Folklore tells us a vampire cannot come into your house unless invited to do so. Federal agencies cannot come into Maryland waters and do work unless partnered with an active state department. The EPA Chesapeake Initiative has an oyster component, stating that five tributaries with oyster sanctuaries must be restored. There is an acreage requirement that must be met and as usual a budget that must be spent. The O’Malley DNR, along with the U.S.A.C.O.E. and N.O.A.A., chose Harris Creek, Little Choptank, and Tred Avon sanctuaries for restoration. A fiscal Rubicon was crossed. Maryland law prohibits destroying natural oyster bars, but in the first two tributaries some bars were buried by rocks.
Even though spat were planted on top, damage was done in terms of the natural bar underneath. This past March there was a perfect opportunity for the new administration to inform the federal agencies of a necessary review of these practices to prevent further harm being done to natural oyster bottom in the Tred Avon and any future sanctuaries. At that time, no rock had been planted in the Tred Avon. Now we must deal with a permanent footprint covering some of the natural oyster bars. Several functioning bars in Harris Creek were permanently “restored” using substrates and rock. Some bars that were surveyed indicated shell was present, but there was less than one oyster per square meter. This defines an impaired oyster bar. Impaired oyster bars that have shell should not be buried but should have oyster seed planted on them. Doing so improves an oyster bar. It is cost effective.
Nature placed those bars there, not man. Rocks changed a natural bar to an unnatural bar with other problems. Harris Creek now has navigational hazards created by rocks. It is important to understand that the state allowed federal agencies to permanently alter natural oyster bars. Do the Corps, N.O.A.A., and Maryland want to be remembered for destroying natural oyster bars? Stopping the project as many watermen would like is not an option, but certainly the project can be redirected and improved. There is still time for the governor to direct his DNR secretary to make a shift in policy; to stop the use of rock on natural oyster bars, plant oyster seed on them, and halt pursuing permits to use rock in shallow water, where the most serious navigational issues can occur. Maybe the boating community would like charts showing these rock areas? Two tributaries remain to be selected.
Don’t take any more natural oyster bars and turn them into unnatural bars. Don’t bury them to restore them. Seed them to restore them.
Marc Castelli
Chestertown
John Valliant says
Well said.
Mollie Boyle says
Amen. Can the state/feds please listen to our waterme?. They are out on our waterway every day. And how many of their boats have been damaged by the rock bottom, not to mention the recreational boaters. When will we see updated charts?
Pete Buxtun says
I agree with the author completely that the USACOE, NOAA, Coast Guard, or whomever, should be responsible for updating all relevant charts in the affected and restored areas in order to avoid the damage done to the property of hardworking watermen. I’m also of the opinion that if potential hazards were NOT clearly marked and damage was done, restitution should be owed to the watermen in question and paid by the public trust.
The public trust. This is important to remember; that money comes not from the “government”, but from the people. This is money that comes from our taxes, our fees, and sometimes from our penalties. And as it’s our money, it is our decision how we spend it. It is unfortunate that the author does not see the inherent issue with what seems to be a policy of deliberate obstructionism.
These are sanctuaries where no public harvest can occur, and a large and well-informed group of various stakeholders of this particular public resource have agreed that this is the best policy. The agreement is so strong in fact, that significant public capital on a Federal level was leveraged to assist. By capitulating to the opinion of a handful of stakeholders without hearing from the rest, the Lt. Governor has not only jeopardized the potential millions of dollars coming towards Bay restoration from the Feds, but also undermined the interests of the public at large. This very small group of stakeholder who chose to upset the course of restoration in the Tred Avon are certainly stakeholders, but they are also those with a vested interest in the public fisheries. They harvest from the public resource and sell it to the public. They harvest oysters and crabs so you don’t have to. They also get paid to do this. Personally I’m fine with this, because harvesting oysters is extraordinarily hard work (for little pay).
Every time a public resource becomes a contentious issue I always see those who extract the resource (be it timber, coal, crabs, menhaden, or oysters) arguing with passion, but also a sense of ownership. I think it is extremely important for the public at large to understand this simple but often overlooked truth; those oysters are YOUR property. When people say “oh, the state won’t let the watermen harvest those beds” it isn’t accurate. The truth is that the people of Maryland have agreed that the public resource is important to them in situ, not in a bushel basket.
The alternative proposed by the opponents of the restoration project is the “business as usual” model, a model that hasn’t really worked in years. Moving spat on shell to harvest reserves or public bars is a put and take situation that benefits only one small subgroup of stakeholders using the resources of the rest of us.
I also am confused by the author’s use of the word “natural” beds. I’ve been around, and I have never seen a natural oyster reef in Maryland. I’ve seen them in Virginia, but never in Maryland. I think this is probably because most beds in Maryland tend to be “worked” in that they are knocked flat by dredges. Watermen assert that this keeps them free of silt (and keeps those pesky 3+ inchers off those beds!). This doesn’t seem natural to me. I think the word the author should have used is “cultivated”.
Speaking of cultivation, did you know that you could apply for a lease for oyster aquaculture inside of a sanctuary? Pretty neat! I guess the State thinks that harvesting a renewable resource that benefits the economy AND the environment at the same time is a good thing. Just not when it puts the state of the public resource at risk. Perhaps the author should apply for a lease?
If you think that one oyster per square meter (that’s a little over 4000 oysters an acre) is sustainable, then by all means support the local watermen in their endeavor to work against the public interest and against restoration. Meanwhile I’ll be over here eating my farmed and sustainable VA oysters, I prefer them salty anyway!
Remember, these are not solely the watermen’s oysters; they are yours. If you want to support the public fishery, do so. If you want to support a rapidly growing industry, try looking up a local aquaculture farm; I’ll bet there’s one near you. Their oysters will be bought and paid for by the farmer, not the public.
-Pete