By Jeremy Cox/Chesapeake Bay Journal Environmentalists are decrying language added to a U.S. House spending bill that would open future federally supported oyster restoration projects around the Chesapeake Bay to commercial harvesting. U.S. Rep. Andy Harris, Maryland’s lone Republican m ember of Congress, inserted the provision into a bill funding the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The House Appropriations Committee passed the bill on a 32-28 vote in May. It is expected to come up for a vote by the full House in the coming weeks. The provision is likely to face stiff opposition if it reaches the Senate. A similar measure was stripped out of last year’s funding package before it became law. But it is part of a growing number of efforts in Washington, Annapolis and Richmond aiming to soften or remove the protected status of restored reefs amid the bivalve’s rebound in the estuary. “It comes at a time when ideas like this maybe have more legs,” said Ben Ford, the Miles-Wye Riverkeeper. “Everyone wants more oysters in the Bay. But people see the success of meeting the oyster restoration goals in the Bay Agreement and think the job’s done.” The landmark 2014 Bay Agreement established 10 goals and 31 outcomes for cleaning up the estuary and its watershed. One of the most notable objectives called for Maryland and Virginia to restore oyster populations in 10 Bay tributaries by 2025. Officials exceeded that goal by completing work in 11 waterways — one of a handful of bright spots in the Baywide ecological cleanup. The states have since pledged to conserve or restore another 2,000 acres of oyster habitat. Environmentalists like Ford attribute much of the oyster program’s success to sanctuaries being off limits for harvesting. They say that research is on their side. A study led by the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science and published in January, for example, shows that dredging oyster beds likely causes loss of shell volume beyond what is removed by watermen.  “We can’t let up off the gas,” Ford added. “We’re not even close to having a restored Chesapeake Bay.” Harris’ measure would prevent any of the bill’s funds from going toward building new oyster reefs in the Bay unless those reefs are opened to commercial watermen three years after their creation. Echoing watermen’s claims that dredging revitalizes reefs, Harris said the change promises to be a boon to the seafood industry as well as to the environment. “I think there’s evidence that commercial harvesting is actually good for an oyster bed, working the bottom,” said Harris, who represents the Eastern Shore. “It removes the silt from some of the oysters, and there’s evidence that it works.” The provision would almost certainly have wider impact if it applied to funding for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which shoulders most of the federal cost of oyster restoration in the Bay. NOAA’s role is much more limited. The agency is mostly responsible for funding oyster production at the region’s hatcheries, helping to select new sites and tracking the health of completed reefs. Still, Harris said, the move would represent a step in the right direction. “We’ve got to start somewhere,” he said. Watermen say that the expansion of restrictions on where they can harvest oysters over the last decade and a half has made it harder for them to earn a living. They have lost access to historic oyster grounds on several fronts. Those include the creation of restored oyster reefs and states leasing submerged land to aquaculture operations. A second provision pushed by Harris would bar further money from being spent on oyster restoration sites “designated as underperforming” for five or more years after their initial federal investment. Environmentalists worry that because the measure doesn’t define what “underperforming” means, it could be used to shut down restoration at a wide variety of locations. U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland on the Senate’s Appropriations Committee, was instrumental in removing the harvest language from the 2025 funding legislation. His office signaled that he’s ready to do so again. “We can balance sanctuary areas and harvest, but these riders miss the mark,” Van Hollen’s office said in a statement. “As I have in previous years, I’ll work to ensure our funding bills strike the right balance in prioritizing the long-term health of the Bay, its oyster population and the livelihoods it supports.” Environmentalists have long argued that harvest bans must stay in place on restored reefs because the overall bivalve population remains a fraction of its historic size. “Sanctuaries were never intended to function as harvest bars,” Ford said. “The purpose of a restored oyster reef is not a commercial one. It’s to improve water quality, [create] habitat, sequester carbon, remove nutrients. They’re a keystone species for a reason.” But recent actions suggest that lawmakers and regulators are trying to strike a balance between restoring oysters for their ecological benefits and supporting the Bay’s traditional fishing industry.   Maryland, for instance, took the unprecedented step in 2024 of splitting state oyster restoration funding at one site, setting aside $1 million a year at Eastern Bay for publicly harvested reefs and $1 million for sanctuaries. Meanwhile, a committee of the state’s Oyster Advisory Commission is studying whether to open “underperforming sanctuaries” to rotational harvest or some other form of fishery management.  And in Virginia, the Army Corps plans to spend money for the first time in two decades on oyster reefs destined for harvest. More than 4,000 acres are set to receive a mixture of substrate and young oysters in Pocomoke and Tangier sounds, with the total split equally between sanctuaries and harvest reefs. ...read more read less