EPA 903-R-00-005
                       CBP/TRS 238-00

            -^AiR-ake Bay

             March 2000

       On January 13 and 14, 2000, the Chesapeake Bay Program cosponsored an Oyster
Restoration Workshop in Waldorf, MD to enable scientists, managers, watermen and other
members of the Chesapeake Bay community to exchange and review information that ultimately
will lead to revisions of the Aquatic Reef Habitat Plan and the Oyster Management Plan. The
workshop also was sponsored by members of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, NOAA
Chesapeake Bay Office, Maryland Sea Grant and the Virginia Sea Grant.
       More than 100 people attended the workshop. Participants included scientists from
universities and nonprofit organizations; managers from federal, state and local governments;
watermen; and other members of the community interested in oyster restoration and management.
On the first day, speakers gave presentations on oyster status and trends, restoration techniques,
shell supply and hatchery function. During the second day participants discussed and came to
consensus on several significant issues, components of reef design; the need for sanctuaries in
restoration strategies (understanding that reserve areas  are a necessary component of oyster
restoration, and that reserve areas  should include managed harvest); the importance of and
strategies for minimizing the spread of oyster disease; research and monitoring priorities; the
economic and ecological benefits of oyster restoration;  and the need to conserve shell supply.
       This workshop style-in which as many stakeholders and experts as possible were invited
to address key questions over a two-day period-resulted in a very successful forum. The present
model is offered as a tool to address additional complex management questions regarding the
Chesapeake Bay.
       This summary reverses the order of the proceedings by presenting the results of the two-
day workshop first, then charting in greater detail the process that yielded those results. Therefore
we begin with the consensus statements that evolved from the workshop presentations and
discussions. These are followed by formal abstracts and editors' notes  of the presentations that
took place the previous day, which laid the groundwork for the consensus statements.


The following statements were developed during discussions that took place on January 14, 2000,
the second day of the workshop. These statements indicate the areas of strongest consensus and
highest priority with respect to future achievements in oyster restoration.
The oyster goal in the most recent draft of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement reads as follows: "By
2010, achieve, at a minimum, a tenfold increase in oysters in the Chesapeake Bay, based upon a
1994 baseline. By 2002, develop and implement a strategy to achieve this increase by using
sanctuaries sufficient in size and distribution, aquaculture and other management approaches
necessary to achieve this objective.

       Participants of this workshop agree that the oyster goal should emphasize oyster reef
       habitat as its focus and further recognize that the oyster goal should incorporate the
       ecological and economic benefits of oysters.

       Sanctuaries are a necessary component of oyster restoration.  Sanctuaries help ensure
       long-term growth and protection of the large oysters that provide increased fecundity and
       may lead to the development of more disease-tolerant oyster populations.  Sanctuaries
       also provide stable habitat and the opportunity for complex biological structure
       development and will serve as a source of larvae for harvestable beds.

              Ten percent of the historic productive oyster reef acreage should be placed in
              protected sanctuary areas. Historically productive areas should be identified using
              Winslow, Yates and Baylor surveys.

              Sanctuary areas should be managed for maximum ecological benefit and for
              genetic health. They should be harvest-free areas and be closed to bottom-
              disturbing gear.  The objective within sanctuaries should be to establish self-
              sustaining reefs.

              Sanctuaries should exist as a network of sites. Larval dispersal should be a
              consideration when determining sites for sanctuaries.

              Restoration in the form of reef construction should occur within sanctuaries.

              Information on the existence and location of sanctuary areas should be publicized
              and given to the recreational and commercial fishing community.  Sanctuary areas
              should be clearly marked.

              Sanctuaries should be placed in areas with high recruitment or should be stocked
              with hatchery seed in areas with good larval retention but low or infrequent

              Sanctuaries should be located in diverse salinity zones. Different restoration
              strategies should be used in varying salinities.
       The shape and design of a reef should meet what is called optimal relief criteria (ORC).
       ORC is a comprehensive and flexible definition that considers such issues as the efficient
       use of resources, water depth, available natural relief and habitat benefits. Reefs should
       have sufficient vertical relief so that oyster recruitment, growth and survival outpace local
       sedimentation. Relief should provide elevation above low oxygenated areas.

       The ORC and optimal size of a reef within a sanctuary will vary from site to site.

       The definition of ORC may vary  among sanctuaries and harvest areas.

       Interstitial space is important for  early  survival of oysters and the development of benthic
       communities. The amount of interstitial space needed depends on the desired outcome of
       an individual reef.  A minimal depth of 15 to 20 cm of interstitial space  is recommended
       for maximum ecological benefit.

      Some sites may need replication  to determine methods to improve restoration.

       Of the materials tested so far, oyster shell provides the best substrate.

       The amount of oyster fossil shell  and fresh oyster shell (i.e. cultch) is limited and must be
       used as wisely as possible.

      Alternative materials, especially for the reef core, need to be further explored. Alternative
       non-toxic materials can be used in the  core to provide vertical structure. The  external
       layer of the reef must be a material that provides optimal substrate for oyster settlement
       and survival.

       Discretion must be used in the selection of alternative materials to avoid contamination of
       the Bay.

      A Baywide monitoring effort, including stock assessment, is necessary to track progress of
       the tenfold goal.  The discussion of whether population estimates should be relative or
       absolute numbers remains unresolved.

              Monitoring should be focused on the benefits or goals specific to each site.

              Monitoring should be spatially explicit, quantitative and directed toward answering
              questions relevant for adaptive management, with an objective to improve
              restoration strategies.

              Monitoring at some sites should include assessments of the ecological functioning
              of reefs.

      Oyster diseases, including MSX and Dermo, pose major obstacles to the success of
       restoration strategies.

              The movement of disease should be minimized as much as possible.

              Managers should adopt a policy to "know what you move"; the infection rate and
              location of transplanted oysters should be tracked.

              In areas of low salinity and low recruitment only uninfected oysters should be

      Hatcheries and buy-back options can help  supplement natural recruitment.

      Efforts should be made to maintain genetic diversity in hatchery and stocking efforts
       through multiple spawns or other guidelines.

      Wild strains should be used whenever possible during stocking.

       Managers should adopt a policy to keep track of "what goes where." Oyster location
       should be tracked from hatchery source to site planting.

      The role of hatcheries may include providing a "jumpstart" for restored reefs, providing
       disease-free stock, providing a means for experimentation, and assisting in increasing

       Develop hydrodynamic models and other necessary means to further understand larval


       Further develop an understanding of how reef structure and placement in the landscape
       affect reef function. Understand the issue of cost versus ecological benefits with respect to
       the different techniques of vertical relief utilization.

       Conduct research to support the development of components for optimal relief criteria.

       Develop an estimate of how much cultch is needed and how long the fossil shell supply
       will last.

       Develop alternative reef construction materials.

       Define low-level disease. Better understand the threshold between infection and mortality.

       Understand the relationship between oyster population density and biological function.

       Aim to understand the interaction potential between non-Chesapeake Bay stock and wild

The following abstracts were provided to workshop participants. The presentation notes are based
on the general discussion and comments that took place during and following each presentation,
and do not exclusively reflect the recommendations of their respective presenters.


Dr. Roger Mann (presenter), Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), Gloucester Point, VA;
Dr. James Wesson, Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC)

       Prior to 1994 oyster management in Virginia was affected in the absence of data on
standing  stock of oysters on the public oyster (Baylor) grounds. Prior monitoring efforts by both
VIMS and VMRC provided a broad spatial and temporal record of oyster stocks in the form of
shellstring surveys (settlement) and dredge surveys (semi-quantitative studies expressing data on a
per-bushel basis). These data were, however, of limited value in developing long-term restoration
plans for the Virginia oyster resource where the foremost driving principle was to effect no net
loss of standing stock over each annual cycle of restoration and fishing activity.
       In the fall of 1993 a joint VEVIS-VMRC effort was initiated to develop a standing  stock
estimate for the major oyster resources in Virginia waters. Known oyster resources were

identified.  Stratified random surveys were effected for major oyster resources in the James River,
and supplemented over time with similar surveys in the Rappahannock, Piankatank and Great
Wicomico Rivers, Tangier Sound and other selected regions in the mainstem of the Chesapeake
Bay. Hydraulically operated patent tongs were the sampling instrument of choice, providing
a large (one-meter-square) sampling area per grab with adequate penetration of the substrate to
include buried shell within the sample. Each sample provided information of absolute numbers of
oysters per square meter, demographics of the population, quantitative information on recent
mortality, and abundance data for shell substrate.
       The fall 1999 continuance of the patent tong standing-stock survey represents the seventh
year in an uninterrupted series of annual oyster surveys designed to estimate standing stock in
absolute terms, and to provide for sensible management of the resource as a joint effort in both
supporting  the fishery and  rebuilding the stock over a decade time period. The substantial
database also provides, as will be illustrated in the presentation,  signals that demonstrate the
positive effects of shell supplementation on productive reefs, the impact of summer freshets,
small-scale variability in both recruitment and growth along environmental clines, and interannual
variability in non-fishing mortality.  The database represents nearly 5,000 stations sampled over
the seven-year time period, and can be used as an example of how effectively to optimize
sampling design.

Presentation Notes:

              Speaker cautioned against placing oysters where they have not successfully grown
              or developed over time.

              Commented that we are trying to control harvest when that is a small part of
              variability, a small proportion of the signal-unfortunately, it is nearly the only
              variable we can control.

              Recommends focusing on numbers and size frequency distributions; and spending
              more time focusing on shell volume, because increases in clean shell yield record
              spat sets.

              To maintain oyster habitat, we must keep track of absolute numbers of oysters by
              size class, by region or reef system, over time-and the rest is a management
              decision. Data should be used to support management decisions.

              Must also consider population dynamics models to understand the relationship of
              the presence of oysters now to presence of oysters in subsequent years.

              Recommends building population dynamics model: numbers are what we need. If
              we're going to set specific goals we must have accurate data.


POPULATIONS. 1990-1999

Dr. Stephen J. Jordan
Maryland Department of Natural Resources

       In 1990 Maryland initiated new protocols for monitoring oyster populations. The
traditional Fall Oyster Survey, comprised of annual dredge samples from hundreds of oyster bars,
was amended to include replicate sampling, size frequency and disease data from a fixed group of
43 oyster bars selected to be representative of all  oyster-producing areas in Maryland's
Chesapeake Bay. This enhanced survey provides  consistent information on spatial patterns and
trends in recruitment, pathology, mortality and population size structure. The data also support
fishery-independent estimates of fishing mortality, and calculation of trends in relative biomass
and abundance for the population. In the early 1990s, market-sized oysters were depleted by
concurrent outbreaks of MSX and Dermo diseases. A heavy spat set in 1991 and moderate spat
set in 1992  resulted in a modest recovery in the abundance of larger oysters by the mid-1990s.
Near-record spat densities were observed in 1997, but in 1999 Dermo and MSX infections
returned to the peak levels of 1992. Spat set in  1999 was moderate Baywide, but heavy in a few
areas. Maryland oyster landings reached a historic low of about 70,000 bushels in the 1993-1994
season, then rebounded to more than 400,000 bushels in the 1998-1999 season. The status of the
population and fishery landings over the next few years will depend on survival of the 1997 year
class and subsequent recruitment.

Presentation Notes:

              Dredge data can provide most of the required information except absolute abundance.

              Argues that if we want tenfold increase, must reckon it on a biomass basis;  can do it
              on a relative basis but not necessarily  on  absolute numbers-can follow trends based
              on historical data.

              Oysters showed a modest recovery between 1993 and 1998, but it's unclear whether
              the recovery will continue.

              MSX and Dermo were rampant  in  1999-we expect to see  this translate into a
              significant problem next year. Mortality will likely increase if the drought continues.

              When oysters are first exposed to disease, we see 80 percent to 90 percent mortality;
              this drops in subsequent years to between 40 percent and 60 percent. It is unknown
              whether this is tolerance or resistance.

              It was noted by the audience that the largest oysters are important for fecundity and

              disease resistance; a buy-back program was suggested as one management possibility.

              As shell decreases, the spat declines.

Dr. Eugene M. Burreson, VIMS

       During the years 1996-98 significant declines in Haplosporidium nelsoni (MSX) and
Perkinsus marinus (Dermo) prevalences were observed throughout the Chesapeake Bay, and
important successes in oyster restoration efforts occurred. This reprieve from disease pressure
was due to climatic fluctuations that resulted in high streamflows yielding low salinities and
relatively cool temperatures.  In 1999, we observed a dramatic resurgence of both diseases as
environmental conditions once again promoted the proliferation and spread of the pathogens.
Unusually warm temperatures were observed throughout the year. Weekly average water
temperature recorded in the lower York River (YR) at VIMS exceeded long-term averages more
than 80 percent of the time. Based on the long-term average, one would expect to see winter
water temperatures remain below 5.0C for a period of eight weeks; however, in 1999 weekly
water temperature averages never went below 6.0C.  In addition to being warm,  1999 was
extremely dry. Continuing a trend that began in the summer of 1998,  estimated streamflow
entering Chesapeake Bay in 1999 was below average for  all months except September and
October, and monthly streamflows for May and June were the lowest recorded during the 48-year
monitoring period.
       As a consequence of the relatively warm temperatures and high salinities, severe
epizootics of both H.  nelsoni and P. marinus occurred in  most tributaries in Virginia and in
several areas in Maryland. In the upper James River, Virginia, prevalences and intensities of P.
marinus were the highest on record.  The proportion of advanced infections (moderate and heavy
intensity) in October was as high as 60 percent at Wreck  Shoal and 48 percent at Horsehead Rock
and significant mortalities occurred in these areas.  Record high levels of P. marinus were also
observed in Virginia's other major tributaries and prevalences exceeding 90 percent were
observed in many  areas in the upper Bay. Haplosporidium nelsoni was not nearly as widely
distributed as P. marinus; however, it was observed at record high levels in many areas.
Particularly hard-hit was the Great Wicomico River, where, in midsummer, MSX prevalences
were as high as  64 percent, and extensive oyster mortalities occurred.  Relatively high prevalences
of//, nelsoni were also observed in the Rappahannock River. The parasite was found at lower
prevalences in most other Virginia tributaries and in several upper Bay areas.
       The resurgence of oyster disease in the Chesapeake Bay in 1999 underscores how quickly
the diseases can intensify in the wake of favorable environmental conditions and how unlikely is
disease eradication. Given the serious impact that oyster  disease has on Chesapeake Bay oyster
populations, it must remain a critical factor for consideration when developing oyster restoration

strategies. Especially important is the avoidance of the movement of infected seed or when
movement of infected seed is unavoidable there should be an appreciation of the disease status in
the transfer area and of the consequences of the transfer.

Presentation Notes:
             If we continue to consume all the large (potentially disease-resistant) oysters, we can
              not study them.

              Purpose should not be to eliminate disease but to restore population.

              Must not let setbacks deter overall efforts.

              Restoration strategies must take disease into account.

              It is not necessary to move seed in order to restore reefs.

Dr. William Hargis, Jr. (Presenter), Sharon Dewing, Helen Woods, and Dexter S. Haven,
Virginia Institute of Marine Science.

       Colonists and colonial travelers reported emerging or up thrusting oyster "shoals" in the
James River estuary (Wharton 1957). Apparently, the earliest chart showing such shoals was that
of Robert Tindall (1607).
       Following the lead of aborigines Europeans harvested oysters from those shoals with little
impact on oyster populations or their favored micro- or macro-habitats - the shoals. As numbers
of Europeans and their harvesting technologies improved adverse impacts began to appear.
       Some 200n years after European settlement of the Chesapeake region Virginia (1811) and
Maryland (1820) banned use of oyster dredges. Though dredging was later reinstated these
actions are taken as a clear sign that both states recognized the fact of overharvesting.  Their
corrective responses were  superficial. Market-oyster production continued to decline.  The true
causes of its decline were either not recognized or ignored.
       Stevenson (1894) called the oyster bars, beds or rocks of the upper Chesapeake system
reefs. Further, he recognized that destruction of those reefs by oyster-harvesting and shell-mining
were predominant factors in reducing market-oyster production.
       This finding was largely ignored by managers and scientists until recently.  Today, the
importance of the reefs and their  structure and associated benefits tot he well-being of the oyster
populations that established and maintained them  seems widely recognized. Questions exist as to
what should be done next.
       To help resolve them we seek useful clues from historical records and charts. This report


describes our studies of the historical bottom features of the James, most productive and
persistent of lower-Bay oyster-producing estuaries and other once-productive Bay tributaries.
       Using accepted computer-imaging techniques employed in VIMS' GIS program we are
construction 3-dimensional bathymetric maps of the James and other estuaries. Our objective is
to learn what those bathymetric reconstruction can tell us about where and ho reef restoration -
or - construction efforts should be conducted.
Presentation Notes:

              Speaker emphasized that "Disease is a red herring that nature has thrown at oyster

             Navigation charts are an essential tool for oyster restoration.

             The precarious state  of the oyster resource showed that oysters declined before
              disease arrived.  The year 1884 was peak production Baywide, 1904  was peak
              production in Virginia.  MSX didn't show up in MD until the 1960s.

             Speaker reviewed the history of reefs in Maryland and Virginia according to maps
              ranging from Tindall's (1607) through the present.

              Since it's nearly impossible to shut down the commercial fishery, we must establish
              sanctuaries, broodstock reserves, spawning reefs. Hargis described a model with
              vertical sanctuary reefs in the middle, serving as a broodstock reserve, surrounded by
              harvestable areas.

             The oyster population has been reduced primarily due to harvesting and shell mining.
              Disease is a secondary cause for decline that has been accelerated by a reduced quality
              gene pool due to over-harvesting.

             Reef restoration is probably the only way to rebuild beds.

             Reefs provide important ecological habitat. Reef dimension is an essential component
              of restoration.



Dr. Mark Luckenbach, VIMS

       As efforts proceed to rehabilitate oyster reef habitat, it will be important to optimize the
use of limited shell resources.  Much of the discussion to date has focused on the efficacy of
planting shells in two-dimensional (low relief) versus three-dimensional (high relief)
configurations. I contend that this dichotomy is an oversimplification and that we need to begin
to consider specific aspects of reef architecture that promote oyster survival and growth. In that
regard, there is clear evidence that interstitial space, to a depth of at least 15 cm, is important in
enhancing the survival of new oyster recruits. Evidence from experiments conducted on shell-
based reefs and from experimental reefs that vary in construction material (and hence the amount
of interstitial space) clearly demonstrates that adequate sub-surface space within the interstices of
a reef is necessary to achieve even modest survival of new oyster recruits. Similarly, there is clear
evidence from several environments that vertical relief of substrate, both in relation to the seabed
and tidal elevation, can affect the growth, survival, disease dynamics and reproductive output of
oysters.  Some of the effects are likely habitat-specific, but all studies to date indicate enhanced
performance with increased elevation above the seabed as a result of increased food flux, reduced
sedimentation and/or reduced low oxygen stress. A review of oyster stock assessment data from
Virginia reveals an order of magnitude greater number of oysters per unit area reaching market
size on high-relief reefs (~ 2 - 4 m) than on low-relief reefs (-10-20 cm). However, the same
data normalized to the volume of shell required to create the habitats reveal similar oyster
abundances (< 1.0 market-sized oyster per bushel of shell) in each habitat type.
       The take-home message is that if our goal is to maintain short-term fisheries production, it
may be sufficient to spread shell resources thinly and harvest oysters as they reach market size.
This approach may in fact be sustainable, but only with continued high inputs of resources (i.e.,
shell and oyster seed).  Alternatively, if our goal is to rehabilitate reef habitats, restore self-
supporting oyster populations and develop a cost-effective sustainable fishery, we will need to
initiate habitat restoration with appropriately scaled, architecturally complex reef bases and
manage oysters in a fashion which permits them to complete the process of building biogenic

Presentation Notes:
              Interstitial space is an important component in oyster reefs.

              An experiment comparing substrates of ash or clam found that more spat survive
              on oyster substrate.

             Elevation above seabed affects growth,  survival and possibly disease dynamics.
              This may be because oysters can avoid hypoxia.  Also, there is increased flow and
              flux of food and decreased sedimentation.


              Relief should be high enough to provide habitat and to outpace sedimentation.

              Speaker believes that the enhanced settlement, growth and survival of oysters on
              high-relief, structurally complex reefs compensates for the "wasted shell."

             Harvest is one part of the system we can control, but is a small signal of variability.

             How frequently should shell be replaced is a question that remains unresolved; it
              depends on site-specific goal.

              Oyster reefs are biogenic (i.e., formed by organisms) structures.  Ultimately,
              "construction" of reefs must be done by oysters; our role in this process is to
              provide some substrate-and sometimes oysters-to jump-start the process.

Chris Judy, Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MD DNR)

       Maryland's historic oyster bars were once heavily populated by oysters, resulting in
ecologically valuable reef communities. Over thousands of years these oyster populations had
built up large-scale, three-dimensional underwater "hills"(reefs). Those hills mostly remain today,
as confirmed by comparing pre-harvest nautical charts to current bathymetry, but the dense
population of oysters is largely gone, the result of over 100 years of harvesting and disease
mortality during the latter half of the 20th century. The loss of this living veneer of oysters resulted
in a loss of the textured three-dimensional surface produced by the oysters themselves, and helpful
to the associated organisms. Oysters not only need 3-D habitat, they are 3-D habitat. Re-
establishing dense populations of oysters to once again provide a highly textured habitat is
considered important for the Bay.
       Maryland restores reefs by a) constructing man-made shell piles and b)  rehabilitating
natural underwater hills by planting  shell.  Shell piles vary from 30 feet long to  over 100 feet long
and range in height from about 4 feet to over 8 feet. Shells, a valuable and finite resource, in the
interior of the pile are unavailable to spat set.  In response, Maryland has also restored reefs by
spreading shell about 4 inches thick on natural reefs to restore more acres for a given budget. For
the cost of about 1 acre of man-made piles, approximately 8 acres of natural bottom can be
shelled. This natural bottom is three-dimensional on a large scale. Either spat set or seed plantings
on 8 acres will yield more oyster biomass than on 1 acre.
       Maryland will continue to monitor reef projects to biologically and economically evaluate
man-made and natural reef restoration approaches.


Presentation Notes:
             The value of shell and its importance in reestablishing habitat is obvious.  Shell
              supply is limited and must be conserved.

              Presented summaries of Maryland project in Severn River and the Corps of
              Engineers projects in the Chester, Severn, Patuxent, Choptank and Magothy
              rivers. Five sites with shell piles, and two flat areas with natural relief. Naturally
              existing hills (reefs) cost $2,700 per acre; shell piles are $27,000 per acre.

             Discussed older charts and pictures of Tangier Sound off Smith Island; 1870s
              chart. Seventeen-foot depth. Depths are the same in the new charts. Bottom has
              had the same basic contour-nature creates the same shape repeatedly.

Presentation given by Dr. Ken Paynter, University of Maryland (no abstract available).

Presentation Notes:
             Speaker presented results from an Army Corps of Engineers project.

             Three plots were created for each site, with shell bases. Site Fl received 2 million
              per acre hatchery seed and resulted in one hundred market size per meter square
              on Fl plot. Site F2 received 250,000 natural seed and resulted in 10 market size
              per meter square.

             As of May 1999 no Dermo or MSX were detected on sites.

             Speaker showed a video clip of Fl showed three-dimensional reef (which had high
              density of seed from hatchery) with rich diversity of aquatic life, including
              anemones, mud crabs, blue crabs, ctenophores, and pipe fish.

              Video clip of site F2 showed lower density of oysters but using the same shell;
              high sedimentation, very little  relief; the scattered planting didn't develop into a
              complex community.



Presentation by Gary Smith, Oxford Laboratory (no abstract available).

Presentation Notes:
             Speaker presented results from mapping and analysis project. Discussed using
              remote sensing techniques and acoustic sea floor classification systems (ASCS).

              ASCS is accurate and precise, statistically robust, scale relevant, cost-effective,
              with sub-surface capability.  The process allows one to create  cross-section
              image-beam the bottom with generic impulse. Backscatter goes to satellite with
              bottom characteristics.

             This technique may be applied to find shell resources in sediment.

             ASCS can be used to generate charts to determine shell density and depth;
              integration of many data types.


Presentation by Dr. Denise  Breitburg, Academy of Natural Sciences.

       The ecological value of oyster reefs includes their function as feeding, shelter and refuge
habitat for fmfish and crabs. Studies conducted in Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina have
shown that estuarine fish assemblages often are more diverse, and that some individual species are
more abundant, on and adjacent to restored reefs than over unstructured soft bottom sediments.
However, we do not currently have the information needed to predict which characteristics of
reefs maximize their benefit to fish and crab populations in Chesapeake Bay. We also have little
information to determine how the various reef restoration methods differ in value as  fish and crab
habitat. The value of constructed,  restored and protected oyster reefs as fish and crab habitat
should be an important consideration when choosing among the techniques that are beneficial to
oysters, and may provide justification for restoration efforts that are more costly than those
required for oysters alone.
       Researchers in Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina have examined the effect of vertical
relief, reef construction material and salinity on the use of reefs by fish and crabs. The effect of
reef vertical  relief on use by fish and crabs needs more study. There is little data on this issue, and
the results vary somewhat with sampling gear (affecting which species are most easily caught and
whether fish using the reefs in different ways are equally susceptible), and whether the upper parts
of high-relief reefs can serve as a refuge from hypoxic waters. Small-scale vertical relief within
reefs may also enhance their value as settlement habitat for resident reef fishes and as feeding
habitat for fish such as juvenile striped bass that prey on these settling larvae, but there are no data
to suggest how much relief is required to provide these benefits. Field studies in VA have found
that the material used to construct reefs affects the use of those reefs by fish and decapod


crustaceans. Nestlerode and colleagues at VIMS have found that clam shells, which provide little
interstitial space, are not used as extensively by fish as are reefs made from other materials.
Finally, the fish assemblages that use oyster reefs vary with salinity. Maximizing the benefit for
fish assemblages will require the construction of reefs in a variety of salinity zones.
       In addition to refining data on the issues above, a number of other questions should be
addressed if the agreed-upon goal is to maximize the ecological value of restored, constructed and
protected reefs as well as to enhance oyster populations. For example, we do not know how the
placement of reefs within the landscape affects their use by fish and crabs. Structured habitat may
provide important migration corridors for mobile animals that rely on them for food or shelter.
The proximity to other structured habitat, which includes submerged aquatic vegetation as well as
oyster reefs in Chesapeake Bay, may thus influence the value of reefs to fish and crab habitat. We
do not know if the value of a reef is greatest if it lies near other structured habitat or whether it is
more critical to construct reefs where no nearby structured habitat currently exists. Similarly, we
do not know if the size of oyster reefs is consequential to fish. Most commercially and
recreationally important fish and crabs have daily ranges many times the size of reefs currently
constructed. If small size diminishes the value of reefs as fish and crab habitat, it may be more
essential to restore a few large areas than many small areas.  Finally, we need to consider that
reefs affect fish populations through food web interactions even at a distance from the reefs
themselves. If the Bay community proposes to move toward ecosystem management, it will be
important to consider the whole suite of potential effects of oyster reefs on fish and crab
populations-not just their role  as habitat used by fish and crabs.

Presentation Notes:
              Some fish species show a higher abundance around reef habitat compared to soft
              bottom habitat.

             Reef construction material matters in the context of whether it creates efficient
              interstitial space.

              There are insufficient data to determine the importance of large-scale vertical  relief
              to fish  except where high relief provides a refuge from low oxygen in bottom
              waters. Small scale vertical relief within reefs may enhance the habitat value for
              settling fish larvae, and provide feeding sites for juvenile striped bass.

             Reefs should be placed within variety of salinity regimes.
Presentation by Dr. Ken Paynter, University of Maryland (no abstract available).

Presentation Notes:
              Some key questions overlay the role of hatcheries in ecological restoration. These
              include :

                    If you build a structure "will they come"?
                    Should you build it anyway? Is jump-starting a reef with hatchery seed

              Hatcheries play an important role in providing disease-free seed, providing high
              density seed where recruitment is low, and providing an ability to control genetic

Dr. Standish K. Allen, Jr.
Aquaculture Genetics and Breeding Technology Center, VIMS

       One of the far-reaching effects of commercial fisheries is a fundamental shift in the
population genetics of a species. Numerous such cases have been documented in various fisheries
around the world. For oysters of the Chesapeake Bay, there was likely little net effect on
population genetics except to reduce overall population size until the advent of the diseases MSX
and Dermo in the late 1950s. When diseases cropped the effective size of the breeding population
in the Chesapeake Bay, the number of reproductively capable adults was probably low enough so
that harvest from fisheries could make a significant impact, especially acting in concert with
       Diseases act on less robust oysters in the population, leaving hardier, disease-resistant
adults to survive. Normally these hearty adults would reproduce and drive the population to ever-
increasing disease resistance over time, but instead,  they are taken in the fisheries.  In effect then,
both small, susceptible oysters are removed from the population by diseases and large, resistant
ones by fishing.  This is called stabilizing selection and results in decreased genetic variation.  In
particular, it results  in loss of alleles for disease resistance.  Thus it might be argued that the
current natural oyster populations have lost some of their capability  to respond to disease
       Might there  be a role for artificially selected, disease-resistant stocks in oyster reef
restoration? Perhaps if it could be shown that artificially derived strains provided a source  of
larvae to the restored reefs and their surroundings, and that the infusion of disease-resistant alleles
was sufficiently large to bolster disease resistance among natural populations (by interbreeding),
stocking hatchery seed onto reefs would make sense. And then there's the question of whether it
would make sense or be economically feasible to stock reefs with resistant seed on a recurring


Presentation Notes:

              Through artificial selection, disease resistant alleles can be enriched.


Don Meritt (Presenter), Stephanie Tobash and Garry Baptist, University of Maryland, Center For
Environmental Science, Horn Point Laboratory
Jackie Takacs, University of Maryland Sea Grant Extension Program
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory

       Oyster hatcheries have a long history in the Chesapeake Bay region and elsewhere. Until
recently, hatcheries have not been looked upon as major tools in large scale oyster reef restoration
projects due to a perception that they are cost prohibitive. Recent emphasis on utilizing hatchery
technology has demonstrated their ability to produce significant quantities of oyster seed at costs
that are similar to those for more traditional "natural" methods of spat production. Comparisons
are made with cost estimates for natural seed and factors that may further demonstrate the
advantages of hatchery produced seed are discussed.  Improvements in hatchery methods, cultch
handling, and transportation should further reduce the cost of hatchery production making
hatchery seed competitive with natural  seed in many instances.

Presentation Notes:
            Natural seed is most cost-effective when consistent, heavy natural sets occur.

             Hatchery seed is most cost-effective when sets are limited and not dense.

             Current plans to improve hatcheries will make them more cost-competitive.


Chris Judy, MD DNR

       Oyster shell is an essential component of oyster restoration. Two sources of oyster shell
include a) ancient buried deposits from which shells are dredged, b) shucking houses, which
supply shell as a result of oyster processing. Shucked shells are available in limited quantity (about
150,000 bushels in Maryland per year) compared to dredged shells which are very abundant
(more than 2.5 million bushels in Maryland per year).
       Shell dredging began in 1960 and has occurred primarily in Maryland's upper Bay near
TolChester Pooles Island. Since 1960, Maryland has planted approximately 180 million bushels of


shells. The shell dredging areas are nearly exhausted after 40 years. To continue dredging shells,
new areas need to be permitted and access to some old permitted areas needs to be opened.
Permits are increasingly difficult to obtain due to environmental concerns raised by permit
agencies and fishermen. In addition, shell deposits are large scale, natural three-dimensional
structures and dredging them to build very  small scale man-made three dimensional structures is
problematic. Deposits to support future shell dredging exist in the upper Bay north of Pooles
Island, in the upper Potomac River and some locations in Virginia. Acquiring permits will be
       As an alternate to dredging ancient shell deposits, new approaches to supplying shell
involve cleaning exposed shell on  natural bars,  extracting shallow buried shells from oyster bars
and using alternate cultch material (non-shell material). Shell cleaning is done by vacuum
technology in some northern states with success and shell extraction has been tested in Virginia
with favorable results. Alternate cultch materials are usually limited in quantity. Any new
approach will need to provide large scale results (thousands of acres), be  economical and be
"permittable" by regulatory agencies.

Presentation Notes:
             Presented data on shell plantings and costs from 1990-99:  22 million bushels
              planted over 4,000 acres, at a cost of $8 million.

              MD pays for the service:  dredging, washing, transport and planting-but not for the
              shells themselves.

             MD dredges for shells in Upper Bay, where there is low salinity and few oysters.

             The dredging process is controversial. Dredging changes bottom topography,
              some worry about fishery impacts, and the affect of plumes on benthic organisms.
              In some cases more fish are found along the edge of dredged areas rather than in
              undredged areas. Benthic organisms are dramatically affected at first, but quickly

             Alternative cultch materials are being considered.

Dr. Jim Wesson, VMRC

       The availability of shell cultch or other suitable reef building materials will determine how
fast reef restoration can occur.  Shell cultch is available in both Maryland and Virginia from a
number of sources. Fresh-shucked oyster shells currently provide a total Baywide of 600,000 to
800,000 thousand bushels (38,000-50,000 cu. yds.) of cultch. Fresh surf clam, conch and hard


clam shells are available in small quantities, but the availability varies with harvest amounts.
Dredged fossil shells represent the largest potential for cultch and are in deposits throughout
much of the Bay. If properly managed, 6 million to 8 million bushels (400-425 thousand cu. yds.)
could be produced annually from these deposits for many years.  The harvest of these shells
requires an underwater dredging operation with associated environmental impacts that will have
to be balanced with the benefits accrued from habitat improvement that resulting from restored
oyster habitat.
       There is the opportunity to recycle some shells and recapture shells buried a small distance
in the sediment.  The towing of crab or shellfish dredges without the harvesting mesh bag has
been used for many years to turn over shells; however, most quantitative studies have been found
little or no long-term benefit to this practice. Virginia has had some success in recent years with
an hydraulic excavating apparatus that can harvest and relocate slightly buried shell, but this has
mostly only been attempted in small projects.
       All known  sources of shell cultch are limited and may not be sufficient for large-scale,
three-dimensional reef restoration.  Shell cultch will remain a valuable resource and should be
conserved and not wasted for either the core or underlayment of reef restoration projects if
suitable alternatives can be found. Many biologically inert waste products may be available for
these applications and should be tested.  Broken concrete, stabilized coal ash, recycled glass,
vitrious china, other building materials or dredge spoil may be useful as the core or underlayment
for many projects.  These materials may  save valuable shell cultch, while at the same time
reducing construction costs.

       The January 2000 Oyster Restoration Workshop presented an opportunity for many Bay
stakeholders-including scientists, watermen and managers-to discuss and begin to resolve the
fundamental and pressing issues that pertain to oyster restoration, and to build consensus. The
two-day meeting underscored the fact that we share the benefits and responsibilities generated by
this important natural resource. The workshop process enabled participants to reach genuine
consensus on several key issues, and allowed them to exchange information about mutual
concerns and conflicting interests.  Participants also began to identify directions for further
research and to set explicit goals for action.

              Sanctuaries are an essential component of a successful oyster restoration strategy.

              Ten percent of the historic productive oyster reef acreage should be placed in
              protected sanctuary areas.

              Reefs are biogenic and should be managed for maximum ecological benefit.
              To strengthen and add momentum to the progress the workshop generated, we
              recommend that additional workshops be scheduled and conducted to resolve
              remaining issues, such as stock assessment.

              The workshop yielded recommendations for revisions to the Aquatic Reef Habitat
              Plan and should supply additional support for revisions to the Oyster Management

              We hope that the present document can serve to educate and offer support to
              other oyster restoration initiatives.



We thank our generous sponsors for making this workshop possible:

Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Chesapeake Bay Program
Maryland Sea Grant
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Chesapeake Bay Office
Virginia Sea Grant

Living Resources Fellow - Abbie Meador, Chesapeake Research Consortium
Living Resources Writer/Editor - Robin Herbst, University of Maryland

Aquatic Reef Workgroup Members:
Dr. Jim Wesson, Chair, Virginia Marine Resources Commission
Robert Blama, Army Corps of Engineers - Baltimore
Rob Brumbaugh - Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Dr. Denise Breitburg - Academy of Natural Sciences
Arthur Butt - Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Frank Dawson- MD Department of Natural Resources
Mike Fritz - Environmental Protection Agency - CBPO
William Goldsborough - Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Dr. Steve Jordan - MD Department of Natural Resources
Chris Judy - MD Department of Natural Resources
Dr. Mark Luckenbach - VA Institute of Marine Science
Dr. Roger Mann - VA Institute of Marine Science
Dr. Roger Newell - University of Maryland
Richard Takacs - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - CBPO
Wayne Young - Maryland Environmental Service

Cover illustration courtesy of Alice J. Lippson, from Life in the Chesapeake Bay.

This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the above organizations and individuals.

Abbe,  George
Academy of Natural Sciences
10545 Mackall Rd.
St. Leonard, MD 20685

Allen,  Stan
VA Institute of Marine Science
Gloucester Point, VA 23062

E-mail:   ska@VIMS.EDU

Anderson, Dave
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
60 West St.
Annapolis, MD 21401
E-mail:   DAnderson@cbf.org

Bahen,  April
VA Institute of Marine Science
PO Box 1346
Gloucester Point, VA 23062
Oyster Restoration Workshop Registered Attendees
                            Brohawn, Kathy
                            Maryland Department of Environment
                            2500 Broening Highway
                            Baltimore, MD 21224

                            Bruce, David
                            Oxford Laboratory
                            904 S. Morris St.
                            Oxford, MD 21654

                            Brumbaugh,  Rob
                            Chesapeake Bay Foundation
                            142 W. York Street, #318
                            Norfolk, VA 23510
                            E-mail:   rbrumbaugh@savethebay.cbf.org

                            Buchanan, Claire
                            6110 Executive Blvd. Suite 300
                            Rockville, MD 20952
                            E-mail:   cbuchan@potomac-commission.org
Banta, Tammy
Maryland Environmental Service
2011 Commerce Park Dr.
Annapolis, MD  21401

Bisland,  Carin
410 Severn Ave. Suite 109
Annapolis, MD  21403
E-mail:   bisland.carin@epa.gov

Blama, Robert
US Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, MD 21230
E-mail:   robert.n.blama@usace. army. mil

Bohn, Richard
MD Department of Natural Resources
PO Box 150
Piney Point, MD 20674

Breitburg, Denise
Academy of Natural Sciences
10545 Mackall Rd.
St Leonard, MD 20685
E-mail:   breit@acnatsci.org
                            Burreson, Eugene
                            VA Institute of Marine Science
                            PO Box 1346
                            Gloucester Point, VA 23062

                            Butowski, Nancy
                            MD Department of Natural Resources
                            Tawes State Office Bldg., C-2 580 Taylor Ave.
                            Annapolis, MD  21401
                            E-mail:   nbutowski@dnr.state.md.us

                            Butt, Arthur
                            VA Department of Environmental Quality
                            Chesapeake Bay Program, P.O. Box 10009
                            Richmond, VA  232400009
                            E-mail:   ajbutt@deq.state.va.us

                            Byers, Theodore
                            51 N Street NE,  5th floor
                            Washington DC, 20002

                            Callender,  Russell
                            Virginia Sea Grant
                            170 Rugby Rd., PO Box 400146
                            Charlottesville, VA 22904

                            Oyster Restoration Workshop Registered Attendees
Christmas, John                                         Garreis,  Mary Jo
MD Department of Natural Resources                        Chesapeake Appreciation Inc.
416 Chinquapin Round Rd.                                 PO Box 6775
Annapolis, MD  21401                                     Annapolis, MD  21401
E-mail:                                                  E-mail:   garreis@qis.net
Davies, Gene
PO Box 248
La Plata, MD  20646

Dawson, Frank
MD Department of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Bldg., D-2 580 Taylor Ave.
Annapolis, MD 21401
E-mail:   fdawson@dnr.state.md.us

Encomio,  Vincent
VA Institute of Marine Science
Gloucester Pt, VA 23062


Ferrell,  Jeffrey
Oyster Reef Photography
227 Rolling Rd.
Gaithersburg,  MD  20877

Freeland,  Patti
University of Rhode Island
26 Newport Ave. #3
Newport, RI 02840

Freeman,  Judith
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
410 Severn Ave., Suite 107A
Annapolis, MD 21403
E-mail:  judith.freeman@noaa.gov

Frere, Phyllis
6770 Hallowing Point Rd.
Prince Frederick, MD 20678

Fritz, Michael
US Environmental Protection Agency
410 Severn Ave., Suite 109
Annapolis, MD 21403
E-mail:   fritz.mike@epa.gov
Godshall, Allen
VA Marine Resources Commission
BO Box 756
Newport News, VA 23607

Goldsborough, Bill
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
162 Prince George Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
E-mail:   bgoldsborough@savethebay.cbf.org

Gross,  Grant
Sci. Tech. Adv. Comm
Chesapeake Research Consortium, 645 Contees Wharf
Edgewater, MD 21037

Grosse, Daniel
TerrAqua Environmental Sci & Policy
3754 Jennifer St. NW
Washington,  DC  20015

Hargis, Bill
VA Institute of Marine Science
Gloucester Point,  VA 23062


Harris,  Stewart
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
162 Prince George St.
Annapolis, MD 21401

Herbst, Robin
University of Maryland
410 Severn Ave.  Suite 109
Annapolis, MD 21403
E-mail:   herbst.robin@epa.gov

Hess, John
MD Department of Natural Resources - Shellfish
10385 Ralph Abbott Rd.
Deal Island, MD  21821

Hudson,  Jewel
Potomac River Fisheries Commission
PO Box 9
Colonial Beach, VA 22443
Oyster Restoration Workshop Registered Attendees
                             King,  Jamie
                             University of Maryland
                             1105 Primrose Ct. #301
                             Annapolis, MD  21403
                             E-mail:  jking@langheiecology.com
Humbles,  Tom
Maryland Environmental Services
2011 Commerce Park Drive
Annapolis, MD 21401

Jordan,  Steve
MD Department of Natural Resources
904 South Morris Street
Oxford, MD  21654
E-mail:   sjordan@dnr.state.md.us

Judy, Chris
MD Department of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Bldg., C-2 580 Taylor Ave.
Annapolis, MD 21401
E-mail:   cjudy@dnr.state.md.us

Keen, Kenney
2425 Roarty Rd.
Dunkirk, MD 20754

Keiner,  Christine
Johns Hopkins University
3400 Charles St.
Baltimore, MD  21218
E-mail:   ckeiner@j hunix. hcfj hu.edu

Kelly,  Suzanne
Maryland Environmental Services
2011 Commerce Park Drive
Annapolis, MD 21401

Kimball, Dierdre
National Marine Fisheries Service
1 Blackburn Drive
Gloucester, MA 01930
E-mail:   Deirdre.Kimball@noaa.gov

King, Howard
MD Department of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Bldg., E-2 580 Taylor Ave.
Annapolis, MD 21401
                             Klares, Tim
                             8711 Westphalia Rd.
                             Upper Malboro, MD 20774

                             Koles, Tim
                             University of Maryland
                             12452 Painted Horse Trail
                             Lusby, MD 20657

                             Kosenza,  Scott
                             Wicomico Scenic River Commission
                             PO Box 12
                             Mount Victoria, MD 20661

                             Kupfer, Linda
                             NOAA, Sea Grant
                             1315E.W. Highway
                             Silver Spring, MD 20910

                             Leffler, Merrill
                             MD Sea Grant, U of MD
                             0112 Skinner Hall
                             College Park, MD 20742
                             E-mail:  leffler@mdsg.umd.edu

                             Luckenbach, Mark
                             VA Institute of Marine Science
                             P.O. Box 1346
                             Gloucester Point, VA 23062
                             E-mail:  luck@vims.edu

                             MaGann,  Bill
                             WF MaGann Corp
                             3219 Channel Ave
                             Portsmouth, VA 23703

                             Mann, Roger
                             VA Institute of Marine Science
                             P.O. Box 1346
                             Gloucester Point, VA 23062
                             E-mail:  mann@vims.edu

Marshall,  Livingston
Morgan State University
Rm. 166, Key Hall
Baltimore, MD 21251
Oyster Restoration Workshop Registered Attendees
                             Mowitt,  Bill
                             MD Department of Natural Resources
                             Tawes Building, C-2 580 Taylor Ave.
                             Annapolis, MD  21401
E-mail:   Lmarshall@moac.morgan.edu

Matters,  James
C. J. Langenfelder & Sons Inc.
400 Pier Ave.
Stevensville, VA  21666

McKay,  Laura
VA DEQ - VA Coastal Program
629 E. Main St.
Richmond, VA 23219

McVey,  Jim
National Sea Grant
1315E-WHwy. Rm. 11838
Silver Spring, MD 20910

Meador,  Abbie
Chesapeake Research Consortium
410 Severn Ave.,  Suite 109
Annapolis, MD 21403
E-mail:   meador.abbie@epa.gov

Mendelsohn, Mark
US Army Corps of Engineers
CENAB-PL-EC PO  Box  1715
Baltimore, MD 212031715
E-mail:   mark.mendelsohn@ccmail.nab.usace.army.

Merrit,  Don
University of Maryland
Box 775
Cambridge, MD  21613

                            Murray, Tom
                            VA Institute of Marine Science
                            PO Box 1346
                            Gloucester Point, VA 23062

                            Nestlerode, Janet
                            VA Institute of Marine Science
                            PO Box 1346
                            Gloucester Point, VA 23062

                            Newell,  Roger
                            University of MD- Center for Environmental Science
                            Horn Point Laboratory PO Box 775
                            Cambridge, MD  216130775
                            E-mail:  newell@hpl.umces.edu

                            Paynter, Ken
                            University of Maryland
                            2113 Agr./Life Sci. Building
                            College Park,  MD 20742
                            E-mail:  paynter@mees.umd.edu

                            Pelz, Richard
                            CEO-Circle Oyster Rancher's Assoc.
                            49944  Airedele Rd.
                            Ridge, MD 20680

                            Perrie, Shellie
                            8711 Westphalia Rd.
                            Upper  Malboro, MD 20774
Moore,  Billy
8711 Westphalia Rd.
Upper Malboro, MD 20774
E-mail:   rwmoore@pepco.com

Mountford, Kent
US Environmental Protection Agency
410 Severn Ave., Suite 109
Annapolis, MD 21403
E-mail:   mountford.kent@epa.gov
                             Pfeiffer, Bill
                             Oyster Recovery Partnership
                             PO Box 96
                             Benedict, MD 20612

                             Pfeiffer, Robert

                             2795 Scientist Cliffs Rd
                             Port Republic, MD  20676

                            Oyster Restoration Workshop Registered Attendees
Phelps,  Harriette                                        Takacs, Jackie
University of DC                                         Maryland Sea Grant
4200 Connecticut Avenue, NW                             PO Box 38
Washington, DC 20008                                   Solomons, MD 20688
E-mail:   hphelps@hers.com                               E-mail:
Richards, William
Virginia Sea Grant
170 Rugby Rd., PO Box 400146
Charlottesville, VA  22904

Rothschild,  Devon
St. Mary's River Project
PO Box 33
Park Hall, MD 203667

Schwaab, Eric
MD Department of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Bldg., E-2 580 Taylor Ave.
Annapolis, MD 214012397
E-mail:   eschwaab@dnr.state.md.us

Shackelford,  Henry
Langley Air Force Base
37 Sweeney Blvd
Hampton, VA 23665

Sieling,  Bill
MD Dept. of Agriculture - Seafood Marketing
50 Harry  Truman Pkwy
Annapolis, MD 21401

Smith, Gary
Maryland DNR
904 S. Morris St.  Cooperative Oxford Laboratory
Oxford, MD  21654
Takacs, Richard
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
410 Severn Ave., Suite 107A
Annapolis, MD  21403
E-mail:   richard.takacs@noaa.gov

Taylor,  Jakie A.
VA Marine Resources Commission
PO Box 756
Newport News, VA 23607

Teems,  Melanie
Chesapeake Bay Trust
60 West St. Suite 200A
Annapolis, MD  21401

Tonaszewski,  Stanley
MD DNR Fisheries Education & Outreach
Piney Point Aquaculture Center PO Box 150
Piney Point, MD 20674

Tyler,  Gary
MD Department of Natural Resources
440 Monticello Ave
Salisbury, MD  21801

Webster, Don
University of Maryland
Wye Research & Education Center, PO Box 169
Queenstown, MD  21658
Spadaro, Paul
Magothy River Assoc./NOAA
309 South Drive
Severna Park, MD 21146

Swift,  Jim
Patuxent River Naval Air Station
Patuxent River, MD 20670

Wesson,  Jim
VA Marine Resources Commission
P.O. Box 756
Newport News, VA 236070756
E-mail:   jwesson@mrc.state.va.us

Williams, Leon
MD Department of Natural Resources
31077 Perry Rankin Rd.
Princess Anne, MD 21853

                          Oyster Restoration Workshop Registered Attendees
Wittkamp, Thomas
Langley Air Force Base
37 Sweeney Blvd.
Hampton, VA 23665

Woods,  Helen
VA Institute of Marine Science
Gloucester Pt, VA 23062