Post on 08-Jan-2016
description
transcript
Restoring Oysters to the Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay Restoration
Our Overall Goal is a HEALTHY, PRODUCTIVE
CHESAPEAKE BAYRoad to success Bay Restoration Strategy
Require a multifaceted approach based on science; and
Sustained commitment of resources.
Oyster Restoration Major component of strategy to improving the
quality of Chesapeake Bay Not viewed as a substitute, but rather as a
supplement.
Further declines in Bay water quality;
Continued or accelerated losses of SAV and oyster
reef habitats, with cascading effects on the structure
and stability of the Bay’s estuarine communities
Continued decline of the oyster fishery and erosion
of traditional economies and cultures of Bay
watermen;
Need to Evaluate Alternatives
NRC identified the following risks with continuing status quo
Native oyster restoration has not been fully successful.
C. ariakensis appears to have similar environmental
tolerances that make it well suited for growth and
reproduction in the Chesapeake Bay (NRC, 2003).
Not a new idea. Nonnative introductions of shellfish have
occurred worldwide for hundreds of years.
The oyster industry on the U.S. West Coast relies
almost exclusively on nonnative species.
International protocols (ICES) now exist to minimize risks
associated with nonnative introductions.
Why Consider a Nonnative Oyster?
States’ Decision to Prepare Federal EIS
Significant and controversial issue.
Federal EIS characterized by both scientific
integrity and process integrity (transparency).
Provides an open public forum to discuss the
issues and identify a preferred oyster
restoration alternative based upon sound
science.
Landmark opportunity to evaluate the risks
and benefits that should be addressed by
decision makers.
• In the past, introductions of nonnative
species were not subjected to this level of
scrutiny.
Lead (Decision-Making) Agencies
Cooperating Federal Agencies
Agencies Involved In Preparing EIS
EIS Framework
Scope of EISPublic Scoping
Research Framework
NRC Recommendations
Discussions with UMD and VIMS
Pre-Scoping
CBP STAC Recommendations
Public Scoping
PDT meetings
NRC and CBP STAC Research Recommendations
Risk Assessments(ecological, economic, cultural)
Modeling(larvae transport, demographic,
ecosystem impact)
Technical AdvisoryGroups
(PDT, SAC, PRG, ASMFC ISTC, ERAAG, OAP)
Pre-Draft EIS
Independent OysterAdvisory Panel
Draft EISPublic Review
Record of Decision
Final EIS
MD Public HearingReport to MD General Assembly
30 Day Waiting Period
MD Legislative Required 60 Day Waiting Period
30 Day PublicComment Period
The purpose of this EIS is to identify a preferred
alternative(s) for establishing an oyster population
that reaches a level of abundance in Chesapeake
Bay comparable to levels seen between 1920–1970.
A need exists to restore the ecological role of
oysters in the Bay and the economic benefits of a
commercial fishery through native oyster
restoration and/or an ecologically compatible
nonnative oyster species that would restore those
lost functions.
Purpose and Need of EIS
Alternatives for EIS Evaluation
Proposed – introduce Oregon strain of C. ariakensis in Action accordance with ICES protocols, and continue
native oyster restoration. Alternative 1 – continue native oyster restoration program. Alternative 2 – expand native oyster restoration program. Alternative 3 – implement temporary harvest moratorium
on native oyster and an oyster industry compensation (buy-out) program in
Maryland and Virginia. Alternative 4 – establish and/or expand native oyster
aquaculture program. Alternative 5 – establish nonnative aquaculture program. Alternative 6 – introduce and propagate an alternative
oyster species, or strain of C. ariakensis. Alternative 7 – introduce C. ariakensis and discontinue
native oyster restoration. Alternative 8 – combination of alternatives.
EIS Framework
Scope of EISPublic Scoping
Research Framework
NRC Recommendations
Discussions with UMD and VIMS
Pre-Scoping
CBP STAC Recommendations
Public Scoping
PDT meetings
NRC and CBP STAC Research Recommendations
Risk Assessments(ecological, economic, cultural)
Modeling(larvae transport, demographic,
ecosystem impact)
Technical AdvisoryGroups
(PDT, SAC, PRG, ASMFC ISTC, ERAAG, OAP)
Pre-Draft EIS
Independent OysterAdvisory Panel
Draft EISPublic Review
Record of Decision
Final EIS
MD Public HearingReport to MD General Assembly
30 Day Waiting Period
MD Legislative Required 60 Day Waiting Period
30 Day PublicComment Period
January 5, 2004 - Notice of Intent published to prepare
Oyster EIS.
2004 - Oyster EIS Project Delivery Team develops EIS
framework and establishes technical and advisory groups to
support EIS.
December 15, 2004 - Office of Management and Budget
establishes new regulations to enhance peer review of
scientific information upon which Federal decisions are
based.
2005 – Clarification of applicability of new peer review
regulations, and development of peer review plan.
February 28, 2006 – Oyster EIS Peer Review Plan approved
for compliance with OMB peer review regulations.
Oyster EIS Peer Review
Research Findings
Scientific Advisory CommitteeASMFC Interstate
Shellfish Transport Committee
Peer Review Group
Ecological Risk Assessment Team(UMD, Versar Inc. and ERAG) Oyster Advisory Panel
Peer review comments are forwarded through the Project Delivery Team.
Responsible for Peer Review
Provide technical support
EIS Component
Modeling Projects
Oyster Larvae TransportAnd
Demographic ModelOyster Ecosystem Impact Model
Scientific Advisory CommitteeASMFC Interstate
Shellfish Transport Committee
Oyster Advisory Panel
Peer review comments are forwarded through the Project Delivery Team.
Responsible for Peer Review
Provide technical support
EIS Component
Modeling Project
Assessment Projects
Cultural Analysis Economic AnalysisEcological Risk
Assessment
ASMFC InterstateShellfish Transport Committee
ASMFC InterstateShellfish Transport Committee
ASMFC InterstateShellfish Transport Committee
Dr. James Anderson and Team of NaturalResource Economists
Team of Environmental Anthropologist
(To Be Determined)
Ecological Risk Assessment Advisory Group
Oyster Advisory Panel Oyster Advisory panel Oyster Advisory Panel
Peer review comments are forwarded through the Project Delivery Team.
Responsible for Peer Review
Provide technical support
EIS Component
Modeling Project
•NEPA documents (i.e. Environmental Impact Statements) are
not subjected to the OMB peer review guidelines. However,
an Oyster Advisory Panel has been established to review the
Draft EIS. The Panel’s charge includes:
•Review the adequacy of data and assessments used to
identify the ecological, economic, and cultural risks and
benefits, and associated uncertainties for each EIS
alternative;
•Provide advice on the degree of risk that would be
involved for each EIS alternative if a decision were made
based on the available data and assessments; and
•Recommend additional research, and associated
timeline, that could be obtained to reduce the level of risk
and uncertainty.
Review Sufficiency of EIS
Oyster EIS Advisory Panel
Member Affiliation Expertise
Brian Rothschild Director, School for Marine Science and Technology, Univ. of MA at Dartmouth
Population dynamics, biological oceanography, fisheries mgt. and natural resources policy
Jim Anderson Professor, Dept. of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics at Univ. of RI
Fisheries and aquaculture economics
Mark Berrigan Chief of the Bureau of Aquaculture Development, Division of Aquaculture, FL Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services
Aquaculture, shellfish restoration, and multi-dimensional resource management.
Maurice Heral Director, Scientific Research, IFREMER, France Shellfish biology, aquaculture, non-native introductions, and fishery management.
Roger Mann Director, Marine Research and Advisory Services, Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences
Oyster biology and ecology.
Eric Powell Director, Haskin Shellfish Research Laboratory, Rutgers University
Shellfish physiology and parasite/disease processes and in numerical modeling and statistical analysis.
Mike Roman Director, Horn Point Laboratory, University of Maryland’s Center for Environmental Studies
Zooplankton ecology and biological oceanography.
EIS Framework
Scope of EISPublic Scoping
Research Framework
NRC Recommendations
Discussions with UMD and VIMS
Pre-Scoping
CBP STAC Recommendations
Public Scoping
PDT meetings
NRC and CBP STAC Research Recommendations
Risk Assessments(ecological, economic, cultural)
Modeling(larvae transport, demographic,
ecosystem impact)
Technical AdvisoryGroups
(PDT, SAC, PRG, ASMFC ISTC, ERAAG, OAP)
Pre-Draft EIS
Independent OysterAdvisory Panel
Draft EISPublic Review
Record of Decision
Final EIS
MD Public HearingReport to MD General Assembly
30 Day Waiting Period
MD Legislative Required 60 Day Waiting Period
30 Day PublicComment Period
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/dnrnews/infocus/oysters.asp
For More Information: