New Federal Budget Does Not Contain Funds to Build Oyster Reefs in Maryland

Share

The federal budget recently passed by Congress failed to provide any dedicated money to continue reef construction in either Maryland or Virginia, putting in doubt the future of oyster restoration efforts in the Chesapeake Bay.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been building oyster reefs in the Bay for more than 20 years, and in recent years it has been a major partner in the state-federal initiative to restore oyster habitat and populations in 10 of the Bay’s tributaries by 2025.

But the omnibus spending bill for fiscal year 2018 — approved March 23 and signed the same day by President Trump — marks the second year in a row with no specific appropriation for the Corps to continue reef restoration in the Bay.

The omission threatens to stall work already under way in Maryland’s Tred Avon River. It also jeopardizes future projects in both Maryland and Virginia where the federal government had been expected to take the lead.

Supporters of the oyster restoration effort say they hope the Army Corps can still put some money toward it this year from a $1 billion pot of discretionary funds Congress approved for the Corps’ construction program.

Sen. Ben Cardin, D-MD, explained to a group of Bay advocates Thursday that he and others were unable to designate money for oyster restoration in the appropriations bill because congressional rules forbid earmarking funds for anything not proposed in President Trump’s budget.

But he noted that Congress approved more construction funding for the Corps than the Trump administration proposed. Eugene Pawlik, a Corps spokesman, said the total was about double the requested amount.

Cardin expressed optimism that the extra money will prompt Corps leaders to allocate some of those funds toward the effort this year.

The omnibus spending bill did urge the Corps to request funds for Bay restoration in future budgets.

After meeting Thursday with senior Corps leaders for a tour of Poplar Island, a restoration project using dredged material from the Bay, Cardin said that he is “pretty confident” some of the extra money put in the Corps budget will go for oyster restoration.

It won’t be known until perhaps May 22 if that gambit paid off. That’s the deadline for the Corps to submit its work plan to Congress. The plan, due 60 days after the omnibus bill’s passage, will lay out planned expenditures on projects specifically listed in the legislation. The Corps can add some of its extra funds to those projects, as well as spread some money among projects not designated for funding.

Cardin acknowledged that it’s still possible, given the nationwide competition for federal public works funding, that the Corps won’t designate any money for oyster restoration. Before being submitted to Congress, he noted, its work plan must be reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget, which also may have a say in the matter.

Bay advocates said that the uncertainty surrounding oyster restoration funding has roots in a controversy two years ago, when Maryland officials put a hold on the Tred Avon project after watermen objected to the Corps’ use of granite to build the reefs there.

“Now, we’re sort of reaping the consequences of those delays and those challenges to the Corps’ efforts, in the fact that there’s no appropriation,” said Allison Colden, a fisheries scientist with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

From the mid-1990s through fiscal year 2016, the Corps had received annual funding for oyster reef construction in the Bay, with the Baltimore District getting a cumulative total of $28.8 million and the Norfolk District $22.1 million, according to figures supplied by Cardin’s office.

In 2014, in recognition of the ecological value of oysters and their reefs to the overall health of the Chesapeake, the Bay watershed states and federal government jointly pledged to restore native oyster habitat and populations by 2025 in five tributaries each in Maryland and Virginia.

The annual funding stream ended two years ago, when then-President Barack Obama requested no money in the Corps’ fiscal year 2017 budget for Bay oyster restoration. That came shortly after the Hogan administration had called on the Corps’ Baltimore District to halt work in the Tred Avon — a request prompted by small group of watermen, who complained to Lt. Gov. Boyd Rutherford about the cost and efficacy of the restoration effort, particularly the methods and materials used.

Watermen objected to the use of granite to build reefs in the Tred Avon and in an earlier restoration project in Harris Creek, another Choptank River tributary. They contended that the stone reefs snagged fishing gear and damaged boats, and that oyster shells are the best surface on which spat, or baby oysters, grow best. Scientists countered that oyster spat will do well on any hard surface in the water, and monitoring on Harris Creek reefs later that year found a much higher density of new oysters growing on granite than on shells.

At the time, Cardin warned that the stoppage could threaten future federal funding for oyster restoration in Maryland. It had immediate impact, as the Baltimore District shifted $1 million it had for that purpose to the Norfolk District. With that extra money, and no major reef construction planned this year in Virginia, the Norfolk District is not yet as strapped.

A spokesman for the Department of Natural Resources called the Tred Avon stoppage then a “pause” until the DNR could complete an internal review of the state’s oyster management.

The Hogan administration lifted its hold on the federally funded project, and work resumed in the Tred Avon in April 2017, more than a year after it had been interrupted. Even then, the state insisted that the Corps not use any more granite in constructing reefs. The Corps opted to build the reefs with clam shells from a processing plant in New Jersey, but the contractor couldn’t get enough shells. Only six of the 10 acres of reefs planned to be built that year were completed.

In November 2017, Col. Edward Chamberlayne, the Baltimore District’s commander, made a personal appeal to the DNR’s Oyster Advisory Commission, warning that the Tred Avon project and future federal funding for oyster restoration were in jeopardy if the state did not relent in its opposition to use of stone in building reefs. Oyster shell is too scarce and expensive to be used for such large-scale construction projects, Chamberlayne explained, and there aren’t enough clam shells, either.

Delays and construction interruptions already had added $133,000 to the $11.4 million estimated cost of the Tred Avon project, Chamberlayne said. If forced to continue using only clam shells, he said, it could take another four to five years to finish the job — at that rate, he warned, Congress and Corps leadership may be unwilling to keep funding oyster restoration.

The DNR Oyster Advisory Commission responded by recommending that the Corps be allowed to use stone to finish the Tred Avon reefs. The four acres left from last year were finished in March, but 45 more acres of reefs are planned, and funding is now in question.

“We are still requesting funding through the Army Corps work plan,” said Sarah Gross, spokeswoman for the Corps’ Baltimore District. Officials there have estimated it will cost $3 million to $5 million to finish building reefs in the Tred Avon, after which they are to be seeded with hatchery-spawned baby oysters.

Stephen Schatz, communications director for the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, said the department “is very confident that there is currently adequate funding to continue advancing the state’s oyster restoration efforts and projects.”

“With roughly $7.25 million in state capital funding [for oyster restoration] available and federal funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,” Schatz continued, “the partners should have enough to complete the work in Tred Avon.”

Schatz furnished documents showing that the DNR had asked Congress to maintain NOAA’s current level of funding for habitat conservation and restoration, including $1 million for oyster habitat restoration. That money goes to seeding and monitoring reefs, not building them.

The Bay Foundation’s Colden said that while she’s hopeful the Corps will allot some money for reef construction this year, federal funding is no longer guaranteed.

“Now, the priority we place on oyster restoration in the Chesapeake Bay has to compete with Mississippi River flood control and dam operations in the Pacific Northwest,” Colden said. “Before, we had a dedicated pot of funding because it’s been recognized as such a significant project and significant priority.”

While Cardin expects Corps officials to put some of this year’s discretionary funds toward oyster restoration, given the extra money in their budget and a clear statement of congressional intent, he expressed dissatisfaction with having to go through such maneuvers.

“It’s not a very transparent way of doing things,” he said. And he noted that supporters in Congress will have to fight the same battle again later this year, because Trump’s proposed budget for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 did not contain any money for Corps reef-building.

by Timothy B. Wheeler

Timothy B. Wheeler is associate editor and senior writer for the Bay Journal

About Dave Wheelan

Letters to Editor

  1. David Lloyd says:

    Congressman Harris: where are you on this critically important issue?

  2. I note that Cardin is on the side of oyster restoration but there is nothing comming from Harris. Remember that in November.

  3. Jim Franke says:

    Really frustrating to watch Hogan continue to not use facts and just be swayed by a few non-scientist to delay oyster restoration work and to fire experts in DNR.

  4. Chris Kayhoe says:

    Not enough clam shells, not enough oyster shells. What about that massive deposit of natural oyster shells on Man of War shoal ??? The Corp of Engineers has been refusing/delaying to allow permits to MD to use in its effort to restore the bay . That delay has taken 10 years. The Corp can restore Poplar Island with all its permits ,But cannot grant Man of War permits??? Lets talk money ? Tred Avon oyster bar cost $11,400,000 Divided by 45 acres = Cost per Acres $253,333 YES $ 253,333 How many oyster farmers pay $ 253,333 per Acre to try to grow oysters ?? Underwater gold mine

    • This issue on the shoal is part of the nonsense about granite versus shell even though “much higher density of new oysters growing on granite than on shells.”

      “Man O War is one of the last large living reefs in the Upper Bay and provides unique habitat and structure, hosting a variety of species that fish, crabs, and waterfowl all rely on for food and habitat. Also, the eastern 1/3rd of Man O War Shoal is an oyster sanctuary, and while oyster spawning success in the Upper Bay is severely limited, that does not mean that the shoal is not an important part of the regional ecosystem.
      DNR has no specific plan for the use of any shell dredged from the Shoal. It states that, “Ultimately, [DNR] will utilize comments from the public and the Oyster Advisory Commission to develop an allocation plan.” Without a clear, well-defined plan that includes sustainable funding sources, any proposed dredging of a such a unique habitat is an ill-advised and unacceptable use of a public resources.
      The proposed future use of any dredged fossil shell for an unsustainable “put and take” fishery does nothing for the long-term security of that industry. Once the proposed 5 million bushels of fossil shell have been dredged and allocated, the next question will be “where do we dredge shell from now?”
      The application from Maryland DNR includes the statement that once dredging occurs, they will need to “assess the ecological consequences of removing the shell from the shoal”. We should not risk the health of our natural resources unless we know the consequences ahead of time, or spend public dollars on an experiment with no known positive benefit.
      There is a very significant funding gap that would prevent the full execution of DNR’s proposal. This funding gap would most likely result in the misuse of any shell dredged from the Shoal. Without a commitment in funding that would help guarantee the wise use of shell from Man-O-War Shoal, the State cannot afford to gamble with its remaining historic oyster bars.
      The wild oyster population continues to decline and there are no controls in place to manage that harvest in a sustainable fashion, or control the shell loss which occurs because of harvest.
      The low profile shell reefs that would be built by fossil shell do not support the level of growth needed in the Chesapeake Bay to create a sustainable population or fishery.”

      • Chris Kayhoe says:

        Sounds like you are in favor of the $ 253,333 per acre Taxpayer version. The Tax payers can buy Rubble from Florida or some other out of state location and PUT magic fairy dust on it instead of oyster shells. Mother nature has used shell for oyster bars since the beginning of time. Historic oyster levels were accomplished with natural oyster shells not rubble . We should not risk the health of the bay with untested rubble to rebuild the sediment clog oyster bars. You to, are proposing more delays to cleaning up the bay. Look to Virginia for their bay restoration effort. They move millions of bushels of limited oyster shells to lead the nation in oyster planting and harvest every year. Maryland citizens the truth. NO shells, NO oyster restoration. NO more delays.

        • Pete Buxtun says:

          Chris, can you cite your source on this figure? Harris creek (350 acres) cost 26 Million, putting the rough per acre cost at $74,300. I’m interested in where you came up with a quarter million per acre.

          • chris Kayhoe says:

            The article above mentions the Tred Avon project in detail. Not the Harris Creek.

Write a Letter to the Editor on this Article

We encourage readers to offer their point of view on this article by submitting the following form. Editing is sometimes necessary and is done at the discretion of the editorial staff.