective measures that are about some level of protection for

marine and coastal environment. For example, at NOAA, we maintain 13 national marine sanctuaries. In most parts of these sanctuaries, fishing is allowed. These are MPAs. We operate 25 national estuarine research reserves. The Virginia NERS has four

sites along the York River, and in Maryland you have three sites

around the State, including Jug Bay near Washington, D.C., on the

Patuxent. These are also MPAs. Fisheries conservation measures

could also be called MPAs. The fact is that MPAs come in all

shapes and sizes.

We are currently working with the Department of Interior to develop an inventory of Federal, State and local MPAs around the nation, and we are in the process of putting together an MPA Advisory Committee. And Dr. Susan Roberts, of the National Academy

of Sciences I know will be talking about this in the second panel.

In the Bay, we are working with State partners to create elevated 3-dimensional oyster reefs in areas set aside for non-harvest

brood stock. These oyster sanctuaries are closed, and oyster reserves are closed for some time for oyster harvesting.

This is a good example, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, of a win-win. These sanctuaries and reserves restore oysters. They are also open to commercial and recreational fishing.

These should be excellent sites for striped bass, sea trout, and

other finfish.

Good management of MPAs, of course, requires science and management and, at the national level, we are working on that. Our

ecosystem management approach here in the Bay, working with

partners like the State of Maryland, DNR should look at the potential effectiveness of various sizes and locations for reserves and

sanctuaries.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, as often happens when I get a

chance to talk in front of your committee, I am passionate about

these issues and I exceed my 5 minutes. Let me just say that we

take this issue very seriously. We strongly support the efforts of

the two States to restore oysters in the Bay, as you say, for all the

reasons, and while I think this is very affordable, I think if you

take a look at the success with striped bass, where NOAA, the

States along the Atlantic Coast and Maryland showed the leadership, in the mid-1980’s we thought striped bass were gone, they

have recovered. So, I think that is possible, that is doable, that is

the goal with oysters as well. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gudes follows:]

Statement of Scott B. Gudes, Acting Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, Deputy Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, for inviting me to

today’s hearing. I am Scott Gudes, Acting Administrator of NOAA and Deputy

Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere in the Department of Commerce. I am

happy to be here today to discuss oyster restoration in the Chesapeake Bay, and

the role of Marine Protected Areas in marine resource management. Both are essential elements of the many excellent efforts underway in the Bay to restore this valuable ecosystem.

7

I have been asked to testify about the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) involvement in oyster restoration, oyster disease research, and

the role Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) can play in the ongoing oyster recovery efforts. I would like to begin by providing a brief history of the oyster fishery in the

Chesapeake Bay. This background is necessary to put NOAA’s contributions, and

the efforts of the many partners who are also committed to restoring the Bay’s oyster population, into context.

Changes in the abundance of oysters over the last three centuries mirror the larger transformations that have occurred in the Chesapeake Bay. Since the mid–1800s,

the amount of oysters harvested in the Bay has declined to less than two percent

of prior levels, resulting in a significant economic impact and broad ecological consequences. Healthy oyster reefs are an efficient filtering systems and oyster larvae

are an important food source for many species. Oyster reefs also serve as habitat

for crabs, mussels, clams, finfish, and many invertebrates that are important food

items for higher predators, including commercially and recreationally important species. As the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office (NCBO) shifts its focus from a single or

multi-species fishery management, to an ecosystem-based approach, the important

ecosystem functions of oysters are being further recognized.

Additionally, oyster population and harvest data are key elements in ecosystem

modeling efforts for the Bay. The important ecological functions of oyster habitats

are being described, and recommendations for their use and protection will be provided in the Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) currently under development by NOAA

and its partners. Working with other Bay partners, NOAA is helping to identify specific areas where certain types of activities should be controlled in order to protect

reef structure, permit oyster reproduction and growth, and allow spat set.

While estimates of the historical amount of oyster bottom range from 400,000

acres to less than 220,000 acres, only a relatively small amount of viable oyster bottom exists in the Bay today. The dramatic decline in the oyster population and oyster habitat has occurred in a number of fairly distinct phases, a result of a number

of factors. Overfishing (including the habitat destruction associated with certain

fishing gears and methods), disease, pollution, and siltation have devastated what

was once the Chesapeake Bay’s most lucrative fishery. Loss of the physical structure

provided by oyster reefs, and the extensive biotic communities that existed within

and around them, has had marked effects on the overall Bay health and ecology.

The economic and social impacts on local communities and watermen dependent

upon oysters have been no less dramatic.

Prior to 1865, oyster harvest remained plentiful, but modest. Most of the harvest

was conducted by hand-tonging, a relatively inefficient harvest method that did not

significantly alter the physical structure of the reefs. In 1865, oyster dredges were

legalized and harvest numbers skyrocketed. Dredges harvested more efficiently and

made areas that had previously been difficult to harvest with hand tongs more accessible. After the advent of the dredge, harvests peaked at over 15 million bushels

in 1887. Scraping by these dredges resulted in the flattening of raised oyster reef

structure and served to reduce the overall benefits of this structure (e.g., aggregated

oyster spawning stock, 3-dimensional fish habitat, and elevation off the silty bottom).

In the 1950s, hydraulic-powered hand tongs, with the ability to remove large

clumps of oysters from reef structures, further increased the efficiency of the fishery.

The more efficient gear kept the fishery viable, with harvest levels in a near steadystate of about 4–5 million bushels per year, but prevented the long-term sustainability of the fishery. Recent harvest levels represent historic lows and have remained fairly constant over the last three to four years, averaging about 300,000

bushels annually in Maryland and 22,000 bushels annually in Virginia.

The effects of high levels of fishing and associated habitat destruction were compounded by the onset of two oyster diseases, Dermo and MSX. Dermo (Perkinsus

marinus), a natural parasite in Atlantic estuaries, has been in the Bay since the

late 1950s. It is most prevalent and infective at high salinities, killing oysters at

an age just before they reach marketable size (age 2 to 3 years). Another identified

oyster disease, MSX (Haplosporidium nelsoni), was introduced to the Bay, possibly

through the importation of oysters from other areas. It is less understood than

Dermo and kills very young oysters in high salinity waters.

While a number of localized populations of Bay oysters display some resistance

to disease onset and mortality (large, market-sized oysters in areas of high disease

prevalence suggest some traits of disease resistance), we do not yet have a long-term

solution or answer to how to combat these diseases beyond managing around them.

Recent efforts to conduct genetic crosses to create a disease-resistant strain of oysters have shown some early promise. However, even if the strain is highly successful, it would be many years until it could make up a significant component of the

8

genetic pool of the Bay-wide oyster stock. The bulk of oyster restoration efforts

today focus on re-establishing historic reefs through the placement of shell and

young oysters. One of the more promising approaches is the creation of 3-dimensional reefs that extend significantly off the floor of the Bay and are thought to be

more conducive to healthy and productive oyster populations.

OYSTER DISEASE

In an effort to address the ongoing oyster disease problem, NOAA has supported

an Oyster Disease Research Program (ODRP) since 1989. Between the start of the

program and 1999, NOAA invested $1.5 million per year, and increased funding to

$2 million in 2000. Administered by NOAA Sea Grant since 1995, this program has

focused primarily on mid–Atlantic oyster disease problems, such as the parasites

Dermo and MSX, as well as juvenile oyster disease and summer mortality syndrome.

The combination of these disease factors have led to the decline of both the mid–

Atlantic and Pacific oyster industries. The ODRP has been guided by an Advisory

Committee, as well as an ongoing process of constituent involvement through a series of workshops and scientific meetings that have resulted in recommendations for

research. The results of the ODRP were summarized in a 1998 publication entitled,

‘‘Restoring Oysters to U.S. Coastal Waters,’’ and on a web page

(www.mdsg.umd.edu/oysters/disease/index). Sea Grant also has supported a Gulf

Oyster Industry Program at $1 million per year for the past three years to work

on restoring and improving the Gulf oyster industry. These programs have provided

new technology, improved oyster stocks, and scientific information that are being

used by state managers and the oyster industry. Several significant accomplishments made by the ODRP include:

• Development of disease resistant oyster strains that are about 10 times more

resistant than native wild stocks to both Dermo and MSX.

• Development of disease models incorporating environmental, biological and hydrographic information to allow better management of the oyster industry.

These models are being used by managers in some states to predict the annual

severity of disease for oyster harvesters.

• Improved understanding of the disease mechanisms and virulence that impact

oyster survival. We have learned that there are several levels of virulence depending upon the species of Dermo. There are currently 3 species of Dermo.

• Improved diagnostics for identification and quantification of oyster diseases. We

now have diagnostic techniques that can detect a single parasite cell in 30

grams of oyster tissue. This level of detection improves our ability to assure disease free status for oysters that may be moved around the bay in commercial

oyster operations.

• A recent breakthrough in producing tetraploid American Oysters (Crassostria

virginica) has been made, allowing assured production of triploid oysters.

Triploid oysters maintain higher meat quality during summer months, thus extending the market season. Triploid oysters are also sterile, thus removing the

threat of genetic alterations of wild stocks from oysters placed in the bay for

aquaculture or enhancement.

• Improved communications between scientists, managers, industry, and the general public on oyster issues in the United States. Oyster issues are being discussed in many educational contexts including K–12 education, as well public

fora.

ODRP managers realize that the overall goal is to restore oysters in coastal waters, both for industry and the important ecological roles that they play in water

quality and ecology. In fiscal year 1901, researchers began to apply the technology

developed for diagnostics and improved disease- resistant stocks to field applications. Disease-resistant oysters created through the ODRP are being placed on restoration oyster reefs and compared to non-resistant stocks to determine if any differences exist in survivability. Disease diagnostic tools with greater sensitivity are

also being used in at least two projects to study disease transmission and severity.

Additionally, the National Sea Grant Program, through the Virginia and Maryland state Sea Grant Programs, is planning a major oyster summit meeting for Fall

2002 in Washington, D.C. Participants will include scientists, resource managers,

NGO’s and interested governmental officials. We will use the opportunity to discuss

the status of both oyster disease research and ongoing restoration efforts, and how

we can improve future coordination of these two important activities.

9

OYSTER RESTORATION

Oyster restoration seeks to reestablish or duplicate the functional, high-quality,

hard bottom habitat that once existed throughout much of the Chesapeake Bay. It

typically involves uncovering existing shell or distributing new shell in formerly productive areas, then seeding the bottom with spat (young oysters) or adult

broodstock. In some areas, enough oyster larvae are produced naturally to allow

sites to recolonize via natural spat set. In the long-term, truly restoring oysters and

oyster reef habitat involves restoring or mimicking the hard substrate produced by

living oysters. Through restoration, we are ‘‘jumpstarting’’ the natural system. The

long-term goal is to restore a sustainable oyster population that will provide multiple ecological benefits, as well as support a viable commercial fishery.

The 1999 Chesapeake Bay Oyster Restoration Consensus Report outlined a number of ideas to facilitate oyster restoration. The three key concepts within the document are: (1) the importance of three-dimensional reef habitat for oysters and the

resulting community of organisms that utilize them; (2) the necessity for reef sanctuary areas to preserve and protect broodstocks for replenishment of nearby harvestable areas nearby; and (3) the importance of changing the current practice of

moving potentially disease-infected seed from areas of high infection to those areas

with low or no disease presence. Independently, these suggestions will require significant changes in current management practices and resource commitments.

Numerous Federal, state, and local government agencies, as well as public and

private non-profit organizations are involved in oyster restoration efforts. NOAA’s

current efforts in oyster restoration are centered around two principal themes:

progress toward the Chesapeake 2000 goal to restore oysters to 10-times their current biomass by 2010, and furthering science through development of innovative restoration techniques and strategies. To this end, NOAA has dedicated funds to increase oyster substrate and rear young spat oysters for placement on natural or restored bottom areas. Projects range from large-scale production to relatively smallscale endeavors.

Significant funding has been targeted toward increasing the capacity and efficiency of hatchery-based restoration efforts, where immense quantities of spat-onshell (young oysters set on old oyster shell) are produced for placement on recreated

oyster shell mounds. No less significant are modest amounts of funding provided

through NOAA’s Community–Based Restoration Program for ‘‘oyster gardening’’

programs that encourage citizen and school groups to grow young oysters for up to

one year, before planting them on restored reefs. Oyster restoration is also being

furthered through the funding of applied research and cooperative partnerships. For

example, alternative substrate studies are underway to address the critical issues

of limited availability of shell substrate. Additionally, older, disease-resistant oysters are being moved to sanctuary areas in proximity to commercial oyster beds,

where oysters are aggregated and protected, in hopes of improving chances for

strong natural spat sets.

NOAA staff, through the Chesapeake Bay Office, Restoration Center, Coastal

Zone Management Program, and other programs have been integrally involved in

restoration planning, coordination, and cooperation among all the entities in each

state to further NOAA goals to restore both the ecological function and habitat

value of oyster reefs. Staff have provided extensive monitoring assistance to the

states and other entities involved in oyster restoration, through diving services, boat

support, and labor during critical phases of the rearing, nursery and planting stages

of oyster restoration. In cooperative projects, NOAA divers provide monitoring and

assessment expertise to validate project results. NOAA ship-based charting technology is also being utilized to locate suitable bottom substrate types to help identify

appropriate planting areas.

Oyster Recovery Partnership

In Maryland waters, NOAA is working closely with the Oyster Recovery Partnership (ORP), and has provided over $1.6 million to ORP for oyster recovery efforts

since 1999. The ORP is the leading regional organization initiating, coordinating,

and managing oyster restoration efforts in Maryland waters of the Chesapeake Bay.

ORP has representation from many interest groups, including significant involvement from commercial watermen. While ORP’s focus has been on restoring oyster

habitat and oysters for harvesting, the program is working with NOAA to employ

strategies to further the science of oyster restoration. This includes: the first broadscale field testing of potentially disease-resistant oyster strains; leveraging ORP

funds with those available for oyster sanctuary and reserve sites to implement colocated reserves and sanctuaries with commercial harvest sites; and experimenting

10

with methods to recondition existing non-viable oyster bars that had been smothered by sediment.

While one emphasis of ORP is directed at restoring harvestable oyster bottom, a

significant proportion of the funding from fiscal year 1901 has been directed at increasing production capabilities of spat-on-shell. Hatchery production of young oysters at the University of Maryland’s Horn Point Hatchery is needed in Maryland

waters where predictable spatfall does not occur in all areas. The hatchery product

is often the limiting factor in restoration efforts. ORP mechanized the grow-out process by incorporating state-of-the-art stainless steel containers, boom trucks, and

forklifts. This has allowing bulk handling of shell and spat, and has resulted in excess of 100 million spat-on-shell being produced this year alone.

Community–Based Restoration Program

NOAA’s Community–Based Restoration Program (CRP) has provided funding to

communities in 10 states for oyster restoration, including Atlantic and Pacific coast

states, as well as to states bordering the Gulf of Mexico. To date, 26 oyster restoration projects have been funded with nearly $1 million in CRP funds, which are leveraged at the local level between one and five times. The bulk of oyster restoration

funding has been focused in the Chesapeake Bay, where NOAA Restoration Center

staff has provided close to $350,000 to groups in Maryland and Virginia, including

the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission,

Chesapeake Appreciation Inc., Assateague Coastal Trust, and others. This will

translate to more than $1 million in oyster restoration efforts once volunteer labor

and local contributions are included. NOAA staff work closely with communities to

aid in project development and implementation. Projects often are monitored and

maintained by communities, promoting stewardship and a heightened appreciation

for a healthy environment.

Coastal Zone Management Program

In fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 1900, NOAA’s Coastal Zone Management Program provided the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality $500,000 each

year to fund comprehensive restoration planning for oyster sanctuary reefs on the

Rappahannock River.

The success of the oyster recovery efforts in the Chesapeake Bay will rely on the

continued support of existing research and restoration efforts, as well as the careful

coordination of the many partners participating in this effort. The progressive approaches being pursued in the Bay, such as the use of oyster reserves and sanctuaries in conjunction with commercial harvest areas, reflects the willingness of the

Bay partners to work together to take an ecosystem approach to oyster recovery.

This approach also provides an example of the concepts supported under Marine

Protected Areas.

MARINE PROTECTED AREAS

What are Marine Protected Areas?

Before describing the role of Marine Protected Areas in the Chesapeake Bay, I

would like to provide some background on MPAs in general and on NOAA’s recent

efforts in using them for the long-term conservation and management of marine resources. While the term Marine Protected Area has been used for over two decades,

the concept of using MPAs for fishery management has been around for centuries.

The term is generally used to describe marine areas given some sort of special protection. Today, there are many different types of Marine Protected Areas, or MPAs

in use around the world for different purposes.

MPAs come in different shapes, sizes, and management characteristics, and have

been established for different purposes, with varying types of protection and uses.

They range from areas with no consumptive uses, such as Edmonds Underwater

Park in Washington State (set aside as an underwater park visited by scuba divers),

to multiple-use areas, such as those found in the Florida Keys National Marine

Sanctuary. In the United States, MPAs may include national marine sanctuaries,

fisheries management zones, national seashores, the marine areas of national parks

and national monuments, critical habitats, national wildlife refuges, national estuarine research reserves, state conservation areas, state reserves, and privately owned

and managed areas.

There are many different types of MPAs to serve as many purposes. They are

managed by a variety of different groups at federal, state, and local levels. Unfortunately, there is currently no inventory of the existing U.S. MPAs. NOAA and the

Department of the Interior are presently working to develop an inventory of existing

11

MPAs to help us all better understand how to best use these MPAs as marine resource management tools.

How are Marine Protected Areas Used?

MPAs are an important tool for fishery management today, with examples including area and seasonal fishing closures for protection of spawning grounds, or fishing

closures for restoration of essential habitat and depleted spawning stocks. Several

regional Fisheries Management Councils, such as the South Atlantic, Pacific, and

Western Pacific are currently in stages of proposal, design, or review of Marine Protected Areas for management of their regionally important commercial and recreational species.

Other types of MPAs may also provide biodiversity protection and conservation of

sensitive habitats and endangered species, or provide recreational and educational

opportunities to the public. MPAs designed to increase and protect biodiversity and

those sites designed for fishery enhancement purposes are not mutually exclusive.

The success of either type of MPA is based on the enhancement and protection of

a healthy marine ecosystem. MPAs can be unique tools in the marine resource management toolbox, because they shift the emphasis of marine resource management

from the traditional focus on a single species to protection of a specific area or habitat that can often help meet multiple goals and objectives. Our science and experience indicate that MPAs can be useful tools to help manage, protect and sustain

the Nation’s valuable marine resources, as well as the people and economies that

depend on them. How best to use MPAs in combination with other management

tools to meet these goals is a major challenge for ocean stewardship.

Clearly, MPAs by themselves are not a ‘‘silver bullet’’ to marine management.

MPAs are an additional tool for marine resource management that place an emphasis on spatial parameters, but cannot be successful if used in isolation. Their use

and design requires a consideration of such factors as oceanographic regimes,

sources of pollution, or how fishing effort affects ecosystem processes inside and outside the protected area. The design, placement, and implementation of an MPA need

to be considered within the context of a variety parameters, that include socio-economic considerations of the affected fishing community, in order to form an integrated ecosystem approach for marine resource management. MPAs are best used

in combination with, and to complement, other management tools.

What is the Federal Role in MPAs?

The federal MPA initiative is a collaborative effort between NOAA and the Department of the Interior that seeks to partner with other Federal, state and territorial agencies and other stakeholder groups to help provide information, tools and

services to build a framework for a comprehensive and coordinated system of MPAs

in our Nation’s waters. The initiative grew out of Executive Order 13158 (May 2000)

on Marine Protected Areas and received further endorsement when Secretary Evans

announced that the Bush Administration had decided to retain the Order. The

Order does not create any new authority to establish MPAs, rather it establishes

a mechanism to improve their effectiveness and ‘‘to harmonize commercial and recreational activity with conservation.’’ The initiative is designed to understand the

effectiveness of the collection of existing marine protected sites in each region; increase coordination and effectiveness among the assortment of existing sites to better meet increasing demands; and help local, state, Federal, and tribal entities most

effectively use MPAs under existing statutory authority to meet their goals. To address these challenges, NOAA is working with government and non-government

partners to: • build an inventory and assessment of existing sites within U.S. waters;

• provide a sound scientific foundation and tools for MPA design, management

and evaluation under existing statutory authority;

• develop and maintain a website at http://mpa.gov to provide access to information on MPAs;

• provide an open, equitable and meaningful process to engage user groups and

the American public on MPAs through stakeholder workshops and an MPA Federal Advisory Committee.

NOAAs fiscal year 1902 budget request included $3 million to help implement

these efforts. I would like to thank Chairman Gilchrest and other members of the

Committee for their leadership and support of Marine Protected Areas.

MPAs in the Chesapeake Bay

There are many examples of MPAs in the Chesapeake Bay, including two National Estuarine Research Reserves in Maryland and Virginia. These Reserves are

federal-state partnerships between NOAA and the Maryland Department of Natural

Resources, and NOAA and Virginia Institute of Marine Science. The Maryland ReVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:32 Feb 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\75984.SF HRESOUR2 PsN: HRESOUR2
12

serve has three sites or components throughout the upper Bay. The Virginia Reserve protects four components on the York River. Both Reserves include estuarine

habitats that function as living laboratories for research and educational activities.

The sites are also part of a nation-wide system, helping to monitor water quality

in estuaries around the Nation, and conduct educational workshops for resource

managers in the area. Both reserves also conduct regionally specific activities that

are aimed towards improving the management and condition of Chesapeake Bay.

These and other sites have shown us how valuable different types of MPAs can be

to help sustain these valuable resources.

Various forms of MPA concepts are currently in use in the Chesapeake Bay,

though typically known by different terms. NOAA is doing work in conjunction with

the Bay partners to create elevated, three-dimensional reefs, in areas throughout

the Bay that are set aside as non-harvest broodstock ‘‘reserve’’ or ‘‘sanctuary’’ areas.

Historical harvest areas surrounding these restored, elevated sanctuary sites are

also being restored to clean the existing surface shells of sediment and re-plant with

oysters destined for future harvest. Many of the newly restored harvest areas will

be adaptively managed to control the future harvest to a certain percentage of the

standing stock, as well as to permit only certain gear types in certain areas. The

long-term goal is to restore both the harvest and non-harvest areas to allow the oyster populations to be self-sustaining, while maintaining a viable commercial fishery.

Although the oyster reserves and sanctuaries are closed to oyster harvest, they are

open and available for all other uses, especially for fishermen who flock to these

areas because of the higher densities of finfish species. These multi-agency efforts

provide an excellent example of using ecosystem-based research and management

to design and use MPAs as a management tool.

Similarly, the Commonwealth of Virginia has established seasonal closures along

the deep channels of the southern Bay for blue crabs to provide protection during

the crabs’ annual summer migration. While both commercial and recreational crabbing are prohibited in these corridors during these migration periods, all other commercial and recreational activities remain open. The benefits provided by this deep

water sanctuary to crabs are still under investigation; however, the intent behind

this effort resembles the MPA concepts of identifying areas that are critical to

health of the blue crab population and providing the necessary protection. Those

areas identified as providing important benefits to multiple species should be carefully evaluated by the Bay partners and considered as potential sites for future

MPAs as part of the suite of efforts being undertaken to help restore the Chesapeake Bay’s economic productivity and ecosystem integrity.

I want to reemphasize that MPAs have been used successfully in fisheries management for decades and have played an important role in the recovery of many important commercial and recreational species, such as New England groundfish and

scallops. The success of MPAs relies upon the support of the entire community that

is dependent upon the resources and benefits provided by the Bay. Therefore, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of total community involvement in any MPA

process that may take place in the Bay.

I would like to reiterate NOAA’s commitment to oyster restoration in the Bay.

The restoration of a healthy, sustainable oyster population will require continued

oyster disease research, including selection and propagation of disease resistant oyster strains. Until such time as we are better able to control disease in the oyster

population, we need to continue the innovative restoration work that allows us to

mange around these diseases. This restoration works provides the foundation for a

projected ten-fold increase in population that we, as part of the Bay community, are

committed to attaining by 2010.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Again, I appreciate the opportunity

to share with you and the other members of the Committee NOAA’s efforts in the

Chesapeake Bay and am prepared to respond to questions.

[Attachments to Mr. Gudes statement follow:]

13

14

15

16

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Gudes.

Mr. Schwaab.

STATEMENT OF ERIC C. SCHWAAB, DIRECTOR, MARYLAND

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, FISHERIES SERVICE

Mr. SCHWAAB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you today on this important issue. I have

provided written testimony which details at great length our restoration efforts. I will just try to simply hit some of the high points.

I would like to try to leave you with three take-home points.

The first is that we have decades of effort underway to maintain

oyster stocks, and an oyster fishery, with some success primarily

at maintaining. But it is clear that we now need to change the

game to restore oysters to their former status.

In changing that game, the second point I want to make is that

we are now moving into a substantial new phase in our restoration

effort, and that phase is supported by the new Bay Agreement goal

that you heard spoken of a moment ago. It has a substantial focus

on the creation of a network of oyster sanctuaries. And it is bolstered by the Governor’s commitment of new funds to stand behind

our efforts to restore this oyster habitat and this resource to its

former glory.

And then, finally, I would like to just emphasize that we need

to continue to build on the substantial partnerships that have been

created over the years to not only protect and enhance the Bay, but

specifically to focus on oysters, and I will just provide to you a little

bit of detail on each of those points.

As I mentioned a moment ago, Maryland’s DNR Oyster Program

has a long history of oyster restoration work. It primarily has consisted of two main components. The first is a repletion program

that focuses on continuing and enhancing economic benefits realized from a substantial oyster fishery. This has been underway for

decades, sustaining a modest but variable commercial harvest despite the habitat and disease limitations that you have already

heard about.

But more recently we have initiated a Restoration Program that

focused on improving the ecological benefits derived from a substantially increased oyster population. This seeks to substantially

restore oyster populations to recapture those ecological benefits

provided by new habitat that filters water, that provides resources

for other fish, and that, again, as you mentioned, brings back the

kind of Bay that existed when Captain John Smith sailed up the

Bay so many hundreds of years ago.

To help realize this aggressive new goal—and this goal, as you

heard mentioned, speaks to a tenfold increase in oysters in the Bay

by the year 2010, over a 1994 base period. To help demonstrate

Maryland’s commitment and to jump-start this effort, Gov.

Glendenning, in 2000, announced his intention to commit $25 million in new oyster restoration funds over the next 10 years.

Just a little bit specifically about the Oyster Sanctuary Program.

Oyster sanctuaries are areas closed to harvest. These sanctuaries

complement the formerly mentioned repletion program by permanently protecting select oyster populations and reef communities.

17

Five years ago there were only three sanctuaries in the Maryland

portion of the Bay. Today there are 24, with many more planned.

Active habitat restoration is another important aspect of this sanctuary initiative. It is not enough to simply identify these areas and

walk away from them. Substantial restoration projects have got to

be completed to bring about the full benefits that these new sanctuaries can realize.

A network of successful oyster sanctuaries will help sustain and

restore oyster population and a restored oystery fishery. By rebuilding select oyster reefs and permanently protecting them,

again, will serve as source areas for oyster larvae to increase and

provide for natural reproduction throughout the Bay. They will restore important water quality benefits to the Bay, and they will

provide important reef habitat for all aspects of the Chesapeake

Bay ecosystem, including crabs and finfish.

Moving on to the partnership, to help realize the challenging effort that has been put forth in front of us, we have established in

the Bay region a comprehensive Oyster Management Plan Initiative, and we are trying in Maryland to build on a long-standing

Oyster Roundtable Partnership initiative.

The partners in the Chesapeake Bay are currently developing a

comprehensive oyster plan to coordinate and provide guidance for

restoring and maintaining the valuable ecological services provided

by oyster reefs, and to develop a sustainable and rebuilt fishery

over the long-term. The plan is scheduled for completion in January 2002.

Restoration of Maryland’s oyster resources for both ecological and

economic benefits has also been guided a Maryland level Oyster

Roundtable Action Plan which is currently being updated.

With respect to these partnerships, the important thing to remember is that to achieve our ultimate restoration goal for oysters

and more broadly for the Chesapeake Bay, the Maryland DNR

must work very closely with many oyster restoration partners,

many of whom you will hear from here today, including the Maryland Watermen’s Association, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the

Oystery Recovery Partnership, the Corps of Engineers, NOAA, the

EPA, Maryland citizens and private industry. Only by aggressively

working together will we ultimately be able to achieve these oyster

restoration goals.

I would be happy to field any questions on more specific aspects

of our program the committee would have. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schwaab follows:]

Statement of Eric C. Schwaab, Director, Fisheries Service, Maryland

Department of Natural Resources

Decline of Oysters in the Chesapeake Bay

The demise of oyster reefs and the collapse of the oyster fishery in the Chesapeake Bay has been well documented. Removal of oysters and shell, and the failure

to return this material to the Bay in the last decades of the 19th century led to

the severe loss of oyster reef habitat. This loss, in combination with the burial of

shell due to high sediment inputs from land erosion led to a rapid decline in habitat

suitable for oyster larval settlement, exacerbating the effects of over harvesting of

adult oysters. The introduction of Haplosporidium nelsoni (the causative agent of

MSX disease) in the 1950s and subsequent epizootic events by MSX and the indigenous parasite Perkinus marinus (which causes Dermo disease) have further exacerbated the decline in oysters in Chesapeake Bay and impeded restoration efforts.

18

Maryland DNR’s Oyster Restoration Program

Maryland DNB’s Oyster Program consist of two main components: 1) a restoration

program focused on improving the ecological benefits derived from a substantially

increased oyster population; and 2) a repletion program focused on continuing and

enhancing the economic benefits realized from a sustainable oyster fishery. The latter effort has been underway for decades, sustaining a modest but variable commercial harvest despite the habitat and disease limitations previously noted. The former

is a more recent initiative, seeking to substantially restore oyster populations so as

to recapture the ecological benefits provided by a greatly increased oyster population. The new Chesapeake Bay Agreement calls for a tenfold increase in oyster

population in the Bay by the year 2010 compared against a 1994 base year.

To help realize this aggressive new goal, in 2000 Governor Glendening announced

his intention to commit $25 million to oyster restoration over the next ten years.

The following resources and management techniques are applied to both programs

to achieve the ecological and economic objectives of the oyster restoration program.

Shell Planting - Shell plantings consist of ‘‘dredged shells’’ from a large scale

dredging program in the upper Chesapeake Bay, and ‘‘fresh shells’’ that come from

shucking houses that process oysters. Dredged shells are placed in higher salinity

areas where natural oyster reproduction occurs to produce new oysters for the Bay

(seed oysters). Some of these young oysters are then transplanted for stocking in

lower salinity zones where disease impacts are less severe. These transplanted oysters then grow to market size, at which point they are targeted for commercial harvest. By placing over 2.5 million bushels annually, the dredge shell program produces a yearly gain in oyster habitat in the Bay of over 800 acres per year. Approximately 80% of the current commercial harvest comes from dredge shell areas and

seed oyster plantings.

Fresh shells from shucking houses have three major uses. They are used in hatcheries as cultch for the production of hatchery raised oysters. Hatchery oysters are

usually disease free and are planted to restore populations in low salinity restoration zones where concerns for the moving of oyster diseases prevent the use of natural oysters. Secondly, fresh shells are planted on harvest bars for rehabilitation

and fishery enhancement. Lastly, a small amount of fresh shells are used for sanctuary projects.

Seed Oyster Planting - Seed oysters obtained through the shell program are planted around the Bay. Seed oysters are targeted to areas with low natural spatfall and

good survival. On average, about 300,000 bushels of seed are planted annually in

harvestable areas. In 1998, after an excellent spat set in 1997, about 1 billion seed

oysters were planted. Seed oysters boost harvest and contribute to the Bay’s ecology.

Seed plantings sustain the fishery in areas of low reproduction such as the upper

Bay and Chester River. Some seed oysters have been planted in sanctuary areas.

The dredged shell and seed planting costs about $1.5 million each year and this

investment sustains a harvest with an average dockside value of $7 million. Of that

$ 1.5 million investment, approximately half comes from the industry via commercial license fees and a per bushel tax paid on harvested oysters.

Oyster Sanctuary Program - Oyster sanctuaries are areas closed to harvest. These

sanctuaries complement the repletion program by permanently protecting select oyster populations and reef communities. Five years ago there were only three sanctuaries in Maryland. Today there are 24 sanctuaries with many more planned. Active habitat .restoration is underway or planned for most of these sanctuaries. Sanctuaries protect oyster populations and the reef communities they support.

A network of successful oyster sanctuaries is being developed to help sustain a

restored Chesapeake Bay oyster population. It is believed that by rebuilding select

oyster reefs and permanently protecting them, they will serve as source areas for

oyster larvae to increase and provide for natural reproduction throughout the Day.

In addition, oyster in sanctuaries will help filter bay water and provide important

reef habitat for the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem.

As a result of the Governor’s new commitment of funds, the Department expects

to spend approximately $1.5 million in the current fiscal year and $2 million per

year for the next nine years to rebuild oyster habitat. Most of this work will occur

in areas pennanently designated as sanctuaries. This work is further expected to

be complemented by federal efforts under the auspices of the Army Corps of Engineers and numerous non-profit organization initiatives.

Oyster Hatchery Production - Seed oysters are produced by DNR and by the University of Maryland hatchery. Larvae are set under controlled conditions on shell

placed in tanks. Resulting seed are planted to support restoration projects. Shells

come from DNR’s fresh shell program. The DNR and University of Maryland hatcheries combined can produce approximately 80 to 100 million spat annually.

19

Oyster Reef Habitat Construction - For 40 years the State of Maryland has used

dredged oyster shell to improve oyster habitat and produce more oysters for their

ecological and economic benefits. Clean oyster shell is the preferred setting substrate for oyster larvae, but four decades of dredging has resulted in a limited supply of available oyster shell. Efforts are ongoing to identify alternatives to dredged

oyster shell to be used for oyster habitat restoration activities.

One alternative is the cleaning of in situ shell that has been silted over. Increased

siltation rates and low oyster productivity has led to many bars being silted under

a layer of tine silt and mud. Permit applications have been submitted to research

the benefits of excavating buried shell to the surface to once again provide suitable

habitat for oysters.

Another alternative to preserving the dwindling supply of dredged oyster shell is

to use alternative substrate materials. Permit applications have been submitted to

examine the use of alternative materials such as recycled concrete, stone or brick

to construct habitat in oyster sanctuaries, either as an area to catch setting larvae

or as the core of a reef which is then coated with a layer of oyster shell. Seed oysters

could then be planted at these sites in low setting areas, while natural spat set

would be expected at sites in high setting areas.

The excavation of shell and use of alternative materials will not only benefit oysters, but also numerous fish and benthic organisms.

Comprehensive Oyster Management Plan and Maryland Oyster Roundtable - As

previously mentioned, the new Bay Agreement calls for a tenfold increase in oyster

population in the Bay by the year 2010 compared against a 1994 base year. The

partners of the Chesapeake Bay are currently developing a Comprehensive Oyster

Plan to coordinate and provide guidance for restoring and maintaining the valuable

ecological services provided by oyster reefs, and develop a sustainable oyster fishery.

This Plan is scheduled for completion in January 2002.

Restoration of Maryland’s oyster resources for both ecological and economic benefits has been guided by the Maryland Oyster Roundtable Action Plan of 1993. The

Oyster Roundtable Steering Committee is currently developing an Action Plan for

2002 - 2007 that will build upon the original Action Plan of 1993 and establish the

forum and framework for implementing the Comprehensive Oyster Management

Plan.

To achieve our ultimate restoration goal the MD DNR works very closely with

many oyster restoration partners, including the Maryland Watermen’s Association,

the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the Oyster Recovery Partnership, the Corps of Engineers, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Environmental

Protection Agency, Maryland citizens and private industry. Only by aggressively

working together can we achieve our goals.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Mr. Schwaab.

Col. Hansen, good morning, welcome.

STATEMENT OF COLONEL DAVID HANSEN, DISTRICT ENGINEER, NORFOLK DISTRICT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Col. HANSEN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the

subcommittee. I am Col. David Hansen, of the United States Army

Corps of Engineers, and I command the Norfolk Engineer District.

Accompanying me today is Lt. Col. Scott Flanigan, from the Baltimore Engineer District, but most importantly, I have brought along

our two project managers, Ms. Claire O’Neal from Baltimore, and

Mr. Doug Martin from Norfolk.

Sir, we are here representing the Honorable Mike Parker, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, the Army and the Corps

of Engineers on this most important collaborative effort.

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 work that the Baltimore and Norfolk Districts

have accomplished to date, and look forward to seeing more positive results from our completed projects and from the new projects

as they come on-line.

20

The Corps’ involvement in oyster restoration began in 1995 when Congress appropriated $500,000 to carry out a project to improve

the Bay’s oyster population. This project was a direct response to

the precipitous decline of the Chesapeake oyster harvests which

had fallen to one-eighth of the harvest from a decade earlier and

to less than 2 percent from the late 1800’s’ harvest. Not only has

this decline hurt the regional water-based economy, but it has also

depleted the Chesapeake Bay of natural filtering organisms and

the aquatic habitat structure on which numerous marine animals

thrive.

The authorization for the Corps’ oyster restoration program

comes from Section 704(b) of the Water Resources Development Act

of 1986. Originally, the authorization was limited to $5 million and

the Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay, but in subsequent

WRDA, specifically 1996, the area was expanded to the Virginia

watershed, and the Federal funding limit was raised to $20 million.

In keeping with other Civil Works projects, the authority requires

cost-sharing, with non-Federal sponsors providing 25 percent of the

project costs.

The first project in this program was developed with Congress’

initial appropriation and then funded for construction through the

Corps’ Civil Works budget process at a total cost of $3.3 million,

of which $2.5 million was Federal. The plan for this first project

was the result of coordination among many project partners: the

Maryland Department of Natural Resources, other Federal and

State resources agencies, watermen, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the academic community, interested citizens, as well as many

non-profit groups such as the Oyster Recovery Partnership.

The plan called for the creation of new oyster bars, rehabilitation

of non-productive bars, development of new seed bars, and planting

of young oysters from the State hatcheries, as well as follow-on

project monitoring. For this project, the Maryland DNR acted as

the non-Federal sponsor, providing the 25-percent cost share.

This restoration project identified six tributaries in Maryland for

oyster bar development, three on the Western Shore and three on

the Eastern Shore. In addition, two areas of the Eastern Shore,

Kidges Strait and Eastern Bay, were planned for seed bar development. Over the past 5 years, the Corps and Maryland DNR have

placed over 700,000 bushels of shell and millions of seed oysters in

these rivers to create new oyster bars.

In conjunction with the University of Maryland, the Corps has

documented the ecological success of the oyster bars, including an

underwater video, which demonstrates the value of the oyster bar

habitat for other aquatic species, such as blue crabs and rockfish.

This monitoring has provided important information that is being

used by the Corps, the State agencies, and the scientific community

to design ongoing and future projects.

Building on the success of this first project, the Corps has moved

out, thanks to Congress’ Fiscal Year 2001 $3-million appropriation,

on what we call our Phase II projects for this program. The Phase

II projects include an estimated $2.6 million of construction in the

Tangier-Pocomoke Sound region of Virginia which the Norfolk District is leading, with the Commonwealth of Virginia as its project

sponsor. This construction of 150 acres of oyster reefs is scheduled

21

to start in the Spring of 2002. similarly, the Baltimore District is

developing a Phase II project in Maryland which will continue to

develop on their Phase I activities beginning in the late Spring of

2002.

Meanwhile, the Corps in concert with a committee of Federal,

State, local, non-profit, and industry representatives is developing

a long-term master plan to meet the oyster habitat goal of the 2000

Chesapeake Bay Agreement. This goal calls for a tenfold increase

in oyster biomass by the year 2010. This long-term master plan is

expected to lead to the next wave of projects in the coming years.

In addition to the two phases of the Section 704(b) project, we

have used our authority under Section 510 of WRDA 1996 to fund

a $1.2 million oyster restoration project in the lower Rappahannock

River. This project involved the creation of more than 170 acres of

oyster reefs over the past 2 years, with the Commonwealth of Virginia as its non-Federal sponsor.

Over the past 6 years, the Army Corps of Engineers has enjoyed

working with the numerous project sponsors in the Chesapeake

Bay oyster restoration effort. We are committed to continuing this

partnership in the upcoming years. We also appreciate the tremendous support that Congress has bestowed upon the Corps’ oyster

restoration program. We thank you for this. We look forward to the

year 2010, when the Corps and our project partners can celebrate

meeting the tenfold goal for oyster restoration, and maybe then we

will be able to eat a few on the half-shell.

Thank you for your support, and for allowing us the opportunity

to discuss this incredibly important restoration program.

[The prepared statement of Col. Hansen follows:]

Statement of Colonel David Hansen, District Engineer, Norfolk District,

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am Colonel David Hansen, District Engineer, Norfolk District. With me today,

is Lieutenant Colonel Scott Flanigan, Deputy District Engineer, Baltimore District.

We are here today representing the Honorable Mike Parker, 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 work that the

Baltimore and Norfolk Districts have accomplished to date in seven rivers in the

Chesapeake Bay region. 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.

The Corps’ involvement in oyster restoration began in 1995 when Congress directed us to carry out a project to improve the Bay’s oyster population and appropriated $500,000 to initiate that project. The project was a response to the precipitous decline in the oyster harvests in the Chesapeake Bay. The harvests in the mid–

1990’s were only 1/8 of the harvest from a decade earlier and less than 2 percent

of what it was 100 years earlier [see attached graphs]. The decline in the oyster

fishery has been attributed to overfishing, sedimentation, pollution, and disease. Not

only has this decline hurt the regional water-based economy, but it has also depleted the Chesapeake Bay of natural filtering organisms and the aquatic habitat

structure on which numerous marine animals thrive. As we have learned over the

past few years, oyster restoration is critically important to the marine ecosystem of

the Chesapeake Bay, particularly in major tributaries such as the Lynnhaven,

James, Rappahannock, Potomac, Patuxent, Choptank, and Chester Rivers.

Section 704(b), WRDA 1986 (Chesapeake Bay Oyster Restoration)

The authorization for the Corps’ oyster restoration program comes from section

704(b) of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986. This language auVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:32 Feb 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\75984.SF HRESOUR2 PsN: HRESOUR2
22

thorized the Corps to implement projects that provide alternative or beneficially

modified habitats for indigenous fish and wildlife, including man-made reefs. Originally, the authorization was limited to $5 million and the Maryland portion of the

Chesapeake Bay, but in subsequent WRDA’s (section 505 of WRDA 1996 and section

342 of WRDA 2000), the areal extent was expanded to the Virginia watershed, and

the Federal funding limit was raised to $20 million. In keeping with other Civil

Works projects, this authority requires cost sharing, with non–Federal sponsors providing 25 percent of the project costs.

The first project in this program was developed with Congress’ initial appropriation and then funded for construction through the Corps’ Civil Works budget process

in fiscal years 1996–2000, at a total cost of $3.3 million ($2.5 million of Federal

funds). The plan for this first project was the result of coordination among many

project partners; the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR), other Federal and state resource agencies, Maryland watermen, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the academic community, interested citizens, as well as non-profit groups such

as the Oyster Recovery Partnership. The plan called for creation of new oyster bars,

rehabilitation of non-productive bars, development of new seed bars, and planting

of young oysters from the State hatcheries, as well as follow-on project monitoring.

In turn, the State of Maryland upgraded its hatcheries to provide a sufficient supply

of healthy seed oysters. For this project, the Maryland DNR acted as the non–Federal sponsor, providing the 25-percent cost share.

This restoration project identified six tributaries in the Maryland portion of the

Chesapeake Bay for oyster bar development. These tributaries were the Severn,

Magothy, and Patuxent Rivers on the Western Shore, and the Chester, Choptank,

and Nanticoke Rivers on the Eastern Shore of the Chesapeake Bay. In addition, two

areas of the Eastern Shore, Kedges Strait and Eastern Bay, were planned for seed

bar development. Over the past five years, the Corps and Maryland DNR have

placed over 700,000 bushels of shell and millions of seed oysters in these rivers to

create new oyster bars.

In conjunction with the University of Maryland, we have documented the ecological success of the oyster bars, including an underwater video, which demonstrates

the value of the oyster bar habitat for other Chesapeake Bay aquatic species, such

as blue crabs and rockfish. This monitoring has provided important information that

is being used by the Corps, the state agencies, and the scientific community to design ongoing and future projects.

Building on the success of this first project, the Corps has moved out, thanks to

Congress’ fiscal year 01 $3-million appropriation, on what we call our Phase II

projects for the oyster restoration program. The Phase II projects include an estimated $2.55 million of construction in the Tangier–Pocomoke Sound region of Virginia that the Corps’ Norfolk District is leading. In September 2001, the Assistant

Secretary of the Army for Civil Works and the Commonwealth of Virginia executed

a project cooperation agreement to initiate this project. Construction of 8 acres of

3-dimensional and 150 acres of 2-dimensional oyster reefs is scheduled to start in

the spring of 2002. Similarly, the Corps’ Baltimore District is developing a Phase

II project in Maryland which will continue the previous Phase I activities in the six

tributaries over the next two years. Phase II Maryland construction activities are

expected to start in the late spring of 2002.

Meanwhile, the Corps in concert with a committee of Federal, state, local, nonprofit, and industry representatives is developing a long-term master plan to meet

the oyster habitat goal of the 2000 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. This goal calls for

a 10-fold increase in oyster biomass by the year 2010. This goal emanated from the

June 1999 multi-state scientific consensus document that is the basis for our

project’s amended authorization in WRDA 2000. This long-term master plan is expected to lead to the next wave of projects in future years.

Section 510, WRDA 1996 (Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Program)

In addition to the two phases of the section 704(b) project, we have used our authority under section 510 of WRDA 1996 (the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Program) in Virginia to fund a $1.2-million oyster restoration project in the lower Rappahannock River. This project involved the creation of

more than 170 acres of oyster reefs over the past two years. Similar to the section

704(b) project, the lower Rappahannock effort was cost-shared 75–25, with the Commonwealth of Virginia picking up the non–Federal share.

Summary

Over the past six years, the Army Corps of Engineers has enjoyed working with

the numerous project partners in the Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration effort, parVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:32 Feb 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\75984.SF HRESOUR2 PsN: HRESOUR2
23

ticularly the state agencies in Maryland and Virginia. We are committed to continuing this partnership in the upcoming years. We appreciate your support for the

Corps’ oyster restoration program. We look forward to the year 2010, when the coalition of local, state, Federal, academic, non-profit, and industry groups can celebrate meeting the 10-fold goal for oyster restoration, and maybe even eat a few on

the half-shell.

Thank you for your support and for allowing me the opportunity to discuss this

incredible restoration program.

[An attachment to Col. Hansen’s statement follows:]

24

25

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Col. Hansen.

The oyster reefs that the Corps has been developing over the last

couple of years and with in the next couple of year time frame, are

these oyster reefs to be sanctuaries in whole, or are some of them

to be sanctuaries? What is the status of that?

Col. HANSEN. Sir, we have had a discussion of that over the last

couple of days in response to being requested to appear today. We

currently are not clear, and I say this because the WRDA authorization does not clearly specify the mix of whether or not we are

executing our construction for the sole purpose of creating protected sanctuaries. And there is a myriad of opinions with regards

to whether or not they should or should not be restricted in total,

or whether or not there should be a degree of harvest capability for

the watermen’s concern and the continued economic development.

Mr. GILCHREST. Is the Corps a part of this partnership that we

are talking about in the restoration project of 10 percent by the

year 2010?

Col. HANSEN. Yes, sir, we are the reef construction agency.

Mr. GILCHREST. So, the Corps, though, as far as some of your restoration projects that come out of WRDA are concerned, whether

it is the areas around Tangier Sound and Pocomoke Sound and

some of the other places that you have mentioned, does the Corps

need authorization from Congress to place them in a particular status, or does the Corps have the discretion within this network to

make that decision?

Col. HANSEN. Sir, if Congress wished these reefs to be protected

sanctuaries, they would have to clarify the language to designate

each site.

Mr. GILCHREST. So, right now the status of what the Corps is

doing as far as this partnership in the recovery project, it would

be necessary, or it would be better, based on your opinion, if Congress clarified what you were to do with these oyster reef projects,

whether sanctuary in whole or in part?

Col. HANSEN. In my opinion, I believe Congress—it would be necessary for Congress to designate that requirement.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Gudes, the area that you are working in as

far as recovery projects, I would assume there is some little overlap. Is there any overlap in the oyster sanctuaries that the Corps

has specifically mentioned, and the oyster reef projects you are

working on? Is there any overlap at all, and does no one need clear

signals from Washington to work—I would assume that all of this

is also working in partnership with the State of Maryland and Virginia, and Maryland and Virginia, their DNRs, would have a specific recommendation as to what oyster reef projects would be sanctuaries even though there are Federal dollars involved.

Mr. GUDES. Yes. Well, one of the frustrating and great things

about the Federal Government is that most agencies have different

appropriations, different authorization acts, and what is guidance

in what agency. I know, for example, in NOAA we have an awful

lot of guidance, as you know, Mr. Chairman, in terms of appropriations.

My understanding is, first of all, there is some overlap in some

areas. I know the Colonel was talking about the Rappahannock

area I didn’t mention, I think, in my oral testimony, but through

26

the Coastal Zone Management Program, we have been working

with the State of Virginia and VIMS in terms of some oyster restoration in that area.

It is my understanding that we really do do all aspects of oyster

restoration and do try to pivot off of what the two States and the

universities in the Sea Grant programs want us to be working on,

and so I think you would find NOAA efforts in all those categories

I talked about, Community-Based Restoration or Sea Grant, in all

aspects of the oyster restoration efforts. And when I say that I

mean sanctuaries, reserves, which are closed for some period of

time, as well as harvest areas.

Mr. GILCHREST. NOAA doesn’t need any authorization in any aspect of the Resources Committee, the Commerce Committee, their

counterparts in appropriations, to give you clear language to make

a determination as to whether something needs to be protected as

a sanctuary, or something needs to be fished shortly after it is restored.

Mr. GUDES. I think this may go back to just the Organic Acts

that we work on, but we have, I think, sufficient flexibility to really

respond under the appropriations language or authorization language that we have. I think that is fair, and if the State of Maryland DNR or other partners in the case of the projects we do here

want to create additional reserves or sanctuaries within the programs that we have, I think we have the flexibility to do that.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you.

Mr. GUDES. My staff says that is correct.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Schwaab, since you are working with these

two Federal agencies and probably a myriad of other Federal, State

and in the private sector, in your effort to restore, in this particular

goal, certainly habitat and then the oysters themselves to a level

of 10 percent of what the historic levels were by 2010, do you feel

that the State of Maryland has good communication with all those

in the partnership? Is there anything that you would recommend

that we help clear up to make your job a little bit easier as to what

areas you would like to see as sanctuaries and what areas you

would like to see as part sanctuaries?

Mr. SCHWAAB. Yes, sir. The discrepancy between the harvestable

areas and the closed areas, first of all, is that we firmly believe

that to reach that tenfold increase goal, which is the overarching

goal, we must all together meet that subservient strategy of restoring 10 percent of the historically productive oyster grounds as essentially a sanctuary network throughout the Bay.

To answer directly your question, we feel that we have made

substantial progress—and I mentioned the Baywide Comprehensive Oyster Management Plan which is being developed in concert

by all of the partners, and we feel like that is the most important

tool to keep everybody on the same page to identify the appropriate

areas for restoration and the appropriate areas that need to be set

aside as sanctuaries into perpetuity, and as long as we remain on

the course that we are on now, which has all the partners sitting

around the table developing that single Comprehensive Oyster

Management Plan, that we do have the kind of communication and

the kind of cooperation that is going to be required to get there.

As long as we remain on that course, we are on that course now,

27

we expect to have a draft of that plan completed by soon after the

first of the year, and we think we are on the right track in achieving what it is I think you are seeking.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. We just want to make sure that—

there is a fairly large effort that has been ongoing, and we are trying to fine-tune it so that we become one fine green machine here,

that there is no missteps or no misunderstandings, that everybody

feels clear about what their role is, and we can accomplish this ambitious task.

Col. Hansen, I would assume that under a lot of programs that

the Corps helps facilitate, they usually need, in some respect, a

local sponsor. So, I would guess that—we will certainly check into

this—that with or without clear definitive congressional language,

that if the local sponsor wanted this to be a part sanctuary or a

full sanctuary, that that would be pretty much all the Corps would

be required to have to comply with that.

Col. HANSEN. Yes, sir, that is correct, and that was the gist of

my answer. We have a lot of Bay partners, with a lot of moving

in the right direction, and we are all swimming in the same direction. It is just some are still using the breaststroke, some are using

the backstroke, some are using the crawl, and we will get synchronized very shortly. It is committee hearings like this that help

focus our attention, so we understand what that stroke will be.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much. I guess it is difficult to

change somebody’s favorite fishing stroke, or swimming stroke, but

at least we will figure out how to point them in all the same direction. Thank you all very much.

I yield now to my good friend, Mr. Underwood.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your

testimonies this morning. Mr. Gudes, you mentioned a number of

times in your testimony about Marine Protected Areas, and the

role that they are playing in this effort.

Would you tell me the committee what is the status of the appointment process to create the Marine Protected Areas Advisory

Council on the national level, and are we going ahead with that,

and when do we expect the members of the new panel to be

named?

Mr. GUDES. The Secretary approved moving forward in his decision, I want to say, in the April-March time frame. We went back

out for additional nominations. That process actually was extended

in September because of all the events, and closed at least September 30th. And our goal is to have a panel appointed by, I believe, the first of the year.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Maybe, Mr. Schwaab, you could enlighten us

as to how important is the MPA in your effort?

Mr. SCHWAAB. We believe the sanctuary network—specific to the

oyster restoration initiative, we believe this backbone of a sanctuary network is absolutely critical to moving to that next phase.

Now, the oyster sanctuaries, as we described them, are certainly

one type of Marine Protected Area. They are open to many other

types of uses, including recreational fishing, but they are closed to

harvest of oysters and they are closed to the types of damaging

gear that in some cases comes along with the harvest of oysters

28

that we believe partly led to the decline 100 years ago in the resource.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. You mention in your testimony that Governor Glendenning has earmarked $25 million for the purpose of oyster

restoration. Would you characterize whether the effort is—you

know, this would be tough choices, but I am just trying to get a

sense of what is the general direction of the State. Would you characterize it more as directed toward restoring the number of harvestable oysters, or would it be more toward the direction of the

ecological benefits of having a healthy oyster population?

Mr. SCHWAAB. The latter, sir. As I mentioned, we had decades

of, and continue to operate what we call a Repletion Program,

which involves shell and seed management for the purpose of

maintaining and enhancing the fishery. While that has been modestly successful, it certainly has not returned oyster populations to

the level that we need to reach to achieve the kind of Bay restoration goals that we want.

So, the bulk of the new commitment from the Governor, the vast

majority of that money will be directed specifically to restoration

practices in these newly designated oyster sanctuaries, and that

will involve all sorts of things, from restoration of existing oyster

bars through simply—you know, we are working experimentally

with some cleaning processes to basically large-scale construction of

what you might view as a 3-dimensional oyster reef, areas that are

then seeded with young oysters in some cases, all of those kind of

things, and some which are very expensive, will go into, again, the

effort specifically to restore a self-sustaining network of oyster reefs

that represent 10 percent of the historically productive oyster bottom.

Now, we think there will be many ancillary benefits from that

Corps network that will be of benefit to the fishery by providing reproductive potential that will have effect on surrounding areas, and

we expect to continue to maintain that at historic levels, efforts directed at sustaining the fishery, but this new money will be largely

for the restoration initiative.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. This question would be for all three of you in

terms of your own experience with this particular issue. What is

the most currently significant factor limiting the recovery of the

oyster population? I know that a number of items have been suggested, ranging from water quality to habitat degradation to disease or overharvesting.

Mr. GUDES. I think if you take a look at what has happened to

oyster populations in the last 40 years, disease has been the major

change. It is the major challenge, I think, when you are able to—

I think the Virginia numbers show that even greater because of

higher salinities in MSX, and it is a challenge when you can get

the oysters out there, to be able to bring them to maturity.

The other side I have done, as I said, I have done some of these

projects myself up on the Magothy River, for example, which is an

historic area of oyster. The Bay’s ecology has changed, and it is

higher levels of fresh water to where oysters don’t naturally occur

in those areas now, and so you can put the oysters out there, but

the chances of them spawning and reproducing are not as great.

The flip side is they are not as vulnerable to MSX, for example, beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:32 Feb 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\75984.SF HRESOUR2 PsN: HRESOUR2
29

cause of the lower salinity levels. But I would say that the disease

is still the greatest problem.

Mr. SCHWAAB. I would certainly concur in recent years. We believe, however, that poor habitat and the low status of the stock,

the low numbers of oysters out there are certainly impeding their

ability to naturally hopefully overcome with time some of those disease limitations, but clearly the immediate limiting factor is disease, and we need to find many ways to work around that or to

position oysters to work around that.

Col. HANSEN. Sir, the Corps of Engineers is founded as a construction agency. We work deliberately toward supporting the Administration and the wills of Congress to promote environmentally

sustainable development, and I would say that commitment of Federal and sponsor dollars, concerted effort and a mindset all channeled in the same direction for this single purpose would be the

largest thing to overcome, and we are moving that way as we

speak.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. These diseases which are MSX and Dermo, are

these diseases considered invasive species themselves, or how did

they get into the Chesapeake Bay?

Mr. SCHWAAB. Nobody knows with certainty. It is believed that

Dermo is a long-standing and naturally-occurring disease, but that

MSX was possibly brought here to the Bay with some non-native

oysters decades ago.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Well, that expands our invasive species inquiry, Mr. Chairman, a little bit more.

[Laughter.]

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Well, that is all I have, Mr. Chairman. I am

also more interested in how Pocohontas saw the Chesapeake Bay

than John Smith. I thought I would just let you know for the

record.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GILCHREST. I think the last panel is going to talk about

Pocohontas. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.

Mr. Owings.

Mr. OWINGS. Mr. Chairman, I didn’t have any particular questions, save the fact that Congressman Underwood was talking

about invasive species, an area that will attest to the fact that last

session we addressed that. There are some 27, I believe, in the

back bays that we find some 27 species of crab, the Japanese green

crab and a few other species, that have worked their way down

here, and we are fearful that can work its way into the oyster population are some of the things we are fighting now. We have addressed that issue, at least we are attempting to address that

issue, unless I am mistaken.

Mr. SCHWAAB. There are certainly many different invasive species, including some of the crab species that Delegate Owings mentioned, particularly in the coastal bays that are of concern, and

that continues to be a very important avenue of pursuit in protecting and restoring this ecosystem.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Owings. Just a follow-up question, Mr. Schwaab. With your ability to communicate a whole range

of issues with all the users of the Bay, but in particular with this

issue of oyster restoration, oyster reefs, oyster sanctuaries, are the

30

commercial watermen fully engaged in the discussion of these

issues, as well as recreational fishermen, recreational boaters, and

other users of the Bay, as we move along with developing what

used to be only a few oyster sanctuaries, which are a growing number of oyster sanctuaries, which will continue to be even more sanctuaries throughout the Chesapeake Bay?

Mr. SCHWAAB. Yes, sir. Our Roundtable Steering Committee here

in Maryland that I mentioned, which coordinates the Maryland

specific restoration efforts, includes representation from the industry, and specifically watermen.

One of the very positive things that we have seen recently is

strong support from the commercial fishing community for the establishment of this network of oyster sanctuaries. They are beginning, we believe, to recognize that not only would the establishment of a sanctuary network be important in its own right, but

that it ultimately will lead to the kinds of ancillary benefits increasing reproductive potential that I mentioned, that will help

sustain their industry for the long-term.

Mr. GILCHREST. Somebody told me one time—and I am not sure

who it was, but it was either somebody in the State or perhaps

NOAA—that if you could restore the oysters using sanctuaries and

reefs by 2010 to about 10 percent of historic levels, then those sanctuaries could remain sanctuaries, but because of the increased spat

and the increased potential for productivity and the increased size

of the oysters on the oyster reefs, because they are not being harvested so they are growing out, that the number of oysters that

could be harvested would be many more, maybe even double, than

what it is today, without touching the sanctuaries, almost like a

large endowment where you don’t use the principal, but you just

harvest the interest. Is that likely?

Mr. SCHWAAB. We believe that could certainly be the case and,

in fact, not only would we expect to not touch the principal, but we

would expect to remove only a portion of the interest so that the

principal would continue to grow as well because we believe that

the 2010 tenfold increase goal may only put us part-way to where

we ultimately need to be, and we need to position—we like to say

we need to position the oysters to do the heavy lifting themselves.

If we can get the kind of base population established that we are

after by 2010, then the sky is the limit from there.

Mr. GILCHREST. Just one last question. We are talking about

sanctuaries, and in some form they are called Marine Protected

Areas, and I know that NOAA is involved in a pilot project in the

Chesapeake Bay dealing with an ecosystem approach to managing

the fisheries. And I wondered how connected the oyster program

and the oyster network is with maybe producing some type of pilot

project or precedent for Marine Protected Areas that could be implemented in other areas, and the Oyster Roundtable Group moving toward the goal of 2010, what discussions they have with the

other pilot project that is in the Bay dealing with the ecosystem approach, and if they are connected in an ecosystem approach, do you

look at oyster restoration from a perspective of corridors from as

far up the Bay as you can produce oysters or oysters will grow,

down through to the mouth of the Bay, are these sanctuaries being

thought of as connected?

31

Mr. SCHWAAB. As you mentioned, in the Chesapeake Bay, we

have probably underway the first development of a comprehensive

fisheries ecosystem plan. That plan involves, at this point, sort of

characterization of many aspects of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem,

and there are specifically habitat sections of which the oyster sanctuary network, and more broadly the oyster populations, would be

an important part, to from the habitat section to things like removals and all of the aspects of management, multi-species interactions

at the finfish level, you know, all sorts of interactions of that type.

I think that that project is still very much in its formative

stages. I think it is going to be a process that we will continue to

learn, as the plan is developed, what the ultimate management implications are. Does it deal specifically with, for example, this sanctuary network? I don’t think it is at that level yet.

Just one comment about the whole concept of Marine Protected

Areas. Obviously, we have spoken a lot about them in the context

of oyster sanctuaries, and they are very important in this to protect

habitat from gear impacts, to protect, we think, some base level of

spawning stock. There are many other reasons for which you might

establish a Marine Protected Area, ranging from again some those

types of uses for protection of stock to research areas. We are looking very hard at establishing a Marine Protected Area down in the

coastal bays primarily for the purposes of establishing baselines in

an unfished population so that we can compare natural mortality

with fishing-related mortality.

So, one of the things I think we need to continue to grapple with

as we look down the Marine Protected Area road is, what are we

protecting? What are we establishing the MPA for? What is its ultimate objective? And that will help to inform the design of the specific area and its specific limitations.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you.

Mr. GUDES. I don’t know about the corridors, Mr. Chairman. I do

think, on the general MPA issue, this is probably a good example

where, as I said in my statement, MPAs are all sorts of different

protection measures. We have been talking about MPAs. These are

all State MPAs, State of Maryland or Virginia MPAs, and it is

probably an important point to make about the whole issue and

process, and part of the issue of getting an inventory is about understanding what the various States in the United States are doing

in terms of MPAs.

On the issue of the ecosystem, I think that it is probably very

difficult to look at all the dynamics of the Chesapeake Bay without

doing that, without looking at the full context of runoff and all the

aspects that relate to finfish and the environment. Oysters are a

major part of that.

I mentioned in my opening statement how much the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay historically relates back to oyster populations. I don’t have the exact number, but when John Smith was

here, I think the Bay filtered water through every three or 4 days

largely because of the size of the oyster population of the Bay now.

It is about once per year because of how few oysters there are in

the Bay. So that relates back to the whole issue of what does the

ecosystem look like, what is the quality of the water, and it is

about habitat. That is why it was difficult to answer your question

32

before, Congressman Underwood, when you said is it disease or is

it habitat. They all relate. And bringing back oysters and bringing

back the Bay to a better state require really looking at all these

aspects. It is not just about the Chesapeake Bay. When we talk

about stellar sea-lions in front of your committee, and North Pacific

groundfish, the same sort of issues, increasingly it is about an ecosystem approach. And there are a lot of people in our agency and

the Fishery Service, the National Ocean Service, our research components, who are more and more looking at that.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much. Gentlemen, thank you

very much for your testimony this morning. I look forward to continuing working with you.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. In our field hearing in Guam.

Mr. GILCHREST. In our field hearing in Guam, to look at brown

tree snakes. I wonder if we can eat brown tree snakes, a source of

protein.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GILCHREST. Our second panel, Dr. Mark Luckenbach, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Wachapreague Lab; Dr. Susan

Roberts, National Academy of Sciences, Ocean Studies Board; and

Mr. Tom Grasso, Director, U.S. Marine Conservation Program,

World Wildlife Fund. Welcome this morning.

Dr. Luckenbach, you may begin, sir.

STATEMENT OF DR. MARK LUCKENBACH, VIRGINIA

INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE, WACHAPREAGUE LAB

Mr. LUCKENBACH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity

to address you today. As requested, my written and oral comments

will address recent progress in oyster restoration, the role of disease research, and the potential value of Marine Protected Areas

in this process.

In January 1999, I had the pleasure to host a group of academic

and Government scientists from the Chesapeake region as they met

at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science’s Eastern Shore Laboratory to chart a scientifically sound course for restoring oyster populations in Chesapeake Bay. The group’s report, which I will refer

to henceforth as the Consensus Plan, provides guidelines based

upon the best available science at the time for restoring ecologically-functional native oyster populations to Chesapeake Bay

and for establishing a sustainable fishery.

The need for this scientific consensus was driven at the time by

a perceived failure of conventional management approaches to stem

the decline in fisheries landings and enhance the declining resource. The Plan emphasized two criteria for restoring oyster populations.

The first was the establishment of permanent sanctuaries which

were highlighted as essential to rebuilding self-sustaining oyster

populations. The two most critical elements in establishing sanctuaries were identified as the need to provide complex, 3-dimensional structures as the basis for reefs, and to restrict harvest on

these reefs in perpetuity.

Secondly, the Consensus Plan recommended strongly against the

management practices that were going on at the time of moving

diseased oysters around the Bay’s waters. The Plan’s strategy for

33

supporting a sustainable fishery envisioned that the development

of disease-tolerant oysters in reef sanctuaries would in time supply

new recruits to surrounding harvest areas, and it was this Consensus Plan that first recommended an intermediate goal of restoring and protecting 10 percent of the formally productive oyster bars

in the Bay as sanctuaries.

My comments regarding implementation of this plan are going to

really have more relevance to Virginia, since I am from Virginia,

but many of the points I think are also relevant to the Maryland

portion as well.

First, the good news. In the last few years, there really has been

a general recognition of the key elements of this Plan both by management agencies and by the general public, and you have already

heard today as well how this is being incorporated into the recent

Chesapeake Bay Agreement Plan.

In Virginia, the Fisheries Management Agency, the MRC, has attempted since 1999 to follow the strategy outlined in the Plan. In

1999, Governor Gilmore established the Oyster Heritage Program

that formally recognized the ecological role of oyster reefs, the need

for large-scale efforts to reconstruct this reef habitat, and the need

for involvement by other State agencies and other stakeholders,

namely, that this was more than just a fisheries issue, and it had

only been a fisheries issue in Virginia prior to that.

Under the auspices of this program, there have been more resources within the State of Virginia devoted to establishing reef

sanctuaries and, as well, to restoring harvest areas. At present,

there are over 30 reef sanctuary sites that have been established

in Virginia waters. There is a figure in my written testimony that

indicates the locations of these. Ten more such sanctuaries are

planned for 2002.

Over the past few years, both the monies and the shell resources

in Virginia have been allocated roughly equally, in equal proportions, for the construction of sanctuary and harvest areas. An attempt is being made to co-locate these harvest and sanctuary areas

at least in close proximity to one another so that the spawn from

the sanctuaries, as you have been hearing about today, can help

populate the harvest areas.

As I will discuss in a little more detail in just a moment, we have

very little detailed information about how these sanctuary reefs are

developing. The data that we do have for the lower part of the Bay

indicate that oyster populations are slowly, but progressively becoming established, and that if we continue to limit harvest, at

least harvest pressure on these reefs, viable reefs will likely develop on most, but not necessarily all, of these locations.

Also, as you have heard today, the diseases Dermo and MSX remain widespread and they continue to cause significant mortalities

on the sanctuaries and elsewhere.

A real important point here, I think, is that the presence of these

diseases is slowing the process, but it is not eliminating the development of oyster populations on these reef sanctuaries. In the absence of harvest pressure—and that is about all we can do much

about, that and rebuild habitat, we can’t do a whole lot in the

short-term about diseases—in the absence of harvest pressure, viaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:32 Feb 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\75984.SF HRESOUR2 PsN: HRESOUR2
34

ble oyster populations can, and do, develop on reef sanctuaries even

in the presence of diseases.

On the disease front, there is, however, some positive news. Selectively bred, highly disease-tolerant oyster seed stocks have been

developed in recent years, in part with partnerships from NOAA

and the States, and some of these oysters that have been bred have

been planted onto both sanctuary and harvest areas in both Maryland and Virginia.

It is really too early, I believe, to evaluate the effectiveness of

this stocking because the intent is not to see how well they survive,

but whether or not these oysters will reproduce and that their

genes will become incorporated into the wild populations, particularly those disease-resistant genes.

More good news is that within the past year, molecular genetics

tools have been developed—again, with NOAA Oyster Disease Research money—that will permit us to track the incorporation of

these disease-resistant genes from selectively bred oyster strains

into wild populations in the field. This is a powerful tool, but this

technique is going to need to be applied widely and over many

years to evaluate how these desirable characteristics from these selectively bred stocks are being incorporated into wild stocks. It

can’t happen overnight, it is going to take several oyster generations.

I would like to conclude by pointing out three areas that I think

are important needs for the continued success of oyster restoration

in Chesapeake Bay. The first is that oyster shells, which are the

preferred substrate for building reef bases for sanctuaries are in

short supply. Both Maryland and Virginia dredge these buried

shells, and these shells are limited in their supply and, in some

cases, dredging may have undesirable consequences.

Consequently, alternative substrates for building reef sanctuary

bases are required to reach even our currently defined goals. There

are several alternative substrates out there that are suitable for

oyster settlement that have been identified, but further research is

urgently needed to optimize these substrates for reef construction.

Second point, we are spending literally millions of dollars, and

many more have been allocated for the construction of reef sanctuaries. A nearly inconsequential level of funding is being devoted

to monitoring and assessing of these efforts. Funding, I believe, is

urgently needed to monitor these restoration projects, track their

success, and provide data to support adaptive management of the

process. For the vast majority of reef sanctuaries constructed in recent years, we have little useful information about the detailed development of oyster populations in associated communities.

Again, we are spending millions of dollars and devoting millions

of bushels of valuable shell to undertake these restoration projects

in an environment of pretty considerable scientific uncertainty, and

we are devoting less than 1 percent of these expenditures to assess

how well we are doing.

Ecological restoration is a pretty daunting task. In this country,

we have undertaken some big ones of those in recent years—the

restoration of the everglades perhaps being a good example. We are

going to need to be guided by science as we do this, and we are

35

1 ‘‘Chesapeake Bay Oyster Restoration: Consensus of a Meeting of Scientific Experts’’ Chesapeake Research Consortium, June 1999

going to need to learn along the way. We don’t know all the necessary steps.

Finally, restoration of ecologically-functional oyster reefs in a

sustainable fishery, oyster fishery, will require a long-term sustained effort. You have heard that from other speakers today. It

took us a century to decimate this resource, it will likely take a few

decades to restore it.

The greatest threat, I believe, to the success of this restoration

effort could be impatience by resource managers and others, if we

let it happen. If we are expecting the diseases to go away, we will

be disappointed. If we are expecting that oyster harvest will rise

dramatically in the short-term, we will be disappointed. If we are

expecting that the ecological benefits we have heard about, such as

improved water quality and increased fish production will be evident overnight, we will also be disappointed.

The risk that I see is that this disappointment could lead to an

abandonment of the sanctuary strategy and a return to the strategy of ‘‘Let us harvest them quick, before the disease kills them’’,

or, worse yet, an imprudent haste to introduce an exotic species.

I suggest that the designation of Marine Protected status for reef

sanctuaries, as has been discussed here today, provides a valuable

management tool for State-Federal partnerships that could help us

achieve this level of protection and long-term commitment. Thank

you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Luckenbach follows:]

Statement of Mark W. Luckenbach, Director, Eastern Shore Laboratory,

Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary

Synopsis of Scientific Workgroup on Oyster Restoration

On January 18, 1999 a group of academic and government scientists from the

Chesapeake Region met at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science’s Eastern Shore

Laboratory to chart a scientifically sound course for restoring oyster populations in

Chesapeake Bay. The group’s report1 (henceforth referred to as the Plan) provides

guidelines based upon the best available science for restoring ecologically-functional

native oyster populations to Chesapeake Bay and establishing a sustainable oyster

fishery.

The need for this scientific consensus was driven by the failure of conventional

management approaches to stem the decline in fisheries landings and enhance the

declining resource. The Plan emphasized two essential criteria for restoring oyster

populations.

(1) The establishment of permanent reef sanctuaries was highlighted as essential

to rebuilding self-sustaining populations and supporting fisheries in areas outside of the sanctuaries. The Plan pointed out that proper site selection for

these sanctuaries was a crucial element, noting that they needed to be located

in sites that historically supported productive oyster populations. Further, the

Plan identified the need to provide complex, 3-dimensional structure as a base

for these reefs, in contrast to low-relief plantings often conducted in harvest

areas. The rationale provided for maintaining the sanctuary status of these

reefs included the rebuilding of viable oyster populations, the promotion of the

evolution of disease resistance in oyster populations and the broader ecological

role of reef habitats. Importantly, the sanctuary reefs were viewed as a means

to enhance recruitment of oysters to adjacent harvest areas.

(2) Proper disease management was considered an essential feature of achieving

the restoration goals outlined in the Plan. The primary emphasis of the Plan

in this regard was to recommend against the movement of diseased oysters

within the Bay’s waters.

36

The strategy for supporting a sustainable fishery envisioned by the Plan involved

the development of disease-tolerant oysters in the reef sanctuaries (both by natural

selection and breeding programs) that would then supply new oyster recruits to surrounding harvest areas. While admitting that the required size and number of sanctuaries to achieve this goal was unknown at the present time, the Plan recommended an intermediate goal of restoring and protecting 10% of the formerly productive oyster bars in the Bay as sanctuaries.

Progress in Implementing the Plan

My comments regarding implementation are most relevant to the Virginia portion

of the Chesapeake Bay, but many of them may apply to the Maryland portion as

well. First, there has been a general recognition of the key elements of the Plan by

management agencies. In Virginia, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission

(VMRC) is the lead agency charged with fisheries and marine resources management. While the VMRC had engaged in some aspects of this strategy to restore reef

habitat beginning in 1993, since 1999 they have largely attempted to follow the

strategy outlined in the Plan in their restoration efforts. In 1999, Virginia Governor

Gilmore established the Oyster Heritage Program that formally recognized (i) the

ecological role of oyster reefs, (ii) the need for large-scale efforts to reconstruct reef

habitat, (iii) the need for involvement by other state agencies and stakeholders.

Under the auspices of this program, the VMRC has had more resources and been

more effective in establishing reef sanctuaries. At the present time there have been

over 30 oyster reef sanctuary sites established in Virginia (see Figure below). The

VMRC has been allocating available resources (both monies and shell) in roughly

equal proportions to construct both sanctuary and harvest areas. Because of the

greater cost of constructing the 3-dimensional bases in the sanctuaries this is resulting in approximately a 90:10 proportion (based on area) of restored harvest area to

sanctuary. Further, an attempt is being made to locate sanctuary and harvest areas

in close proximity to one another; however, there is a large element of opportunism

in the site selection, with shell planting often being dictated by proximity to shell

supplies.

Little information is available on the development of oysters and associated estuarine communities on the sanctuary reefs; that which is available points to considerable variation between sites. Low to moderate levels of oyster recruitment have been

observed at most sites, likely the result of low abundances of natural oyster brood

stock throughout much of the Bay. Nevertheless, in most of the lower part of the

Bay oyster populations are slowly, but progressively becoming established on the

reefs.

Diseases, especially Dermo (caused by the protozoan parasite Perkinsus marinus),

remain widespread in natural oyster populations throughout most areas of the Bay.

Both Dermo and MSX (caused by Haplosporidium nelsoni) result in significant mortalities of oysters on the sanctuaries and elsewhere. Importantly, the presence of

these diseases is slowing, but not eliminating the development of oyster populations

on the sanctuary reefs. In the absence of harvest pressure viable oyster populations

can and do develop on reef sanctuaries, even in the presence of disease. In the upper

portion of the Bay, where recruitment of wild oysters can be especially limiting,

Maryland has employed hatcheries to produce large quantities of disease-free oyster

seed that has been planted onto both sanctuary and harvest areas. The available

data indicate that disease transmission to these stocks has been relatively low. This

suggests that if they are protected from harvest they may lead to the development

of viable populations.

The Plan recognized the potential of selectively-bred oyster strains for stocking

onto sanctuary reef as a means of increasing oyster resistance to endemic diseases.

In the two years since the Plan a large number of selected stocks have been placed

on sanctuary reefs. Selection of disease-resistant, or more appropriately disease-tolerant, oyster stocks has proceeded in recent years, largely with the support of

NOAA’s Oyster Disease Research Program (ODRP). Under this program and with

additional support from cooperating universities, the Cooperative Regional Oyster

Breeding (CROSBreed) Program has successfully developed selected lines of native

oysters that exhibit a high degree of disease tolerance. In Maryland these stocks are

being propagated in a state-run hatchery and used in their stocking program. Also,

these stocks have been distributed to interested private shellfish hatcheries and are

being utilized in private aquaculture. In addition, private citizen and NGO’s are

purchasing these oyster seed, growing them to sufficient size and planting them on

the sanctuary reefs. Though it is too early to evaluate the effectiveness of this stocking, its intent is that these oysters will reproduce, and their disease tolerance will

be incorporated into the population.

37

Recently, with support from ODRP, molecular genetic tools have been developed

that will permit us to track the incorporation of genes from these selectively-bred

oyster strains into wild populations in the field. These techniques do not involve genetically modified oysters, rather they merely permit us to follow how resistant oyster strains are getting incorporated into populations in the Bay. These techniques

will need to be employed widely and over many years to evaluate how desirable

characters of the selectively-bred stocks are introgressing (becoming incorporated

into) wild stock.

Further Needs

Oyster shell, the preferred substrate for building the bases of sanctuary reefs and

settlement material in harvest areas, is in short supply. Few freshly shucked shells

are available and both Maryland and Virginia dredge buried shell to use in restoration. These buried shells are, however, limited in their supply and in some cases

the dredging may have undesirable consequences—for instance, disrupting shad

spawning grounds. Consequently, alternative substrates for building sanctuary reef

bases will certainly be required to reach currently defined restoration goals. Several

alternative substrates that are suitable for oyster settlement have been identified,

but further research is urgently needed to optimize these substrates for reef construction.

While millions of dollars have been allocated for the construction of reef sanctuaries in recent years, a nearly inconsequential level of funding is being devoted

to monitoring and assessment of these efforts. Funding is urgently needed to monitor these restoration projects, track their success and provide needed data to support adaptive management. For the vast majority of the sanctuary reefs constructed

in recent years, we have little useful information about the development of oyster

populations and associated reef communities. This is not simply a matter of academic interests. We are spending millions of dollars and devoting millions of bushels

of limited shell resources to undertake restoration in an environment of considerable

uncertainty and we are devoting less than 1% of these expenditures to assess how

we are doing and learn how to do it better. At best, this is a risky course; I rather

suspect that it is foolhardy.

Finally, restoration of ecologically-functional oyster reefs and an oyster population

capable of supporting sustainable fisheries will require a long-term, sustained effort.

It took us a century to decimate this resource; it will likely take a few decades to

properly restore it. Along the way there is certain to be a mix of successes and failures with individual projects. As argued above, we need to be in a position to learn

from these mistakes and improve our efforts as we proceed. The greatest threat to

the success of this restoration will be impatience by resource managers and decision

makers. If we are expecting the diseases to go away, we will be disappointed. If we

are expecting that oyster harvests will rise dramatically in the short-term, we will

be disappointed. If we are expecting that ecological benefits, such as improved water

quality and increased fish production, will be evident overnight, we will also be disappointed. The risk is that this disappointment will lead to an abandonment of the

sanctuaries and a return to strategy of ‘‘harvest them quick before the disease kills

them’’ or worse, an imprudent haste to introduce an exotic species. The designation

of marine protected status for sanctuary oyster reefs could provide a valuable management tool to achieve the level of protection from harvest that will be crucial to

the development of viable, disease-tolerant oyster populations.

Ecological restoration is a daunting challenge, but one this nation has undertaken

on some impressive scales in recent years. The Everglades and the Grand Canyon

are among the most high profile examples, but restoration of a keystone species and

a sustainable oyster fishery in Chesapeake Bay would rank as no less of an achievement. As with those and many other restoration projects, our success will be dependent upon ensuring that the best available science guides our efforts and that

these efforts are sustained in the face of exploitation pressures. Marine protected

areas could provide an avenue for establishing state-federal partnerships in this endeavor.

[Attachments to Dr. Luckenbach’s statement follow:]

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Dr. Luckenbach.

Dr. Roberts.

STATEMENT OF DR. SUSAN ROBERTS, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF

SCIENCES, OCEAN STUDIES BOARD

Ms. ROBERTS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the

subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you

about Marine Protected Areas. I am a Senior Program Officer at

the Ocean Studies Board at the National Academies. I served as

the Study Director for the Academy’s Committee on the Evaluation,

Design, and Monitoring of Marine Reserves and Protected Areas in

the United States, and this committee issued a report that was

published last year called Marine Protected Areas: Tools for Sustaining Ocean Ecosystems.

This study evolved from a convergence of interests in the concept

of using specially designed management for the conservation of living marine resources, and particularly a new interest in ecosystembased management. Primary funding for the study was provided by

NOAA’s National Marine Fishery Service and the National Marine

Sanctuary Program. Additional funding was provided by the Fish

and Wildlife and National Park Services.

We assembled a committee of 13 volunteer experts chaired by

one of Maryland’s eminent marine scientists, Ed Houde, who works

at the University of Maryland’s Solomons campus, and my testimony provides a very brief overview of the findings. My written

testimony provides additional detail, and if you want the whole

story, I recommend that you read the whole report.

Marine protected areas are not new to resource management, but

there has been a plethora of terms that have been used to describe

this management approach—closed areas, reserves and sanctuaries, just to name a few.

Marine protected area is used as an umbrella term to describe

a discrete geographic area that has been designated for the conservation of marine and coastal resources. This approach recognizes the patchiness of marine habitats. The apparent uniformity

of surface waters disguises much of the diversity that lies beneath.

Because of this patchiness, it is possible, and often desirable, to tailor management to the specific requirements of a given site.

The NRC Committee endorsed the use of MPAs as a valuable

tool to complement conventional management of marine resources,

but they recognize that MPAs are not a magic bullet. They will not

miraculously solve all our marine management problems. They

need to be used in concert with other forms of marine resource

management. However, this approach is valuable for conserving

habitat, biological communities, ecosystem services, and supporting

commercial fisheries, particularly for relatively sedentary species.

Some of the speakers earlier this morning mentioned a lot of these

potential values of using Marine Protected Areas. But the focus of

today’s hearing is an example of the sedentary species. In fact, the

oyster is about as sedentary as a critter can get, literally cementing

itself into place as it grows to maturity.

The committee’s report suggested that the oyster sanctuaries can

be expected to contribute to the resources of the Chesapeake Bay

in at least three ways. First, the sanctuaries will help rebuild the

46

oyster fishery. Sanctuaries allow a mature community of oysters to

develop. These older, mature oysters are premium spawners that

will help seed populations in surrounding areas that are open to

harvest.

Second, the reefs built by the oysters not only provide habitat for

oysters, but also for many of the other small animals that live in

and among the oysters. The biological community of the reef also

provides food and shelter for many other fish that are popular,

such as striped bass and the blue crab.

Third, oysters provide what scientists call ‘‘ecosystem services’’.

They make a major contribution to the overall health of the ecosystem. With the depletion of oysters from the Bay due to fishing,

loss of habitat, and disease, and the phenomenal ability of oysters

to filter and clarify the water, oysters consume microscopic, but

abundant algae, and without the oysters, these algae sediment and

deplete the bottom waters of the Bay of oxygen, and that has impacts on the rest of the fisheries. Restoring the oysters will help

to restore the quality of the Chesapeake Bay’s scenic waters.

In summary, I want to emphasize that MPAs are envisioned to

play a role in the ecosystem on a scale larger than their boundaries, and I want to mention that we don’t really see MPAs as

being parks. I don’t think the analogy to a park is really relevant,

because we see MPAs as really a resource management tool that

will have benefits for the Bay in its entirety, so that people, when

they want to see an oyster, are not going to have to go to a sanctuary to see an oyster. But it is really intended to help to restore

the health of the waters as a whole.

Thank you for inviting me to testify. I would be happy to answer

any questions that the committee might have.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Roberts follows:]

Statement of Dr. Susan Roberts, Ocean Studies Board Division on Earth

and Life Studies, National Academy of Sciences

Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for

this opportunity to speak to you about Marine Protected Areas. My name is Susan

Roberts and I am a Senior Program Officer with the Ocean Studies Board at the

National Academies. I served as the study director for the National Research Council’s Committee on the Evaluation, Design, and Monitoring of Marine Reserves and

Protected Areas in the United States, which was conducted under the oversight of

the NBC’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.

This study evolved from a confluence of interests in the timely and controversial

topic of setting aside areas in the marine realm. for the conservation of living marine resources. Primary funding was supplied by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration through the National Marine Fisheries Service and National

Marine Sanctuaries Program, with additional funds from the Department of the Interior through the Fish and Wildlife and National Park Services. We assembled a

committee of 13 volunteer experts who spent 2 years gathering data, convening 4

meetings around the country with scientists, managers, and stakeholders, and deliberating on the value of using Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) as a management tool

for both sustaining marine fisheries and conserving marine biodiversily. The report

was released, complete with conclusions and recommendations, in November, 2000

and published by the National Academy Press in May, 2001. My testimony today

provides an overview of the findings of that study. My written testimony provides

additional detail. Copies of the published report are available upon request.

47

RECOGNIZING THE LIMITS

In the past, it seemed that the seas were so vast that they could not be harmed

by human deeds and therefore needed no protection. However, it is now clear that

coastal management and policy must address human impacts such as overfishing,

habitat destruction, drainage of wetlands, and pollution that disrupt marine ecosystems and threaten the long-term productivity of the seas.

Advances in oceanography have demonstrated that the sea is not a uniform, limitless expanse, but a patchwork of habitats and water masses occurring at scales that

render them vulnerable to disturbance and depletion. The patchiness of the ocean

is well known. by fishermen who do not cast their nets randomly but seek out areas

where fish are abundant. Overfishing has become more of a problem as increases

in technology and fishing capacity have placed increased pressure on our native fish

populations. Destruction of fish habitat as the result of dredging, wetland drainage,

pollution, and ocean mining also contributes to the depletion of valuable marine species. With the continued growth in the demand for seafood and other marine resources, it has become not only more difficult, but also more critical to achieve sustainability in the use of living marine resources. These concerns have stimulated interest in and debate about the value and utility of approaches to marine resource

management that provide more spatially defined methods for protecting vulnerable

ocean habitats and conserving marine species, especially marine reserves and protected areas. Based on evidence from existing marine area closures in both temperate and tropical regions, marine reserves and protected areas can be effective

tools for addressing conservation needs as part of integrated coastal and marine

area management.

There have been numerous attempts to develop terms and definitions to encompass the array of applications of MPAs in marine conservation. The committee defined a simplified list of terms for the various types of protected areas, listed here

in order of increasing level of protection: • Marine Protected Area-a discrete geographic area that has been designated to

enhance the conservation of marine and coastal resources and is managed by

an integrated plan that includes MPA-wide restrictions on some activities such

as oil and gas extraction and higher levels of protection on delimited zones, designated as fishery and ecological reserves within the MPA (see below). Examples

include the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and marine areas in the

National Park system, such as Glacier Bay.

• Marine Reserve—a zone in which some or all of the biological resources are protected from removal or disturbance. This includes reserves established to protect

threatened or endangered species and the more specific categories of fishery and

ecological reserves described below.

• Fishery Reserve-a zone that precludes fishing activity on some or all species to

protect critical habitat, rebuild stocks (long-term, but not necessarily permanent, closure), provide insurance against overfishing, or enhance fishery yield.

Examples include Closed Areas I and II on Georges Bank, implemented to protect groundfish.

• Ecological Reserve-a zone that protects all living marine resources through prohibitions on fishing and the removal or disturbance of any living or non-living

marine resource, except as necessary for monitoring or research to evaluate reserve effectiveness. Access and recreational activities may be restricted to prevent damage to the resources. Other terms that have been used to describe this

type of reserve include ‘‘no-take’’ zones and fully-protected areas. The Western

Sambos Reserve in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary provides an example of this type of zoning.

MANAGING MARINE RESOURCES

Management of living marine resources presents numerous challenges. The conventional approach typically involves management on a species-by-species basis with

efforts focused on understanding population-level dynamics. For example, most fisheries target one or a few species; hence, managers and researchers have concentrated their efforts on understanding the population dynamics and effects of fishing on a species-by-species basis. Although this approach seems less complex, it does

not resolve the difficulties of either managing multiple stocks or accurately assessing the status of marine species. This is compounded by the relative inaccessibility

of many ocean habitats, the prohibitive expense of comprehensive surveys, and the

complex dynamics and spatial heterogeneity of marine ecosystems. In addition, the

species-specific approach may fail to address changes that affect productivity

throughout the ecosystem. These changes may include natural fluctuations in ocean

conditions (such as water temperature), nutrient over-enrichment from agricultural

48

run-off and other types of pollution, habitat loss from coastal development and destructive fishing practices, bycatch of non-target species, and changes in the composition of biological communities after removal of either a predator or a prey species.

In addition to challenges presented by nature, management must also address

challenges presented by social, economic, and institutional structures. Regulatory

agencies are charged with the difficult but important task of balancing the needs

of current users with those of future users of the resource as well as the long-term

interests of the general public. Regulatory actions intended to maintain productivity

often affect the livelihoods of the users and the stability of coastal communities, generating pressure to continue unsustainable levels of resource use to avoid short-term

economic dislocation. Finally, responsibility for regulating activities in marine areas,

extending from estuarine watersheds to the deep ocean, is fragmented among a

daunting number of local, state, federal, and international entities. This complexity

in jurisdictional responsibility often places a major barrier to developing coordinated

policies for managing ocean resources across political boundaries. Although the protected area concept, with its emphasis on management of spaces rather than species, is not new and has been used frequently on land, there has been less support

and few interagency efforts to institute protected areas as a major marine management measure. Increased use of MPA-based approaches will shift the focus from

agency-specific problem management to interagency cooperation and will facilitate

the implementation of marine policies that recognize the spatial heterogeneity of

marine habitats and the need to preserve the structure of marine ecosystems.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

MPA DESIGN

There are multiple goals for establishing MPAs, such as conserving biodiversity,

improving fishery management, protecting ecosystem integrity, preserving cultural

heritage, providing educational and recreational opportunities, and establishing

sites for scientific research. To promote biodiversity, the siting criteria for an MPA

or reserve may include habitat representation and heterogeneity, species diversity,

biogeographic representation, presence of vulnerable habitats or threatened species,

and ecosystem functioning. To improve fishery management, site choice may depend

on the locale of stocks that are overfished to provide insurance against stock collapse or to protect spawning and nursery habitat. Alternatively, a site may be selected to reduce bycatch of nontarget species or juveniles of exploited species. Ranking and prioritizing these objectives may be guided by local conservation needs and/

or regional goals for establishing a network of MPAs. Conflicting objectives may require negotiation, trade-offs, and consideration of social and economic impacts.

Effective implementation of marine reserves and protected areas will depend on

resolving these conflicting objectives through participation by the community of

stakeholders in developing the management plan. Federal and state agencies will

need to provide resources, expertise, and coordination to integrate individual MPAs

into the broader framework for coastal and marine resource management. Additionally, the needs and concerns of affected communities must be evaluated and considered when choosing sites for marine reserves and protected areas. Stakeholders

should be encouraged to participate in the process by employing their expertise as

well as considering their concerns.

The task of designing a MPA should follow four sequential steps: (1) evaluate conservation needs at both local and regional levels, (2) define the objectives and goals

for establishing the MPA, (3) describe the key biological and oceanic features of the

region, and (4) identify and choose one or more sites that have the highest potential

for implementation. At the end of the process, the draft management plan should

specify the location, size, and zoning regulations for the proposed MPA. Each of

these parameters is described in more detail below.

Location

The success of MPAs depends on the quality of management in the surrounding

waters. Therefore, the choice of sites for MPAs should be integrated into an overall

plan for marine area management that optimizes the level of protection afforded to

the marine ecosystem as a whole. In coastal areas specifically, MPAs will be most

effective if sites are chosen in the broader context of coastal zone management, with

MPAs serving as critical components of an overall conservation strategy. Management should emphasize spatially oriented conservation strategies that consider the

heterogeneous distribution of resources and habitats. Often a single MPA will be insufficient to meet the multiple needs of a region and it will be necessary to establish

49

a network of MPAs and reserves, an array of sites chosen for their complementarity

and ability to sustain each other. Site identification should attempt to maximize potential benefits, minimize socioeconomic conflicts, and exclude areas where pollution

or commercial development have caused problems so severe that they would override any protective benefit from the reserve.

Size

The optimal size of marine reserves and protected areas should be determined for

each location by evaluating the conservation needs and goals, quality and amount

of critical habitat, levels of resource use, efficacy of other management tools, and

characteristics of the species or biological communities requiring protection. In

many cases, specific attributes of the locale (saltmarsh habitat, spawning and nursery grounds, special features such as coral reefs, seamounts, or hydrothermal vents)

will determine the size of an effective reserve. In other cases, the dispersal patterns

of species targeted for protection, as well as the level of exploitation, should be considered in deciding how much area to enclose within a reserve. To achieve the marine management goals described above will require establishing reserves in a much

greater fraction of U.S. territorial waters than the current level of less than 1%.

Proposals to designate 20% of the ocean as marine reserves have focused debate on

how much closed area will be needed to conserve living marine resources. For sedentary species, protecting 20% of the population will help conserve the stock’s reproductive capacity and may roughly correlate with protecting 20% of that species’

habitat in a reserve. However, the optimal amount of reserve area required to meet

a given management goal may be higher or lower depending on the characteristics

of the location and its resident species. Size optimization generally will require adjustments to the original management plan based on reserve performance, as determined through research and monitoring. Hence, the first priority for implementing

reserve sites should be to include valuable and vulnerable areas rather than to

achieve a percentage goal for any given region.

Zones and Networks

Zoning should be used as a mechanism for designating sites within an MPA to

provide the level of protection appropriate for each management goal. In many instances, multiple management goals will be included in an MPA plan and zoning

can be used to accomplish some of these goals. These zones may include ‘‘ecological

reserves’’ to protect biodiversity and provide undisturbed areas for research, ‘‘fishery

reserves’’ to restore and protect fish stocks, and ‘‘habitat restoration areas’’ to facilitate recovery of damaged seabeds. Frequently, an MPA is established initially to

protect a site from threats associated with large-scale activities such as gravel mining, oil drilling, and dredge spoil disposal. Under these MPA-wide restrictions, there

is an opportunity to resolve other conflicting uses of marine resources through zoning of areas within the MPA. Networking should be considered in both zoning and

siting of MPAs to ensure long-term stability of the resident populations.

MONITORING AND RESEARCH

The performance of marine reserves should be evaluated through regular monitoring and periodic assessments to measure progress toward management goals and

to facilitate refinements in the design and implementation of reserves. Marine reserves should be planned such that boundaries and regulations can be adapted to

improve performance and meet changes in management goals. There are three tasks

that should be included in a well-designed monitoring program: (1) assess management effectiveness; (2) measure long-term trends in ecosystem properties; and (3)

evaluate economic impacts, community attitudes and involvement, and compliance.

Research in marine reserves is required to further our understanding of how

closed areas can be most effectively used in fisheries and marine resource management. Reserves present unique opportunities for research on the structure, functioning, and variability of marine ecosystems that will provide valuable information

for improving the management of marine resources. Whenever possible, management actions should be planned to facilitate rigorous examination of the hypotheses

concerning marine reserve design and implementation. Research in reserves could

provide estimates for important parameters in fishery models such as natural mortality rates and dispersal properties of larval, juvenile, and adult fish. Other research programs could test marine reserve design principles such as connectivity or

the effect of reserve size on recovery of exploited species. Modeling studies are needed both to generate hypotheses and to analyze outcomes for different reserve designs and applications.

50

INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES

Integration of management across the array of federal and state agencies will be

needed to develop a national system of MPAs that effectively and efficiently conserves marine resources and provides equitable representation for the diversity of

groups with interests in the sea. The executive order issued by the White House on

May 26, 2000, initiates this process through its directive to NOAH (Department of

Commerce) to establish a Marine Protected Area Center in cooperation with the Department of the Interior. The goal of the MPA Center shall be ‘‘to develop a framework for a national system of MPAs, and to provide Federal, State, territorial, tribal, and local governments with the information, technologies, and strategies to support the system.’’ Implementation of a national system of MPAs should be used to:

• improve regional coordination among marine management agencies;

• develop an inventory of existing MPA sites; and

• ensure adequate regulatory authority and funds for enforcement, research, and

monitoring.

Effective enforcement of MPAs will be necessary to obtain cooperation from affected user groups and to realize the potential economic and ecological benefits.

Also, coordination among agencies with different jurisdictions will improve the representation of on-site and off-site user groups so that the general public’s cultural

and conservation values, as well as commercial and recreational activities, receive

consideration. Under current management approaches, these interests are often addressed by different agencies independently of each other and may result in shortterm policies that are inconsistent with the nation’s long-term goals.

CONCLUSION

What are the consequences of not developing a national system of marine reserves

and protected areas? Are conventional management strategies sufficient to ensure

that our descendents will enjoy the benefits of the diversity and abundance of ocean

life? Although it may seem less disruptive to rely on the familiar, conventional management tools, there are costs associated with maintaining a status quo that does

not meet conservation goals. Hence, our relative inexperience in using marine reserves to manage living resources should not serve as an argument against their

use. Rather, it argues that implementation of reserves should be incremental and

adaptive, through the design of areas that will not only conserve marine resources,

but also will help us learn how to manage marine species more effectively. The dual

realities that the earth’s resources are limited and that demands made on marine

resources are increasing, will require some compromise among users to secure greater benefits for the community as a whole. Properly designed and managed marine

reserves and protected areas offer the potential for minimizing short-term sacrifice

by current users of the sea and maximizing the long-term health and productivity

of the marine environment.

Thank you for inviting me to testify. I would be happy to answer any questions

the committee might have.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Dr. Roberts.

Mr. Grasso.

STATEMENT OF TOM GRASSO, DIRECTOR, U.S. MARINE

CONSERVATION PROGRAM, WORLD WILDLIFE FUND

Mr. GRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Representative Underwood and Delegate Owings. It is indeed a pleasure to be here today

both before the subcommittee before which I have appeared and

follow closely, as well as being in this room. It has been a number

of years since I have been here, but this has certainly been the site

of a number of very lively discussions and debates about things

from oysters to chickens to industrial pollution. It is great to be

back here. It is a bit of a deja vu for me, but I am glad to be here,

particularly today, to talk about the opportunity to use Marine Protected Areas or marine reserves to protect and restore the oyster

population of the Chesapeake Bay. WWF, in fact, has a very particular interest in this issue, and 2 years ago partnered with the

51

Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Department of Natural Resources to fund a research oyster reef site off Tolly Point at the

mouth of the Severn River, and I look forward to hearing from my

former colleagues, CBF, as to how those reef research projects are

doing.

In addition, we think that Marine Protected Areas provide opportunities beyond just oysters in the Chesapeake Bay to promote restoration of valuable commercial fisheries. So, what I would like to

do today, very briefly for you, is outline a report and guide that we

produced just over a year ago entitled ‘‘Fully Protected Marine Reserves: A Guide’’, and what it essentially does is establish a working process for community-based fisheries management, State level

managers, fishers, and other stakeholders, to follow in developing

a marine reserve, and then it also gives some examples from

around the world of where marine reserves have worked.

First, let me outline for you briefly what we see six basic functions of marine reserves are. And when I say marine reserves,

today I am referring to those Marine Protected Areas that are considered fully protected, meaning off-limits to any fishing or any

other extractive activities.

1) Fully protected reserves can enhance the production of offspring which can restock fishing grounds.

2) Reserves can allow spillover of adults and juveniles into fishing grounds.

3) Reserves can provide a refuge for vulnerable species.

4) Reserves can prevent habitat damage from destructive fishing

practices such as dynamite fishing and other types of extractive activities.

5) Fully protected reserves can promote development of natural

biological communities, which are different from communities in

fishing grounds.

6) Fully protected reserves can facilitate recovery from catastrophic human and natural disturbances.

With those basic functions outlined in our report, we then

thought it was important to provide some examples of where we

have seen reserves work, and why, and I am going to highlight a

few of those for you, particularly pertaining to the restoration of

fisheries abundance and improvements in fish stock capacities in

marine reserves as compared to outside of marine reserves.

For example—and I will start with some of the older ones—in

the Bahamas, a marine reserve that was created some 36 years

ago, which is a tropical seagrass meadow, the average density of

the adult queen conch in that region was 15 times higher in the

reserve than outside the reserve.

In a reserve in South Africa known as the De Hoop Marine Reserve, after only 2 years, experimental catch per effort increased by

up to fivefold from six out of ten of the most commercially important species.

In the Dutch Antilles, in the Saba Marine Park, after only 4

years, in the no-take zone the biomass of target species was over

twice that in the fishing grounds.

On the West Coast of the United States, in Shady Cove, in the

San Juan Islands in Washington State, after 7 years, lingcod were

nearly three times more abundant in the reserve than outside.

52

In the Edmonds Underwater Park in Washington, after 27 years,

the number of rockfish eggs and larvae originating from within the

park is 55 times greater than outside.

And then, lastly, in the Anacapa Island, in the Channel Islands

of California, densities of the commercially exploited red sea urchin

were nine times higher in the reserve than in nearby fished areas.

The reason I mention these is that one of the critical aspects of

designing, establishing and implementing the marine reserves are

the people you have involved. As we heard from Dr. Roberts, it is

important to have the science behind you, but we believe it is

equally important to have the right people involved in designing

this, and by that I mean the people who are using that area for

fishing and other activities. In our experience, we found—and particularly in the dry Tortugas where there has just recently been established a fully protected marine reserve—fishermen play a very

important role in this process. I am sorry I haven’t seen Larry

Simms here yet, but I know the expertise of fishermen in a region

can be a very valuable asset when you are designing a marine reserve because the benefits can accrue to those fishermen as well as

other stakeholders. Without them, you won’t have an effective reserve because you won’t have buy-in from those stakeholders.

So, if I can leave the committee with one piece of advice, if you

will, it would be to have the broadest, most involved process in establishing marine reserves because, in the long-run, that is what

is going to end up with the best result, and an implemented marine

reserve that is productive for all those involved. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grasso follows:]

Statement of Thomas V. Grasso, U.S. Director for Marine Conservation,

World Wildlife Fund

Good morning, and thank you Mr. Chairman- My name is Thomas V. Grasso and

I am the U.S. Director for Marine Conservation at the World Wildlife Fund. Established in 1961, the World Wildlife Fund, with offices or representatives in more than

60 countries around the world, seeks to meet today’s complex conservation challenges by identifying problems, crafting solutions, and helping local communities

draw up conservation plans which they themselves can implement to protect the environment for future generations. Since its founding, WWF has helped establish,

fund or manage more than 500 parks and reserves worldwide, effectively safeguarding hundreds of species and millions of acres of wildlife habitat. In the last

decade, WWF has increasingly turned its attention to the myriad challenges we face

in protecting the biological diversity of the world’s oceans.

I am pleased to testify today before the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries

regarding the use of Marine Protected Areas and regions for the conservation and

restoration of economically and ecologically valuable marine species. WWF is also

keenly interested in today’s discussion regarding oyster sanctuaries in the Chesapeake bay which we believe can contribute to the restoration of the historic economic and ecological value of this classic Chesapeake species. Today, my testimony

will outline why establishing fully-protected marine reserves and Marine Protected

Areas should be used as tools for conserving the world’s ocean biological diversity;

describe the improvements in fishery abundance and economic opportunities that result from the establishment of fully protected marine reserves; and lastly, articulate

a process for establishing marine reserves that incorporate these many functions

and values.

Wildlife in the sea is diverse, exciting, good to eat and provides a myriad of services to humanity, many of which we can barely even comprehend. However, human

activities now pose serious threats to the oceans’ biodiversity and their capacity to

support productive fisheries, recreation, water purification and other services we

take for granted. Traditional fisheries management, alone, is not equipped to deal

with these many challenges.

53

WWF believes we need new approaches’to better manage the oceans. A growing

number of people now believe there is a way to conserve marine biodiversity, restore

dwindling fish stocks, promote sustainable tourism and safeguard ecosystem integrity. All of this can be achieved by instituting fully protected reserves: that is, areas

completely closed to fishing and all other types of exploitation or harmful use. Such

reserves would offer additional protections to those currently provided by most Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). At the moment MPAs cover less that half a percent

of the world’s oceans, few protect very much and 71 % appear to have no active

management (Kellecher et al. 1995). For example, a 1997 assessment pointed out

that, of Canada’s 110 MPAs, 72 provided no protection to species or habitats (Wallace 1997)—Another 1997 report suggests that, although California has more than

100 MPAs, less than one fifth of one percent of their combined area is protected

from fishing, and little of that is effectively enforced, (McArdle 1997).

Marine reserves have enjoyed a great increase in attention over the last few

years. A decade ago they sounded like a good idea, but now we have the research

to show that they really do work—People who pioneered reserves, the fishers who

gave up sections of their fishing grounds in the hope of better times ahead, are beginning to reap benefits from their foresight. To better understand these benefits,

several years ago, WWF embarked on an effort to research the successes of marine

reserves around the world. The news is very encouraging and I’d like to share some

of these successes with you today. Marine reserves provide a number of important

benefits or functions. According to WWF’s recently published report, entitled ‘‘Fullyprotected marine reserves: a guide,’’ the authors, Callum Roberts and Julie Hawkins, Describe the potential uses of these reserves as follows:

(1) Fully protected reserves enhance the production of offspring which can restock

fishing grounds

Protecting or creating a ‘‘reserve’’ in a marine environment will allow many individual species in that area to live longer and grow larger. Bigger animals produce

many times more eggs than smaller ones. For example one ten-kilogram red snapper (Cu ijanus campechanus) produces over twenty times more eggs at a single

spawning than then one-kilogram snappers. Big fish may also spawn more frequently than small. On the Pacific coral reefs of Guam, half kilogram goatfish reproduce four to five times more often than goat fish half this size, and produce 100

times more eggs over a year. Therefore, a few very large animals are more valuable

as egg producers than many smaller ones. In addition to increases in average body

size, marine reserves will also result in increased egg production relative to fishing

grounds. Some animals, especially those that are attached to the bottom or those

having limited powers of movement (e.g. oysters, clams or abalones), can only reproduce successfully at high population densities. Fertilization rates decrease, as they

get farther apart, and fewer offsprings are produced. By increasing population densities, reserves can greatly increase the number of young spawned. Many of these

eggs and larvae produced by fish in fully-protected reserves will drift into fishing

grounds and help restock the fishery.

(2) Fully protected reserves allow spillover of adults and juveniles into fishing

grounds

As the number and biomass (body weight) of individual species within reserves

increases, they will start to emigrate out of reserves and into fishing grounds. Thus,

a proportion of the fish which once received protection in reserves do eventually become available for fishers to catch. This, together with their ability to provide eggs

and larvae to fishing grounds, provides the basis for fully protected reserves to be

economically beneficial to fishers. This, in turn, can help compensate for the shortterm loss that fishers may experience in the early years after reserves are established.

(3) Fully protected reserves provide a refuge for vulnerable species

Some species are particularly vulnerable to fishing and may be unable to persist

even in areas where fishing pressure is quite light. If this is the case no-take zones

offer a critical refuge. For example, barndoor skate (Dipturus laevis) have been driven to the edge of extinction by trawl fishing on continental shelves of the eastem

United States and Canada, even though they have never been directly targeted by

fishers (Casey & Myers 1998). Their large body size means they are caught as bycatch, and their low reproductive rates mean they cannot persist in areas that are

trawled. There are similar concerns for several species of rockfish (Sebastes spp.)

in the Pacific (Yaklavich 1998). Since fishing gear is not selective, rare species will

continue to be caught as long as fishing continues. Protecting vulnerable species is

a key benefit of fully protected reserves.

54

(4) Fully-protected reserves prevent habitat damage

Many forms of fishing can damage the marine environment in some way and impacts vary from minor and localized to large-scale and devastating. Just as reserves

provide refuge to species from fishing, they also provide a respite from damage to

their habitats. This respite will allow time for the process of recovery and will ultimately lead to restoration of biodiversity within the area.

(5) Fully protected reserves promote development of natural biological communities,

which are different from communities in fishing grounds

Fully-protected reserves have offered remarkable insights into how human activity has transformed marine ecosystems. For example, protection of rocky shores in

Chile led to a change from communities dominated by mussels to ones dominated

by barnacles. This shift was facilitated by the recovery of loco (Concholepas

concholepas), a predatory snail, which had been overexploited before protection

(Castilla & Duran 1985). Reserves create conditions that are different from surrounding fished areas. These healthier conditions promote development of different

community structures, and enhance regional biodiversity. In other words, marine reserves facilitate increases in diversity at the ‘seascape’ level.

(6) Fully-protected reserves facilitate recovery from catastrophic human and natural

disturbances

There is growing evidence that human impacts and stresses undermine the capacity of ecosystems to recover from major disturbances. When intact, fully functioning

ecosystems rebound more quickly from catastrophes like storms or oil spills, than

places where animals and plants are affected by other stresses. For example Connell

(1997) reviewed studies of recovery of coral reefs from major disturbances and found

that healthy reefs are resilient and recover relatively quickly. However, reefs

sufferings from multiple stresses showed little or no recovery. The reasons are simple. Healthy ecosystems tend to support larger populations of plants and animals

that produce at higher rates. This means that disturbances are less likely to completely eliminate populations, and so recovery will be faster. Fully protected reserves help maintain populations at higher levels, so promoting recovery from disturbance. They also help reduce levels of stress from other human activities.

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, WWF believes that the process through which marine reserves are established is as important as the science that goes into the map or chart

that is drawn around proposed area. WWF’s experience in the process that established the Tortugas reserve suggests that involving commercial and recreational

fisherman as well as other stakeholders is critical to the long-term success of a marine reserve. Attached to my testimony is a copy of a chart that appears in the Roberts/Hawkins report outlining a series of case studies of marine reserves that have

resulted in improved fishery abundance and the subsequent economic value to local

commercial and recreational fishing and ecotourism industries. I will highlight just

a few for you. These case studies illustrate that fishermen have a legitimate stake

in the design, establishment and implementation of marine reserves. As the Committee considers marine reserves, WWF would strongly encourage the most inclusive process to ensure all interested stakeholders are considered.

In summary, fully protected reserves can: protect exploited populations, enhancing

production of offsprings which help restock fishing grounds; supplement fisheries

through spillover of adults and juveniles into fishing grounds; provide a refuge from

fishing for vulnerable species; prevent habitat damage and promote habitat recovery; maintain biodiversity by promoting development of natural biological communities that are different from those in fishing grounds; and facilitate ecosystem recovery after major human or natural disturbances. Indeed, a process that includes

interested stakeholders from the outset will allow marine reserves to perform these

functions for many years to come. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

[An attachment to Mr. Grasso’s statement follows:]

55

56

57

58

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Tom—words of wisdom

and good advice. And your comment about Larry Simms today, I

think, was very appropriate. He may be on the last panel.

I would just like to say at this point, in case I forget when the

last panel comes up here and Larry doesn’t attend, that I have

worked with Larry Simms for a long time, and he has, in my judgment, the right heart and the right mind for this issue in a very

comprehensive way, and he has always acted with a great deal of

credibility, and has been professional in his input as the basic leader of Maryland’s watermen, has always been positive and crucial

for these activities. I am happy that you mentioned him, Tom, and

your advice also to bring in all the stakeholders is important to

make this a successful adventure.

I would like to make a comment, though—sort of a comment/

question. We are talking about sanctuaries, Marine Protected

Areas. The comment part of this is that we, as people, have our

suburbs, towns, cities. We have our areas where we live, raise our

children, find shelter, sustenance, and so on. And it only seems reasonable to have those same areas set aside for wildlife, and we do

have wildlife sanctuaries, wildlife refuges, national parks, and so

on. But I think this is the time frame for renewed—and I say renewed because people have been discussing these issues for hundreds of years—a renewed effort to understand the need for whatever we want to call this—water refuge, Marine Protected Area,

sanctuary—set aside for wildlife, for species. And I think we will

probably go a long way in achieving that.

Dr. Roberts, in your effort to understand the importance of Marine Protected Areas, but in this particular incident, for sanctuary

for marine species, in particular oysters, in identifying those areas

that would be most suitable for an oyster reef and an oyster sanctuary and all of the positive spinoffs that that would create, in your

efforts, have you at least in part focused on the land around those

tributaries for their positive or negative contribution to the nutrients in that particular tidal basin, tidal estuary? And I know, Dr.

Luckenbach, you mentioned how difficult it is to understand, from

a scientific perspective, and monitor all this, and we don’t expect

oysters to explode all of a sudden, the marine environment to all

of a sudden go back near to the way it was 500 years ago.

I will say, though, along the Sasfras River where I live, if you

looked at the river 20 years ago in certain areas, it was fairly devoid of abundant, diverse marine resources, marine life. But if you

look at the Sasfras River today, especially if you went paddling

today, or Wednesday, you could see six feet down easily, right to

the bottom. A lot of grass has come back. Spawning of rockfish and

little tidal ponds and so on. You wouldn’t have seen that 20 years

ago. But the change of the land use practices has fundamentally

changed and restored the characteristic of that marine ecosystem.

If you go through on a Sunday, though, in July, you won’t see

down six inches because of the turbidity of just large numbers of

recreational boaters. So, just two quick comments, or I guess questions.

Do you look at the land use around the tributaries where the

oyster reefs are going to go, and how much is the oyster reef protected? We know we are not going to harvest those oysters, but

59

have you looked at the recreational use around those young oyster

reefs?

Ms. ROBERTS. I think there are two answers to your question,

and one is that the committee did consider that and recommended

that at least for the initial siting of an oyster sanctuary, that you

should consider what the environment around it is like, and that

would certainly include the land and what types of influences are

going to be coming into the sanctuary. So, you would not want to

put a sanctuary in an area where you have some sort of upstream

source of pollution or turbidity that you are not going to be able

to solve because that would obviously compromise the success of

that sanctuary.

But the other side of the issue is that I think one of the problems

that we have had in the marine environment is that we don’t always recognize what we have. We don’t always see it as being a

piece of property that we want to protect.

And one thing that I think can help with the establishment of

Marine Protected Areas is that people recognize it and say, ‘‘This

is something valuable and we want to protect it now’’. And then

there is more interest, I think, from the land-based side, in doing

something about reducing the effects of pollution.

And so I think Marine Protected Areas can give the community

a sense of ownership over the areas in the water that then builds

the stewardship to take care of them.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. Dr. Luckenbach.

Mr. LUCKENBACH. I can speak to each of those questions, I think.

Certainly, in Virginia, the efforts and where we place reefs has certainly involved looking at environmental characteristics. And I

think one of the more interesting examples of that, though, that

points out it is not always upstream or exactly in the watershed,

it relates to the oyster reefs at the mouth of the Rappahannock

River. We have been installing some there in the last few years,

and we will be putting more.

It turns out that near the mouth of the Rappahannock River, we

expect to be able to put and sustain some oyster reefs on the south

shore, but not the north shore, and that actually has nothing to do

with land use immediately on the northern shore of the Rappahannock River near the mouth, it has got to do with the fact that we

know from our hydrographic studies that low dissolved oxygen

water comes in from the main stem of the Bay, and can slosh frequently up onto the banks of the north shore and will kill oysters

in that area. So, although there is one small planting that is going

on there now, our expectations are that that is not going to be a

good location.

As to your second question about whether or not these sites are

being used by other individuals and recreational fishermen, I can

say they are being used so much that even our experiments on the

reefs sometimes are hampered by all the fishing gear that is tangled up in them. And most of them that I have worked on now for

a dozen years, maybe 10 years, have all become known to the recreational fishermen as good fishing spots.

Mr. GILCHREST. So, is that harmful to the development of the

oyster reef, or is it neutral? Does it enhance it?

60

Mr. LUCKENBACH. We don’t know, on balance. I don’t think at

this point that we have enough—I wouldn’t expect that they are

moving so many fish that it is harmful in that sense, but for the

few that run their boats aground on the reefs, I don’t think it is

harmful. I think most of it is probably positive in the sense of

bringing public support to the idea.

Mr. GILCHREST. That is good. Is there any indication right now,

Dr. Luckenbach, or anybody, I suppose, that if you are going to restore the oysters to the Chesapeake Bay, you have a 10 percent

goal of historic proportions, what will 10 percent do for the Bay?

And I am not sure, is it 10 percent of what was there 300 years

ago, 50 years ago? What does the 10 percent actually mean? And

what does that 10 percent mean as far as the actual restoration of

the oysters as a mechanism that purified water?

Mr. LUCKENBACH. Very good question, and the answer is that in

details we don’t know the answer to that. Certainly, the 10 percent

that came out of our scientific consensus meeting was—we recognized that that was an intermediate goal.

At the time, there was one study that we were referring to—it

was a modeling study—that indicated that if we had just a 10 percent, at that point, I believe, reduction in harvest of oysters in the

Bay, that we would see differences in the system—increased light

penetration, increased growth of submerged aquatic vegetation.

In trying to assess where this might be successful and, as you

say, where we might see water quality improvements, it is really

important to realize that this is going to happen a piece at a time,

and it is not going to be Baywide, for example, that we see these

examples, but on tributary-by-tributary basis. And one of the

things that I think is going to be exceedingly important along the

way is that we—we all have this big, grand metric out there,

‘‘What can I do for the whole Bay’’—we need to develop some success criteria for individual projects. How much does this particular

reef need to get us in order to be successful? We don’t have that

yet.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. Dr. Roberts? Now, you don’t have to

answer, if you don’t want to.

Ms. ROBERTS. It would be a tough one for me to answer because

we didn’t specifically look at the oysters in Chesapeake Bay but, in

general, I guess I would like to reiterate what I said at the end of

my testimony, the long-term goal—and I would like to back what

Dr. Luckenbach said, this is a long-term goal, this isn’t something

we are going to see in the short-term.

It is not just to have restoration—if you have restoration of 10

percent in the actual sanctuaries, that that is going to contribute

to the rest of the Bay as well. You are going to see recovery of the

oyster beds in other areas, so that the actual improvements are

going to be seen beyond just areas in the sanctuary. So, I think

that is the long-term goal.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. Tom?

Mr. GRASSO. I was just going to say, Mr. Chairman, your question is an important one, you have to know what the baseline is

so you understand what you are measuring. And I am sure our colleagues from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation can give a specific

answer as to 10 percent of what, but at this point just the state

61

of the oyster population, 10 percent of anything would be better

than nothing.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. Mr. Underwood.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and

thank you for your testimony this morning, and thank you for your

remarks, Mr. Grasso, on keeping stakeholders in line. We recently

had a problem with PCBs in the waters in an area of a military

dump site in Guam. And one of the things that I think was overlooked was actually consulting the fishermen. Sometimes when we

get fishermen involved in it, sometimes we think they are contributing to the depletion of resources rather than active participants

in the maintenance of resources. And I think, given large levels of

cooperation, we can see that come to pass.

I am interested, Dr. Luckenbach, in your comment about evaluation, and in there you mentioned—I think you used a figure that

we are spending less than 1 percent on evaluating the nature of

the projects that we are engaged in. It also brings to mind the comment by the Chairman about 10 percent, and trying to figure out

exactly what is the benchmark where we are going. Then you mention in your own testimony about a kind of scientific—well, see,

now, I don’t know whether this is a scientific consensus or a consensus by scientists, and that is really a neat distinction, I think,

to make. So, the question is, is that 10 percent just a consensus

goal that was arrived at because we sat around and we anticipated

that this perhaps is achievable, perhaps it is better than nothing,

or was it based on anything that would approach something that

is peer-driven research?

Mr. LUCKENBACH. I think a combination of each of those. Certainly, we discussed higher levels, and we realized realistically they

weren’t achievable. It didn’t make a lot of sense to set goals that

weren’t achievable. We had some limited evidence, not from the entire Bay, but from the individual tributaries, that small, but concentrated sanctuaries, with high densities of food stock oysters on

them made noticeable differences in the surrounding areas, particularly the Great Wicomoco River in Virginia had been a small

experiment in that, as it were, that did lend a little bit of reality

to our estimate of 10 percent, but very much I think it was, as you

said, a belief that that was an achievable goal. Anything larger, as

Mr. Schwaab said in the first panel, it is beyond our doing anyway.

The oysters are going to have to do the heavy-lifting on this.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. And what about the—what is the source of the

fact that we are not putting as much resources into evaluating our

efforts, can any of you speak to that? Maybe it is more appropriate

for you, Dr. Roberts.

Ms. ROBERTS. I would second that. The committee felt it was

very important to have ongoing monitoring and research, and there

are several reasons for that. One is that to get continuing support

for the implementation of the sanctuaries, it is very important to

see how they are functioning. Are you making progress towards

your goals? You can’t do that without having ongoing monitoring.

And the second is that I think the sanctuaries themselves provide a very valuable tool for research. We need to understand more

about how the oyster reefs work, and also how the whole concept

of having a marine reserve or marine sanctuary is going to funcVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:32 Feb 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\75984.SF HRESOUR2 PsN: HRESOUR2
62

tion. Did we put them in the right place? Did we make them the

right size? How many of them do we need? This all going to take

further research. So, I think that it is extremely important to have

continuing monitoring and research.

Mr. GRASSO. I would agree with that. It is very important to

have scientific research continue once the marine reserves are established. And I also think, again, it provides a role for the fishermen in the area as well. They are the ones that are out there on

a daily basis working for a living, and they can oftentimes provide

very useful information to the scientists and researchers, what they

are seeing out there as well, and are sometimes some of the first

people who see problems that may be emerging and can come up

with suggested ways of dealing with them. So, again, going back

to the stakeholder process, it is something that continues even

after the marine reserve has been established.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you. Dr. Luckenbach, you mentioned in

your testimony about alternative materials, substrate materials, to

rebuild oyster reefs, since we don’t have a lot of oyster shells. What

environmental factors are considered in that process, and what

kind of alternative materials should we be looking at?

Mr. LUCKENBACH. Well, we are, in fact, both looking at and using

a range of other materials, including ground concrete, mined limestone morel, and we have done experimentation with stabilized coal

combustion byproducts, basically, coal ash or the cinders that

would be in cinderblocks. Certainly, for any new or exotic material

like the coal ash, it is important initially to do all of the proper environmental chemistry to ensure that we are not putting something

in the waters that would be harmful. I think we have managed to

get over most of those hurdles and, in fact, we know that we have

a number of materials, and the most obvious one is there is a lot

of concrete out there that is available, and some of it is being used

as reef bases. What we have also learned in recent years is when

you put material out on the bottom of the Bay, the difference between getting a living, functioning oyster reef there or not getting

one at all may be due to very subtle differences in the size and the

shape of the materials that you put out. Oysters will settle all over

everything. We have all found a beer bottle or something in the

Bay with oysters settled on it, but they surprisingly don’t survive

very well if they don’t have exactly the right type of refuge from

predation, the right type of elevation, the right type of environment

in the face of low-dissolved oxygen. And we have seen just extremely striking differences.

What we need to do now is focus in literally on the real engineering thing, exactly how big do we have to break that concrete up,

and exactly what sizes. We are narrowing in on it, but we have got

a ways to go.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I am very heartened by that because I don’t

want people to think that they are contributing to oyster beds by

throwing beer bottles into the water, or dumping cars into the

water, or any of these other things which sometimes I fear—you

know, sometimes we will hear various businesses say that they are

going to contribute with these artificial reefs.

In your statement, also, you mentioned that viable oyster populations have been re-established even in the presence of Dermo and

63

MSX. Why is this? Are these populations genetically different, or

is an increased survival rate attributed to environmental factors in

those areas that you are studying?

Mr. LUCKENBACH. Very good question. The most striking case of

this is our series of experimental reefs that we placed right at the

mouth of Chesapeake Bay, in Fisherman’s Island National Wildlife

Refuge. That is an area that has the highest incidence of disease

that I can find anywhere in the Chesapeake Bay. One hundred percent of the oysters that have been through a summer are infected

with Dermo, and MSX every few years comes in and kills quite a

few of them.

The why it is is that, for one, Dermo has actually always been

with us, and we can’t do a lot about it. We can’t slowly and progressively build some disease-resistant animals. What we did and

the why it is is we provided a reasonable substrate in the right

configuration, some good protection from predation, and we did the

only other thing you can do. There has been zero harvesting on

those reefs. And many, many oysters have died from disease. And

I don’t want to minimize the importance of disease. When these

diseases come in and hit an oyster bed or oyster reef, they kill

enough of them that there is clearly no longer in many cases commercially viable quantities of oysters on those reefs, but there are

always oysters left. It never kills 100 percent of them. And it is

those ones that it didn’t kill that are so important because they are

the ones that spawn the next year. So, the ones in particular that

I was talking about are reefs that have been out there for six and

7 years now, and they have six- and 7-year-old oysters on them,

and every year some oysters have died from disease. But it is so

critical to leave the ones there that are disease-tolerant—not completely disease-resistant, but they are disease-tolerant—and the

population is gradually becoming more disease-resistant, but that

is what I attribute it to. In the end, all we can do in the short-term,

is put out materials and manage the harvest.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. In your estimation, are we spending enough resources on trying to deal with the diseases themselves as opposed

to the whole issue of finding an appropriate habitat?

Mr. LUCKENBACH. No one has had for some time now the Oyster

Disease Research Program, and I think they have made some very

good advances. And there is not one of my colleagues that would

tell you they couldn’t make more if they had more money. You

know, at some point, there is a limit to that.

I do believe that we have—as well, we have spent some money

of State, Federal and private, on evaluating new materials for habitat. I think we need to do more in the latter, more importantly

there, because that is something we can do. Diseases we can do a

little bit, but they are out there and it is part of the environment.

We can improve the habitat that we put out and, very importantly, we need, as we have said earlier, we need to improve the

monitoring that we are doing, not just come back a year later and

say are there oysters on there or not. We need to be able to look

closely so we can do adaptive management, and we can add a little

more substrate, and we need to add oysters in a place that we

haven’t, brood stocks where we haven’t added them. We need to

understand the circulation patterns so we know why larvae aren’t

64

coming back to that reef. It is that type of follow up on the actual

sanctuaries that I believe is grossly underfunded right now.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Dr. Roberts, on the MPAs, when you were evaluating the MPAs, did you also evaluate the institutional and the

administrative framework of forming these MPAs as opposed to

just the scientific evaluation, and if you made any kind of evaluation about them, could you share some of your findings?

Ms. ROBERTS. We talked about it quite a lot, as I think people

recognize that it is not just the science that is important for establishing an MPA, you have to have the framework to put it together.

And I think that the lesson we learned, when we went to the Florida Keys to hold one meeting, and I believe there was something

like 20 different agencies involved in establishing just that one National Marine Sanctuary, and that is kind of a lesson learned in

that this is not a simple task to bring all these agencies together.

To put a positive spin on that, though, I think it is a very good

thing that in looking at an MPA where you are talking about local

waters, State waters, and Federal waters, is that you do bring all

of those groups together to talk about the implementation of the

area. You know you cannot manage it without having all the players at the table. That includes all the agencies involved. It includes

all the stakeholders. We know that you can’t leave any stakeholders out because they are going to be very unhappy and cause

trouble later down the road. Also, we know that if you bring the

stakeholders in, they can help you. I think that was clear in what

happened at the Tortugas. They brought people in who understood

the fisheries in that area, what sites really needed to be protected,

what areas may be more resilient and could withstand some fishing

pressure.

So, the committee recommended that when you decide that you

need a Marine Protected Area to meet your marine conservation

goals, that the first step is to make sure you bring all of the relevant players to the table, and that is going to include all of the

agencies involved.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I think those insights are very critical because

sometimes the tendency is in the fact of having to involve 20 agencies or 20 groups, the tendency would be, well, let us streamline

it and give authority to one agency, and that necessarily won’t

yield the most desirable result and probably get a lot of resentment.

Just a last question to Mr. Grasso. I know that you mentioned

a number of MPAs around the world, and one of the issues that

I am very much interested in is coral reef restoration, and I know

there are a number of areas in the world are having extreme difficulty with that. So, would it be your recommendation that there

be greater use of MPAs in areas that are recognized as kind of biological hotspots, as in the Philippines and Indonesia?

Mr. GRASSO. Absolutely. We think that particularly given the

number of threats facing coral reefs around the world, that marine

reserves or Marine Protected Areas can play a vital role, in particular places where we are beginning to look at perhaps those

reefs that are not being affected by climate change, but may provide the type of biological diversity functions and benefits that

would otherwise be decimated by other threats, we think a focused

65

effort with these marine reserves and MPAs in those areas that are

perhaps immune to climate change might in the long-run promote

biological diversity that we may otherwise lose. So, there are a

number of strategic approaches to dealing with threats to coral

reefs and marine reserves can plan a very important role in that.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, and sorry to bring up coral reefs,

but maybe with enough climate change we will be talking about

coral reefs in the Chesapeake.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GILCHREST. We will take coral reefs there. We have our own

coral reefs in the oyster reefs. Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mr.

Owings.

Mr. OWINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very quickly, Dr.

Luckenbach, I was surprised that you mentioned oyster shell itself

as a primary, very successful place to spat when we recreate these

beds. That is not the question. And Congressman Underwood made

a very good point. With 20 agencies involved—and this is the question—which we couldn’t expect there to be one focal point for informational purposes.

I guess my question is this. The Bay has been fouled by man. It

is man’s responsibility to now clean, whether it is runoff, accidental

spills such as happened, as we all know, up at Chalk Point, the

daily dumping of boats discharging into the water and what have

you.

I guess what I am trying to find out is if there is one place where

we could go where the scientific information would correspond. We

are well aware of the work done specifically with oysters down at

CBL, Chesapeake Biological Lab, is historic, and it is ongoing as

we speak, through all the individual capacities where research is

done, gains that we have made in the Oyster Recovery Program at

the State level, all of the agreements that we have had down

through time, Maryland, our sister State and D.C., seems to me

that we are losing ground. Tom, you won’t agree with this, I know,

but it seems to me that we are losing ground instead of gaining

ground, and that is a sad commentary for all of our efforts. We are

still dealing with migratory birds, so it is a whole host of natural

resources that we try to deal with. I wish you could convince me

that we are not losing ground, that in fact we are gaining ground.

Mr. LUCKENBACH. Well, the NGOs, including the Bay Program,

have probably expressed similar opinion in recent years, that we

are gaining ground in some areas and losing in others, and certainly Congressman Gilchrest gave examples of one near his home

where there have been some clear improvements.

You did ask at the beginning of one place to go for information

or where almost, I took it to be, is there a clearinghouse for the

scientific information. Indeed, it is not all there, but I would suggest that the Chesapeake Bay Programs Office is, in fact, a good

place for that. The Chesapeake Bay Program is a Federal-State

partnership, and does maintain databases. Some of them get up

there really on real-time, and a lot of effort particularly has been

made in recent years to make the very informative Websites and

real-time data available on there. And so I think that is an example of something in terms of sharing information that is working

extremely well.

66

Mr. OWINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want

to beg your leave. I have got a briefing at the nuclear power plant

for security purposes at Calvert, so I would like to thank you very

much for your kind hospitality today. I will certainly be reporting

to the Chairman of the Committee.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Owings. And that is an excellent

question. Very often information like the environment is fragmented, and we will work with you and the Chairman of the Committee and the Committee, certainly, to, as we move through this

enormous undertaking but important endeavor, we will make sure

that that flow of information is efficient and timely. Thank you,

Mr. Owings.

Mr. OWINGS. Thank you again, sir.

Mr. GILCHREST. I just had one sort of follow-up question dealing

with what Mr. Underwood raised as far as MSX and Dermo and

can you develop a disease-resistant oyster, and also a follow-up

question to that is, I understand, that Virginia is or has introduced

an experimental Japanese oyster. What is the status of that

project? Maryland, I think, has yet approved of that, and I know

that the introduction of the Japanese oysters are sterile. Can we

count on the fact that there won’t be any reversal of that while

they are in the water—and that is a loaded question—but as far

as the disease-resistant oysters, is there any sense that—and we

know that one or both of these diseases have been in the Bay for

a long time or, if not, since the beginning of time, and there wasn’t

any evidence of its difficulty with oyster reproduction and oyster

health until maybe 60, 70 years ago, or at least until this—I was

going to say this century—the previous century, the 20th Century.

Is there any inkling of understanding whether or not the diseaseresistant oyster is disease-resistant because of its size, its age, or

its volume, where it might be located?

Mr. LUCKENBACH. I will certainly tackle the first part of that, the

native oyster disease, first. Absolutely, we can breed highly disease-tolerant oysters. In fact, going back quite a few years before

I was even in the field, an MSX-resistant oyster was bred actually

in Delaware Bay. It turned out that it was highly susceptible to

Dermo and it grew very slowly. Primarily with funding from NOAA

for about 12 years now, we at the Virginia Institute of Marine

Science and University of Maryland, in partnership with the University of Delaware and Rutgers University have been involved in

a selective breeding program that has resulted in an oyster, at

least one and probably two strains of oysters, that is highly resistant to MSX. It is quite resistant to Dermo. Dermo is a slow, sort

of infectious disease, and eventually they can get Dermo. And it is

rapid-growing. We developed that oyster with aqua-culture in

mind. In order to sustain it, you have to keep breeding it in a

hatchery.

The notion of being able to use that in restoration is somewhat

of a newer one. As low as oyster stocks are in the Bay, if we took

and threw these few of them out that we have, of course, they

would just get overwhelmed by the wild stocks. That is why we

have been ramping-up production of these disease-tolerant animals,

and we have developed, as I mentioned in my testimony, a genetic

tool that will let us try to track over several oyster generations

67

whether or not the genes from these oysters get incorporated into

the wider broad population. A part of that, is part of your question,

is oysters that are resistant to diseases, particular diseases, seem

to be so for the same reason that some humans might be to a particular disease—that is, their immune system is just able to fight

it off. They have to have a good immune system and they have to

be healthy. So, some of the increased impact of Dermo is probably

due to unhealthy oyster populations and unhealthy individuals.

The other question that you asked, which I am sure the day will

come when the subcommittee will probably hold hearings on exotic

oyster species, I would assume, related to the work in Virginia with

a non-native oyster. In fact, the Virginia Institute of Marine

Science has been doing experimental work with two different exotic

oyster species, one often called the ‘‘Japanese’’ or ‘‘Pacific’’ oyster

species, which we found, frankly, not to grow very well in the Bay,

and then over the last three or 4 years, 5 years perhaps, with the

Southern Asian oyster that, working in short-term experiments

with sterile individuals, we found actually performed and grew

very well in the Chesapeake Bay.

Over the past 2 years, the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, the Fisheries Management Agency, has permitted limited

small trials with sterile triploid animals by our industry. It is unclear at this time whether or not they would be willing to permit

the large use of sterile triploids. It is the general feeling, I believe,

of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science and the scientific community, that a large-scale introduction or use of sterile triploid animals in aquaculture right now would entail significant risk of an

unintended introduction of reproductively capable animals, either

by the reversion that you spoke of or by mistakes that occur in a

hatchery. And at this time, there certainly aren’t any plans by the

Virginia Institute of Marine Science—which would not be the organization that would actually introduce them—to either do such an

introduction or to support a large-scale introduction of either reproductively capable animals or of sterile ones without an extremely

high bar on biosecurity set to ensure that there would be no accidental release.

Mr. GILCHREST. Is there a difference in the spat from an oyster—

how long do oysters live if you didn’t harvest them?

Mr. LUCKENBACH. Some can certainly live as long as 50 years.

Mr. GILCHREST. Is there a difference between oyster spat from an

oyster that is 30 years old and an oyster that is 3 years old, as far

as its ability to reproduce, its ability to be resistant to disease,

those kinds of things?

Mr. LUCKENBACH. A very good question. An oyster that maybe

not just because it is 30 years old, but if it is 30 years old and it

has lived those 30 years in an area of the Bay that has MSX and

Dermo, then that means that adult was resistant to MSX and

Dermo. What we find is that if the parents were resistant to MSX,

the offspring are very resistant. If the parents were resistant to

Dermo, the offspring are more resistant than average, but not necessarily completely.

Mr. GILCHREST. So then a volume such as a large oyster reef

with old or aging or much older—certainly older than three or 4

years—oysters would have a pretty pronounced effect on those oysVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:32 Feb 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\75984.SF HRESOUR2 PsN: HRESOUR2
68

ters to begin to show great resistance to both diseases, and is there

any correlation to that and the way that the oyster reefs and the

reproduction levels used to be 100 or 150 years ago?

Mr. LUCKENBACH. Absolutely, yes. I think you just hit it on the

head right there.

Mr. GILCHREST. So there is some need for, then, sufficient areas

to be put in sanctuaries so this type of disease-resistant oyster can

happen after we sort of kick-start it, over a period of time.

Just a quick question about Japanese oysters. Is the experiment

with Japanese oysters for the purpose of providing a harvestable

oyster for commercial activity, or for its introduction to the benefit

to the marine ecosystem and water quality, or both?

Mr. LUCKENBACH. Well, first of all, just for clarification, we actually are no longer experimenting with what is commonly called the

Japanese oyster. We are working with the Southern Asian oyster.

Mr. GILCHREST. Southern Asian oyster.

Mr. LUCKENBACH. The press, I think, has called it the Asian oyster. Our experiments, I think, are fairly—are just to gain the

knowledge. There are those that have suggested that its application could be in either one of those lines that you propose. I think

the scientific consensus would be that the most prudent use, if any,

would be in a very controlled aquaculture setting that would increase harvest, and not that we yet know enough to think that we

could dump another oyster in and try to restore what we used to

have.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Dr. Luckenbach. Any other comment, Dr. Roberts, Mr. Grasso?

Mr. GRASSO. I would just add, Mr. Chairman, that our experiences with non-native species and their interaction with native marine species is one that suggests that we have to be very careful

in proceeding down the road, of using non-native species of oysters

in the Bay, and the tale of North Atlantic salmon and the impact

of farmed Atlantic salmon on the wild stocks of North Atlantic

salmon should be a cautionary tale for those of us on the Chesapeake Bay, when it comes to oysters and trying to breed diseaseresistant oysters.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. Mr. Underwood?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. No questions.

Mr. GILCHREST. Dr. Luckenbach, Dr. Roberts, Mr. Grasso, thank

you very much for your testimony. It has been very helpful here

this morning, and we hope to continue to carry on our dialogue

with all three of you. Thank you very much.

Mr. GILCHREST. Our third panel this morning is Mr. Charles

Frentz, Oyster Recovery Project; Mr. Sherman Baynard, Past

Chairman, Maryland Coastal Conservation Association; Mr. Mike

Hirshfield, Vice President of Resource Protection, Chesapeake Bay

Foundation; Ms. Karen Oertel, President, Harris Crab House, and

Mr. Larry Simms, or perhaps a representative of Mr. Larry Simms,

or perhaps not.

Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the hearing this afternoon.

We look forward to your testimony and your input on how we can

proceed in this most important endeavor with this project.

Mr. Frentz, you may begin, sir.

69

STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES FRENTZ, OYSTER RECOVERY

PROJECT

Mr. FRENTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Charlie Frentz, the

Executive Director of the Oyster Recovery Partnership. We are the

nonprofit organization you keep hearing about today. We are basically the organization where ‘‘the rubber meets the road’’. We are

the ones that implement a lot of these scientific and environmental

programs you have been hearing about this morning.

There are a lot of questions that I would like to answer for the

panel, so instead of having prepared remarks, I think I would like

to try to embellish some of the comments of some of the other panelists for you, and clarify some of the issues involved with what is

actually happening out in the Maryland waters of the Chesapeake

Bay.

Mr. GILCHREST. That would be wonderful, Mr. Frentz. We will

make sure that your testimony is included in the record.

Mr. FRENTZ. The Partnership works with everybody involved in

the process, from the Federal agencies to the local agencies, State

agencies. We also work closely with a lot of the foundations and the

public at-large.

A lot of the projects that we do are very large in scope. The philosophy of the Oyster Recovery Partnership is to take these oyster

resources to a different level as far as restoration is concerned. We

wear two hats, one is an environmental hat and one is certainly

to bring back the oysters for the watermen in the area. And if I

don’t get in too much trouble, I will even try to speak on behalf of

Larry Simms and the watermen. There are no watermen representative here, but Larry is one of our board members, and I am intimate with his philosophies and statements as to the watermen’s

concerns and issues with oysters. I know that is going to get me

in a lot of trouble, but I will try to, anyway.

We have got two hats. One of them is certainly for the sanctuaries which could be considered an MPA, and we are not just

haphazardly picking these sites anymore. On Monday, Mr. Chairman, you saw a little bit of the Partnership’s work over on Kent

Narrows, and before we did that planting on Monday, we actually

put out about half-a-million oysters onto a sanctuary that we produced last year from the Chesapeake Bay Trust.

This took us about a year to put this sanctuary in place. We had

public hearings. We talked to all the watermen involved. We talked

to the scientific community and got their technical advice. We

worked closely with Maryland’s Department of Natural Resources,

from the permit process, using their experience as to where other

sanctuaries had gone. We picked the site selection through some of

the new technologies being brought to bear by NOAA and the Oxford Lab under Maryland’s Department of Natural Resources, with

side scan sonar and bathymetry. So, we don’t haphazardly go out

and pick any of these sites anymore, we actually go in and take a

side scan sonar of historic areas, use the experience of the

watermen as to where these sites, using their experience—

Mr. GILCHREST. Where is that site that you just—

Mr. FRENTZ. This site is in Eastern Bay that we put in last year.

So, with all of this technology to bear, the experience of the

watermen and folks from the Department of Natural Resources, we

70

identified areas that would have the best chance of survival around

all these disease pressures and the ecological pressures throughout

in the Chesapeake Bay.

Last year, the Partnership had a record 38 million disease-free

oysters that we put out into five areas. As part of that process and

the grants that we had with NOAA, we actually had some scientific

experiments wrapped around our actual implementation of these

oysters. We took four strains, two local strains, one called ‘‘crossbreed’’ which Mark talked about before that is being developed by

VIMS, University of Maryland and Rutgers, and the strain from

the Gulf waters called ‘‘France’’. We took these four strains and

placed them in two different areas in the Chesapeake Bay, in the

high salinity areas in Tangier Sound, and in the lower salinities in

the Choptank River, and we put them side-to-side at 1 million oysters per acre density. We did a 5-acre site in Tangier Sound and

about a 20-acre site in the Choptank. So, this organization implements all of the aspects, all the expertise, all the experience that

can come to bear, and is actually putting these things out in the

water.

This year, we put 55 million disease-free oysters at 16 sites, ten

were sanctuaries and 6 of them were these managed reserves that

I would like to get into a little bit later. These oyster sanctuaries,

again, we picked the site selections, but we don’t haphazardly just

put the oysters in the water either.

With the advice and counsel of everyone, we go out and, in some

instances, actually bar clean these sites where we will try to get

the oyster shells that are under the sediment up out of the water

column. We will then go in and spend a lot of money, sometimes

leverage money from the Army Corps, sometimes Foundation

money, sometimes NOAA money, to make a 3- to 6-inch shell base

above that reclaimed oyster shell. And we do all of that before we

put on a layer of these disease-free oysters that are baby oysters

set on spat-on-shell. Most of this work is done in the hatchery by

the University of Maryland at their Center for Environmental

Science near Cambridge.

All of this work is done—the sites themselves are picked around

disease pressures, but in the case of sanctuaries we know the diseases are going to impact them, so the monitoring money that you

were hearing about, all of the programs we have now, does institute some of these monitoring monies. We will not put anything out

in the water that we are not going to monitor in the future. It does

us no good to just haphazardly throw something out in the Chesapeake Bay and hope that something good is going to come out of

it.

In fact, Dr. Ken Painter is in the audience here. He is taking the

lead for guidelines for monitoring and guidelines for what success

actually means on sanctuaries, and these reserves that I would like

to talk about now.

The Partnership put about—

Mr. GILCHREST. Reserves and sanctuaries are the same thing.

Mr. FRENTZ. They are not. However, if I could get into the

watermen’s viewpoint on some of these issues, the watermen have

taken a 180-degree turnaround about what their opinion is on

sanctuaries. They do see them as a benefit to their harvestable

71

areas. And the monies that the Oyster Recovery Partnership is

spending on what is called a ‘‘managed reserve’’ has also taken a

major change.

We go in and pick these sites with the experienced watermen

and the Department. We go in and pick areas where there historic

areas where they had a proliferation of oysters. We will go in and

bar clean them. We may put a base of 3 inches of additional oyster

shell on top of that, and then put the spat-on-shell on top of that

area, the same type of thing that we are doing with the sanctuaries.

The sanctuaries will have a density of about 2 million oysters per

acre. The sanctuaries will have a much larger base to start with,

to try to create a reef structure. The object of the managed harvestable reserves is such that we know they are eventually going to

come in and take these animals—catch these animals for harvest.

So, we don’t spend as much money on the base of an operation in

a managed reserve. However, the watermen have done something

that is very, very unusual.

In the last year, through Larry Simms’ help and the Maryland

Watermen’s Association, they have agreed to close these areas for

three to 5 years. They will be monitored for disease pressure and

grow-out. They have also agreed not to take anything but a 4-inch

or larger oyster off of these managed reserves. And this is a very

important point to make. They are actually contributing largely to

this tenfold increase we have all been talking about. These managed reserve areas will be the size of 5-to-100 acres, where sanctuaries, we are trying to create sanctuaries of a minimum of 1 acre

to 5 acres. So, the managed reserves are actually a mini-closed

sanctuary for a while.

They have also agreed not to take all of the oysters off of these

managed reserves, they are only going to take a percentage, in

agreement with Maryland’s Department of Natural Resources and

the Partnership. So, these will be self-sustaining harvestable

areas—in essence, many reserves—also helping to propagate additional oysters in the water as a sanctuary does.

This is a major change in philosophy for the watermen in the

Maryland waters of the Chesapeake Bay. So, this oyster that Mark

was talking about is an animal that we looked at and have been

discussing for a couple of years. The Partnership would like to

make it very clear we have not given up on our local oyster. We

think that we can work around these disease pressures. We do believe that we can manage the harvest with the watermen. We do

believe that we can site-select sanctuaries in areas where they will

grow and create these reef structures that we need.

The Partnership does something else. There are a lot of questions

about is the public involved. Last year, we had over 12,000 volunteer hours involved with our process, helping us. We work with all

of the Foundations, like the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. I see my

yellow light.

One thing I would like you to know that we do do, we have

logistically upgraded our entire program. We now have stainless

steel containers, Mr. Chairman, I think you saw on Monday. We

are able to put tens of millions of oysters into proper areas in the

72

Chesapeake Bay to try to make a real difference out there. I will

end my comments at that point. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Frentz follows:]

Statement of Charles S. Frentz, Executive Director, Chesapeake

Appreciation, Inc. doing business as Oyster Recovery Partnership

Introduction

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee for allowing me to

present testimony at today’s hearing. I am Charlie Frentz, Executive Director of the

Oyster Recovery Partnership (the Partnership). It is my pleasure to be here today

to discuss the work of the Partnership in restoring viable oyster populations to the

Chesapeake Bay. I am aware of the testimony of several other presenters this morning, so to ensure brevity and a minimum of redundancy regarding the historical and

scientific factors related to current oyster resources, I will direct my remarks specifically to the current impact of our efforts and the future goals of the organization.

The Oyster Recovery Partnership and its Mission

The Partnership is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization formed in 1994 by the Oyster Roundtable to oversee and manage oyster restoration projects in the Maryland

waters of the Chesapeake Bay. The Oyster Roundtable represents a consensus of

scientists, environmentalists, watermen, private industry, local and state government and the public. These prominent industry representatives identified the critical need to restore sustainable oyster populations in the Chesapeake Bay and mandated the Partnership to develop and implement restoration strategies.

The Partnership’s Game Plan

Over the last year, we have matured into an extremely professional organization

with a no nonsense business approach to restoration. Last year, the Partnership

planted a record 38 million disease free spat on shell (baby oysters averaging the

size of a thumbnail) at four major sites in the Choptank River, Eastern Bay and

Tangier Sound. Our 2000 program exceeded the organization’s previous six years of

effort.

This year, the Partnership planted over 55 million disease free oysters at sixteen

major managed reserve and sanctuary sites throughout the Bay (see addendum). We

also helped our partners move or plant an additional seven million oysters.

Our game plan is simple, although the challenge is enormous. Create large, self

sustaining sanctuaries and managed harvest areas on historic oyster producing sites

that have the best chance to survive and propagate despite the extensive disease,

harvest, environmental and demographic pressures affecting the ecology of the Bay.

Our Partners

Our strength and success is derived from the tremendous expertise and support

we garner from our many partners. The University of Maryland’s Center for Environmental Science (CES) produces the millions of disease free oysters for our

projects. Maryland’s Department of Natural Resources has partnered with us on

several plantings and provides public hearing, permitting and technical support at

all levels. Watermen and industry business render field and logistical expertise. The

environmental community, local associations and several scientific advisory committees provide technical support. Community associations are actively involved in our

plantings and hundreds of volunteers work with our staff.

The Partnership now has financial and management support from a wide range

of interest groups spearheaded by dedicated Congressional funding managed by

NOAA. Congressional funding and NOAA expertise has exponentially increased the

Partnership’s ability to upgrade spat on shell production in association with Maryland’s CES. This high level of support has substantially upgraded the organization’s

ability to logistically handle multiple major planting operations. We can’t emphasize

enough the tremendous assets NOAA brings to oyster restoration through professional management and hands on field expertise.

We also have direct funding and leveraged support from a wide range of supporters such as the Chesapeake Bay Trust, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Campbell Foundation for the Environment,

the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and over a

dozen regional associations, commissions, community groups and corporations.

MPA’s, Sanctuaries and Managed Harvest Reserves

Our bottom line job is to develop, implement and manage oyster restoration

projects that have the best chance of making a discernable impact on the ChesaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:32 Feb 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\75984.SF HRESOUR2 PsN: HRESOUR2
73

peake Bay. The Partnership’s program involves two distinct oyster restoration processes that address the ecological, economical and political interests of all our partners. These restoration projects have many similarities to the Marine Protected

Areas being addressed at this hearing.

Sanctuaries: The Partnership has targeted the development of oyster sanctuaries

ranging in size from one acre to five acres to create an area able to provide self sustaining reef structures. These sites are chosen through a detailed process of public

and private meetings identifying the best available sites. Criteria for site selection

address a variety of factors including probability of creating a viable living reef

structure, disease pressures, natural recruitment potential, sites in proximity to

commercial and leased bars but buffered from harvest areas, and areas in closed

parts of the Bay seeking oyster communities for their filter feeding and water clarity

advantages.

Tremendous effort is placed on areas with solid substrate. These areas are usually

embellished with a three to six inch plus layer of cultch before planting disease free

oysters at a density of 2 million oysters per acre. This level of effort has proven to

be necessary for the development of a viable reef structure creating a diverse

benthic community.

Well-developed structures of this size in protected and buffered areas will have

a much better chance of withstanding the impact of storms, environmental stresses

and inadvertent harvest.

Managed Harvest Reserves: The Partnership’s mission to help bring back the

health of the Chesapeake Bay also includes efforts to revive the commercial harvest

of watermen that is so important to the economy, culture and history of Maryland.

Restoration design for commercial harvest areas have evolved as temporary closed

reserves for a period of three to five years, with subsequent closures required after

partial harvest of the restored bar. Multiple managed areas are being developed

with a minimum five to one hundred acres on historic oyster bars that have the best

chance of withstanding current disease pressures. These areas also have the potential for natural recruitment.

The watermen’s experience and consent is a strong component of site selection,

together with public hearings, Maryland DNR oversight and scientific and technical

advise. Managed harvest bars are prepared through a combination of bar cleaning

to recoup and place existing shell, barging in and laying additional shell bases of

three inches for sites needing added bottom preparation and spat on shell plantings

at densities of one million per acre.

These bars will be monitored during closure periods for disease pressures and

grow out. Commercial watermen have agreed to allow these animals to reach four

inches before harvest. A predetermined percentage of harvested oysters will be allowed before each site is again closed.

This technique has several distinct benefits in comparison to the current put and

take commercial harvest practices in the Bay. Taking only four-inch oysters turns

these structures into long-term self-sustaining oyster bars performing the additional

function as natural recruitment areas. Watermen also recognize the substantial increased market value of a four inch oyster compared to the legal industry standard

three inch catch.

Bar Cleaning, Seed Bars and Alternative Core Materials

To maximize the regions ability to recoup finite supplies of mined oyster shell, the

Partnership has worked with NOAA to institute bar cleaning projects. This program

involves the identification of outstanding areas for restoration that have large deposits of shell under layers of sentiment.

These sites have been identified through a combination of new side scan sonar

and bathymetry technologies developed and in use by NOAA with the support of

Maryland’s DNR at the Sarbanes Laboratory in Oxford, Maryland.

Bar Cleaning: This Partnership initiative, supported by NOAA funding, is a cost

effective management tool to prepare the widest range of viable historically productive oyster bars. This technique was used very successfully in year 2001 for managed harvest areas, potential seed bars and several sanctuaries.

Regional watermen and their vessels have been subcontracted through management oversight by the Maryland Waterman’s Association to use a variety of techniques and gear types to properly retrieve and place sediment covered shell. An

added bonus of this program has been the retrieval of scattered mature oyster brood

stock usually deeply imbedded in heavy sediment. These animals are then returned

to their resident bar in densities the scientific community deems could have tremendous natural recruitment for the area.

In addition, some of the mature oysters, between four and twelve inches, have

been transferred to the CES hatchery as brood stock. Spat on shell from these aniVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:32 Feb 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\75984.SF HRESOUR2 PsN: HRESOUR2
74

mals will be placed back on their specific bar in hopes the progeny produced will

be more tolerant to the local disease pressures.

Seed Bars: NOAA support of the Partnership’s seed bar restoration program has

worked with watermen to identify and restore large potential bars for the natural

recruitment and transfer of oyster seed at targeted areas of the Bay. Management

around disease pressures and the new bar cleaning techniques are vital factors in

determining the best possible sites.

Alternative Core Materials: Concentrated efforts by the Partnership, Maryland’s

Department of Natural Resources and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation are currently experimenting and acquiring alternative core materials to complement our

restorations programs to offset questionable future supplies of cultch needed to build

up natural oyster bars and sanctuaries.

Conclusions and the Future

The coordinated efforts by our many partners is beginning to the show promise

of making a discernable difference in helping to bring back the health of the Chesapeake Bay through oyster restoration. Our new site identification, planting and bar

cleaning techniques, acquisition and use of new technologies and the logistical upgrading of the Partnership’s field operations are on the right track. The Partnership

can make exponential increases in our program if we:

• Continue to use the experience and counsel of our many partners and leverage

their support of our efforts.

• Continue to upgrade the logistical ability of the Partnership to produce and

plant substantial increases in disease free spat on shell at viable restoration

sites.

• Acquire and use state-of-the-art scientific equipment and experienced techniques

to promote cost effective program management.

• Continuously promote improvement and alternative choices in acknowledgement

of the evolving dynamics of the ecology of the Bay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to give an overview of the work

and progress of the Oyster Recovery Partnership. I would be pleased to answer any

questions from you or your subcommittee.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Mr. Frentz.

Mr. Baynard.

STATEMENT OF SHERMAN BAYNARD, PAST CHAIRMAN,

MARYLAND COASTAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION

Mr. BAYNARD. Good morning, Chairman Gilchrest and Congressman Underwood. My name is Sherman Baynard, and I am here

today on behalf of the Coastal Conservation Association. Mr. Chairman, I would like to insert my full statement for the record, and

make a couple of comments.

CCA is a national organization with some 80,000 members on

the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts who are concerned about the conservation of marine resources. Today I would like to address the

costs and benefits of using Marine Protected Areas to help recover

oysters in the Chesapeake Bay.

Although fishermen have long supported use of time and area

closures to protect fish spawning aggregations or juvenile fish populations, CCA’s membership and most of the recreational sector are

deeply troubled by the rhetoric being used by some organizations

to promote Marine Protected Areas.

The recreational fishing experience depends on two essential ingredients, access to places to fish and availability of fish at those

places. For a number of years, the recreational sector has invested

heavily in both ingredients. Recreational fishing taxes have contributed millions of dollars through the Wallop-Breaux program

and much of this has been spent to improve angler access to places

to fish.

75

Additionally, recreational fishermen have led the fight to conserve America’s marine fisheries. Striped bass, weakfish, redfish,

and Atlantic shad are all recovering as a result of the efforts of recreational fishermen.

We have worked alongside, and inside, the existing State and

Federal fishery management systems using all of the traditional

fishery management tools—size limits, creel limits, quotas, seasons

and, where appropriate, area closures—to recover our fishery resources from past periods of overexploitation.

Before I get to the use of MPAs in the oyster program, let me

provide you with some suggestions about how to establish some parameters for the use of MPAs.

First and foremost, Congress needs to define the term. Everybody

today has a different definition of an MPA. After we define the

types of MPAs, we need to develop a specific process that must be

used before one can be put into place in any marine environment.

Let me suggest some parameters that ought to be discussed in

defining the various types of MPAs. Terminology shouldn’t be

vague. Terms like ‘‘marine parks’’, ‘‘marine sanctuaries’’, or ‘‘marine reserves’’ convey widely different messages to different audiences.

Any MPA should specify up front the activities that will be allowed and those that will not. For our purposes, it should explain

exactly what forms of fishing will be allowed and what forms will

be prohibited.

Any MPA should specify a purpose that can be supported scientifically. While closed areas may produce more fish at a given location, they may not allow more fish to be harvested from the same

ecosystem.

Any MPA should specify its duration—is a closed area to be temporary or permanent.

The process ought to include scientifically valid biological objectives to be achieved through the use of MPA. A finding should be

required that less draconian measures will not achieve the biological objectives. Lastly, there should be a Sunset provision to remove

the restrictions when the biological objectives have been met.

Now let me address the issue of MPAs in oyster restoration and

management. Millions of dollars have been spent to restore oyster

populations in the Chesapeake Bay without significant success.

Much of the money has come from Federal and State taxpayers

who support these programs for three reasons—oyster restoration

provides for economic development of the industry, improved water

quality in the Bay, and the natural inclination to return the Bay

to its full abundance. We support all of these reasons for oyster restoration.

The present problems with oysters in the Chesapeake Bay result

from disease, water quality and over-harvesting. The most effective

immediate action we could take to improve water quality would be

to reduce the removal of menhaden within the Chesapeake Bay.

Finally, the possibility of establishing closed areas to rebuild oyster populations should be examined. Temporary MPAs have proven

successful in rebuilding scallop populations in New England, but

those areas were closed only to bottom-trawling and dredging,

while all other forms of fishing were allowed to continue.

76

From what we have heard, however, the MPAs being discussed

for the Chesapeake Bay do not follow the New England model. We

are opposed to the use of MPAs to restore oysters if they would prohibit fishing that has no impact on the recovery of the oysters or

the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay. We see no benefit to a

marine wilderness in the Chesapeake Bay. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I will be happy to answer questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Baynard follows:]

Statement of Sherman Baynard, Coastal Conservation Association

Good Morning, Chairman Gilchrest and members of the Subcommittee. My name

is Sherman Baynard and I am here today on behalf of the Coastal Conservation Association (‘‘CCA’’). CCA is a national organization with some 80,000 members on the

Atlantic and Gulf coasts who are concerned about the conservation of marine resources. Today I’d like to address the costs and benefits of using Marine Protected

Areas (MPAs) to help recover oysters in the Chesapeake Bay. Frankly, we believe

that many of the potential benefits of MPAs have been overblown and many of the

negative consequences have been overlooked.

Although fishermen have long supported use of time and area closures to protect

fish spawning aggregations or juvenile fish populations, CCA’s membership and

most of the recreational sector are deeply troubled by the rhetoric being used by

some organizations to promote Marine Protected Areas. Statements like 25% of the

mid–Atlantic ought to be declared off-limits to fishing and 5% of the marine coastal

waters ought to be set aside as ocean wilderness areas have rung the alarm bell

in the recreational sector.

The recreational fishing experience depends on two essential ingredients—access

to places to fish and availability of fish at those places. For a number of years the

recreational sector has invested heavily in both ingredients. Recreational fishing

taxes have contributed millions of dollars through the Wallop–Breaux program and

much of this has been spent to improve angler access to places to fish. Additionally,

recreational fishermen have led the fight to conserve America’s marine fisheries—

striped bass, weakfish, redfish, and Atlantic shad are all recovering as a result of

the efforts of recreational fishermen. We have worked alongside, and inside, the existing State and Federal fishery management systems using all of the traditional

fishery management tools - size limits, creel limits, quotas, seasons, and, where appropriate, area closures—to recover our fishery resources from past periods of overexploitation.

The explosion in recreational fishing for these species has more than proved the

point that sound conservation coupled with improved opportunities to fish will benefit our coastal economy. To cite just one example, today there is more economic contribution to the Maryland economy from fishing for striped bass than ever before.

Expanding angler access is something the recreational sector, local, state and federal officials have been trying to encourage for twenty years. MPAs are unpopular

because anglers believe they will be used to restrict their access to the fishery resources and thus deny them the benefit of their Wallop-Breaux taxes and their conservation efforts. Before 1 get to the use of MPAs in the oyster program let me provide you with some suggestions about how to establish some parameters for the use

of MPAs.

First and foremost Congress needs to define the term. An MPA is defined in Executive Order 13158 to be ‘‘any area of the marine environment that has been reserved by Federal, State, territorial, tribal, or local laws or regulations to provide

lasting protection for part or all of the natural and cultural resources therein.’’

Under this definition, MPAs will include areas where oil drilling is prohibited, areas

where sewage outfalls are prohibited, areas where some fishing is prohibited, areas

where all fishing is prohibited, and areas where skin diving is prohibited. In practice, however, it seems that the current effort to establish

MPAs is focussed almost exclusively on fishing. Some groups have claimed that

20% of the fishable area in the US ought to be designated as a Marine Protected

Area while others now argue for a 5% designation as ocean wildernesses.

Let me suggest some parameters that ought to be discussed in defining the various types of MPAs

1. Terminology shouldn’t be vague - terms like marine parks, marine sanctuaries,

or marine reserves convey. widely different messages to different audiences.

77

2. Any MPA should specify up front the activities that will be allowed and those

that will not - for our purposes, it should explain exactly what forms of fishing

will be allowed and what forms will be prohibited.

3. Any MPA should specify a purpose that can be supported scientifically - while

closed areas may produce more fish at a given location, they may not allow

more fish to be harvested from the same ecosytem.

4. Any MPA should specify its duration - is a closed area to be temporary or permanent.

If we. intend MPAs to be permanent wilderness areas, where no activity other

than research can take place, then let’s say so. If we intend MPAs to be nothing

more than traditional time and area fishery closures, then let’s say so. But, let’s not

continue to have this open ended discussion about something we have failed to define.

After we define the types of MPAs, let’s develop a specific process that must be

used before one can be put into place in any marine environment. The process ought

to include scientifically valid biological objectives to be achieved through the use of

the MPA. A finding should be required that less draconian measures will not

achieve the biological objectives. Lastly, there should be a sunset provision to remove the restrictions when the biological objectives have been met.

Now let me address the issue of MPAs in oyster restoration and management.

Millions of dollars has been spent to restore oyster populations in Chesapeake Bay

without significant success. Much of the money has come from federal and state taxpayers who support these programs for three reasons. Oyster restoration provides

for economic development of the industry, improved water quality in the Bay and

the natural inclination to return the Bay to its full abundance. We support all of

these reasons for oyster restoration.

The present problems with oysters in Chesapeake Bay result from disease, poor

water quality and over harvesting. There are a number of studies being done by the

States of Maryland and Virginia on the disease issue. Work at VIMS developing

new strains of disease resistant oysters looks promising but so much work in this

area over the years has looked promising without producing any results that it is

difficult to be optimistic.

The issue of water quality is on the minds of anyone who lives in the Chesapeake

Bay watershed. The pollutant inputs from urban areas and agriculture have been

well documented, but much less is known of how the Bay responds to increased pollutant loads. There is no doubt that restoring oyster populations would help restore

the Bay’s water quality, but an even faster way to improve water quality would be

to stop harvesting menhaden on an industrial scale. A five-year moratorium on the

harvest of menhaden for fish meal and oil would have an immediate and quantifiable impact on water quality.

There is also the issue of over-harvesting. The States of Maryland and Virginia

could easily limit the harvest of oysters and Congress could provide relief funds to

the industry to sustain them while the oysters recovered. The key is funding assistance to the industry while the stocks are allowed to recover.

Finally, the possibility of establishing closed areas to rebuild oyster populations

should be examined. Temporary MPAs have proven successful in rebuilding scallop

populations in New England, but those areas were closed only to bottom trawling

and dredging, while all other forms of fishing were allowed to continue.

From what we have heard, however, the MPAs being discussed for Chesapeake

Bay do not follow the New England model. We are opposed to the use of MPAs to

restore oysters if they would prohibit fishing that has no impact on the recovery of

the oysters or the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay.

Recreational fishermen are ready to conserve and are doing so everyday. This is

a community that supports size limits and seasons to protect spawning fish; bag

limits to reduce over-harvest and even limited closed areas when fishing effort needs

to be reduced. We have endorsed measures like barbless hooks and complete catchand-release when they are necessary to rebuild a stock. But, it is simply unacceptable to exclude recreational fishermen from an area without demonstration that recreational activity is having a negative effect on the resource.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be pleased to answer any questions.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Baynard.

Mr. Hirshfield.

78

STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL F. HIRSHFIELD, VICE PRESIDENT OF RESOURCE PROTECTION, CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION

Mr. HIRSHFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congressman

Underwood. Again, as someone coming late in the panel, I think I

will depart not just from my written remarks, but also from my

written prepared oral remarks, and just comment on a few of the

things that I have heard today, and the very few things that

haven’t already been said.

I am Mike Hirshfield. I am Vice President for Resource Protection at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. We are a region-wide,

non-profit environmental education and advocacy organization,

partnering with just about everybody that has already been up

here, and those that are here now, in restoring the Chesapeake and

restoring oysters to the Chesapeake.

I was struck by Congressman Underwood’s comments about

Pocohontas. We have a tendency to date the understanding of the

Chesapeake Bay with the arrival of Captain John Smith and the

European colonists. In fact, what we know is that the Native Americans who lived here at that time were living off the interest of that

endowment of the American oysters. They were living quite well.

If you go to any of the oyster shells, you can see the size of the

oysters that were consumed at an average Indian village, and they

are quite large. They would definitely be two- or three-bite oysters.

It was the arrival of the European settlers that, in fact, started

the consumption of that endowment, eating into the principal and,

in fact, it could be argued that the first real invasive species that

hit the Chesapeake Bay was the arrival of the New England fishing fleet that had pretty much wiped out their oyster beds and proceeded to show up in the Chesapeake Bay in the latter part of the

19th Century. That is what began the whole-scale mining of the

Chesapeake Bay oyster reefs, and it really is a mining analogy that

you have to think of when you think of what happened to the oyster reefs of the Chesapeake in the 19th Century. We removed all

of that shell, all of that habitat, and we are suffering the lack of

it even today.

It is also important to take a little bit of time for perspective on

oyster restoration. I, like many of my colleagues here in the room,

have been engaged in Chesapeake Bay restoration activities for

quite some time, and I can tell you that only 10 years ago there

were very serious conversations all around the region about the

concept of a restored Chesapeake Bay without oysters. Could we

have, could we talk about, could we talk about a saved Bay without

oysters, because the future was seen to be that bleak.

I am just delighted that the experiments of the 1990’s that started looking at rebuilding oyster reefs, setting aside sanctuaries, got

us out of what had been a fairly sterile series of debates about

what to do about the oysters. The management tools that people

were talking about were the traditional ones. Think about everything you can do to restrict effort and, when all else fails, goes to

a moratorium.

When the community realized that that would not work and

started playing around with actually rebuilding reefs, that was the

breakthrough. And Dr. Luckenbach did not take very much perVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:32 Feb 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\75984.SF HRESOUR2 PsN: HRESOUR2
79

sonal credit for his effort, and Ken Painter and Rich Tachas, who

are also here, were part of that group of ten scientists who—it was

a consensus of scientists, but if you have ever seen ten scientists

in a room, getting that is a pretty amazing thing. This document

that they produced in 1999 did aim not just the scientific community, but the management community all in the same direction for

restoring oysters to the Chesapeake. It is at the core of the

WRDA—it is at the core of the Corps’ authorization. It is referenced in the WRDA authorization. This is the blueprint that

Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration is following.

I also put out—I am not going to go into our picture of what it

is going to take, but I put out a bunch of these ‘‘Restoring Chesapeake Gold’’ brochures that we put together on behalf of the community. I hope a few of them made it up to you guys.

A couple of other things. The public is really enthusiastic about

oyster restoration. A couple of examples. The Hampton Roads Rotary Club folks have raised over $100,000 of private money to put

toward oyster restoration in the Hampton Roads area and, as a result of that, four new sanctuary reefs have been established.

Similarly, there are hundreds of families and thousands of school

children all over the Chesapeake Bay, who are growing oysters off

of their docks, not eating them—which is pretty remarkable—and

taking them out and putting them out onto those sanctuary reefs

to help jump-start the reproduction that we are looking for. This

is a way that people on the land are connecting themselves to the

water, and we are seeing a lot of additional enthusiasm about what

is it going to take to keep that water quality healthy, a question

you were asking earlier.

I really would like to thank this committee for holding this hearing. In my mind, Marine Protected Areas with careful definition,

careful thought about their goals that they are being established

for are an extremely valuable tool. I haven’t actually heard about

proposals to close Chesapeake Bay area oyster reefs to fishing, although I have to say I identify a little bit with a couple of the scientists who said maybe one that was set aside so that we could see

what a truly intact, pristine system would look like might be worth

talking about.

It is an experiment. It is a great experiment that we are heading

for, with a lot of enthusiasm, a lot of scientific backing, but if we

knew all the answers it wouldn’t be an experiment, and the challenge that we have got—imagine if those coral reefs that we are

so proud of in the South Pacific had all been knocked down 100

years ago before there really was a mature science of oceanography, what we would be trying to guess we would do to put them

back together to restore them. I am very, very confident that when

we are successful in restoring oysters to the Chesapeake through

this nicely, brilliantly simple scheme of small area for sanctuaries,

large area for managed harvest reserves around them, that we are

going to see good things happen to the Bay that we haven’t even

guessed yet. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hirshfield follows:]

80

Statement of Michael F. Hirshfield, Ph.D., Vice President of Resource

Protection, Chesapeake Bay Foundation

Good morning. On behalf of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF), I would like

to thank Subcommittee Chairman Wayne T. Gilchrest and the other members of the

Subcommittee for this opportunity to present testimony on the use of Marine Protected Areas as a management tool in oyster restoration.

Before I speak about this important subject, let me introduce myself. My name

is Michael Hirshfield. I am the Vice President of Resource Protection at CBF, which

has its headquarters here in Annapolis, Maryland and offices in Virginia and Pennsylvania. CBF is a member-supported, non-profit environmental education and advocacy organization with over 90,000 members throughout the Bay watershed and nationwide. Our mission is to Save the Bay-to restore and protect the Chesapeake Bay

and its watershed.

Marine protected areas have emerged as powerful tools for fisheries managers to

restore not only the health of our natural resources but also the strength of the fishing industry.

On the Chesapeake Bay, Marine Protected Areas are essential tools in our effort

to restore a keystone species and what was once our most valuable commercial fishery: oysters.

In the 17th Century, when Europeans first entered the tidewaters of what would

become Virginia, they found a Bay teaming with so many oysters that the Native

Americans had named it ‘‘Tschiswapeki’’ meaning Great Shellfish Bay. By the 19th

Century, oysters were such a valuable fishery that watermen dubbed them ‘‘Chesapeake Gold.’’ At the end of the 20th Century, overharvesting, disease and pollution

had nearly eradicated the oyster, reducing their population by more than 99 percent.

The loss of oysters has hurt both the ecology and economy of the Bay. Oysters

are essential to the bay as water filters, and were once capable of straining tremendous quantities of algae and sediment from the water every day. Their reefs once

served as habitat for multitudes of other organisms, from shrimp and crabs to

striped bass and other commercially and recreationally important species of fish.

Watermen lost their most valuable fishery and have been forced to shift their fishing effort to blue crabs, jeopardizing the Bay’s other top fishery in the process.

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the largest non-profit conservation organization

dedicated to Saving the Bay, has set a goal of increasing the Bay’s oyster population

tenfold. Achieving that goal by 2010 is now the Baywide standard, agreed to by the

governors of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania and the mayor of Washington

D.C.

In 1999, the Bay’s scientific community reached consensus on the best way to

achieve that goal, drafting a strategy to jump-start the natural machinery that sustained the Bay’s oysters for thousands of years. Their strategy was brilliant in its

simplicity: Rebuild oyster reefs, stock the reefs with healthy oysters, and set aside

the restored reefs and small portions of adjacent oyster grounds as protected areas.

These areas then provide a continuous, long-term supply of healthy oysters to other

oyster grounds managed for the benefit of the fishing industry throughout the Bay.

Additionally, this jump-starting of oysters will allow the Bay’s other natural components, such as underwater grasses that depend on clearer water for their survival,

to take over and sustain themselves.

These oyster sanctuaries accomplish four key tasks:

First, they create an enduring source of young, genetically strong oysters for years

to come. When first spawned, juvenile oysters are free-swimming and can be carried

from their home reefs by tides and currents to nearby reefs where they settle and

grow. Hence, strategically locating sanctuaries in areas surrounded by harvest areas

creates a net increase in the number of oysters available for harvest. The strategy

calls for setting approximately 10 percent of the Bay’s traditional oyster grounds as

sanctuaries.

Second, sanctuaries allow oysters to grow large and old enough to maximize their

reproductive capacity. In oyster reproduction, size matters. Large oysters produce

exponentially more eggs than small oysters. Thus, even small areas with large mature oysters can produce a sufficient supply of offspring to supply a large area used

by the fishing industry.

Third, sanctuaries are essential to the battle against disease. Large oysters in disease-endemic areas have a demonstrated ability to survive diseases, a characteristic

that may be inherited by offspring. We currently remove too many large, potentially

disease-resistant oysters from the population, and lose some of the oysters’ natural

resistance to diseases in the process. Programs to collect large oysters and conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:32 Feb 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\75984.SF HRESOUR2 PsN: HRESOUR2
81

centrate them on high=quality habitat in sanctuaries are an important part of the

restoration strategy.

Fourth, sanctuaries create habitat for a wide range of organisms including the

Bay’s most commercially and recreationally valuable fish. In 1998, more than 60

percent of the Bay’s commercial catch was in species that rely, at least in part, on

oyster reefs for habitat. That translated to $37 million worth of total dockside value

in Maryland and $20 million in Virginia. Oyster bars are great fishing spots and

a key target for the nearly 5 million recreational fishing trips on the Chesapeake

Bay each year.

This sanctuary approach is already showing success on the Chesapeake Bay. On

the oyster grounds of Virginia’s Great Wicomico River, for example, oyster restoration pioneer Dr. James Wesson of the Virginia Marine Resources Comm ission

(VMRC) built a three-dimensional sanctuary reef in 1996.

Before building the reef, spat settlement (the number of juvenile oysters that settle on a square meter of each oyster reef) on nearby natural oyster grounds was well

below 200 juveniles per square meter, indicating little likelihood that oyster populations would rebound naturally.

Working with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and others, Dr. Wesson stocked

the reef with hearty oysters bought from watermen. One year later spat settlement

leapt to nearly 1,200 spat per square meter-a 600-percent increase. More importantly, spat sets on all nearby bars (up to 6 miles away) increased by as much as

400 percent - many of these areas were used as ‘‘seed beds’’ by the oyster industry

that following year.

Another example, and one that demonstrates the public’s support for Marine Protected Areas, is found in the heart of Hampton Roads Harbor, in Virginia. Since

1998, the Rotary Clubs of Norfolk and Portsmouth, VA have sponsored an annual

fundraiser to raise money for oyster sanctuary reefs in the Elizabeth River. In the

past four years, the Rotarians have helped to raise more than $100,000 in private

matching funds used, resulting in the construction of four new sanctuary reefs in

the Elizabeth and Lafayette Rivers. The reefs are now being restored by students

and volunteers and managed by the VMRC. The reefs have dramatically increased

the number of oysters in these two urban rivers and are becoming popular fishing

places for the ’ recreational anglers and commercial crabbers.

While we can’t expect success rates like this all the time in all parts of the Bay,

we can expect that sanctuaries will ultimately benefit not only the Chesapeake’s

ecology, but also the economy for those who depend on a restored oyster population.

Thank you again for this opportunity to showcase oyster sanctuary reefs as an

example of Marine Protected Areas in the Chesapeake Bay.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Mr. Hirshfield.

Ms. Oertel.

STATEMENT OF KAREN OERTEL, PRESIDENT, HARRIS CRAB

HOUSE

Ms. OERTEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for asking me. I do want

to say that Congressman Gilchrest had asked if I would address

the Oyster Recovery Partnership, and I had asked you to allow

Charlie to do it because he is the most knowledgeable. We hired

Charlie about 2 years ago as the Director, and he has made a phenomenal difference with what we have been doing, very knowledgeable about what we have been doing and have coordinated a lot of

efforts. So, thank you for allowing him to do that.

I asked you to allow me to address the processing industry side,

which is what I am part of. So, as it has Harris Crab House here,

it probably should say W.H. Harris Seafood. Harris Crab House is

my other business that we started in an effort 20 years ago to stabilize our situation.

I am a member of the processing industry and, with that, we

process oysters. We buy directly from the watermen and are connected with them. We have been in the industry since 1947, which

means in December we will be entering our 55th year in this indusVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:32 Feb 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\75984.SF HRESOUR2 PsN: HRESOUR2
82

try. We are a family-owned industry. We process the oysters, we

handle crabs. We buy directly from the local watermen, and I am

going to put a whole new twist on what you have just heard. I

think you are going to hear some things that you have not heard

today, although I certainly agree with a lot, and almost entirely

with what you have heard today.

We not only buy oyster product from people within—our oystermen within our own States, but we buy from ten additional States

in an effort to supply the products that are used by our customer

base that we have that is on a national level.

Yes, we are earning a living, but while we are doing that we are

providing approximately 60 jobs within our plant, and we are also

purchasing from watermen that affects about 300 watermen in the

Chesapeake Bay region.

W.H. Harris Seafood has played an important role, an intricate

part in stabilizing this industry in Maryland and its economy. We

have always worked within the State in its quest to understand the

problems of this industry, and have tried to help solve them.

We are one of the few that actually still are involved in a private

oyster agricultural project in the Chesapeake Bay. Currently, I

serve on the Oyster Roundtable, and I am serving on the Steering

Committee of this group which guides some of the things that we

are doing there, and I also serve with the Oyster Recovery Partnership and I am on the Executive Board of that, guiding the directions of many of the things that we do there.

Other owners of this firm serve on crab committees. We serve on

the SAB committees. We are out in the State in every direction

that we can with our concerns over the environmental issues and

the economic issues of the oyster industry in the Bay.

We fully understand that each group that is testifying here today

has important issues, and I am just going to make an attempt to

give you a few from the processing industry.

Disease is one of the most important issues that we deal with.

MSX and Dermo have succeeded in devastating most of the native

oysters in the Chesapeake Bay. Oysters are living only in the

upper part of the Bay regions in numbers. This is where we see

most of the oystermen actually harvesting over the last few years.

Areas where watermen are currently able to work and find live

product are primarily above the Chesapeake Bay on the northern

side, in waters of lower salinity. Seed grounds are primarily found

in the lower part of the Bay, south of the Bay, although some are

found north of the Bay, very small areas around Parsons Island

and a couple of others.

Of these areas, the Eastern Bay is widely affected by disease and

has oysters that are stressed for the most part. If shucked for market, the yield per pint has been averaging only about 4 pints a

bushel, which means that we can’t make a profit on that oyster, we

actually lose.

The Chesapeake River oyster which is currently being harvested

by watermen, that is in the northern part, is producing a little better than 5 pints per bushel, allowing for a margin of profit in the

marketplace. This is important for you to know as it sets the stage

for our industry and its ability for the processors to make a profit

and remain in this industry.

83

We use oysters from other States which we process that allows

for a better yield per bushel, as much as 6 pints, allowing for a better profit. The Chesapeake Bay oyster that is purchased from local

watermen is used primarily for rawbar shell oysters which allows

us to have a market for the local watermen product and a reasonable profit.

What this means is that the watermen must sell us an oyster

that is for rawbar market. It has to have a nice cup shell, it has

to be clean of muscles, and there has to be a full measure in the

container at our dock.

The problems that we see in the Chesapeake Bay that affect this

industry, we must find a way to control and manage disease, that

has been said. We must look at and explore new innovative ways

to reach our goals in the Chesapeake Bay. Maryland laws and regulations do not allow for Maryland to be competitive in the market

because we are not allowed to have private aquaculture, which

adds additional stress to the processors in Maryland. We have only

a 6-month industry in Maryland, while other States are able to

meet the market demands year-round because of the private industry that they encourage.

The old wive’s tale of eating an oyster in months of R, that are

in the months with an R in it, has long since gone. Refrigeration

put an R in every month, and allowing oysters to be consumed year

round, and the public demands this of us.

Public versus private aquaculture of oysters—because Maryland

does not encourage private aquaculture, it puts Maryland at a disadvantage to compete and to hold a place in the market. This does

not allow for Maryland to meet U.S. demands for product in the

worldwide market which we don’t even address.

One hundred fifty years of regulations and laws that does not encourage an active private aquaculture of oysters in the Bay in the

Maryland waters has failed to provide both economically and environmentally for the future of the Bay.

Issues that we have is lack of lease grounds. Good quality lease

grounds. Larry Simms and I are currently working, talking, discussing a project that could allow watermen to be involved in this,

creating a situation where we could have a co-op, allow for oysters

to be taken off some private grounds, watermen growing it. That

has not worked out yet, but we are starting to work on those ideas.

Lack of good seed to the private oyster grower. We can receive

naturally-grown seed only after the public industry has obtained all

that they need. Regulations set the bar too high to allow a good

count of seed to be purchased by the private oyster industry.

Lack of hatchery seed that is produced. These are not available,

period, to the private industry. Even if some of the seed was made

available for private bottom or water column aquaculture, it will be

difficult to encourage anyone to be brave enough to invest the capital with the threat of the diseases and its devastating effects on

our oyster. We do grow oysters in the Magothy on private lease

grounds, but they are in the best of what is available on hard

grounds, and they allow for a reasonable survival rate. We put as

much as $50,000 at times on those grounds.

Regulations. Can I have another few moments, there are a couple

of things you have got to hear.

84

Mr. GILCHREST. Okay.

Ms. OERTEL. Thank you. Regulations on a national level from

FDA that will require additional investment in the processing industry to meet their demands for a better, safer product for the

consumer are at our doorstep.

I have an insert that will be in my packet that you will be picking up that is listed No. 1, and it will prove what is getting ready

to happen to us.

How does this affect the Maryland processor? We currently depend on oysters from other States to survive and stay in business.

Even if Maryland is not under that 60 percent goal that FDA is

going to be looking at, guys, we purchase oysters from other States

and actually process them.

Let me tell you what is going to—we will not be making—we are

looking at about a $3 million investment in our industry in order

to put the machinery in that will process the oyster under FDA

regulations, that will allow us to compete in this country. We are

not going to be making that investment because we have to depend

on other States, we can’t depend on Maryland.

We need to depend on Maryland to encourage this investment.

We see oyster leases—and there is a fact sheet that you are going

to have that will give you some facts that have come from the fisheries with DNR, on harvesting that has been going on since about

1975 to date, so you can see some numbers there. I would ask you

to look at those.

There are restraints that we need. These are restraints that—

well, I have lost my thought there. But, anyhow, the bottom line

in this is that it is too much money for us to look at putting into

an industry that has severe problems here in Maryland.

Facts about processors remain in Maryland. Information from

interstate shellfish certified shippers lists. There are only about 30

of us currently listed as SP, shellfish processors, that are in Maryland. You could be a major processor with a building, a corporation

like I have, or you can have a little truck that is on the road and

be shucking them somewhere. We are one of the large processors.

There are currently about seven of our size that are left in the

State of Maryland. One of them is owned by a lady that is 80 years

old, or more. There is no one in her family involved in that business. And when she becomes unable to run that business, it will

cease to exist. Queen Anne County is already looking at purchasing

that property as a museum for the water industry.

We also have another processor that will be going out of business

December 31, 2001, unless something happens that miraculously

will change his situation. Actually, I put $50,000 in his business

last year to operate for the 2000-2001 season, or he wouldn’t have

opened his doors. He had exhausted all of his financial possibilities

to even stay in business, and he is currently looking at what he

will be doing January 1st, other than the seafood processing industry.

There is another one that we have been dealing with since my

father’s time. This is a family industry. We have been in it a long

time. He is in such a financial crisis that he will be short-lived in

this industry unless something turns around for him.

85

My receivables run in the neighborhood of $800,000. I have got

news for you. They have eaten my oyster. I have nothing to get

back. I could have one individual that would go up on our industry

and not pay me, and I have worked an entire year or have created

a situation that seriously jeopardizes my industry.

We are stressed to our limits right now. The effect on the

watermen, the jobs and the economy that is produced by this industry is in serious trouble, but why do we stay? We care. We have

a commitment to the watermen, to this industry, to the economy,

and to the environment, but we are good business people and make

no mistakes about this, we will not remain if we cannot continue

a reasonable profit.

This is the first time I have ever made this statement publicly

about my industry. We will not see our business forced into bankruptcy. We will be reorganizing into a more viable business, or sell

the waterfront property that we currently own. These options

would be of serious consequence to the watermen depending on a

processor in our area. Selling it as a processing business with the

problems we face doesn’t seem to be an option. Who would want

to buy it? Who would really want to take on the problems that we

are currently dealing with here?

Losing the processing industry in Maryland has other consequences. The loss of the shell that is used in the processing industry for growing both seed and establishing these habitat areas

and these sanctuaries that you are talking about is imperative to

this industry, and that shell comes from the processing industry.

We just returned from Ireland, and one of the things that I

brought back from the oyster industry—that is what we did. One

of the things that I brought back from there was their lack of

conch, their lack of oystershell. They have to use substrate of all

different kinds. They use muscles. That is what they are growing

their oyster with. It is known that an oyster is one of the best

things—shell is one of the best things we can put in there.

A conclusion? It is with great regret that someday this family

will be forced to leave this industry, but if we do not aggressively

consider change in how we think and act in this industry, we will

see our future—this will be what happens in our future. Things

that we can do. All groups continue to work together, and we are

doing that to provide for the opportunities that remain economically sound in this industry, while providing for the environment.

Address the change in the regulations and policies that limit our

ability to compete nationwide in this industry. And there is Attachment 3 that you are going to see, look at it. These are issues presented by the DNR in conversations with legislators and industry.

We have actually tried to come up with a couple of regulations last

year, regulation changes that would allow for seed product to go

out to agriculturists, private aquaculture. We were unsuccessful entirely on one. It was pulled out of committee. It would have been

the best. But the second part of it was that we did get one bill

through to grow some seed in some containers for private aquaculture use, if you wanted to grow it but, unfortunately, they set

us off of the areas where seed actually grows. So, there is concern

if you went to put a container in to try to grow seed oysters, you

86

are not in the best areas to do it, and certainly would not have a

good return on your time.

You need to provide and encourage oyster aquaculture and farming in the Bay, both on a private and a public level. Increase your

hatcheries’ ability to provide seed oysters in a farming pursuit.

Horn Point, increase production. Piney Point, upgrade the facility

allowing for higher production, and private hatcheries, encourage

them in the State and in Virginia. Use and increase the sanctuary

and the recovery area plantings of oysters in the Bay currently

being organized by the Oyster Recovery Partnership. Embrace the

importance of the shell conch that is used in production of oysters,

and enhance the ability to be able to supply the shell for this purpose.

Maintain and improve the fossil shell operation, its dredging operation. It is very important to what we are doing in Virginia and

Maryland. Use an alternative substrate, and wouldn’t it have been

interesting, out of something so horrible which happened at the

Pentagon, that that substrate could be used for something so good

in the Chesapeake Bay.

Continue to use scientists to find an oyster that will have disease

resistance in a natural product, and use all methods available to

put it in the water. Consider the approach of VIMS with the nonnative oyster that we are currently studying. Encourage Maryland

to do some of the studies under the VIMS regulations that are currently there. Maryland is not doing it. Maryland needs to be actively involved in this.

Provide funding to recreate habitat areas and oyster reefs, and

put grasses back in the Bay and protect these. Know the history

of this Bay. There is a good book to read. It was put out by John

Brooks. It is called The Oyster. You want to know what happened.

Read it. The writing was on the wall in the late 1800’s. The prediction was made what was going to happen to the Chesapeake

Bay. It is there.

Those knowledgeable of the situation in the Bay both environmentally and economically acknowledge that the oyster restoration

must be undertaken on a large scale if we are to expect to restore

the habitat areas, improve the quality of waters in the Bay, and

provide for the economics which are so important to this region.

We have already succeeded in producing results in these efforts,

but we must undertake this on a larger scale. I thank you for your

time, and I am sorry I went over.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Oertel follows:]

Statement of Karen Oertel, Owner/Partner, W. H. Harris Seafood Inc.

Our family has owned and operated W. H. Harris Seafood Inc. for 54 years. We

process Oysters, handle Crabs, buying from local watermen and purchasing product

both oysters and crabs from 10 other states in the effort to supply these products

to our customer base. Yes earning a living while providing 60 jobs yearly within the

plant, while purchasing waterman’s product which can affect as many 300

watermen in the Chesapeake Bay region. W. H. Harris Seafood has played an important role, an intricate part in stabilizing this industry in Maryland and it’s economy.

We have always worked within this state in it’s quest to understand the problems

of this industry and have tried to help solve them. We are one of a few that actually

is still involved in private oyster aquaculture in the Chesapeake Bay. Currently I

serve on the Oyster Round Table, serving on the Steering Committee of this group.

You should here from someone today, which explains what we do. I also serve on

87

the Oyster Recovery Partnership Board and I am on the Executive Committee of

this group. Again you should hear testimony from someone here today. Other, owners of our firm serve on various other committees within the state to assist in solving the issues of this industry in the Chesapeake Bay. Crab Committees SAV

(grasses), etc. We work with groups nationally that are involved with other issues

that affect this industry on a national level as well.

We fully understand that each group that is testifying here today has important

issues. I will make an attempt in the time allowed to present the issues of the processing industry. Past, Present and it’s Future as we see it.

Disease is the most serious issue, MXS and Dermo have succeeded in devastating

most of the native oysters in the Chesapeake Bay. Oysters are living only in the

upper bay regions. Areas where waterman are currently able to work and find live

product are north of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge in waters of lower salinity. Seed—

grounds. are primarily found in the lower Bay south of the bridge although some

are found north of bridge also. Of these areas Eastern Bay is widely affected by disease and has a oyster that is stressed for most part. If shucked for market the yield

per pint has been averaging only 4 pints per bushel which means in the market

place we can not make a profit on this oyster. The Chester River oysters and other

bar at this northern level are producing a little better that 5 pints per bushel. Allowing for a marginal profit in the market place. This is important for you to know,

as it sets the stage for our industry and it’s ability for processors to make a profit

and remain in this industry. We use oysters from other states which we process that

allows for a better yield per bushel, as must as 6 pints per bushel, allowing for a

better profit. The Chesapeake Bay oyster that we purchase from local watermen are

used primarily for Raw Bar Shell Oysters which allows us to have a market for the

local watermen product and a reasonable profit. What this means to the waterman

is that this shell product must be an oyster that is acceptable for the Raw Bar market. The product must be a cup shell, clean of mussels and a full measure must be

presented at the dock when we are buying from them.

PROBLEMS WE SEE IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY THAT AFFECT THIS INDUSTRY

1. We must find a way to control or manage disease in the Chesapeake Bay if

we want to retain the economics of this industry. All of this is while establishing habitat areas that provide for the Bay environmentally.

2. We must look at and explore new innovative ways to reach our goals in the

Chesapeake Bay.

3. Maryland Laws and Regulations do not allow for Maryland to be competitive

in the market place. This adds additional stress on the processors in Maryland.

a. We have only a 6 month industry in Maryland while other states are able to

meet market demands year round. They encourage a private growing industry

which allows for a year round supply. The old wives tail of eating an oyster

in months with an R is it is long since gone. Refrigeration put an R in every

month allowing oysters to be consumed year round.

b. Public vs Private Aquaculture of oysters. Because Maryland does not encourage

the private aquaculture it puts Maryland at a disadvantage to compete and

hold a place in the market. This allowing for Maryland to meet US demands

for the product and to market into the world wide market which we do not do

now. 150 years of regulations and laws that does not encourage an active private aquaculture of oysters in the Bay has failed to provide both economically

and environmentally for the future of the bay.

Issues:

1. Lack of leased grounds.

2. Good quality leased grounds

3. Lack of good seed to the private oyster grower. We can receive naturally grow

seed only after the public industry has obtained all they need. Regulations set

the bar to high to allow a good count of seed to be purchased by the private

industry.

4. Lack of hatchery produced seed. These are not available to the private industry.

Even if some of this seed was made available today for private bottom or water

column aquaculture it will be difficult to encourage anyone to be brave enough

to invest capital in it with the threat of disease and it’s devastating affects on

the oyster. We do grow oysters in the Magothy on private leased grounds but

they are in the best water available on some hard bottom grounds where the

oysters has a reasonable survival rate. We have seen them grow to harvest able

size and harvested in the out of season times to meet market demands. We

have also lost product from industrial spills, disease and poaching. Currently

88

we have approximately a fifty thousand dollar investment on these grounds.

They can be alive and thriving this week and gone the next.

5. Regulations on a national level form FDA that will require additional investment in the

processing industry to meet their demands for a better safer product for the consumer. See 1 attached insert. How does this affect Maryland Processors? We currently depend on oysters from other states in order to survive and stay in business.

Even if Maryland is not under the 60% goal of FDA we shuck other states oysters

and will be required to make approximately a three million dollar investment for

machinery to do the post harvest treatment. We will not be making this investment

depending on other states. We need to depend on Maryland to encourage this investment. See oyster lease facts 2. These are our restraints that need to be recognized.

This list was developed by the Department of Natural Resources.

FACTS ABOUT PROCESSORS REMAINING IN MARYLAND

Information from Interstate Certified Shellfish Shippers List October 1, 2001

There are currently 30 licenses in Maryland that allow for shellfish processing in

Maryland. This can be a major processor like us a person or firm that has a truck

and processes on a minimal or extremely limited bases. Of the 30 current license

holders there are only 7 large processors. We are one of them. Of the 7 remaining

1 is owned by an individual that is well in her 80’s. No other family member is involved. When she becomes physically unable to continue to operate this business

will cease to operate. Queen Annes County is already considering buying this operation for a museum.. Another processor that is located on the lower western shore

has had financial difficulties for several years and will be remaining in the processing industry only thru Dec. 31, 2001. He remained in operation in the 2001 season because we loaned him $50,000 to open the 2000–2001 season. This because we

recognize the importance to the waterman in that area and he had exhausted all

other financial alternatives. The third processor located on the lower eastern shore

has serious financial difficulties and is also in serious trouble. This leaves 4 processors remaining. This industry is stressed to it’s limits. The affect on the waterman, jobs and the economy that is produced by this industry is in serious trouble.

Why do we stay? Caring, comment to something we believe in the economy and the

environment But we are good business people and make no mistake, we will not

remain if we cannot continue to maintain a reasonable profit. We will not see our

business forced into bankruptcy. We will reorganize into a more viable business or

sell the waterfront property we currently own. These options would be of serious

consequences to the watermen depending on a processor in this area. Selling it as

a processing business with the problems we face is not an option. Who would want

to take on the problems we currently face.

Losing the processing industry in Maryland has other consequences. The loss of

the shell that is used in the process of growing seed both on the bottom and in the

in our hatcheries will have grave results in our ability to produce a seed oyster. The

shell is a intricate part of revitalizing the bay’s oyster.

CONCLUSION

It is with great regret that someday this family will be forced to leave this industry. But if we do not aggressively consider change in how we think and act in this

industry we see this in our future.

THINGS WE CAN DO;

1. All groups continue to work together to provide for the opportunities to remain

economically sound in this industry while providing for the environment.

2. Address and change regulations and policy which limit our ability to compete

nationwide in this industry. See attachment 3. These are issues presented by the

DNR in conversations with legislators and industry.

3. Provide and encourage farming (aquaculture) in the bay both on a public and

private level.

4. Increase hatcheries ability to provide seed oysters in our farming pursuit.

a. Horn Point - increase production

b. Piney Point- upgrade facility allowing for higher production

c. Private hatcheries. Encourage this but this will occur only when aquaculture

is encourage on both a public and private level. On public and private leased

grounds.

5. Use and increase the sanctuary and recovery area plantings of oysters in the

bay currently being organized by the Oyster Recovery Partnership.

6. Embrace the importance of the shell culte product in the reproduction of seed

oysters. Enhance our ability of being able to supply the shell for this purpose.

89

7. Maintain and improve Langenfelders fossil shell operation to produce shell used

in the effort to grow oysters in the bay.

8. Continue to use scientist to find a oyster that will have disease resistance in

our natural product and use all methods available to put it in the bay. Open experimental trials of the non native oyster the Areakanas in Maryland waters. Use the

VIMS approach for control to assure the safest trial possible is used.

This allows Maryland to have invaluable information both on the oysters it’s prospects and its problems that it could produce. Consider putting it in the bay if test

prove to have a positive affect.

9. Provide funding to recreate habit areas produced by oyster reefs and put

grassed in the bay. Protect these. These two things will substain the very life of the

bay providing sanctuary, the food chain for all species.

10. Know our History. Read the oyster by John Brooks about the Bay and use

it to determine our future.

Those knowledgeable of this situation in the bay both environmentally and economically acknowledge that the oyster restoration must be undertaken on a large

scale if we expect to restore habitat areas, improve the quality of the waters in the

bay land provide for the economics which are so important to this region. We have

already succeeded in producing results in our efforts but this must be undertaken

on a even larger scale.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Ms. Oertel, and your testimony has

been very compelling. I would guess that probably more than half

the people in this room have read the book that you describe, by

that early scientist over 100 years ago, who predicted what we are

now trying to deal with. When you read that book, it seems like

somebody from Johns Hopkins wrote it about a month ago.

Ms. OERTEL. I agree with you.

Mr. GILCHREST. It was very timely. And you bring up some compelling perspectives on oyster recovery in the Bay, and I would like

to ask Mr. Frentz, I know you didn’t come to testify today about

aquaculture, or private oyster harvesting, or those kinds of programs. But if we are looking at the overall recovery effort of the

Chesapeake Bay, would you say, or have you discussed, or do you

care to discuss the issue of privatizing or making a co-op with oyster recovery? Is that a piece of it, a part of it?

Mr. FRENTZ. It is certainly a process we have looked at, and forgive the passion of Karen, we have a hard time keeping her down

to 5 minutes at our board meetings, too. But she is correct. There

are a lot of things that we need to look at, and aquaculture is one

of them. There are an awful lot of leaseholders in the State of

Maryland, especially in the area in the Nanocoke River. These folks

basically have no access to any oyster spat. The Partnership planted 55 million oysters this year, but it is really a drop in the bucket.

It is still something we are trying to give Mother Nature a jumpstart on.

These folks would like to have access to oyster spat to put on the

grounds that they are working, and I would like to see co-ops occur.

Mr. GILCHREST. What has to change in order for them to have

access to oyster spat?

Mr. FRENTZ. Well, logistically, the Partnership, especially with

some grants from NOAA, has basically quadrupled what the University was able to do, but it is not enough. We probably need to

look at private enterprise, a public-private partnership. If there

could be some funding with that, another hatchery would not be

out of the scheme of things. There are a number of private people

I have talked to that may want to take that on.

90

Karen was also right to tell you that the disease pressures are

such that it is a tough thing for you to decide to get into the business if your oysters are not going to live. So, we have turned a corner, Mr. Chairman. We have got a long way to go. Certainly, the

Oyster Recovery Partnership has gotten everybody out of their

comfortable box. We are doing things a lot differently than we have

in the past.

Mr. GILCHREST. Would you say, Mr. Frentz, that there is a consensus about aquaculture, or is it still a pretty vitriolic difference

of opinion, whether it is the commercial watermen, the State management regime, the private sector, the public sector, is there the

beginnings of a consensus for some leaseholding to occur?

Mr. FRENTZ. Well, the Partnership does have a few aquaculture

projects in the field. Our difficulty is proving that they can make

a profit and that it is a viable operation for them. Karen can back

a lot of folks here, their experience in aquaculture has not worked

very well.

Mr. GILCHREST. Is that because of disease?

Mr. FRENTZ. There is a tremendous impact on aquaculture in

Maryland because of the nutrient loads. Just the cleaning of these

aquaculture facilities, the bags that they put out in the upper

water columns. It is a very—it is a heck of a lot of time and effort

that needs to be put to bear by these watermen or aquacultures

that may want to get involved in the process. You throw in the diseases after they do all this good work and they finally get an animal, and in the higher salinities MSX will kill the young oysters

quickly, and the Dermo takes over just as these animals are basically getting to market size, about 3 inches. So, you do all that

work and it is very labor-intensive and you can’t get your oysters

to market, it is a very difficult scenario for you.

So, there are suggestions on some public-private partnerships.

There are still a few folks out there that would like to do aquaculture, but I think they are going to need some help from all of

us to get the ball rolling.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you.

Ms. OERTEL. Just to address the No. 3 that I related to that you

need to read is oyster leasing issues. It was in coordination with

DNR, myself, and two legislators, in an interest to try to find a solution or to create some aquacultural initiative in Maryland. We

have been unsuccessful thus far, but I think that it gives you some

of the problems that we deal with, if you would read that. Certainly, the area where lease grounds are located, they are marginal, nonproductive, mud-ridden, near in small tributaries where

runoff and silting is prevalent, and they don’t—I mean, you can put

oysters on a bottom that is muddy and they suck down to China.

We have done that. It doesn’t work.

Mr. FRENTZ. Mr. Chairman, last year I did ask for some NOAA

funds, substantial funds, and basically was turned down because

the way the aquaculture initiatives are set up, from a Federal

funding point of view, it only addresses very small aquacultural

projects. We were turned down because I basically asked to start

up a new hatchery, a watermen aquacultural co-op type of situation, to develop the resources to allow these aquacultures to have

91

access to oyster seed, and it was turned down flat basically because

I was not a small operation looking to do this on a small scale.

Mr. GILCHREST. You were turned down by NOAA?

Mr. FRENTZ. It was of the—Rich, can you help me out—

Mr. GILCHREST. I think to some extent we are crossing the line

between—

Mr. FRENTZ. U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Sea Grant

Aquacultural Initiative, according to Rich.

Mr. GILCHREST. They turned you down because you were too big?

Mr. FRENTZ. Too big. I actually asked for an overall operation to

jump-start the entire industry here, and it was basically predicated

on smaller areas.

Mr. GILCHREST. So you had specific locations that were suitable,

unlike what Ms. Oertel was talking about, where the areas that

were, I guess, agreed upon for aquaculture for oysters were not

suitable based on their location and some of the problems from

sediment, things like that?

Mr. FRENTZ. I won’t claim that I had a suitable site picked out,

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. We will follow up and certainly work with you

on that issue, and work with NMFS, Seagrant, USDA, and anybody

else that might help us pull together some pilot project.

Mr. GILCHREST. I think that would be very helpful for a jumpstart because it is just very difficult for a private enterprise to take

such an exposure when we happen to find the success out there for

them.

I would like to comment also about a lot of the discussion that

we had today about the flexibility that the Partnership has to basically get out of the box and do these things, and the outstanding

rapport we have with NOAA. And if I can make a subtle request

of your committee—

Mr. GILCHREST. You can make a subtle, or latent, or right on

the—it won’t be very subtle if you speak into the mike.

Mr. FRENTZ. I guess I have never been accused of being subtle,

so I will just ask. When you write the language for these MPAs,

if you give such specific guidelines and you box-in the Army Corps

or NOAA or some of the other folks that we work with, and you

don’t allow us that flexibility or that adaptive management or

whatever term you want to use, this will put us into a complete

bind because the dynamics of the Bay are evolving. There is no

question that without flexibility, without using the best science

that is coming in to bear, if you map out a strategy that is so narrow, you won’t allow us to have success bringing back the health

of the Bay.

Mr. GILCHREST. Well, that was one of the reasons I posed that

question to the Corps of Engineers, so that they had—we have

worked for many years with the Corps of Engineers on just innumerable projects with different perspectives on goals and policies

and things like that. We just wanted to make sure that the Corps

was clear in its mission to restore the oysters, and actually the

staff showed me the language in which the Corps was given that

responsibility. And looking at the language, I think it was pretty

clear to me that the Corps had some flexibility to work with the

Partnership to do what was best. We don’t want to lock anybody

92

into a very narrow frame of reference. And after serving in Washington for a few years, all the brains in the nation don’t reside

there. So, we want to come up with full partnerships.

I just had another question, actually, about Marine Protected

Areas, and whatever we want to call them—sanctuaries. It seemed

to me that a number of people today on this panel—Mr. Hirshfield

talked about the endowment with the principal in which we can

harvest the interest, but the principal will be fundamentally sound

for generations to come, and that from Dr. Luckenbach mentioning

apparently that the older they are, they have lived that long, they

are going to be resistant, so that we would think, I would assume,

areas of the Bay where you could have those old oysters putting

out spat that are resistant to these diseases, and that maybe some

of the sanctuaries, some of the Marine Protected Areas, could be,

in the beginning at least, considered to be permanent. These are

sanctuaries that we will draw upon gradually, but they will give

us this solid group of old world oysters—when I say old world,

what used to be here a couple hundred years ago. Do we need to

permanently set aside a reasonable number of sanctuaries that will

be permanently protected?

Mr. HIRSHFIELD. My understanding of the consensus is that is

what people are expecting to come out of this. I don’t think there

is any expectation that after ten or twenty years of building back

some of the oyster reefs of the Chesapeake Bay, that the intent is

to go back in and knock them all down. There are still ongoing

questions of what the appropriate fraction of the bottom that

should be a set-aside should be, and those discussions will continue, but I think everybody understands the concept of maintaining the principal, and that is part of the 90-10 breakdown of the

protected area. Ten percent set-aside as not just old and diseaseresistant, but old and really big and making lots and lots of baby

oysters, not just a few oysters that a 3-year-old might make, plus

the 90 percent of the managed area, that is the managed reserve

that is designed to live off that interest. So, that is the core of the

concept, and the only wrinkle in that is making sure you get the

right areas so that you actually are getting that interest spread

outside of the true sanctuary.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. Mr. Baynard?

Mr. BAYNARD. I think the public perceives that that would be the

case, that a sanctuary is just as described, it would be permanent.

In the case of oyster restoration, I don’t think the public would be

willing to commit the resources, time and effort to accomplish this

without that understanding. If it were to be opened back up for

general consumption in some form, I just don’t think that you could

get this commitment that is needed to accomplish what we want.

Mr. FRENTZ. Mr. Chairman, there is no intention of breaking

these sanctuaries down, they are inviolate. To expand on that, from

some of these progeny that are coming out, the watermen helped

the Partnership clean two sanctuaries in the Patuxent River, one

called Teague and Elbow Bar, Elbow Bar being a sanctuary area

that the Chesapeake Bay Foundation has been interested in for

several years. And when they cleaned those bars, they acquired

some large, mature oysters that were impacted into the mud, which

nobody thought was there. They figured it was devoid of oysters.

93

We took those oysters and we placed a lot of them on a certain

area in close proximity to each other because the scientific community tell us that is the best way for them to recruit. We took some

of those oysters and we have given them to Dr. Don Merritt at the

University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, and he

will take those oysters and he will breed those oysters and the

spat-on-shell that comes from them will go back to that specific

bar. And although we don’t have all the answers, it makes good

sense, common sense, to me, to take the animals that were living

there and take the animals that are produced from those mature

oysters and put them right back onto that bar. Something said that

those animals could live there. It wasn’t rocket science for me to

put them right back where they were in the first place, and we

have done this in 16 different places in the Bay this year.

Now, we will monitor these things. We will take a look at it. And,

again, what we are all trying to do is get out of the box, think a

little bit differently, use the best science we have got, impact this

from a larger logistical point of view to get as many oysters out of

the water as we can. We could use some common sense out there

as we are trying to bring back the Bay.

Ms. OERTEL. One of the things from the Oyster Roundtable that

we realize needs to be in place, and we hope will be in the new

plan that we are developing, has to do with the sanctuary and recovery areas and the fines, the control of those areas if someone

gets on them. We know that a slap on the wrist, a minimal fine

is not going to stop anyone. We have got to get serious about our

law enforcement and our courts with what we are going to do, and

I think we all realize that. Perhaps a loss of a license for a period

of time will start to make an impact. I don’t know what direction

that is going in, but we realize that that has to be in place in order

to protect these areas.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much. Mr. Underwood.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for

your testimonies this afternoon. It was very compelling testimony,

as the Chairman has noted, Ms. Oertel.

I guess many of the issues that have been raised pertain to State

regulations. Some deal more appropriately, I guess, with what I am

trying to understand here, which is the Federal end of it. I am trying to receive some sense of guidance from your testimonies. In

particular, I am very interested in Mr. Baynard’s testimony in

which I believe you mentioned several times that there was a lack

of clarity about MPAs, and that that lack of clarity has led perhaps

to, in some ways, restricting the use by people for recreational purposes. I am trying to juxtapose that with Mr. Frentz’ testimony

when talking about regulations which seem to argue for more flexibility in order to be able to develop sanctuaries and protected areas

in a more collaborative way.

What is the basic issue that you are trying to get across, Mr.

Baynard, and am I characterizing your testimony appropriately?

Mr. BAYNARD. The major issue is communications and understanding. CCA isn’t opposed to the concept of MPAs. What we are

concerned about is losing our access and ability to utilize the public

resource. We have laid out criteria that we feel needs to be addressed. In the case of the Chesapeake Bay and the oyster sancVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:32 Feb 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\75984.SF HRESOUR2 PsN: HRESOUR2
94

tuaries, again, this brings in the issue of defining an MPA, and the

broad use and what people view it as.

We want to be assured—and I think, in general, we have been—

but we want to be assured up front that in supporting the concept

of an oyster sanctuary and in other terms, of an MPA, that the recreational sector is not going to be denied access into those areas

to enjoy recreational fishing.

Many times, Government has good intentions that get sidetracked and adversely affect large portions of the citizenry perhaps

unintentionally, and we just feel that these are issues that need to

be brought forward in the beginning, not at the end.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Well, I guess that is part of the structure that

at least the Congress has tried to develop in terms of making sure

that stakeholders are consulted, that sometimes it appears a little

confusing, and perhaps it may put out of focus one or two groups

of stakeholders, and I think the process is inevitably filled with

some sense of uncertainty in terms of what the final outcome is—

that is, your sense of—you are certainly not arguing that the decisions be pushed up, are you? You are just arguing for more clarity

in terms?

Mr. BAYNARD. We are arguing for more clarity. Again, it may

well be designed that there will be no restrictions in the case of

Chesapeake Bay, but we want that known in the front portion of

this process. If restrictions become necessary, all we are asking is

that there be scientific basis for those restrictions, that there be

quantitative measurements for the benefit of it, and that if recreational angling is having a negative impact on these resources

and other traditional methods aren’t able to be utilized to address

those, that once those problems and issues have been answered

and addressed, that we have recourse to gain access back to these

areas.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Well, thank you for your testimonies again,

and hopefully 1 day, Mr. Hirshfield, we will get back to those really

big oysters that we can eat with a regular size fork.

Mr. HIRSHFIELD. Navigation hazards in the Chesapeake Bay.

You have to watch your sailboat.

[Laughter.]

Mr. UNDERWOOD. We eat with a regular size fork so that Ms.

Oertel’s business will boom. Thank you very much.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Underwood. I will just close with

a last—I guess, a last comment or question. Each of you up there

knows the complexity and the difficulty that lies ahead not only

with oyster restoration, but with the best that we can understand

from an engineering perspective, the mechanics of the ecosystem

within this watershed. And it is not just about oysters. In fact, Mr.

Baynard, I think you made a comment about menhaden, which is

a part of the filtering system, and then we talked about

phytoplankton and then zooplankton, then the worms at the bottom in the mud, and then the interactions between prey and predator species, and the moratorium on rockfish, and all of these

things are enormously complex, but I would assume and hope that

as we move forward, that each interest group, whether it is the

Oyster Recovery Project or recreational fishermen or commercial

fishermen or private sector business or the Chesapeake Bay FounVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:32 Feb 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\75984.SF HRESOUR2 PsN: HRESOUR2
95

dation or NOAA or whoever, or the scientists that come in and give

us the best available data that they have at that particular time,

that we certainly broaden as far as we can our frame of reference

on the issue so we don’t let small particulars interrupt or slow

down the progress.

In the area of recreational fishing, for example—there are a lot

of other examples we could give here. There are a lot more recreational fishermen here today than there were 20 years ago, and

they come from all over, not just Maryland—Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, West Virginia, Ohio,

from out West—and we see more and more pressure from the recreational boating community, the recreational fishing community.

We want to make the Bay as accessible and as available to all

these people as possible, and we want them to enjoy a vibrant, productive, pristine, clean Chesapeake Bay. To do that takes an enormous effort.

Each county on the Bay has a dozen or dozens of little tidal basins, tidal ponds, that are craving for more SAVs, that are now beginning to spawn rockfish within the last few years, that didn’t 20

years ago. What we see, though, is more and more people—I have

seen it myself—going into the tidal ponds with hand-held nets,

catching fish with children on a wonderful, warm Saturday afternoon, wading in waist-deep water, while some of the other things

in that region, like eagles or osprey or blue heron, go wanting for

the fish that are scooped up in a small tidal pond that might be

ten acres.

Now, you want the kids to go in there and learn about the ecosystem. You want them to catch fish. But the pressure on the Bay

comes from a rather large group of citizens whose population continues to increase in the area which we recreate in, like the tidal

basins or the Bay, doesn’t increase.

So, this is an issue that takes rigorous critical mental exercise,

and it is not going to be over next year or 10 years. Every generation has to take the responsibility to deal as effectively as they can

with this issue. And Mr. Underwood and myself and Mr. Owings

certainly has to listen to each of you and absorb your information

so that we can put in place a type of legislation that helps each

of you expand the people that you represent into this critical area

of the Bay.

And I want to thank all of you for coming. Whenever we have

hearings and each of you gives testimony from a different perspective, from different interest groups—and I want to tell you that Mr.

Underwood is a good listener, an intelligent member of this committee, and our staffs on both sides will take this information and

do the best we can for all of you. Thank you all very much.

The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ