List of Attendees Paul Stacey, John Storer, Rich Langan, David - - PDF document

List of Attendees Paul Stacey, John Storer, Rich Langan, David Patrick, Dean Peschel, Lindsey Williams, Fred Short, Cory Riley, Terry Desmarais, Ray Grizzle, Krystin Ward, Robert Eckert, Kevin Sullivan, Doug Grout, Bruce Smith, Shannon Rogers, Heather Gilbert, Eric Schroeder, Chris Nash, Paul Geoghegen And PREP Staff: Rachel Rouillard, Kalle Matso, Abigail Lyon, Jill Farrell and Simone Barley-Greenfield About These Notes Readers will feel at times as though these notes are verbatim from the meeting. They should not be considered verbatim. Rather, we attempted to make the notes more conversational for readability. Please do not quote these notes as though it is a verbatim transcript. Sometimes, when PREP staff are not sure about name of the speaker, we will list the person more generically as “Committee Member.” 1

Kalle: Just a reminder that the TAC is a completely open process. Everyone is invited and everyone has equal standing. 2

• Be ready soon to mark your calendars for the next TAC meetings in March and
• April. April is in a different color because we expect that meeting to be more

extensive—perhaps even take place over multiple days—than the usual TAC meetings.

• That will be our last opportunity to review some of the bigger takeaway messages

from the Data Report. 3

Kalle: As you can see, we have lots to get through today, and then we’ll finish by piloting an exercise around thinking in a more concerted way about stressors on oysters—don’t have the time today to do this for clams as well—as well as management actions that could potentially benefit oysters. 4

Kalle: Just a reminder that our focus here today has to be fairly narrow. We are committed to certain indicators and to how we’ve collected the data. What I need from this group is to talk about ways that we can present the data most clearly, and if there are ancillary studies that we should pull in to explain the data in the Data Report. It will be tempting to talk a lot about introducing new indicators and new research topics, but that will have to be secondary to the primary goal noted above. 5

Kalle: Now, I’ll hand it off to Chris Nash of the Dept of Env. Services; Chris manages the shellfish program. 6

Chris: Map of shellfish classification in NH tidal waters. What areas are open and which are closed for harvest. Dark green and light green are the open areas. For the indicators in the past report we focused on the estuarine areas and not the

• pen coast. The coast is almost all open and not a lot of movement in temporary

closures. The idea behind this indicator is that it can help us understand changes in water quality. 7

Chris: 2/3 of GBE is open; there are some temporary closures due to rainfall and WWTF issues. 8

Chris: For green area, we take GIS polygons and each polygon is designated as an

• yster area; we look at number of days it could have been open and compare it to

record of how many days it was actually open. Numbers going back to 2000 and up to 2011, from the last Data Report. 9

Chris: Here are numbers for the whole system going up to 2014… 10

Chris: …and here’s what the chart would look like with those numbers. We do have the numbers for 2015 but we need to make a decision about how to handle those numbers because of the results of the Portsmouth Dye Study, and I’ll show a map on the next slide. 11

Chris: Back in 2012, we performed a dye study at the Portsmouth WWTF to see its impacts on public health around the outfall. This was done because that plant is still

• perating as a primary level treatment plant, whereas the other plants in the area are

at least secondary. (Portsmouth is now planning their upgrade to, at least, secondary.) When the results of the study came in, we decided that we needed to change the terms for recreational harvest in Little Bay (green area on the map). The dye study showed that on an incoming tide, the effluent would reach Dover Point in 4 hours and then go rapidly up through Little BayBecause of that study, we restricted harvesting to one day a week…Saturday only. That will change our numbers drastically from 303 to 39, meaning that this area was only open 12.9% of the time it could have been open. 12

Chris: The yellow highlighting underscores what I’m talking about here as we move from 2014 to 2015. Committee Member: Can you talk a bit more about the dye study? Chris: We did it because Portsmouth is a primary treatment facility unlike the other plants, which are all at least secondary. The idea was to assume that, at some point, they might have a disinfection failure. For this test, dye was released at 2:30 AM, and it took 4 hours for the dye to reach Dover Point. By 11 AM, we were seeing dye near Furber straight. If Portsmouth had a problem at 9:30 PM on Friday, it could make it into Little Bay without anyone knowing overnight. So, we’re telling recreational harvesters you can only go here on Saturday, and have to wait until 9 AM to make sure it’s all okay first. Now that will change when the plant gets upgraded. Terry Desmarais (City Engineer for the City of Portsmouth): With regard to the upgrade, we’re looking at December, 2019 for the initial stages to be complete. I also want to clarify that you only get 1 million fecal coliform when there is a failure of the disinfection system. The fecal coliform count is less than 14 on a max day if the system is working properly. Chris mentioned some of the other treatment facilities that have secondary treatment. With secondary treatment, even without disinfection, they have lower bacteria levels because the water is getting more treatment. Rich Langan: Chris, does the one day a week apply to oyster farms or just wild 13

harvest? Chris: It does not apply to oyster farmers. They can harvest any day, and the reason for that is they have to call me before they harvest. Since they’re calling me, I can check the conditions and let them know if there’s a problem. Rich Langan: How often does the disinfection system fail in Portsmouth? Terry: As far as I know, there have only been a few instances in the last couple of decades. Chris: I can only think of 2 big failures. Terry: Getting back to the issue of how to show the changes with the data…If there is a change in how this is calculated, it’s important that it’s documented so people have that context. 13

Chris: And here’s a look at how these changing numbers would look on a graph with the change in 2015. Cory Riley: This graph shows Little Harbor plummeting, can you explain that? Chris: There’s a whole other issue with Portsmouth and the WWTF; none of the plants are designed or required to treat viruses. At secondary treatment facilities, because of how long the water is treated, it just has less viruses; it could be as much as a thousand times less viruses. Because we don’t have standards,and Little Harbor is close to the Portsmouth outfall, we felt it was prudent to close Little Harbor because we just don’t have enough information to evaluate.. Cory: The indicator is tricky because there are two things you are trying to figure out; acre days can increase in two ways—policy changes and environmental conditions. You should probably acknowledge that somewhere. Dean Peschel: My comment is similar to Cory’s. Purpose of this table is to judge whether WQ is getting better or worse; including this change will create the appearance that WQ is getting worse when it truly isn’t. Paul Stacey: We have WQ indicators and response indicators. If we had data of bacteria indicators in GB then we would have a WQ indicator we can statistically look

• at. Instead we have a management response indicator. It could be framed and should

be framed that way. Everyone will look at this graph and say WQ is in decline, but it’s not an indicator of WQ. 14

15

Kalle: Three flats—common island flat, middle ground flat, confluence flat. Not sure why we are looking at just these three. Paul Geoghegen from Normandeau might know. Paul: I defer to Bruce Smith (NH Fish&Game), but I believe they are the most productive flats in the estuary. Bruce: That’s correct. 16

Kalle: This graph from the 2012 Data Report shows the number of clams in Hampton- Seabrook (adults). Adults greater than 50mm shell length. This graph does have new data, up to 2015. There’s no real significant change (still down below 10). Common Island flat had a nice little bump. Still low when you look at the big picture. 17

Kalle: This graph is for juvenlies and also has data through 2015. 18

Kalle: …and this is for spat. 19

Kalle: Here we have all three graphs at once. It seems to me if the spat are doing well but the juveniles aren’t doing well, it seems like something is happening to them

• nce they settle--green crabs or neoplasia (soft shell clam disease)--something is

happening. Paul G (Normandeau): In the softshell clam literature, you see a lot of big spat falls and then they disappear. Not sure why it happens. Just because we get a big spat fall doesn’t mean you will have a lot of adults or yearlings. Also, I would say that I’m not totally confident of our age groupings (i.e., that the 25-50mm are really yearling clams.) We took this from the nearest clam flats we could find in Gloucester. Length versus age is key for soft shell clams and is a research need. 20

Kalle: Standing stock (adult clams) with PREP’s goal, showing that we haven’t met PREP’s goal since 2000. The goals themselves are somewhat arbritrary, and could be discussed at some point in the future as we revise our Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. 21

Kalle: this graph shows clam predators (green crabs) and stops at 2011. Concern that the crabs are having an impact on the clams. I came across a paper from ME that used exclusion cages to keep green crabs out and they found that clams did significantly better. 22

Kalle: This graph shows Juv. clams and the black line is the green crab abundance. Paul: The green crab is an introduced species; it used to be limited by cold waters, but a new strain from Canada that does well in cold water temperatures is showing up now. Kalle: I heard that there were at least two people catching green crabs to sell as bait

• r to restaurants. Could be encouraged to bring the populations down.

Doug: In addition, there is a market for bait, and we’ve had some people harvesting them in the past. We also have an index we could provide and could tease out some additional insights just for Hampton-Seabrook. Data comes from the Seine Survey done by Fish and Game. 23

Kalle: This graph shows occurrence of the Clam disease, neoplasia. It’s an Infectious cancer, Paul: Some cancer researchers have some doubts. There have been 3 documented cases of infectious cancer. Cancer excreted from host and another host can pick it up. Kalle: We don’t have data before 2002, so this is a limited time series. Paul: Our newest data does show a positive (going up) trend. Paul Stacey: Does disease cause mortality? Paul: Most clams infected will die. 20% remission rate; for our purposes if any neoplastic cells are detected the clams will die. Used to be done at UNH (Walker), now a new student at West Chester University is doing it. Also, I will say there’s a correlation between pollution and neoplasia. The pollution usually involves heavy metals and hydrocarbons. A study of the region was done and Hampton-Seabrook harbor came up with a medium amount of pollution. Regionally, the worst area was New Bedford, MA, and the best was downeast Maine. Fred Short: Is there a human health issue with the neoplasia? Bruce: No human health implications. 24

Paul Stacey: Think about a research agenda as we talk about the weaknesses in these

• indicators. How do you sort neoplasia and green crabs out? Licenses and actual

standing? Things we need to put on the table now, or as an outcome of the SOOE report, what do we need to do to make these things better? 24

Kalle: This graph shows recreational harvest of clams and does include data up to 2015. 25

Kalle: This graph shows rec. harvest vs. standing stock. Let’s talk about what standing stock means. Paul G: Standing stock is essentially density X area. Problem is that the flats are always changing in area. Would be better off just looking at density. Density is more appropriate because the flat may be accreting but you might not have clams there and false reporting an increase in standing stock. May I ask, how’d you get the recreational harvest? Doug: it’s just licenses. Kevin Sullivan (Fish and Game): A question is: How reflective that is of harvest? Especially if you limit your days. People won’t buy a license on a certain day it’s open. Same license, but less harvest days. May buy a license and not harvest because where they traditionally harvest has no clams. So, this indicator requires some discussion. 26

Jill Farrell (PREP) This is our first chance to roll out some new social indicator we’ve been doing. For a few years, we’ve been trying to think about how to round out the indicators we currently have with some additional social data. Shannon Rogers from Plymouth State University and I implemented a social survey with UNH Survey Center. The survey covered values and beliefs re water quality and their relationship with the land. 27

Jill: The model we’re looking at is based on work done in the Puget Sound as seen

• above. You can google “Vital Signs” to found out more.

28

Jill: This is, of course, from the 2013 State of Our Estuaries Report, and simply shows how additional social indicators can be incorporated with our other indicators. 29

This graph shows the process we’ve gone through to get to some new social

• indicators. We’ve looked through a lot of literature and talked to 62 stakeholders in

the area. 30

Jill: This graph just shows you some of the values that came out of our surfey work. 31

Jill: Using the oyster as an example, you can see how social aspects of our lives such as local food, jobs, restaurant sales, and the small business economy…can all be linked to the environmental health of one organism. 32

Other data trails we could pursue include municipal action—such as implementing buffer and setback actions; state park visitation records and tourism board economics; stewardship network and other group volunteer hours. 33

Shannon Rogers (Plymouth State University): Levels of concern for contaminants such as mercury in locally caught seafood...people are thinking about this. This chart shows perceptions in the whole state… 34

Shannon (cont’d): …while this chart shows concern in the Piscataqua Region. Concern about the same in our region as it is state wide. 35

Shannon: This shows oyster harvest licenses FOR AQUACULTURE ONLY 36

Shannon: This graph shows number of oysters harvested by aquaculture farmers in the Great Bay Estuary. 37

Shannon: And this graph shows tax revenue from the local aquaculture industry. 38

Rich Langan: On this slide, what do you mean by “carrying capacity?” Is that ecological or social? Shannon: The idea is to try and understand: How many farms are too many? Is it always good to increase aquaculture? Might there be turf wars between different resources? What are the ecological impacts? So…lots of questions. Rich: The ecological carrying capacity quesiton is very complicated and it’s important not to glaze over that. With regard to the social carrying capacity...it sort of depends

• n who you ask. It needs be thought out very carefully.

Ray Grizzle: I believe a process started trying to get at carrying capacity, perhaps modeled with GIS and some ecological analysis. I think Chris Nash may be familiar with that. Chris Nash: Yes, I can share that if you’d like. Paul Stacey: Shannon and Jill, what you are trying to do is really tough. I’m interested, when you show those public perception graphs, how do you communicate how public perception matches up with reality? How do you strike a balance and pull the trigger that we have an issue and how do you manage that? Doug: Carrying capacity is a difficult issue to get a handle on. Three factors affect it: 1) environmental and ecological factors, 2) riparian issues (users of the estuary) because we get comments from riparian owners but also from other people (businesses or recreational uses). In the rules we have, we have to determine there is no significant 39

impact to current commercial and recreational uses of the estuary), and 3) what, from an aquaculturalist perspective, is a viable business opportunity? For a number of years I’ve gotten comments, that there just isn’t that many sites left for a viable

• business. But then there are a few aquaculturalists that make a go for it in those

areas. Cory Riley: I just want to be clear; we’re not putting forth a carrying capacity indicator...right? Jill: That’s correct. The question to this group is: do we think including a social indicator about shellfish is a good idea for the SOOE? Rich: If you think about the wild population and the severe decline over the last two decades and the fact that ecosystem services provided by oysters are being lost, it’s important to include aquaculture. Aquaculature means you are essentially putting more oysters in the system, which will provide benefits. Kalle: PREP has a goal of 10 million oysters, and correct me if I’m wrong Rachel, but I don’t think it specifies aquaculture or not. Rachel: No it doesn’t. Kalle: Something to keep in mind. When we talk about numbers of oysters in the estuary historically we are referring to the reefs. Paul Stacey: We really have to think about what we are trying to do. Theoretically, aquaculture can get us to our target with enough time and money. But let’s keep in mind the goal of an overall healthy ecosystem with integrity. Think about sustainability principles. What’s the sustainable harvest for human uses and to maintain environmental integrity? 39

Kalle: This image is from the Grizzle/Ward mapping report that is available at: http://prepestuaries.org/01/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/GrizzleWard-Oyster-Bed- Mapping-2013_FINAL-REPORT_2013-07-18.pdf In thus photo, the yellow areas are natural reefs and the red spots are restored areas. Ray Grizzle: Well, these are the sites that shellfish oyster restoration activities occur. Kalle: Thanks, and these efforts are supported by the Nature Conservancy? Rich: We will get into that. TNC has been a major partner with UNH since 2009. Kalle: Thanks, so we’ll go through some of the ways we’re showing data on these indicators and the question is: How can we explain trends in these indicators more fully and clearly? 40

Kalle: This chart shows recreational oyster harvest license sales, and it does include data through 2015. Paul Stacey: Lot of factors that can change recreational oyster harvest license sales. Cost, access, amount of oysters available, catch per unit effort, or more subtly…perhaps people are concerned about Hg in shellfish and they think the water is dirty and don’t want the shellfish. We have a responsibility to explain the different factors and figure out how we direct our management on a basis of all those factors. Rich: You have to think about change in cultural aesthetics and change in demographics also. If you go back 10 years and took the average age of those with licenses it was 75-80 years old and you don’t have a lot of the people coming into the Seacoast to live getting licenses. 41

Kalle: This graph shows trends in the prevalence of infection in oysters by the first of two diseases: MSX. Ray, perhaps you can tell us a bit about these diseases? Ray Grizzle: There’s MSX and there’s Dermo. They’re both parasites and both protozoan: microscopic but multi cellular. They infect the oyster early on in its life. A significant population in Great Bay are infected. These diseases cut down the longevity of the eastern oyster from 10-20 years to 3-5 years. Compared with MSX, DERMO is more of southern parasite. As northern areas become warmer, you find more prevalence of southern species. MSX has decreased somewhat and Dermo has increased, but they’re both killers. 42

Kalle: This graph shows how Dermo infections have increased in the last 15 years or so. 43

Kalle: This graph comes from Robert Eckert’s Masters thesis on oyster recruitment, which you can access at: http://prepestuaries.org/01/wp- content/uploads/2016/12/Eckert_Masters-Thesis-Final.pdf Ray: Entire east coast is studying this. Lots of literature on this. Cause and effect ecologically is not that easy to understand, as usual. In the oyster field, I’d say that 95- 99% of the experts are sure this is what’s going on. We coud be using this graph as an indicator of natural adaptation. If this curve starts to go back up, maybe we’re seeing some natural resistance starting to take place. What affects the age of these oysters. There are multiple factors, including: disease, sedimentation, harvest, etc. David Patrick (Nature Conservancy): How did you fit the curve; it looks like it’s starting to curve upwards at the end. Robert: That needs to be looked at carefully. That’s just a function of fitting the curve. Ray: We would want to look at 5 more years and then do some statistics. Paul Stacey: For Ray, if there was a resurgence, would you say it’s due to lower infection rate or internal resistance? Ray: In Delaware Bay, natural resistance is emerging. Selective breeding has been talked about a lot, but that’s not getting the oysters back to 10 years; it’s adding a year or something like that to their longevity. So, selective breeding won’t do it on a 44

large scale. Natural resistance on a genetic scale will emerge, but it will take time. Bruce Smith: In 2015, on that graph, you can see that Dermo went down. I can tell you that, in 2016, it took another jump up. Fred: I’m curious why the increase in Dermo doesn’t seem to be creating a response in the population, on this graph, at least. Ray: It may be that it hasn’t gotten to that level. There’s 2 to 4 year time lag anyway. There is also MSX. Fred: Do the diseases work the same way? Ray: Mostly. They affect respiration, breeding, etc., sort of slowly at first and then bang! 44

Kalle: This graph comes from the 2012 Data Report. Now, we’re talking about numbers of oysters in the Great Bay Estuary, not taking aquaculture into account…at this point. As you look at these graphs, it’s good to remember that three of these six sites are open to harvest and three are not. Woodman Point, Adam’s Point and Nannie Island are the ones that ARE open for harvest. You’ll notice that, compared with the early 90s, we’re down significantly at every site, except for Squamscott where we didn’t have numbers until 1998. 45

Kalle: This graph also comes from the 2012 Data Report. 46

Kalle: This graph comes Robert Eckert’s thesis again, and shows a different way of looking at the same data. 47

Kalle: This graph also comes from the 2012 Data Report. Doug Grout: Given that we have Dermo and MSX and they’re reducing maximum size

• f the oysters, is an 80mm harvestable oyster appropriate? Perhaps it makes more

sense to look at the spawning stock biomass and not the harvestable biomass. Maybe we are excluding some of the harvestable stock by using the 80 mm. Might be better to use 60mm and above. Paul Stacey: A follow up to Doug’s point. Perhaps we need think in terms of a Sustainable Yield approach, whether you harvest it or not. In terms of an indicator, do we need to look at a moving average over a cyclical basis to see if there is something really going on. Look out over a 10 year frame you get a better sense of the average. 48

Kalle: This graph also comes from the 2012 Data Report. Ray: What we’re seeing in this graph could be related to the once in a lifetime event in 2006, which was the Mother’s day floods in May of that year. It correlates...there are many examples of a big flood and in the years following that event, you see a huge spawn of bivalves and recruiting into the population, as predators go away and the oysters do really well. But it’s temporary. 49

Kalle: Another graph from the 2012 Data Report. 50

Kalle: This graph comes from Robert’s thesis showing adults in relation to spat. The numbers going off the chart. Cory Riley: Can you tell me what this is supposed to show someone reading the SOOE in terms of the relationship. Kalle: Good question. Maybe it’s too much for the SOOE. There’s really no connection between spat and number of adults. May be confusing. Ray: This communicates what’s going on from a population perspective. Rich: Looking at the huge peak in 2005/6 spat fall, taking into account the storms that we had. Scouring could have created more available substrate. I remember that the clam flats below the Oyster River dam after the storm were just gone! Cory: For me, as a manager, you want to frame what the key factors are and then present the numbers. I get confused looking at this graph . For a manager who isn’t thinking about population dynamics, I’m not sure if you want to include it. Ray: I wouldn’t give you this graph. I’d give you the graph showing disease in relation to adult densities. That’s the take-home message. Kevin Sullivant: I agree with Cory…if you can’t show a strong correlation between spat and adult standing stock then it’s confusing to show the spat. Robert: I agree with what folks are saying. The main point with these figures, in terms

• f my thesis, was to show source-sink dynamics. For example, in the Squamscott,

51

larvae might spend more time in the estuary, in other places they might be swept out to sea. I was trying to get a handle on that. 51

52 Ray Grizzle presenting on behalf of himself and Krystin Ward…

Ray: Oyster reef restoration: working under the goals from PREP, which is 20 restored acres by 2020. When I use restore, I put it in quotes because what that means is that we we worked in a particular area (1.5 acres) and we’ve done restoration activities. It’s not then a restored natural reef. We don’t go back to make sure it’s actually functioning because no one pays for us to look at it again. In terms of Oyster mapping, we characterize extent and condition of natural oyster reefs, and this provides information for enhancement of restoration methods. 53

Ray: This shows a summary of oyster restoration efforts. Note that pre-2009 work was mainly experimental scale aimed at testing and developing methods. From 2009 going forward, the efforts are mainly full scale and collaborative (UNH, TNC, farmers). Before 2009 it was NOAA and some PREP money. Assessment of restoration success involves measurement of oyster reef areal coverage, reef height, oyster density, and oyster size. These are the metrics to measure how successful a project was. The table shows a list of collaborative projects supported by TNC. Key is to look at the column labelled “2015 % shell cover.” In some cases they are completely mudded

• ver from sediment. Sedimentation is a major factor in success or failure.

Kalle: When you and Ray Konisky were developing these plans, what would have been a good story for that column? What sort of percent shell cover were you looking for? Ray: We would shoot for 25% as anunofficial goal. Kalle: So, at this point, it looks like we have reached your goal at 3 out of 10 sites. 54

Ray: You saw this slide earlier. It shows in yellow the natural areas and, in red, the restoration areas. 55

Ray: This slide just goes through our process for restoration. If you zoom in on the picture at the uppermost right, the orange circles are areas we’ve identified near the reef that has some amount of shell. 56

Ray: This slide shows details on reef mapping to assess restoration success. The small circles show ship tracks; the yellow polygon is natural reef, and the pink shows where clams shells were used. 57

Ray: The Future of Oyster Restoration? First bullet on the slide…constructing reef base with achieve vertical height at least 0.3 m over as much of the site to get over the sediment. A note about the third bullet…when Robert did his masters thesis, he found essentially that the vast majority of the settlement occurred with in 1/2km of the

• reef. This is a major finding and he’s presented at a few national meetings. It’s

surprising because the larvae spend 2-3 weeks in the water column and, apparently, a lot of them don’t leave home. They might be attracted to the area. In terms of the monitoring protocol (bullets 4 through 6), we need to do better on the uncertainty level in terms of mapping. We also need a long term monitoring plan. I would also say that there’s no need for the ecosystem to distinguish between restoration vs. natural. People want numbers such as “20.1 acres restored,” but it’s not always that simple. I think that we need to be a little looser in the counting or have more footnotes. For example, “This is a restoration site of 2.3 acres but we only have X % coverage.” We need to distinguish uncertainty and quality of the restoration of the site. 58

Ray: This slide shows a summary of oyster mapping efforts between 1997-2012. As you can see, at Adam’s Point, we found a new area that we hadn’t been out to near Woodman Point, and that added significantly to the number of acres at that site. That shows that we have never really understood the spatial extent of the oyster resource. For example, we’ve never been up in Cocheco looking at the hard bottom area in that

• tributary. PREP should figure out how we can do a better job of understanding the

spatial extent of the resource. I’ll point out we are at about 120 acres. Rich: I just want to point out that, in the last SOOE, all of the indicators, except for

• ysters, were reported on in terms of a % increase or decrease. When it comes to

how things are reported we need to keep that in mind…being consistent. 59

Ray: Whether we’re doing sonar or towed underwater video, or some combination of the two, we need to be doing a good survey every 5 years. I think we need to combine oyster mapping with oyster sampling in order to better quantify overall resource. Include oyster restoration areas and oyster farms in overall resource assessments that now focus on natural reefs. Finally, consistent funding is required to do these things the way they need to be done. Cory: I didn’t know the mapping was so difficult. Is it a matter of having better technology to get a good baseline and then follow up every 5 years. Or do you feel you have a good baseline? Ray: The latter. We can always make improvements but I think the system works. The key is to reconfirm the spatial extent of the resource every 5 years. We also know some new areas to add to our inventory. Kalle: You mentioned the Cocheco earlier. That’s an area we need to explore? 60

Ray: Yes. I would go out there and first look on the outside of the revier bends, where the river meanders. That’s where the most flow and the most oxygen is. Rich: Those areas are the most scoured as well and that makes it easier for oysters. 60

Kalle: I’d like to spend the rest of our time trying an exercise. The goal of the exercise is create a list of stressors/impediments to oyster health. (If we had more time, we would do this same exercise for clams, but…) These should be things that, from a management standpoint, we could see building an “objective” around. For example, we all have recognized that disease is a real

• problem. It’s conceivable that we might want to build some objective around how to

address disease. (Note to people who were not in attendance: In the slide above, the information was added during the group discussion. The table was blank, except for the headers, before the discussion began.) Please remember that the actual choice of what actions to implement is not only a scientific decision; it’s also a values-based decision. Therefore, this group will focus

• n the scientific justification for different actions, and we will ignore the values-based

tradeoffs that, ultimately, need to be part of this conversation. David Patrick: Hate to suggest adding additional columns, but it might be a good idea 61

to add certainty. Kalle: Agreed. So, let’s start with the first stressor, which I’ll suggest is disease, since we’ve talked about it so much. I think we all agree that it has a “high” impact on

• ysters. From what I’ve heard, however, it’s amenability to management is ”low.”

Rich: Not sure the “amenable to management” is low; it could be medium depending

• n the approach. i.e. spawning stock biomass...there are ways to use disease resistant
• ysters...may not be the answer....but may lead to more spawning opportunities. May

be able to overcome some of that impact of disease. Ray: Getting them into the population permanently is the problem. We’ve used the larvae from the disease resistant strain.The larvae got out there but they’ve died off. If we tie that to farms, and they were encouraged to purchase fast growing and disease resistant seed then it would be helpful, perhaps. Stressor: Available Substrate—shell or some other hard substance Kalle: OK, I think I heard a suggestion that “available substrate” for spat to settle on should be next. Ray, give us a sense on 1-10 scale for impact on oysters for this

• stressor. Let’s say that disease would be 9 or a 10, so available substrate would be

what for an impact? Ray: Could be just as high. Rich: I agree. Ray: Now, we can supplement available substrate, with surf clam and other shell. One idea is to set up a consistent program for shelling and then that shell could be going right back into the estuary. Some states do that. Money is needed. Amenable to management: Kalle: So, for “amen to management”… Ray: “High” and we can do something about it. It takes money and getting everyone

• n the same page and collaborating. Restaurants recycling, distributing it, monitoring

and deciding where it goes. Doug: I’m feeling more cautious about it. We can put all sort of shell in the esutary, but is it something that’s always going to have an impact? Is there going to be restoration of oyster reefs in the area? You could blanket the area, but you won’t get settlement everywhere. Argue it’s more medium. Paul (Normandeau): Is the available substrate saturated? Ray: No, it’s not necessarily limiting. Didn’t mean to imply that we coat the whole estuary in shell. Instead we need to use Robert’s work to assess where the best places to put it are. Rich: Doug has a point…putting shell down doesn’t mean more oysters. You also need 61

more oyster larvae, which is directly tied to spawning biomass. Fred: With increased aquaculture haven’t we got more spawning stock? Ray: Yes, in theory we do. We just put out spawn collectors around the farms, for

• example. Im guessing that we are heading in that direction, but we don’t understand

how Little Bay is connected to Nannie Island, for example. Maybe it isn’t? It would be good to know more about how the larvae distribute themselves, building on Robert’s work. Fred: If you take the example of the Mother’s Day 2006 fund and that massive spawning event...with enough shell would that be enough to have an impact. Ray: yes, but only for three years because of the shortened life spant. Fred: But in that period, those oysters would spawn... Ray: Yes, you have enhanced ecosystems services for 3 years...we don’t know how to extend that beyond 3 years. David: I thin this group knows this but I just want to emphasize that any action with regard to increasing substrate would be a nuanced one, taking into account that there are certain places where this will work and others where it won’t have much impact. As Ray said earlier, the idea would be to build on Robert’s work to try out some ideas. Kalle: OK, next stressor. I’ve heard a couple of suggestions that sedimentation could be the next one. Stressor: Sedimentation Rich: In a way, this is hard to separate from available substrate. Kalle: Understood. Well, let’s start with impact. Ray? Impact: Ray: I think it’s high. It kills the oysters we put out there for restoration sites. Whether it affects the oysters that are there now I’m not sure it does. What’s there now is adapted somewhat. There is sediment in the estuary that moves around in different storm events, and there is sediment that comes in from the landscape. I think it’s as wide spread and pervasive as disease. Kalle: You say the oysters try to adapt to sediment? How so? Ray: Using adaptation in two ways. Not genetically, but rather in the short term. When they are beginning to be affected by sediment, they’ll change their shape; they’ll have a higher shell height but be thinner. They’ll also stack up vertically to race against the sediment that’s trying to bury them. If the sediment mostly comes from

• ne direction, the oysters will grow away from that direction.

Kalle: You mentioned that the sediment can be coming from the tributaries and from 61

the land or that it could be just resuspended from within the estuary. You said we just don’t know...? Ray: You could call Larry Ward, but I don’t think we have enough data for that answer. Paul Stacey: If we could get oysters to some critical mass....might that control the sedimentation effect? Ray: I’m not sure. I think lack of hard substrate is what limits it. Amenable to management: Rich: We need a sediment budget. We can affect the amount coming in with stormwater management, but we won’t be able to control what’s moving around within the estuary. Robert: Depends on the structure of the oyster reef. Squamscott oysters are more vertical and can outpace the sediment. Those that are more bed like and less reef like can be smothered. Paul S.: Budget is important, but we need to look at it from a whole-ecosystem

• perspective. More sediment might actually be better for sea level rise and salt marsh
• accretion. Little hard to have this discussion in single species management.

Kalle: Yes and I appreciate your point. Doug: I think the amenable to management question has real question marks on it until we find out more about how the sediment is moving around. David: We need to recognize that we have a dynamic system, some areas will be resilient (where we have scour on a more common basis), my sense is that it’s not a bay that’s filling up but rather that the sediment is moving around. We need to have enough oysters out there so we can survive and take advantage of the stochastic

• events. Major spatial component to consider in the sediment budget.

Kalle: OK, and the next stressor can be ”harvesting.” Stressor: Harvest. Impact: Ray: I would say that harvest can potentially has a great effect. If F&G issued 1,500 licenses we would run out of oysters really quick. But we aren’t. Fish and Game has reduced amount you can take from 1 bushel down to ½ bushel and that was a step in the right direction. Personally, I would want to consider eliminating all recreational harvest until we see some recovery. On the other hand, I have to admit that we have some sites where harvesting has been eliminated, and they aren’t appreciably better than the others. It is “amenable to management” in the context of trying some

• experiments. For example, we could say that half of Nannie Island is harvest-free and

see what happens. Rich: I would actually say that harvest’s impact is Low. Yes, harvest has negative 61

impacts because it can reduce the three dimensionality of the reef. But it also has positive impacts because it removes some of the sediment. In Long Island Sound, they drag an open bag over the reefs to turn the shell over and release some of the

• ysters. I would put spawning stock biomass above that in terms of the importance of

the stressor. Bruce: Agree with Rich. Don’t think harvest is all that negative. Kevin: Harvest is complicated. There’s the actual take and then there’s the effect on how vertical the reef is. But overall, I agree with Rich and Bruce. Doug: From my point of view, compared to disease and available substrate, harvest is “low.” Paul Stacey: Sounds like we are moving toward intensive management of oyster reefs and aquaculture. Perhaps we need to think about a complicated approach to controlling harvest, similar to the way apple orchards are managed. Amendable to management: High. All in agreement. Kalle: Ok, let’s have the next stressor be ”low levels of spawning stock biomass.” Stressor: Spawning Stock Biomass Impact: Rich: What we’re really talking about here is: Number of oysters old enough to

• spawn. And I would say this is a “High” impact stressor.

Kevin: Clarification, spawning stock biomass sounds like it’s very connected to some

• f our previous stressors.

Rich: It’s definitely iterative. If you have a lot of available substrate and you don’t have a lot of sediment, but you don’t have a lot of larvae you won’t have a lot of spat and adult oysters. Kalle: Do we have evidence that this is a limitation? Or are we just reminding

• urselves that we need to include this in the equation?

Ray: The data we have is actually an indirect measure. We have data on recruited spat; oo one is looking for larvae in the water column. For the larvae, there are physical, chemical factors, and they all control spawning stock biomass. Kalle: So you’d say it’s high...? Ray: I’m not sure. It feels a little different than the others on the list. Doug: I would consider it high if there was a direct relationship between spawning stock biomass and recruitment and number of spat that we measure. Yes, it’s Iimportant to have a minimum spawning stock biomass. Rich: Hate to be cliché, but this is a chicken and egg conversation. If you don’t have 61

these things (spawners and substrate) you won’t change the size of the oyster population. Paul Stacey: Just want to add that Long Island Sound did a lot of work with oysters and intensive aquaculture management…could be a model for Great Bay. 61

Kalle: We’ve run out of time, but I just wanted to show what we would have done, had we another hour or so. We could take one of those stressors...and talk about some of those actions. Talk about how robust this relationship is between harvest and oyster

• numbers. What do we know and what do we not know? If you wouldn’t

mind, write on the evaluation your thoughts on this step we did as a group and what we would have done next. Was it useful? Productive? Please take 3 mins to jot down your thoughts on the evaluation sheet we handed out. 62

Kalle: Just reviewing what we covered today. 63

Kalle: Thanks everyone for your time. 64