[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
POTENTIAL LISTING OF THE EASTERN OYSTER UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES
ACT
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-24
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
22-446 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Elton Gallegly, California Samoa
John J. Duncan, Jr., Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Tennesse Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
e Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Ken Calvert, California Islands
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Vice Chair Grace F. Napolitano, California
George P. Radanovich, California Tom Udall, New Mexico
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Carolina Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Chris Cannon, Utah Jim Costa, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Charlie Melancon, Louisiana
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Dan Boren, Oklahoma
Greg Walden, Oregon George Miller, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Jeff Flake, Arizona Jay Inslee, Washington
Rick Renzi, Arizona Mark Udall, Colorado
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico Dennis Cardoza, California
Henry Brown, Jr., South Carolina Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota
Thelma Drake, Virginia
Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Cathy McMorris, Washington
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana
Louie Gohmert, Texas
Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado
Vacancy
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, July 19, 2005........................... 1
Statement of Members:
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland...................................... 3
Inslee, Hon. Jay, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Washington.............................................. 3
Melancon, Hon. Charlie, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Louisiana......................................... 4
Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Jersey, Statement and article submitted
for the record............................................. 11
Pombo, Hon. Richard W., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 1
Statement of Witnesses:
Bean, Michael J., Attorney, Environmental Defense............ 38
Prepared statement of.................................... 39
Cowart, S. Lake, Jr., Vice President, Cowart Seafood
Corporation................................................ 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 21
Gaffney, Patrick, Professor, University of Delaware, College
of Marine Studies.......................................... 60
Prepared statement of.................................... 62
Gergela, Joseph M., III, Executive Director, Long Island Farm
Bureau..................................................... 31
Prepared statement of.................................... 34
Hare, Dr. Matthew P., Assistant Professor, Department of
Biology, University of Maryland............................ 66
Prepared statement of.................................... 68
Judy, Christopher, Shellfish Program Director, Maryland
Department of Natural Resources............................ 95
Prepared statement of.................................... 97
Kraeuter, Dr. John N., Associate Director, Haskin Shellfish
Research Laboratory, Institute of Marine and Coastal
Sciences, Rutgers University............................... 50
Prepared statement of.................................... 52
Perret, William S., Marine Fisheries Director, Mississippi
Department of Marine Resources............................. 86
Prepared statement of.................................... 88
Ray, Dr. Sammy M., Professor Emeritus, Marine Biology
Department, Texas A&M University........................... 58
Prepared statement of.................................... 59
Rheault, Dr. Robert B., President, East Coast Shellfish
Growers Association........................................ 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Voisin, Michael C., Chairman, Louisiana Oyster Task Force.... 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 30
Wesson, Dr. James A., The Virginia Marine Resources
Commission, Division of Fisheries Management, Department of
Conservation and Replenishment............................. 80
Prepared statement of.................................... 82
Additional materials supplied:
Aldred, John, Director, Town of East Hampton, New York,
Letter submitted for the record............................ 5
Bishop, Hon. Timothy H., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York, Statement submitted for the record.. 19
Boyd, Hon. Allen, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida, Statement submitted for the record............. 6
Davis, Hon. JoAnn, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia, Statement submitted for the record...... 6
Maslyn, Mark, Executive Director, Public Policy, American
Farm Bureau Federation, Letter submitted for the record.... 7
Sheehan, Denise M., Acting Commissioner, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, Statement
submitted for the record................................... 13
Sieling, Bill, Executive Director, Chesapeake Bay Seafood
Industries Association, Letter submitted for the record.... 15
White, Jack, New Point Oyster Company, LLC, Letter and
comments submitted for the record.......................... 17
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ``POTENTIAL LISTING OF THE EASTERN OYSTER UNDER
THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT''
----------
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:10 p.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Richard W.
Pombo [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Pombo, Gilchrest, Drake, Jindal,
Inslee, Costa, and Melancon.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD W. POMBO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
The Chairman. The Committee will come to order.
Today, we have a number of highly qualified individuals
that will give us testimony regarding a petition to list the
eastern oyster as threatened or endangered under the Endangered
Species Act. While I believe the petitioner has outlined a
number of problems previously documented specific to the
Chesapeake Bay, he has not given the National Marine Fisheries
Service reason to list the eastern oyster.
Simply, we have before us a case where the petitioner has
submitted incomplete work as admitted to by NMFS. However, when
grading the submission, his former colleagues have been all too
willing to establish a curve that unfairly benefits him, and
they do this primarily by filling in the blanks he failed to
fill in.
In fact, I believe this petition is a case we see all too
often in other places of the country. The parties grow
frustrated with efforts intended to accomplish a certain goal
which have stalled----in this case, clean-up efforts in the
Chesapeake Bay----and go ``statute shopping,'' looking for a
new way to force action. In doing this, individuals look for a
Federal statute with a big hammer that they can use to stop
activities affecting their specific issue. In this case, the
issue is water quality in the Chesapeake Bay, and the hammer is
the Endangered Species Act as a means to stop the introduction
of the Asian oyster.
This committee, through Congressman Wayne Gilchrest's
Fisheries and Oceans Subcommittee, has held a number of
hearings in the past 5 years on both the status of the native
oysters and the health of the Chesapeake Bay. While I don't
want to put words in Chairman Gilchrest's mouth--which he
probably appreciates--I expect he will agree with the
petitioner that there are water quality problems in the
Chesapeake Bay, and some of those are very serious problems.
But attempts to list the eastern oyster under the
Endangered Species Act as a means to use a big Federal hammer
to clean up the bay is not appropriate. If the current
restoration activities to clean up the bay are not working, let
us look at that rather than waste the Federal Government's time
and unnecessarily scare legitimate businessmen by convening a
status review committee and studying a nuisance petition to
list the eastern oyster.
It is clear that the petitioner does not provide
information on the status of the eastern oyster throughout its
range, something that NMFS pointed out in the March Federal
Register notice. This should have been enough to find the
petition not warranted. However, NMFS decided that they knew
what the petitioner really meant and took it upon themselves to
decide that the petitioner wanted to declare a separate sub-
species for the Atlantic coast.
I am surprised that any agency would allow scarce taxpayer
dollars to be spent to pursue a half-baked analysis such as
this one before us today. In addition, the basis for the
petitioner's claim of low population levels is harvest data.
This is clearly not an indication of the status of the oyster,
but rather an indication of the management practices in the
various States. Low harvest levels could indicate smaller
population levels, but they could equally indicate a number of
other factors that have nothing to do with population levels.
NMFS should know this.
In fact, that the agency is even looking into this any
further has caused a large amount of concern for those areas of
the country that have healthy eastern oyster populations or
that ship their eastern oysters into this part of the country.
A listing under the ESA, even for a sub-species of the eastern
oyster, could have devastating results for this industry.
In any case, the ESA requires that the agency must find
that an invertebrate species to be in danger of extinction
throughout its range in order to list under the Endangered
Species Act, and I do not believe they can do that. The fact
that the petitioner is attempting to manipulate the ESA to get
at problems or to stop activities in the State waters of the
Chesapeake Bay is yet another reason why I believe the ESA
needs to be updated and improved.
Would the listing of the oyster do anything to recover it
in any way? Given the Fish and Wildlife Service data on the
species recovery, I am very doubtful. According to the service
data, less than 1 percent of listed species have recovered.
Only 6 percent are improving. Three percent are believed to be
extinct. Twenty-one percent are declining, and 40 percent are
just simply categorized as unknown. Seventy-seven percent of
all listed species have achieved 0-25 percent of their recovery
objectives.
The National Marine Fisheries Service will now spend a huge
amount of time and effort to review a claim that should not
have met the standard for further action. This action alone
caused a ripple effect in the oyster industry from Maine to the
Gulf of Mexico at a time when funding for endangered species is
scarce and critics argue that species that are legitimately
endangered are getting no closer to recovery.
Maybe it is time for NMFS to get out of the ESA business
and refocus its staff agenda on managing other protected
resources. Obviously, as evidenced by the reaction to this
petition, they are not acting in the best interest of the
species, but rather creating work as a means of self
preservation.
The Chairman. I would like to recognize Mr. Inslee for any
opening statement he may have.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAY INSLEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Inslee. Thank you. Just a couple of points.
First, I want to express my appreciation of the shellfish
industry as a whole and its environmental stewardship. I come
from the Puget Sound area, and in my neck of the woods, the
shellfish industry has been a tremendous advocate for measures
to keep our waters pure, for economic reasons, for their own
self interest. But it is inured to the great benefit of our
whole community of being real standard bearers for
environmental protection.
I know very little about this particular issue. I just want
to make one comment, and that is that I hope that, ultimately,
our committee figures out a way to enhance our ability to
prevent species from ending up in the degraded status they are.
In which case, they end up having to be listed, and that we
perhaps spend less time arguing about the specifics of
particular listings and more about how we prevent the sixth or
seventh great period of mass extinction on Earth, which right
now we may be in. And to date, our committee has been wholly
ineffective in really devising a way to be effective in that
regard.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Gilchrest?
STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to thank the Chairman for holding this hearing,
but I will probably not put words in Mr. Pombo's mouth as well.
I understand the enormous controversy about listing
virginica, or this particular species of oyster, and the ripple
effect that that has on the eastern half of the country, from
the Atlantic to the Gulf of Mexico. But I think I can assure
those who are listening that this committee will look at this
issue with objectivity.
And I was interviewed on a radio talk show over the weekend
and asked if the native oyster--we call it the native oyster. I
guess you call it the native oyster in the Gulf of Mexico, if
anybody is here from the Gulf of Mexico--should be listed. And
some might say that it is heresy. I said I didn't think so. I
didn't think it should be listed.
But getting past the fact of whether or not this should be
listed, and I don't think it will be listed, there is enormous
problems with water quality. There is enormous problems with
disease. There has been over the last century problems with
overharvesting, and we are beginning to get over that now.
But how do we clear up the 35 percent dead zone in the
Chesapeake Bay of a year ago? How do we clear up the dead zone
in the Gulf of Mexico, where nothing lives there along that
shoreline about the size of Massachusetts in a seasonal way?
So in the process of reviewing the information that we will
get from everyone in this hearing today, I think we really need
to take an integrated approach to clearing up the severe
problems that have caused the degradation of this oyster to
begin with. And today's focus, at least from my perspective,
will be the Chesapeake Bay because of the problems of disease.
And I would like to talk to the scientists when they get up
here about the differences between an oyster reef and an oyster
bar. How many sanctuaries do we have? Is there enough money for
research to develop a virginica oyster that has resistance to
these diseases? Because I think that is the future of the
Chesapeake Bay.
So we are not here to cause consternation. We are not here
to be divisive with anyone, certainly not up here on the dais
between Republicans and Democrats, between the processors, the
harvesters, the restaurant owners, any of that. Let us all put
our minds to the single most important fact--how do we restore
the ecological integrity of America's estuaries and oceans, and
how do we help ensure the economic equitable distribution of
those resources? I think we could start doing that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Melancon? Am I close on the pronunciation?
Mr. Melancon. You are getting there.
The Chairman. Getting better.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLIE MELANCON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Mr. Melancon. We will have a short course. I appreciate the
opportunity just to make a short comment.
As a Member of Congress in coastal Louisiana, and I don't
know this to be a fact, I probably have the most oyster, the
largest oyster beds and growth of oysters in this country. It
is a very important industry, and it has been one that the
people in south Louisiana have nurtured.
And just like farmers on the land, in the sea, they have
done an excellent job. And I think there is room for everybody.
I think it is just a matter of maybe, as our farmers have,
learning best management practices and learning to farm oysters
rather than to try and collect wild oysters and hope that they
will repropagate.
But I am here to listen, and I am open to suggestions. But
it scares me to death if we are going to start putting oysters
on the endangered species list.
The Chairman. Thank you.
I ask unanimous consent that the following statements be
included in the record at the appropriate point: a statement by
The Honorable JoAnn Davis, Virginia's 1st District; the
testimony of Denise M. Sheehan, the Acting Commissioner for the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; a
statement by the American Farm Bureau Federation; a statement
from the Town of East Hampton, New York, Shellfish Hatchery;
and a statement from the New Point Oyster Company, New Point,
Virginia.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
[The information submitted for the record follows:]
[A letter submitted for the record by John Aldred,
Director, Town of East Hampton, New York, follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2446.027
[A statement submitted for the record by The Honorable
Allen Boyd, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Florida, follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by Allen Boyd, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Florida
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to submit
this statement for the record today. I appreciate your leadership in
holding this hearing today on the subject of adding the Eastern Oyster
to the Endangered Species list. I believe that it is important to hold
this hearing, in order for all to know that the Eastern Oyster is not
endangered, and if it was to be added to the Endangered Species list,
it would be devastating not only to my district in Florida, but to the
entire economy in our great nation.
The Eastern Oyster is an invertebrate that its species habitat
ranges from the Gulf of St. Lawrence down the Eastern Seaboard into the
Gulf of Mexico. That encompasses eighteen states. In my district, many
of my costal counties rely on harvesting, processing, and shipping
oysters, not to mention the restaurants that make their business
selling oysters. The oyster industry provides hundreds of jobs in my
district and it adds hundreds of millions of dollars annually to the
economy.
Florida and the Gulf States have worked together for many years and
have spent millions of dollars on conservation programs and artificial
reef construction to keep the oyster population stable. Also there are
harvesting restrictions designed to protect a healthy population, such
as closing the season in certain areas when we are faced with
hurricane-related damages to the oyster population.
The reason why we are here today is because oysters in the
Chesapeake Bay are facing some biological and chemical concerns. Due to
the deteriorating water quality from pollution and the emergence of
diseases, oysters in the Chesapeake Bay are not growing to the same
size as they would in other areas of the country. I believe that we
should work to address these concerns for the Chesapeake Bay Oyster on
the local level rather than placing the entire species on the
endangered species list.
The Endangered Species Act allows for vertebrates to be grouped in
regions, meaning that a group in one area can be listed as endangered
or threatened while another group of the same species in a different
area can be considered stable. Invertebrates such as the oyster however
cannot. If you list a species as endangered in one area of the country,
it makes it endangered throughout the country.
Each year millions of oysters from Apalachicola Bay in my district
are harvested and sent around the country for the enjoyment of all. The
Apalachicola Oyster produces approximately 2 million pounds of oyster
meat annually, and it is vital to the economy in my district.
I believe it may be time that we look at the current Endangered
Species Act to ensure that a problem in the Chesapeake Bay does not
affect the entire country and the economy of the oyster industry.
Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned that if the Eastern Oyster is
listed as an endangered species it will jeopardize a very stable
industry in Florida. I appreciate the opportunity that you have given
me today to submit my statement for the record.
______
[A statement submitted for the record by The Honorable
JoAnn Davis, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Virginia, follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by The Honorable JoAnn Davis, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia
I want to see the Chesapeake Bay and the Eastern oyster restored.
We as a nation have a special responsibility to act as responsible
stewards of our natural resources and environment. I am pleased to have
secured $5 million in funding for restoration of oyster populations in
the Chesapeake Bay, one of America's most important bodies of water and
one of my district's greatest treasures. However, I am concerned that
listing the eastern oyster as an endangered species would not
accomplish the desired goals of protecting or restoring this natural
resource.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is not the appropriate vehicle to
clean up the Bay or prohibit the introduction of Asian oysters.
Everyone here knows that only 16 species have been recovered from over
a thousand listed, not an impressive track record. I appreciate
Chairman Pombo's desire to address ESA failures and I look forward to
full House consideration of ESA legislation that effectively protects
natural resources.
I do not believe this petition offers significant new information
to warrant listing the eastern oyster as endangered. This petition to
list the native oyster as an endangered species relies heavily on
historical data and unknown consequences behind the introduction of an
exotic species. Relying extensively on imprecise harvest data, the
petitioner draws overly pessimistic conclusions. Additionally, the
report fails to acknowledge significant action taken by state, local
and federal government to clean up the Bay and protect the native
oyster populations. Decisions to list species must be made with careful
deliberation and sound science.
Federal regulations should not impair commercial or private efforts
which have a significant positive impact on native oyster populations
and the health of the Chesapeake Bay. Right now, in my district
commercial waterman, private companies and individuals are cultivating
millions of oysters each year. Oyster aquaculture businesses add
oysters that clean and filter bay waters, an important component to
improving water quality.
I encourage the Committee and the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) to explore conservation and management options that capture the
entrepreneurial character of America. Bureaucratic, top-down regulation
is not always the best resource management approach. The watermen,
oystermen and fishermen of Eastern Virginia have a long tradition and
heritage tied to the water. They also have a critical stake in the
future health of the Bay. Let's empower individuals and create
incentives for productive resource management instead of regulating,
legislating and adjudicating impractical and ineffective solutions.
The Chesapeake Bay and the native oyster are important to my
constituents, and I am committed to restoring both. However, listing
the native oyster as an endangered species is not the appropriate step.
______
[A letter submitted for the record by Mark Maslyn,
Executive Director, Public Policy, American Farm Bureau
Federation, follows:]
July 18, 2005
Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources
NMFS Northeast Regional Office
One Blackburn Drive
Gloucester, MA 01930
RE: Comments on 90 Day Finding for the Eastern Oyster--(Docket Number
050509124-5124-01)
To Whom It May Concern:
The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) represents the interests
of farmers and ranchers across the United States. Our membership
includes oyster producers and harvesters in all of the states where the
eastern oyster is produced. We are pleased to offer our comments on the
status review for the eastern oyster to determine whether the species
should be listed pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
We have thoroughly reviewed the petition to list. Based on the
evidence contained in the petition and the available information on the
species, we do not believe there is sufficient evidence to warrant
listing the species.
In fact, we do not think the petition itself presented enough
evidence to even warrant a positive 90-day finding. The acknowledged
range of the eastern oyster is the entire Atlantic coast and the Gulf
of Mexico. The petition, however, focuses only on the status of the
oyster in the Chesapeake Bay area of Maryland and Virginia. The
petition presents little or no information about the status of the
species outside the Chesapeake Bay area. It presents no information
about the status of the species in the Gulf region, where most of the
eastern oyster production now occurs.
This lack of information is important, because the protections of
ESA are not available for only the Chesapeake Bay population of the
species. Because the eastern oyster is an invertebrate species, the
service cannot designate a ``distinct population'' of eastern oyster as
endangered or threatened. Thus, as the notice of the 90-day finding
correctly points out, NOAA Fisheries must consider the status of the
eastern oyster throughout its entire range. If the Chesapeake Bay area
is considered to be a ``significant portion of range'' of the eastern
oyster, then consideration of the entire species might warrant further
consideration. The only other available option is to consider whether
the Chesapeake Bay population of eastern oyster is a separate
subspecies of the eastern oyster and could be listed separately.
The petition to list, however, contains no evidence to support
either of these two options. In fact, the petition fails even to allege
either the possible existence of a separate subspecies or that the
Chesapeake Bay constitutes a ``significant portion of the range'' of
the species. The petition seems to be more concerned about the possible
introduction of the Asian oyster into the Bay than anything else.
ESA requires that determinations be made on the basis of the ``best
scientific and commercial data available.'' We fail to see how NOAA
Fisheries can make a finding that further review is warranted on
grounds that were not even mentioned in the petition to list. The
information contained in the petition to list clearly does not match
the information to be considered for further review. In fact, the
petition sets forth little or no information useful to the agency for
its review. The agency should exercise reasonable judgment in reviewing
the petition instead of accepting the unsupported allegations of the
petitioner at full value.
Instead of reviewing the petition on its merits, the agency in its
90-day finding presumes to guess at the petitioner's intent. The
finding states that ``he apparently seeks one of two alternatives,''
neither of which is even mentioned in the petition. The agency should
have denied the petition for failure to contain sufficient information
rather than acting on a presumption that is open to question.
Even upon further review of the status of the eastern oyster, there
is no evidence to indicate that the species should be listed.
1. There is No Evidence to Support a Finding That the Eastern Oyster
Is Either Endangered or Threatened.
An ``endangered species'' for purposes of ESA is one ``that is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' (16 U.S.C. 1533(6)). A ``threatened'' species is defined as
one ``likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future in all or a significant portion of its range.'' (16 U.S.C.
1533(20)). Any agency determination must find that the species is in
danger of extinction or endangered in order to propose a listing.
One of the factors cited by NOAA Fisheries in making its positive
90-day finding for the eastern oyster was information in the petition
that the ``annual Atlantic coastal landings of eastern oyster have
decreased to less than two percent of their recorded historic value,
and harvest from the Chesapeake Bay has decreased to 0.2 percent of its
recorded historic value.'' Even this statement must be taken with a
grain of salt, since the notice also finds that resource agencies ``did
nothing other than increase harvest restrictions.'' There is no
correlation between the decline in harvest and how much of that decline
might be attributable to the increase in harvest restrictions.
In addition, the production numbers do not take into consideration
any recreational harvest of eastern oysters. That value ``though not
available, is considered to be substantial.'' (Attachment 1)
Indeed, decline in historical numbers is one of the factors that
must be considered in the overall determination whether to list a
species. But loss or decline in numbers or habitat alone is not
sufficient to base a decision to list. It is only one factor to be
considered by the agency in whether a species has reached the point at
which it is likely to become extinct or likely to become endangered in
the near future to the extent that it might warrant listing.
This distinction becomes especially relevant in the case of such a
wide ranging species as the eastern oyster. The species ranges from the
Gulf of St. Lawrence, along the Atlantic coast to the Gulf of Mexico--a
range of thousands of miles. Neither the petition nor the finding
indicate that the range of the oyster is any less than it was in the
19th century, when comparisons were drawn.
The petition makes allegations that the habitat for the oyster in
the Chesapeake Bay is degraded and could possibly be a cause for
species decline. The petition does not, however, make any allegations
regarding the status of any other areas of the vast habitat for the
oyster. In fact, information regarding the Gulf populations of the
eastern oyster, which forms the bulk of the oyster landings in the
United States, indicates that the Gulf populations are stable.
There is also evidence that numbers in the Northeast are stable.
``In 1997, MSX caused mortalities of around 30% in some Connecticut
beds, but production should be sustained because large supplies of live
oysters easily exceed the quantity the markets will take.'' (Attachment
1)
Nor can the allegedly declining numbers of eastern oyster on their
face justify a conclusion that the species is endangered or threatened.
While there is evidence that landings for eastern oysters in the
Atlantic Coast area may be declining, that is only one factor to
consider in the agency's determination whether the species meets either
the definition of ``endangered'' or ``threatened'' under ESA. As
indicated before, it is not known whether and to what extent decreased
landings might be the result of harvest restrictions rather than
decreased populations. There is also no evidence that population
numbers are declining in the Gulf of Mexico or any other areas. In
fact, evidence indicates that the Gulf production is stable.
The key factor to consider for purposes of the listing process is
not whether the numbers might have declined in some areas, but that the
annual catch of eastern oysters is still over 30 millions pounds per
year. That number in and of itself is an indication that the species is
not going extinct.
The determination that the agency must make is whether the eastern
oyster is in danger of becoming extinct (``endangered'') or ``likely to
become endangered any time soon in all or a significant portion of its
range'' (``threatened''). A species that produces 30 million pounds of
meat per year hardly fits either of those descriptions.
The petition confuses the seeming decline in harvest from peak
historic levels with a ``near extinction level'' for the Chesapeake Bay
area. However, the petition also cites the fact that the Bay still
produces over two million pounds of oysters per year.
We trust that the agency will not make the same mistake. It is
difficult to think of a species that produces millions of pounds of
meat per year as going extinct or likely to become endangered any time
soon. Clearly, the evidence does not warrant listing of the eastern
oyster under the ESA.
The burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove that listing
the species is warranted. We do not believe that they have met this
burden.
2. ``The Best Scientific Data Available'' Does Not Support the
Existence of a Separate Subspecies of Eastern Oyster for the
Chesapeake Bay.
The agency finding presumes that the petitioner must be seeking ``a
determination that the Atlantic coast populations constitute a separate
subspecies'' of eastern oyster. This presumption is made despite the
fact that there is nothing in the petition that even hints at such a
request. On that basis alone, we believe that the petition should have
been denied as not presenting any evidence to support this presumption.
In making determinations whether a species should be listed, the
Act requires that the agency use ``the best scientific and commercial
data available.'' In this case, there is no indication anywhere in the
material that we have reviewed that there is any subspecies of eastern
oyster. The description of the eastern oyster contained in ``Seafood
Watch'' Final Report, Final Report, 04/21/04 is typical: ``The eastern
oyster, Crassostrea virginica, is an important commercial species
ranging from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the Gulf of Mexico, and along
the coasts of Argentina and Brazil.'' The same publication states that
the life history of the eastern oyster is well know since the species
``has been studied extensively.'' For such an extensively studied and
commercially important species as the eastern oyster, if there were any
hint of the existence of a separate subspecies that fact would appear
in the literature.
The fact sheet on the eastern oyster that appears on the NOAA web
site describes only Crassostrea virginica when referring to the eastern
oyster. It also describes the eastern oyster as occurring ``along the
east coast of North America from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to Florida
and south through the Caribbean to the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico and
Venezuela.'' There is no discussion of any possible subspecies.
Even the information contained in the finding regarding this issue
is very speculative, at best. The finding states: ``There is some
limited information in our files to indicate that it is possible to
differentiate between eastern oysters from the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts
using mtDNA analysis.'' (Emphasis added) This very qualified statement
is hardly enough to justify the conclusion that there even might be a
separate subspecies of eastern oysters.
There being no scientific information available to support the
conclusion that there is an Atlantic eastern oyster and a Gulf eastern
oyster, NOAA Fisheries necessarily cannot do so. Findings and
determinations are required to be made on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial data ``available.'' ESA sets strict time
limits to find and evaluate the scientific data that is available to
justify a determination. Given those time limits, it is not the
intention of ESA to have an agency go down a scientific path that
heretofore does not exist.
That might be different were there disagreement among scientists on
the existence of a separate subspecies. We believe that it could be a
proper role for the agency to resolve that disagreement before acting.
We do not think it appropriate, however, for the agency to try to
create new science where there is no indication that it is warranted.
Nor should an absence of scientific evidence of a separate
subspecies be misused to buttress an unjustified claim. Such a posture
would essentially be asking for proof of a negative. All the evidence
points to the existence of a single species, and the burden should be
on those claiming there is a separate subspecies to prove that the
``best science available'' supports that conclusion.
In any event, any different conclusion that the agency might
contrive would still have to be peer-reviewed and scientifically
accepted before it could be the basis of a listing decision. In the
process, it would have to overcome decades of established science.
The ``best scientific and commercial data available'' clearly and
unequivocally supports the notion that the eastern oyster is one
species from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the Yucatan Peninsula.
3. The Chesapeake Bay Should Not be Considered a ``Significant Portion
of the Range'' of the Eastern Oyster.
Should the status review conclude that there is no separate
subspecies for the Chesapeake Bay population of the eastern oyster, the
species could still be subject to listing upon ``a determination that
the eastern oyster is in danger of extinction throughout a significant
portion of its range (e.g., along the Atlantic coast or in the
Chesapeake Bay) or likely to become so in the foreseeable future.''
There is no evidence in the petition to support any portion of that
finding. The petitioner does not even allege that the Chesapeake Bay
area or the Atlantic coast area represents a ``significant portion of
the range'' for the eastern oyster.
The only reference petitioner makes to possible extinction is a
statement that the Chesapeake Bay production of 0.2 percent of
historical highs represents, in his opinion, ``a near extinction
level.'' This unsupported conclusion contains no information regarding
what a ``near extinction level'' might be for the eastern oyster, much
less whether such a level has been reached.
As indicated above, there is evidence that oyster populations in
Long Island Sound are now stable. Commercial landings for oysters in
South Carolina are stable (Attachment 2). In Florida, oyster production
from the Atlantic side has shown declines, ``although there has been a
slight upturn in recent years.'' (Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation
Commission, FMRI (2003). The declines since 1985 in those areas ``can
be attributed to hurricane Elena's destruction of productive beds and
the prolonged drought during 1987-1989.'' (Id)
It is difficult to argue, on its face, that the Chesapeake Bay
constitutes a significant portion of the eastern oyster's range. It
certainly cannot be justified from a geographic perspective. The Bay
constitutes a very small part of the thousands of miles of coastline
along the Atlantic and around the Gulf of Mexico. Nor can it be
justified from a commercial standpoint. According to NOAA-Fisheries own
figures, the Middle Atlantic region only produced three percent of the
oyster landings in 2003.
There is no evidence that the eastern oyster is declining
throughout the Atlantic coast region. Even if the Chesapeake Bay
population is declining, it cannot be considered to occupy a
``significant portion of the range'' of eastern oysters in order to
justify a listing of the entire species under the ESA.
4. Listing the Eastern Oyster Would be More Harmful to the Species
than Current Efforts to Promote and Enhance the Species.
There is another factor to consider.
Even if the eastern oyster met all of the criteria for listing,
listing it under the Endangered Species Act might well have a critical
adverse impact. That conclusion reflects the nature of the industry
itself.
The oyster industry is a state-regulated industry that is a
combination of natural oysters and aquaculture. Natural oysters grow
and reproduce without human intervention. Managed oysters are
supervised by harvesters. Cultivated oysters are transported to man-
made oyster beds where they mature. No figures are available to
describe how many oysters are naturally produced and how many oysters
are farmed. Both factors are important.
As a commercial enterprise, oyster production is important to both
state and private interests. Both have an interest in seeing the oyster
industry thrive because it is to the economic benefit of both. As such,
both the state and private interests will do whatever is possible to
ensure the viability of oyster populations wherever they occur.
Eastern oysters are not found in federal waters and are not subject
to federal jurisdiction. There is no federal management plan for
eastern oysters. Oysters along the Atlantic Coast are managed by the
states. In the Gulf of Mexico, there is the Gulf States Marine
Fisheries Commission to oversee oyster production.
Because the eastern oyster is important from a commercial
standpoint, there is more of an interest and an incentive from the
state and private interests to care for the species. Its biological
welfare is directly tied to its commercial value.
State and private regulation of eastern oysters will serve the
species much better than federal ``management'' under the Endangered
Species Act. State and private interests spend millions of dollars
preparing and caring for oyster beds. Private aquaculture raises
millions of pounds of oysters and provides a significant part of oyster
beds. Harvests are regulated according to conditions.
By contrast, listing under ESA would dry up the private production
of oysters and lead to the eventual destruction of natural oyster beds.
NOAA Fisheries has neither the funding nor the manpower to prepare and
care for the oyster beds that are needed to ``recover'' the species.
Oysters would lose their commercial value, and therefore the incentive
for anyone to cultivate and ``recover'' them. Regular harvesting is
necessary to maintain the beds and the populations.
Furthermore, state and private interests can respond more quickly
and more effectively to natural factors that might affect the status of
the oyster. For example, State and private interests have invested
large sums of money to develop an oyster that is resistant to MSX and
dermo, two diseases that devastated oyster populations in the Atlantic.
In many places, the effects of these crippling diseases have been
stemmed, and oyster levels are either stable or approaching stability.
Had the species been listed under ESA, these responses could not have
occurred, and the species could very well have been wiped out.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the status
review.
Sincerely,
Mark Maslyn
Executive Director, Public Policy
[NOTE: Attachments to Mr. Maslyn's letter have been retained in the
Committee's official files.]
______
[A statement and article submitted for the record by The
Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Jersey, follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in
Congress from the State of New Jersey
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Fresh oysters represent the rich taste of
the sea as well as healthy coastal waters. New Jersey has been enjoying
oysters and their positive impacts on our shorelines and coastal
communities for centuries. Although not as abundant as they once were,
New Jersey fishermen continue to harvest Eastern oysters in Delaware
Bay, and the states of Delaware and New Jersey are committed to
restoring Eastern oysters in Delaware Bay.
I am glad we have this opportunity to discuss listing of the
Eastern oyster under the Endangered Species Act. These oysters are of
great value to the commercial fishery and thus local, coastal
economies. They are a favorite summertime treat for many on hot summer
days like these. But at the same time, Eastern oysters are a key member
of the marine ecosystems that line the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. I hope
this hearing expands our understanding of the impacts that listing the
Eastern oyster would have on the environment and various stakeholders.
On a related issue in neighboring Chesapeake Bay, where native
oysters have been hit hard by diseases, the States of Maryland and
Virginia are considering the introduction of a non-native Asian oyster
species. In a joint statement, New Jersey and Delaware have taken the
position that such an introduction in the Chesapeake Bay would be
premature and that more research is necessary.
Last Monday, three scientists working for state and federal
resource agencies published a letter to the journal Science entitled
``When the World is Not Your Oyster''. I'd like to submit this letter
for the record. In short, the authors--members of the National Academy
of Science's panel on Non-native Oysters--express their concerns the
potential spread of Asian oysters to the Delaware Bay and the lack of
meaningful participation for adjacent states in process.
While today's hearing focuses on the petition to list the Eastern
oysters under the Endangered Species Act, I am hopeful that today's
discussions will lead to further dialogue on how states like New Jersey
and Delaware can better incorporate their concerns in any proposal to
use Asian Oysters as a recovery tool for Eastern oysters in the
Chesapeake.
In conclusion, I want to stress that this hearing and the
deliberations over this oyster's status should not be used as an excuse
for dismantling the Endangered Species Act. The status of the Eastern
oyster is a specific issue that we should discuss separately from any
larger discussion of the Act.
Attachment
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2446.026
[A statement submitted for the record by Denise M. Sheehan,
Acting Commissioner,
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
follows:]
Statement of Denise M. Sheehan, Acting Commissioner,
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Thank you for inviting the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (Department) to testify on the status of the
Eastern Oyster and the petition to nominate it as an endangered
species. I would like to share with you the position of the Department
on the Eastern Oyster petition, and on the Endangered Species Act in
general.
New York State's coastline is lengthy, and includes the Atlantic
shoreline along New York City and Long Island, along with the State's
Great Lakes coastal region. The Atlantic region of New York's coast
supports a diverse array of commercially and recreationally important
fish, wildlife, and plant species in its productive tidal wetlands,
estuaries, mudflats, and reefs. The habitat of the Eastern Oyster is
located in this area, generally within Long Island Sound. The
Department's Long Island Regional Director, Peter A. Scully, described
the Long Island area in his June 27, 2005 testimony before the House
Subcommittee on Fisheries on H.R. 307, the Long Island Sound
Stewardship Act.
The Long Island Sound area is heavily populated, making it a
challenge to effectively balance the needs of the people who live and
work there with the natural resources which make Long Island such a
unique and vibrant place. Recognizing this concern, Governor George E.
Pataki has directed the Department to make the reduction of pollution
and the restoration of aquatic habitats along the Sound one of our
highest priorities. Since Governor Pataki took office in 1995, New York
State has invested nearly $345 million in projects to achieve this
priority B along with the funds spent by local governments and private
organizations which are also committed to Long Island's environmental
quality. The Governor's strong commitment to the wise and effective
conservation of New York's natural resources is evident through the
policies which he has championed for the Long Island region.
One of our most important partners in our activities to protect
Long Island Sound has been the United States Congress. Through the Long
Island Sound Restoration Act of 2000 (LISRA), Congress authorized
appropriations of up to $40 million annually for five years, to be
shared equally between New York and Connecticut, for projects to
restore the Sound's water quality and environmental resources. This
authorization, totaling $200 million, was designed to ensure that the
federal government matched the significant financial contributions
which New York and Connecticut already have made to projects for the
improvement of the Sound's environment.
Approximately three million people live on Long Island. Within 50
miles of the Sound the population balloons to a staggering 20 million
people. Thus, pollution loading to the Sound can be considerable unless
both the States of New York and Connecticut and the federal government
make a concerted effort to protect the Sound's natural resources and
water quality. Because Congressional appropriations under LISRA have
been approximately one-tenth of the authorized amount, the
reauthorization of LISRA and the continued infusion of federal funds
into projects to implement environmental projects are still needed.
The Department greatly appreciates the efforts of Congressmen Pete
King and Jim Walsh for the much-needed LISRA appropriations. However,
the reauthorization of LISRA and increased annual appropriations are
needed to help New York and Connecticut reach our goal of restoring the
Sound's water quality. For that reason, Governor Pataki has made the
reauthorization of LISRA, and continued appropriations, a high
environmental priority for 2005. New York State strongly supports the
language of H.R. 307, sponsored by Congressman Simmons, which would
reauthorize this statute.
The questions regarding populations of the Eastern Oyster in the
waters of New York and other states are intrinsically linked to the
larger issue of the adequacy of funds, from all sources, to address the
ecological problems which human populations can cause to fish and
wildlife. The Eastern Oyster, like many other species, is a barometer
of our success--or lack thereof--as stewards of our natural resources.
The Department urges Congress to continue its support to the states on
activities which protect our natural resources, consistent with sound
ecological practices, while providing people with the opportunities to
enjoy the natural benefits with which areas such as Long Island Sound
abound.
New York State is taking steps on its own to protect the Eastern
Oyster. At the request of the Department, the New York State
Legislature recently approved, and Governor Pataki signed, State
legislation to authorize the Department to adopt regulations concerning
oyster management. Presently, there are no size limits, catch or
possession limits, seasons or other restrictions on the taking of
oysters from New York State waters. Most of the towns on Long Island
have established their own limits and seasons, leading to a lack of
continuity between the State and local communities, and confusion for
the baymen who harvest these oysters. Poaching has been an inevitable
result of this patchwork of local laws. The new State law (Chapter 155
of the Laws of New York State for 2005) will help us to ensure the
long-term viability of oyster resources in State waters.
In conjunction with this new State effort, the Department looks
forward to working with the United States Congress, the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), the commercial and recreational fishers of
Long Island, and other interested parties, to resolve the ecological
challenges faced by the Eastern Oyster along the Atlantic coast. The
Department notes that the petition to designate the Eastern Oyster as
an endangered species expresses serious reservations about the actions
which Atlantic coast states have taken in response to reductions in
Eastern Oyster populations. The Department believes that this petition
is best addressed through the status review which NMFS intends to
undertake, and we will be happy to share with NMFS and other interested
parties our data on Eastern Oyster populations in New York State
waters.
Through this process, the Atlantic coast states, the United States
Congress, and the people whose livelihood is dependent upon thriving
populations of species such as the Eastern Oyster can assess the
effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act on a regional basis.
Working with agencies such as the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service and NMFS, the Act assists the Department in the protection and
restoration of declining populations of specific species. In New York
State, these efforts have been very successful, ensuring the
restoration of populations of our Nation's symbol, the Bald Eagle,
peregrine falcons, the Karner Blue butterfly and the bog turtle, among
other species. Through our efforts, we have successfully provided
people who live or work near sensitive habitats with opportunities to
continue their on-going activities in an environmentally-sustainable
fashion. Activities to preserving endangered species in New York State
are based on sound scientific principles, and have an excellent track
record. We believe that the Endangered Species Act has been effectively
implemented in New York State, and that our experience in working with
our federal counterparts to implement this statute will be beneficial
throughout the review of the status of Eastern Oyster populations.
I appreciate the opportunity which the Committee has afforded to
the Department to discuss our views on the Endangered Species Act
through the current petition to protect the Eastern Oyster. We look
forward to working with NMFS and others during the status review.
Whether or not the Eastern Oyster is determined to be threatened or
endangered, the declining populations of this species along the
Atlantic Coast points to the necessity for all levels of government--
state, federal, and local--to work together cooperatively and
effectively to wisely foster natural environments. I believe that the
United States Congress can be most effective in assisting the states to
improve our coastal resources through actions such as the
reauthorization of LISRA, and through the appropriation of funds to
ensure its effective implementation.
Thank you for providing me with this opportunity to share the
perspective of the Department on these important issues.
______
[A letter submitted for the record by Bill Sieling,
Executive Director, Chesapeake Bay Seafood Industries
Association, follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2446.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2446.029
[A letter and comments submitted for the record
by Jack White, New Point Oyster Company, LLC, follows:]
New Point Oyster Company, LLC
Post Office Box 35
New Point, VA 23125
804/725-9894
703/408-2035
Dear Friend of Oysters,
My name is Jack White and I own and operate the New Point Oyster
Company. We supply cultivated oysters to Washington raw bars and have
been voted the Number One oyster in the City at Old Ebbitt Grill's
``Oyster Riot'', an annual wine and oyster competition. I am a former
House staffer and lobbyist who gave up a lucrative and fulfilling legal
career to dedicate my energies to restoring oysters in the Chesapeake
Bay. I not only formed an oyster company, but also one that
manufactures and markets home aquaculture systems to facilitate people
growing oysters from their docks. We attend large public functions to
educate the public about the importance of the oyster and the need for
everyone to do their part in restoring this important resource. We have
lobbied EPA, NOAA and numerous other resource agencies to implement
proven market-based initiatives to show how to put significant numbers
of oysters in U.S. waters with little or no cost to the taxpayer. I am
writing to request your help in saving my business and industry. More
importantly, I am writing to seek your help in saving the eastern
oyster from listing on the ESA which will most assuredly lead to its
destruction.
I am appending a copy of my comments to NMFS/NOAA which give a
quick rundown on where this process is headed and why it should not be
implemented. Having worked on the Hill, I understand the constraints on
your time and resources and have avoided detail and minutiae in the
hope that you will find time to read my submission. I intend to visit
the House Resources Committee on Monday, July 18, 2005 and will be
happy to give you all the time necessary to satisfy your informational
needs. There is also contact information above for your use. Please
read my submission and give this pressing issue the time and effort
that is required.
Very Truly Yours,
Jack White
______
comments to nmfs/noaa on petition to list eastern oyster as threatened
or endangered under the esa: wrong move; wrong reasons
NMFS has solicited comments on whether the eastern oyster is
endangered or threatened pursuant to conducting a status review as
required by the ESA (Endangered Species Act) and in response to a
petition filed by a private citizen seeking to restore water quality in
the Chesapeake Bay to historic levels. While Petitioner's submission is
quite articulate, compelling and laudable, it is not wholly accurate
and its timing ignores significant improvements that suggest that the
trend may be getting better. Most importantly, it calls for action that
would lead to results that are the opposite of those intended. Any
action that curtails or restricts the commercial aquaculture of the
eastern oyster will eliminate the most significant contributor to
stabilizing and improving oyster populations, the lynchpin of
environmental health of aquatic ecosystems. Listing on the ESA will
substantially set back oyster recovery and the innovations supporting
it while rewarding and empowering the very parties (LMRAs) that
Petitioner has cited as responsible for the problem.
There is no new information or changes in conditions listed by
Petitioner that would justify listing the eastern oyster on the ESA
except for the threat of Maryland introducing Crassostrea ariakensis,
an exotic species, that may or may not impact the eastern oyster. This
appears to be the real reason that is moving this process. While I do
not support its introduction, neither I, nor anyone else can say with
specificity what its impact will be. Petitioner cites competition,
hybridization and polydora (a native worm that also exists in eastern
oysters), however, others counter by citing its disease resistance;
added filtering capacity and reduced stresses on local populations. All
are valid points, but there are many others, both known and unknown.
The important fact is, it cannot be proven at this time that such
introduction is a ``man-made factor affecting its (the eastern oyster)
continued existence'' and therefore is not an appropriate criteria for
triggering listing on the ESA. There is no other item in Petitioner's
submission that is not historic and that has remained more or less
static for the last decade and which would provide justification for
such a draconian measure.
Petitioner omits or overlooks important and substantial efforts
that are adding millions of active, growing and reproducing oysters to
the natural population and which suggest improvement that may not occur
in statistics. Private commercial oyster aquaculture activities
contribute substantially to water quality and are unrivaled in effort,
innovation, number and success in putting oysters in the waters that
constitute the eastern oyster's range. This effort is adding
significantly to breeding populations; reducing pressure on wild stocks
while increasing their numbers and gene pool; and providing many
collateral environmental benefits. Listing the eastern oyster as
threatened or endangered will curtail or eliminate these activities. It
will also negatively impact supply and consumption of oysters at a time
that public awareness, trust and demand for oysters is improving to a
point that it will support wide-scale, sustainable, environmentally
beneficial, aquatic activities. This is the wrong move, for the wrong
reasons! Value-added products such as half-shell oysters that support
sustainable aquaculture are the very activities that need to be
encouraged and expanded. Placing restoration primarily or solely in the
public sector has provided negligible, if not failed results and has
been alluded to by petitioner as ``the expected positive
impact...that...has not been very significant'' in his reasons why
listing on the ESA is necessary.
Hundreds of commercial oyster aquaculture operations in the eastern
oyster range are actively growing oysters to market size and replacing
those harvested with new crops, improvements in genetics and disease
resistance continue and equipment innovations and techniques are
routinely made. They work closely with resource agencies, academic
institutions and researchers and often provide many of the resources
that are necessary to move public efforts forward.
These operations are almost exclusively funded with private monies
and stand alone as a success story for introduction/manipulation of
diminished natural stocks of oysters. These activities need to be
encouraged rather than restricted, restrained or prohibited. If the
eastern oyster is listed on the ESA, trading in a threatened or
endangered species will be prohibited and most of this activity will
cease and many of these operations will have to go out of business.
Time, space and format rules preclude a lengthy discussion of the
history and nature of oyster production, hence I will assume that the
reader will understand and those in the industry will forgive the
analogy of the ``hunter/gatherer'' which describes the historic
harvesting of oysters as well as that of many other extractive
resources. This analogy does not apply to today's industry which is
based on environmentally beneficial, sustainable efforts where seed is
produced, placed in containers and grown to market size and sold on a
rotating basis. Most oysters now in commerce are the product of man's
industry from beginning to end and in no way infringe on natural
populations. They provide a significant collateral benefit by filtering
water, forming important structure (habitat) and by reproducing,
broadcast billions of spat into the estuary. Programs such as nutrient
credit trading and oyster-based mitigation would provide a more
sensible approach and avoid the negative impacts and damage of listing
the oyster on the ESA.
In closing, I can state unequivocally, that there are more oysters
in the Chesapeake Bay now, than were there ten years ago! The problems
cited are historic and the solutions sought are prohibitively expensive
if not impossible. The eastern oyster should not be listed as
threatened or endangered and under all circumstances private oyster
aquaculture activities should be protected.
______
The Chairman. I would like to call our first panel of
witnesses up today. Mr. S. Lake Cowart, Jr., Dr. Robert B.
Rheault. Mr. Michael C. Voisin? Voisin. I am learning here.
Come on. Mr. Joseph Gergela. And Mr. Michael Bean.
Mr. Melancon. Mr. Chairman, before they start, if I could?
Congressman Bishop has a statement he would like included in
the record.
The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Timothy H. Bishop, a Representative in
Congress from the State of New York
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rahall, and distinguished members of
this Committee, I applaud you for calling this important hearing and
thank you for giving me this opportunity to discuss how listing the
Eastern Oyster as a threatened or endangered species would affect the
fishing industry and related businesses in my district.
I represent a constituency that depends on an extremely delicate
balance of environmental conservation and sound management of our
fisheries to sustain Long Island's economic progress. The First
Congressional District of New York is host to the Long Island Sound on
our north shore, the Atlantic Ocean to our east and south, and the
Great Peconic Bay splitting our twin forks on the island's east-end.
These bodies of water are the lifeblood of our economic survival and
serve as a constant reminder of our rich heritage as one of the
Nation's oldest and most storied fishing communities. As this area's
Representative in Congress, I take any move to disrupt this equilibrium
very seriously, as do my constituents.
Long Island's oyster harvests have seen better days, but its future
is far from having been decided. After experiencing parasitic diseases
and brown tide that decimated the oyster harvest in the 1990s, the
industry took the initiative to rehabilitate the oyster population by
introducing a shellfish that proved more resistant to disease. Coupled
with a renewed focus on improving stewardship of the local waterways,
the shellfish industry--in partnership with environmental advocates and
elected officials--have combined efforts to reverse the decline of the
oyster industry on Long Island and steered it back toward the path to
recovery. In just five years, using innovation, technology, and
patience, we were able to increase oyster harvests fivefold--from 9,020
bushels in 1999 to nearly 50,000 bushels in 2004. Our story, while
still a work in progress, is a shining example of how active management
and prudent stewardship can stave off an environmental disaster and
instead result in rehabilitating the environment and preserving the
most vulnerable species, like the Eastern Oyster populations off the
shores of Long Island.
Although I sympathize with the crises faced by the shellfish
industry in the Chesapeake Bay, the implications of listing the Eastern
Oyster would be disastrous for the Long Island oyster industry and
related businesses. Just as New York and Connecticut were able to
cooperatively rebuild their oyster industries, so too can Maryland
recover the Eastern Oyster population in the Chesapeake Bay through a
similar effort involving patience, perseverance, and grounded science.
However, the Endangered Species Act alone will not facilitate the
active management that is necessary to accomplish those efforts. It
will take everyone with a stake in the industry to achieve such
success. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the proposed listing of the
Eastern Oyster on the ESA.
The Eastern Oyster crisis in the Chesapeake seems to reflect
similar problems that were once unique to the oyster populations along
the northeast Atlantic coastline and Long Island Sound during the 1980s
and portions of the 1990s. However, after taking proactive measures to
combat a diminished harvest and overall oyster population, the region
is rebounding and reaping financial and environmental rewards. The
Chesapeake Bay region can find a similar turnaround in its oyster
population were it to use the same approach.
Accordingly, I believe that we must approach this problem by
recognizing that each region has its own set of challenges unique to
that location without jeopardizing the jobs and future of hard-working
Americans and their families who rely upon the Eastern Oyster for their
livelihood.
Mr. Chairman, the shellfish harvested on Long Island, both
naturally and through aquaculture farming, has a wholesale value of $37
million per year, as reported by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation. This value does not include the income from
associated businesses, including transportation, packaging, and
restaurant revenues. Removing the Eastern Oyster, a carefully managed
and safeguarded part of this industry, would cause significant harm to
Long Island's shellfish industry.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 has been an effective and
landmark measure to preserve and protect threatened plants and wildlife
as well as the habitats that they call home. However, this particular
petition that is the focus of today's hearing has been filed without
the foundation of sound science and cites a regional problem as a
global phenomenon. I would urge the National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration to take a moment to employ the delicate caution
necessary to ensure that a regional issue does not unnecessarily invoke
a burden on a larger scale, thereby causing irreparable harm.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this Committee, I look
forward to working with you toward that end and thank you again for the
opportunity to present my views on this important matter.
______
The Chairman. If I could have the panel stand and raise
their right hand?
[Witnesses sworn.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Let the record show they all answered in the affirmative.
We welcome you to the Committee. I look forward to hearing your
testimony. I know a number of you. This is an extremely
important issue.
Mr. Cowart, we are going to begin with you.
STATEMENT OF S. LAKE COWART, JR., VICE PRESIDENT,
COWART SEAFOOD CORPORATION
Mr. Cowart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am Lake Cowart with Cowart Seafood Corporation, and I am
a fourth-generation oyster processor and grower in the State of
Virginia. And we certainly appreciate your comments at the
beginning of this hearing.
The Virginia seafood industry opposes the petition to list
the eastern oyster for the following reasons. First reason is
the petition has misused the Endangered Species Act in an
attempt to halt the proposed non-native introduction in the
Chesapeake Bay, not to protect the eastern oyster from
extinction.
Secondly, the eastern oysters are abundant in several
regions of its native range, including the Gulf coast States
and the North Atlantic. The Chesapeake Bay does not have the
historic harvest that it once had, but it does have harvestable
quantities of oysters.
And thirdly, eastern oysters in the Chesapeake Bay cannot
be classified as sub-species. Millions of mature oysters from
the Gulf coast and Delaware Bay have been planted and have
reproduced in the Chesapeake Bay. Scientific breeding programs
have used disease-resistant eastern oyster strains from
Louisiana and Delaware Bay for years to crossbreed with wild
Chesapeake Bay oysters in the hopes of transferring those
disease-resistant genes.
So we believe that this petition is a misuse of the
Endangered Species Act. The petitioner is misusing the
Endangered Species Act to prevent the introduction of a non-
native oyster in the Chesapeake Bay. The Federal Register
stated, ``The petition expresses concerns about the proposed
introduction of the exotic Asian oyster, Crassostrea
ariakensis, because it could result in the extinction of the
eastern oyster through competition and hybridization.''
This is totally false. Since Allen and his colleagues
proved in 1993 that these oysters do not hybridize, there is no
proof that non-native oysters will outcompete the eastern
oyster. In fact, in federally permitted oyster trials in
Virginia over the last several years, eastern oysters strike or
attach--the small oysters do--more readily to the non-native
shells than they do to their own species.
In summary, the Endangered Species Act is not the proper
forum to attempt to justify an opinion on a proposed non-native
oyster introduction in a small geographical region like the
Chesapeake Bay. Secondly, the eastern oyster is not in danger
of extinction. The petitioner fails to recognize that healthy
populations of eastern oysters exist in the Gulf coast States
and the North Atlantic, which makes up the majority of the
eastern oyster's native range.
Although the Chesapeake Bay may not support commercial-
scale harvest like other regions, there certainly are
ecologically important and healthy eastern oyster populations
in the Chesapeake Bay. Since 1992, Virginia has been a leader
in the creation of oyster reefs and other areas, such as the
Lower Rappahannock and Mobjack bays, where oysters are
prohibited from being harvested.
When salinities fall due to ample rainfall, oysters are
more abundant. And as an example, in 2004, the Lower James
River and Newport News produced thousands of bushels of the
eastern oysters due to high rainfall in the years 2003 and
2004.
Thirdly, I do not believe that there is a sub-species of
eastern oysters. The petitioner is wrong to conclude that the
Chesapeake Bay oysters are a sub-species of the eastern oysters
for the following reasons.
Mature, reproducing eastern oysters from Delaware Bay and
the Gulf coast have been legally planted on private beds in
Virginia for years. These oysters are planted in the spring and
harvested throughout the summer. Spawning occurs in these
oysters several times per year and coincides with the wild
Chesapeake Bay oysters. Therefore, the potential exists for
mixing between these oysters.
Also the disease-resistant scientific breeding programs in
the mid-Atlantic have used Louisiana and Delaware Bay oysters
for years. These programs are specifically designed to inbreed
with wild Chesapeake Bay eastern oysters to increase future
disease resistance. In the last few years, the Federal
Government, in conjunction with the State of Virginia, has
planted millions of these disease-resistant eastern oysters
originally from Delaware Bay in hopes of accomplishing gene
transfer.
For these reasons, we feel that this petition should be
denied. We thank you for the opportunity to address this
committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cowart follows:]
Statement of S. Lake Cowart, Jr., Vice President,
Cowart Seafood Corp.
By way of background information, Cowart Seafood Corp. operates one
of the largest oyster shucking-packing businesses in Virginia. We have
been in the oyster business since the early 1900's and I have been
intimately involved in all aspects of the industry for the last three
and a half decades. I have witnessed the oyster population in Virginia
rise and fall with changing environmental conditions.
Through the mid-1980's, oysters were an ecologically and
commercially viable species. However, after 1986 oysters were less
plentiful, but not absent from the Chesapeake Bay. Drought conditions,
coastal run-off and pollution have all contributed to oscillations
within oyster abundance. Certainly commercial harvests have oscillated
in response to oyster abundance. For example, one year thousands of
bushels of oysters may be harvested but then fewer oysters may be
caught in subsequent years. Despite an apparent ``false commercial
extinction'', oysters were still present in the Bay during these less
abundant years. One thing is for sure, oystermen still tried to catch
oysters but environmental conditions changed the Bay's ecosystem. In
the short term oysters are highly sensitive to environmental
conditions, yet in the long term resilient to these changes. They have
survived in the Bay for millions of years because of their ability to
adapt over evolutionary time. Oysters have not gone extinct over these
evolutionary time scales enduring massive changes to their environment.
More recently, say within the last half a century, the Bay has
changed once again due to coastal and watershed-level development,
oyster parasite proliferation and pollution. This shift in the Bay's
inputs has caused the oyster population to remain at a low abundance
compared with historic levels. However, oysters have not been able to
adapt and will not be able to adapt to these changes that have occurred
in the last half century because of deforestation, run-off, and reduced
repletion of surface groundwater that eventually flows into streams
feeding the Bay. Proponents of this petition may blame over-harvesting
as the causative agent for this decline, however, commercial-scale
oyster harvesting has not occurred in the Bay for the last twenty
years. Why hasn't the Bay's population of oysters recovered? The answer
is that oysters are not the problem they are the solution. The actual
problem that needs to be addressed is poor water quality caused by
pollution and run-off. Unfortunately, this petition targets the
solution and not the problem.
I strongly oppose this petition to list the eastern oyster,
Crassostrea virginica, as an endangered or threatened species. The
following is a list of reasons, from an industry perspective, of the
negative impacts if the eastern oysters were to be listed:
1. Loss of irreplaceable industry infrastructure, primarily large
shucking houses and aquaculture operations. Once these businesses are
lost it is too expensive to re-purchase waterfront land and acquire or
rebuild oyster houses and sorting operations. The Virginia oyster
industry provides $50,000,000 in annual sales and employs 1,000-1,500
workers.
2. Continued degradation of oyster beds. The industry works hard
at maintenance of their oyster beds by ``turning over'' shells to
remove sediment build-up thereby allowing oyster larvae suitable
substrate to settle.
3. Loss of recovery/replenishment/restoration initiatives fostered
by collaborations with industry, governmental agencies (state and
federal), scientific institutions, special interest groups and the
public. The State of Virginia is committed to oyster restoration
through reef building, creation of oyster sanctuaries, and repletion
efforts.
4. Loss of private companies planting oyster shell and seed
oysters to increase population abundance and encourage oyster larval
settlement. For example, in any one-year Bevans Oyster Company and
Cowart Seafood in Virginia have planted 100,000's of bushels of shells
on existing oyster beds and millions of seed (juvenile) oysters struck
on shell in the hopes of restoring oyster populations.
5. Local and state economies would suffer because of the loss of
jobs and economic multipliers such as purchasing of packing materials,
fuel, ice, and transportation.
I challenge and oppose this petition based on the observations I
have made in my own backyard, the Chesapeake Bay. Virginia state
regulators and scientific institutions have documented oyster
settlement in the Bay for years and juvenile oysters are plentiful
during this fall survey post reproduction. However, these oysters die
and do not reach market size, so subsequently, the layperson assumes
oysters are ``going extinct''. This assumption is false. Oysters are
present in this ecosystem, maybe not as abundant as other regions, but
C. virginica certainly exist. The actual reason these juvenile oysters
do not survive to market size is because of disease proliferation and
pollution induced-mortality.
Due to low salinity market size oysters survived in the James River
and Tangier Sound ecosystem just this past year and a limited basis
fishery was opened temporarily. Although just a short commercial
harvest was realized this is clear evidence that oyster populations
survive when localized environmental conditions are favorable. This has
been a rare event in the past. Essentially, we have not had commercial-
scale harvests (1 million bushels) in the State of Virginia for the
last 20 years or more. The petition alludes to the fact that a
moratorium of harvesting oysters would solve the problem, however, we
have essentially been under a moratorium and oysters have not
recovered. For example, in the Rappahannock River oyster beds from the
Whitestone Bridge to the mouth of the River has been closed for
commercial harvest since 1992 and despite extensive repletion efforts
oyster abundance has not recovered. This clearly demonstrates that
over-harvesting is not the reason oyster populations have not recovered
and implementing a harvest moratorium is going to nothing to increase
oysters in the Bay.
I would also like to address the issue of subspecies of C.
virginica. I understand that NOAA/NMFS will be examining mitochondrial
DNA sequences to determine if certain regions constitute subspecies.
This seems to be very subjective. It is my understanding that
mitochondrial DNA sequences can be ``picked apart'' to the very last
individual gene and marker, however, the fact remains that oysters
within the native range (Gulf of St. Lawrence to Gulf of Mexico and
south through the Caribbean to the Yucatan Peninsula) are of the same
genus and species. I would further challenge the determination as a
subspecies because interstate transplanting had taken place for
decades. I personally know of several companies in Virginia that bought
thousands of bushels of mature Louisiana and Delaware Bay oysters and
planted them in the Chesapeake Bay during reproductive seasons. This
planting of mature oysters means that billions of sperm and egg are
released into the Bay and most likely competent oyster larvae will
result. The Virginia Department of Health now prohibits the planting of
Gulf coast oysters but mature Delaware Bay oysters are legally planted
in abundance in Virginia each year. Certainly, some hybridization and
interbreeding occurred over time. In addition, breeding programs at
scientific institutions in the Chesapeake Bay region have worked for
years with oyster strains taken directly from Louisiana and Delaware
Bay waters. These oysters were selectively bred with native Chesapeake
Bay oysters in the hopes of accomplishing transfer of disease resistant
genes. Several industry members in Virginia were part of studies
involving the field performance of these experimental oysters, in most
cases these were planted adjacent to wild stock Bay oysters. A
reasonable person would have to assume that over the course of years
and years of experiments and hundreds of thousands of test oysters
deployed for up to three growing seasons, some degree of hybridization
and interbreeding occurred.
The Federal Register stated ``the petition expresses concern about
the proposed introduction of the exotic Asian oyster, Crassostrea
ariakensis because it could result in the extinction of the eastern
oyster through competition and hybridization...'' which I believe is
poor use of the Endangered Species Act as this does not belong in a
petition as a reason to list a completely different species. The
petitioner is clearly opposed to this non-native introduction however
this is not the proper forum to accomplish his objectives. In fact, the
petitioner has not been complete in his research as the documented
literature clearly states that C. virginica and C. ariakensis (=C.
rivularis) only develop to 7-day larvae but do not hybridize (Allen,
S.K., Jr, P.M. Gaffney, J. Scarpa, D. Bushek. 1993. Inviable hybrids of
Crassostrea virginica (Gmelin) with C. rivularis (Gould) and C. gigas
(Thunberg). Aquaculture vol. 113. pp. 269-289).
Finally, I would point out that the petition seems to concentrate
on the Chesapeake Bay region, however that is one small geographical
area compared to the vast oyster ground available in the Gulf coast
states and Atlantic coast states. By all accounts, the Gulf coast
population is healthy, reproducing and abundant yet is completely
ignored in the petition. The Gulf coast region makes up a significant
portion of the eastern oyster industry and native range but ironically,
this information is missing in the petition.
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Dr. Rheault?
STATEMENT OF ROBERT B. RHEAULT, Ph.D., PRESIDENT,
EAST COAST SHELLFISH GROWERS ASSOCIATION
Dr. Rheault. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I
would like to thank you for this opportunity to comment on this
petition. As President of the East Coast Shellfish Growers
Association, I represent about a thousand small farmers from
Maine to Florida.
For the past 20 years, I have run my own small oyster farm
in Rhode Island. I have a degree in oceanography, and I did my
thesis work on the feeding and growth of oysters. In short, my
life revolves around oysters. I could talk for hours about why
this is a bad idea, but I will try and keep my testimony to 5
minutes and ask that you read my written comments.
I have three points I hope to make today. First, I believe
the petitioner makes selective use of the data to paint a
picture that appears dire, but conceals the fact that oysters
are thriving in many areas. We recently estimated that there
are currently somewhere in excess of 10 billion--with a ``b''--
oysters in U.S. waters.
Secondly, the petitioner attributes much of the decline of
the oysters to degraded water quality, excessive silt, and
nutrient loading. In fact, the oyster is well adapted to rich,
turbid waters and thrives in many of our most polluted coastal
estuaries.
The third point I would like to make is that the listing of
the oyster will have serious negative environmental impact
because it will eliminate much of the private commercial
aquaculture of oysters. Oyster culture has been shown to
benefit water quality and provide a sustainable source of free-
swimming larvae into the watershed.
The petitioner describes the decline of the oyster on the
East Coast. However, he neglects to include the data from the
Gulf coast region, which maintains a sizable harvest. Clearly,
this is the same species.
Moreover, the data is deceptive because the Chesapeake-
Delaware region was historically such a huge percentage of the
Atlantic coast production. It appears as if the entire
population has suffered when, in fact, the population declines
are largely centered in the mid-Atlantic States, while New
England and Gulf coast populations are relatively stable.
Mid-Atlantic States have been hit hard with the triple
threat of two parasitic diseases, a degraded habitat, and a
mismanaged wild harvest. Outside the mid-Atlantic region, other
States wrestle with each of these three threats to various
degrees, yet oyster populations are relatively healthy, and
oyster aquaculture is expanding. The decline of the oyster in
the mid-Atlantic is a failure of fisheries management that has
gone on for decades.
Dr. William Brooks wrote about the Chesapeake harvests in a
book called ``The Oyster'' in 1891. ``Our oyster policy is
destructive and sure to result, ultimately, in ruin to the
industry. The oyster property of the State is in imminent
danger of complete destruction unless radical changes in the
methods of managing the beds are made at once.''
It is important to note that his predictions pre-dated the
oyster diseases that hit in the 1930s and 1950s, as well as the
dredging and habitat destruction discussed in the petition.
Unfortunately, the work of Dr. Brooks was ignored, and his
predictions proved accurate.
In stark contrast, New England has experienced an oyster
renaissance through aquaculture. In 1972, Connecticut growers
placed a million bushels a shell on setting grounds. Harvest
went from 30,000 bushels a year to nearly a million bushels in
just 10 years, a $60 million a year oyster industry with 650
jobs was reborn. The Rhode Island oyster aquaculture industry
is growing at 28 percent a year for the past 5 years.
Massachusetts has some 300 aquaculture leases. New York oyster
culture permits have tripled in the past 15 years, while landed
harvests go from 1.2 million to 3.4 million.
Even in Virginia, private growers prosper using hatchery-
reared seed and intensive culture techniques. This despite the
intense disease pressure and degraded water quality alluded to
in the petition. The take-home message is that with proper
management, we can have a profitable oyster industry despite
diseases and pollution. We should not use the Endangered
Species Act as an instrument to rectify decades of mismanaged
fisheries in the mid-Atlantic.
The second point in the petition I would like to refute is
that declining water quality, high silt loading, and nutrient
loading are to blame for oysters disappearance. The oyster is
uniquely adapted like no other shellfish to thrive in
conditions of soupy, turbid water. The feeding apparatus is
capable of sorting microscopic particles of silt from those
which are nutritious algae. And oysters thrive in some of the
most severely degraded estuaries on the eastern seaboard.
The last point I would like to make is that adding the
oyster to the endangered species list will damage the shellfish
aquaculture industry, which, in turn, will hurt both the wild
oyster population and the marine environment. While I
understand that the ESA does not permit consideration of
economic factors such as jobs or harvest, if the listing does
go forward, we can be assured that the market for oysters will
collapse, and interstate transport of oysters will become a
regulatory paperwork nightmare. Farming will cease to become
profitable.
Well, environmental groups now recognize that oyster
culture is sustainable and has significant environmental
benefits. Oysters farms have been shown to increase the
diversity and abundance of fish and crustaceans. My oysters on
my tiny, little farm filter over 100 million gallons a day, and
my oysters cast trillions of larvae into the tides, where they
replenish wild stocks.
And because I invest tens of thousands of dollars each year
in new seed, my harvest is sustainable. And when I harvest, I
remove nitrogen from the watershed. There are literally
thousands of small growers like myself up and down the coast,
and I hope you can see there will be negative impacts to the
environment and to wild populations if this petition goes
forward.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Rheault follows:]
Statement of Robert B. Rheault, Ph.D., President,
East Coast Shellfish Growers Association
First of all I want to thank you for the opportunity to comment on
this petition. As President of the East Coast Shellfish Growers
Association I represent thousands of small farmers from Maine to
Florida. For the past 20 years I have run my own small oyster farm in
Rhode Island. I have a degree in Oceanography and my thesis was on the
feeding and growth of oysters. Most of my life revolves around oysters.
I would like to point out what I believe are certain flaws in the
petition to list the oyster as endangered.
First, the petitioner makes selective use of the data to paint a
picture that appears dire, but conceals the fact that oysters are in
fact thriving in many areas. We recently estimated that there are
currently somewhere in excess of five billion oysters in U.S. waters
based solely on what goes to market each year.
Second, the petitioner attributes much of the decline in oysters to
degraded water quality and excessive silt and nutrient loading. In fact
the oyster is well adapted to rich turbid waters and thrives in many of
our most polluted coastal estuaries.
The third point I would like to make is that the listing of the
oyster will have serious negative environmental impact by virtue of the
fact that it will curtail or eliminate much of the private commercial
aquaculture of oysters. Oyster culture has been shown to benefit water
quality, provide habitat for juvenile fish and provide a sustainable
source of free swimming larvae into the watershed.
The petitioner has submitted an eloquent and convincing case
describing the decline of the oyster on the East Coast. He neglects to
include the data from the Gulf Coast region, which maintains a stable
and sizeable harvest of oysters. Clearly this is the same species. Had
he included this data the decline would not appear as drastic as his
data appear to suggest.
Moreover, the data set is deceptive because the Chesapeake-Delaware
region was historically such a huge percentage of the Atlantic coastal
production that it appears as if the entire population has suffered
when in fact the population declines are largely centered in the mid-
Atlantic states, while most New England and Gulf coast populations are
(with tremendous year to year variation) relatively stable over the
long term.
Furthermore, harvest statistics do not accurately track abundance.
Most states have substantial populations of oysters behind pollution
closure lines that serve as spawner sanctuaries and yet never reach the
market.
The mid-Atlantic states have been hit hard with the triple threat
of two parasitic diseases, a degraded habitat and a mismanaged wild
harvest. Outside the mid-Atlantic region other states wrestle with each
of these three threats to various degrees, but oyster populations are
relatively healthy and oyster aquaculture is in many cases expanding.
To put the issue in perspective it helps to review a little of the
history of oystering.
For the past hundred and fifty years oyster management has been a
delicate balance of regulating a wild fishery and augmenting wild
populations with certain forms of public aquaculture enhancement.
Around 1830 it was discovered that sets could be enhanced by placing
clean shell in key setting beds, and then relaying the seed oyster to
growing grounds. This simple aquaculture tool coupled with advances in
harvesting efficiency brought the Maryland harvest from roughly 2
million bushels to nearly 15 million bushels by 1880. Overzealous
harvesters pounded the beds and over the next 20 years those harvests
had declined to 3 million bushels.
Dr. William Brooks wrote in The Oyster in 1891 ``We have wasted our
inheritance by improvidence and mismanagement... ``our oyster policy is
destructive and sure to result, ultimately in ruin to the industry.
``the oyster property of the state is in imminent danger of complete
destruction unless radical changes in the methods of managing the beds
are made at once.''
It is important to note that his predictions predated the discovery
of significant oyster disease and the bulk of the dredging and habitat
destruction that has occurred in the past 100 years. Unfortunately the
work of Dr. Brooks was ignored and his predictions proved accurate.
To the north natural populations were also quickly being depleted
by overzealous harvesters. Many states allowed private individuals to
lease bottom for commercial aquaculture. In Rhode Island, Connecticut
and Long Island turn-of-the century entrepreneurs developed oyster
farms that produced several millions of dollars (in today's value)
worth of oysters each year. Hundreds of thousands of barrels of oysters
were shipped to England and by train to the West Coast.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2446.001
After the turn of the century the New England industry went into
decline. By 1950 the private farms had ceased to produce. The forces
that conspired to eliminate oyster farming were not biological, but
rather they were economic. First the invention of the flush toilet in
1900 (before the development of sewage treatment plants) resulted in
several cholera epidemics which subdued the market for oysters. The
cheap labor pool went off to fight in world War II and oysters were not
affordable for depression era families.
New England's Oyster Farming Revival
Connecticut has fostered a resurgence of the oyster industry. With
techniques little changed from a hundred years ago, the industry was
revived with a large dose of faith and public and private investment.
In 1972 a million dollars worth of shell was dumped on the setting
grounds and the industry bounced back. Prior to this the annual harvest
was about 30,000 bushels. Within ten years the harvest was back up to
nearly a million bushels a year. A $60-million-a-year oyster industry
with 650 jobs was reborn.
Connecticut's oyster industry has subsequently suffered setbacks
from the same parasitic diseases that have ravaged the mid-Atlantic,
and periodically wild larval sets disappoint, but the industry still
sustains a harvest that is hundreds of times what an un-enhanced wild
fishery would yield on its own.
The take-home message is that with proper management and incentives
we can have a profitable oyster industry despite devastating diseases,
pollution closures and habitat loss. Production from aquaculture is up
sharply in the past twenty years. The profit motive has come back and
there is a proliferation of small oyster farms in New England who are
using a host of methods to grow oysters successfully.
Innovative oyster farmers in Rhode Island rely on hatchery-reared
seed to fill their racks and cages. This is an industry that has grown
28% a year for the past five years.
Massachusetts has some 300 shellfish aquaculture leases--most of
which are less than 20 years old.
In New York, oyster culture permits have tripled in the past
fifteen years and the landed value of harvests has gone from $1.2
million to $3.4 million.
Even in Virginia where the wild populations are in decline, private
growers who have leases have found that they can prosper using
hatchery-reared seed and intensive culture techniques. This despite
intense disease pressure and degraded water quality alluded to in the
petition. The difference lies in the ownership of the crop. Where
private leases have been resisted in favor of preserving the artisanal
wild-harvest fishery you find that there is little incentive to invest
adequately in the rejuvenation of the seed beds.
The differences in these management approaches (public fisheries
versus private farms) have been noted by many experts over the years.
In The Oyster (1891) Dr William Brooks wrote eloquently of the
possibilities of oyster culture in the Chesapeake Bay and the problems
of unmitigated free and common fisheries. His comments are as valid
today as they were over a century ago. ``Our opportunities for rearing
oysters are unparalleled in any other part of the world..''
Recently, numerous groups have made a concerted effort to replenish
the oyster bars and some of these efforts are starting to bear fruit.
However, many fear that these efforts will be doomed to failure unless
the destructive harvest practices of the past are curtailed.
Unfortunately, funding for these replenishment efforts was cut in the
most recent federal budget. This is often the fate of publicly funded
fishery restoration efforts because there is a disconnect between those
footing the bill and those reaping the benefit.
We should not use the Endangered Species Act as an instrument to
rectify decades of mismanaged fisheries in the mid-Atlantic. While the
ESA is an important and valuable tool, the ESA is a blunt instrument
and was never intended as a fisheries management tool.
The fisheries management practices of the past have failed to
protect the resource. We need only look to the north to see how there
is a tremendous potential to rejuvenate the oyster resource through
private commercial aquaculture. It can succeed even in areas where
disease pressure is severe and water quality is degraded.
The second point in the petition I would like to refute is that
declining water quality, high silt loading and nutrient loading are to
blame for the oysters disappearance. The oyster is uniquely adapted
like no other shellfish to thrive in conditions of soupy turbid water.
The feeding apparatus is capable of sorting microscopic particles of
silt from those which are nutritious alga. Oysters thrive in some of
the most severely degraded estuaries on the eastern seaboard.
During my thesis work I experimented with growing oyster seed under
docks in marinas. We expected problems from the heavy metals in the
bottom paints and the fuel spills, however we experienced nearly 100%
survival and growth rates as fast as any reported in the literature.
Based on the data I supplied to the FDA showing these animals were safe
to consume after a few months in clean waters, the FDA changed its
regulations to allow nursery culture of shellfish seed in uncertified
waters, a practice in wide use today. I now culture my entire crop of
three million animals a year under the docks of a local marina.
The last point I would like to make is that adding the oyster to
the endangered species list will have severe negative repercussions to
the shellfish aquaculture industry, which will in turn have negative
implications for both the wild oyster population and the marine
environment. I understand that the ESA does not permit consideration of
economic factors such as jobs or harvests, but if the listing goes
forward we can be assured markets will be damaged and interstate
transport of cultured oysters will become a regulatory and paperwork
nightmare. Siting of new aquaculture leases in protected essential
oyster habitat will be impossible.
Under this scenario, my small farm, which occupies 2.3 acres and
employs five year-round, will cease to be profitable. A graduate
student recently documented the abundance of fish and critters that
live in and around my oyster cages. He found ten times the abundance of
fish and crustaceans as he found in a nearby eelgrass bed. In summer I
estimate there are a thousand baby lobsters and tens of thousands of
juvenile fish that make our cages their home.
My oysters filter over a hundred million gallons a day removing
silt and improving water clarity. Each year my oysters cast trillions
of larvae into the tides where they replenish wild stocks.
Because I invest thousands of dollars each year in new seed my
harvest is sustainable and when I harvest I remove nitrogen from the
watershed (in the form of protein) and ship it off to Manhattan or DC.
Only about 40 pounds of nitrogen a year, but then I have only a small
farm.
There are literally thousands of small growers like myself up and
down the coast. It is easy to see there will be negative impacts to the
environment and to wild populations of oysters if this petition goes
forward.
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Voisin?
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL C. VOISIN, CHAIRMAN,
LOUISIANA OYSTER TASK FORCE
Mr. Voisin. Chairman Pombo and members of the Committee, I
want to thank you for this opportunity to testify before you on
the status of the eastern oyster and the petition to list it
under the Endangered Species Act.
I am Mike Voisin, Chairman of the Louisiana Oyster Task
Force, a governmental agency within the Louisiana Department of
Wildlife and Fisheries composed of Oyster Industry Association
and governmental agency appointees. The Louisiana Oyster Task
Force was created in 1988.
I am currently President of the Molluscan Shellfish
Committee, a part of the National Fisheries Institute, and a
board member of the Gulf Oyster Industry Council and the
Louisiana Oyster Dealers and Growers Association.
I am a seventh generation oyster farmer and processor. Our
farm comprises approximately 14,000 acres of water bottoms in
coastal Louisiana, which produces between 15 million to 25
million pounds of in-shell oysters annually. This represents 45
million to 75 million individual oysters that we harvest on an
annual basis. Since our oysters take anywhere from 2 to 4 years
to grow to harvest size, this means that, at any one time on
our farm, we may have anywhere from 135 million to 225 million
individual oysters on our water bottoms.
The State of Louisiana produces approximately 250 million
in-shell pounds of oysters annually or 750 million individual
oysters with a similar growth cycle of 2 to 4 years to market
size. This means that, at any one time, there are approximately
2.25 billion oysters in our oyster farms and public producing
areas, many of which--in fact, a predominance are in
Representative Melancon's area, which we think is the largest
oyster-growing area maybe even in the world.
The Gulf States, combined with Louisiana, produce annually
approximately 500 million in-shell pounds of oysters, totaling
approximately 1.5 billion individual oysters and maintaining
approximately 4.5 billion individual oysters in Gulf producing
areas at any one time. So one might ask why anyone would
consider eastern oysters for a listing on the Endangered
Species Act? That is a question that I ask myself.
Even in areas along the eastern United States seaboard,
where in some areas oyster diseases have had an impact on
harvestable populations, there are hundreds of millions of
individual oysters in coastal oyster growing areas. Could the
answer to my question be that someone is trying to impact the
livelihood of thousands for a personal political agenda by
using the Endangered Species Act? If this is the case, which it
appears to be, then maybe Congress needs to look at significant
changes to this act.
The petition to list the eastern oyster as endangered or
threatened under the Endangered Species Act is targeted at
concerns in the Chesapeake Bay. For a number of years, Congress
has funded oyster research in this area, and some successes
have occurred. Thomas Jefferson, our third President, said,
``Nothing can stop the man with the right mental attitude from
achieving his goal. Nothing on Earth can help the man with the
wrong mental attitude.''
I believe that Congress has had the right mental attitude
in funding this research and development and should continue to
do so. I believe that the petitioner may have the wrong mental
attitude relating to this concern.
We must continue to press forward on resolving whatever
concerns are presented to the oyster community. As Babe Ruth
said, ``We must never let the fear of striking out get in our
way.''
Thomas J. Watson, a successful businessman, said, ``Would
you like me to give you a formula for success? It is quite
simple, really. Double your rate of failure. You are thinking
of failure as the enemy of success, but it isn't at all. You
can be discouraged by failure, or you can learn from it. So go
ahead and make mistakes. Make all you can because, remember,
that is where you will find success.''
I believe that we are getting closer to narrowing in on a
significant success in the Chesapeake's oyster challenge. But
without a viable ability to market a product, the incentive to
invest in oyster reef and crop expansion will be lost. And if
we lose a generation of harvesters, farmers, and processors, we
may never see a recovery of the oyster or oyster communities in
this area.
A few years ago, my oldest son graduated from Brigham Young
University and was trying to decide if he was going to become
the eighth generation in our family to continue in the oyster
community. I told him of the great potential and future that
our family business had and how, with good management and
research and development, we could grow and continue to be
successful. He is now the eighth generation of our family in
the oyster community, where his younger brother, who recently
graduated from the University of Utah, will be joining him this
September.
We must continue to do the necessary research and
development, with its associated failures and successes, with
the academic community and the oyster community to once again
help it to thrive. Raul Armesto said, ``The world isn't
interested in the storms you encountered, but whether or not
you brought in the ship.'' This industry, this community is one
ship worth bringing in.
Let me once again speak of things that are happening in the
Gulf of Mexico. The oyster community has supported at Louisiana
State University the development of a small hatchery in Grand
Isle, Louisiana. My father, my brother, and my nephew are
working on a project with the hatchery that they believe may
double our company's oyster production in 3 to 5 years. That
means we may harvest an additional 45 to 75 million individual
oysters annually.
Henry Ford once said, ``You can do anything if you have
enthusiasm. Enthusiasm is the yeast that makes your hopes rise
to the stars. With it, there is accomplishment. Without it,
there are only alibis.'' We must foster the enthusiasm that
exists to resolve the challenges that are before us.
We do not support the petitioner's request to have eastern
oysters listed under the Endangered Species Act as either
threatened or endangered. We do support the appropriate changes
to the Act that will not allow successful and viable resources
to be subjected to this type of review and continued funding
for research and development in this area.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Voisin follows:]
Statement of Michael C. Voisin, Chairman,
Louisiana Oyster Task Force
Chairman Pombo and Members of the Committee, I want to thank you
for this opportunity to testify before you on the Status of the Eastern
Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) and the Petition to List it under the
Endangered Species act.
I am Mike Voisin Chairman of the Louisiana Oyster Task Force a
governmental agency within the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
Fisheries composed of Oyster Industry Association and Governmental
Agency appointees. The Louisiana Oyster Task Force was created by the
1988 Louisiana Legislature with the directive to strengthen the oyster
industry. I am currently President of the Molluscan Shellfish Committee
(a part of the National Fisheries Institute (NFI)) and a board member
of the Gulf Oyster Industry Council (GOIC) and the Louisiana Oyster
Dealers and Growers Association (LODGA).
I am a seventh (7th) generation oyster farmer and processor. Our
farm comprises approximately 14,000 acres of water bottoms in Coastal
Louisiana which produces between 15 million to 25 million pounds of in-
shell oysters annually. This represents 45 million to 75 million
individual oysters that we harvest on an annual basis. Since our
oysters take anywhere from 2 to 4 years to grow to harvest size, this
means that at any one time our farm may have anywhere from 135 million
to 225 million individual oysters on it.
The State of Louisiana produces approximately 250 million in shell
pounds of oysters annually or 750 million individual oysters with a
similar growth cycle of 2 to 4 years to market size, this means that at
any one time there are approximately 2.25 billion oysters in our oyster
farms and public producing areas. The Gulf States combined with
Louisiana produce annually approximately 500 million in shell pounds of
oysters, totaling approximately 1.5 billion individual oysters and
maintaining approximately 4.5 billion individual oysters in Gulf
producing areas at any one time.
So one might ask why anyone would consider Eastern Oysters for a
listing on the Endangered Species Act. That is a question that I ask
myself.
Even in areas along the Eastern United States seaboard where in
some areas oyster diseases have had an impact on harvestable
populations there are hundreds of millions of individual oysters in
their coastal areas.
Could the answer to my question be that someone is trying to impact
the livelihood of thousands for a personal political agenda by using
the Endangered Species Act? If this is the case, which it appears to
be, then maybe Congress needs to look at significant changes to this
act!
The petition to list the Eastern Oyster as Endangered or Threatened
Under the Endangered Species Act is targeted at concerns in the
Chesapeake Bay. For a number of years Congress has funded oyster
research in this area and some successes have occurred! Thomas
Jefferson our third President said, ``Nothing can stop the man with the
right mental attitude from achieving his goal; nothing on earth can
help the man with the wrong mental attitude.'' I believe that Congress
has had the right mental attitude in funding this research and should
continue to do so. I believe that the petitioner may have the wrong
mental attitude relating to this concern.
We must continue to press forward on resolving whatever concerns
are presented to the oyster community. As Babe Ruth said, ``We must
never let the fear of striking out get in your way.''
Thomas J. Watson a successful businessman said, ``Would you like me
to give you a formula for success? It's quite simple, really. Double
your rate of failure...You're thinking of failure as the enemy of
success. But it isn't at all...You can be discouraged by failure--or
you can learn from it. So go ahead and make mistakes. Make all you can.
Because, remember that's where you'll find success.'' I believe that we
are getting closer to narrowing in on significant success in the
Chesapeake's oyster challenge. But without a viable ability to market a
product the incentive to invest in oyster reef and crop expansion will
be lost. And if we lose a generation of harvesters, farmers and
processors we may never see a recovery of the oyster or oyster
communities in this area.
A few years ago my oldest son graduated from Brigham Young
University and was trying to decide if he was going to become the
eighth generation in our family to continue in the oyster community. I
told him of the great potential and future that our family business had
and how with good management and research and development we could grow
and continue to be successful. He is now the eighth generation of our
family in the oyster community, where his younger brother who just
graduated from the University of Utah will be joining him this
September. We must continue to do the necessary research and
development (with it's associated failures and successes) with academia
and the oyster community to once again help it thrive.
Raul Armesto said, ``The world isn't interested in the storms you
encountered, but whether or not you brought in the ship.'' This is one
ship worth bringing in!
Let me once again speak of things that are happening in the Gulf of
Mexico. The oyster community has supported at Louisiana State
University the development of a small oyster hatchery in Grand Isle,
Louisiana. My Father, Brother and Nephew are working on a project with
the hatchery that they believe may double our company's oyster
production in 3 to 5 years! That means we may harvest an additional 45
to 75 million individual oysters annually.
Henry Ford once said, ``You can do anything with if you have
enthusiasm. Enthusiasm is the yeast that makes your hopes rise to the
stars. With it, there is accomplishment. Without it, there are only
alibis.'' We must foster the enthusiasm that exists to resolve the
challenges that are before us!
We do not support the petitioners request to have Eastern Oysters
listed under the Endangered Species Act as either threatened or
endangered! We do support appropriate changes to the Endangered Species
Act that will not allow successful and viable resources to be subjected
to this type of review and continued funding for research and
development in this area.
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Gergela?
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH M. GERGELA, III,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LONG ISLAND FARM BUREAU
Mr. Gergela. Good afternoon. My name is Joe Gergela. I am
Executive Director of Long Island Farm Bureau, a 7,200-member
general farm organization of farmers, fishermen, landscape
contractors, and citizens interested in a rural quality of
life. In fact, we have several hundred members that are
commercial baymen, lobstermen, fishermen, and aquaculturalists.
I personally grew up on a 200-acre potato and vegetable
farm on North Fork of Long Island, and I farmed with my dad
until 1987. I have been executive director of Long Island Farm
Bureau for 17 years.
Thank you for allowing me to present testimony regarding
the petition to list the eastern oyster as endangered or
threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Where I come from,
farmers, baymen, and fishermen are the endangered species. I am
not a scientist, nor pretend to be one, nor an expert on the
science of the petition. I am, however, the advocate for
commercial fishing and aquaculturalists on Long Island and in
New York State.
Long Island Farm Bureau, as an organization, joins our
State Senate delegation in strong opposition to the listing of
the eastern oyster as threatened or endangered as it relates to
the Endangered Species Act. Since the eastern oyster is an
invertebrate, the entire species would have to be listed under
the Act if it is endangered or threatened. We don't think that
that is the case.
After reading the petition document by W. Dieter Busch, it
appears to us at Long Island Farm Bureau and my members that
while the petitioner raises legitimate concerns for the future
of the Chesapeake Bay shellfish industry, this petition is a
back-door effort and an inappropriate use of the Endangered
Species Act to prevent the Asian oyster from being introduced
into the Chesapeake ecosystem. We believe stand-alone
legislation by the Congress to address that issue would be a
far better way to prevent a possible invasive species from
being introduced into the ecosystem.
It appears that the petitioner is using the ESA to usurp
local decision-makers by asking the Federal Government to weigh
in by using the act. That, in itself, is a dangerous precedent
as this could have serious and detrimental effects on the
oyster producing industry in New York State and many other
States--Louisiana, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey,
Delaware, and on and on.
The economic impact of the ESA ruling at this point is
impossible for us to anticipate. The ESA ruling could take many
different forms, with varying impacts upon the individuals and
companies and locations of operations that engage in the wild
harvest or established aquacultural businesses. In the absence
of specific regulations, which would be imposed upon listing,
Long Island Farm Bureau would speculate that the effect could
range from minimal or to a total elimination of a $12 million a
year industry in New York State.
Regulations from a listing may preclude aquacultural
shellfish farming, which has seen a positive trend in New York
State. In 1990, there were 18 licensed permit holders for
oysters, and as of today, there are over 50. And that is
according to our State Department of Conservation Bureau of
Shellfisheries located on Long Island.
The shellfish industry on Long Island, together with our
elected officials, have worked together through innovation and
science to raise the production totals of 9,000 bushels in 1999
to nearly 50,000 bushels in 2004 dockside landings. It is
reasonable to anticipate that regulations would likely result
in across-the-board increases in costs of operation.
If there are no other species to farm as an alternative,
investment would stop. Capital would likely be withdrawn. And
when facilities decline, they are likely to be shut down rather
than be repaired or improved. The impact would be devastating
to the industry, affecting businesses, families, and the
economy of our State.
In the essence of time, I have a lot of historical
information in the testimony if you care to read it later on.
In 1855, the first planting took place in New York waters. And
as early as 1850, the town of Brookhaven in Suffolk granted the
first leases for aquaculture for oyster cultivation.
I am going to change course a little bit and mention a
couple of things which we are doing to address the resource
concerns in New York. In 1983, we had our first aquaculture
plan, and at that time, there was conclusion that we could
continue to have a viable, healthy, and vibrant industry.
Last year, our State legislature in 2004 adopted a change
in the State statute to allow in Suffolk County the creation of
a program for the leasing of bay bottoms in the Great Peconic
Bay estuary system, and we are working on rule-making right now
to allow that to happen. There is a huge interest in small
companies that are bringing back oyster production into the
east end of Long Island, into the Great Peconic Bay systems.
Also, 1992, the Peconic Bay estuary was formally adopted
into the national estuary program. We have been, in fact,
participating in programs to reduce the impacts of agricultural
nutrient and pesticide loadings into the estuary program.
In addition to that, I want to just mention a couple of
things about real-life impact on some of our members. Frank
Flowers and Sons, one of the first in the country to be a
family that has an oyster hatchery, started in 1887. They
employ 50 people. They have 50 million oysters and 50 million
clams in their waters off of Oyster Bay, Long Island.
One of my board members, Karen Rivara, her company is
fairly new in the last 10 years. They grow 4 million oysters
and 500,000 hard clams, and they expect that their business
will be growing 20 to 40 percent a year.
One last one is K&B Seafood, and Mr. Kehoe, one of the
proprietors is here. It is a $5 million a year business that
sells oysters. In addition to them, there are 60 companies on
Long Island alone and 190 that make their living in New York
State selling oysters.
In conclusion, in addition to the economic impacts, if New
York shellfish farmers are not permitted to grow the eastern
oyster due to this listing, there will be less oysters in the
environment, creating less habitat, spawning less offspring,
filtering less water, and removing less nitrogen.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
[The statement of Mr. Gergela follows:]
Statement of Joseph M. Gergela, III, Executive Director,
Long Island Farm Bureau
Good afternoon, I am Joseph Gergela, Executive Director of Long
Island Farm Bureau, and a 7,200-member general farm organization of
farmers, fishermen, landscape contractors and citizens interested in a
rural quality of life. In fact, Long Island Farm Bureau has several
hundred members that are commercial baymen, lobstermen, fishermen and
aquaculturalists. Long Island Farm Bureau is part of the federation of
counties that comprise New York Farm Bureau and at the national level
the American Farm Bureau Federation. I personally grew up on a 200-acre
potato/vegetable farm on Long Island's North Fork and actually farmed
with my father until 1987. I have served as Executive Director of Long
Island Farm Bureau for last 17 years.
Thank you for allowing me to present testimony regarding the
Petition to List the Eastern Oyster as Endangered or Threatened under
the Endangered Species Act.
I am not a scientist, nor pretend to be one, or an expert on the
science of the petition. I am, however, the advocate for commercial
fishing and aquaculturalists on Long Island and in New York State. Long
Island Farm Bureau as an organization joins our New York State Senate
(Attachment #1) in strong opposition to the listing of the Eastern
Oyster as threatened or endangered as it relates to the Endangered
Species Act.
Under the ESA, a listing determination can address a species, sub-
species or a distinct population segment (DPS) of a vertebrate species
(16 U.S.C.1532 (16)). Since the Eastern Oyster is an invertebrate, the
entire species would have to be listed under the ESA (or sub-species if
information indicates that there are sub-species of the Eastern Oyster)
if it is endangered or threatened. A species is endangered if it is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. (ESA section 3 (6)). It is threatened if it is likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its ranges (ESA section 3 (19)).
Under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, a species shall be listed if it
is determined to be threatened or endangered as a result of any one of
the following factors:
1. present or threatened destruction modification or curtailment
of habitat or range
2. over utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific or
educational purposes
3. disease or predation
4. inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms or
5. other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
In addition, Listing determinations are made solely on the basis of
the best scientific and commercial data available, after conducting a
review of the status of the species and taking into account efforts
made by any state or foreign nation to protect such species. This is
the basis by which you are holding this hearing today.
After reading the Petition document by W. Dieter H. Busch it
appears to Long Island Farm Bureau and its members that while the
Petitioner raises legitimate concerns of the future of the Chesapeake
Bay shellfish industry, this Petition is a back door effort, and an
inappropriate use of the ESA to prevent the Asian Oyster from being
introduced into the Chesapeake ecosystem. We believe stand alone
legislation by the Congress to address that issue would be a far better
way to prevent a possible ``invasive'' species from being introduced
into the ecosystem. It appears that the Petitioner is using the ESA to
usurp local decision makers by asking the Federal Government to weigh
in by using the ESA.
That in itself is a dangerous precedent as this could have serious
and detrimental affects on the Oyster producing industry in New York
State and other states such as Louisiana, Connecticut, Rhode Island,
New Jersey, Delaware and so on as the ESA requirements could make the
Eastern Oyster endangered throughout the entire population range
without justification or consideration of the variation of the 5
criteria of ESA.
The Economic impact of the ESA ruling at this point is impossible
to anticipate. The ESA ruling could take many different forms with
varying impacts upon the individuals and companies and locations of
operations that engage in wild harvest or established aquacultural
businesses. In the absence of specific regulations which would be
imposed upon listing, LIFB could speculate that the effect could range
from minimal or to total elimination of a 12 million dollar a year
industry in New York State. Regulations from an ESA listing may
preclude aquacultural shellfish farming which has seen a positive trend
here in New York State. In 1990 there were 18 licensed permit holders
of oysters, as of today there are over 50 according to New York State
Department of Conservation Bureau of Shellfisheries located on Long
Island. The shellfish industry on Long Island together with our elected
officials have worked together through innovation and science to raise
the production totals of 9,020 bushels in 1999 to nearly 50,000 bushels
in 2004 dockside landings (Attachment #2). It is reasonable to
anticipate that regulations would likely result in across the board
increases in costs of operation. If there are no other species to farm
as an alternative, investment would stop. Capital would likely be
withdrawn and when facilities decline, they are likely to be shut down
rather than be repaired or improved. The impact would be devastating to
the industry affecting businesses, families and the economy of our
state.
From a historical perspective, oystering has been prevalent as a
way of life on Long Island for centuries. In the 1640's when the first
English-speaking settlers arrived in Orient, they called the tiny
village on the tip of the North Fork, Oysterponds. One only needs to
look at the historical data to realize that there were many peaks and
valleys of dockside landings for hundreds of years. Pollution from
point and non-point sources, storm water runoff, pathogens, disease,
predators, over harvesting and the whims of Mother Nature contributed
to the rise and fall and rise again of the oyster industry. Companies
such as Frank M. Flowers and Sons have been in the business since 1887
by developing new technology and adapting to changes in the mariculture
process and estuary environment. Mariculture and Aquaculture is being
used today to assist in production of high quality seafood. The most
dramatic influence that farming the sea has had so far in New York
State has been in the oyster business. It has basically saved this
historically significant industry. Forty percent of the oysters eaten
today are the product of the mariculture industry. New York State has
been a national leader in development of mariculture. As early as 1784
officials in Oyster Bay realized that the oyster was in need of
protection from over harvesting and was the first community to pass an
ordinance concerning shellfish. That particular law prohibited all but
local baymen from taking oysters from Oyster Bay. In fact, Oyster Bay
received its name in 1639 from a Dutch sea captain who was so impressed
by the abundance of tasty oysters in this area. When he arrived, he
discovered huge mounds of oyster shells, obviously the result of many
years of feasting by Indian tribes. The shells provided Oyster Bay with
one of its earliest industries, the production of lime by grinding of
the oyster shells. There was no full-scale business relating to the
oyster during Colonial times, as oystering during this period was part
of the general search for food and was conducted on an individual
gleaning basis.
The real Long Island industry got started in the Great South Bay in
the early 19th century and remained an important enterprise for many
years. As the taste for the nutritious mollusk grew in demand, the
local industry became a national and international large-scale
industry. As the business flourished more and more, baymen harvested
the vast natural beds in the Great South Bay around a community known
as Blue Point. Because of the ``Blue Point Oyster's'' compact size and
hardiness, it was shipped to San Francisco and London. By 1823 the
quantities and quality of oysters began to decline. With this problem
occurring, the south shore baymen sought new areas to harvest oysters
and found new beds along the north shore of Long Island. From Queens to
Port Jefferson the bivalve was plentiful. Soon, these areas were also
over harvested and thoughts and energies turned to planting the fished
out beds with fresh seed oysters from the still bountiful Chesapeake
area. In 1855 the first planting took place in New York waters. In
planting the seed oysters, the baymen introduced an extremely important
dimension to the oyster industry; that planting and harvesting was
feasible and not entirely dependant on natural production. As early as
1850 the town of Brookhaven in Suffolk County granted the first leases
of town waters for oyster cultivation and soon after other towns
granted leases as well. The naturally productive areas of Long Island's
bays were not leased and left open for natural harvest. In 1881
Brookhaven began one of the first public mariculture projects in town
beds in response to a declining natural harvest by seeding open waters
in its jurisdiction. In 1886 Eugene Blackford of the New York State
Forest, Fish and Game Commission wrote ``the oyster industry is rapidly
passing from the hands of the fisherman to those of the planter and
oyster culturalist''.
Oystering equipment also changed and in 1874 the first steam driven
dredge was used. The invention would do the work equivalent to 300 men
using tongs. Later the suction dredge was developed and could do the
work of 4 regular dredges or 1200 oystermen.
Attention to the east end of Long Island to the waters of Gardiner,
Great Peconic and Little Peconic Bays were found to be conducive to
maturation of seed oysters around 1890. Up to that time, fishing and
scalloping were the premier industries in those waters. By 1900 the
East End waters became an important maturation area as the industry
moved west to east from New York City. Staten Island, Flushing Bay,
parts of the Hudson and East River were areas of production of oysters.
By 1927 and since that time, no oystering has been done when New York
State condemned the waters around New York City for shellfish
harvesting. The early years of oystering on Long Island were from 1855
to 1916, the time mariculture techniques were applied. By the 1880's
New York State had become the center of the northern oyster industry
and led the country in overseas and transcontinental shipments of
oysters.
Oyster production went from its high in 1900 to its low in the
1960's. At the peak there were 150 companies working in the Long Island
Sound with hundreds of boats and thousands of men. By the 1960's the
number of boats and companies were down to a dozen. Part of the
downfall of the industry was attributed to increased pollution that
came from commercial and residential development around the natural
oyster beds that diverted river and stream flows, which resulted in a
marked change of salinity. These problems were accompanied by over
harvesting, oyster disease, and major storms that destroyed the major
beds. In addition, there was an increase in predators such as starfish.
All of these factors resulted in almost a total wipe out of the natural
oyster in Long Island Sound and Great South Bay.
From that point in time in the 1960's, Frank M. Flowers and Sons
and other companies and also with help from New York State, New York
Sea Grant Institute and Cornell University efforts were undertaken to
save the industry by developing hatcheries and new technologies for
oyster production. In 1983 the industry got a big boost when the State
of New York authorized New York Sea Grant of State University of New
York and Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences to
undertake a study and develop a statewide aquaculture plan. In 1983 the
first draft was published and later concluded that aquaculture in New
York could continue to be a viable healthy and vibrant industry.
In 2004, New York State passed new legislation: Laws of New York
2004 Chapter 425 (Attachment #3) ``An Act to amend the environmental
Conservation Law in relation to ceding underwater lands at Gardiners
and Peconic Bays to Suffolk County for the purpose of establishing an
aquaculture management program for the cultivation of shellfish and to
repeal Chapter 990 of the law of 1969 related to same''.
In 2002, Suffolk County Resolution 1229-2002 directed the Suffolk
County Department of Planning, the Division of Environmental Quality in
the Department of Health Services, and County Department of Public
Works to prepare a plan for the conduct of a survey of underwater lands
in Gardiners and Peconic Bays for the purpose of cultivation of
shellfish. (Attached #4) This is a copy of the policy guidance document
on shellfish cultivation in Peconic and Gardiners Bays conducted by the
Suffolk County Department of Planning. While the county is only
beginning to promulgate regulations for such a leasing program, an ESA
listing for the eastern oyster will most likely make such a program
moot, as most of today's shellfish farmers are growing the eastern
oyster. It is expected that any expansion of mariculture in New York
will also primarily involve the eastern oyster, the only oyster allowed
by law to be cultivated in New York State.
In 1992, the Peconic Bay Estuary system was formally adopted into
the National Estuary Program. Comprehensive Management Plan was adopted
in 2002 after many years of the various government agencies at all
levels, as well as stakeholder and citizen groups, to prioritize the
actions and programs needed to protect and remediate environmental and
economic resources of the ecosystem. In fact, as part of the CCMP, Long
Island Farm Bureau has been working with the PEP to develop and
implement a nutrient and pesticide management plan for the agricultural
industry modeled upon the New York State Agricultural Environmental
Management Program (AEM). Long Island Farm Bureau is currently working
with the New York State Legislature on proposed legislation to further
implement recommendations from the CCMP. In the latest version of the
PEP newsletter, front-page article, it states, ``Compared to other
estuaries nationwide the Peconic Estuary is a relatively healthy
system.'' (Attachment 5)
The point being that New York State has been and is currently
addressing the issues facing the ecosystem from all the affects of the
societal impacts upon the estuary.
While we could continue to dwell on the past, it is time to go
forward with the fact that with all of the challenges, there continues
to be an opportunity to revitalize and expand the oyster industry on
Long Island and in New York.
For your information I have chosen 3 Long Island Farm Bureau
members to profile their respective companies to demonstrate the real
life human impact upon our members if the Eastern Oyster listing were
to happen.
Frank M. Flower and Sons was established in 1887 by the Flower
family. The company flourished until the late 1950's when oysters
seriously declined. At that time. H. Butler Flower had the foresight to
build one of the first major oyster hatcheries. As a result of oyster
and clam aquaculture, Frank M. Flower remains as the last of the
traditional shellfish companies in New York State.
This multi-million operation employs 50 local individuals. Six
vessels ranging from 50 to 90 feet are used to harvest oysters and
clams from 1800 acres of underwater lands leased from the Town of
Oyster Bay. Some of these vessels date back to the early 1900's. The
underwater lands are stocked with 50 million oysters and 50 million
clams from the 5000 sq. ft. company hatchery every year. Frank M.
Flower is also the major supplier of shellfish seed to aquaculturists
and Town shellfish programs in New York.
Aeros Cultured Oyster Company Inc. was incorporated in New York in
1996. It is owned by Karen Rivara* and James Markow. They grow oysters,
hard clams and bay scallops. The majority of their production consists
of Eastern Oysters. It took them five years to work out a cultivation
regime that would protect their crop from predators and allow them to
manage around disease pressure.
They have a shellfish hatchery, three nursery system sites, and
underwater cultivation grounds totaling 350 acres (250+ in New York.).
In 2000 they founded the Noank Aquaculture Cooperative, which now has
14 members in New York and Connecticut. Since 2001, Aeros has increased
their plantings of oysters by no less than 20% annually. This season
they will plant 4 million oysters and 500,000 hard clams. They will
donate several hundred thousand shellfish seed to town sponsored
cultivation programs in New York and Connecticut. Their hatchery sells
seed to other growers. The total hatchery production will be 9 million
oysters, 600,000 hard clams and 400,000 bay scallops. Next year they
expect this demand to increase by 20-40% for oysters. They also work
with community groups to restore shellfish, mainly oysters, in local
estuaries.
Their company has grown to earn income for 2 families and to employ
4 part time workers. Their gross sales for 2005 will approach $500,000.
The economic multiplier for shellfish aquaculture is 2.5, although
multipliers as high as 4.0 have been used for some operations.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2446.002
*Karen Rivara currently is on Long Island Farm Bureau's Board of
Directors and is its Secretary.
K&B Seafood Inc. started in 1992 by Thomas J. Kehoe and Roger S.
Boccio is located in East Northport, New York. Tom Kehoe serves as
President and Roger Boccio as Treasurer.
K&B Seafood has annual sales of $5,000,000. The company employs 14
individuals. K&B Seafood currently ships ``Eastern Oysters'' all across
the United States, Canada, and overseas to Hong Kong and Japan. They
are currently developing new markets in other countries.
In addition to K&B Seafood, there are more than 60 companies
engaged in the interstate sale of Eastern Oysters on Long Island, and a
total of 191 companies across New York State. In addition, there are
over 50 individuals and companies actively growing Eastern Oysters on
Long Island. This does not include the thousands of restaurants, retail
fish markets, and supermarkets that trade oysters daily. Thousands of
jobs that would be lost due to the frivolous listing of our oyster as
endangered.
In addition to the economic impacts, if New York shellfish farmers
are not permitted to grow the eastern oyster due to an ESA listing,
there will be less oysters in the environment, creating less habitat,
spawning less offspring, filtering less water, and removing less
nitrogen.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of our
industry. I would be happy to answer any questions.
NOTE: Attachments to Mr. Gergela's statement have been retained in
the Committee's official files.
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Bean?
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. BEAN, ATTORNEY,
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE
Mr. Bean. Good afternoon, Chairman Pombo. It is a pleasure
to be here. Thank you, members of the Committee.
I am Michael Bean. I am with Environmental Defense. I am
the head of its wildlife program and the co-director of the
Center for Conservation Incentives.
I am not here to take a position on the petition, although
I would point out I am not aware that the petition has any
support from any environmental organization. But I do want to
draw your attention to a couple of policy issues that I think
the petition raises because I know of the Chairman's broader
interest in how the Endangered Species Act functions.
I have two important points to make, and the first has to
do with the flexibility under the Act or, rather, the lack of
flexibility under the Act to deal with invertebrates as the Act
deals with vertebrates.
In Mr. Gilchrest's State of Maryland, the brown pelican has
recovered and is no longer on the endangered species list. But
in your State of California, Mr. Pombo, the brown pelican
remains on the endangered species list. And that is because the
Endangered Species Act allows for vertebrates the differential
protection of different populations. So the eastern population
or recovered population is no longer protected by the act, but
the western population, still endangered, keeps that
protection.
For invertebrates, the Act does not allow that same
flexibility. For invertebrates, it is an all or nothing choice.
You either list the species everywhere it occurs, or you list
it nowhere at all.21And as the gentlemen at this table have
indicated, the health of this particular organism appears to be
quite different in the Gulf of Mexico, for example, than in
Chesapeake Bay. And yet the flexibility to deal with those
different situations through listing it in one place and not in
another does not exist currently in the act.
I am aware that Mr. Jindal, I believe, has introduced a
bill that would allow for this species the listing according to
distinct population segments for the oyster, just as the law
currently does for vertebrates.
The law, I must say, was not always that way. When it was
passed in 1973, it allowed the same flexibility for
invertebrates as it allowed for vertebrates. Congress changed
that in 1978 at the behest of the House to reduce or eliminate
that flexibility for invertebrates. So that is the source of
the problem.
The second point I want to make has to do with the
potential consequences of a listing. I think here what I want
to do is to underscore the fact that under the Endangered
Species Act, those consequences could be quite different,
depending upon whether it is listed as endangered or
threatened.
If, for example, this species--or for that matter, any
species--were listed as a threatened species, the Act gives the
Secretary of Commerce in this case, or interior in the case of
other species, the authority and the discretion to tailor the
regulations to suit the needs of the species in particular
places.
And so, for example, at least in theory, if the protections
of the Act were really needed in Chesapeake Bay, they could be
applied there. And yet the requirements or restrictions
elsewhere might be substantially less or none at all. That is
an important point to keep in mind.
In addition, of course, to the very fundamental point that
this is, at this point, a petition on which the National Marine
Fisheries Service has made a preliminary determination that the
petition presents substantial evidence. There is a multi-month
process still to be resolved as to whether or not they will act
on the petition in a way in which the petitioner seeks. I
rather doubt that would be the case, but that process is
ongoing.
But because I think those two points are important points
to underscore about the lack of flexibility to deal with
invertebrates in the way in which the law allows it to be done
for vertebrates and the potential flexibility with the
threatened designation to tailor regulations, to tailor
restrictions so that they are restrictive where they need to be
and where they are not at all restrictive where they need not
be--that flexibility is in the Act with respect to a threatened
designation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bean follows:]
Statement of Michael J. Bean, Environmental Defense
Environmental Defense appreciates the opportunity to present this
testimony to the Resources Committee. I am Michael J. Bean, co-director
of Environmental Defense's Center for Conservation Incentives, which
promotes the use of incentive-based strategies to achieve a variety of
conservation goals, including the conservation of endangered species.
For nearly thirty years, I have worked to further the conservation of
endangered species throughout the country. My colleagues and I have
worked cooperatively with farmers in California, ranchers in Texas and
Utah, forest landowners in North and South Carolina, and other
landowners elsewhere in an effort to find workable and effective means
of conserving imperiled species. In addition to my duties at
Environmental Defense, I have served on the Board on Environmental
Studies and Toxicology of the National Research Council of the National
Academy of Sciences and on the Board of Directors of the Environmental
Law Institute. Very recently, I have joined the Board of Directors of
Resources for the Future. My book, The Evolution of National Wildlife
Law, is a leading text on the subject of wildlife conservation law in
the United States.
The petition to list the eastern oyster as an endangered or
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act highlights a number
of important conservation policy issues. Environmental Defense has not
taken a position on the petition itself. The petition's scientific
merits--and the law is clear that a decision on the action the petition
requests must be based on scientific evidence--can be better addressed
by other witnesses. What I can address in this testimony are some of
those important policy issues that the petition raises. In doing so, I
hope to illuminate some of the options that exist, and to dispel some
of the misperceptions that may also exist.
The first thing to note is that since 1978, Congress has allowed
less flexibility under the Endangered Species Act with respect to
invertebrate wildlife than with respect to vertebrate wildlife. That
is, for invertebrates that may be in conservation trouble, the law
allows only two choices: list them everywhere or list them nowhere. For
vertebrate wildlife, on the other hand, the law allows a third choice:
list them only where they are at risk of extinction, while leaving them
unlisted everywhere else. There are a number of examples in which the
administrators of the Act have done just that. The bog turtle, for
example, is listed in the Northeast, but unlisted in the southern
portion of its range. The gopher tortoise is listed in the western
portion of its range along the Gulf coast, and unlisted in the eastern
portion of its range. The brown pelican is listed on the Pacific coast,
but unlisted on the Atlantic coast. This flexibility makes it possible
to focus both the resources and the regulatory requirements of the
Endangered Species Act where they are most needed, and avoids the
unnecessary imposition of such requirements where they are not.
For invertebrates, as I have noted, this same flexibility no longer
exists. But it once did. When the Act was originally passed, Congress
drew no distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates. Both could
be listed at the species, subspecies, or population level. In the 1978
amendments to the Act, however, and at the behest of the House of
Representatives, Congress reduced that flexibility, taking away the
authority to list invertebrates at the population level. The
legislative history for this action sheds little light on its
rationale, but at least two possibilities seem likely. The first is
that some in the House may have simply thought that invertebrates were
less important that vertebrates. That view, though not uncommon, is
seriously misinformed. Many invertebrates have exceptional economic as
well as ecological importance. The most valuable commercial fishery in
the United States, for example, is not directed at a fish, but rather
at shrimp, which are invertebrates. Oysters are of obvious value
economically, and are also of considerable ecological value because of
their considerable role of filtering water. Sadly, both the economic
and ecological values of oysters have been greatly diminished as a
result of the failure of our land use, water pollution, and fishery
management laws to maintain this enormous natural bounty. If one looks
at a map of coastal communities along the East Coast, one sees places
with names like Bivalve, New Jersey, Oyster, Virginia, and Shelltown,
Maryland. Those names are testament to the importance that the once-
rich natural bounty of oysters had for once-thriving communities. Most
of those communities are thriving no more: the price of our inability
to properly manage and sustain a once-abundant invertebrate resource
has been lost jobs, devastated communities, a nearly vanished way of
life, and towns with names that now seem like quaint historical
artifacts.
Thus, providing less authority for, and less flexibility in, the
protection of invertebrates than of vertebrates on the grounds that
invertebrates are less important than vertebrates is a misguided
policy. Another possible justification for the different treatment of
vertebrates and invertebrates stems from the fact that invertebrates
are far more numerous than vertebrates. Because invertebrate species
greatly outnumber vertebrate species, the authority to list and protect
distinct population segments of invertebrates might impose upon the
Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries obligations that they lack
the resources to fulfill. This is a legitimate concern, at least at
current levels of funding for the endangered species program. The
annual core budget for the Fish and Wildlife's Service's administration
of the Endangered Species Act is almost exactly equal to the projected
cost of building one mile of the Intercounty Connector highway in
nearby Maryland. Thus, if Congress is only willing to give the Fish and
Wildlife Service each year the equivalent of one highway mile's worth
of funding with which to try to conserve some 1,264 species in 50
states and several territories, there may be no practical alternative
to the current all or nothing options for the listing of invertebrate
species.
The second matter I wish to address is what the regulatory
consequences of listing the eastern oyster would be. It is on this
topic that I think there may be some misunderstanding. The concern has
been expressed that the listing of the eastern oyster would result in
the imposition of highly restrictive, uniform federal rules throughout
the range of the oyster. In fact, this need not be the case, at least
if the species were listed as threatened rather than endangered. Under
a threatened designation, it would be possible to have one set of rules
in areas where oysters are most acutely imperiled--Chesapeake Bay, for
example--and entirely different rules in other areas. Indeed, in the
latter areas, existing state rules could continue in effect, at least
if NOAA Fisheries concluded that it was neither necessary nor advisable
for the conservation of the oyster to promulgate different rules. That
is because under section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act, NOAA
Fisheries would have the authority, in the event that it listed the
oyster as a threatened fishery, to fashion such rules regarding taking
and trade as it deemed necessary and advisable for the conservation of
the species, including having no such restrictions at all in some
areas.
There is one qualification to the foregoing statement. A threatened
designation would not eliminate the requirement that federal actions
that affect listed oysters would have to be reviewed pursuant to the
consultation procedures of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
Thus, coastal dredging projects, federally funded expansions of coastal
sewage treatment facilities, and other actions with similar potential
to adversely affect oysters would receive scrutiny for their impacts on
oysters, and might be required to reduce or offset any adverse impacts
to the oyster resource. From the point of view of those undertaking
such actions, that surely represents unwanted additional scrutiny and
potentially additional cost for environmental mitigation. From the
point of view of those trying to make their livelihoods by harvesting
oysters, added scrutiny of those types of activities is probably
welcome, inasmuch as it is activities such as those that have
contributed greatly to the diminishment of our oyster resource and to
the economic decline of the communities that once prospered from that
resource.
______
The Chairman. Thank you. I thank all the panel for their
testimony.
I am going to begin with Mr. Gilchrest and allow him to ask
the first round of questions.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would agree with Mr. Bean and also my colleague Mr.
Jindal about the putting vertebrates and invertebrates under
the same category as they were prior to the change in the late
1970s, and I think that would be one of the things that as we
go through the process of reforming the Endangered Species Act
can be one of the improvements.
Also I think it should be clear about, and I am glad Mr.
Bean brought this up, that the difference between the
flexibility of law concerning endangered or threatened.
Certainly is one of those considerations that needs to be more
clear and understood.
I have a couple of questions for the panel, though. Could
the gentleman from Long Island--actually, I guess there are two
gentlemen from Long Island. Is Dr. Rheault? Dr. Rheault, are
you from Long Island or Connecticut?
Dr. Rheault. Rhode Island.
Mr. Gilchrest. Rhode Island. But you represent the Long
Island Sound?
Dr. Rheault. Yes, sir. I represent growers from Maine to
Florida.
Mr. Gilchrest. It is an island, Rhode Island.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. I never realized that. Mr. Gergela and Dr.
Rheault, Bob and Joe.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. Can you tell me the breakout between wild
harvest and aquaculture of oysters in Long Island Sound?
Mr. Gergela. There is some production in Long Island Sound.
Very little is wild harvest. The majority of our industry is
actually mariculture and through oyster farming.
Because of all the water quality issues that you are facing
in the Chesapeake, we have encountered that already in New York
waters over a long period of time, and it decimated the
industry. But because of perseverance, good science,
commitment, our waters are cleaning up. There is commitment by
our growers, and they are bringing it back.
Mr. Gilchrest. I am sorry. Because I only have a limited
time. Most of the harvest in Long Island Sound, you would both
agree, is through aquaculture? Oyster farming?
Dr. Rheault. That is correct through most of New England.
Yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Cowart?
Mr. Cowart. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. Can you give me a breakout in the Virginia
waters of the Chesapeake Bay between wild harvest and
aquaculture of oysters?
Mr. Cowart. Representative Gilchrest, in Virginia,
traditionally, the production was private. But in recent years,
it has been probably half and half. As opposed to what happened
in Maryland, as you well know, because that is a public
industry, unlike Virginia. We have about 100,000 acres of
private bottoms in Virginia.
We have 240,000 acres of public held, survey bottoms that
are held in public trust. But at the same time, traditionally,
the production has been private more traditionally in numbers
in Virginia than what has been public.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. A number of you have mentioned that
this is a back-door way, the listing of virginica, to stop the
introduction of this Asian oyster that has been discussed in
Maryland and triploid use of it in the Virginia waters. I am
going to say Joe and Mike again, can you tell us how you feel
about the introduction of Asian oysters into the Chesapeake Bay
via the Maryland plan? Are you in favor of that, opposed to
that, or neutral to that?
Mr. Gergela. I am not an expert in it. So I would defer to
my colleagues that are far more expert. But in reading the
petition and also meeting with growers and discussing the
issue, they feel that that is a concern that the petitioner is
trying to use the Endangered Species Act to stop another
action.
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, if we could put the petition aside for
a moment and just say the petition never happened, is there any
concern up in Long Island Sound about the introduction of Asian
oysters to the Chesapeake Bay?
Mr. Gergela. Yes, there is. And in fact, New York State law
allows only the eastern oyster to be produced in New York
waters. So we are very specific and concerned.
As an example, the mussel--the zebra mussel that got into
the St. Lawrence Seaway, now into the Great Lakes and some of
the rivers, it became an invasive species, and that is the type
of thing--not only that, but we have encountered that with
other pest problems for agriculture.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. Dr. Bob, any comment on Asian
oysters in the Chesapeake Bay?
Dr. Rheault. As President of the East Coast Growers
Association, I have members who are supporting it and opposed
to it. As a grower from Rhode Island, we have come out strongly
opposed. We fear that it has tremendous potential to come up
the bay and displace the natural population.
Mr. Gilchrest. All right. Thank you very much. My time has
expired.
The Chairman. Mr. Melancon?
Mr. Melancon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mike Voisin, please, if you would. Assuming that the mid-
Atlantic oyster can be listed or would be listed as an
endangered species or endangered separately from the other sub-
species of oysters, is there any anticipated effect on oyster
sales for the species not listed? Do you think that----
Mr. Voisin. Yes. If the eastern oyster was listed, that
would leave in this country the gigas oyster on the West Coast,
which is the largest volume oyster, which is a Pacific oyster,
other than the eastern oyster. I would expect an explosion in
sales growth for the Pacific oyster from the Pacific
Northwest--Oregon, California, and Washington. I would expect
the stop of sale of the eastern oyster.
Mr. Melancon. And what would happen with Louisiana's?
Mr. Voisin. Well, Louisiana, the total economic impact of
our industry is around $280 million a year. So that economic
impact would close. And pending what would happen in
relationship to the implementation of the act, we may have
near-shore oil and gas development stop because of oysters
being endangered species. We may have coastal restoration,
which is a huge concern in our area, be halted in its footsteps
because if you introduce fresh water, you might kill oysters.
We might have sport fishing and the ability to use our
waterways be halted at certain times when oyster larvae was in
the water because it may kill--the propellers on recreational
boats may kill oyster larvae. I don't know how far this would
go, but potentially, you could bring a screeching halt to the
whole economy in south Louisiana. The oil and gas needs of the
country would be pretty well devastated.
Mr. Melancon. Usually, as far as it can go, it ends up
going.
Dr. Rheault, the argument from Chesapeake Bay harvesters is
that water degradation is the cause behind declining oyster
populations. And how does that water quality compare to the
conditions in which you grow your oysters, and why are they
having trouble and you aren't?
Dr. Rheault. Well, the oyster is a tremendously hearty
species. It thrives in some tremendously polluted waters. It
has been around since the age of the dinosaur and is
tremendously adaptable.
When I was doing my thesis research, we looked at growing
oysters in marinas. And while we suspected problems from the
heavy metals in the bottom paints and the fuel spills, we
discovered 100 percent survival and growth rates as fast as any
reported in literature.
And I now grow my entire crop of 3 million seed under the
docks of a gas dock in a marina with 100 percent survival. And
we grow them out in clean water. So I question whether the
water quality issues raised by the petitioner are the direct
cause for the decline of the oyster.
And why are the wild populations and the cultured
populations different? It is because we protect our oysters.
They are our pets. Everything eats a small oyster. Little
crabs, little fish, jellyfish will eat the larvae. The little
shrimp you see in the water, they will eat a baby oyster. And
if you leave a baby oyster out unprotected, it is going to get
eaten. And we protect our babies.
And that is why aquaculture is able to thrive in areas
where wild harvests are suffering because there have been new
predators introduced. We have a new Japanese green crab. Now
there is a cute new fiddler crab, new exotic crab. Other exotic
species are coming in all the time, and these are all threats
to the wild oyster that they are not threats to cultured
oysters protected by farming.
Mr. Melancon. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Jindal?
Mr. Jindal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this
hearing. I want to thank our witnesses as well.
I have only got just three questions. First of all, I want
to reiterate a point that has been made several times. The fact
that we are talking about a species, we are talking about
oysters that are harvested currently and whose range range from
all the way from the Gulf of St. Lawrence all the way down to
the Yucatan Peninsula. We have heard today about the fact that
there are billions--I am going to repeat that--literally
billions of these oysters.
And so, where there may be legitimate concerns about what
is happening in Maryland and the Chesapeake, I certainly want
to make sure that everybody hears that we need to make sure we
don't approach this with a one-size-fits-all solution that
actually ends up causing more damage and more harm than
actually it helps to repair. And it certainly doesn't make any
sense from a Louisiana perspective or from some of these other
perspectives to declare this entire range of species
endangered.
Having said that, I have three questions. The first is you
have heard some comments about a piece of legislation I have
introduced that would allow, as we have heard, the
invertebrates to be treated as are vertebrates and allow the
status of endangered species to be applied based on geography.
So that the species is thriving in one area, it is not
artificially claimed or declared to be endangered because of
the way it is doing in another area.
My first question to the various folks here on the panel
is, is that an approach that you could support? I know some of
you mentioned in your testimony, but I didn't hear everybody
comment on that. And for the sake of time, I will lump in my
second question. In addition to that specific approach, would
you also be in support of an approach that gives States and
regions more flexibility to protect the species, that works
best based on those geographies?
I am going to lump my first two questions together and
allow the members of the panel to respond to those two
questions.
Mr. Cowart. In the Chesapeake Bay, we don't feel like that
our species, even if you discount the Gulf coast or the
Northeast coast, we don't feel like we have a threatened or an
endangered species. And we feel like that the States,
particularly Virginia--I am not familiar with all the work that
goes on Maryland. But the State of Virginia has taken
appropriate actions to try to actually reinvigorate these
oyster populations.
The oyster in the Chesapeake Bay is the solution to the
problem. It is not the problem. The problem is something else.
But obviously, if invertebrates are reclassified, we probably
wouldn't have the Gulf coast guys here today in opposition to
what is taking place perhaps with this particular listing that
is proposed.
Mr. Jindal. Thank you.
Dr. Rheault. As I said in my testimony, I believe this is a
local fisheries management issue, and I believe that the local
authorities should be dealing with it in their own way.
However, if we were to list this on a local basis,
unfortunately, the consumer tends not to be very savvy. And if
they hear that oysters are in trouble somewhere, they are
likely to shy away from the product everywhere.
When red tide hit in New England, even though all the
product that was on the market was safe, and no one had even
gotten sick, you couldn't sell an oyster in Boston. The
consumer is going to hear that oysters are in trouble, and they
are going to say, ``Well, I shouldn't be eating an endangered
species or a threatened species.''
They are not going to be able to differentiate between one
harvested from the Gulf. They are going to shy away. Our
markets will evaporate, and our industry will suffer.
Mr. Voisin. Thank you, Representative Jindal, for the
question.
While I am not an expert in the Endangered Species Act and/
or the bill that you introduced, it appears to have a set of
direction that needs to be directed at, and that is changes to
the Endangered Species Act. My fear, though, is that if you are
to say we are a subpopulation or a different group, what
happens if the eastern oyster is declared endangered and
Hurricane Andrew comes through Louisiana again?
Do we all of a sudden see in the Terrebonne Bay system or
in the Barataria Bay system when the oysters are wiped out, all
of a sudden somebody says, well, now they are endangered in
that area, and we have a subpopulation of the Louisiana
industry or the Louisiana oyster. And so, they are endangered
there. Which would prohibit what we do, which is rebuild those
because the oysters farmers get back in and scrape the bottom,
get the mud off, move the grassy materials and the marsh that
has sunk on top of the beds.
My fear is if we start looking subpopulation basis-wise. It
makes sense. Logically, it all makes sense. But what happens is
do we begin to open the door for people to say because of a
one-time catastrophic event, it is endangered, and then it may
take a generation or two without economic incentive to rebuild
that area?
Mr. Jindal. My time is about to run short. I will give you
my third question. If we have time, I will let the panelists
respond. And I certainly appreciate the comments.
I guess what I am hearing out of this panel's testimony is
the fact that we do need to be more flexible than what we are
currently allowed to be. We need to have more options, in other
words, currently available to us.
I am aware, and I hope in future panels we will hear more.
I know that there have been aggressive restoration plans put in
place as recently as 2000-2001. I would like to hear more about
the progress of those plans, whether there is something short
of classifying the species as endangered that would allow these
oysters to thrive.
I would like to hear more about what is already being done.
It seems like a short amount of time has passed since 2000-2001
for us to be taking drastic action so quickly. I am sorry that
the rest of the panel didn't get a chance to respond to the
question. But what I am hearing from everybody is the fact that
we do need to be more flexible in our approach.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Voisin, you talk about the incentives
that exist currently to rebuild the oyster beds if they are
disrupted and losing that particular incentive. I have a
question, and this is where we have a very difficult way of
dealing with this because when you talk about listing
population segments, it is one thing if you are talking about
the brown pelican and whether it is recovered in Maryland or
not recovered in California. That is something that science can
tell you whether or not you are at a sustainable population.
When you are dealing with a commercially traded species,
you have another layer of bureaucracy that comes on top of
that, and that is where I have concerns about listing a
particular population segment, and ultimately, what does that
mean?
I am familiar with at least one case in commercially traded
product where the new layer of bureaucracy that is on top of
that makes it almost impossible for them to sell their product
within the United States because it is endangered, and the cost
of meeting that is a concern. Is that a concern that you have?
I mean, you are coming out of the Gulf. If we listed the
Chesapeake Bay as an endangered population, how do you prove
where your oysters came from?
Mr. Voisin. Well, that is not an easy answer. I mean, you
would have to have a scientist at every restaurant or oyster
bar to make a determination and maybe do a DNA test or
something like that. But Dr. Rheault, I think, did a great job
of explaining that the consumer is savvy today, savvy enough to
understand that there may be some potential concern.
Yet when they hear about it, when he talked about the red
tide outbreak in Massachusetts recently, oyster sales in
Louisiana were impacted as well, and clam sales in Florida were
impacted, where we were thousands of miles away from the
concern. Because the consumer reads a little bit or hears a
little bit, the confusion out there draws them away from the
market.
But the concern I see is that when there is an economic
incentive to be able to get a return on an investment, I see
that businessman getting with his congressman, getting with his
local community leaders, and trying to accomplish something to
rebuild versus when there is none, what I have seen--and I
can't point to any specific situation. But in a general sense,
if it is an environmental movement or a feel-good movement in a
community, it wanes as time goes on.
So that if you lose a generation, if you lose a generation,
what is happening in the Chesapeake right now is a lot of the
waterfront is actually being developed for things other than
oyster processing plants. In fact, I was with an oyster
processor last night that has now retired and sold his
facility, and they are going to develop some really nice
developments where his facility was. That is one more that we
won't have when the bay comes back.
And I say ``when the bay comes back'' because the bay will
come back. It is a matter of time and energy, and the research
and development is there to do that. So that is my biggest fear
is we will generationally lose something, and in a generation
or two, you are not going to grow oyster shuckers back. You are
not going to grow the entrepreneurial spirit that oyster
processors and farmers have today and the management of water
bottoms and the ability to grow that product if there is not an
economic incentive to do that.
The Chairman. Mr. Bean, I know that you probably understand
the incentives as well as anybody in the environmental
movement, and it is something you have been talking about for a
while. And I do want to broach that with you in terms of taking
away the economic incentives that some of the other panelists
have for recovering populations in certain areas. And when we
talk about the Chesapeake, how do we create an economic
incentive there to recover the species?
Mr. Bean. I don't have a specific answer to that question.
I agree with you that creating an incentive to do that is
vitally important, but the main problem--certainly, one of the
main problems in the Chesapeake is the new introduced diseases
that occur there. And although I am hardly an expert on the
matter, it is my understanding is that we don't really know
quite how to deal with those diseases just yet.
So unless and until we can overcome that, we may be facing
problems that economic incentives alone can't address. But I
certainly would agree that anything that encourages and rewards
and induces oyster growers and others to be part of the effort
to clean up water, to reduce some of the sources of pollution,
to reduce some of the disturbances from dredging of ports and
waterways and so forth, that is clearly needed.
Whether the Endangered Species Act is needed, that is a
different question. I don't know that it is. For the reasons I
have indicated, it may not be.
I would like, if I may, to add one point to what has been
said about the willingness of consumers or the potential
confusion of consumers. I think there is actually a good test
case of that already available. There are a number of
populations of salmon that are endangered, have been listed as
endangered for a number of years. But the consumption of salmon
by the American consumer does not seem to have been adversely
affected by that.
So the distinction between illegal salmon, if you will, or
endangered salmon and non-endangered salmon doesn't seem to
have created any confusion in the marketplace.
The Chairman. I believe initially with the salmon on
listing it was impacted. But I guess my fear in that particular
case is when you have groups that start going after the farm-
raised salmon and saying that it is not as healthy or it is
polluted or whatever. And that is where some of the guys who
are really into aquaculture get in trouble.
You know, it is one thing when you list a wild population
as endangered, but then when groups start going after the farm-
raised as not being as good, it is like, okay, what do you
want? And that is one of the problems that we run into.
Mr. Gilchrest, did you have any further questions?
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just an interesting observation, I think. I don't know. I
shouldn't even make this statement in public that I don't think
the virginica is going to be designated as endangered, maybe
not even as threatened. So I don't think we are going to get
that far.
But one of the things we might want to pursue with the
reforming of the Chesapeake Bay--I would like to reform the
Chesapeake Bay. Put me in charge of the Chesapeake Bay.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. But when we look at the Endangered Species
Act and if, let us say, this eastern oyster was threatened or
declared endangered as a sub-species in the Chesapeake Bay,
what effect would that have on the aquaculture operation in
Virginia? Or the aquaculture operation on the Long Island
Sound?
That would be because those are thriving, and they are
bringing oysters back. It would affect the wild stock, we all
can assume. But how about the farm-raised oysters, which have
come back quite well in the Long Island Sound? So that is just
an observation I have. I don't know if anybody wanted to
comment on that?
Mr. Bean. Well, I would say, Mr. Gilchrest, that at least
potentially one could distinguish farmed or maricultured
oysters from wild oysters if the listing were threatened rather
than endangered. There would be the flexibility to do that.
Whether NOAA would choose to do that, I couldn't say. But they
would have that authority if it was appropriate.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. And I just thought of another one
I might want to ask the gentleman from Virginia. I am just
curious, as being someone from Maryland, you guys down in
Virginia have greater aquaculture operations going. Many of my
friends, including my brother-in-law, harvest oysters. He does
that out of Crisfield, and he is a very successful waterman.
Deals with a lot of different things, and he has been doing it
now for probably 30, 35 years.
I am just curious as to, from your perspective, Maryland's
approach to this Asian oyster is different from Virginia's
approach to the Asian oyster. Do you have an opinion on
Maryland's approach to the introduction of the Asian oyster to
the Chesapeake?
Mr. Cowart. Representative Gilchrest, I believe Maryland's
proposal to the Asian oyster is based on a public fishery, and
that is what a Maryland fishery is because almost 100 percent
of that is public. And obviously, as you know, the Maryland
oysterman is also a Maryland crabber during the summer months.
So he depends on crabs in the summer months, takes the pressure
off of crabs when he has oysters to harvest in the winter
months. And he is able to continue to be a waterman.
Unfortunately, a lot of Marylanders are now working for
prison systems and other things. They are not watermen anymore
in Maryland, which really hurts us in Virginia as oyster
processors because from October 1 until March the 31st, our
plant and other plants in Virginia depend on those Maryland
waters for our oyster resource. And we can't do that anymore.
But in Virginia, we look at aquaculture and the non-native
oyster as a resource that will live in our waters in the face
of diseases, grow to the point where they are harvestable, and
triploid oysters are really what we target. The watermen in the
State are more interested, of course, in diploid because they
would reproduce and be available for public harvest.
So I think it depends on the way the industry is structured
in the two States. But I think that the Maryland watermen
depend on Virginia processing houses, and we depend on the
Maryland watermen for resources.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much. Maybe we can sit down
continually and integrate these two different systems to be
more compatible.
Mr. Cowart. We would appreciate that opportunity. If it
were available, we would certainly appreciate that opportunity.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Melancon?
Mr. Melancon. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Just as a closing, because I have always left the
conversation needing questions in my mind, is there anything
that you feel needs to be said here that you feel might have
some effect that has not been brought out yet?
Mr. Voisin. Charlie, I think we have brought it all out. I
think that the Endangered Species Act--in the last couple of
days, I have talked to a lot of people--it must have some flat
tires. If it is a car, it has flat tires. Maybe the engine is
broke.
Something needs to be fixed when I am producing billions of
oysters in Louisiana, there are hundreds of millions on the
East Coast, and we are here, coming to Washington, to sit
before you to talk about it being listed as endangered. So that
I believe we need you, Congress, working with us, someone needs
to fix the flat tires or the broken engine. It doesn't make
sense.
You know, it takes away from our family business for me to
be up here, which I don't mind being up here. I come up here
and enjoy the fellowship of working with you. But the fear that
my son, who is coming to work with us in September, has right
now. He is saying, ``Dad, will I have a job after January 11,
2006?''
He just got out of the University of Utah. We just made a
deal with him, and he is a pretty good negotiator. He got more
money than I would have normally paid him. These business
schools are pretty good. And he is afraid that, you know,
potentially this could impact his generation.
And then my other son says, ``What about my son, who is now
the ninth generation? Where is he going to go?'' We have
investment plans. We have a 10-year plan in our company. We are
producing hundreds of millions of oysters. We support the
challenges they are having by supporting research and
development on the East Coast. And you guys have supported it
as well, and we appreciate that support.
But as far as I guess one thing I would ask is that maybe
the proceedings of this hearing, if you would forward them to
the status review team that the National Fisheries Services put
together, I would appreciate it. If we could get that forwarded
to them so they can see what the comments were here.
Mr. Melancon. Thank you. And I understand the concern with
a business that might be put out. I grew up in the sugar
business. Thank you.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Well, Mr. Voisin, we are trying to fix those
flat tires and looking at the engine. And every time we talk
about fixing that old car, we have people running around saying
there is nothing wrong with that old car. It looks great to
them. So it is an ongoing battle.
But I appreciate your comments, and I appreciate the
testimony of all of the panel. I know that this is an extremely
important issue to you or else you wouldn't have taken the time
to be here. And I thank you for that.
The Chairman. I am going to dismiss this panel and call up
our second panel of witnesses: Dr. John Kraeuter, Dr. Sammy
Ray, Mr. Patrick Gaffney, and Dr. Matthew Hare.
If I could have all of you stand and raise your right hand?
[Witnesses sworn.]
The Chairman. Thank you. Let the record show they all
answered in the affirmative. Welcome to the Committee. I remind
the witnesses that your entire written statements will be
included in the record, but if you could limit your oral
testimony to 5 minutes, it would help us to better stay on
schedule. Thank you.
Dr. Kraeuter, we are going to begin with you.
STATEMENT OF JOHN N. KRAEUTER, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, HASKIN
SHELLFISH RESEARCH LABORATORY, INSTITUTE OF MARINE AND COASTAL
SCIENCES, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY
Dr. Kraeuter. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am
Dr. John Kraeuter.
The Chairman. You have to pull that mike right up to you.
Dr. Kraeuter. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am
Dr. John Kraeuter, Associate Director of the Haskin Shellfish
Research Laboratory of Rutgers University. I am here today to
provide testimony on the petition to list the eastern oyster as
endangered and threatened.
I have submitted the written testimony, and I would
appreciate if that is incorporated. This is excerpts from that.
I have polled my academic colleagues on their opinion about
listing oysters as endangered and threatened. Within this list,
there are three individuals who were on the National Academy of
Sciences panel that produced the volume on non-native oysters
in the Chesapeake Bay, and one who has served on the National
Academy Review of the Endangered Species Act.
Of the 17 I was able to contact, none thought that listing
the eastern oyster as endangered or threatened was
scientifically justified. Some voiced the opinion that while
the disease and habitat destruction were issues relative to the
oysters' abundance, they do not fundamentally affect the
potential for extinction of the species. These experts thought
the most important factor was that local managers in some areas
have not managed the resource in a way that the oyster
population and oyster habitat was maintained.
My professional opinion is the same. There is no scientific
justification for listing the eastern oyster as endangered or
threatened. Such a listing would hurt existing efforts on
habitat restoration of this species by placing unneeded and
unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles in the way.
There are a number of important societal and ecological
reasons for having large populations of filter feeders in our
near-shore systems. To do this, we simply need a management
system that provides long-term population goals, quantifiable
data on the status of the resource, and the will to implement
the means of achieving the goals based on the data.
I would like to focus attention on Delaware Bay and, if I
could have the first figure, the chief oyster producing area in
New Jersey. Our laboratory has been active in oyster research
on Delaware Bay since the early 1900s. Since 1953, we have had
an annual sampling program that assessed the natural oyster
seed areas. That is those little black dots up there. We have
landing records that date from 1880, but we know that oyster
harvest within the bay began much earlier.
The system of moving oysters from the upper bay to the
lower bay for additional growth was firmly in place by the
middle of the 1800s, and seed were imported in the system from
at least 1829. This practice was halted when the oyster
parasite MSX entered the bay in 1957 and caused heavy mortality
on the planted oysters. At least half the drop in landings post
MSX were due to the loss of these imported seed and do not
reflect changes in the natural oyster population or its
production within the bay.
Our systematic records date from 1953, just before the MSX
epizootic in 1957. These data, Figure 2, if you will, indicate
that the oyster abundance--that is the diamonds--was low prior
to MSX and remained low until the early 1960s, when recruitment
increased. That is the little squares.
Although MSX removed over 90 percent of the oysters in the
lower bay planted grounds and probably half the New Jersey
population in 1957-1958, there was no evidence for change in
the abundance of young oysters. In the early 1960s, the
increased spat set--spat are young oysters--began a period of
high abundance, which lasted until the middle of the 1980s,
when another MSX epizootic (1985), associated with a severe
drought, reduced the numbers of adult oysters in the system.
This second outbreak seems to have increased resistance to
the introduced disease. There is some evidence that the adult
population began to recover. See the slight increase in 1987
and 1988. But another parasite, Dermo, reached epizootic levels
in 1990.
The net effect of the 1985 MSX and the 1990s Dermo induced
mortalities that we are now in a second period of low
abundance. The most recent decrease is due to the Dermo and the
5 years of poor spat settlement. We are very concerned about
this condition, and allocation for harvest in 2005 is half that
of 2004 and amounts to less than 1 percent of the marketable
oysters on the seed beds.
In spite of the low abundance, there are approximately 1.9
billion oysters in the seed bed area of the New Jersey side of
Delaware Bay. This does not include Delaware or the areas of
the bay we do not sample. There could easily be as many oysters
outside the sampled area as within the sampled area.
Mortality and recruitment are as important as standing
stock. And over the past 50 years, the year of highest spat
abundance yielded only approximately 3.5 spat per adult oyster.
The long-term (50-year) average is only 0.79 spat per adult.
This means that restoration will require a concerted effort
over a relatively long period of time and that science-based
management is critical.
In Delaware Bay, we are enhancing the resource by a three-
pronged strategy--reduced harvest, planting of shell to enhance
recruitment on the seed beds, and planting of shell in areas of
high spat set and moving of that set to high survival areas.
This is necessary because in an area with a salinity gradient
such as Delaware Bay, the areas of best recruitment of spat are
not the best areas for survival.
The 3-year enhancement program is being funded
approximately equally by the Federal Government, the State
government, and the self-imposed tax on the commercial oyster
industry. The program is designed to become self funding, as
the oysters harvested from the enhancement will provide greater
landing-fee receipts--that is, taxes--to sustain the program.
In summary, in the past 50 years, the Delaware Bay oyster
resource has experienced two periods of low abundance,
separated by an equal period of high abundance. Plans are being
implemented this year to assist in habitat, resource, and
commercial recovery. In terms of the charge of this committee,
I can find no scientific evidence that would support listing
the eastern oyster as endangered or threatened.
Are there estuaries and oyster populations in need of
immediate attention and restoration? Unequivocally, yes. Is
there a need for a concerted, scientifically designed,
quantifiable, documented long-term habitat and oyster
restoration efforts at the Federal, State, and local levels?
Yes. Is there a need to support aquaculture of oysters and
other filter feeders as part of overall improvement of our
estuarine systems? Yes.
All this said, I would caution the Committee that oyster
habitat restoration is necessary to restore oysters. We need a
mechanism to move forward with time-tested restoration efforts
without wasting time and, therefore, money jumping through
needless environmental impact statements just to be sure
everyone can place the blame elsewhere.
Thank you for your time. I would be happy to answer any
questions you have or provide any follow-up materials you may
want. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Kraeuter follows:]
Statement of Dr. John N. Kraeuter, Associate Director, Haskin Shellfish
Research Laboratory, Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers
University
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. I am Dr. John Kraeuter,
Associate Director of the Haskin Shellfish Research Laboratory,
Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University. I am here
today to provide testimony on the status of the Eastern Oyster and the
Petition to List the Eastern Oyster as Endangered and Threatened.
My Curriculum Vitae is appended to the disclosure document.
This is document supports my testimony before your committee.
I have polled my academic colleagues, who I think are familiar with
the biology, ecology and status of Crassostrea virginica, on their
opinion about listing it as Endangered and Threatened. I purposefully
did not contact the many state and federal biologists, or industry
members with advanced degrees to avoid potential for conflict of
interest. Within this list are three individuals who were on the
National Academy of Sciences Panel that produced the volume on
Nonnative Oysters in the Chesapeake Bay, and one who has served on the
National Academy Review of Endangered Species. Of the 17 I was able to
contact, not one individual thought that listing the eastern oyster as
endangered or threatened was scientifically justified, many thought it
would hinder restoration efforts. Some voiced the opinion that while
disease and habitat destruction were issues relative to the oysters
abundance they do not fundamentally affect the potential for extinction
of the species. These experts thought the most important factor was
that local managers in some areas have not managed the resource in a
way that the oyster population and the oyster habitat was maintained.
The problem is not one of biology, but of the interactions between
science, management and the political process.
My professional opinion is the same: There is no scientific
justification for listing the eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica as
endangered or threatened. Furthermore such a listing would hurt
existing efforts on habitat restoration for this species by placing
unneeded and unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles in the way. In addition
these hurdles would greatly hinder other efforts to restore our
estuaries, again by placing bureaucratic hurdles where they will simply
deter rather than enhance. Quite simply we need a management strategy
system that provides long term population goals, quantifiable data on
the status of the resource, AND the will to implement the means of
achieving the goals based on the data.
That said, there are a number of important societal, and ecological
reasons for having large populations of filter feeders (oysters, clams,
scallops, mussels etc.) in our nearshore systems:
Filter feeders assist in maintaining water quality by removing both
phytoplankton and other suspended materials from the water and
depositing it on the bottom. This can augment in nutrient recycling,
and improve water quality, at least locally;
Filter feeders support recreational, and commercial (fishing and
aquaculture) activities thus connecting our increasingly urban
population to the natural system. By doing so shellfish are ready made
ambassadors for good water quality (you can swim in water that is
microbiologically unsafe for shellfish harvest);
Reef forming filter feeders such as oysters provide a hard
substrate in an area dominated by soft bottom (sand and mud) habitats.
This hard substrate is essential for oyster recruitment and allows many
other species to inhabit an otherwise uninhabitable area.
I'd like to now focus my attention on an area I am most familiar
with, Delaware Bay.
In New Jersey the chief oyster producing area is Delaware Bay
(Figure 1). Our laboratory has been active in oyster research in
Delaware Bay since the early 1900's. Since the middle 1950's we have
had an annual sampling program that assessed the natural oyster seed
area in this estuary.
We have landing records that date from 1880, but we know that
oyster harvest within the bay began much earlier (Figure 2). The system
of moving oysters from the upper bay (seed beds) to the lower bay
(planted grounds) was in place by the middle of the 1800's. Seed were
exported from Delaware Bay to growing areas in Massachusetts and
Connecticut in the early 1800's and imported into the system from at
least 1829 (the opening of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. This
practice was halted when the oyster disease MSX (Haplosporidium
nelsoni) entered the bay and caused heavy mortality on the planted
oysters. At least half of the drop in landings post MSX was due to the
loss of imported seed and does not reflect changes in the natural
oyster population or its production within the bay.
Our systematic records date from just before the incursion of MSX,
but were initiated because of concern about the declining production
before MSX. We have recently been working through the records (they
were recorded as numbers of oysters per bushel of sample) and
converting these to numbers of oysters per square meter. These data
represent the most productive areas of the seed beds, and indicate
(Figure 3) that oyster abundance was indeed low in the 1950's prior to
MSX and remained low until the early 1960's when recruitment increased.
Although MSX removed over 90% of the oysters in the lower bay planted
grounds (probably half the NJ population) in 1957/58 there was no
subsequent change in the abundance of spat (Figure 3). In the early
1960's increased spat set began a period of high abundance (in spite of
the continued low levels of MSX) which lasted until the middle of the
1980's when another MSX epizootic (1985), associated with a severe
drought, reduced the numbers of adult oysters in the system. This
second outbreak, while causing widespread losses, seems to have yielded
increased resistance to the introduced disease in the oyster
population. There is some evidence that adult population began to
recover (see slight increase in 1987 and 1988), but dermo (Perkinsus
marinus) reached epizootic levels in 1990. The subsequent reduction in
adult oysters in the lower portion of the seed beds (or some other
factor (s)) appear to have set the oyster population at a lower level.
There is reasonable evidence that the increase in dermo was due to the
increase in water temperatures during the same period.
The net effect of the 1985 MSX, and the 1990's dermo induced
mortalities is that we are now in a period of low abundance. The most
recent decrease is due to the dermo coupled with 5 years of poor spat
settlement. We are very concerned about this condition and have been
reducing the allocation for harvest as this condition persists. In 2005
the allocation is about half that of 2004, and amounts to less than 1%
of the marketable oysters on the seed beds.
In spite of the low abundance there are approximately 1.9 billion
oysters on the seed bed area of the New Jersey side of Delaware Bay. Of
these about 100 million oysters, 2.5 inches and greater, are present on
the most productive parts of these beds. These figures do not include
areas of the bay we do not sample, the oyster populations is tidal
creeks fringing the bay and the planted grounds down bay (Figure 1).
There could easily be as many oysters outside the sampled area as in
the sampled area.
The standing stock of oysters is only part of the story. What is
equally important is the mortality rate and the recruitment rate.
Contrary to general opinion, the eastern oyster is not well adapted to
quick recoveries. The chart shows the record from Delaware Bay for the
past 50 years (Figure 4). Note that even in the year of highest spat
abundance the adults produced only approximately 3.5 spat per adult.
The long term (50 year) average is only 0.79 spat per adult. This means
that restoration efforts will require a concerted effort over a
relatively long period of time.
In Delaware Bay we have embarked on a program to enhance the
resource by a three pronged strategy: Reduced harvest, planting of
shell to enhance recruitment on the seed beds, and planting of shell in
areas of high spat set (Figure 4). It is often startling to people who
haven't studied oysters in an area with a salinity gradient such as
Delaware Bay, that the areas with the best recruitment of spat are not
the best areas for survival. The seed beds are in an area where spat
set and subsequent growth is modest, but survivorship is high. The
areas of highest spat set are often areas of good growth, but poor
survival. This is the genesis of using the seed bed as a source for
oysters that were larger (seed) and could survive better in the higher
salinity. The higher salinity areas in Delaware Bay also produces
oysters with better meat quality. A pilot-scale shell planting in 2003
by the State of New Jersey showed that the setting rate on clean shell
in areas of high settlement was 75 times greater than the natural rates
on the seed beds. Current projections indicate that the $40,000 spent
on this program should yield 20,000 to 40,000 bushels of marketable
oysters in 2006. At current prices this is an ex-vessel value of
$700,000 to $1,000,000, and at the current tax of $1.75 per bushel
yield between $35,000 and $70,000 for the resource development account.
We know the science of how to restore oyster populations. We should
study these attempts to indicate how we can do oyster restoration more
efficiently.
The enhancement program for 2005 to 2007 is being funded by
$100,000 per year from the Federal Government through the empowerment
zone, $150,000 from the Corps of Engineers, $100,000 per year from the
State Government and a self imposed Tax on the commercial oyster
industry. The latter currently has $178,000 in the account and it will
be added to as oysters are harvested. We believe we have sufficient
funds to continue it for 3 years. The program is designed to become
self funding as the oysters from the enhancement effort are harvested
they will provide greater landing-fee receipts (taxes) which can
sustain the program.
While such a program sounds great, it is only for 3 years, and it
took a number of dedicated individuals several years to secure funding.
Even at the last minute there was an attempt to derail the program by
suggesting that oyster shells could cause a contaminant problem, and
that the organization handling the funding could be liable for their
removal from the system. This is in spite of centuries of experience
throughout the world using oyster shell to enhance settlement. The
biology of how to do oyster restoration is well
In summary, the Delaware Bay oyster resource has experienced both a
historical and a recent significant decline, but plans are being
implemented to assist in its recovery and the recovery of commercial
production.
In terms of the charge of this committee. I can find no scientific
evidence that would support listing the eastern oyster Crassostrea
virginica as an endangered or threatened species.
Are there estuaries and oyster populations that need immediate
attention and restoration. Unequivocally yes.
Is there a need for concerted, scientifically designed,
quantifiable, documented long term habitat and oyster restoration
efforts at the federal, state and local levels? Yes.
Is there a need for improving the water quality in the estuaries?
Yes.
Is there a need to support aquaculture of oysters and other filter
feeders as part of the overall improvement of our estuarine systems?
Yes.
All this said, I would caution the committee that oyster habitat
restoration (clean shell on the bottom being a key feature), is a
necessary precursor to other efforts. This is a long term effort and
the federal system can help by providing consistent long term (on the
order of a decade or more) support. Please resist the temptation to
provide large infusions of support for short periods, because
experience suggest such efforts are less likely to succeed.
We also need a mechanism to move forward with time tested (although
often not well documented) restoration efforts with species native to
the area without wasting time (and therefore money) jumping through
needless ``environmental impact statements'' just to be sure everyone
can place the blame elsewhere.
Thank you for your time, and I'd be happy to answer and questions
you may have now, or follow up on any of the materials I have
submitted.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2446.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2446.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2446.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2446.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2446.007
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Dr. Ray?
STATEMENT OF SAMMY M. RAY, PROFESSOR EMERITUS,
MARINE BIOLOGY DEPARTMENT, TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
Dr. Ray. I am Sammy Ray, professor emeritus at Texas A&M,
and I am an oyster research scientist with nearly 60 years of
experience. And I thank you, the Resource Committee members,
for allowing me to have my say. It is often I have found that
people do not want me to have my say. So I am going to take
this opportunity to do it.
I oppose the petition to include the eastern oyster as
endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. My
opposition is based on three claims. The oyster is in no way
threatened or endangered. Listing the oyster as endangered
species is a misuse of and possibly a threat to the Endangered
Species Act. And three, a drastic, geographically broad
solution--banning all oyster harvest--is proposed for a
geographically narrow failure. That is a failure to manage
oyster, fresh water in-flow, and water quality management.
The eastern oyster is not endangered or threatened. On the
contrary, one of the most common invertebrates in mesohaline
environment, they occur in prodigious numbers, are extremely
fecund, form massive reefs, and support valuable fisheries.
And I am going to talk only about Texas. Texas has landed a
minimum of about 3 million pounds of oyster meat for the past
10 years. And recently, in calendar years 2003, 2004, the
harvest has amounted to 4.3 and 5.1 million pounds,
respectively. Moreover, the 2005 Texas production is likely to
exceed 5 million pounds due to favorable rainfall conditions
for the past 2 years.
The Endangered Species Act should be reserved for species
that are truly threatened or endangered. If the eastern oyster
is considered endangered, the designation criteria are so broad
as to make ESA biologically meaningless and politically
vulnerable.
Valuable and viable sustainable oyster fisheries exist over
much of the range. Designation of the eastern oyster as
endangered would destroy successful oyster industries of the
Gulf and the Atlantic States without saving the industry of
Chesapeake Bay.
I find it difficult to understand the rationale for this
approach. Declaring the eastern oyster as endangered throughout
its broad range will do nothing to correct the environmental
problems of Chesapeake Bay. If the proponents of this measure
truly believe that cessation of oyster harvest will promote its
recovery, why not have the States of Maryland and Virginia halt
all oyster harvest from Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries?
It is my understanding that the most recent annual harvest
from the bay amounted to about 50,000 bushels. I might, as an
aside, 100-acre oyster lease in Galveston Bay produces that
many oysters year after year.
So as not to harm the watermen who depend on oysters for
their livelihood, I propose to subsidize the estimated harvest
at a premium of $25 a bushel. We pay farmers not to grow crops.
I see nothing wrong with paying oystermen not to harvest
oysters. In Texas and other Gulf States, the oyster production
is cyclical and is positively related to rainfall amounts.
In periods of prolonged droughts, populations decline due
to the ravages of predators and Dermo disease. In extremely wet
years, we experience freshwater kills in the upper regions of
the bays. In either case, the recruitment returns when normal
salinity conditions exist. Often we have complete failures in
an area, and 2 years later, we are harvesting commercial
quantities of oysters.
As long as we have adequate freshwater flows in Texas,
substantial oyster populations will exist. Without doubt,
production is tied to rainfall cycles.
Now at this point, I wish to paraphrase a business adage as
it relates to my long experience as an oyster biologist. It has
often been stated that there are three important factors in a
business. One, location. Two, location. Three, location.
And it is my belief of many years there are also three
factors related to successful oyster production. One, salinity.
Two, salinity. Three, salinity. And I wish to make a quick
comment about the importation of the Asian oyster, Crassostrea
ariakensis, to augment Chesapeake Bay's oyster population.
In my opinion, this would be a horrible ecological mistake.
This oyster is a cold-water, fast-growing, and thin-shelled
oyster. It may be disease resistant, but I am convinced that it
is not mud-worm, or Polydora, resistant.
I wish to remind the proponents of this importation of the
results of bringing the Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas, to
the Gulf of Mexico. In early 1930s, Dr. Martin Burkenroad
brought the Pacific oyster to Louisiana, and he found that the
mud-worm was very destructive to this cold-water, fast-growing,
thin-shelled oyster. Let us learn from our mistakes and not
repeat them.
In summary, I consider the petition to list the eastern
oyster as endangered to be biologically unjustified,
procedurally inappropriate, politically unwise, and
economically devastating. I strongly urge its immediate denial.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Ray follows:]
Statement of Dr. Sammy M. Ray, Professor Emeritus,
Marine Biology Department, Texas A&M University
Honorable members of the Resources Committee:
As an oyster research scientist with nearly 60 years of experience,
I oppose the petition to include the eastern oyster as an endangered or
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). My
opposition is based on three claims: (1) the oyster is in no way a
threatened or endangered species, (2) listing the oyster as endangered
species is a misuse of and possibly a threat to the ESA, and (3) a
drastic, geographically-broad ``solution'' (banning all oyster harvest)
is proposed for a geographically-narrow failure (oyster, freshwater and
water quality management in Chesapeake Bay).
The eastern oyster is not endangered or threatened. On the
contrary, oysters are one of the most common invertebrates in
mesohaline (5-25 ppt) environments. They occur in prodigious numbers,
are extremely fecund, form massive reefs and support valuable
fisheries. In Louisiana alone, 10 to 12 million pounds of oyster meat
are harvested year after year. Furthermore, Texas has landed a minimum
of about 3 million pounds of oyster meat for the past 10 years. Recent
commercial harvests (calendar years 2003 and 2004) have amounted to
about 4.3 and 5.1 million pounds of meat, respectively. Moreover, the
2005 Texas production is likely to exceed 5 million pounds of meat due
to favorable rainfall conditions for the past two years.
The ESA should be reserved for species that are truly threatened or
endangered. If the eastern oyster is considered endangered, then the
designation criteria are so broad as to make the ESA biologically
meaningless and politically vulnerable.
Valuable, viable and sustainable oyster fisheries exist over much
of the range of the eastern oyster. Designation of the eastern oysters
as endangered would destroy successful oyster industries of the Gulf
and Atlantic States without saving the industry of Chesapeake Bay.
Oyster populations in the Chesapeake, except for moderate
recoveries in the 60's and 70's, have steadily declined since 1957. In
the last 10--15 years the decline has been precipitous and has just
about hit ``rock bottom''. The reasons generally given for this
population collapse are: (1) over-fishing, (2) pollution and (3)
diseases.
This sad situation prevails despite the fact that Chesapeake Bay
was the first estuary to be selected for rehabilitation and special
protection through the National Estuary Program. Through this program
and many other Federal, State, and private conservation initiatives,
millions have been expended in efforts to restore this great estuary to
a semblance of its former productivity. Many of the various approaches
that have been used throughout the years to bring back the Chesapeake
oysters appear to have been based on the best scientific information
available, yet none have proven successful. These tremendous recovery
efforts have been a colossal ``failure''. Yet, in desperation, some
must believe that declaring the eastern oyster ``endangered'' will
solve the Chesapeake's monumental environmental problems.
I find it difficult to understand the rationale for this approach.
Declaring the eastern oyster as endangered throughout its broad range
will do nothing to correct the environmental problems of Chesapeake
Bay. If the proponents of this measure truly believe that cessation of
oyster harvest will possibly promote its recovery, why not have the
states of Maryland and Virginia halt al oyster harvesting from
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. It is my understanding that the
most recent annual oyster harvest from the bay amounted to about 50,000
bushels. So as not to harm the ``watermen'' who depend on oysters for a
livelihood, subsidize the estimated oyster harvest at a premium of
$50.00 per bushel. We pay farmers not to grow crops, I see nothing
wrong with paying oystermen not to harvest oysters.
In Texas and other Gulf States, oyster production is cyclical and
is positively related to rainfall amounts. In periods of prolonged
droughts populations decline due to ravages of predators and dermo
disease. In extremely wet years we experience freshwater kills in the
upper regions of the bays. In either case, the recruitment following
return to normal salinity conditions often result in commercial
quantities of oysters within two years. As long as we have adequate
freshwater inflows into Texas bays substantial oyster populations will
exist. Without doubt oyster production is tied to rainfall cycles.
Although not part of this hearing, I cannot resist commenting on
the proposal to bring in the Asian oyster (Crassostrea ariakensis) to
augment the Chesapeake's oyster population. In my opinion this would be
a horrible ecological mistake. This oyster is a cold-water, fast-
growing and thin-shelled oyster. It may be disease resistant but I am
convinced that it is not mud-worm (Polydora) resistant. I wish to
remind the proponents of this importation of the results of bringing
the pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) to the Gulf of Mexico. In the
early 1930's Dr. Martin Burkenroad brought the pacific oyster to
Louisiana. He found that the mud-worm was very destructive to this
cold-water, fast growing and thin-shell oyster. Let's learn from our
mistakes, not repeat them.
In summary, I consider the petition to list the eastern oyster as
endangered to be biologically unjustifiable, procedurally
inappropriate, politically unwise and economically devastating. I
strongly urge its immediate denial.
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Gaffney?
STATEMENT OF PATRICK GAFFNEY, PROFESSOR,
UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE, COLLEGE OF MARINE STUDIES
Mr. Gaffney. Thank you very much. My name is Pat Gaffney. I
am a professor at the College of Marine Studies at the
University of Delaware. I work on the population genetics of
marine and fish and shellfish, especially on oysters.
And my comments today will be excerpted from my written
statement, and they are fairly narrowly focused rather than
dealing with the wisdom of the Endangered Species Act or this
particular petition. I am just going to talk about some issues
that do bear on this, and that is namely the genetic evidence
for the subdivision of the species.
In other words, we have talked about is this a single
species? Does it exist as several sub-species which, as I
understand it, could be listed separately? And whether the
Chesapeake Bay population, for example, might be one of those.
So I am just going to sort of make some general comments
without going into great detail.
This species occupies a very wide environmental range from
the cold waters of Canada to the subtropical waters of the
Yucatan and is enormously adaptable, as you have probably heard
already. So for more than, say, 50 years, oyster biologists
have suggested that there were distinct physiological races,
and this was based on the observations that they spawn at
different times. They have different temperature, salinity
optimum, and so on.
And it was never really clear whether this reflected simply
adaptation occurring during an oyster's lifetime or whether
these were genetically adapted different populations. If the
latter were true, that is of interest to people who are
interested in preserving biodiversity and the genetic resources
of the species, whether you are talking about for wild
populations or future aquaculture.
So starting in about the 1980s, when genetic tools became
more available, scientists started looking at this. And the
initial suggestion was that, basically, oysters were the same
all over from Canada to Mexico, with the possible exception of
the very peripheral populations in Canada and southern Texas,
in the Lower Laguna Madre, which is sort of a special habitat.
And that made sense at the time because oyster larvae are in
the water column for several weeks, and it was thought that
because of that dispersal, you had genetic mixing all across
the range from Atlantic through the Gulf.
That view changed very much in the early 1990s, when
research was done, DNA technology developed, and to make it
short, studies in mitochondrial DNA, which is used extensively
in human genetics and a variety of other arenas, showed that,
in fact, Gulf and Atlantic populations are quite distinct and
probably have been separated evolutionarily for at least a
million years. And this is consistent with a wide variety of
other species which show the same patterns.
The work in my lab has basically agreed with that,
confirmed that, and extended it. And so, I don't think there is
any question that Gulf and Atlantic, from a genetic point of
view, are different enough that they might be viewed as
separate sub-species, although I should mention that biologists
agree that the term ``sub-species'' is a very liquid term. It
is very hard to define. It is much more difficult than defining
a species.
So moving on, we have since looked at variation--looking at
my time there--within the Atlantic. And originally, it was
thought that, well, perhaps Gulf and Atlantic are separate and
distinct, but within these two basins there is not much
differentiation. And in fact, that is probably generally true,
but there is some differentiation--and I am not sure if I can
see my first figure? I didn't know how many people would have
the handouts and if they have the color images. But I can just
describe what is in them.
Basically, I have several figures showing patterns of
genetic differentiation among the populations. So if you have
your first figure and if you are fortunate enough to have a
color copy, basically, what you see is if you look along the
Atlantic seaboard, you will see that these different colors and
the size of the bars refer to different genetic types.
And basically, there is some pattern going from the south,
meaning from about Cape Canaveral, northwards up to Canada. But
if you look at compare Atlantic and Gulf, you will see the
differences are larger. The same is true. That is Figure 1.
More detailed, looking at actual DNA sequence variation
directly supports again a wide separation of Gulf, and those
are the green dots on the left, from South Atlantic versus
North Atlantic. And the final picture is another class of
markers. Those are nuclear genes. Again, supporting that and
showing that the Texas population is really out there.
So to sum that up, I would say basically Gulf and Atlantic
populations are quite distinct. There is regional variation
within the Gulf and within the Atlantic not at the level one
would normally ascribe to sub-species. And as far as Chesapeake
Bay being different, they do not look, as far as we can tell,
to be very different from Delaware Bay or actually any other
North Atlantic populations.
Finally, I would just like to comment on a point that was
raised in the petition whether the potentially introduced Asian
oyster, ariakensis, how it could impact the native oyster by
hybridization or other means. And as it was mentioned earlier,
there is evidence that hybrids are not viable. However, the
eggs and sperm can cross-fertilize, at least in the laboratory.
So hybrids can be formed, but they don't survive past about a
week of age.
That might be a concern if both native and Asian oysters
are in the water next to each other, if they spawned at the
same time, and if the eggs and sperm have equal preference for
each other, you could have the phenomenon of sort of a
biological control, where basically the sperm of one species
forms inviable hybrids with eggs of the other and essentially
gets taken out of the game.
And there is a work going on now to determine whether that
is a likely possibility. At this point, I don't think it is.
But again, we don't have the data.
And I think that pretty much summarizes my comments. So I
will call it quits and answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gaffney follows:]
Statement of Patrick Gaffney, Professor,
University of Delaware, College of Marine Studies
The eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica inhabits estuarine and
coastal waters from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the Yucatan Peninsula,
tolerating a wide range of temperature and salinity. More than fifty
years ago oyster biologists postulated the existence of distinct
``physiological races'', adapted to their local environmental
conditions. It was not clear, however, whether differences in features
such as growth rate or spawning season reflected underlying genetic
differences among populations, or merely acclimation to local
conditions occurring during an oyster's development.
During the 1980s, researchers examined geographical patterns of
variation in tissue proteins and came to the conclusion that oysters
from Cape Cod to Corpus Christi were genetically very similar, while
peripheral populations in Nova Scotia and southern Texas (Laguna Madre)
were distinct. These findings were interpreted to mean that the primary
oyster population (Cape Cod to Texas) was genetically homogeneous as a
result of gene flow facilitated by the dispersal of planktonic larvae,
which spend several weeks in the water column before settling on hard
surfaces and metamorphosing into juvenile oysters. The northern and
southern peripheral populations were hypothesized to be genetically
distinct as a result of long-standing isolation by hydrographic
features (temperature, salinity and currents).
This view of a single large unit stock ranging from Cape Cod to
Corpus Christi was challenged in the early 1990s as the result of
several lines of evidence. Techniques for assessing genetic variation
in populations had advanced considerably in the previous decade, and
now it was possible to examine genetic variability at the DNA level,
which afforded higher resolution and less bias than the analysis of
protein variation. A seminal study from the lab of John Avise at the
University of Georgia using mitochondrial DNA showed a deep genetic
division between oysters from the Atlantic coast and those from the
Gulf of Mexico. This division dates back several million years, to the
late Pliocene and Pleistocene. A similar genetic break between Atlantic
and Gulf is seen for a variety of organisms, and marks the two
populations as ``evolutionarily significant units''. This picture has
been developed further using other genetic markers (nuclear DNA) in
studies by students of Avise and in my laboratory.
During the last decade, my laboratory has continued to examine
geographic variation in both mitochondrial and nuclear genes throughout
the global range of the eastern oyster. In addition to confirming the
genetic distinctness of the Gulf and Atlantic populations, we have
asked whether population subdivision exists within the Gulf and
Atlantic regions. Experimental evidence that genetically distinct
stocks or subpopulations might exist within the Atlantic was provided
in 1991 by researchers at the Rutgers Haskin Shellfish Laboratory, who
showed that despite six generations of culture in Delaware Bay, oysters
of Long Island Sound origin maintained their original (Long Island)
pattern of gonadal development and spawning. My laboratory subsequently
found evidence of genetic differences between North and South Atlantic
oysters, using both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA markers. However, the
difference is much less pronounced than that separating Atlantic and
Gulf oysters, which may indicate that this pattern of population
subdivision has developed much more recently, and may be confounded by
the human movement of oysters up and down the Atlantic seaboard. Figure
1 shows the distribution of mitochondrial DNA sequence variants
(haplotypes) detected by restriction enzymes, indicating geographic
variation in haplotype frequencies with both Gulf and Atlantic regions.
Along the Atlantic coast, some haplotypes are distributed widely but
are most common in either the north Atlantic (blue) or south Atlantic
(red).
A similar picture emerges from direct sequence analysis of a single
mitochondrial gene (Figure 2). We see clear separation between Gulf
Coast and Atlantic haplotypes, while Atlantic coast haplotypes are more
closely related to each other, and are more widely distributed. For
example, the common north Atlantic haplotype (marked DB) is found from
Canada through Virginia. Sequence analysis of other regions of the
mitochondrial genome show the same pattern.
Although the currently available data are limited in geographic
coverage and sample size, nuclear genes tell a similar story. A two-
dimensional plot illustrating genetic relatedness (Figure 3) shows a
cluster of north Atlantic populations ranging from North Carolina to
New Brunswick (blue) separate from south Atlantic populations (orange)
and Gulf Coast populations (green). Outliers include a western Florida
site, Cedar Key (which also possesses a mix of Atlantic and Gulf Coast
haplotypes) and Texas.
My interpretation of the genetic data described here is that the
species Crassostrea virginica is subdivided into two major
``evolutionarily significant units'', or subspecies. There is
additional population structure within each of these, but the degree of
genetic differentiation is smaller, and the boundaries are currently
not well defined. The south Atlantic population occupies the coast from
Cape Canaveral northwards to somewhere in North Carolina (perhaps Cape
Hatteras, a well-known biogeographical boundary). The north Atlantic
population ranges from North Carolina to Canada. (Preliminary data also
suggest that some populations in Canada appear to be genetically
distinct, probably owing to small size and isolation.)
We have not found any indication thus far that the Chesapeake Bay
oyster population is genetically different from oysters found in
Delaware Bay or other north Atlantic sites.
On a separate issue, it may be appropriate to comment on the
possibility of hybridization between the eastern oyster and the Asian
oyster C. ariakensis, which may be introduced into Chesapeake Bay. We
have shown that the Asian oyster cannot form viable hybrids when
crossed with the eastern oyster. Cross-fertilization can be achieved in
a hatchery, but the embryos die after 7-10 days. Thus the possibility
of hybridization between the two species seems negligible.
However, the potential for cross-fertilization does raise concerns
about interactions among the two species, if the Asian oyster were to
be introduced. That is, if the two species lived side by side and
spawned at the same time, it is possible that cross-fertilization would
result in the loss of large numbers of gametes from both species. For
this to happen, two things are necessary. First, the two species must
spawn at the same time, so that the eggs and sperm from both species
are in the water together. Second, cross-fertilization must be able to
occur when eggs and sperm from both species are in the water together.
In this situation, it is likely that eastern oyster eggs will be more
successful at fertilizing eastern oyster eggs than Asian oyster sperm
are; if this is the case, gamete mixing will not lead to gamete
wastage. Experiments are now underway to evaluate reproductive
interactions among the two species.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2446.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2446.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2446.010
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Dr. Hare?
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW P. HARE, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
Dr. Hare. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Matthew Hare. I am an assistant professor at the
University of Maryland, Biology Department, College Park.
I have been working on eastern oysters since 1991. I am a
geneticist who uses genes to understand organisms and
population histories, rather than focusing on the intricate
workings of the genes themselves. Thus, I will speak of genetic
markers, and by this, I mean segments of DNA that trace their
ancestry through the extended pedigree of a population and can,
therefore, be used as markers of migration and differentiation.
My testimony will summarize the evidence for distinct
populations in the Atlantic and Gulf. And then I will provide
my evaluation of the genetic health of the Chesapeake Bay
populations based upon recent data.
The population genetics of oysters has been studied more
extensively than nearly any other native marine invertebrate in
U.S. waters. This interest was generated by some of the biology
that Dr. Gaffney described. Long-lived larvae in the water
column should lead to a lot of population connectivity.
Genetic markers, however, have shown every imaginable
pattern of variation when compared across Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico populations, from homogeneity across the regions to
alternate fixation for different DNA sequences. This latter
pattern means that for a particular gene, the Atlantic and Gulf
populations do not share any of the same DNA sequences.
It is conventional to interpret this genetic exclusivity
under the assumption that it was produced by genetic drift over
an extended period of reproductive isolation. Doing so in this
case leads to an estimate that Atlantic and Gulf populations
were isolated approximately 1.2 million years ago and evolved
independently in isolation until relatively recently.
Many other genes show strong differentiation between
Atlantic and Gulf oysters. Our preliminary estimates are that 2
to 4 percent of genes in the oyster genome show extreme
differentiation between Atlantic and Gulf despite the fact that
these populations are now reunited and exchanging some migrants
along the Atlantic coast of Florida.
In eastern Florida, where the historically Atlantic and
Gulf populations now converge, genetic variation shows a sharp
geographic transition. This is illustrated in Figure 1. In a
species such as the oyster with the capacity for long distance
dispersal, this sharp and stable genetic transition is only
possible if physical conditions along eastern Florida create a
barrier to larval dispersal or strong natural selection
maintains the genetic distinctions that have evolved between
Atlantic and Gulf oysters.
Research in my laboratory is currently focusing on
measuring the relative importance of these two factors. I
suspect that both are important, but one recent result will
illustrate how selection may be differentially favoring
different oyster phenotypes across this latitudinal transition.
We compared growth rate of Atlantic-like and Gulf-like oysters
in two locations, one north of the genetic transition and
another site south of the transition along eastern Florida.
Growth rate is widely considered to be an important
phenotypic determinant of overall fitness in bivalve mollusks,
with faster growth leading to an advantage in competition for
space, larger body size, greater fecundity, and a higher
probability of producing successful offspring.
Our preliminary results indicated that these two
populations of oysters each grew faster as juveniles in their
home environment than in the opposite environment. This is the
definition of local adaptation. Genetically determined higher
performance leading to higher relative fitness in one
environment relative to another. These results provide the
first experimental indication that oysters in the Atlantic and
the Gulf of Mexico are locally adapted to their environments,
but conclusions must remain tentative until the experiments are
replicated.
My additional comments pertain to the Chesapeake Bay
population of eastern oysters. The potentially broad larval
dispersal of oysters has always led to the assumption that
Chesapeake Bay oysters, and any regional set of populations for
that matter, all evolved as a well-mixed interbreeding unit.
Several published genetic studies supported this assumption
because evidence for population structure within Chesapeake Bay
was nonexistent or weak.
We examined DNA markers with greater sensitivity than had
been previously examined and found the first evidence that
oysters in different parts of Chesapeake Bay evolved somewhat
independently. Specifically, we found that the amount of
genetic divergence between two Chesapeake Bay oyster samples
depends on their physical proximity. Two samples in adjacent
tributaries show greater relatedness on average than two
samples from different sides of the bay.
This result is consistent with theoretical expectations for
continuously distributed populations in which migrants are
primarily shared among adjacent sites. The implications of this
result are quite profound for restoration of oysters because
they imply that even on a time scale of decades, the vast bulk
of dispersing larvae that successfully settle, grow, and
reproduce are staying close to home, probably remaining within
the same Chesapeake tributary where their parents were.
The good news is that restoration efforts directed locally
within a tributary or region are likely to have local payoffs,
rather than having the effort dissipated when larvae scatter.
The bad news, however, is that this type of population
structure, coupled with the fact that oyster populations are
severely reduced and fragmented today in the Chesapeake, makes
the risks of inbreeding and genetic deterioration of the
population a serious concern.
Work in my lab on the Chesapeake Bay oysters shows that
they have retained large amounts of genetic variation compared
with populations outside the bay. Thus, the most obvious
indication of inbreeding risks, the loss of genetic diversity,
is rejected by these data.
However, much more subtle inbreeding effects are predicted
by theory in this species, and these have not yet been tested.
Also, the increased planting of hatchery-bred stock exacerbates
the population fragmentation by introducing genetically
depauperate stocks into the bay.
Furthermore, the recent move by the Army Corps of Engineers
and other restoration efforts to plant selectively bred,
disease-tolerant strains of C. virginica for restoration is
likely to further lower the overall genetic health of
Chesapeake Bay oysters.
Thus, to summarize, I would say that inbreeding is not
currently the most serious risk to Chesapeake Bay oysters.
Certainly, environmental degradation and disease take that
prize. Nonetheless, there is no such thing as ``the end
justifies the means'' in restoration biology. The degree of
long-term success that we can expect from restoration will
depend upon the means that we take to get there. Unfortunately,
there are no quick, simple, or inexpensive solutions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hare follows:]
Statement of Dr. Matthew P. Hare, Assistant Professor,
Department of Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland
I have been asked to summarize my research on the eastern oyster,
Crassostrea virginica, as it pertains to the health of Chesapeake Bay
populations, evidence for population structure, and the scientific
basis for designating subspecies. I am a geneticist who uses genes to
understand organisms and population histories, rather than focusing on
the intricate workings of the genes themselves; Thus, I will speak of
genetic markers, and by this I mean segments of DNA that trace their
ancestry through the extended pedigree of a population and can
therefore be used as markers of migration and genetic drift.
I have been working on eastern oysters since 1991. Most of what I
will report today has been published in the peer-reviewed literature by
myself and others. However, I will also report on NOAA/Sea Grant-funded
research on Chesapeake Bay oysters that is currently under peer review
as well as preliminary results that bear directly on the questions at
hand. My use of the term oyster will always refer to C. virginica
unless otherwise indicated.
My testimony will be in three parts. I will begin with a very brief
summary of those biological attributes of oysters that most directly
affect their propensity for dispersal, population admixture and
population viability. Second, I will summarize the evidence for
distinct oyster populations in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Third,
I will provide my evaluation of the genetic health of Chesapeake Bay
oyster populations.
Eastern oysters are a very old species, proliferating in estuarine
waters for the last 20 million years while many other mollusk species
have come and gone in the western Atlantic. It is remarkable that such
a successful species can now be imperiled by the cumulative effects of
human activities, so it is instructive to examine the characteristics
of oysters that have probably conferred evolutionary success. Eastern
oysters are extremely fecund, with females routinely producing 25
million eggs each year. This not only provides a capacity for prolific
population growth under good conditions, but the genetic diversity
generated among those eggs by meiotic recombination also buffers
oysters against environmental heterogeneity. Oysters begin life as a
larva that feeds in the water column for two to three weeks before
locating suitable hard substrate and cementing itself for the rest of
its sessile existence. Depending on tidal and ocean currents, a three
week duration in the water column could disperse the average oyster
larva hundreds of kilometers, promoting population connectivity.
Although there is good evidence that larvae do not drift as passive
particles, but rather swim vertically to effect retention within tidal
estuaries, only recently have we had the proper genetic markers and
analytical power to measure these effects in wild populations. Finally,
the oyster has a very plastic phenotype. In the same way that it grows
its shell in whatever configuration the substrate and adjacent
organisms allow, its physiology and growth is also modified in response
to the local salinity, temperature, etc. The eastern oyster has
physiological limits, for example it does not survive well at oceanic
salinities, but the broad geographic range of this species from New
Brunswick, Canada to Yucatan, Mexico, speaks to its evolutionary
success as a generalist.
The population genetics of oysters has been studied more
extensively than nearly any other native marine invertebrate in U.S.
waters. This interest did not stem primarily from the commercial value
of this species, but rather because of the population biology described
above, and was further instigated by scientific controversies over
interpretation of the observed population genetic patterns (Appendix
1). In total, genetic markers have shown every imaginable pattern of
variation when compared across Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico (Gulf
hereafter) populations--from homogeneity across the regions to
alternate fixation for different DNA sequences. This latter pattern
means that for a particular gene (for 26 genes, in fact, all on the
maternally-inherited mitochondrial DNA) the Atlantic and Gulf
populations do not share any of the same DNA sequences. It is
conventional to interpret this genetic exclusivity under the assumption
that it was produced by genetic drift over an extended period of
reproductive isolation. Doing so in this case leads to an estimate that
Atlantic and Gulf populations became isolated approximately 1.2 million
years ago and evolved independently in isolation until relatively
recently. Many other genes show strong differentiation between Atlantic
and Gulf oysters--our preliminary estimate is that two to four percent
of genes in the oyster genome show extreme differentiation despite the
fact that these populations are now reunited and exchanging some
migrants.
In eastern Florida, where the historically Atlantic and Gulf
populations now converge, genetic variation shows a sharp geographic
transition (50 to 75 percent gene frequency shift over 20 km; Figure
1). In a species such as the oyster with the capacity for long distance
dispersal via larval drift, this sharp and stable genetic transition is
only possible if physical conditions along eastern Florida truncate
dispersal distances (i.e., a dispersal barrier) and/or strong natural
selection maintains the genetic distinctions that have evolved between
Atlantic and Gulf oysters. Research in my laboratory is currently
focused on measuring the relative importance of these two factors. I
suspect that both are important, but one recent result will illustrate
how selection may be differentially favoring different oyster
phenotypes across this latitudinal transition. We compared growth rate
of Atlantic-like and Gulf-like oysters in two locations, one north of
the genetic transition and another site south of the transition along
eastern Florida. Growth rate is widely considered to be an important
phenotypic determinant of overall fitness in bivalve mollusks, with
faster growth leading to an advantage in competition for space, larger
body size, greater fecundity, and a higher probability of producing
successful offspring. After taking into account complicating factors
such as the density of oysters, our preliminary results indicated that
these two populations of oysters each grew faster as juveniles in their
home environment than in the foreign environment. This is the
definition of local adaptation; genetically-determined higher
performance leading to higher relative fitness in one environment
relative to another. These results provide the first experimental
indication that oysters in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico are locally
adapted to their environments, but conclusions must remain tentative
until the experiments are replicated with controls for potential
confounding factors.
My final comments pertain to the Chesapeake Bay population of
eastern oysters, arguably the most anthropogenically degraded and
depauperate population in the species. I speak of it as a population
out of convenience, not because of any evidence or belief that it is
demographically isolated from adjacent stocks along the Atlantic coasts
of Virginia and Maryland. The potentially broad larval dispersal of
oysters has always led to the assumption that Chesapeake Bay oysters
all evolved as a single interbreeding unit, at least on an evolutionary
time frame. Several published genetic studies supported this assumption
because evidence for population structure within the Bay was
nonexistent or weak. We examined DNA markers with greater sensitivity
than had been examined before and found the first evidence that oysters
in different parts of the Bay evolve somewhat independently.
Specifically, we found that the amount of genetic divergence between
two Chesapeake Bay oyster samples depends on their physical proximity.
Two samples in adjacent tributaries show greater relatedness than two
samples from different sides of the Bay. This result is consistent with
theoretical expectations for continuously distributed populations in
which migrants are primarily shared among adjacent sites. The
implications of this result are quite profound for restoration of
oysters because they imply that even on a time scale of decades, the
vast bulk of dispersing larvae that successfully settle, grow and
reproduce are staying close to home--probably remaining within the same
Chesapeake tributary where the parents were. Our results indicate that
local dispersal is not only a feature of oysters in a few ``trap-like''
tributaries, but rather a general characteristic of oyster populations
in the Chesapeake. The good news is that restoration efforts directed
locally within a tributary or region are likely to have local payoffs,
rather than having the effort dissipated when larvae scatter. The bad
news is that this type of population structure, coupled with the fact
that oyster populations are severely reduced and fragmented today in
the Chesapeake, makes the risks of inbreeding and genetic deterioration
of the population a serious concern.
Inbreeding in natural oyster populations and its consequences is a
complicated subject that is under active investigation in several
laboratories. My work on Chesapeake Bay oysters shows that they have
retained large amounts of genetic variation compared with populations
outside the Bay. Thus, the most obvious indication of inbreeding risks,
the loss of genetic diversity, is rejected. However, much more subtle
inbreeding effects are predicted by theory in this species and these
have not been examined. Also, the increased planting of hatchery-bred
stock exacerbates the population fragmentation by introducing
genetically depauperate stocks. Furthermore, the recent move by the
Army Corps of Engineers and other restoration biologists to plant
selectively-bred, disease tolerant strains of C. virginica for
restoration is likely to further lower the overall genetic health of
Chesapeake Bay oysters (with the hope of infusing genes underlying
disease tolerance into wild stocks, a highly speculative proposition).
Thus, to summarize, I would say that inbreeding is not currently the
most serious risk to Chesapeake Bay oysters--environmental degradation
and disease take that prize. Nonetheless, there is no such thing as
``the end justifies the means'' in restoration biology; the degree of
long term success we can expect from restoration will depend on the
means we take to get there. Unfortunately, there are no simple, quick
or inexpensive solutions.
Appendix 1
One controversial hypothesis regarding oysters involved the
interpretation of genetic patterns of population structure. I summarize
the controversy here in an effort to clarify the issue and suggest its
resolution so that it does not unduly muddy the deliberations on
population distinctions. In Atlantic and Gulf oysters are genetically
homogeneous when examined with some genetic markers, whereas other
genes show strong differentiation. It is expected that genes on
different chromosomes can evolve independently within the same set of
populations and might be shaped by different evolutionary forces (e.g.,
selection, genetic drift) into various patterns of population
structure. So pattern variation among markers is not controversial, but
one study found different levels of Atlantic--Gulf differentiation in
two classes of markers (protein-level polymorphisms in metabolic
enzymes versus polymorphisms in nonfunctional DNA). I think it is fair
to say that subsequent work has rejected the hypothesis that certain
classes of genetic marker are shaped by distinct evolutionary forces in
oysters. Instead, it appears that the evolutionary history of these
populations, in which Atlantic and Gulf oysters evolved in isolation
for a considerable period and recently reunited, has created widely
varying patterns of differentiation among genes.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2446.011
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
I am going to begin with Dr. Kraeuter. You testified that
seed was imported into the Delaware Bay since 1829. How can the
Atlantic coast eastern oyster be a separate species if you have
been importing seed into the Delaware Bay since 1829?
Dr. Kraeuter. I will have to defer that to my genetic
colleagues over here to explain it. But massive quantities of
oysters have been moved up and down at least the mid-Atlantic
and North Atlantic coast since the middle 1800s. We are talking
about millions and millions of bushels being moved in any one
year.
We have records from the Delaware in the late 1800s, where
a million to 2 million bushels of Chesapeake seed arrived in
Delaware Bay. Chesapeake, there are records of Delaware seed
moving down to Chesapeake Bay. We also had oysters from Long
Island Sound and the eastern shore of Virginia moving into
Delaware Bay. These were sustaining the industry because
Delaware Bay, in and of itself, could not produce enough seed
even in the 1800s to sustain the growth of the industry. In
that lower portion of the bay, you saw those planted grounds.
This was all done by sailboats. Remarkable. But I will let
the geneticists tell you how you could sustain that population
differentiation in lieu of those kind of movements.
The Chairman. Somebody want to take a shot at it?
Mr. Gaffney. I will take a shot at it. Basically, most of
that movement was within the Atlantic, and most of it was
within the North Atlantic, if we define North Atlantic as from
Cape Hatteras north. So that was movement of genetically
somewhat similar oysters. We are not talking about moving Gulf
oysters around Florida by sailboat up to replenish the Delaware
or Chesapeake Bay's or New England.
The Chairman. But if I could stop you there, I have been
told that in an effort to develop a disease-resistant oyster
that Gulf oysters have also been planted in the North Atlantic.
Mr. Gaffney. Yes. Small numbers have been. And----
The Chairman. When you say ``small numbers,'' are we
talking millions of bushels or----
Mr. Gaffney. We are talking millions of oysters, but in an
oyster world, that is a small number. So you have to just add
on lots of zeroes to everything.
We are seeing the genetic evidence suggests that whatever
Gulf oysters have been brought into the Chesapeake have not
left many offspring or, for that matter, hardly any, I should
say. So you can still easily tell them apart.
The Chairman. You are the expert on this, and I am not a
scientist. But in my business, if I bring in a Brahma bull and
put him with my cows, I got a different sub-species all of a
sudden. And they look a lot different, and they are still cows,
but they look different because I put another bull in. And if I
put an Angus bull the next year, I get something completely
different coming in.
Now if you are planting Gulf oysters over here and a
different North Atlantic oyster over here, in that area, you
are going to end up with a different sub-species, or I think
the term is an evolutionarily significant unit that develops
there. Is that not accurate?
Mr. Gaffney. That is true if they lived. But if they don't
live, then they have no impact.
The Chairman. If they interbreed at all, you have changed
it?
Mr. Gaffney. Right. They have to make it to the point of
interbreeding. They have to survive a year or two. Most oysters
don't make it, and we are just not seeing----
The Chairman. But if any do, it does have an impact on what
you end up with, the population in that area?
Mr. Gaffney. It would. Sure. And we are not seeing any
evidence of that happening.
The Chairman. Dr. Hare?
Dr. Hare. If I could on that same question? The
significance of the preliminary data I described suggesting
local adaptation of Atlantic versus Gulf oysters is that even
if oysters brought from the Gulf into the Atlantic, into
Chesapeake Bay, say, survived to reproduce, those genes are not
well adapted to the environment in Chesapeake Bay.
And so, to the extent that we have populations of oysters
that are locally adapted, I think you could have quite a lot of
human-induced migration, not really perhaps introducing some
new alleles, some new genetic variation. But selection is a
very strong sieve through which that is going to maintain the
integrity of what is the populations in Chesapeake Bay and
Delaware Bay.
Now I think there is a lot more work that needs to be done
to understand the degree to which selection is enforcing those
local properties. But I don't think it follows that if there is
human-induced migration that it necessarily eliminates the
integrity of a population.
The Chairman. Well, like I said, I am no scientist, but
after watching the cattle industry my whole life, I can tell
you that even if you put a bull in that doesn't necessarily fit
with the climate and the area that I live in and not many of
the offspring survive, two or three generations down, you are
going to end up with one that looks like that bull.
And this is what my concern is because they start talking
about listing different populations, the possibility of listing
different populations as threatened or endangered. And with
what you are able to do in looking at DNA and differentiating
between populations, we end up with a situation like we have on
the West Coast with the salmon, where every river becomes an
evolutionarily significant unit, and those end up being listed
as threatened.
And we end up with, you know, 50 or 100 different
populations of oysters, which could either be listed as
threatened or endangered. And whereas I think everybody would
agree, when we have gotten millions or billions of oysters that
as a population, they are probably not endangered. But if you
start breaking it down enough, you might find one that is.
And that is what my concern is. Because you guys can break
this down to which ones came out of which little bay, if you
start doing your DNA testing and everything else. And that
significantly changes the entire debate.
Dr. Hare. I think, sir, that is a very reasonable concern,
especially with species in which there is no clear line that
you can draw, say, between Chesapeake and Delaware oysters or
Chesapeake and North Carolina, although there is a very clear
line down in Florida between Atlantic and Gulf.
However, I would only comment that I think the Endangered
Species Act is explicit with respect to vertebrates that it not
be applied in a trivial sense when you apply the distinct
population segments. So a one-time storm would not apply. And
its application then, it becomes a judgment call.
And geographic settings which have particularly degraded
environments and habitats might justify then a different
treatment than another population that has a better habitat. So
it just becomes a judgment call.
The Chairman. The original language in the committee report
on the amendments on the population segments stated that the
Congress saw great potential for abuse and cautioned that it be
used very sparingly, which is one of the reasons why
invertebrates were left out of that because you could end up
with every bay, every little population being considered a
separate evolutionarily significant unit. And I have concerns
about where we end up once we start going down this path, which
is one of the reasons why we are doing the hearing on the
eastern oyster today is because this is something that
significantly impacts the management in every single bay where
those oysters are.
So as this moves on, we are going to have to really go
through this because it does have an impact, and it is
significant. And you know, a lot of folks on the East Coast
don't realize how this can be applied and where we end up with
as those of us from the west have seen that they can really
stretch this thing out if they want to and control a lot of
things under the Endangered Species Act.
I want to recognize Mr. Gilchrest.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We just want to restore the healthy abundance of the oyster
to the way it was when John Smith came. That is not impossible,
is it? I will ask the scientist. Just kidding on that question.
The Chairman. They produce billions of them.
Mr. Gilchrest. It should be trillions. But this is a good
hearing, Mr. Chairman. A lot of things are coming to light. I
have a question. I am going to go back to MSX and Dermo for a
minute. And I guess, Dr. Hare, you can answer this, or anybody
on the panel can take a shot at it. First of all, do you have
MSX in the Gulf of Mexico?
Dr. Ray. No.
Mr. Gilchrest. Okay. You don't have that, but you have
Dermo in the Gulf of Mexico?
Dr. Ray. We have lots of it.
Mr. Gilchrest. You have lots of Dermo. Are there any
oysters down there resistant to Dermo?
Dr. Ray. No. There is said to be some in South Bay that it
didn't occur, but that is an absolute fallacy.
Mr. Gilchrest. Oh, so there is no oysters anywhere----
Dr. Ray. I need to tell you. I have worked on Dermo since
1950, and I am still working on it.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. Okay. Will genetic diversity help with
resistance to MSX and Dermo?
Dr. Ray. Well, I don't know. The only thing that I know
that will help is the good Lord giving ample rainfall.
Mr. Gilchrest. Hmm. Well, we have had a lot of rain in the
last few days.
Dr. Ray. Well, but I hope later I will be able to make a
comment about that.
Mr. Gilchrest. All right.
Dr. Hare. That rain probably is helping this year. Broadly
speaking, yes, genetic diversity is what a species needs to be
able to respond to any insult, disease being one of them. The
epidemiology, however, of this disease in oyster populations is
such that anywhere where oysters occur, they are going to use a
gradient of habitats, some of which Dermo is very prevalent in
and has a strong intensity of infection. Others, where there is
a reserve, a refuge from the parasite.
And that dynamic between those populations makes it very
difficult for oysters as a species or as a population to evolve
resistance. So at least in theory, it is understandable why
Dermo has been persisting without the evolution of resistance.
Mr. Gilchrest. I guess taking the relatively short period
of time that they have been exposed to Dermo, I guess since the
1950s or the 1930s, whichever one, MSX and Dermo, the oyster
hasn't had the time to evolve or gain resistance to those two
diseases?
Dr. Hare. Sir, I don't think it is known how long Dermo has
been in the Gulf of Mexico.
Dr. Ray. I can give some comments. Oh, excuse me.
Dr. Hare. Please.
Dr. Ray. At the time of the big oyster mortalities in the
late 1940s before Dermo was discovered, the view was that
something had happened in the oil operation that had promoted
the development of Dermo. So Dr. Mack Owen had some oysters
that were at a world fair in 1919 in Chicago, with prime
oysters, and they were in the Cabildo Museum. So he had those
sectioned after they learned about Dermo, and there is definite
records that Dermo occurred in Louisiana oysters as far back as
1919.
Mr. Gilchrest. The oysters, if given enough time, can
develop resistance to MSX and Dermo. I am going to assume that.
Does MSX and Dermo develop resistance--I mean, get stronger as
time goes on then, that it makes it more difficult to develop
resistance to it?
Dr. Ray. Well, I know it has been said that there are
different strains of Dermo, some more virulent than others. And
it has been said, well, maybe the Gulf oysters are more
resistant to Dermo or our Dermo is not as virulent.
But I think one of the reasons why, our oysters can reach
market size within 18 to 24 months, and they just simply grow
faster, and I think they can just outgrow the disease. And not
every oyster in a population is infected. But I don't think
anyone has been able to pick the ones that survive long periods
of disease, like 5 or 6 years, and take those and then from
that develop a genetic or find those particular individuals
that have survived for 5, 6 years.
Always in the intertidal zone, there are oysters that
survive. But efforts to take those and then use those as
broodstock has not resulted in a resistant strain of oyster, to
my knowledge.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Dr. Kraeuter. Can I make a comment on the resistance? I
can't say too much about Dermo. But in Delaware Bay, where MSX
was first found in the middle 1950s, we had a major epizootic,
and we began a breeding program. And the breeding program has
resulted in development of strains that resist MSX. They are
not immune to the disease, but they resist it and persist much
longer.
As I mentioned in my testimony, there was another MSX
epizootic in 1985, and there are a number of individuals in our
laboratory who suggest that second epizootic has increased the
resistance in the native population. The problem is it takes a
lot of time, and you have to have these epizootics to have that
because you have to reduce that population down.
And the base population is arrayed along a salinity
gradient. So the disease does not affect the entire population
within a bay. If you have a gradient like we have in Delaware
Bay, the fresh water, as Sammy has said, has a great deal of
influence on what happens in the oyster population. So this is
not a simple one-to-one kind of a thing.
And whether you can develop resistance to a disease that
apparently has been with the native oyster for a long period of
time, like Dermo, as opposed to an exotic disease, which is
MSX, is an interesting scientific question in my mind. And I
quite frankly don't know how to answer it. But----
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Costa?
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I, too, want
to commend you for your efforts in putting this hearing
together this afternoon.
I would like to address my question to Dr. Hare and Mr.
Gaffney, and it really kind of follows the line of questioning
that the Chairman was asking just a moment ago with regards to
in the broader context how the Endangered Species Act is
applied.
And it has been the troubling part that I have dealt with
in California, but I know it has been an issue around the
country that when we look at a species that is listed, in this
case we are talking about the eastern oysters--it is
interesting to see how everyone pronounces ``oyster'' a little
bit differently depending upon where you are from. But I think
we are all talking about the same thing.
And that is once we list something, and how the Act works
in our country, and then how we develop a recovery plan. And I
find it particularly perplexing and frustrating, having carried
legislation that has provided literally hundreds of millions of
dollars for restoration efforts in the San Francisco Bay delta
and elsewhere in California, between the competing efforts and
what we know now today between native and non-native species,
which I think we were touching upon as it relates to the East
Coast.
It would be nice in a perfect world if we could go back 100
years, and I think that was stipulated earlier in the line of
questioning. But where do we draw the line as policymakers in
terms of our best efforts when we talk about, in this case,
limited Federal dollars in terms of recovery in the efforts of
species where non-native species have been introduced? And we
are attempting to try to correct nature, so to speak, or go
back to a time when man had little impact or any impact.
It just seems to me some of it is the art of the possible
and some of it is not. And where can we conclude in the law
under the Endangered Species Act as to that to which is
achievable under recovery and that which is not? Who wants to
take a crack at that? Mr. Gaffney or Dr. Hare?
Dr. Hare. Um.
Mr. Costa. It is an easy question.
Dr. Hare. Yes.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Hare. I don't think I would want to stake the claim
here of what restoration biology can accomplish because it is a
rapidly growing and advancing field, both in marine and
terrestrial systems. I think we can accomplish a lot more than
we are currently accomplishing in Chesapeake Bay with the
oysters and with the estuarine habitats and organisms in
general. So I am not sure how to answer your question more
specifically.
Mr. Costa. Well, I mean, we are talking about a Federal law
here that has been obviously under tremendous scrutiny. We are
talking about Federal dollars that are limited. We have States
that are applying State resources. We are often, in our habitat
conservation plans or recovery efforts, trying to put more
resources from the private sector when we require mitigation.
It just doesn't seem like that is enough of an answer, that we
can do better.
Dr. Hare. Well, it seems to me that what I got----
Mr. Costa. I mean, how do I define ``better'' if we are
looking at a change in the law?
Dr. Hare. Well, from the discussion here today, it seems to
me that the challenge that you have in revising the ESA is in
establishing enough flexibility to allow for a situation such
as the oyster in which you have a very broad distribution, a
very generally hearty organism, but is suffering extremely in
some portions of its range.
And on the other hand, you don't want it to be abused. And
so, you have to put in elements that allow for judicious use. I
don't know a way out of that conundrum.
Mr. Costa. But you understand, for those of us who on some
occasions have been critical of the Endangered Species Act,
where we are struggling in terms of how we provide that
flexibility. Where do you cut your losses, I guess, is another
way to look at it.
Mr. Gaffney, do you want to take a stab at it?
Mr. Gaffney. Well, it is dangerous to ask a scientist to
opine on policy, but I guess it works the other way, too. I
guess I would say that----
Mr. Costa. I am not trying to opine on the science.
Mr. Gaffney. No. I suppose the one area that could use
addressing is there seems to be a resistance or a concern about
a species being subdivided into sub-species or segments of
interest. It seems to me, as sort of novice in this area, that
the criteria for evaluating significance of these distinctions
are not really well defined.
I would say that things that are very clearly sub-species
that have had a long evolutionary separation are genetically
distinct and, therefore, provide separate reservoirs of genetic
diversity. Those, under virtually any imaginable circumstance,
merit protection.
But when you get to the lower levels of distinction that
are increasingly more possible with all the DNA techniques we
now have, then you have to have some sort of criteria for
saying, well, yes, I can tell an oyster from this bay from one
from that bay. Or maybe better said, I can tell a population.
If you give me 100 oysters, I can tell you which bay they came
from.
That is not the same as saying those genetic differences
are highly important from an evolutionary or ecological or
biological sense. It may be the case, but it is not guaranteed.
So that doesn't seem to have been well addressed, and so that
would be my comment on how things could be improved.
Mr. Costa. Thank you. I was going to follow up, but I will
just let it go.
The Chairman. Mr. Gilchrest?
Mr. Costa. There is a number of places I could go. But----
The Chairman. Mr. Gilchrest?
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Two quick questions. One, how do you increase genetic
diversity in the population in the Chesapeake Bay, and are
reefs better than bars? Actually, I have more than two
questions. How do you increase genetic diversity? Are reefs or
oyster reef better than an oyster bar?
Can you create oyster reef corridors? You make I think some
reference to that, Dr. Hare, or maybe I just misread you.
Oyster corridors, can you create an oyster reef corridor in the
Chesapeake Bay, and would that help genetic diversity?
Dr. Hare. This species has more genetic variation in its
natural state than most every other species on the planet. It
is an extremely genetically diverse organism, partly because of
its very large fecundity and also because of the large
population sizes. So I don't think there is a problem with
having enough genetic diversity. In fact, more probably
wouldn't help. You would add as much bad stuff as good.
I think we certainly want to keep it from losing genetic
diversity in local areas where we want it, where it needs to be
able to adapt to----
Mr. Gilchrest. Is there a threshold of numbers that would
do that?
Dr. Hare. That is not an easy question to answer. It is
shades of gray.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. Are reefs better than bars?
Dr. Hare. Can you define the two?
Mr. Gilchrest. An oyster reef, something that, you know,
starts at the bottom and goes up 10, 12, 20 feet. A regular
reef, oyster reef as opposed to an oyster bar that we have
mostly in the Maryland portion of the bay, where it is just
flat.
Dr. Hare. As far as I know, that distinction is less
important than having a living reef. Having a reef in which
oysters are growing in their natural form. Also they are
forming a matrix that a lot of other species use, and that
keeps accruing so that the reef grows. I think that can happen
on both a reef and a bar.
Mr. Gilchrest. I think Virginia, for example, I think has
some 100 or they are working toward 100 oyster reef sanctuaries
in their portion of the Chesapeake Bay.
Dr. Ray, and I am sorry for these quick answers and
questions. You made a comment, and I would like the gentlemen
from Delaware and Maryland to comment on it. You made a
comment, Dr. Ray, about your opposition to introducing the
Asian oyster to the Chesapeake Bay.
Dr. Ray. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. Would the two gentlemen from Delaware and
Maryland like to respond to Dr. Ray's opposition to that
introduction?
Dr. Hare. I completely agree with his views.
Mr. Gilchrest. Oh, well.
Mr. Gaffney. I am firmly on the fence.
Mr. Gilchrest. Firmly on the fence?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes, sir?
Dr. Kraeuter. I am still waiting for more evidence, myself.
I think it is in light of today's discussions about genetics, I
find it interesting that on one hand we are saying, oh, this
species is going to be introduced and take over, and it is
going to destroy the genetic diversity of the eastern oyster,
even though, generally, it can't interbreed. And yet we are
saying you can move massive numbers of eastern oysters into an
area, and they don't survive well enough to interbreed with
their own species.
So it looks like we are talking out of both sides of our
mouths, which is not unusual for scientists. But there are some
real problems here that we are not addressing very well, and it
comes down to definitions.
I, quite frankly, have been sitting here biting my tongue.
I think the Endangered Species Act is an offense to biology in
that you are not talking about species. If you are going to
actually look at the legislation, decide what level of genetic
diversity you want to call the endangered whatever act.
Mr. Gilchrest. I just want Dr. Ray to come in. I appreciate
that. Thank you very much. And I apologize for interrupting.
But you have about 30 seconds, Dr. Ray. Can you tell us in two
sentences why the Asian oyster is not a good fit for the
Chesapeake Bay?
Dr. Ray. Well, I am concerned about what the mud-worm,
Polydora, will do to it, particularly in the summertime. And we
have some history of what a semi-species, fast-growing, cold
water, and a thin-shelled species was brought into Louisiana in
the early 1930s. I am just saying I think the mud-worm itself,
much has been said about disease resistance and what not. But I
just think that when it is all done, particularly in the
summertime, that the mud-worm--and I know nothing about the
oyster, that particular oyster.
I am just saying based on the experience with the Pacific
oyster. And in areas such as Australia and places, mud-worms
have been a serious problem, and oysters have had to be lifted
off the bottom to be grown in culture. So I see that as a
detriment to bringing it in and will probably not be
successful. That is simply an opinion of an old man.
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, thank you very much, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Your opinion is important. That is why we
invited you.
I want to thank this panel for your testimony. It was very
helpful, very interesting, and there may be follow-up
questions. I know I have a few additional that I would like to
ask, and I will submit those to you writing. And if you could
answer those in writing so that they can be included in the
hearing record, I would appreciate it. Thank you.
The Chairman. Let me dismiss this panel and call up our
third panel: Dr. Jim Wesson, Mr. William S. Perret, and Mr.
Chris Judy.
If I could have you remain standing and raise your right
hand?
[Witnesses sworn.]
The Chairman. Thank you. Let the record show they answered
in the affirmative.
Welcome to the Committee. I apologize for the lateness. I
realize that you have been sitting here a long time. So we are
going to begin with Dr. Wesson.
STATEMENT OF JAMES A. WESSON, PH.D., DEPARTMENT HEAD OF
CONSERVATION AND REPLENISHMENT, VIRGINIA MARINE RESOURCES
COMMISSION
Dr. Wesson. Good afternoon, and thank you.
Just starting off, I am the resource manager for the
oysters in Virginia's part of the Chesapeake Bay, which is when
you are talking about this at a sub-species level, we will be
the epicenter for the effects on us.
And my agency, which is the Virginia Marine Resources
Commission, as well as the Commonwealth of Virginia, strongly
opposes the listing of the eastern oyster as either endangered
or threatened. We don't really consider the eastern oyster as a
separate subspecies, and we see no evidence that the entire
species is being in danger of extinction within the bay nor any
part of its native range.
The eastern oyster still supports a significant commercial
industry within the Chesapeake Bay. It is actively managed by
the Marine Resources Commission to ensure both ecological and
commercial benefits from the oyster and is the focus of
significant Federal, State, and private efforts to restore
current population levels to greater abundance.
As was mentioned earlier, we have 240,000 acres of public
oyster grounds in Virginia's portion of the bay, and the
coastal embayments of our eastern shore. We also have more than
100,000 acres of State bottom that is managed by private
entities under leases.
Obviously, if you have my written testimony, oyster
landings have declined dramatically, especially over the last
45 years. But if you look at the little chart that I put in
there for you, there is a lot of misconceptions on the decline.
And one of those comes from the difference in the periods of
the decline. From the late 1800s through the early 1920s, the
decline in oysters in our part of the Chesapeake Bay was
definitely from harvesting.
And the reason was the shells had value, and the shells
were used on land and were not returned to the water. And
because of that, the harvesting actually removed the oyster
reefs. After the 1920s and we got a better road system and we
could get rocks in the fall line, the Commission of Fisheries,
which was the precursor of our agency and private industry,
began following the advice of scientists and began putting the
shells overboard.
And if you look at the period of the 1920s through the late
1950s, through our husbandry in putting oyster shells back
overboard, the oyster populations were actually increasing. And
if you extrapolate out to the day, had nothing happened, we
probably would have been at the levels that we had seen prior
to the 1800s.
But in the 1950s, as we have all mentioned, we had an
oyster disease that was introduced, which began the rapid and
sustained decline in oyster populations and oyster production
to the low levels that we currently have in Virginia's bay
waters. That newly introduced disease, which was called MSX, in
combination with our native Dermo, almost have totally
decimated the oyster industry, with harvests today reduced to
less than 1 percent of only 45 years ago.
The small oyster processing industry that remains in the
Commonwealth survives almost exclusively from the processing of
imported oyster shell stock, primarily from the Gulf States.
And the Virginia shucking industry remains at a competitive
disadvantage in the marketplace due to the costs of
importation, and more shucking houses close with each passing
year. The oyster shucking industry in the Chesapeake Bay is far
more endangered or threatened in its existence than the oyster
itself.
Our agency along with the Virginia Institute of Marine
Science have jointly monitored oyster stocks quantitatively
beginning in the early 1990s. We actually have a quantitative
estimate of the entire standing stock in the Chesapeake Bay.
And though the populations are low relative to historical
levels, we still have billions of oysters left in the
Chesapeake Bay.
The intensity of the oyster disease is controlled primarily
by salinity. And over the past four decades, almost all of the
historically productive oysters grounds in Virginia have been
impacted by disease. But primarily, the impact is on the large
oysters. Small oysters have continued to spawn and maintain the
population of oysters throughout all of Virginia's historic
range.
Spat sets have been dependable throughout all of the oyster
grounds in Virginia's portion of the Chesapeake Bay. And though
populations are low in comparison to historic numbers,
population levels are stable and trend more in relation to
rainfall and salinity than they do from either harvest or the
significant oyster restoration efforts that we have been doing
for the past 15 years.
VMRC and VIMS have worked together on countless strategies,
research projects, and restoration programs to combat the
disease-controlled decline in oyster populations since the
1950s. The private oyster industry has invested and lost many
millions of dollars in strategies to grow oysters within the
disease-dominated conditions. Private investment in on-bottom
aquaculture has mostly been suspended because of the inherent
risks and losses in producing market-sized oysters.
Selective breeding for disease resistance began in the
early 1960s at VIMS, and it continues to the present time.
Eastern oysters from throughout its geographic range that have
potentially exhibited disease tolerance to one or the other
diseases have been crossbred and tested in the Chesapeake Bay.
And certain genetic crosses have shown enough tolerance to
entice modest efforts toward intensive oyster aquaculture.
Results have been mixed in the Chesapeake Bay, but a small
industry has begun for the more lucrative half-shell or raw bar
trades. Intensive aquaculture has remained uncompetitive for
the shucking industry because of the availability of imported
shell stock and the lower price margin due to the competition
from oysters processed locally in the Gulf States and from the
West Coast.
The oyster restoration effort has been especially ambitious
since the 1990s with, as Representative Gilchrest mentioned, we
have three-dimensional oyster reef restoration projects, and we
have set aside large areas as sanctuaries. We have had strict
control of the wild harvest. The 3-D reef restoration and
sanctuary program implemented by the Marine Resources
Commission has become the model for the bay-wide oyster
restoration efforts.
The 3-D reef restoration sites duplicate oyster reefs that
were observed prior to harvesting activities. These
reconstructed reefs improve the juvenile oyster survival. They
allow oysters to grow faster, and they actually physically
position the oysters close to one another to allow better
fertilization success. Broodstock oyster populations on these
reefs have been allowed to either develop naturally or have
actually been augmented by genetic stocks that have disease
resistance.
Since the early 1990s, more than $40 million in State,
Federal, and private money to rebuild these reefs have been
spent, and there are more than 100 of these reefs throughout
the Chesapeake Bay. The significant infusion of money and
effort to rebuild oyster reefs in the short term has not
resulted in any immediate increase in oyster populations in the
bay.
Since the reef restoration efforts began in 1993, the
standing stock of native oysters has fluctuated more closely
with rainfall than with the restoration activity. Oyster
diseases still dominate the survival of large oysters, as you
can see in some of the charts that I have included in the
testimony.
Newly constructed reefs are rapidly colonized by oysters in
all areas. The oyster grow very fast for the first 2 years, but
most of the oysters, even on the ideally constructed sanctuary
reefs, succumb to disease within 2 to 4 years. Virginia remains
committed to the restoration of the native oyster populations
and to the restoration of the commercial fishery. Restoration
efforts continue to adapt based on the results from monitoring,
and research continues to try to find solutions to counteract
oyster disease.
Oyster populations, though at historically low levels,
remain stable and are distributed throughout the historic
range. There is no evidence that the eastern oyster in the
Commonwealth is either endangered or threatened at this time.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Wesson follows:]
Statement of James A. Wesson, Ph.D., The Virginia Marine Resources
Commission, Division of Fisheries Management, Department of
Conservation and Replenishment
The Virginia Marine Resources Commission and the Commonwealth of
Virginia strongly opposes the listing of the eastern oyster
(Crassostrea virginica) as either a threatened or endangered species.
We do not consider the eastern oyster in the Chesapeake Bay as a
separate subspecies. We see no evidence of the entire species being in
danger of extinction within the Chesapeake Bay nor any part of its
native range. The eastern oyster still supports a significant
commercial industry within the Chesapeake Bay, is actively managed by
the Marine Resources Commission to insure both ecological and
commercial benefits from the oyster, and is the focus of significant
federal, state, and private efforts to restore current population
levels to greater abundance.
There are more than 240,000 acres of public oyster grounds in
Virginia's portion of the Chesapeake Bay and the coastal embayments of
the Eastern Shore. There is a new map atlas of the 200,000 acres of
public oyster grounds in Chesapeake Bay that has recently been
completed which is available on the Virginia Institute of Marine
Science website (www.vims.edu/mollusc/oyrestatlas/index.htm).
Significant oyster populations exist throughout all of these public
grounds. Additionally, nearly 100,000 acres of state bottomlands are
leased by private entities and oyster aquaculture operations are
conducted on the private leases.
Obviously, oyster landings have declined dramatically over the past
century, but most dramatically in the last 45 years.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2446.012
For the period from 1880 through the 1920's, the decline in harvest
was directly related to harvesting activities. The value of the
harvested shell as a building commodity on land resulted in significant
reef loss because the shells were not placed back in the bay once
harvested. Oyster populations declined significantly with the loss of
habitat. Oyster restoration began when the Commission of Fisheries and
the private oyster industry in Virginia began putting shells back on
the oyster ``rocks'' or reefs in the late 1920's. At that time, the
value of the shell as a building material had declined due to the
availability of quarry stone and a better highway transportation system
to the bay shore communities. As shells were returned to the oyster
rocks, oyster populations and commercial production increased
significantly between the late 1920's and the 1950's. Oyster management
and private oyster husbandry maintained and increased oyster
populations and Virginia became a worldwide leader in oyster
production.
In the late 1950's, a new oyster disease was introduced to the
Delaware and Chesapeake Bays, which began the rapid, and sustained
decline in oyster production and population levels to the low levels
that we currently have in Virginia's Bay waters. The newly introduced
disease called MSX, in combination with the native disease called
DERMO, have totally decimated the oyster industry, with oyster harvest
reduced to less than one percent of levels only 45 years ago. The small
oyster processing industry that remains in the Commonwealth survives
almost exclusively from the processing of imported eastern oyster
shellstock primarily from the Gulf States. The Virginia shucking
industry remains at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace due
to the costs of importation, and more oyster shucking houses close with
each passing year. There were more than 400 shucking houses in Virginia
in the late 1950's, while currently no more than 15 still continue any
significant amount of shucking activity. The oyster shucking industry
in the Chesapeake Bay is far more endangered or threatened in its
existence than the oyster itself.
The Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) and the Virginia
Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) have jointly monitored oyster stocks
in a quantitative fashion since 1993. We have a quantitative estimate
of the standing stocks of oysters throughout Virginia's portion of the
Chesapeake Bay. Though the populations are low relative to historic
numbers, billions of oysters remain on the public beds. The intensity
of the oyster disease is controlled primarily by salinity. Over the
past four decades almost all of the historically productive oysters
grounds have been impacted by disease, with the impact primarily on the
large oysters. Small oysters have continued to spawn and maintain the
population of oysters in all of the historic range. Spatsets have been
dependable throughout most of the oyster grounds in Virginia's portion
of the Chesapeake Bay. Though populations are low in comparison to
historic numbers, population levels are stable and trend more in
relation to rainfall and salinity changes in the Bay, rather than from
either harvest or the significant effort that has been devoted to
restoration during that same time period.
The VMRC and VIMS have implemented countless strategies, research
projects, and restoration programs to combat the disease-controlled
decline in oyster populations since the 1950's. The private oysters
industry has invested and lost many millions of dollars in strategies
to grow oysters within the disease dominated conditions in the Bay.
Private investment in ``on-bottom'' aquaculture has mostly been
suspended because of the inherent risks and losses in producing market
sized oysters. Selective breeding for disease resistance began in the
early 1960's at the VIMS, and it continues to the present time. Eastern
oysters from throughout its geographic range, that have potentially
exhibited ``disease tolerance'' to one or the other diseases, have been
crossbred and tested in the Chesapeake Bay. Certain genetic crosses
have shown enough disease tolerance to entice modest efforts toward
intensive oyster aquaculture. Results have been mixed in the Chesapeake
Bay, but a small industry has begun for the more lucrative ``raw or
half-shell'' trades. Intensive aquaculture has remained uncompetitive
for the shucking industry because of the availability of imported shell
stock and the lower price margin due to the competition from oysters
processed locally in the Gulf States and from the Pacific oyster
industry on the West Coast.
The oyster restoration effort has been especially ambitious since
the early 1990's with a combination of 3-Dimensional (3-D) oyster reef
reconstruction projects, the setting aside of large acreage of
sanctuary areas, and the strict control of wild oyster harvest. The 3-D
oyster reef restoration and sanctuary program implemented by the Marine
Resources Commission has become the model for baywide oyster
restoration efforts. The 3-D reef restoration sites duplicate oyster
reefs that were observed prior to harvesting activities. These
reconstructed reefs improve juvenile oyster survival (resulting in
improved spatset), allow oysters to grow faster (resulting in improved
fecundity or reproductive capacity) and physically position oysters in
the most optimal configuration for spawning success (resulting in
improved fertilization rates). Broodstock oyster populations on these
reefs have been allowed to either develop naturally, or in many cases,
have been augmented with genetically selected oyster broodstock. Since
there has been baywide consensus that the restoration of 3-D reef
structures, and the establishment of oyster sanctuaries, throughout the
bay is the best way to achieve the Chesapeake Bay 2000 goal of a ten-
fold increase in native oyster population by 2010, there has been an
influx of more than $40,000,000 in state, federal, and private monies
to rebuild these reefs in Virginia. Since 1993, more than 100 of these
reefs have been constructed throughout Virginia's portion of the
Chesapeake and coastal bays.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2446.013
The significant infusion of money and effort to rebuild oyster
reefs in the short term has not resulted in an immediate increase in
oyster populations in the Bay. Since the reef restoration effort began
in 1993, the standing stock of native oysters has fluctuated more
closely with rainfall than with the magnitude of the restoration
efforts.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2446.014
Oyster diseases still dominate the survival of large oysters as can
be seen from the monitoring results from the restored 3-D, sanctuary
reefs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2446.015
Newly constructed reefs are rapidly colonized by oysters in all
areas, the oyster grow very fast for the first one to 2 years, but most
oysters, even on the ideally constructed, sanctuary reefs, succumb to
disease within 2 to 4 years.
Virginia remains committed to restoration of the native oyster
populations and to the restoration of the historic commercial fishery.
Restoration efforts continue to adapt based on the results from
monitoring, and research continues to find solutions to counteract
oyster disease. Oyster populations, though at historically low levels,
remain stable and are distributed throughout the historic range. There
is no evidence that the eastern oyster in the Commonwealth is either
endangered or threatened in its existence.
______
The Chairman. Mr. Perret?
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM S. PERRET, MARINE FISHERIES DIRECTOR,
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF MARINE RESOURCES
Mr. Perret. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members.
I certainly appreciate the opportunity to be here, and I
want to start out, first, by thanking you and the other members
of the Congress for your past assistance to this industry. Some
of the Gulf States were severely impacted by Hurricane Ivan
last year, and the Congress was most generous in providing some
disaster assistance to us.
I never follow my notes, and I am going to just talk. And
when the lights start changing, then I am going to speed up my
conversation.
You have had terms thrown at you, real technical terms.
Seed, spat, cultch, so on and so forth. And those of us that
deal with those terms every day kind of take for granted that
others understand.
One management tool that we use in the Gulf States very
effectively is cultch planning. Cultch is any hard substrate.
We prefer oyster shells. We can't always get oyster shells.
This is crushed limestone. This was a plant made in Mississippi
on May 26th and June 7th. We checked this plant after the last
two hurricanes to see if we had some damage. And there is a lot
of spat, spat being the small oyster.
When the larvae settles out, when the shell begins to form,
if it sits on a hard, clean substrate, generally you get a set,
which we have here, and there are 8 or 10 spat on this one. Not
as many on the crushed limestone.
Dr. Wesson mentioned the problem of enough cultch material,
oyster shells. We have the same problems in the Gulf. We can't
always get the shells we need. We have severance on them, but
still oysters move in trucks. They go to different parts of the
country. They do have a value as in roadbed, and so on.
If that could be passed up, please? That is my show and
tell. Congressman Gilchrest questioned the percent of oysters
that come from, I think, aquaculture versus public or wild. And
just let me summarize for the Gulf, 90 plus percent, 90 percent
of Florida's production comes from the public reefs in
Apalachicola Bay.
In Alabama, practically all production comes from the
public reefs, which only make up about 2,000 acres. There is
some other acreage that with cultch plants and so on, those
reefs would be more productive.
In Mississippi, the State I am in, we have about 10 or so
productive acres in the western part of Mississippi Sound. It
is all public reef. We have very, very few private leases in
the State of Mississippi.
In Louisiana, due to the vast estuarine area--and I spent
30 years of my professional career in Louisiana, so I do know a
little bit about Louisiana. Louisiana has oyster reefs from
basically the Mississippi-Louisiana line to the Louisiana-Texas
line. And some of my friends in the oyster industry keep
pushing that Mississippi-Louisiana line more eastward. They
keep wanting to get more of our Mississippi oysters.
But Louisiana has approximately just under 400,000 acres of
private leased water bottoms for oyster culture and some 2
million or so acres of public water bottoms. Now in that 2
million acres, that is not all reefs, but there are reefs
scattered throughout those 2 million acres of public water
bottoms.
In Texas, production, for the most part, comes from
Galveston Bay and from the public reefs of Galveston Bay. Texas
does have a leasing program. They have a small amount of
acreage, just a few thousand. But primary production comes from
the public grounds in Galveston Bay.
Because of the primary location of the reefs--in Florida,
Apalachicola Bay; in Alabama, Lower Mobile Bay; in Mississippi,
West Mississippi Sound; and in Texas, Galveston Bay--they are
extremely susceptible to extreme damage if a hurricane hits in
those areas. Louisiana is susceptible to the same amount of
damage, but because they have resources so widely spread out
that they generally are able to have successful production from
some of those areas that are not necessarily impacted by a
storm.
We have all heard that the oyster is an invertebrate, and
as such, the complete range of the species must be considered.
While I am sympathetic to the plight of the eastern oysters in
the Chesapeake Bay area, I assure you the eastern oyster,
Crassostrea virginica, is neither endangered nor threatened,
especially in the Gulf of Mexico.
If you use the same period of time that the petitioner went
back and used, from 1880 through 2003, we have seen Gulf
landings fluctuate tremendously. But all resource surveys and
current production for the past few years are well, well within
historical levels. In fact, for the average for 2000 through
2003, the pounds of oyster meat was in excess of 25 million
pounds of oyster meat. Only about 43,000 pounds shy of the all-
time high average, which occurred in the 1980s.
The eastern oyster is the most important mollusk by far the
Gulf of Mexico States. In 2003, when nearly 14 million pounds
of meat were harvested in Louisiana, this produced over $286
million to the economy and 3,000 full-time jobs. In the year
2000, in Mississippi, the oyster industry created 1,594 jobs
with a value to the economy of over $70 million, when 3.5
million pounds of meat were harvested.
Oyster populations, let us skip that. Since oysters are
located primarily in the estuaries, they come under the State
aid natural resource agency jurisdiction. Various management
measures are in place, which include seasons, bag limits,
quotas, size limits, gear restrictions, oyster relaying, cultch
planting, which is extremely, extremely important. And the
public agencies, like myself, learn cultch planning and oyster
relaying from the oyster fishermen themselves. They were doing
it on their private leases. The State regulators paid
attention, learned from them.
Oysters in the Gulf States are an excellent example of the
renewability of a fishery resource. After approximately 125
years of commercial exploitation and habitat modifications, the
oyster resources in the Gulf States flourish. We do have some
localized problems.
While these past successes may be at least partially
attributable to the vastness of the Gulf's estuarine systems,
the oyster industry's fate 125 years in the future will
certainly be determined by the resolve of management and
industry and certainly not by placing this species on the
endangered species list.
And my agency, my commission has gone on record and
unanimously voted against placing the eastern oyster on the
endangered list. And that was submitted for the public record.
So, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Perret follows:]
Statement of William S. Perret, Marine Fisheries Director,
Mississippi Department of Marine Resources
According to the Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 95 (May 18, 2005),
``Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), a listing determination can
address a species, subspecies, or a distinct population segment (DPS)
of a vertebrate species (16 U.S.C. 1532 (16)). Since the eastern oyster
is an invertebrate species, the entire species would have to be listed
under the ESA (or a subspecies, if information indicates that there are
subspecies of the eastern oyster) if it is endangered or threatened. A
species is endangered if it is in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range (ESA section 3 (6)). It is
threatened if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA
section 3 (19)).''
The Federal Register goes on to identify the range of the eastern
oyster: ``The eastern oyster is distributed from the Gulf of St.
Lawrence to the Gulf of Mexico and south through the Caribbean to the
Yucatan Peninsula.''
While I am sympathetic to the plight of eastern oysters in the
Chesapeake Bay area, I assure you that the eastern oyster Crassostrea
virginica is neither endangered nor threatened, especially in the Gulf
of Mexico. In the same period cited by Mr. Busch (petitioner) (1880
through 2003), the Gulf of Mexico has seen landings fluctuate
dramatically, primarily due to changing environmental conditions, from
state to state and within a state. When viewed over these 120+ years,
however, or in the shorter period of 1961 to 2004, (Table 1) there is
no clear evidence of any continuing pattern of decline. In fact,
current levels of harvest throughout the Gulf of Mexico suggest a
thriving species. The Gulf has clearly dominated U.S. oyster production
since the early 1980's and continues to do so. For the period 1997-
2001, the Gulf states contributed 59% of the total United States
production (Figure 1). Of this total, Louisiana produced 32%, Texas
13%, Mississippi 8%, Florida 5% and Alabama 1%. In 2003, the Gulf
states produced 91% of the eastern oysters in the United States (Maine
through Texas).
The eastern oyster is the most important commercial molluscan
species in the five states of the Gulf of Mexico. In 2003, 3318
licensed commercial harvesters in these five states were dependent upon
this resource. Louisiana had the highest number (1046), followed by
Florida (753), Alabama (672), Texas (462) and Mississippi (385). In
Louisiana alone, the economic impact of this industry was estimated to
exceed 286 million dollars. The industry supported over 3,000 full-time
jobs in 2003 when nearly 14 million pounds of oyster meat were
produced. Posadas reported that in 2000 the Mississippi oyster industry
created 1,594 jobs with a total industry contribution of over 70
million dollars when over 3.5 million pounds of oysters were harvested.
The oyster fishery in the Gulf has a long, varied and diverse
history. Just when commercial oyster fishing first began is not known,
but subsistence catches date to the earliest inhabitants of our coastal
areas. Early colonists developed the industry during the 1800's and its
growth has continued to its present day form.
Earliest records of landings for the eastern oyster in the Gulf of
Mexico go back to 1880 when harvests of 2.1 million pounds of meat were
reported (Table 2). Since the 1960's, oyster production in Florida has
ranged from a low of 1.3 million pounds in 1988 to a high of 7.2
million pounds in 1981 with 90% of the production coming from the
Apalachicola Bay public reef area. Alabama's production has fluctuated
from a low of 5,000 pounds in 1989 to a high of 2.1 million pounds in
1967 with nearly all production coming from the Mobile Bay public
reefs. Mississippi's oyster production is almost entirely dependent
upon the public reefs in the western part of Mississippi Sound, and has
ranged from a low of 21,000 pounds in 1980 to a high of 4.8 million
pounds in 1964. Louisiana, due to its vast estuarine acreage with
oyster reefs located throughout the coastal area from the Mississippi
state line to the Texas line, produces by far, the greatest volume of
oysters. Production has ranged from a low of 4.7 million pounds in 1966
to a high of over 15 million pounds in 2001 (Table 1). Historically,
private leases produced as much as 90% of production, in recent years
however, about 50% comes from private leases and 50% comes from public
reefs. Texas production has ranged from 889,000 pounds in 1979 to a
high of nearly 8 million pounds in 1983. The vast majority of this
production comes from the public reefs in Galveston Bay. These
fluctuations are examples of the wide variances in annual production
among and between the Gulf states.
Oyster production Gulfwide and statewide has fluctuated widely over
time due primarily to environmental (including water quality) changes
annually, seasonally and historically. These wide harvest fluctuations
indicate the degree of dependence oysters have upon their environment.
In spite of this, Gulfwide oyster production has remained fairly stable
and even increased in some geographic areas, unlike declining
production in other areas of the country (Table 1). A closer review of
Table 1 indicates that Gulf production from the 1961-1965 average
through the 2001-2004 average shows that for the 2001-2004 period,
production of 25,514 million pounds of oyster meat was higher than for
any other 5-year period except the 1981-1985 period when 25,557 million
pounds were harvested, a difference of only 43 thousand pounds.
It should be understood, however, that natural and manmade
environmental fluctuations can and do cause extreme oyster population
variations within a state and even within a certain water body. These
environmental fluctuations may benefit oyster populations on one reef
and be detrimental on another reef. For example, flooding will benefit
oyster reefs located away from the fresh water source by lowering
higher salinities, but will have negative effects on those reefs in the
close proximity of the fresh water discharge, by lowering salinities
below acceptable levels.
In contrast to the other oyster producing regions of the United
States, the Gulf states have basically maintained and even increased
its harvest throughout this century (Table 1 and 2). Environmental
degradation is most often blamed in areas where oyster production has
decreased. The Gulf states, however, have not been immune to changes
within its coastal oyster producing environment. Louisiana, for
example, has been losing its coastal vegetated wetlands at a rate of 50
square miles per year. This land loss has had a dramatic effect on the
distribution and quality of aquatic habitat that is suitable for oyster
production.
The Gulf's eastern oyster population thrives best at mid-level
salinities ranging from 10 to 30 ppt. and near freshwater discharges.
These discharges dilute the Gulf's higher saline waters and provide
nourishment. Oyster reefs are most productive when they are shielded
from high saline waters and their predators and disease. Additionally,
bottom type is important for suitable oyster production. Gulf coast
estuaries generally contain silt or mud deposited from freshwater
sources. Since this material is soft, oysters can sink and become
covered with silt. Thus, a firm clay and sandy substrate is necessary
to prevent this from occurring.
Since oysters are sessile they are subject to many environmental
changes, and as such their populations are subject to wide fluctuations
due to these changing conditions. These include floods, droughts,
predators (black drum, stone crabs, oyster drills), disease (Dermo and
Hazardous Algal Blooms), parasites, deterioration and loss of habitat,
estuarine development, and modifications of freshwater inflow.
Additionally, man's encroachment into the coastal area has had other
negative impacts on their populations. These impacts include domestic
and industrial pollution, agricultural runoff, and chemical spills.
Unfortunately, due to poor water quality not suitable for direct
shellfish harvest, many oyster reefs are either seasonally or
permanently closed to shellfish harvest to protect the health of
consumers. Though these issues have detrimental impacts on the oyster
resources, they are being addressed by state health and resource
agencies as well as industry representatives.
The eastern oyster is distributed throughout the estuarine areas of
the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. In some areas of the Gulf, oyster reefs are
located in the states' territorial sea and even in the Gulf Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ). Reefs are most abundant in shallow (less than 40
feet) estuaries with salinities ranging from 5 to 20 ppt. Oysters are
present in practically every major estuarine system of the Gulf;
however, their distribution varies greatly within and among estuaries.
Since oysters are primarily located in the estuarine areas of the
states, they almost exclusively fall within the management jurisdiction
of the individual states' natural resource agencies. For the Gulf these
agencies are:
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
Mississippi Department of Marine Resources
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Since these natural resource agencies are responsible for
implementing rules, regulations, ordinances and/or statutes, they can
and do have a dramatic effect on fishery management. All five Gulf
states have and will continue to utilize management practices that
ensure the viability of the resource and strive to maximize production
from existing reefs. This is done by implementing regulations that
include, but are not limited to, quotas, seasons, daily bag limits,
size limits, gear restrictions, harvest time restrictions, private
leasing of water bottoms, limited entry, relaying, cultch planting,
water quality monitoring, data collection, licensing and enforcement.
The oyster fishery in Florida and Alabama is primarily comprised of
small shallow draft fishing vessels (18-25 feet) from which oysters are
harvested with hand tongs (sometimes called rakes). Tongs are attached
at the ends of long handles some 12 to 16 feet in length, thus
restricting harvest to shallow waters. In Mississippi, tongs and
dredges are used to harvest oysters. Dredges vary in size from state to
state but are approximately 3 feet wide and weigh about 120 pounds.
Dredges are attached to a chain and pulled from a winch. They are
usually raised and lowered from the side of the vessel. Dredge boats
generally range from 25 to 60 feet in length. Virtually all oyster
production in Louisiana and Texas is done with dredges. In Mississippi,
90% of the harvest is with dredges.
A major management practice utilized by all of the Gulf states is
to enhance production of oyster reefs through cultch plantings. Cultch
material consists of oyster shells, clam shells, limestone, or other
suitable materials for deposition. Deposit of these cultch maintains
and increases or enhances oyster reef acreage and provides a hard
substrate for the oyster larvae to set. The planting of oyster shells
or other suitable materials has long been accepted as a management tool
that provides tremendous benefits to oyster resource management. Cultch
plant sites are selected by surveying bottom conditions and sediment
types, turbidity, current patterns, salinity, water temperature and
historical catch from the area. Additionally, oyster fishermen are
consulted to obtain information on the areas to be selected for
plantings. It has been estimated that for each dollar spent in cultch
plants that as much as $20 is returned to the industry in oyster
harvest over the years
Florida, for example, since 2000, has planted nearly one million
bushels of oyster shells to develop habitat on its public reefs.
Additionally, they have contracted with local oyster associations to
relay and transplant over one million bushels of live oysters from
conditionally approved and restricted harvesting areas to public reefs
where water quality and environmental conditions are more favorable.
The major goal of managing a renewable natural resource like
oysters is to ensure the viability of that resource and to optimize
production for the benefit of the harvester, packer, shucker,
processor, distributor, the fishing community and ultimately consumers.
Proper oyster reef management also benefits the environment by
increasing habitat and diversity of fauna. Since oysters are filter
feeders they are also helpful in reducing suspended silt and
phytoplankton.
Intensive management and ambitions oyster relaying and cultch
planting programs, however, have not solved all of the oyster
industry's problems. Hurricanes, droughts, periodic floodwaters and
inferior sanitary water quality in oyster growing areas continue to
plague the industry. Even more disturbing is that these problems will
become more severe as the Gulf's coastal habitat deteriorates (by
natural and man made factors), unless we have the will to prevent
further deterioration.
Oysters in the Gulf states are an excellent example of the
renewability of a fishery resource. After approximately 125 years of
exploitation and habitat modifications, the industry flourishes. While
these past successes may be at least partially attributable to the
vastness of the Gulf's estuarine systems, the oyster industry's fate
125 years in the future will certainly be determined by the resolve of
management and industry.
In the Petition submitted by Ecosystem Initiatives Advisory Service
to List the Eastern Oyster as a Threatened or Endangered Species Under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 not a single reference was found
identifying a problem or potential problem with eastern oysters in the
Gulf of Mexico.
Therefore, even though the eastern oyster has had wide fluctuations
in abundance, since the 1880's these variations are largely a result of
changing environmental conditions. Oyster populations are well within
historical levels and issues with oysters in the Gulf are being
addressed by each state's natural resource agency. Additionally, oyster
resource assessments conducted by each Gulf state's natural resource
agency show that oyster resources are well within historical limits.
All oyster survey data as well as oyster landing statistics (Tables 1
and 2) dramatically indicate that the eastern oyster in the Gulf of
Mexico is IN NO WAY THREATENED OR ENDANGERED, and should NOT be
considered in this petition for listing as such.
Under the ESA Statutory Provisions and Policy Consideration,
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is required to make a finding
as to whether a petition to list a species presents substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating the petitioned action
may be warranted. ESA regulations define ``substantial information'' as
the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to
believe the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted (50CFR
424.14(b)(i). Once NMFS considers all pertinent information, I am
confident that they will agree that NO REASONABLE PERSON would find the
eastern oyster to be threatened or endangered, especially in the Gulf
of Mexico.
NOTE: Input from Florida provided by Mark Berrigan; Alabama, Mark
Van Hoose; Mississippi, Scott Gordon; Louisiana, Patrick Banks; and
Texas, Lance Robinson.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2446.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2446.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2446.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2446.019
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Judy?
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER JUDY, SHELLFISH PROGRAM DIRECTOR,
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Judy. Mr. Chairman and Committee, thank you very much
for inviting me today. I will focus most of my comments on the
Chesapeake Bay in Maryland. But as you have heard today, there
is a wealth of evidence from around the Gulf and Atlantic
coasts that the eastern oyster is not endangered or threatened.
The Department of Natural Resources does not support the
petition to list the eastern oyster as threatened or
endangered. This oyster is neither at risk of extinction, which
is the key mark of endangered. It is not at risk of extinction.
Nor is it threatened that it may become at risk of extinction,
which is basically the definition of threatened. It does not
qualify for ESA listing.
There are two components central to the department's
position. One is the status of the oyster. You have heard a lot
of information today about the status of the oyster. If the
status review team looks at the oyster status along the coasts,
it will be clear that it is not at risk as a species. The
oyster reproduces. There is broodstock intact throughout its
range. The oyster is viably distributed throughout its historic
range, and habitat exists throughout its historic range.
We also need to look at the status of the petition. We hope
that the status review team will closely look at the petition.
We note that there are numerous factual errors in the case for
listing the eastern oyster. And Mr. Chairman, I congratulate
you on your insightful analysis when the meeting started.
I will now expand on the status of the eastern oyster in
Maryland. There definitely is a low population. That is a fact.
Everyone knows it well. The department testified in October
2003 before the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,
Wildlife, and Oceans to that fact. The population is clearly in
need of recovery. It is in trouble, and it needs help.
Please note in the Chesapeake Bay area, in Maryland and
Virginia, by age 4, up to 90 percent of the oyster population
has died from disease. We are losing many, many oysters from
the Chesapeake. Many historically productive bars are no longer
productive commercially. But there is an important distinction
to be made. And I think again, Chairman Pombo, you made this
distinction early on.
Harvest data has a serious limitation when analyzing the
situation. Harvest data refer to trend for market oyster
populations because that is what watermen catch. Those are
oysters in Maryland 3 inches and greater. But harvest data do
not accurately reflect the status of the younger oysters in the
overall population, nor of the broodstock, which are the
reproducing oysters, nor of the potential of the species to
repopulate itself. Market data are about market oysters.
The collapse of the fishery, which was clearly obviously
before all of us, the collapse of the fishery and the collapse
of the market population does not signal a collapse in the
oyster broodstock or the ability of the population to produce
progeny. The diseases MSX and Dermo kill larger, older oysters
primarily, but many of the younger, smaller oysters survive.
Because oysters reproduce before they reach market size, the
majority of the oysters in the bay are small, submarket, but
they are reproductive.
Therefore, concluding that an organism is unable to sustain
itself as a species based upon harvest data and market collapse
is an inaccurate analysis. What is more accurate to look at on
the issue of extinction is reproduction. How is the species
continuing itself into future generations?
Oysters become sexually mature adults and begin spawning at
about 1 year old. And again, market oysters are around 3 years
old, if I left that out earlier. So around 1 year old, the
small oysters are becoming reproductive. Since the market size
category, oysters 3 years old and older, have mostly been lost
due to disease and the small oysters are not harvested because
they are sublegal and illegal, the majority of the broodstock
in the bay are small oysters, and they are there.
As they grow, they typically spawn at least twice before
being harvested or lost to disease. Therefore, the oyster
population contains broodstock, and these oysters do reproduce
and yield spat. Significant spat sets have been observed since
the 1980s. And I use that time period, if you look at your
graphs at your convenience, you will see from the mid-1980s in
Maryland, we have had a dramatic decline in harvest. That is
when the diseases were killing off so many of our market size
oysters.
So in this period from the mid-1980s forward, when we have
had really low populations, we have seen significant spat sets,
sometimes dominant year classes. Now conversely, during the
1970s, when oysters were much less abundant, we saw low spat
sets. So we have a situation in Maryland and in other areas it
is true, oyster reproduction is not closely linked to the
abundance of oysters. So, therefore, while the oyster's ability
to rebuild its once abundant, older age classes has been
negatively affected by disease mortality, the survival of the
species is not impaired.
I will close here in a few seconds, actually. There are
hundreds of millions of oysters in the bay, based on stock
assessment. You have heard Dr. Wesson testify about billions of
oysters in the total bay system. In Maryland, we see hundreds
of millions. And that number does not include spat. It does not
include tens of millions of oysters planted in restoration
projects.
We see in 2003 and 2004, with the heavy rains we have had,
oysters are surviving better. The biomass or the weight of the
oysters, if you were to shuck an oyster, its body weight would
be the biomass. The biomass index, which tracks oysters, is
increasing. So we have a situation under favorable salinity,
conditions of good survival, the oyster population is slightly
increasing, and the biomass is slightly increasing.
So I would like to echo Dr. Sammy Ray's comment, salinity,
salinity, salinity is as true in Maryland as it is in his area.
It determines survival. It determines growth. It determines
longevity of the population and disease. Unfortunately, in the
bay system, the salinity often is not favorable for survival.
So, in closing, it is important to note on the issues of
extinction or near extinction that the biomass index has
recently increased slightly, indicating the population is
responding to a previous spat set that occurred. And those spat
survived, and now they are growing because of the rainfall. And
let me observe a threatened or an endangered population would
not likely experience spat set survival and enhanced biomass
growth. That is an upward trend, not a downward trend.
Oyster stock abundance is low. The low abundance is due
primarily to disease mortality. This low abundance is not
impacting reproductive success, but it is negatively affecting
the number of larger, older adult oysters in the population.
The department does not support the petition to list the
eastern oyster as threatened or endangered because it simply
isn't the case, and we will be glad to provide a wealth of
information to the status review team as they discuss the issue
further.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Judy follows:]
Statement of Christopher Judy, Shellfish Program Director,
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting
me to testify on this issue of importance to the Eastern oyster and
implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Clarity about the
oyster's status and risk of extinction are critical. The public and key
decision makers need to be well informed to appropriately declare a
species threatened or endangered. The establishment of the Status
Review Team by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is a needed
step in bringing clarity and accuracy to this issue.
Oysters are a critical component of a healthy Chesapeake Bay
ecosystem, with an unparalleled ability to filter water and remove
nutrient pollution. The State of Maryland and the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) are committed to restoring a viable oyster population
in the Chesapeake Bay.
DNR does NOT support the petition to list the Eastern oyster as
threatened or endangered under the ESA. This oyster is neither at risk
of extinction nor threatened such that it may become at risk of
extinction, and thus does not qualify for ESA listing. Data clearly
demonstrates this. My testimony is limited to Maryland's situation,
however an abundance of supporting data from other Eastern and Gulf
Coast areas exists.
There are two components central to our position:
1. The status of the oyster: A review of the oyster's status will
demonstrate that it is not at risk as a species. The oyster reproduces,
broodstock are intact, the oyster is widely distributed throughout its
historic range, and habitat exists throughout its historic range.
2. The status of the petition: It is anticipated that a review of
the petition will reveal possible factual errors in the case for
listing the Eastern oyster. We urge the Status Review Team to closely
examine the petition.
I will now expand upon the status of the Eastern oyster in
Maryland.
Low Population Abundance
Oysters are essential to the Bay's ecology and an abundant
population is needed to improve water quality.
The oyster population is at very low abundance. (DNR testified as
such in October 2003 before the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,
Wildlife and Oceans.)
The population is clearly in need of recovery. By age four, up to
90 percent of the oyster population die from disease. Many historically
productive oyster bars are no longer commercially productive.
Attachment 1 documents oyster harvests since the 1870s; Attachment 2
indicates more recent harvest trends.
Harvest data have a serious limitation. They reveal the trend for
market oyster populations (oysters equal to or greater than 3 inches)
but do not accurately reflect the status of younger and smaller
oysters, or of broodstock (reproducing oysters) and the potential of a
species to repopulate itself.
The collapse of the fishery and the market population does not
signal a collapse in oyster broodstock or the ability to produce
progeny. Diseases kill larger, older oysters but many younger, smaller
oysters survive. Because oysters reproduce before they reach market
size, the majority of brood oysters are small (submarket) and still in
the Bay.
Areas with low to no harvest are not devoid of oysters. Since all
oysters are not harvested, both market oysters and small oysters remain
present on oyster bars. If conditions support spat sets (young oysters
that have attached to oyster shells), then spat are present as well.
DNR surveys hundreds of oyster bars each year. The results confirm that
broodstock populations remain intact and reproducing. Survey results
can be made available for study by the Status Review Team.
Therefore, concluding that an organism is unable to sustain itself
as a species based upon harvest data and market collapse is an
inaccurate analysis.
While neither an abundant population nor widespread recovery is at
hand, neither is extinction or near-extinction. The definition of
endangered under ESA is that a species is in danger of extinction.
Threatened means a species is likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future. As stated earlier, the Eastern oyster does not fit
the criteria for either category because of successful reproduction,
intact broodstock and wide distribution of habitat and population
throughout its historic range.
Reproduction
The oyster population can be divided into three broad size
categories: spat, smalls and market oysters.
Spat are new oysters less than 1 year old. They typically
do not spawn.
Smalls are oysters about 1 to 3 inches in size, which
tend to be about 1 to 3 years old.
Market oysters are oysters 3 inches or greater, and tend
to be about 3 to 4 years old in Maryland.
Oysters become sexually mature adults and begin spawning at about 1
year old, when they are young smalls. Since it is the market size
category that has mostly been lost due to disease and smalls are not
harvested, the majority of broodstock in the Bay are small oysters. As
they grow, they typically spawn at least twice before being harvested
or lost to disease. The oyster population contains broodstock and these
oysters reproduce and yield spat. The species is functional and
replenishes itself. The population is at low abundance due to disease
mortality of older, larger oysters.
Attachment 3 shows the historical record of spat set, measuring
reproductive success. Survey results indicate stocks exist in
sufficient numbers and are reproducing dominant year classes under
suitable environmental conditions. Significant spat sets are observed
since the mid-1980s, even though diseases were killing many oysters and
populations fell to record low levels. During the 1970s oysters were
much more abundant than today and market oysters were also abundant. In
spite of this, spat sets were low.
The conclusion is that reproduction in Maryland is highly variable
and not closely linked to the abundance of oysters. Attachments 3 and 4
illustrate spat setting patterns, which indicate reproduction is driven
more by salinity patterns due to rainfall than by population abundance.
The 1970s were wet as were other times of low sets such as 1984,
``88, ``89, 1993, ``94, ``96, ``98, and 2003 and 2004. Periods of
drought and higher salinity typically, though not always, yield higher
sets, as in 1980, ``81 and ``85, 1991 and ``97, and 1999 to 2002. Low
salinity is more of an impediment to reproductive success than the low
oyster population.
Low sets in any given year or geographic region (Attachments 3 and
4) do not mean the oyster is at risk of being lost. Sets were low in
the 1970s, but rebounded during the ``80s and ``90s. Set was poor in
1988 (a wet year) but a record in 1991. After the low set of 1996,
there was a record high set in 1997. The low sets of 2003 and 2004 are
not a sign of crisis. Both years were very wet and reproduction can be
expected to improve.
Therefore, while the oyster's ability to rebuild its once abundant,
older age classes has been negatively affected by high mortality due to
disease, the survival of the species is not impaired.
Current Population Levels and Biomass
Based on calculations from a recent Chesapeake Bay Program project,
the most recent population estimate for Maryland is in the hundreds of
millions of oysters. This includes markets and smalls. This number does
not include spat, or the tens of millions of seed oysters resulting
from various restoration efforts.
Maryland's oyster population is now surviving better than during
the drought of 1999-2002 due to the rains of 2003 and 2004 that lowered
salinity and decreased disease mortality. The result is that these
oysters are growing and increasing their biomass (weight). Biomass is
another measure of the oyster population that is not linked to skewed
harvest records.
The population levels and biomass are doing best in areas that have
experienced both a spat set and a reduction in disease mortality. This
combination of factors provides new oyster stocks as well as encourages
their survival and growth. Examples of such areas are Tangier Sound and
St. Mary's county.
Maryland oyster biomass began declining in 2001, due to the drought
that started in 1999 and increased disease and mortality levels
(Attachment 6). Harvest declined as well. Biomass reached a low point
in 2003, but has increased slightly due to better survival during the
rains of 2003-04. The biomass index measured by DNR is now .88 compared
to the low point of .5 in 2003 (Attachment 5). The baseline standard is
1994, which had an index value of 1.
It is important to note, on the issue of ``extinction'' or ``near
extension'' that the biomass index has recently increased, indicating
the populations' response to spat sets that survived and grew. A
threatened or endangered population would not likely experience spat
set followed by enhanced survival and biomass growth.
Are these signs that the oyster is coming back to its historic
abundance? No. Diseases are entrenched and a chronic problem that
suppresses broad recovery. But this data shows that as a species the
oyster is functional and successfully replenishing itself and
inhabiting oyster bar habitat.
Summary
Oyster stock abundance is low. This low abundance is due primarily
to disease mortality. It does not appear that low abundance is
impacting reproductive success, though it is negatively affecting the
number of large adults in the population.
The Department does not support the petition to list the Eastern
oyster as threatened or endangered.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2446.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2446.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2446.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2446.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2446.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2446.025
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest?
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Can either Dr. Wesson or Mr. Judy give me an estimate of
the biomass of virginica in the Chesapeake Bay in 1890 versus
2005?
Dr. Wesson. No. I don't think there is any way that we
could.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is there any way to determine what it is
now?
Dr. Wesson. We know exactly what it is now.
Mr. Gilchrest. What is it now?
Dr. Wesson. In our part of the bay, for last year, it was
about a billion oysters, small and markets.
Mr. Gilchrest. What would it likely have been in 1890 if
the bushels that were taken out of the bay exceeded 10 million?
Is there any way to calculate that?
Mr. Judy. That can be provided later. That is possible.
Mr. Gilchrest. Okay. I am just curious just to see what the
range is we are working on now. Without that calculated biomass
comparison between 1890 and 2005, I have heard a figure of
about 2 percent of what it was in 1890. I am assuming that 2
percent is the harvested level. But compared to what was likely
there in 1890, you know, let us say that is 100 percent
threshold. What is the percentage of oysters in the bay now
compared to that number?
Mr. Judy. The commonly accepted number that is often used
in many oyster meetings is that the oyster population is 1
percent of its historic level. That is, I think, usually
referred to as a biomass percentage, 1 percent of the historic
biomass. So, clearly, whether it is 1 percent or 2 percent,
another number that is circulated, from the 1880s, it has
dropped dramatically. That is obviously clear.
Mr. Gilchrest. In the 1880s, were there still oyster reefs,
and are oyster reefs the historic habitat for oysters versus
the oyster bar?
Mr. Judy. I can speak to Maryland, and Dr. Wesson can refer
to Virginia. In Maryland, we still see reefs. The major
difference, again, I think quite obviously is the historic
reefs were thickly populated with dense populations of oysters.
Now under that thick population, which you could call
perhaps a living veneer of oysters clumped together perhaps in
a lot of different areas or perhaps single oysters in other
areas, that living veneer was upon a structure often called the
oyster reef. I tend to view the oyster reef as the living
community upon the bar or reef, whatever term you prefer to
use.
Now in Maryland, we still see many of these three-
dimensional historic reefs in existence, but that living veneer
has dropped dramatically in population. So perhaps it is a
different viewpoint, but we do have many three-dimensional
reefs, three-dimensional bars, large three-dimensional----
Mr. Gilchrest. Are we working toward what Dr. Wesson said
are the 3-D restoration effort with I think you said, Dr.
Wesson, 100 3-D restoration efforts or sanctuaries under way?
Dr. Wesson. That is correct. We have more than 100, and all
that Chris said is the same for Virginia. We still have reefs.
The reefs were definitely probably more dramatic historically,
more like the three-dimensional reefs that we have been
creating.
But what we see in monitoring the reefs that we have
created is that when we prepare the ideal historic habitat,
then the theory is that the oyster will be the biogenic builder
that will then take the veneer and keep the reef alive.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is that happening? Has that happened?
Dr. Wesson. That does not happen. Within 5 years, the
three-dimensional reefs look identical to the neighboring----
Mr. Gilchrest. Even though the oysters, you have
reproduction oyster, spat, on the hardshell doesn't develop its
own hardshell and continue to grow? You are saying the oyster
reef doesn't grow?
Dr. Wesson. No. Because of the disconnect between those
oysters dying at 2 years old versus the shells that we build
the reefs from are the Gulf of Mexico large, 4-, 5-, 6-inch
shells. The veneer that gets put on those shells never gets
more than an inch or two, and then they die. And in that time
period, the rest of that reef that we created gets colonized by
other things. And so, it loses all the habitat that used to be
there.
Mr. Judy. May I add a distinction?
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes, sir.
Mr. Judy. In Maryland, because we have some areas which are
lower salinity, lower disease areas, and have better survival,
we do have projects where we take hatchery seed oysters, plant
them on a constructed reef or perhaps a natural reef, and re-
establish that living veneer. And because disease pressure is
lower in these lower salinity areas, we do see that population
living longer, growing larger, and being more like that
historic cluster population.
But being lower salinity areas, that reef has not
repopulated itself with larvae and spat because it is
compromised by the low salinity.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. My time is up. Thank you.
The Chairman. Ms. Drake?
Ms. Drake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And certainly, I
apologize for not being here for the whole hearing, but I am
certainly glad to be here for the three of you. And Dr. Wesson,
it is very nice to see you.
I have heard very clearly, just to put your words a little
differently than you said them, that low population does not,
by any means, mean danger of extinction. You would all agree
with that?
The Witnesses. Yes.
Ms. Drake. And you all agree--I notice from everything that
I read prior to this meeting that everyone seemed in agreement
that the oyster should not be on the Endangered Species Act.
And I have heard that from, I think, all three of you today as
well.
Mr. Perret. I agree with that.
Ms. Drake. Dr. Wesson and Mr. Judy, would you agree with me
that the tools and the practices that are put in place by both
Virginia and Maryland and the work that is being done in our
communities, in the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and our
different State agencies, do you think those tools are
appropriate to protect the oyster? Do you think there are
additional tools, other than this Endangered Species Act
petition, that you would like to have?
Or do you think things are moving along like you would like
to see them? We would all want it to be better, but certainly I
think there have been significant things that have been done.
Dr. Wesson. And I agree with that. There has been a lot of
money that has been given to us, and it has been very helpful
to moving forward. Every restoration project that we still do
in Virginia, when we put new shells out, we get rapid
colonization and have an abundance of small oysters. But we
still falter when the salinities get high enough, the diseases
come back.
So we are constantly depending on research to help solve
the problem, if it is possible, to get a tolerant oyster either
for aquaculture or, hopefully down the road, for restoration of
larger bodies of water naturally. But the Endangered Species
Act is certainly, if anything, it will hold us back from doing
further work with the oysters because our private industry is
our biggest partner in Virginia.
I mean, they have all the equipment that we use for
restoration. They are all our contractors. And if there is no
incentive for them to stay in the business, then we will have
to gear up entirely different to do restoration.
Ms. Drake. I wondered that last night, reading it. That if
it were on the endangered species and they couldn't work
anymore, if we would see the creativity and the work on the
part of those watermen and those companies to help us fix the
problem. So it sounds like, too, that even if we didn't harvest
another oyster, if that salinity changed and the disease came
back, they would be gone anyway?
Dr. Wesson. We have very, very good data that shows that
these large areas that we have set aside as sanctuaries where
we do the same restoration that we do in the harvested areas,
that the populations are identical.
Ms. Drake. Thank you.
And Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back my time. I know
we have to go vote. And thank you very much for being here.
The Chairman. We did get called to votes. But I just wanted
to ask one question before I adjourn the hearing. And it is
kind of following up on Ms. Drake's question because if the
species, if the population in the Chesapeake Bay is listed as
an endangered species, it severely limits what you can and
can't do with that population.
And I guess my question is what happens with the seeding
operations and the operations that both Maryland and Virginia
are conducting right now to increase the population? Because if
it is listed as endangered, you now fall under all the
regulations of the Endangered Species Act, and that severely
limits your ability to do a lot of the work that you are
currently doing.
Mr. Judy. That is an important issue. Of course, I don't
know the answer. I am not a lawyer. But that would definitely
be a flag that goes up in Maryland. There are some techniques
that actually dig into the bottom, some techniques that move
oysters to clean an area of disease to the extent possible.
So the question would be, would some of these, let us call
them, say, invasive techniques that manage the bottom, would
some of these be at risk if that habitat and that oyster are
protected?
The Chairman. That would be a take of an endangered
species, and under the law, you wouldn't be allowed to do it.
Mr. Judy. Well, you have answered my question.
The Chairman. You know, listening to you talk about disease
being the major problem, and as I was sitting here listening to
the questions and to your testimony, I thought about the desert
tortoise, which is listed as an endangered species. And the
main reason it has become endangered is because of an upper
respiratory disease which has limited the population in certain
segments. Not without its entire range, but only in certain
segments.
It was listed as an endangered species throughout its
entire range and is now managed as an endangered species
throughout the entire area, even though only a limited area had
a disease problem that was causing numbers to go down. I can
see this being listed as an endangered species throughout its
entire range because of a disease problem in the Chesapeake Bay
and the impact that would have throughout the entire area and
the impact that would have on the industry.
I think we have a perfect case right in front of us today
of an industry working with the natural resource folks in order
to bring a species back, and I think this is really the way we
ought to be trying to bring species back instead of a lot of
the stuff that we are doing in other parts of the country. So
this has been very informative for me and has been, I think, a
very good hearing for us.
So I appreciate your testimony. I will say that I ask
unanimous consent for Members to submit written materials and
questions for the record for 10 days, and the hearing record
will be held open. I know that there were Members who, because
of other markups and other hearings that were going on, could
only stay for a short period of time.
Those questions will be submitted to you in writing. If you
could answer those in writing for the Committee, it would be
appreciated. So thank you very much.
The Chairman. If there is no further business before the
Committee, the Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:55 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]