DOCSLIB.ORG

Inventory of Shellfish Restoration Permitting & Programs in the Coastal States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Inventory of Shellfish Restoration Permitting & Programs in the Coastal States Inventory of Shellfish Restoration Permitting & Programs in the Coastal States Prepared for The Nature Conservancy by Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Legal Program National Sea Grant Law Center Troy University December 2014 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................................... 3 ALABAMA ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 CALIFORNIA .............................................................................................................................................................................. 14 CONNECTICUT .......................................................................................................................................................................... 21 DELAWARE ................................................................................................................................................................................ 29 FLORIDA ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 37 GEORGIA ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 49 LOUISIANA ................................................................................................................................................................................. 58 MAINE .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 69 MARYLAND ................................................................................................................................................................................ 77 MASSACHUSETTS ................................................................................................................................................................... 86 MISSISSIPPI ............................................................................................................................................................................... 95 NEW HAMPSHIRE ................................................................................................................................................................ 103 NEW YORK .............................................................................................................................................................................. 111 NEW JERSEY ........................................................................................................................................................................... 120 NORTH CAROLINA ............................................................................................................................................................... 128 OREGON ................................................................................................................................................................................... 139 RHODE ISLAND ..................................................................................................................................................................... 147 SOUTH CAROLINA ............................................................................................................................................................... 156 TEXAS ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 165 VIRGINIA .................................................................................................................................................................................. 173 WASHINGTON ....................................................................................................................................................................... 181 This product was prepared by the Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Legal Program and the National Sea Grant Law Center under TNC Cost Center Number 1981203049 with additional Funding From the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department oF Commerce. The statements, Findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those oF the author and do not necessarily reFlect the views oF NOAA or the U.S. Department oF Commerce. 2 INTRODUCTION When undertaking a shellfish restoration project, it can be challenging to navigate the permitting requirements and policies of each state. Through funding from The Nature Conservancy, the Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Legal Program, in collaboration with the National Sea Grant Law Center, researched the regulatory framework governing shellfish restoration projects in 21 coastal states. For each state, the legal team identified the responsible agencies, the application process, and the general regulatory framework. In addition, the legal team summarized oyster harvesting requirements, tools for protecting shellfish reefs and restoration projects, and state mitigation policies that incorporate shellfish. At the request of The Nature Conservancy, information was also collected on existing restoration efforts through personal interviews with state agency personnel. Niki Pace, Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Legal Program, served as project lead on this report. Other members of the legal team included Stephanie Showalter Otts, Terra Bowling, and Catherine Janasie of the National Sea Grant Law Center. Additional support was provided by Dr. Christopher Boyd of Troy University. The phrase shellfish restoration can be defined in multiple ways. For the purpose of this project, the legal team focused on policies addressing shellfish habitat and reef creation, restoration, and conservation. The team did not include policies strictly focused on restoring the shellfish stock for commercial harvest, which may be contained within some states’ aquaculture programs. In creating a state-by-state guide to shellfish restoration permitting, the legal team identified several common areas of regulatory oversight. At the federal level, restoration projects require permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. The USACE regulates activities in wetlands and waterways including the discharge of dredged or fill material and work within tidal, navigable waterways. The USACE issues several different types of permits depending on the project: nationwide general permits, regional general permits, and individual permits. Nationwide General Permits (NWPs) are used by the USACE to authorize activities across the country that cause minimal environmental impacts. The permitted activity must satisfy all of the permit conditions, which include compliance with state or regional laws and regulations. In certain districts, states may have rejected the use of NWPs through their federal consistency review authority under the Coastal Zone Management Act. States may also impose state specific conditions on the use of NWPs within their waters. 3 NWPs relevant to shellfish restoration projects include NWP 13 and NWP 27. NWP 27 authorizes activities associated with the restoration, enhancement, and establishment of tidal and non-tidal wetlands. NWP 27 specifically references the construction of oyster habitat in tidal waters. NWP 13 authorizes activities necessary to prevent erosion and stabilize shorelines. Its use is limited to projects no more than 500 feet in length, unless waived by a USACE district engineer citing minimal adverse effects. In addition, some states have worked with their local USACE District Office to develop Regional General Permits (RGPs) tailored to their state needs. RGPs usually include provisions intended to protect the environment and resources of a specific region. Where applicable, the legal team included reference to relevant RGPs within each state chapter. Projects that do not qualify for NWPs or RGPs will need to seek an individual permit from the USACE. Individual permits are issued for projects that propose extensive impacts, or impacts to rare or fragile aquatic environments. Individual permits are generally required for projects whose proposed impacts will be greater than one acre of wetland or stream. However, the USACE can chose to review any project under an individual permit, regardless of its impact or size. Although not addressed in this report, consultations with other federal agencies may be required as part of the USACE permitting process. Federal laws such as the Endangered Species Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management Act may trigger these consultations, particularly if the project may impact essential fish habitat or the habitat of threatened or endangered species. Likewise, any potential navigational hazards may require review by the U.S. Coast Guard or designated state agency. At the state level, restoration projects may require permission to use state-owned submerged lands. Projects may also require permitting from state coastal programs that manage activities in coastal waters. In
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Australian Shellfish Reef Restoration Network & 19Th International
    Australian Shellfish Reef Restoration Network & 19th International Conference on Shellfish Restoration Preliminary Program The program overview below is provisional and is subject to change Day 1: Monday, February 19th 2018 8:00 am Registration opens Time Title Speaker Chair Opening Plenary Chris Gillies 9:00 AM Welcome to Country TBC 9:10 AM Welcome to Conference Chris Gillies 9:15 AM Welcome to South Australia Hon. Ian Hunter MP 9:30 AM Keynote: Developing an Oyster Mariculture Business Tom Looney Case (in NC) that Delivers Sustained Economic Development and Ensures Success 10:10 AM Keynote: Restoring Oysters in North Carolina (USA): Todd Miller A Blueprint for Action 10:30 AM Morning tea Enabling restoration and case studies: South Australia Boze Hancock 11:00 AM Loss, optimism and restoration of oyster reefs in Sean Connell South Australia 11:15 AM Windara Reef Part 1: Concept to stage I Sarah-Lena Reinhold 11:25 AM Windara Reef Part 2: Stage II and beyond Anita Nedosyko 11:35 AM Oyster optimism bridges cultural barriers to Dom Mcafee restoration 11:45 AM Port River Shellfish Restoration Project Catherine McMahon 12:00 PM Technical talk: Peopling WaterPlaces Mary Gardner 12:15 PM Poster ‘spruiker session’ Ben Cleveland Benjamin Freeling Catherine Larkin 12:30 PM Lunch Research and Development Dom Mcafee 1:30 PM The timing and type of substrate deployment Maria Vozzo influences recruitment of Sydney rock oysters, Saccostrea glomerata and associated communities 1:45 PM The mechanisms by which oysters facilitate Melanie Bishop invertebrates
    [Show full text]
  • Best Management Practices for Shellfish Restoration Prepared for the ISSC Shellfish Restoration Committee
    Best Management Practices for Shellfish Restoration Prepared for the ISSC Shellfish Restoration Committee Dorothy Leonard and Sandra Macfarlane 10/1/2011 The authors are grateful for the reviews provided by: Dr. Rob Brumbaugh Dr. Boze Hancock Summer Morlock Dr. Robert Rheault Thank you to those who provided financial and administrative support: The ISSC Executive Office Partnership between The Nature Conservancy and the NOAA Community-based Restoration Program Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Best Management Practices 4 Introduction 8 Project Description 9 Background 11 Process 12 Results 17 Concluding Remarks 39 References 40 Appendices A-G 42 Executive Summary The objectives of the Best Practices for Shellfish Restoration (BMPs) project are to establish methods which include protocols for educational programs and safeguards to ensure that shellfish grown in unapproved areas do not reach the market. The project was recommended by the Shellfish Restoration Committee of the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference (ISSC) at their biennial meeting in 2009. The Nature Conservancy (TNC), through a National Partnership with the NOAA Restoration Center, is working with ISSC on this project to guide future shellfish restoration projects that incorporate educational components designed to protect public health. The project was designed around seven workshops at regional ISSC and other professional shellfish management meetings, drawing together stakeholders representing state regulatory agencies and public health officials, extension specialists, shellfish industry, non-government organizations, representatives of shellfish gardening programs and other appropriate parties to identify critical issues and solutions. The workshops brought together those who had, at times, differing views to agree upon best practices for restoration to restore critical shellfish areas while protecting public health.
    [Show full text]
  • FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 402/2
    ISSNO0428-9345 FAO Asia Diagnostic Guide to FISHERIES TECHNICAL Aquatic Animal Diseases PAPER 402/2 NETWORK OF AQUACULTURE CENTRES IN ASIA-PACIFIC C A A N Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations A F O F S I I A N T P A ISSNO0428-9345 FAO Asia Diagnostic Guide to FISHERIES TECHNICAL Aquatic Animal Diseases PAPER 402/2 Edited by Melba G. Bondad-Reantaso NACA, Bangkok, Thailand (E-mail: [email protected]) Sharon E. McGladdery DFO-Canada, Moncton, New Brunswick (E-mail: [email protected]) Iain East AFFA, Canberra, Australia (E-mail: [email protected]) and Rohana P. Subasinghe NETWORK OF FAO, Rome AQUACULTURE CENTRES (E-mail: [email protected]) IN ASIA-PACIFIC C A A N Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations A F O F S I I A N T P A The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) or of the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pa- cific (NACA) concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its fron- tiers or boundaries. ISBN 92-5-104620-4 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.
    [Show full text]
  • Shellfish Reefs at Risk
    SHELLFISH REEFS AT RISK A Global Analysis of Problems and Solutions Michael W. Beck, Robert D. Brumbaugh, Laura Airoldi, Alvar Carranza, Loren D. Coen, Christine Crawford, Omar Defeo, Graham J. Edgar, Boze Hancock, Matthew Kay, Hunter Lenihan, Mark W. Luckenbach, Caitlyn L. Toropova, Guofan Zhang CONTENTS Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................ 1 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 6 Methods .................................................................................................................................... 10 Results ........................................................................................................................................ 14 Condition of Oyster Reefs Globally Across Bays and Ecoregions ............ 14 Regional Summaries of the Condition of Shellfish Reefs ............................ 15 Overview of Threats and Causes of Decline ................................................................ 28 Recommendations for Conservation, Restoration and Management ................ 30 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 36 References .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Oyster Restoration Project Shimmo Creek, Nantucket, MA
    Oyster Restoration Project Shimmo Creek, Nantucket, MA Submitted by: Leah Cabral Assistant Biologist Town Of Nantucket Natural Resources Department 2 Bathing Beach Rd. Nantucket, MA 02554 508-228-7230 [email protected] 1 Oyster Restoration in Shimmo Creek, Nantucket, MA Background The Eastern/American oyster (Crassostrea virginica) is found in estuaries, bays, tidal creeks, drowned river mouths, and behind barrier beaches along the east coast of North America from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico and from Mexico to Venezuela (Sellers and Stanly et al. 1984). Oysters in Massachusetts are found in brackish ponds and bays and are limited to sub- tidal environments due to ice scouring, growth rates are limited by temperature, recruitment is periodic and predators tend to have a large impact on survival (Kennedy et al. 1996). World-wide oyster habitat and populations have declined by an estimated 85% worldwide in the last 100 years (Beck et al. 2011; Figure 1.). In the United States, there has been an estimated 88% decline in oyster biomass, with oyster populations being strongly affected in estuaries along the Atlantic coast. “The most dramatic losses of Eastern oyster habitat were recorded from the northeast Atlantic coast, with less than 6 percent of historic extent remaining…” (Zu Ermgassen et al. 2012). Significant population declines are due to a number of reasons including: over-harvesting, not returning suitable substrate (oyster shell) back to the water, habitat loss, sedimentation, disease and poor water quality (Wilberg et al. 2011). In response to worldwide population loss of a keystone species, scientists have made significant efforts to restore oyster reefs and beds.
    [Show full text]
  • Background the Eastern Oyster, Crassostrea Virginica, Is An
    Background The eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica, is an important keystone species in Great Bay Estuary, NH. As an ecosystem engineer, oysters provide several ecosystem services to both people and wildlife. Oysters filter excess nutrients and suspended solids from the water column improving water quality and clarity (Coen et al., 2007). In addition, oyster reefs provide important habitat for fish and invertebrates by building large vertical complex reef structures (Coen et al., 2007). Historically, Great Bay Estuary was filled with acres of healthy oyster reef. However, due to pollution, disease, sedimentation, and historical harvesting these numbers have decreased by over 90% resulting in only a little over a 100 acres of oyster reef today. With this drastic loss of oyster reefs, Great Bay has experienced a similar loss in the important ecosystem services that oysters provide to estuarine ecosystems. For this reason, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) of New Hampshire has been working collaboratively with The University of New Hampshire’s Jackson Estuarine Laboratory (UNH-JEL) to restore oyster reefs to Great Bay since 2009. The Oyster Conservationist (OC) Program is an important community engagement component of oyster reef restoration in Great Bay. An Oyster Conservationist is a community member and environmental steward in the coastal area of New Hampshire who advocates or acts for the protection and preservation of the environment and wildlife. Participants in the OC Program work towards improving the health of Great Bay by raising oyster spat for TNC’s oyster reef restoration projects. Volunteers adopt a cage with spat on shell for an eight-week period cleaning and caring for the cage while also collecting data throughout the summer on survival, growth, invasive species, and wild oyster spat settlement.
    [Show full text]
  • Oyster Restoration in the Gulf of Mexico Proposals from the Nature Conservancy 2018 COVER PHOTO © RICHARD BICKEL / the NATURE CONSERVANCY
    Oyster Restoration in the Gulf of Mexico Proposals from The Nature Conservancy 2018 COVER PHOTO © RICHARD BICKEL / THE NATURE CONSERVANCY Oyster Restoration in the Gulf of Mexico Proposals from The Nature Conservancy 2018 Oyster Restoration in the Gulf of Mexico Proposals from The Nature Conservancy 2018 Robert Bendick Director, Gulf of Mexico Program Bryan DeAngelis Program Coordinator and Marine Scientist, North America Region Seth Blitch Director of Coastal and Marine Conservation, Louisiana Chapter Introduction and Purpose The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has long been engaged in oyster restoration, as oysters and oyster reefs bring multiple benefits to coastal ecosystems and to the people and communities in coastal areas. Oysters constitute an important food source and provide significant direct and indirect sources of income to Gulf of Mexico coastal communities. According to the Strategic Framework for Oyster Restoration Activities drafted by the Region-wide Trustee Implementation Group for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (June 2017), oyster reefs not only supply oysters for market but also (1) serve as habitat for a diversity of marine organisms, from small invertebrates to large, recreationally and commercially important species; (2) provide structural integrity that reduces shoreline erosion, and (3) improve water quality and help recycle nutrients by filtering large quantities of water. The vast numbers of oysters historically present in the Gulf played a key role in the health of the overall ecosystem. The dramatic decline of oysters, estimated at 50–85% from historic levels throughout the Gulf (Beck et al., 2010), has damaged the stability and productivity of the Gulf’s estuaries and harmed coastal economies.
    [Show full text]
  • The Oyster Industry
    A Study of the New Zealand Farmed Oyster Industry and the Potential for Sustainable Maori Economic Development Part 1: Industry Analysis Brenda Hay & Val Lindsay Sustainable Mäori Development in Taitokerau A Study of the New Zealand Farmed Oyster Industry and the Potential for Sustainable Maori Economic Development Part 1: Industry Analysis Brenda Hay and Val Lindsay Prepared for: The James Henare Mäori Research Centre The University of Auckland Private Bag 92-019 AUCKLAND Phone: 09 3737-599 x 85085 Fax: 09 3737-458 E-mail: [email protected] This document may be copied and distributed on a non-commercial basis for educational purposes. © James Henare Mäori Research Centre 2003 The research to which this paper contributes is part of a programme funded from the Public Good Science Fund by the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology, Wellington, New Zealand. A Study of the New Zealand Farmed Oyster Industry and the Potential for Sustainable Maori Economic Development Part 1: Industry Analysis A report prepared on behalf of the James Henare Maori Research Centre by: Brenda Hay AquaBio Consultants Ltd P.O. Box 560 Shortland St. P.O. Auckland Email: [email protected] & Associate Professor Val Lindsay School of Marketing and International Business Victoria University of Wellington P.O. Box 600 Wellington Email: [email protected] April 2004 James Henare Maori Research Centre University of Auckland Private Bag 92019 Auckland Table of Contents Page No. SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1 SECTION 2 BACKGROUND 2 2.1 Introduction 2 2.2 Rock Oyster
    [Show full text]
  • Mikrocytos Roughleyi Taxonomic Affiliation Leads to the Genus Bonamia (Haplosporidia)
    DISEASES OF AQUATIC ORGANISMS Vol. 54: 209–217, 2003 Published April 24 Dis Aquat Org Mikrocytos roughleyi taxonomic affiliation leads to the genus Bonamia (Haplosporidia) N. Cochennec-Laureau1, 4,*, K. S. Reece2, F. C. J. Berthe1, P. M. Hine3 1Institut Français de Recherche pour l’Exploitation de la Mer (IFREMER), Laboratoire de Génétique et Pathologie, PO Box 1346, 17390 La Tremblade, France 2Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), Aquaculture Genetics and Breeding Technology Center, Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062, USA 3Aquatic Animal Diseases, National Centre for Disease Investigation, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF) Operations, PO Box 40-742, Upper Hutt, 6007 Wellington, New Zealand 4Present address: IFREMER, Laboratoire d’Aquaculture Tropicale, BP 7004, 98719 Taravao, French Polynesia ABSTRACT: Microcell-type parasites of oysters are associated with a complex of diseases in different oyster species around the world. The etiological agents are protists of very small size that are very dif- ficult to characterize taxonomically. Associated lesions may vary according to the host species, and their occurrence may be related to variations in tissue structure. Lesion morphology cannot be used to distinguish the different agents involved. Ultrastructural observations on Mikrocytos roughleyi revealed similarities with Bonamia spp., particularly in regard to the presence of electron-dense hap- losporosomes and mitochondria, whose absence from M. mackini also indicate that M. roughleyi and M. mackini are not congeneric. A partial small subunit (ssu) rRNA gene sequence of M. roughleyi was determined. This partial sequence, 951 nucleotides in length, has 95.2 and 98.4% sequence sim- ilarities with B. ostreae and B. exitiosus ssu rDNA sequences, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Fisheries (Southland and Sub-Antarctic Areas Commercial Fishing) Regulations 1986 (SR 1986/220)
    Fisheries (Southland and Sub-Antarctic Areas Commercial Fishing) Regulations 1986 (SR 1986/220) Note Changes authorised by section 17C of the Acts and Regulations Publication Act 1989 have been made in this eprint. A general outline of these changes is set out in the notes at the end of this eprint, together with other explanatory material about this eprint. These regulations are administered in the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. PURSUANT to section 89 of the Fisheries Act 1983, His Excellency the Governor-General, acting by and with the advice and consent of the Executive Council, hereby makes the following regulations. Contents 1 Title, commencement, and application 2 Interpretation Part 1 Southland area Total prohibition 3 Total prohibitions Certain fishing methods prohibited 3A Certain fishing methods prohibited in defined areas 3AB Set net fishing prohibited in defined area from Slope Point to Sand Hill Point Minimum set net mesh size 3B Minimum set net mesh size 3BA Minimum net mesh for queen scallop trawling Set net soak times 3C Set net soak times 3D Restrictions on fishing in paua quota management areas 3E Labelling of containers for paua taken in any PAU 5 quota management area 3F Marking of blue cod pots and fish holding pots Trawling 4 Trawling prohibited in Foveaux Strait [Revoked] 4 Trawling prohibited in defined area from Slope Point to Sand Hill Point 4A Use of 60mm mesh trawl net permitted south of 48°S at certain times 4B Solander Trench closed to trawling and bottom-longlining by certain vessels Rock lobsters
    [Show full text]
  • Contemporary Approaches for Small-Scale Oyster Reef Restoration
    Journal of Shellfish Research, Vol. 28, No. I, 147-161,2009. CONTEMPORARY APPROACHES FOR SMALL-SCALE OYSTER REEF RESTORATION TO ADDRESS SUBSTRATE VERSUS RECRUITMENT LIMITATION: A REVIEW AND COMMENTS RELEVANT FOR THE OLYMPIA OYSTER, OSTREA LURIDA CARPENTER 1864 ROBERT D. BRUMBAUGH1* AND LOREN D. COEN2 1 The Nature Conservancy P.O. Box 420237 Summerland Key, Florida 33042,· 2 Sanibel-Captiva Conservation Foundation Marine Laboratory, 900A Tarpon Bay Road, Sanibel, Florida 33957 ABSTRACT Reefs and beds formed by oysters such as the Eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica and the Olympia oyster, Ostrea lurida Carpenter 1864 t were dominant features in many estuaries throughout their native ranges. Many of these estuaries no longer have healthy, productive reefs because of impacts from destructive fishing, sediment accumulation, pollution, and parasites. Once valued primarily as a fishery resource, increasing attention is being focused today on the array of other ecosystem services that oysters and the reefs they form provide in United States coastal bays and estuaries. Since the early 1990s efforts to restore subtidal and intertidal oyster reefs have increased significantly, with particular interest in smaH-soale community-based projects initiated most often by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). To date, such projects have been undertaken in at least 15 US states, for both species of dominant native oysters along the United States coast. Community-based restoration practitioners have used a broad range of nonmutually exclusive approaches, including: (I) oyster gardening of hatchery-produced oysters; (2) deployment of juvenile to adult sheHfish ("broodstock") within designated areas for stock enhancement; and (3) substrate enhancement using natural or recycled man-made materials loose or in "bags" designed to enhance local settlement success.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Based Restoration of Oyster Reef Habitat in the Bronx River: Assessing Approaches and Results in an Urbanized Setting
    Community Based Restoration of Oyster Reef Habitat in the Bronx River: Assessing Approaches and Results in an Urbanized Setting Lodge, J., Grizzle, R., Coen, L., Mass Fitzgerald, A., Comi, M.,. Malinowski, P., 2015. Community Based Restoration of Oyster Reef Habitat in the Bronx River: Assessing Approaches and Results in an Urbanized Setting. Final Report of the NOAA/WCS Regional Partnership Grant, New York, NY. FINAL REPORT: WCS/NOAA REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP GRANT Community Based Restoration of Oyster Reef Habitat in the Bronx River: Assessing Approaches and Results in an Urbanized Setting I. Contact Information Project Director: Jim Lodge, Senior Scientist Address: Hudson River Foundation 17 Battery Place, Suite 915 New York, NY 10004 Phone Number: 212-483-7667 Fax Number: 212-924-8325 Email address: [email protected] Project Collaborators: The Hudson River Foundation (J. Lodge), NY/NJ Baykeeper (M. Comi, Dr. A. Mass Fitzgerald), Urban Assembly New York Harbor School (P. Malinowski), NY Harbor Foundation, University of New Hampshire (Dr. R. Grizzle), Florida Atlantic University/HBOI (Dr. L. Coen) Supporting Partners: Bronx River Alliance (L. Cox, D. Griffin), NYC Department of Parks and Recreation, Natural Resources Group (M. Larson, S. Tobing, K. Conrad), Public Lab (L. Barry), Rocking the Boat (A. Green, S. Marquand, C. Ward), Add NY and NJ Harbor and Estuary Program (K. Boicourt), USACE (L. Baron, P. Weppler) II. Project Summary This project continued and expanded on a previous smaller-scale multi-site effort by the original and new project partners focusing on the development of general protocols for shallow subtidal oyster reef restoration in the New York Harbor region where natural reefs and recruitment of native eastern oysters (Crassostrea virginica) are uncommon.
    [Show full text]