1 / 18

Restoring Oysters to the Chesapeake Bay

Restoring Oysters to the Chesapeake Bay. Our Overall Goal is a HEALTHY, PRODUCTIVE CHESAPEAKE BAY Road to success Bay Restoration Strategy Require a multifaceted approach based on science; and Sustained commitment of resources. Oyster Restoration

amelia
Download Presentation

Restoring Oysters to the Chesapeake Bay

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Restoring Oysters to the Chesapeake Bay

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

  3. 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

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

  6. Lead (Decision-Making) Agencies Cooperating Federal Agencies Agencies Involved In Preparing EIS

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

  8. 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

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

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

  11. 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

  12. Peer review comments are forwarded through the Project Delivery Team. EIS Component Responsible for Peer Review Provide technical support

  13. EIS Component Modeling Project Responsible for Peer Review Provide technical support Peer review comments are forwarded through the Project Delivery Team.

  14. EIS Component Modeling Project Responsible for Peer Review Provide technical support

  15. Review Sufficiency of EIS • 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.

  16. Oyster EIS Advisory Panel

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

  18. For More Information: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/dnrnews/infocus/oysters.asp

More Related