I
Letters Requesting a Study on Non-Native Oysters in the Chesapeake Bay

Baker, W., Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Letter requesting a study on nonnative oysters in the Chesapeake Bay, 9 January 2002.

Esher, D., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Letter requesting the study on nonnative oysters in the Chesapeake Bay, 9 January 2002.

Mikulski, B., U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies. Letter requesting assistance in funding for the study on nonnative oysters in the Chesapeake Bay, 22 January 2002.

Swanson, A.P., Chesapeake Bay Commission. Letter and resolution requesting the study on nonnative oysters in the Chesapeake Bay, 17 January 2002.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 310
Nonnative Oysters in the Chesapeake Bay I Letters Requesting a Study on Non-Native Oysters in the Chesapeake Bay Baker, W., Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Letter requesting a study on nonnative oysters in the Chesapeake Bay, 9 January 2002. Esher, D., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Letter requesting the study on nonnative oysters in the Chesapeake Bay, 9 January 2002. Mikulski, B., U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies. Letter requesting assistance in funding for the study on nonnative oysters in the Chesapeake Bay, 22 January 2002. Swanson, A.P., Chesapeake Bay Commission. Letter and resolution requesting the study on nonnative oysters in the Chesapeake Bay, 17 January 2002.

OCR for page 310
Nonnative Oysters in the Chesapeake Bay CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION Environmental Education Resource Protection and Restoration OFFICERS Wayne A. Mills Chairman T. Gaylon Layfield, III Vice Chairman Burks Lapham Secretary Aileen Bowdoin Train Treasurer William C. Baker President EX OFFICIO TRUSTEES Governor James S. Gilmore, III Governor Parris N. Glendening Governor Mark Schweiker Mayor Anthony Williams Hal C.B. Clagett – Clagett Trustee Joanne S. Berkley – Bay Care Chapter Maurice P. Lynch, Ph.D. – York Chapter TRUSTEES Myrtha L. Allen Donald F. Boesch George W. Brown, Ph.D. D. Keith Campbell J. Carter Fox Robert M. Freeman Alan R. Griffith Jack S. Griswold Susan Taylor Hansen Edward M. Holland Virginia R. Holton H.F. (Gerry) Lenfest Janice L. Marshall H. Turney McKnight Philip Merrill W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr. Blaine T. Phillips George G. Phillips Robert M. Pinkard Arnold I. Richman Marie W. Ridder Willcox Ruffin, Jr. M.D. Truman T. Semans Edmund A. Stanley, Jr. Thomas H. Stoner James C. Wheat, III John R. Whitmore HONORARY TRUSTEES Louisa C. Duemling T. Marshall Duer, Jr. C.A. Porter Hopkins Charles McC. Mathias Godfrey A. Rockefeller Russell C. Scott William W. Warner Michael Watson January 9, 2002 Ms. Morgan Gopnik, Director Ocean Studies Board National Academy of Sciences 2001 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20007 Dear Ms. Gopnik: On behalf of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, I want to formally request that the Ocean Studies Board undertake at its earliest convenience a study of the oyster Crassostrea ariakensis and its proposed introduction into Chesapeake Bay. Recent trials with this non-native species have suggested it would thrive in Chesapeake Bay waters, and while industry support for its use is strong and growing, little is known about the ecological risks that an introduction would carry. Most institutions, agencies and oyster interests in the Chesapeake area agree that a responsible resolution of this issue should start with a thorough and independent technical review. The National Academy of Sciences is best suited to carry out this work. Oyster restoration is considered one of the most important aspects of the broad effort to save the Chesapeake Bay. Substantial public support exists for various programs to rebuild reef habitat and restock the native oyster, Crassostrea virginica. However, C. virginica experiences high disease mortality in much of the Bay and will require many years of stocking and selective pressure to develop disease resistance before large reef populations are realized. Recent research by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science suggests that C. ariakensis grows faster and survives disease better than the native oyster. As a result, many in the oyster industry advocate using this non-native oyster to support either an aquaculture industry based on sterile triploids or a public fishery based on naturalized populations of reproductive animals released into the Bay. The potential economic benefits are great for this depressed industry, and pressure on public officials to move in this direction is building. Indeed, the prospect of a hardier oyster as a tool for Bay restoration is tantalizing. Philip Merrill Environmental Center 6 Herndoii Avenue, Annapolis, Maryland 21403 • 410-268-8816, fax 410-268-687

OCR for page 310
Nonnative Oysters in the Chesapeake Bay The introduction of a non-native species is not a trivial act, and it carries potential repercussions for the entire east coast. At the very least, public officials must have reasonable assurance that adverse impacts are unlikely or are far outweighed by potential benefits. Unfortunately, the current state of knowledge about this oyster is insufficient to support this conclusion. It is not known, for example, whether C. ariakensis would out-compete and eventually eliminate the native oyster, C. virginica. Even using accepted protocols for introduction, it cannot be said at this time what the risk would be that an exotic virus would be introduced that could have disastrous affects on other species such as the blue crab, currently our most valuable fishery. The need for an independent technical study, therefore, is to describe the state of our knowledge of C. ariakensis, identify key gaps for which research would be required, and assess the risks inherent in utilizing this species to support Chesapeake Bay fisheries. Under the circumstances of impressive initial results with this oyster and resultant political pressure for introduction, the need is urgent. Accordingly, we ask you to give the earliest possible consideration to a study by the Ocean Studies Board to evaluate these issues. With great appreciation for your time, I am, Sincerely, William C. Baker President

OCR for page 310
Nonnative Oysters in the Chesapeake Bay UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION III Chesapeake Say Program Office 410 SEVERN AVENUE ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND 21403 JAN 9 2002 Dr. Brace Alberts President, National Academy of Sciences 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20418 Dear Dr. Alberts: As Acting Director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Chesapeake Bay Program Office, I am requesting assistance from the National Academy of Sciences on issues related to the possible establishment of non-native oyster aquaculture in the waters of the Bay. Currently, the species most discussed for such introduction is the Suminoe oyster, or Crassostrea ariakensis. Oyster management in Chesapeake Bay recently has received considerable attention from established research institutions, state and Federal agencies and the public in the Bay region. In the Chesapeake 2000 agreement, the Chesapeake Bay Program partners (the states of Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, the District of Columbia, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency representing the Federal government) committed to “…a ten-fold increase in native oysters in the Chesapeake Bay…” by 2010. The partners are developing a strategic plan to reach that objective. One of the significant considerations in that plan must be the high impact of disease mortality on native oyster stocks, as well as the appropriate management of harvest mortality. Because oyster disease is so prevalent in the Bay, the Virginia General Assembly asked the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences to evaluate the possible role of disease resistant non-native oysters in the revitalization of the oyster industry. Now, based on market-oriented tests, it appears that the non-native Suminoe oyster (Crassostrea ariakensis) could resist the diseases decimating the native oyster, grow faster, and fare well in the market. Indeed, the Virginia Seafood Council is developing a proposal to initiate commercial aquaculture production of C. ariakensis in the Bay within the next couple of years, starting with non-reproductive triploid organisms. Anticipating a proposal to initiate C. ariakensis aquaculture in the Bay, the Chesapeake Bay Program’s Federal Agencies Committee and others have raised concern over the lack of scientific knowledge which would be necessary for any agency to make an informed decision on such a proposal. For example, there appears to have been little or no study of the organism’s

OCR for page 310
Nonnative Oysters in the Chesapeake Bay ecology, including disease hosting, interspecific interactions, potential for hybridization, reef-building capacity, etc, Also, although we are forming an ad hoc review panel comprised of representatives of the Chesapeake Bay Program partners, no independent assessment of the risks posed by the initiation of non-native oyster aquaculture in the waters of the Bay has occurred. At a minimum, we need to have the following broad questions answered: How effective are institutional, technological, and infrastructure controls to prevent the accidental release of reproductive oysters from aquaculture facilities? If there is an escapement of reproductive C. ariakensis into the Bay, how will it compete with the native C. virginica? If C. ariakensis were to escape and reproduce, how will that affect the natural ecosystem and habitat of the Chesapeake Bay? What is the potential of the Suminoe oyster serving as a reservoir for MSX and Dermo or as a vector for new oyster diseases? Therefore, recognizing the regional significance of this issue (our actions could affect the ecology of estuaries up and down the U.S. Atlantic Coast), the dire need for guidance in identifying research that would be essential to support an informed decision, and our interest in obtaining an independent evaluation of research results, risk assessment needs, and oyster management options, I am requesting your consideration of a National Academy of Sciences evaluation of these issues, If you are agreeable to considering such an evaluation, I suggest that we could convene a small meeting of interested parties within the next few weeks. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. You may contact me at (410) 267-5709 or Mike Fritz at (410) 267-5721. Sincerely, Diana Esher Acting Director

OCR for page 310
Nonnative Oysters in the Chesapeake Bay ROBERT C. BYRD, WEST VIRGINIA, CHAIRMAN DANIEL K INDUYE, HAWAII ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, SOUTH CAROLINA PATRICK J. LEAHY VERMONT TOM HARKIN, IOWA BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, MARYLAND HARRY REID, NEVADA HEUB KOHL WISCONSIN PATTY MURRAY, WASHINGTON BYRON L. DORGAN, NORTH DAKOTA DIANNE FEINSTEIN, CALIFORNIA RICHARD J. DURBIN, ILLINOIS TIM JOHNSON, SOUTH DAKOYA MARY L. LANDRIEU, LOUISIANA JACK REED, RHODE ISLAND TED STEVENS, ALASKA THAD COCHRAN MISSISSIPIT ARLEN SPECTER, PENNSYLVANIA PETE V. DOMENICK, NEW MEXICO CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, MISSOURI MITCH McCONNELL, KENTUCKY CONRAD BURNS, MONTANA RICHARH C. SHELDY, ALADAMA JUDD GREGG, NEW HAMPSHIRE ROBERT F. BENNETT, UTAH BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL COLORADO LARRY CRAIG, IDAHO KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, TEXAS MIKE DEWINE, OHIO TERRENCE E. SALIVAIN, STAFF DIRECTOR STEVEN J. CORTESE, MINORITY STAFF DIRECTOR United States Senate COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6025 www.senate.gov/-appropriations January 22, 2002 The Honorable Christie Whitman Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr. Under Secretary and Administrator National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Department of Commerce 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW Wastington, DC 20230 Dear Administrator Whitman and Admiral Lautenbacher: I am writing to request that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) help fund a study by the National Academies of Sciences (NAS) on the introduction of non-native species oysters into the Chesapeake Bay. As you know, oyster restoration is one of the most important aspects of efforts to save the Chesapeake Bay. Oysters are critical to both restoring the Bay’s ecosystem and ensuring the economic survival of the Bay’s commercial fisheries. That is why I have consistently worked to provide federal resources, including EPA and NOAA funding, for programs to rebuild reef habitat and restock the native oyster, Crassostrea virginica. These efforts have met with great success. Now, recent research suggests that a non-native species, Crassostrea ariakensis, may grow faster and survive disease better than the native oyster. Supporters of saving the Bay, including the oyster industry, the watermen, and environmental organizations, agree that we need further information about the potential benefits and impacts of introducing this species into the Bay. To that end, I request that EPA and NOAA help fund a study by the NAS to further examine these issues. The study is expected to cost approximately $200,000 and be complete within nine months. Representatives of the oyster industry, the watermen, and environmental organizations are currently working with NAS to identify sources of funding for this study, including state and federal resources, and I urge EPA and NOAA to participate in funding this study. Thank you for your attention to this request. I look forward to working with you on this important issue. Sincerely, Barbara A. Mikulski Chairman, Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies

OCR for page 310
Nonnative Oysters in the Chesapeake Bay Chesapeake Bay Commission A tri-state legislative assembly January 16, 2002 Ms. Morgan Gopnik, Director Ocean Studies Board National Academy of Sciences 2001 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Wastington, DC 20007 Dear Ms. Gopnik: I am writing on behalf of the Chesapeake Bay Commission to request that the Ocean Studies Board undertake a study of the oyster Crassostrea ariakensis and its proposed introduction into Chesapeake Bay. To amplify the gravity with which we make this request, I am enclosing a resolution adopted by the Commission at its January meeting. In case you are not familiar with our organization, the Commission is a 21-member tri-state legislative commission created in 1980 to advise the members of the General Assemblies of Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania on matters of Baywide concern. The members, mostly legislators from the three states, are responsible for coordinating Bay-related policy across state lines and developing shared solutions. Oyster restoration is a centerpiece of the Bay restoration effort. Efforts to restore our native species are in full swing, yet despite our reef rebuilding and restocking efforts, the high disease mortality in much of the Bay has hampered progress to restore the native oyster, Crassostrea virginica. Several years ago, the Virginia General Assembly requested the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences (VIMS) to analyze the viability of growing a non-native oyster in Chesapeake waters. Their tests of C. ariakensis revealed that the species appears to thrive in the saltier waters of the Bay, grows quickly, compares favorably in taste to the native oyster, and is highly resistant to the oyster diseases common in our region. While industry support for its use is fervent and mounting, little is known about the ecological risks that are posed by the introduction of C. ariakensis in the Chesapeake Bay. There is near universal agreement among Bay-region leaders that a thorough and independent technical review of this proposed introduction is needed. We believe that the National Academy of Sciences is best suited to carry out this work.

OCR for page 310
Nonnative Oysters in the Chesapeake Bay Introducing a non-native species is not a decision to be taken lightly. An independent technical study is needed to describe the state of our knowledge, identify research priorities, and assess the risks inherent in utilizing this species to support Chesapeake Bay fisheries. The Commission, therefore, requests that the Oceans Studies Board make C. ariakensis an immediate priority for study. The Chesapeake Bay Program has liberated $50,000 towards the funding of such a study. Should you agree, we will do everything possible to identify additional sources of money. Sincerely, Ann Pesiri Swanson Executive Director APS:pc Enclosure

OCR for page 310
Nonnative Oysters in the Chesapeake Bay Chesapeake Bay Commission RESOLUTION A legislative commission serving Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Resolution Supporting a National Academy of Sciences Evaluation of the Benefits and Risks of Crassostrea ariakensis in the Chesapeake Bay Adopted January 4, 2002 WHEREAS, the decline of native populations of the Eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica, in the Chesapeake Bay and other Atlantic coast estuaries has led the Commonwealth of Virginia, as well as scientific and fisheries industry organizations, to examine the possible role of disease-resistant, non-native oysters in the revitalization of the oyster industry, and WHEREAS, trials in Virginia using sterile, tripioid individuals of an Asian oyster species, Crassostrea ariakensis, have shown that it is more resistant to the diseases decimating the native oyster, grows faster, and could fare well in the market, and WHEREAS, proposals to initiate commercial aquaculture production of C. ariakensis in the Bay, using non-reproductive tripioid organisms, are forthcoming, and WHEREAS, possible risks associated with unintentional or intentional establishment of reproductive populations of C. ariakensis have been raised, and WHEREAS, concern has been expressed among many that current scientific knowledge is inadequate to effectively evaluate proposals for the initiation of non-native oyster aquaculture, and WHEREAS, the history of undesirable consequences of many introductions of marine organisms necessitates a thorough assessment of the impacts (both beneficial and detrimental) of reproducing populations of C. ariakensis, and WHEREAS, the Commission recognizes the regional and national significance of this issue, and the sense of urgency in addressing issues surrounding C. ariakensis aquaculture and introduction due to the economic, environmental, and social factors involved;

OCR for page 310
Nonnative Oysters in the Chesapeake Bay NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesapeake Bay Commission requests that the National Academy of Sciences conduct a study to review current research, evaluate risks and benefits associated with the use of non-native oysters in the Bay, and prioritize additional research needed before a responsible decision on C. ariakensis can be made. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this evaluation should, at minimum, address the following questions: What are the probable consequences, if any, of introductions of populations of C. ariakensis, either intentional or unintentional, in Atlantic coastal environments? What are the potential risks, if any, of establishment of reproducing populations? What procedures could be taken to minimize those risks? What is the most important research required to reduce the uncertainties in these predictions? BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Chesapeake Bay Commission requests that the Academy conduct this study in a time-sensitive manner, if possible within one year.