UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Santa Barbara

Developing Aquaculture to Support Restoration of the Native California Oyster, Ostreola conchaphila,

in Southern California

A Group Project Proposal submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of

Master in Environmental Science and Management By

Erin Hudson Josh Madeira

Dominique Monié Katie Reytar

Faculty Advisor: Hunter Lenihan

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract......................................................................................................................................2

Executive Summary...................................................................................................................3

Research Question ....................................................................................................................4

Objectives ..................................................................................................................................4

I. Determine the feasibility of Olympia oyster aquaculture in Southern California ..............4

II. Assess whether aquaculture can support Olympia oyster restoration in Southern California.......................................................................................................................................................4

III. Develop a business plan for Olympia oyster aquaculture .....................................................4

Significance ...............................................................................................................................5

Background ...............................................................................................................................7

I. History .......................................................................................................................................................7

II. Biological Information ........................................................................................................................9

III. Restoration..........................................................................................................................................15

VI. Aquaculture Technologies..............................................................................................................19

V. Public-Private Partnerships..............................................................................................................23

VI. Writing a Business Plan...................................................................................................................24

I. Investigate the potential Olympia oyster market in Southern California ..........................28

II. Evaluate the potential for integration of aquaculture and restoration...............................29

III. Compile key parameters and market analysis into a business plan .................................29

Management Plan ...................................................................................................................30

Deliverables .............................................................................................................................33

Milestones................................................................................................................................33

Opportunities for Links with Outside Advisors and Professional Community .....................34

Budget .....................................................................................................................................35

Budget Justification.................................................................................................................35

References ...............................................................................................................................36

2

Abstract California’s only endemic oyster, the Olympia oyster (Ostreola conchaphila), is a critical ecosystem engineer with the ability to create reef habitat, biofilter the water and improve water quality, stabilize the marine benthos, and provide a key component of estuarine food webs. However, the species is severely depleted due to sedimentation, pollution, and a history of overfishing. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the California Ocean Protection Council identified the Olympia oyster as a priority species for restoration in 2006. Restoration projects rely heavily on government appropriations to cover their high costs. Commercial Olympia oyster aquaculture represents a potential market-based source of support for expensive restoration projects. Culture and harvest of Olympia oysters may provide oyster seed, shell substrate, or mature oysters for restoration research and applications. Thus, oyster aquaculture represents a potential economically-independent source of support for Olympia oyster restoration efforts. We will conduct a market analysis to determine the feasibility of Olympia oyster aquaculture in Southern California. We will then identify how oyster aquaculture could support restoration projects, including those based on public-private partnerships. By incorporating our findings into an Olympia oyster aquaculture business plan, we intend to quantify the aquaculture’s restoration potential in Southern California.

3

Executive Summary

The Olympia oyster, Ostreola conchaphila, is an ecosystem engineer that creates reef habitat, stabilizes benthic substrata, filters the water and improves water quality, recycles nutrients, and occupies a critical position in California’s coastal marine food webs (Lenihan 1999; Ruesink et al. 2005; Lotze et al. 2006). Due to overharvesting, degraded water quality, habitat loss, exotic competitors, and invasive predators, Olympia oyster populations declined significantly in California during the early 20th century (Barrett 1963; Kirby 2004). By the 1970’s, only remnant populations of Olympia oysters remained in select California bays and estuaries (Baker 1995).

Given their ecological significance, the California Ocean Protection Council and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recently identified the Olympia oyster as a priority species for restoration in California (NOAA 2004; California Ocean Protection Council 2006). While restoration efforts are underway in a few coastal locations in central and northern California, these projects are extremely expensive and are heavily dependent on government appropriations. The high costs of restoration limit the ability of state governments, municipalities, non-profit organizations, and private individuals to expand the network of Olympia oyster restoration projects.

Commercial Olympia oyster aquaculture represents an alternative means of support for expensive restoration projects. Through culturing and harvesting oysters, an oyster aquaculture operation could provide funding, oyster seed, shell substrate, or mature oysters to restoration sites. Thus, oyster aquaculture may represent a potential market-based pathway to economically-independent support for restoration projects. A successful Olympia oyster aquaculture operation that incorporates restoration goals could align public and private incentives, resulting in better stewardship of coastal marine resources (public goods).

New research indicates that Southern California is an ideal location for Olympia oyster restoration. Researchers at California State University, Fullerton, conducted the first comprehensive quantitative survey of Olympia oysters throughout their geographic range from Baja, Mexico to Alaska in 2006 (Polson et al. 2006). Their unpublished data revealed that all bays and estuaries in Southern California included remnant Olympia oyster populations. In contrast with other regions within their geographic range, Southern California has a high potential for oyster restoration.

Olympia oyster restoration has great potential in Southern California, but it will come at a significant cost. Olympia oyster aquaculture presents a potential alternative to traditional restoration approaches. Aquaculture is likely to be able to enhance restoration efforts in Southern California by providing oyster seed from hatchery operations and larval spillover. In addition, aquaculture and restoration use many of the same methods and technologies, creating the potential for excess adult oysters and discarded oyster shells to be used in restoration projects (Brumbaugh et al. 2000).

Partnerships between aquaculture and restoration can take on many different forms, including public- private partnerships. Public-private partnerships can offer a mutually beneficial means for private industries to connect with public improvement projects (Brumbaugh et al. 2006). Commercial Olympia oyster aquaculture may benefit from a public-private partnership by carving out a ‘green’ marketing niche, thereby increasing its customer base. Conversely, the restoration project may benefit from the donation of oysters, seed, shells, technical expertise, and industry support. Our research will provide a platform to explore different types of partnerships between aquaculture and restoration.

The goal for this project is to develop an Olympia oyster business plan that can support local restoration. We will evaluate the economic feasibility of starting an aquaculture business in Southern California and incorporate different scenarios of public-private partnerships. Our market analysis will be presented to potential commercial investors within the Southern California seafood industry to gauge the feasibility and investment potential of the business. Finally, we will submit our business plan to The Nature Conservancy for potential integration into their restoration program.

4

Research Question Can Olympia oyster aquaculture provide an economically sustainable framework for oyster restoration in Southern California?

Objectives The goal of this group project is to assess whether commercial Olympia oyster aquaculture could be developed as a means to support Olympia oyster restoration in Southern California. As such, our objectives fall into three categories: I. Determine the feasibility of Olympia oyster aquaculture in Southern California

• Evaluate the demand for oysters in Southern California o Analyze the current market and consumption trends for Olympia oysters o Identify potential target markets o Determine the potential for a ‘green’ market niche with Olympia oysters

• Evaluate the supply of oysters in Southern California o Quantify Olympia oyster aquaculture production costs

� Identify potential aquaculture sites � Determine legal and regulatory requirements � Examine aquaculture technology alternatives � Select appropriate aquaculture technology, accounting for environmental impacts

o Estimate the influence of seasonality to aquaculture product quality and availability • Qualify the risk associated with initiating and operating an Olympia oyster aquaculture operation

II. Assess whether aquaculture can support Olympia oyster restoration in Southern

California III. Develop a business plan for Olympia oyster aquaculture

• Explore the potential for a business model based on a public-private partnership

• Present business plan to potential investors for application throughout Southern California

• Customize the business plan for potential incorporation into The Nature Conservancy’s oyster restoration efforts in California.

5

Significance Olympia oyster aquaculture in Southern California represents a potential solution to the exorbitant costs of oyster restoration efforts. Currently, NOAA funds small-scale restoration projects in California, Oregon, and Washington. Between the cost of oyster seed, oyster shell, supplies, and labor, federally-supported restoration efforts are typically limited to a small scale (one acre or less), invariably reducing the overall impact of restoration to a small geographic area. Many of these restoration projects rely on significant volunteer efforts from local communities. Olympia oyster aquaculture represents a potential means to circumvent the reliance on federal appropriations and volunteers for restoration by supplying oyster seed, adult oysters, and technical expertise to restoration projects in Southern California. Through commercial production and sales of Olympia oysters as a local delicacy in Southern California, an aquaculture operation could be an economically independent and self-sufficient entity, able to support restoration efforts indefinitely into the future. This market-based solution would privatize public restoration goals, aligning public and private incentives to promote better monitoring, restoration, and stewardship of coastal resources. A profitable Olympia oyster aquaculture operation has the potential to support restoration on an unprecedented scale through donations of oyster seed, shell, and expertise to a variety of restoration projects. This market-based solution could impact a larger number of restoration projects and would be unaffected by cyclical changes in political power and budget cutbacks. For example, community members in Drayton Harbor, WA, created a community oyster farm in the hopes of restoring local shellfish populations through commercial production. Their commercial aquaculture farm successfully restored harvestable oyster populations in the bay. In fact, they harvested and processed more than 50 tons of oysters for local sales and international export in 2004 (EPA 2006). Unlike all other forms of marine aquaculture, commercially-grown bivalves, especially oysters, have been identified as the only sustainable form of aquaculture (Naylor et al. 2000). Traditional finfish aquaculture operations contribute to the global depletion of fish stocks because they require significant fish-based feed supplements (Pauly et al. 2002). Even worse, these aquaculture operations are a major source of nutrient pollution from fish waste (Naylor et al. 2000; Pauly et al. 2002). Conversely, oysters feed on the phytoplankton in the water column. Therefore, an oyster aquaculture operation has little negative impact on the local environment (Barrett 1963; Naylor et al. 2000; Shumway et al. 2003). In fact, oyster aquaculture operations have the potential to improve local water quality conditions by filtering out pollutants, sediments, and phytoplankton from the water column (Naylor et al. 2000; Shumway et al. 2003). Field experiments have proven that oysters control phytoplankton communities and reduce sedimentation in the water column, but estimates of their ability to improve other water quality parameters are less certain (Pietros et al. 2003). Since California’s demand for oyster products far exceeds the state’s production level (Conte 1996), Olympia oyster aquaculture represents a sustainable means to enhance the state’s supply of fresh oysters while also providing important water filtration ecosystem services. Olympia oyster “seed” produced in the commercial aquaculture operation will be outplanted at restoration sites in Southern California. Increased Olympia oyster restoration is likely to yield significant improvements to California’s marine ecosystem. Known for their ability to create reef habitat, stabilize benthic substrata, and provide three-dimensional habitat for many important

6

invertebrate communities, Olympia oysters are a critical “ecosystem engineer” in California’s coastal ecosystem (Lenihan 1999; Ruesink et al. 2005; Lotze et al. 2006). Oysters have the capacity to filter large quantities of water, removing phytoplankton, reducing suspended sediment, and recycling nutrients, which improves water clarity and is predicted to have a positive impact on important native seagrasses and benthic primary producers (Newell 1988; Newell et al. 2004; Ruesink et al. 2005). Thus, oysters not only represent a critical component of marine food webs, they also systematically improve the physiochemical conditions, enhance biodiversity through multidimensional habitat provision, and influence the survivorship of native communities. The significance of the role of oysters in native marine ecosystems cannot be overemphasized. A growing body of research illustrates the danger of historical shifts associated with overfishing and habitat degradation of benthic primary producers (Jackson et al. 2001; Kirby 2004; Lotze et al. 2006). In Chesapeake Bay, overfishing and poor water quality decimated Eastern oyster populations, reduced the water filtration capacity of oysters, removed an important constituent of the food web, and shifted marine communities toward algal-dominated systems plagued by eutrophication (Kirby 2004; Ruesink et al. 2005; Lotze et al. 2006). Without baseline data, it is difficult to assess the impact that the removal of Olympia oyster populations had on California’s native marine ecosystem. However, given their unique status as the only endemic oyster to the west coast and their role as an “ecosystem engineer”, the scientific community (in collaboration with state and federal agencies) recognizes the critical necessity to restore the species (NOAA 2004; White et al. 2005; Brumbaugh et al. 2006; California Ocean Protection Council 2006). Considerable political momentum to restore native California oyster populations surfaced in 2006. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Ocean Protection Council identified habitat restoration of native oyster habitat, wetlands, eelgrass, and kelp as the number top priorities for improving the physical processes of California’s coast (California Ocean Protection Council 2006). Similarly, NOAA’s Restoration Center recently partnered with academic and non-profit groups to expand the number of Olympia oyster restoration projects in California to include restoration sites in Tomales Bay, Tiburon, and San Francisco Bay. Efforts to restore Olympia oysters in Washington and Oregon have met with resounding success, including greater than expected reestablishment rates in areas that have been extirpated for decades (NOAA 2004). Given Polson’s recent finding that the California Bight is the best remaining natural habitat for Olympia oysters, and the substantial political momentum, restoration efforts in Southern California are poised for unprecedented success. A public-private partnership in Olympia oyster aquaculture will unify local community and commercial stakeholders in support of Olympia oyster restoration in Southern California. Public-private partnerships could combine public stakeholders, such as non-profit organizations and local municipalities, with private aquaculture start-up interests to forge an aquaculture business partnership aimed to enhance restoration. All stakeholders support the commercial operation because the success of the business will lead to enhanced oyster seed production for restoration. Amongst securing state permits, generating community interest in restoration, and increasing the scale of restoration efforts, each of the stakeholders contributes to, and benefits from, this type of public-private partnership. Aligning private and community incentives is likely to improve stewardship of coastal resources, enhance restoration efforts, improve water quality, and provide a sustainable source of seafood. Thus, a public-private partnership represents an ideal platform to launch an Olympia oyster aquaculture and restoration operation.

7

Background An Olympia oyster aquaculture feasibility analysis in Southern California requires a complete understanding of Olympia oyster biology, alternative aquaculture technologies, business planning, potential public- private partnership models, and the history of oyster aquaculture in California. Since this project focuses on the ways that aquaculture can support restoration, it is necessary to examine Olympia oyster restoration strategies and the historic decline of native populations. The following pages include a review of the current state of knowledge on these topics divided into five general topics: Olympia oyster history and biology, restoration, aquaculture technology, public-private partnerships, and business plans. Following this summary of the relevant literature, the proposal includes a step-by-step approach toward accomplishing our objectives, as well as a project timeline, management plan, and itemized budget that will guide the project to completion.

I. History History of Population Decline The historical range of the Olympia oyster, (also known as the native oyster, the California oyster, and more commonly as “Olys”) stretches from Southeast Alaska to Baja California, Mexico (Couch et al. 1989). Evidence of Olympia oyster fossils were first discovered in late Miocene deposits of central California (Arnold 1909), and later in fossilized records throughout the species’ range (Baker 1995). These fossil records indicate that the Olympia oyster is the only endemic oyster species on the west coast (Barrett 1963). Evidence of early Olympia oyster harvests by Native Americans suggests that the oysters occurred in larger numbers larger populations existed along the California coast in pre-historic times than in historic times (Barrett 1963). Examples of Native American kitchen middens near San Francisco Bay included large quantities of Olympia oyster shells piled in shell-mounds, indicating that Olympia oysters were a significant component of their diet (Barrett 1963). The shell-mounds included dense oyster shell layers on the bottom, heterogeneously-mixed layers of shell and other materials in the middle, and sparse or non-existent layers of oyster shells in the upper layers (Barrett 1963). Barrett (1963) hypothesized that the significant decrease in the number of shells in the upper layers of the shell-mounds indicated a rapid decrease in Olympia oyster abundance from pre-historic to historic times. There is no evidence to suggest why there may have been a decline from pre-historic to historic times. With the settlement and rapid expansion of San Francisco during the Gold Rush, there was a high demand for shellfish to feed the new residents. A small commercial fishery for Olympia oysters began in the 1840’s in San Francisco Bay and later expanded to Tomales Bay, Humbolt Bay, and Elkhorn Slough (Barrett 1963; Gillespie 1999). Informal harvests probably occurred in Southern California, but there is no evidence of any commercial harvest (Baker 1995). However, local harvests could not keep up with San Francisco’s growing demand (Gillespie 1999). The discovery of large natural Olympia oyster beds in Willapa Bay, WA, led to the first large-scale commercial harvests and shipments to San Francisco in 1850 (Galtsoff 1929 in Baker 1995; (Barrett 1963; Baker 1995). Entire shiploads of Olympia oysters arrived from Washington, with some of the oysters sold to wholesale markets and other oysters planted in San Francisco Bay for future harvests (Barrett 1963). As local harvests significantly reduced native populations, industry effort shifted almost entirely to the

8

importation of Olympia oysters from Washington (Barrett 1963). Imports increased from 1,700 baskets in 1851 to approximately 35,000 baskets in 1859 (Barrett 1963). Olympia oyster culture began in the 1890’s in Puget Sound, WA, as oyster farmers spread oyster shell substrate and oyster spat (oyster “seed”) onto the first privately owned tidelands in Washington (Steele 1957). More advanced oyster culture techniques developed early in the 1900’s, as oyster farmers constructed diked oyster beds with gravel bottoms to hold water at low tide, reducing temperature stress and increasing oyster production (Steele 1957). Despite problems with cracking/settling dikes (Hopkins 1937 in Baker 1995) and the harmful activities of burrowing anomuran shrimp (Stevens 1929 in Baker 1995), these culture methods were the foundation for all future oyster culture techniques along the west coast (Baker 1995). Diked culture techniques relied on natural larval recruitment from wild stocks or from purchased “seed” from state owned beds in Oakland Bay, WA (Woelke 1956a in Baker). Oyster culture in Southern California included experimental and small commercial operations in Orange County, San Diego, and Venice, but represented only a fraction of California’s Olympia oyster production (Barrett 1963). In response to heavy fishing effort on wild populations in California, production of Olympia oysters declined from more than 300,000 pounds of meat (22% of California’s oyster production) in 1904 to 4,200 pounds (0.2% of California’s oyster production) in 1912 (Barrett 1963). By 1911, most of the wild stocks in Washington, Oregon, and California were completely depleted (Baker 1995). Galtsoff (1930) and Korringa (1976) attributed the decline in Olympia oyster production to urbanization, industrial pollution, and domestic pollution. Prior to the Olympia oyster population crash, oyster fisherman looked to exotic species to meet the demand for oysters. In 1869, California began to import and culture Eastern oysters (Crassostrea virginica) (Barrett 1963). Eastern oysters were unable to reproduce in the cool Pacific waters, leading oyster farmers to import Pacific oysters from Japan (Crassostrea gigas) in the 1930’s (Barrett 1963); (Barrett 1963; Conte et al. 2001). Commercial activity quickly shifted toward large-scale culture of Pacific oysters due to a larger overall size and a faster growth rate. [See Figure 1 for California oyster production of native, Pacific, and Eastern oysters from 1888 – 1958.] Commercial production of Eastern and Pacific oysters occurred in Humboldt Bay, San Francisco Bay, Morro Bay, Tomales Bay, Elkhorn Slough, and Newport Bay (Conte et al. 2001). Small-scale production of Olympia oysters continued in Humboldt Bay, but only as a marginal enterprise (Barrett 1963).

9

Figure 1: California oyster production by species.

Reproduced from Barrett (1963) With decimated populations, continued fishing pressure, increased inputs of pollution and the related reduction in water quality in California’s coastal bays and estuaries, current natural populations of Olympia oysters have shown few signs of recovery. With the enactment of the Clean Water Act, limited recreational harvest allowances, and its listing as a protected species in California (Conte 1996), populations of Olympia oysters are poised for a comeback in Southern California (NOAA 2004). Improved water quality conditions, reduced heavy metals and toxics, and tighter controls on effluents have improved the likelihood of reestablishment, even in urban coastal zones. II. Biological Information Taxonomy Historically, the scientific literature classified Olympia oysters into two sibling species, Ostrea lurida and Ostreola conchaphila, based on their geographic location (Baker 1995). In the northern end of the species’ range, Olympia oysters were classified as O. lurida, while Olympia oysters found from Southern California to Baja, Mexico, were considered O. conchaphila. Harry (1985) suggested that O. lurida was a junior synonym of O. conchaphila, and there is evidence that the two species grade into each other (Baker 1995). Though earlier scientific literature used the name O. lurida to describe

10

Olympia oysters throughout their range, there is general consensus that O. conchaphila is the proper name for the species (J. Moore, personal communication). Distribution The geographic range of the Olympia oyster stretches from Southeast Alaska to Baja, California, Mexico, and consists primarily of tidal channels, estuaries, bays, and sounds (Couch et al. 1989; Baker 1995). Based on observations in the scientific literature, Baker (1995) compiled the recorded locations of Olympia oyster populations around 1900 and in the 1970’s as shown in Tables 1 and 2. Bonnot (1935) recorded a majority of the early Olympia oyster observations during his survey of the California coast. Interestingly, Bonnot (1935) recorded the presence of Olympia oysters in all estuaries and bays south of Point Conception. Records from the 1970’s revealed that many of California’s estuaries and bays had no evidence of Olympia oyster populations (Baker 1995).

Table 1. Olympia oyster distribution in 1900 (reproduced from Baker 1995).

Distances between known coastal bays and estuaries with Ostrea lurida; known distribution about 1900

Bay or Estuary Distance to Next Reference (North to South) (km)

Grays Harbor, WA 32 Galtsoff 1929 Willapa Bay, WA 172 Galtsoff 1929 Netarts Bay, OR 91 Edmondson 1923 Yaquina Bay, OR 431 Fasten 1931 Humbolt Bay, CA 325 Bonnot 1935 Tomales Bay, CA 30 Bonnot 1935 Drakes Estero, CA 50 C. Johnson, pers. comm. San Francisco Bay, CA 136 Packard 1918 Elkhorn Slough, CA 460 Bonnot 1935 Mugu Lagoon, CA 91 Bonnot 1935 Alamitos Bay, CA 3 Bonnot 1935 Anaheim Bay, CA 5 Bonnot 1935 Bolsa Bay, CA 26 Gilbert 1891 Newport Bay, CA 102 Bonnot 1935 La Jolla Bay, CA 12 Coe 1932 Mission Bay, CA 14 Bonnot 1935 San Diego Bay, CA 18 Bonnot 1935 Tijuana Lagoon, CA - Bonnot 1935

11

Table 2. Olympia oyster distribution after 1970 (reproduced from Baker 1995).

Distances between known coastal bays and estuaries with Ostrea lurida; 1970 and later

Bay or Estuary Distance to Next Reference (North to South) (km)

Grays Harbor, WA 32 D. Tufts, pers. comm. Willapa Bay, WA 152 D. Tufts, pers. comm. Yaquina Bay, OR 263 Wachsmuth, 1979 Coos Bay, OR 120 Carlton, 1988 Humbolt Bay, CA 325 J. Carlton, pers. comm. Tomales Bay, CA 30 C. Johnson, pers. comm. Drakes Estero, CA 50 C. Johnson, pers. comm. San Francisco Bay, CA 136 Bradford & Luoma, 1980 Newport Bay, CA 74 Human, 1970 Agua Hedionda Lagoon, CA 24 Bradshaw et al., 1976 Los Penasquitos Lagoon, CA - Mudie et al., 1974

Potential drivers of the apparent decline in Olympia oyster populations along the west coast are well-documented and cite significant overharvest and the severe reduction in water quality from the 1930’s through the 1950’s (Cook et al. 1998). Baker (1995) noted that Olympia oysters have a low potential for genetic exchange, which represents a key limitation in the species’ ability to reestablish in former habitat. Baker (1995) suggested that the lack of Olympia oyster larvae in near shore coastal plankton signified that Olympia oyster larvae settle close to their origin. Thus, there is little genetic exchange between coastal populations in Washington, Oregon, and California (Baker 1995). Once the populations of Olympia oysters were decimated from specific estuaries and bays, reestablishment was only possible if there was another population nearby to supply recruits. Recently, Polson et al. (2006) completed the first quantitative study of Olympia oysters throughout their range from Baja to Alaska. Polson et al.’s (2006) unpublished research examined twenty-five historic Olympia oyster sites, including oyster densities and percent cover. Their work indicated that average maximum oyster densities ranged from 0.0 to 36.7 per 0.25 m2, with the highest densities recorded in Bahia de San Quintin, Baja, Mexico, Mission Bay, CA, and Point San Quentin, San Francisco Bay, CA (Polson et al. 2006). Despite low oyster densities, Polson (2006) recorded the presence of Olympia oysters in all bays and estuaries in Southern California. Conversely, many of the estuaries in the northern end of the range featured absent populations (Polson et al. 2006). The even distribution throughout Southern California indicates the region’s favorable conditions for growth, reestablishment, and restoration (Polson et al. 2006). Life History Natural populations of Olympia oysters have shown few signs of recovery since their large-scale removal early in the twentieth century. Their inability to recover is likely due to a significant bottleneck in recruitment. Olympia oysters are protandrous hermaphrodites (Coe 1931). Though their initial sexual phase is male, Olympia oysters alternate their functional gender between male and female during each

12

spawning cycle (Coe 1931). Olympia oysters begin their lives without sexual orientation, but gonads form eight weeks after settlement (Coe 1932a in Baker 1995). At 12 to 16 weeks, the organism begins to exhibit male development, and at five months, the first spermatozoa are ready to be discharged (Coe 1932a in Baker 1995). As the spermatozoa are released, the male has already begun transformation into a female. The male-female transformation is highly dependent on temperature, and can be interrupted if the temperature drops below 12.5° C (Hopkins 1937 in Baker). Additionally, up to half of a population can be transforming between sexes at any given time during the year, so this reduces the number of sexually-active males and females (Coe 1934). As the oyster ages, its transitional development between male and female slows, reducing its reproductive potential (Coe 1931).

Olympia oysters begin spawning in Southern California when water temperatures reach 16°C and continues for 7 to 9 months (Coe 1931; Davis 1949). At 16°C, males release hundreds of thousands of sperm balls, each containing about 2000 spermatozoa (Coe 1931; Coe 1931). The sperm balls dissolve and release spermatozoa into the ambient water, stimulating synchronous spawning of other Olympia oysters (Coe 1934). The spermatozoa are brought into the female’s mantle chamber with the ambient water and are held for 10 to 12 days for a period of brooding (Coe 1934; Davis 1949). Following brooding, each female releases approximately 250,000 to 300,000 larvae into the water column (Hopkins 1936). After 20 to 40 days, the free-swimming larvae settle on hard substrate, mud, rock, or structures (Ricketts 1985). Though the larvae grow very quickly in the water column, the oysters’ growth slows considerably after settlement, requiring approximately four years to reach maturity (Couch et al. 1989). Olympia oysters exhibit slow growth because they filter only larger plankton, not nanoplankton (Ricketts 1985). Exotic oysters, such as the Pacific oyster, have a comparative advantage because of their ability to filter nanoplankton, resulting in greater growth rates. Despite this feeding disadvantage, Olympia oyster growth rates can increase in warmer temperatures. For example, Coe (1932) measured shell heights of 30 to 40 mm after 20 weeks of growth in Southern California (Coe 1932b in Baker 1995). Warmer temperatures also provide a significantly prolonged spawning period (April through November) compared with Olympia oysters in the rest of their range (Coe 1934). The warm water facilitates a more efficient spawning cycle by accelerating the sexual transformation and recuperation period between male and female gender (Ricketts 1985). Thus, Southern California’s warmer waters provide excellent conditions for maximum larval dispersion. Environmental Requirements Suitable substrate is hypothesized to be one of the critical bottlenecks to Olympia oyster recruitment (Bonnot 1940; Trimble et al. 2003). Olympia oysters require some hard substrate to settle on, but are not picky, readily settling on virtually any object with a small hard surface (Fasten 1931). Specifically, Olympia oysters are found in higher densities attached to old oyster shells, rocks, wood, metal, or any hard structure (Couch et al. 1989) Settlement is not limited to large pieces of hard substrate, as Olympia oysters have the ability to form loose reefs in soft mud areas (Baker 1995). Hopkins (1935) discovered that Olympia oysters preferentially settle on planar surfaces due to the position of their foot during their larval stage. Recent field experiments showed that recruitment improved at lower tidal elevations, which is likely due to the more stable temperature (White et al. 2005). Additionally,

13

White et al. (2005) showed that Olympia oysters preferentially recruited on Olympia oyster shell over live Olympia oysters, whole Pacific oyster shell, and crushed pacific shell. White et al.’s (2005) study proved that more Olympia oysters recruited to shell substrate over bare ground (gravel or tidal flat), which is consistent with field experiments on substrate and survivorship of other oyster species (Peterson et al. 1995). Though Olympia oysters can survive in a broad array of habitats, they are most abundant in estuaries and coastal river outlets, particularly in protected inlets and gravel bars (Couch et al. 1989; Conte 1996). Historically, the largest populations were recorded in low intertidal or shallow subtidal mud areas of estuaries, but have also been recorded on exposed rocky reefs, structures, outcroppings, in dredged channels, and on the undersides of structures (Townsend 1983 in Baker 1995; Galtsoff 1929 in Baker 1995; Bonnot 1935 in Baker 1995; (Fasten 1931; Bonnot 1940).

Olympia oysters cannot survive temperature extremes, such as freezing temperatures (-1° to 5°C) or excessive heat (>30° C) (Conte 1996); (Baker 1995). Field experiments in Milford, Connecticut, showed 100% Olympia oyster mortality when the oysters were exposed to freezing (-1.0° C to 5.0° C) temperatures, but only 3% mortality under controlled conditions (12.0° C to 13.0° C) (Davis 1955). Similarly, extreme high temperature shocks (38° C) showed high mortality, suggesting one reason for the southern limit of the species’ geographic range (Brown et al. 2004). Due to their preference for a stable temperature, larger populations of Olympia oysters occur in low intertidal or subtidal areas that are better protected from prolonged hot summer surface temperatures and colder winter water temperatures (Conte et al. 2001). Similarly, Olympia oysters thrive in stable saline conditions (above 25 ppt), but can survive in low salinity waters (15 ppt) (Korringa 1976; Couch et al. 1989). Olympia oysters flourish in protected estuarine waters with high salinity, moderate temperatures, and varied hard substrates. Southern California’s estuaries include all of these environmental requirements, with a temperate year-round climate and a relatively small annual variation in sea surface temperature and salinity. Finally, almost all of Southern California’s estuaries include gravel bars, breakwaters, channels, and varied hard substrate for Olympia oyster habitat. Pollution Industrial chemical effluents are the greatest threat to Olympia oyster populations, especially sulfite waste liquor from pulp mills (Odlaug 1949; Korringa 1976). High concentrations of sulfite waste liquor decreases the Olympia oysters’ ability to pump water over its gills (Odlaug 1949). Field experiments indicated that exposure to sulfite waste liquor caused extremely high rates of mortality, lowering of body weight, and lower reproductive success (Odlaug 1949; Korringa 1952). Additionally, sewage was blamed for the loss of Olympia oysters in Puget Sound (Galtsoff 1929 in Baker 1995) and Yaquina Bay (Fasten 1931). Tighter regulation of point sources with the Clean Water Act (1977) resulted in a shift toward non-point source pollution as the primary pollution threat to Olympia oyster recovery (Cook et al. 1998). However, recent field experiments revealed that Olympia oysters show strong recruitment, even in areas that exceeded local water quality standards for dissolved oxygen, turbidity, chlorine (from sewage outfalls), fecal coliform, nutrients, and temperature (Shaffer 2004). With the exception of sulfite waste liquor, toxic wastes (Superfund sites), and waters with high concentrations of cadmium or zinc, Olympia oysters showed the strongest growth and lowest mortality in areas that featured the

14

worst water quality conditions (Barrett 1963; Shaffer 2004). Thus, restoration efforts that avoid pulp mills and toxic sites are likely to show strong growth, even in the face of poor water quality conditions. Predators After water quality, predation and disease are commonly cited in the scientific literature as the largest threats to the survival of the Olympia oyster. With limited commercial oyster culture in Southern California, there have been no comprehensive studies of the predators that affect oyster survivorship. However, the literature indicates that exotic predators cause the highest rates of mortality in Olympia oyster populations. In Washington, two particularly voracious invasive predators, the Japanese oyster drill (Ceratostoma inornatum) and the Eastern drill (Urosalpinx cinerea), have been extensively studied. These oyster drills have plagued oyster aquaculture operations in the Pacific Northwest because the oyster drills preferentially feed on young oysters (Buhle et al. 2003). Studies show that one C. inoratum can consume at least one adult Olympia oyster per week by boring through the oyster shell (Chew 1960 in Baker). U. cinerea can cause 10 to 20% of juvenile mortalities (Elsey 1933 in Baker). Mueller and Hoffman (1999) proved that mortality in outplanted Pacific oyster beds increased by at least 25% because of oyster drill predation during the first six months after planting, decreasing net aquaculture profits by 55%. Recent field experiments showed that both species of oyster drills preferentially feed on Pacific oysters over Olympia oysters (Buhle et al. 2003). While U. cinerea is abundant throughout California (Carlton 1979; Carlton 1992), C. inoratum has only been observed as far south as Morro Bay (Carlton 1979; Carlton 1992; Baker 1995). Other invasive species, such as the green crab (Carcinus maenas) and flatworm (Pseudostylochus ostreaophagus), cause high rates of mortality in Olympia oysters but have ranges outside of Southern California (Grosholz et al. 2000). The anomuran shrimps, Callianassa californiana and Upogebia pugettensis, are not predators of Olympia oysters, but compete with Olympia oysters for muddy substrate (Baker 1995; Dumbauld et al. 1996). These burrowing shrimp are endemic to California, sharing a similar geographic range as the Olympia oyster (MacGinitie 1934). The burrowing activity of the shrimp stirs up sediment, weakens oyster dikes, and causes increased mortality of settling larvae and spat that are smothered in mud (Dumbauld et al. 1996). In Washington, commercial oyster farmers have controlled shrimp populations with the insecticide carbaryl, which is sprayed onto the sediment at low tide (Dumbauld et al. 1996). Natural predators to the Olympia oyster include ducks (Melanitta fusca, Melantta nigra, and Aythya marila), crabs (Cancer gracilis, Cancer productus, and Cancer magister), bat rays (Myliobatus californica), and leopard sharks (Triakis semifasciata) (Baker 1995). All of these species are present in Southern California estuaries, but ducks and crabs are thought to be less significant to survivorship (Baker 1995; Gray et al. 1997). Though bat rays are often considered a predator of Olympia oysters, a recent study proved that they do not actually feed on oysters, but selectively choose clams, cancer crabs, and anomuran shrimp (Gray et al. 1997). Oyster mortality is more likely a result of bat ray substrate disturbances (bat rays create large pits when they sift through the sediment in search of prey) (Gray et al. 1997). Thus, bat rays actually remove Olympia oyster predators, but indirectly cause oyster mortality in muddy bottom habitat (Gray et al. 1997). Leopard sharks are opportunistic benthic feeders that feed on a variety of invertebrates (Smith 2001), and induce similar patterns of

15

sediment disturbance as bat rays. Leopard sharks and bat rays are easily excluded from shellfish farms with wooden stakes (Roedel and Ripley 1950 in Baker 1995). Disease Though Olympia oysters are relatively disease-free compared with other oysters, there are two exotic threats to populations: Denman Island disease (Mikrocytos mackini) and redworm (Mytilicola orientalis). In 2002, two wild Pacific oysters from Washington were found to be infected with the pathogen M. mackini, which is the causative agent for Denman Island Disease (Moore 2004). Though there are no human health impacts from M. mackini, it causes yellow or green pustules to form on the oysters, denuding the oysters of any commercial value (Moore 2004). Previous studies showed that M. mackini caused significant mortalities in Pacific and European (O. edulis) oysters in British Columbia, with only intermittent mortalities of Olympia oysters in Yaquina Bay, OR (Farley 1988 in Baker). Since California receives all of its oyster seed from approved facilities in Washington, Oregon, and Hawaii, there was concern that M. mackini had established itself within California aquaculture operations (Moore 2004). A comprehensive survey of oyster disease conducted in 2005 in California did not reveal any evidence of M. mackini, nor any other pathogen of concern (Moore 2004). However, Moore (2005) cautioned that other pathogens, such as Haplosporidium nelsoni (the causative agent of Delaware Bay disease), have been found in Drake’s Estero (Point Reyes, CA), illustrating the risk of introduced pathogens. Redworm is a common internal macroparasite caused by an intestinal copepod, M. orientalis, that was introduced with shipments of Pacific oyster seed from Japan (Odlaug 1946; Couch et al. 1989). The copepod lives in the anus of oysters, resulting in an infection that causes poor oyster health (Odlaug 1946; Couch et al. 1989). However, the incidence of infection is low, ranging from 0 to 3% in San Francisco Bay (Bradley and Seibert 1978 in Baker). Experiments in Puget Sound revealed an infection rate of 0 to 16% with a corresponding decreased body weight in infected oysters (Odlaug 1946). Further research on the distribution of these diseases in Southern California is required. III. Restoration Restoration and aquaculture of Olympia oysters need not be exclusive activities. Breitburg et al. (2000) argued that oyster conservation and harvest are compatible goals that can be reached with the same strategies. Aquaculture may be able to enhance restoration efforts in Southern California by providing oyster seed, larval spillover, or shell for substrate. Aquaculture and restoration use many of the same methods and technology, creating potential for excess seed to be harvested from aquaculture sites or hatcheries for use in restoration efforts. While oyster seed is a basic need for restoration, successful restoration also requires careful planning. Identifying the stresses to the oyster ecosystem, the sources of those stresses, and potential strategies to abate those stresses is vital to successful restoration and should guide site selection (Brumbaugh et al. 2006).

1. Limiting Factors to Native Oyster Restoration Several physical, chemical, and biological factors play an important role in oyster restoration efforts due to their effects on oyster establishment and growth. Water Quality

16

When choosing a site for restoration, water quality should be tested to avoid toxic wastes and sulfite waste liquor effluent from pulp mills. Relatively poor water quality does not pose a threat to oyster survival since the Olympia oysters are tolerant of a wide range environmental conditions. Salinity While optimal salinity conditions for this oyster occur at 25 ppt, they can tolerate salinities as low as 15 ppt. It may be advantageous to choose restoration sites with a lower salinity to decrease oyster drill predation. Water Temperature Restoration sites should also fall within the required temperature range of the Olympia oyster, with sites preferably maximizing the time spent above 16° C to encourage spawning. In addition, the site must protect oysters from extreme winter and summer temperatures. Water Retention The presence of trickling or moving water from a seep or drainage channel is a very important determinant in the current distribution of native oysters. Restoration need not be restricted to subtidal areas, but sites with steep sloped beaches or still pools will not be as successful (Peabody 2007). Substrate Oyster recruitment and survivorship depends on both the type of substrate and the amount of siltation present at the restoration site. Larvae need hard substrate to settle on, with preference shown to Olympia oyster shell (White et al. 2005). High levels of siltation or algal deposition can reduce oyster recruitment by covering hard substrate. Bottom conditions and sources of sedimentation should be considered in site selection.

Recruitment Olympia oyster populations are reduced or extinct in some historical sites, limiting their ability to provide adequate seed for recruitment. Collecting seed from aquaculture would provide the missing element for restoration at these sites. Some sites may also be a sink for larvae and another potential source of seed. Restoration sites that are larval sinks may preclude larval dispersion beyond the site’s borders. Predators Physical barriers such as fencing can reduce predation by bat rays and leopard sharks. There is an indication that the threat of predation by Eastern oyster drills decreases with high population densities of Olympia oyster. ‘ In some areas, particularly where prey densities are low, [Eastern oyster] drill predation rates are high enough that they could act as a serious barrier to population rebuilding. In other areas, though, invasive drills apparently coexist with high densities of Olympia oysters, suggesting that there might be a threshold density of oysters that will swamp predation pressure and permit population growth.’ (Buhle 2007). 2. Restoration Strategies: Seeding vs. Reef Construction Restoration sites should be selected based on the factors listed above, and a target acreage goal of oyster restoration set. This target can be decided by determining the volume of water to be filtered in a given time (Breitburg et al. 2000) or can be based on area available. Particular restoration methods will be chosen to minimize site-specific stresses. Olympia oysters are not sensitive to

17

crowding (Peter-Contess et al. 2005), so an even placement of spat is not a concern when seeding a site. Seed, oyster spat, can also be collected from extant populations by hanging a bag of oyster shell, a cultch bag, in areas where larval production is high (Peabody 2007). Spatted bags are left in the water as it takes about three months for the spat to reach outplanting size (Peter-Contess et al. 2005). Seed can also be raised in hatcheries to the desired shell size but hatchery-raised seed is more expensive. One potential problem with hatchery-raised spat is with the lack of genetic diversity. Restoration efforts in Puget Sound experienced problems associated with low genetic diversity from a large broodstock (B. Peabody, personal communication). Reliance on hatchery-raised spat may be problematic for an aquaculture-supported restoration program. Further research on maintaining genetic diversity in hatchery-raised spat will be conducted as part of our feasibility analysis of the restoration potential of Olympia oyster aquaculture. Seeding The following methods can be employed to seed restoration sites:

• Bottom Culture - This method can be used at optimal sites with few predators and firm substrate. If seed is very small or there are many predators, other methods should be used (Peter-Contess et al. 2005). Seed is dropped in the water over the restoration site.

• Bags - In marginal habitat, or at sites where predation is a concern, bags should be employed. The seed is left in the mesh bags from the hatchery or transferred to larger bags and the bags are set on the bottom of the estuary. When the oysters have reached a safe size (based on predation, currents, wave action etc.), they can be removed from the bags and spread out by bottom culture techniques (Peter-Contess et al. 2005). Several studies have shown that increasing the size of (outplanted) bivalves decreases mortality from predation because predators preferentially choose younger, more vulnerable bivalves (Peterson et al. 1995; Grosholz et al. 2000). Experiments conducted on the Pacific oyster also revealed this tendency, which suggests that the shell size-predation trend may also be true with Olympia oysters (Grosholz et al. 2000). In some cases, bags of Olympia oysters have been left for up to a year (Archer 2007). The bags should be turned periodically to prevent siltation and suffocation of the oysters on the bottom (Archer 2007).

• Hanging Bags - This method uses the bags above but hangs them off some structure in the water, such as a pier. This method is good for areas with very poor substrate. Fouling organisms must be cleaned off the bags two or three times a year to allow more oysters to reach maturity (Peter-Contess et al. 2005).

• Longlines - Another option for areas with soft mud or silt is longlines. They are sections of braided rope attached to a post with spat settled directly on the rope or attached cultch shell (Peter-Contess et al. 2005). Current, predators, and boat traffic represent threats to oyster survivorship.

• Mounding - This method is similar to bottom culture but the clutch shell is deposited in mounds to add height. This is used in areas where siltation is a threat and also on tidelands with suitable habitat to minimize the impacts of predatory oyster drills (Peter-Contess et al. 2005).

• No-take reserves - In large-scale restoration projects a network of no-take areas can be established within a larger harvest area. The no-take refuges serve as hatcheries that seed the harvested areas, enhancing the population. In disease infected areas, the broodstock in the refuges may have some resistance to disease (Breitburg et al. 2000).

18

Reef Construction/Habitat Enhancement

• Oyster reefs can be rebuilt in areas where suitable substrate is the limiting factor. Reef construction consists of dumping substrate, usually oyster shell, off a barge into the targeted restoration area. If there is an adequate larval population it will begin to settle out on the constructed reef. These reefs can also be used to outplant oyster seed that has been raised using hanging bags.

3. Restoration Logistics While the restoration process begins before seeding or reef construction takes place, it does not end with these activities. The cost of any restoration project depends on the chosen techniques and size of the project. Federal, state, and local permits must be obtained prior to beginning a project. Completed restoration projects should be monitored on a regular basis to gauge their success. Costs Costs can range widely depending on the seeding technique used and the size of seed used. The larger the seed that comes out of the hatchery, the more expensive it was to produce. A one-acre rehabilitation project in the San Francisco Bay cost $82,027 (NOAA 2004). Two re-establishment projects of the same size cost $243,930 and $122,275 (NOAA 2004). Another reef restoration project cost $60,050 (NOAA 2004). The funding for these projects came from NOAA and other federal and non-federal agencies. All projects involved many hours of volunteer work from community members. Betsy Peabody, executive director of the Puget Sound Restoration Fund, estimated more than $50,000 per acre for enhancement work (spreading shell), followed by monitoring. The cost of restoration can range substantially based on the pre- and post-monitoring program. Seeding projects cost less, usually around $26 per bag of seed, but are experimental in nature and therefore small scale (Peabody 2007). The cost of coordinating the project with multiple tideland owners/partners and ongoing monitoring is significant in determining the overall cost of the project. For larger scale projects, costs can be extremely high. In Virginia, a project to construct 158 acres of oyster reef habitat, seed 30 million spat on shell, and monitor the site has cost $3.53 million to date (Brumbaugh et al. 2000). The largest project to date will begin in 2007 in Virginia and aims to construct 111 acres of oyster reef habitat and seed disease-resistant spat on shell or brood stock oysters, with the goal of restoring approximately 430 acres total at a cost of $6.5 million (Brumbaugh et al. 2000).

Permits In California, leases for submerged land require a minimum amount of shellfish production (2,000 oysters/acre/year) (Beck et al. 2004). The Fish and Game Commission approves leases and lease regulations are listed in the Department of Fish and Game Code. Additional permits must be obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard. Monitoring Restoration The final step of the restoration process is monitoring success of the project. Monitoring should occur bi-annually at a minimum and the first monitoring should take place within six months of seeding (Peter-Contess et al. 2005; Brumbaugh et al. 2006).

19

Case Studies The following paragraphs describe successful oyster restoration projects:

• Washington-Puget Sound/Willapa Bay - Puget Sound Restoration Fund has planted about 5 million oysters at 80 different sites in Puget Sound. They have helped establish community oyster farms in Drayton Harbor and Henderson Inlet. Currently, Puget Sound Restoration Fund is focusing habitat enhancement in areas with larval production but limited substrate (Peabody 2007).

• California-Tomales Bay/San Francisco Bay - Scientists built wooden frames to hang bags of oyster shell four feet long and 10 inches in diameter. Eighteen bags were attached to a structure, which was then set in the bay. In Richardson Bay, 12 pallets six 40-lb bags of shell attached were dropped in about five feet of water (Rogers 2004).

• Oregon-Netarts Bay – The Nature Conservancy and Oregon State University initiated a small scale restoration project. This project is using bottom culture techniques to compare the success of various starting density of seed at restoration sites (Archer 2007).

• Virginia-Hampton Roads, and the Chesapeake Bay - The local community (individuals or schools) has been involved in this restoration project, delegating the task of growing spat using the hanging bag technique (Brumbaugh et al. 2006). The participants then have the option to give the oysters back, to be transferred to oyster reefs in the bay or to harvest the mature oysters for consumption.

VI. Aquaculture Technologies Aquaculture encompasses the cultivation of oysters from larvae to harvest. As such, oyster aquaculture has three distinct phases: seed production, outplanting, and harvesting. Various types of technologies are associated with each phase. The suitability of each technology depends on multiple factors including cost, substrate, and production scale. The technologies that we choose to incorporate into our business plan for Olympia oyster aquaculture will depend upon these factors and will also influence the restoration strategy ultimately chosen. Producing Olympia oyster seed The two methods for acquiring Olympia oyster seed include capturing wild seed or producing seed in a hatchery. Natural capture consists of placing bags of oyster shell (or similar cultch material) in the water prior to the expected settlement of planktonic oyster larvae. If the larvae are successfully caught, then the spatted cultch are taken to the nursery for development. Natural capture depends on the ability to locate spawning areas and predict the time of larval settlement; therefore, natural capture is often used as a supplemental method because of this unpredictability (Toba 2002). The hatchery process involves four distinct phases: broodstock conditioning, larval production (spawning), spat production, and, in some cases, phytoplankton production (Robert et al. 1999). Conditioning the Olympia oysters includes immersing the brood oysters for one week in water at a temperature of 13 to 16 ° C to initiate spawning readiness. After the brood oysters successfully spawn, their larvae are concentrated in small tanks where they settle onto the cultch. The spatted

20

cultch is either bagged for shipping offsite or kept in the hatchery and fed phytoplankton-rich water for several months (Toba 2002). The seed oysters are ready for planting when they are approximately the size of a pencil eraser (usually within three months of settling) (Peter-Contesse et al. 2005). Each phase of the hatchery process requires feed for the oysters. The main food used in a hatchery is microalgae (or phytoplankton). These microalgae are either cultured in-house or acquired in slurry from off site (Robert and Gerard 1999). Hatcheries may sell or distribute seed at various stages in the process depending on the requirements and grow-out methods that customers employ. Hatcheries typically produce bags of cultched seed, single (cultchless) oyster seed, or “eyed” larvae (swimming stage) (Toba 2002; Fukui North America 2004). The cultched seed produces oysters that are clustered on remnants of old shell, usually 9 to 13 per cluster. For cultchless seed production, the larvae attach to sand or finely ground oyster shell. Cultchless seed results in individual oysters that are used mainly for the half-shell trade. Oyster growers who purchase “eyed” larvae, which is ready to settle onto cultch, must have their own heated water tanks to produce spat (Conte et al. 2001). From the hatchery, the oyster seed are transported to a nursery for development. The objective of the nursery is to protect the vulnerable seed oysters from predation and adverse environmental conditions, and to prime the juveniles for outdoor life (Toba 2002). The nursery also maximizes growth by providing oysters with the highest quantity of nutrients possible (Bishop 1996). The cultched and cultchless seed are generally held in the nursery for several months. Cultchless seed need more care in the nursery than cultched seed. Cultchless seed oysters are usually kept in containers to prevent scattering. One of the newer nursery technologies is the floating upweller system (FLUPSY). In a FLUPSY, the cultched seed are placed in a container where a pump forces nutrient-rich water from bottom to the top to maximize nutrient intake (Bishop 1996). Oyster Aquaculture Techniques to Maximize Production The appropriate technology for growing Olympia oysters depends on a variety of factors that are dictated by location and marketing objective. Locational factors include the potential for predation, degree of exposure, current velocity, tidal range, phytoplankton productivity, and substrate conditions(Conte et al. 2001; Peter-Contesse et al. 2005). The primary marketing factor that influences the appropriate grow-out method is the targeted market (i.e., half-shell or shucked) (Conte et al. 2001). Grow-out methods for oyster aquaculture include two general categories—bottom culture and off-bottom culture. Bottom culture Traditional bottom culture entails spreading spatted cultch across areas of suitable habitat. This type of bottom culture works best at sites with few predators and firm substrate, such as protected bays or inlets with little wave or current action. At sites where predation is a concern, mesh grow-out bags are often used to protect the juvenile oysters when they are most vulnerable. After a few months when the oysters have matured to about one-half inch in size, the cultch can be removed from the bags and spread across the substrate (Toba 2002; Peter-Contesse et al. 2005). Off-bottom culture Off-bottom culture techniques are often employed in areas where substrate is too hard, too soft, or otherwise not ideal for bed culture. Besides utilizing areas not suitable for bed culture, the other advantages of this type of culture include reduced predation higher yields because of increased survival, growth, and fatness. Disadvantages to off-bottom culture include potential damage from

21

storms, fouling, increased visibility, and higher capital. Table 3 below summarizes the various types of off-bottom culture techniques (Toba 2002). Table 3. Description of types of off-bottom culture techniques and methodology for techniques.

Off-bottom culture technique Description of methodology

Suspended bag or net culture Cultch suspended in bags or nets from docks, longlines, or other floating structures.

Longline culture Cultch spaced at equal distances (6 to 10 inches) on a length of rope or wire. May be suspended on stakes, anchored to bottom, submerged from dock, or hanging from rack.

Stake culture Cultch hung from precut stakes (up to 3 feet tall) that are driven into bottom. Cultch are nailed to stakes.

Floating culture Cultch placed in grow-out trays or polyethylene cages stacked on the floor of a sink float or suspended from a raft or floating longline system.

Rack and bag culture Single oysters placed in polyethylene grow-out bags or cages that are clipped to rebar racks. (In areas of hard substrate, racks are optional).

Existing Olympia oyster aquaculture methods Currently, the only commercial aquaculture of the Olympia oyster exists in Washington State. The most prominent commercial harvesters include Taylor Shellfish Farms and Olympia Oyster Company, both of which are based in Shelton, WA (Taylor Shellfish Farms 2007). Both companies raise their Olympia oysters in estuaries on the southern end of Puget Sound using dike culture, the form of bottom culture developed at the turn of the century. Dike culture involves the construction of watertight walls, or “oyster terraces”, to maintain a consistent water level suitable for Olympia oyster growth. Because Olympia oysters are sensitive to temperature fluctuations, they grow best when consistently submerged and not exposed to the air. Therefore, these dikes are constructed to hold at least six inches of water at low tide. The dike walls are constructed of either concrete or treated wood on level ground. To harden the ground within the dike, it is covered with a base layer of gravel and oyster shell. Depending on conditions at the location, some dikes may be suitable for spat collection while others are suitable only for the final grow-out phase. It takes approximately 3.5 years for Olympia oysters to grow to harvestable size. High-level dikes are best for growth, while low-level dikes are better for the fattening phase. Therefore, the spatted cultch are generally kept in a high-level dike for the first two years of development and then transferred to a low-level dike for the remaining year until maturity (Korringa 1976). Harvesting Methods Oyster harvesting methods vary depending on the type of aquaculture technology employed. Bottom culture and off-bottom culture are the two most common methods to harvest oysters. Bottom culture harvesting methods For bottom culture, oysters may be harvested manually using tools such as oyster tongs, rakes, or forks. The collected oysters are then placed onto a scow or “sink float” for transport. A scow is a

22

floating wooden platform towed by a motorboat and is the preferred method for transporting harvested oysters long distances. A sink float, however, is a platform that is slightly submerged underwater. It is better suited to keep harvested oysters alive for longer time periods, but more difficult to tow long distances (Korringa 1976).

Another common form of bottom culture harvest is dredging. A dredge is a metal frame with sharp teeth, which drags along the bottom and scrapes oysters into an attached bag (The Mariner's Museum 2002). Diver hand-harvesting is another method, in which divers use SCUBA gear to collect oysters by hand. Of these methods, dredging is considered the most destructive to the reef and oyster habitat. Lenihan (2004) evaluated the environmental impacts of each of these harvesting methods for the Eastern oyster (Crossostrea virginica) and concluded that dredging reduced the height of reef habitat by 34%, tonging reduced the reef height by 23%, and diver hand-harvesting only reduced reef height by 6%. Moreover, diver harvesting produced 25 to 32% more oysters per unit effort than the other methods (Lenihan 2004). Therefore, hand-harvesting is the preferred method to conserve habitat and support sustainable aquaculture. Because bottom culture for this oyster generally occurs in shallower areas, hand-picking or manual collection with tongs, forks, or rakes are the most common methods for harvesting. Off-bottom culture harvesting methods Off-bottom aquaculture techniques may involve manual or mechanical harvesting methods. Most of these techniques require a boat or barge to facilitate harvesting. For longline culture, harvesters may pull lines manually or use a mechanized reel to bring oysters into the boat (British Columbia Shellfish Grower's Association 2005). Rack and bag culture, suspended bag/net culture, and stake culture generally involve hand-collecting the oysters. Post-harvest oyster preparation To prepare the oysters for sale, the oysters must be thoroughly washed to remove mud, barnacles, and fouling. While this process may be done manually, several mechanical devices may be used for efficiency. An oyster tumbler grader uses a high-pressure wash and drum rotation to remove fouling settlement and prune shell shape (Fukui North America 2004). An oyster washer-grading table is composed of a conveyor belt and discharge boxes. The oysters are loaded onto the belt and carried under a high-pressure water wash to remove sediment. The oysters then pass by an area where the oysters are visually graded and placed onto a divided belt to discharge into boxes at the discharge end (Fukui North America 2004).

23

V. Public-Private Partnerships Olympia oyster aquaculture in Southern California has the potential to enhance local restoration projects through a public-private partnership. Restoration projects provide an opportunity to combine public improvement projects with local business ventures. Partnerships can be structured in a variety of ways to achieve specific goals and objectives. Different public-private partnership structures, components for success, and case examples are discussed below. There may be opportunities in Southern California to partner a private Olympia aquaculture business with nearby restoration efforts in such a way that both parties benefit from the enterprise. Definition A public-private partnership is defined as a contractual agreement between public and private sectors to achieve some public service or business venture. These partnerships can entail a transfer of funds from one partner to another or can share in the operation of a service. Public- private partnerships in public works projects have been particularly successful, resulting in the construction of roads, hospitals, and water treatment facilities (Seader 2002). The privatization of government services can lower the cost of the project, reduce the time to completion, and efficiently accomplish project goals (Oakley 1998). Recently, community restoration projects incorporated public-private partnerships. Restoration projects are extremely costly, time consuming, labor intensive, and require continual fundraising. Partnering federal agencies with local communities or organizations can solve both of these problems. Federal organizations can supply funding and technical expertise to a project while local communities can supply manpower and volunteer time (Brumbaugh et al. 2006; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2006). Academic institutions also supply valuable technical assistance (Brumbaugh et al. 2006). Public-private partnerships are flexible and can take many forms to accommodate a wide range of goals. For example, private entities may provide funding in exchange for an environmental or green image. Critical components for success While there are distinct advantages to using a public private partnership to accomplish restoration goals, there are some difficulties as well. It can be challenging to develop a partnership that provides comparable benefits to both parties involved. Once an appropriate incentive for partnership is identified, the key to a successful project is the development of a clear contract and business plan (Surprenant 2006). Clear expectations, methods of communication, and conflict resolution are essential for public-private partnership success. The business plan should address each partner’s responsibilities and specific measures of progress along the way. Some partnerships may require active involvement of both parties, while others will entail one partner taking a more passive role in the project. Examples of successful public private partnerships NOAA has developed their Community-based Restoration Program to create public private partnerships in habitat restoration. NOAA provides a forum for partners to connect and funding for selected projects. The motivation for this program stems from the idea that involving the local community in restoration at the grassroots level leads to a higher success of projects. Since its induction in 1996, the program has funded 1,000 projects, involved 100,000 local volunteers, and

24

restored over 24,000 habitat acres across the United States (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2006). VI. Writing a Business Plan Our business plan will quantify the feasibility of Olympia oyster aquaculture in Southern California and estimate the potential impacts that this venture could have on restoration. Developing a business plan is crucial to the start of a successful business. A plan allows entrepreneurs to formalize their ideas of a potential business, detail the necessary start-up requirements, the operational structure, the end product, and finally, establish the economic viability of the business. The business plan is the link between the original idea of a business and its actual implementation. The process of developing a plan can be as valuable to the company as the actual plan itself. It can serve as a structured step-by-step thought experiment for a start-up business exposing potential flaws or difficulties (Kallen 2001). The form and makeup of an individual business plan varies to suit each business and its intended audience. A business plan can be used to accomplish a variety of different objectives: it can be treated as a feasibility study to flesh out a plan for a start up company, used as a tool to acquire investors, used to determine a direction for the future, or employed as a device to review the past performance of an existing company (Timmons 1980). While each plan will be individually tailored, in general, a business plan will include the following eight components: 1. Executive Summary The executive summary provides a quick overview of the business, briefly touching on each of the business plan components. It states the idea behind the business, where it will go and why it will be successful. While one of the shortest portions of the business plan, it is often the most challenging to write. In a few pages, the summary needs to adequately describe the business, capture the reader’s attention and instill confidence in potential investors. This section usually addresses the following items:

• The mission statement • Goals of the business, both short and long term • Description of the product delivered • Risks and competition the business will face • Brief summary of the existing market for the product • Future plans and direction of the business

2. Product Description Ultimately, a business is built around the product it delivers. The quality, components and methods of production need to be clearly defined. A product description should tell the reader exactly what makes this product desirable and unique from the competition, highlighting some of the key selling points. For an aquaculture business plan, the product description should also address biological information on the species produced. Pomeroy (Pomeroy 2003) suggests that the following information is included in the description of an aquaculture project:

• Biological information on life history and habitat needs

• Type of technology that will be used

25

• Source for initial or continued seed

• Harvest schedule and reproduction cycle

• Potential diseases or risks to the product 3. Market Analysis A market analysis is included to examine the current demand and possible market opportunities for the product. This component is extremely important to determine the success of the business. It is crucial that a company and any investors receive a complete and accurate assessment of the current demand for the product. Some businesses choose to hire a consulting firm to conduct a comprehensive market analysis. As noted in the U.S. Small Business Administration (Laumer 2007), a market analysis can be done on a large or small scale, depending on the type of business. Regardless of size, most market analyses will cover the following:

• Past, current and future projections of consumption trends • Identification of different market segments (i.e. farmers market versus high end restaurant), including relative size and buying patterns (cyclical or seasonal trends)

• Geographical range of the target market • Estimates of consumers’ willingness to pay • Market analysis of competitive products, including prices, volume and percentage of the target market held

4. Marketing Plan A marketing plan defines the strategy the business will take to secure and develop its customer base. Based on the current market for competitive products, the strategy should determine the difficultly of penetrating the market (Ruzo 2005). Building on information gathered during the market analysis of the customer base and their needs, optimal methods of communication and advertising should be incorporated into the strategy. Non-traditional marketing tactics should also be explored. These could entail forming partnerships with other organizations or community associations for promotional opportunities (Rice). 5. Management and Organization Structure Clear organizational structure can be the key to running a successful business. Investors want to see a clear chain of command in place, and in some cases, defined job descriptions of employees (Schweizer III 2006). Including a brief background and qualifications of the executive team in the business plan can incorporate the people component of the business, instilling confidence in potential investors. The significance of this section may vary depending on the structure and scale of the individual business. 6. Facility Description The production capacity and operational facility are detailed in this portion of the business plan. For an aquaculture business, this may entail a description of the current or intended site for operations as well as any hatchery or processing facilities (Strombom 1992). Expected production levels and times of harvest seasons should be included here, as well as listing any necessary equipment. This section can also include details on the packaging, shipping, and distribution of the final product. 7. Regulatory Requirements

26

Developing a business also entails fulfilling various regulatory requirements from numerous organizations. A business plan needs to identify these different requirements and also delineate how each requirement will be met. This process is especially important for an aquaculture business, as there are numerous permits and licenses required for the production, operation and quality of the finished product. Both federal and state regulatory agencies are involved in the aquaculture industry, including the Fish and Game Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Army Corp of Engineers. These requirements will vary greatly depending on the location of the aquaculture operation. There should also be an indication of the relative difficulty or feasibility of acquiring such permits included in the business plan and how often each will need to be renewed. 8. Financial Analysis A financial analysis will provide investors with a financial justification for the business. Start-up and operational costs are identified, as well as a forecast of future financial earnings. Usually several revenue projections are conducted, which include different variables projected at least three to five years in the future (Strombom 1992). These scenarios will provide a best and worst-case view of the economic feasibility of this business. These revenue projections can also be used to estimate initial investment costs and expected investment turnaround time (Schweizer III 2006). A risk analysis identifies potential threats to investors and the expected level of risk that the business may face. Risk analyses can either be qualitative or quantitative, depending on the availability of data and the needs of investors. The analysis should establish all foreseeable risks to the business, the severity of those risks, and the probability of those risks occurring. An aquaculture start-up business may face a greater amount of risk than other start up businesses due to the dependence on environmental conditions. An aquaculture risk analysis should incorporate environmental variability, including the likelihood of disease, predation, abnormal water temperatures, intense storm events, or fluctuating water quality. A solid financial plan and risk analysis are required to secure funding from any potential investors. An aquaculture industry may need an extended financial projection to attract investors. As such, it may take several years for the product to mature and become marketable, leading to a much longer investment turnaround time (Couch et al. 1989; Engle 1997). For an aquaculture business, these projected cost revenue scenarios might also include a range of sale prices, mortality events, and percentage of stock harvested over a ten year period (McCormick 2007). The financial plan may also explore other opportunities for additional funding or loan opportunities from government business incentives, science foundations, universities, or aquaculture associations. These potential investors should be identified as well as the process required to acquire funding (McCormick 2007). Costs can be divided into operational and start-up costs. Based on similar aquaculture case studies (O'Brian 2000; Kallen 2001), common start-up costs may include:

• Initial seed stock • Equipment • Permits and licenses • Legal or consulting fees

Expected operational costs for an aquaculture industry may include:

• Rent or continued permitting/licensing

27

• Labor • Hatchery rent and operation • Packaging, shipping and distribution • Equipment maintenance • Marketing and advertising • Insurance

28

Approach Through data collection, interviews, and a systematic survey, our group will quantify the market potential for Olympia oyster aquaculture in Southern California. Based on our analysis, we will develop an Olympia oyster aquaculture business plan. Research on Olympia oyster restoration techniques and case studies on public-private partnerships will suggest ways to incorporate local restoration goals into the aquaculture operation. Revenue projections under different market scenarios will quantify the potential for Olympia oyster aquaculture to support restoration goals. I. Investigate the potential Olympia oyster market in Southern California

• Analyze the supply of Olympia oysters o Quantify Olympia oyster aquaculture production costs

� Collect information on regulatory/permitting requirements from appropriate California and federal agencies

� Collect data on Southern California bays, estuaries, and coastal waters that are suitable for aquaculture operations. Investigate submerged land leases.

� Visit hatcheries and aquaculture operations to gather technical information on capital costs, operation, and maintenance of different aquaculture technologies

� Examine case studies to determine environmental impacts of different aquaculture technologies

� Perform a production analysis of different aquaculture techniques and approaches based on data from current operations

o Compile information on geographic distribution of major oyster producers o Interview aquaculture operators to determine the expected quality, availability, and stability of an Olympia oyster product

• Analyze the demand of Olympia oysters in Southern California o Research current patterns of oyster consumption in the United States over the past ten years to identify trends in the market

o Research current patterns of oyster consumption in California and Washington using trade journals, consumer reports, and personal communication

� Contact Taylor Shellfish Farms, Olympia Oyster Company, and other current producers for pricing information

� Identify substitutes and complements (i.e., direct competition) to the Olympia oyster market

o Identify target market segment through correspondence and data collection � Examine local markets (e.g., high-end restaurants, seafood wholesalers, organic restaurants, direct sales, local international markets)

� Examine the potential for international markets, particularly the Asian markets

o Verify the potential for a ‘green’ market niche with Olympia oyster aquaculture � Research strategies to create a green image � Investigate involving school/community programs to garner brand recognition

29

� Examine potential for collaborating with NGO restoration projects � Explore opportunities for product promotion

o Develop and conduct a survey to analyze market potential in Southern California for the Olympia oyster

� Determine unique characteristics of product that influence demand � Determine willingness to pay for Olympia oysters � Collect data on the potential for a green market niche in Southern California

II. Evaluate the potential for integration of aquaculture and restoration

• Review case studies of public- private partnerships to determine if they can provide a framework to integrate aquaculture and restoration

• Attend Olympia oyster restoration conference in Washington and synthesize the potential restoration strategies in Southern California

• Incorporate restoration goals and a public-private partnership model into our business plan III. Compile key parameters and market analysis into a business plan

• Synthesize demand data for target market o Calculate expected market price range in target market based on survey analysis o Compare expected market price with historical trends of consumption o Calculate expected demand for Olympia oysters in Southern California

• Synthesize production parameters o Select best aquaculture technology, including all costs of production and environmental impacts

o Identify the geographic range and shipping costs for our target market • Project several different scenarios of expected revenue to assess profitability and determine the investment risk of Olympia oyster aquaculture operations

• Perform a risk assessment on cost and revenue projections o Identify foreseeable risks to the business and calculate the severity and probability of those risks over time

• Present our final analysis to potential investors and representatives in the seafood industry to determine the overall feasibility and investment potential of an Olympia oyster aquaculture business in Southern California

30

Management Plan Organizational Roles and Responsibilities Project Manager – Josh Madeira

• Manage project calendar and progress toward milestones

• Maintain regular communication with external advisors

• Monitor progress of team members on individual tasks

• Facilitate weekly meetings Data/Computing Manager – Erin Hudson

• Organize and manage electronic data

• Develop and manage protocols for shared computing resources o Maintain folders on the group project shared drive o Advise group project members with technical problems

• Point of contact with Bren computing staff for technical issues and software requests

• Manage scheduling and logistical support, including Corporate-time calendars Financial Manager – Dominique Monie

• Establish and monitor project budget o Track budget, including expenses and incoming finances o Advise group project members on budget status, restrictions, and protocols

• Point of contact with Bren administration on group finances. Website Manager – Katie Reytar

• Responsible for the creation and maintenance of the group project website o Write, edit, and upload content to the website

• Work with project members to develop web updates throughout the school year

• Update group project members on new information posted to website Research Responsibilities Biology - Josh Madeira

• Research the life history, pathology, predation, and ecological role of Olympia oysters throughout their range.

Legal Jurisdiction & Oyster Restoration Techniques– Dominique Monie

• Research legal aspects of oyster aquaculture operations, including state and federal permitting requirements

• Explore restoration techniques and strategies for Olympia oysters Economics of Supply & Aquaculture Technology – Katie Reytar

• Research factors that affect market supply of oysters

• Examine oyster aquaculture technologies

31

Market Demand & Business Models – Erin Hudson

• Research market demand, marketing strategies, feasibility studies, and business plans

• Investigate public- private partnerships Meeting Structure During the school year, meetings will occur on a weekly or twice-weekly basis at an agreed upon time. All group members should be present unless other obligations prevent it. The group project advisor will attend meetings at least once a week, unless otherwise engaged. If a group member cannot attend a scheduled meeting, prior notice should be given to the other group members. Conflict resolution process The following steps should be taken if/when conflict arises: 1. Direct communication between the concerned members 2. Discussion of the conflict among all group members 3. Mediation with the group project advisor 4. Documentation of continued non-compliance with the conflict resolution procedures and more severe disciplinary action

Procedures for documenting, cataloging, and archiving information Hard copies of documents and literature will be stored in a central location in the designated filing cabinet assigned to the group in the Commons. Electronic data and information will be stored on the shared G drive in the group project folder named “oyster.” Within this shared directory, there are various folders designed to contain certain types of information (e.g., Oyster Logistics, Oyster Ecology, Survey, etc.). The “Admin” folder will be reserved for meeting notes, financial documents, and timeline/deadlines. Research and technical documents as well as references will be stored in the various other folders. Interaction guidelines—Group Project advisor, faculty advisors, external advisors, & clients Group project advisor- Hunter Lenihan The group project advisor will provide feedback on all significant written documents, milestones, and deliverables. The advisor will keep the group “on task” in terms of Bren’s specific group project requirements. He will also provide advice and direction to aid in accomplishing project goals. Faculty advisors The Faculty advisors will provide expert advice/written feedback on the proposal, surveys, market analysis, and drafts of the Final Report. The advisors and the client will receive deliverables in the form of hardcopy and/or an electronic form, according to the preferences of the individual. External advisors The external advisors will provide expert advice/feedback on the proposal and drafts of the Final Report. The external advisors will provide guidance and information on technical aspects of aquaculture, the oyster market, legal issues, and our market analysis.

32

Client The client will play a role in defining the overall scope and objectives of the project. The client will make available whatever pertinent data/information deemed necessary to fulfill objectives (i.e., case studies, contacts, etc.). The client will receive and comment on the end product. Overall Expectations Grading of the overall group project and of project deliverables will be based upon the performance of the group as a whole and also the individuals in terms of meeting the previously defined research goals, roles and responsibilities. The grade of the both the group and the individual will also be based upon attendance and participation. The group project advisor may increase his level of supervision if he perceives that current research efforts of the project group are not adequate to meet research goals, scope and methodology in a timely, effective fashion. The faculty advisor shall review all documents in a timely manner (~1 week) and provide constructive feedback, advice, and criticism on all facets of the group project. At the conclusion of each quarter, the group project advisor shall provide written evaluations of each team member and of the team, as a whole.

33

Deliverables

Deliverables for this project will include:

• Market analysis and/or business plan for Olympia oyster aquaculture in Southern California

• Final report and presentation

• Project brief

• Oral presentation and poster

Milestones Major milestones for the project are shown in the following table:

2007 2008

Task May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr

Proposal

Website Construction

Olympia Oyster Conference

Bodega Bay Carlsbad Aquafarm

Field Trips

McCormick

Data Collection

Initial Interviews

Follow- up

Progress Review

Trial

Actual Survey

Analysis

Preliminary Incorporate Survey

Market Analysis

Final Analysis

Project Defense

Final Report

Public Presentation

34

Opportunities for Links with Outside Advisors and Professional Community The nature of our research on Olympia oyster aquaculture is interdisciplinary and incorporates legal, social, economic, marine, and ecological components. As such, there are many opportunities to connect with academic, environmental, and industry professionals. The following is a list of contacts that we have or will contact during the course of the project. State and Government Agencies California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) California Coastal Commission Fish and Game Commission National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) State Water Resources Control Board Aquaculture Industry California Aquaculture Association Carlsbad Aquafarm, Carlsbad, CA Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association Santa Barbara Mariculture Proteus SeaFarms Academic and Research Institutions Bodega Marine Laboratory Channel Islands Marine Research Institute Department of Animal Sciences, University of California, Davis Department of Biology, California State University, Fullerton Non- Profit Organizations The Nature Conservancy Puget Sound Restoration Fund

35

Budget The following table itemizes the expected expenditures to complete the group project:

Telephone ($1/mo, 12 months), $10 set up fee $22

Phone calls ($5/mo for 9 months) $45

Printing (fixed cost) $200

Copy card (library) $20

Presentation expenses $50

Final poster/briefs $400

Conference attendance $250

Memberships $60

Field trips $320

Survey postage $82

Client meeting refreshments/parking passes $31

Administrative supplies $20

Total $1,500

Budget Justification Our budget consists of monies provided by the Bren School for group projects. We are not anticipating additional funding. In addition to basic expenses such as printing costs and telephone calls, we expect several additional expenses, which are justified below.

• Memberships to the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association and the California Aquaculture Association will allow us greater access to market information, trade journals, and experts in the industry.

• Conference attendance to the NOAA Olympia oyster restoration conference by one group member will bring us up to speed on cutting edge restoration techniques. It will be an opportunity to meet with Betsy Peabody, restoration expert and executive director of the Puget Sound Restoration Fund, and other experts in the field.

• A survey is needed to complete a market analysis for the Olympia oyster in Southern California.

• Field trips to oyster aquaculture/restoration sites will allow us to meet with experts, network, and obtain a greater understanding of the aquaculture processes.

36

References Archer, P. (2007). "Re-establishment of the native oyster (Ostrea conchaphila) in Netarts Bay, Oregon,

2006-2007." Draft Netarts Restoration Monitoring Plan. Arnold, R. (1909). Paleontology of the Coalinga District, Fresno and Kings Counties, California,

Govt. Print. Off. Baker, P. (1995). "Review of ecology and fishery of the Olympia oyster, Ostrea lurida with annotated

bibliography." Journal of Shellfish Research 14(2): 501-518. Barrett, E. M. (1963). The California Oyster Industry. California Department of Fish and Game,

Resources Agency of California. Fisheries Bulletin No. 123. Beck, M. W., T. D. Marsh, S. E. Reisewitz and M. I. Bortman (2004). "New Tools for Marine

Conservation: The Leasing and Ownership of Submerged Lands." Conservation Biology 18(5): 1214- 1223.

Bishop, D. (1996). "Selecting Shellfish Growout Gear (Part 2)." Technical Articles Retrieved May 12, 2007, from http://www.fukuina.com/articles/nov_dec96.htm.

Bonnot, P. (1940). "Methods of Collecting Oyster Spat." Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 69(1): 263-267.

Breitburg, D. L., L. D. Coen, M. W. Luckenbach, R. Mann, M. Posey and J. A. Wesson (2000). "Oyster reef restoration: Convergence of harvest and conservation strategies." Journal of Shellfish Research 19(1): 371-377.

British Columbia Shellfish Grower's Association. (2005). "Harvesting." Industry Encyclopedia Retrieved May 15, 2007, from http://www.bcsga.ca/encyclopedia/24.php.

Brown, H. M., A. Briden, T. Stokell, F. J. Griffin and G. N. Cherr (2004). "Thermotolerance and Hsp 70 profiles in adult and embryonic California native oysters, Ostreola conchaphilia (Carpenter, 1857)." Journal of Shellfisheries Research 23(1): 135- 142.

Brumbaugh, R. D., M. W. Beck, L. D. Coen, L. Craig and P. Hicks (2006). A practitioner's guide to the design and monitoring of shellfish restoration projects: An ecosystem services approach. Arlington, VA, The Nature Conservancy.

Brumbaugh, R. D., L. A. Sorabella, C. Johnson and W. J. Goldsborough (2000). "Small Scale Aquaculture as a Tool for Oyster Restoration in Chesapeake Bay." Marine Technology Society 34(1): 79-86.

Buhle, E. (2007). Ph. D. candidate, University of Washington. Buhle, E. R. and J. L. Ruesink (2003). Context-dependent impacts of multiple invasive species on a

threatened native species in a west coast estuary. International Conference on Marine Bioinvasions, La Jolla, California, California Sea Grant.

California Ocean Protection Council (2006). "A Vision for Our Ocean and Coast: Five-Year Strategic Plan."

Carlton, J. T. (1979). History, biogeography, and ecology of the introduced marine and estuarine invertebrates of the Pacific Coast of North America, University of California, Davis.

Carlton, J. T. (1992). "Introduced marine and estuarine mollusks of North America: An end-of-the-20th-Century perspective." Journal of Shellfish Research 11(2): 489-505.

Coe, W. R. (1931). "Sexual Rythem in the California Oyster (Ostrea lurida)." Science 74(1914): 247-249.

Coe, W. R. (1931). "Spermatogenesis in the California Oyster (Ostrea Lurida)." Biological Bulletin 61(3): 309- 315.

Coe, W. R. (1934). "Alternation of Sexuality in Oysters." The American Naturalist 68(716): 236- 251.

37

Conte, F. S. (1996). "California Oyster Culture." Retrieved January 11, 2007, 2007, from http://aqua.ucdavis.edu/dweb/outreach/aqua/ASAQ-A07.PDF.

Conte, F. S. and T. Moore (2001). Culture of Oysters. California's Living Marine Resources: A Status Report. California Department of Fish and Game: 500-506.

Cook, A. E., J. A. Shaffer and B. Dumbauld (1998). Olympia Oyster Stock Rebuilding Plan for Washington State. Proceedings of the Fourth Puget Sound Research Conference, 1998, Seattle, WA, Puget Sound Action Team, Olympia, WA.

Couch, D. and T. J. Hassler (1989). Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest)-- Olympia Oyster. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 82 (11.124): TR- EL-82-4. 8 pp.

Davis, H. C. (1949). "On Cultivation of Larvae of Ostrea lurida." The Anatomical Record 105(3): 591.

Davis, H. C. (1955). "Mortality of Olympia Oysters at Low Temperatures." The Biological Bulletin 109(3): 404.

Dumbauld, B. R., D. A. Armstrong and K. L. Feldman (1996). "Life-History Characteristics of Two Sympatric Thalassinidean Shrimps, Neotrypaea californiensis and Upogebia pugettensis, with Implications for Oyster Culture." Journal of Crustacean Biology 16(4): 689-708.

Engle, C. R., Stone, N.M. (1997). Developing business proposals for aquaculture loans. Southern regional aquaculture center.

EPA. (2006). "Puget Sound Georgia Basin Ecosystem." Retrieved May 24, 2007, from http://www.epa.gov/region10/psgb/indicators/shellfish/solutions/.

Fasten, N. (1931). "The Yaquina Oyster Beds of Oregon." The American Naturalist 65(700): 434-468.

Fukui North America. (2004). "Oyster Washer-Grading Table." Retrieved May 15, 2007, from http://www.fukuina.com/shellfish/oyster_washer_grading_table.htm.

Fukui North America. (2004). "Regular Duty Oyster Tumbler Grader." Oyster Processing Equipment Retrieved May 15, 2007, from http://fukuina.com/shellfish/regular_duty_oyster_tumbler_grader.htm.

Gillespie, G. E. (1999). Status of the Olympia Oyster, Ostrea conchaphila, in Canada. F. a. O. C. Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat, Fisheries and Oceans Canada,: 36 pp.

Gray, A. E., T. J. Mulligan and R. W. Hannah (1997). "Food habits, occurrence, and population structure of the bat ray, Myliobatis californica." Humboldt Bay, California. Environmental Biology of Fishes 49: 227-238.

Grosholz, E. D., G. M. Ruiz, C. A. Dean, K. A. Shirley, J. L. Maron and P. G. Connors (2000). "The Impacts of a Nonindigenous Marine Predator in a California Bay." Ecology 81(5): 1206-1224.

Hopkins, A. E. (1936). "Ecological Observations on Spawning and Early Larval Development in the Olympia Oyster (Ostrea Lurida)." Ecology 17(4): 551- 566.

Jackson, J. B. C., M. X. Kirby, W. H. Berger, K. A. Bjorndal, L. W. Botsford, B. J. Bourque, R. H. Bradbury, R. Cooke, J. Erlandson and J. A. Estes (2001). "Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems." Science 293(10): 629–638.

Kallen, R. S. (2001). Small-scale oyster farming for Chesapeake Watermen. A sustainable business plan. TerrAqua Environmental Science and Policy. Washington DC, The Campbell Foundation for the Environment.

Kirby, M. X. (2004). "Fishing down the coast: Historical expansion and collapse of oyster fisheries along continental margins." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101(35): 13096-13099.

38

Korringa, P. (1952). "Recent Advances in Oyster Biology." The Quarterly Review of Biology 27(3): 266- 308.

Korringa, P. (1976). Farming the Flat Oysters of the Genus Ostrea. Amsterdam, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company.

Laumer, J. F., Harris, J.R., Guffrey, H.J., Vaughan, C.J, Erffmeyer, R.C. (2007). Marketing Series: Researching your market. U.S. Small Business Administration.

Lenihan, H. (2004). "Conserving Oyster Reef Habitat by Switching from Dredging and Tonging to Diver-Harvesting." Fishery Bulletin 102(2): 7.

Lenihan, H. S. (1999). "Physical-Biological Coupling on Oyster Reefs: How Habitat Structure Influences Individual Performance." Ecological Monographs 69(3): 251-275.

Lotze, H. K., H. S. Lenihan, B. J. Bourque, R. H. Bradbury, R. G. Cooke, M. C. Kay, S. M. Kidwell, M. X. Kirby, C. H. Peterson and J. B. C. Jackson (2006). "Depletion, Degradation, and Recovery Potential of Estuaries and Coastal Seas." Science 312: 1806- 1809.

Lotze, H. K., H. S. Lenihan, B. J. Bourque, R. H. Bradbury, R. G. Cooke, M. C. Kay, S. M. Kidwell, M. X. Kirby, C. H. Peterson and J. B. C. Jackson (2006). Depletion, Degradation, and Recovery Potential of Estuaries and Coastal Seas, American Association for the Advancement of Science.

MacGinitie, G. E. (1934). "The Natural History of Callianassa californiensis Dana." American Midland Naturalist 15(2): 166-177.

McCormick, T. (2007). Scientist, Channel Islands Marine Research Institute. Moore, J. (2007). Professor of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis. Moore, J. (2004). A Comprehensive Oyster Disease Survey in California. California Sea Grant

College Program. La Jolla, CA, University of California, San Diego. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2006). Hands on Habitat: Celebrating 10 years

of Coastal Restoration. S. L. Hunt, D.; Bozek, C.; Moore, T. Naylor, R. L., R. J. Goldburg, J. H. Primavera, N. Kautsky, M. C. M. Beveridge, J. Clay, C. Folke, J.

Lubchenco, H. Mooney and M. Troell (2000). "Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies." Nature 405: 1017-1024.

Newell, R. (1988). Ecological Changes in Chesapeake Bay: Are They the Result of Overharvesting the American Oyster, Crassostrea virginica? Understanding the Estuary: Advances in Chesapeake Bay Research. Baltimore, MD, Chesapeake Research Consortium Publication.

Newell, R. I. E. and E. W. Koch (2004). "Modeling Seagrass Density and Distribution in Response to Changes in Turbidity Stemming from Bivalve Filtration and Seagrass Sediment Stabilization." Estuaries 27(5): 793-806.

NOAA (2004). Native Oyster Habitat Restoration Program Briefing Document. NOAA Habitat Restoration Program, U.S. Department of Commerce.

NOAA. (2004). "NOAA Restoration Center: San Francisco/ Tiburon/ Tomales Bay Oyster Restoration." Retrieved January 10, 2007, from http://mapping.orr.noaa.gov/website/portal/subtidal/pdfs/oysterreflist.pdf.

O'Brian, C. (2000). Gascoyne Inland Aquaculture Group Business Plan. Marketing Strategy for the development of an ornamental fish industry in the Gascoyne Region of Western Australia. Perth.

Oakley, B. T., Scully, L., Weimar, M.R., DiPrinzio, R., Holbrook, J.H., Kerns, P.K. (1998). Privatization Financing Alternatives: Blending Private Capital and Public Resources for a successful project. P. N. N. Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy.

Odlaug, T. O. (1946). "The Effect of the Copepod, Mytilicola orientalis upon the Olympia Oyster, Ostrea lurida." Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 65(4): 311-317.

39

Odlaug, T. O. (1949). "Effects of Stabilized and Unstabilized Waste Sulphite Liquor on the Olympia Oyster, Ostrea lurida." Transactions of the American Microscopial Society 68(2): 163- 182.

Pauly, D., V. Christensen, S. Guénette, T. J. Pitcher, U. R. Sumaila, C. J. Walters, R. Watson and D. Zeller (2002). "Towards sustainability in world fisheries." Nature 418: 689-695.

Peabody, B. (2007). Executive Director: Puget Sound Restoration Fund. Peter-Contess, T. and B. Peabody (2005). Re-establishing Olympia oyster populations in Puget

Sound, Washington. Seattle, WA, Washington Sea Grant Program, Puget Sound Restoration Fund.

Peter-Contesse, T., B. Peabody and P. Community-based Restoration (2005). Reestablishing Olympia Oyster Populations in Puget Sound, Washington, Washington Sea Grant Program.

Peterson, C. H., H. C. Summerson and J. Huber (1995). "Replenishment of hard clam stocks using hatchery seed: Combined importance of bottom type, seed size, planting season, and density." Journal of Shellfish Research 14(2): 293-300.

Pietros, J. M. and M. A. Rice (2003). "The impacts of aquacultured oysters, Crassostrea virginica (Gmelin, 1791) on water column nitrogen and sedimentation: results of a mesocosm study." Aquaculture 220(1): 407-422.

Polson, M. P. and D. C. Zacherl (2006). Current Geographic Distribution and Intertidal Population Status for the Native West Coast Oyster, Ostrea conchaphila, from Alaska to Baja. Olympia Oyster Restoration Conference, NOAA Habitat Restoration Program.

Pomeroy, R. (2003). Developing an aquaculture business plan. Connecticut sea grant college program. Groton, University of Connecticut.

Rice, F. R. Marketing strategies for the growing business. Emerging Business Series, U.S. small business administration.

Ricketts, E. F. (1985). Between Pacific Tides. Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press. Robert, R. and A. Gerard (1999). "Bivalve hatchery technology: The current situation for the Pacific

oyster Crassostrea@ gas and the scallop Peeten maximus in France." Aquatic Living Resources 12(2): 121-130.

Rogers, P. (2004). Biologists attempt to turn back clock in rebuilding reefs. San Jose Mercury News. San Jose.

Ruesink, J. L., H. S. Lenihan, A. C. Trimbel, K. W. Heiman, F. Micheli, J. E. Byers and M. C. Kay (2005). "Introduction of Non-Native Oysters: Ecosystem Effects and Restoration Implications." Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 36: 643-689.

Ruesink, J. L., H. S. Lenihan, A. C. Trimble, K. W. Heiman, F. Micheli, J. E. Byers and M. C. Kay (2005). "Introduction of non-native oysters: Ecosystem effects and restoration implications." Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics 36: 643-689.

Ruzo, E., Barreiro, J.M., Losada, F. (2005). "Competitive market analysis from a demand approach: An application of the Rotterdam demand model." international journal of market research 48(2).

Schweizer III, B. (2006). "First form a plan." Journal of Accountancy 79. Seader, D. L. (2002). The United States' experience with outsourcing, privatization and public-

private partnerships. D. S. Associates. Shaffer, J. A. (2004). "Water Quality as a Contemporary Limiting Factor to Olympia Oyster

(Ostreloa conchaphila) Restoration in Washington State." 2003 Georgia Basin/Puget Sound Research Conference Proceedings.[np]. Feb 2004.

Shumway, S. E., C. Davis, R. Downey, R. Karney, J. Kraeuter, J. Parsons, R. Rheault and G. Wikfors (2003). "Shellfish aquaculture—In praise of sustainable economies and environments." World Aquaculture 34(4).

40

Smith, S. E. (2001). Leopard Shark. California's Living Marine Resources: A Status Report. Sacramento, CA, California Department of Fish and Game.

Steele, E. N. (1957). The Rise and Decline of the Olympia Oyster, Fulco Publications. Strombom, D. B., Tweed, S.M. (1992). Business planning for aquaculture- Is it feasible?

Northeastern Regional Aquaculture Center. Dartmouth, University of Massachusetts. Surprenant, S. (2006). "P3 is here to stay." Bulletin Washington Building Congress. Taylor Shellfish Farms. (2007). "Taylor Shellfish Farms." Retrieved May 9, 2007, from

http://www.taylorshellfishfarms.com. The Mariner's Museum. (2002). "Oystering Methods." Chesapeake Bay: Our History and Our Future

Retrieved May 15, 2007, from http://www.mariner.org/chesapeakebay/oyster/mod007.html.

Timmons, J. A. (1980). "A business plan is more than a financing device." Harvard Business Review. Toba, D. (2002). Small-Scale Oyster Farming for Pleasure and Profit in Washington. W. S. Grant,

University of Washington: 1-16. Trimble, A. C., J. L. Ruesink and B. R. Dumbauld (2003). What Prevents Recovery of Native

Oysters (Ostreola conchaphila) in Willapa Bay, Washington? ERF Conference 2003, Seattle, WA, Estuarine Research Federation.

White, J., J. Ruesink, A. C. Trimble and E. Buhle (2005). Olympia Oysters: Where have they gone, and can they return? 2005 Puget Sound Georgia Basin Research Conference.