The Oyster Shell Game

By Scott Harper, The Virginian-Pilot, Norfolk, Va.

Sep. 28–NORFOLK — When the Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District, joined the fight in 2000 to restore native oysters in the Chesapeake Bay, its leaders were giddy. They compared the effort to reviving the Florida Everglades. They talked about making history.

Today, the talk is more about what has gone wrong than what is going right.

The district has spent more than $8 million on native oyster projects. By its own count, 93 percent of oysters planted under its direction have died before reaching market size.

Corps efforts haven’t slowed the long, dramatic decline in the Bay’s oyster populations. In fact, stocks have declined — by 28 percent in the past decade, according to the National Academy of Sciences.

But now, the corps wants more experimentation and more money. It’s pushing for a long-term, $500 million blueprint that would include extensive work in the James, Elizabeth and Lynnhaven rivers, among others.

The corps’ official position is that slow progress is being made in the battle to revive Virginia’s native oyster.

But internal e-mails and documents show the program’s frustrations and failings. In those records, obtained by The Virginian-Pilot through the Freedom of Information Act, corps officials describe how none of their projects — in Tangier and Pocomoke sounds , in the Rappahannock River, and the Great Wicomico River — is working.

The records also reveal a program beset by personality clashes, dubious expenses, questionable contracts and persistent delays.

Documents from 2000 to 2004 illustrate a difficulty the corps has in getting things done quickly — to the point that some question why the agency is leading oyster recovery efforts, given its bureaucracy and “institutional inertia,” as Bill Goldsborough , a scientist with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, has put it.

The Lynnhaven River in Virginia Beach was supposed to be the target of corps action this year, with construction of artificial reefs and baby oysters sprinkled atop them. But disputes and delays surfaced, and the million-dollar effort was put on hold, without public disclosure of what had happened or what is planned.

Doug Martin, a civil engineer with expertise in military construction, had headed the program since its inception. He was quietly reassigned this summer. The corps said his new posting was because of personnel holes left by the war on terrorism.

Brian Rheinhart , leader of a separate study of the Lynnhaven River’s environmental ills, has replaced Martin, according to the district’s public affairs office.

In internal correspondence, most of the dozen members of the corps’ “oyster team” place much of the blame on Virginia. They accuse state regulators of sabotaging corps efforts so that an exotic, Asian species favored by seafood interests might be introduced into the Bay instead — a charge that state officials dismiss.

“We can’t let VMRC” — Virginia Marine Resources Commission, the state agency responsible for oyster replenishment — “unilaterally destroy this program for its own purposes!” Craig Seltzer, a corps oceanographer, wrote to a colleague last year.

In another e-mail last year, Dave Schulte, a corps scientist and technical leader of the oyster team, expressed his frustrations:

“Instead of importing and introducing every critter from Asia into the Bay, why don’t we instead ship all the watermen (and their lackeys in state management agencies) over to China and let them fish over there?”

Schulte added, “I’d be happy to be part of that study team!”

Because of such distrust, the corps stopped communicating with Virginia’s director of oyster restoration, Jim Wesson, more than a year ago. In recent months, the corps has not shown up for some of its own advisory meetings, leading one local oyster fisherman, Pete Nixon, to comment, “The whole thing’s just gotten really strange.”

Wesson has overseen the construction of dozens of artificial reefs in state waters since the early 1990s. After witnessing their poor performance, in which reefs crumbled and most oysters died, he today questions whether the corps has learned from history’s lessons.

Corps officials brought allegations to state authorities that Wesson might personally profit from one proposed oyster project, on the Piankatank River, at the edge of Virginia’s Middle Peninsula. A subsequent investigation found no irregularities and the matter was dropped, according to records.

Wesson and others assert that the biggest misunderstanding the corps holds is that native oysters can regain their place in the wild while two diseases, MSX and Dermo, continue to ravage them in the Bay.

“Native oysters don’t live more than a few years because of disease pressures,” Wesson said. “But that’s an issue no one wants to deal with.”

Native oyster restoration in the Bay is nearing a crossroads. Ongoing for more than a decade, it has borne little fruit, frustrating fishermen and seafood merchants who are slowly going out of business for lack of oysters.

Congress now is debating whether to raise the corps’ spending limit on the program, to $50 million from $20 million. At the same time, the corps is leading a study of whether the Asian species, nicknamed the Chinese oyster, should be allowed freely in the Bay.

That study, costing about $6 million, has been delayed but is expected to be completed next year. Led by the Norfolk District, the study will recommend steps for boosting native oysters as well, including a possible ban on public harvesting.

Also in the mix is a petition for the National Marine Fisheries Service to declare the eastern oyster worthy of federal protection under the Endangered Species Act. The request, from a Maryland environmentalist, has passed an initial phase and is undergoing more scientific scrutiny. The review is expected to be completed in January.

Rebuilding oyster stocks — preferably the native species, also known by its Latin name, virginica — is a key goal of the Chesapeake Bay cleanup. One commitment seeks to increase populations tenfold by 2010. But statistics show that stocks are sliding.

Oysters are important natural filters of pollutants and algae, two prime obstacles to a healthier Bay. A robust population, then, would go a long way toward increasing oxygen for aquatic life and making water clearer for underwater plants to thrive.

Virginia and Maryland once were the oyster capitals of the world, fueling an industry and a culture. But as the native species has faded to 1 percent of its historical presence, the oyster business has nearly vanished, too.

Most surviving merchants support immediate testing of the Asian species, or ariakensis, its Latin name. The animals originate off China, Vietnam and Japan. In controlled field experiments in the Bay, the bivalves have grown faster than natives, few die in the face of MSX and Dermo, they taste similar to natives, and they greatly improve water quality.

But there are many concerns. There is precedence of foreign oysters bringing new diseases to adopted waters. And there are worries that the Asian variety might crowd out the natives or forever alter the Bay’s ecosystem.

Standing near his docks on the Yeocomico River, in Westmoreland County , Ronnie Bevans said the Bay is a completely different place compared with 20 years ago, when his business was booming.

Noting that his shucking house today relies on oysters from Texas, New Jersey, Mississippi and elsewhere,

Bevans said policymakers should recognize that native oysters might not be able to survive today’s conditions.

“More marinas and homes are being built all the time, more trees are coming down,” Bevans said. “You need something that can live through all that because poor water quality and pollution only make disease pressures worse.”

Asked which of its projects has been the most successful, a corps spokeswoman in Norfolk pointed to one that has not gotten off the ground.

The proposed planting of 15 million baby oysters onto artificial reefs in the Great Wicomico River, on Virginia’s Northern Neck peninsula, “has the best chance of causing a significant increase in the native oyster population,” spokeswoman Diana Bailey said in a written statement.

The babies, or spat, come from parents that have shown some tolerance to MSX and Dermo. The corps has referred to its strategy as “carpet-bombing” the river.

The Great Wicomico project, however, was temporarily halted last year after about 1 million young oysters were eaten by cow-nosed rays. The aquatic feast cost the corps about $78,000 and required an additional $500,000 this spring for mesh fencing to exclude the rays.

When inspected this June, the fences were not tied down completely to the bottom of the river. So again, rays had slipped onto the reefs and eaten more seed oysters, according to two state officials who witnessed the damage.

When asked by news media last year, Martin, then head of the program, called the ray incident “a success.” He explained that it was part of a “test planting” to see what problems might arise.

This explanation rang hollow to Schulte, the corps’ scientific leader. He wrote a “note for the record” after the incident. In it, he said that he had warned about the rays and that he had urged the baby oysters be scattered in the fall — after the fast-gobbling predators would have migrated away from the Bay.

“These oysters were then planted without any knowledge of or input by the corps planning team,” Schulte wrote, adding that Martin apparently made the decision without consulting his staff. “While troubling, this also sets a very bad precedent.”

Schulte also questioned whether the oysters had ever been tested as “disease-tolerant,” as required. And he wrote that reliance on outside experts giving “questionable advice” had led to this episode and other “poorly performing” projects in Virginia.

Asked which version of events was correct, the local district backed Martin. The summer seeding “provided a valuable lesson because it more precisely identified and quantified the problem of predation,” the public affairs office said in a statement.

As of this August, about one-third of the 15 million young oysters had been set in the Great Wicomico River. York River Yacht Haven, the sole contractor growing juveniles for the corps, saw about 5 million other oysters die last summer for unknown reasons at its hatchery in Gloucester County.

Catching up this year has been slowed by cold weather, hatchery owner Dan Bacot Jr. said. He was asking for help this summer from a hatchery in Maine.

Bacot has been paid $450,000 for the Great Wicomico project and will receive an additional $50,000 when all 15 million oysters are delivered, ostensibly by the end of October, the corps said.

Bacot said he lost $600,000 when Hurricane Isabel smothered what was supposed to be his first crop of oysters, in September 2003.

A Maryland native with a salt-and-pepper beard, Bacot has made his livelihood from his family marina on Sarah’s Creek, near the mouth of the York. The Bacot family also runs River’s Inn, a seafood restaurant next to the marina.

With little experience in growing oysters, Bacot in May 2004 was awarded an exclusive contract by the corps worth as much as $10 million. He was to produce disease-tolerant oysters as stock for corps reef projects. One other company bid on the deal.

Bacot said his operation was the only one in Virginia that could grow large amounts of cheap oysters. Others in the oyster industry are not so convinced.

Several said they think Bacot was unprepared to take on such a big job, that he lacks adequate room and staff. Some industry officials said few others bid on the contract because they either did not know about it or did not think they could live under corps rules.

After Bacot won the contract last year, Martin took on the role of “contracting officer’s representative” for the deal — a violation of corps protocol.

To avoid any potential conflicts of interest between a project manager and his hired contractor, the corps normally assigns an official detached from an initiative to serve as its neutral, contracting representative.

When the violation was noticed, Martin was told by the local district’s contracting office in November 2004 that his “designation as COR for subject contract is revoked.”

Martin and the local corps have made other disputable financial moves, according to records and interviews.

Three officials in the oyster program traveled in 2003 to Florida for scuba diving training and certification, the corps acknowledged in response to questions about records that described “training in FL.”

Scuba diving costs were about $2,000 per person, the corps said. “Clearly, this was considered a cost effective, safe approach to meet the training requirements,” the corps said in a statement.

Asked why staffers did not train locally, the corps said, “It is common practice for divers in training to complete their open water skills in certification in warm clear waters.”

Several state and federal officials said that most diving on corps oyster projects has been handled by state crews or hired contractors, not by corps officials.

In September 2004, Martin filed an expense report for a weeklong “oyster trip” to South Carolina, according to records. He rented an oceanfront condominium in North Myrtle Beach with three bedrooms and three bathrooms for $1,312, records show. He also billed the corps for driving 730 miles to Myrtle Beach and back.

In e-mails and memos, Martin often defined people inside and outside the program as “good team players” or “not team players.” In July 2004, he organized a “team building” training session costing $10,000 , according to records.

The corps’ public affairs office said the training never took place. Instead, the money was “released for technical use.” Asked what that use was, the corps said the funds were directed to the Lynnhaven River oyster project, which now is on hold.

When Schulte began to exhibit “attitude problems” when discussing the program with state officials, contractors and environmental groups, the corps imposed a gag order on its scientist and technical leader. During that time, Schulte signed his e-mails “Silent Dave.”

“While somewhat unusual, the District leadership felt it was necessary,” the corps said in a written statement.

In the weeks after the gag order, Schulte sent an e-mail to his colleague, Mark Mansfield, complaining about its ramifications. Schulte blamed jealousy, a desire for control, hidden motives and poor management for the program’s many problems — a far cry from the enthusiasm he voiced after being named technical leader in 2000.

Martin, Schulte wrote in June 2004, “treats planners as opponents and our work with contempt.”

Schulte has since regained his freedom to talk about the program. However, he, Martin and others on the oyster team declined requests for comment. All questions were answered in writing over several months by the district’s public affairs office.

In more than a dozen interviews, several state, federal and environmental officials said they were reluctant to discuss their experiences with the program. While they conceded they had become concerned about its direction, they did not want to publicly criticize the corps, for fear of upsetting public sympathy or federal funding for native oyster restoration.

“We’re supportive of moving ahead,” said Richard Takacs, a fisheries biologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Chesapeake Bay Office, in Annapolis, Md.

Takacs, who oversees native oyster programs at NOAA, has questioned some corps decisions in the past. But when asked specifically about certain actions and expenditures, he said, “They just don’t want me going there. Sorry.”

NOAA is a clearinghouse for congressional money dedicated for native oyster projects — $4 million last year. The funds typically are split equally between Virginia and Maryland.

NOAA used to funnel these dollars locally to the Virginia Reef Heritage Foundation, a private-public partnership. But it now sends the money to the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, which oversees monitoring of corps-led efforts, according to Takacs.

VIMS, part of The College of William and Mary, also gets a fee from the Norfolk corps for advisory services — at least $165,000 since 2003, according to corps figures.

Congress seems solidly behind native oyster restoration, even though President Bush’s proposed budget for fiscal 2006 includes no money for oyster projects.

The Senate’s budget version, by contrast, sets aside $3 million for corps work in the Bay, and the House has earmarked $1 million. Congress is expected to iron out budget differences this fall.

Charlie Stek, an aide to U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes, D-Md., said past problems with the program illustrate why funding should be boosted, not cut.

“You have to substantially increase what you’re putting in the water,” Stek said. “It’s our belief that you can overcome the diseases with sheer numbers, by reaching a point of critical mass.”

If, for example, 20 million oysters were poured onto reefs in a river and 93 percent died within three years, more than a million adults would be surviving and spawning, Stek said. That could be enough to spark a recovery.

The University of Maryland, backed by Congress, has started an oyster hatchery at Horn Point to multiply the number of baby oysters for restoration. Virginia does not have such a facility, though Stek and others think one is necessary.

U.S. Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va., has worked closely with Sarbanes to ensure a flow of money for oyster recovery. While conceding “some disappointment” with results so far, Warner said, “There is no quick fix to the challenge of oyster restoration, but it remains an important and achievable goal.”

In Maryland, the Baltimore District of the corps leads federal native oyster efforts in the upper Bay. It has done so since 1995 and has spent considerably less than the Norfolk District, according to financial figures.

Claire O’Neill, project manager in Baltimore since 1995, said that native restoration “is working, with some small-scale successes.” That’s especially true, she said, in northern Bay rivers, where diseases are less prevalent because of low salinity. MSX and Dermo are more intense where salinities are higher, such as in Virginia waters.

The Baltimore and Norfolk districts have disagreed over whether to allow limited harvests on some restoration reefs. Baltimore supports a limited take; Norfolk does not. The local district argues that all reefs should be off-limits; in Maryland, officials say that fishermen should be allowed to take some oysters before they die from disease.

The dispute led to a stern letter in July 2004 from Virginia’s secretary of natural resources, W. Tayloe Murphy Jr. He urged Congress to back limited catches.

Murphy wrote that corps-led oyster projects in Virginia have been “cumbersome and poorly implemented to date.” He said that if the Norfolk District had its way in the debate, “relatively insignificant, short-term gains in oyster populations in small rivers can be used to justify the expenditure of these larger sums of money.”

In the end, Congress left the dispute unresolved.

In Maryland, Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. has made no secret of his desire to test Asian oysters without restrictions. At the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, “Our position is that native restoration really is not working and that we need to evaluate other techniques,” said Tom O’Connell, a marine fisheries restoration manager.

O’Connell attended a meeting on Capitol Hill in August 2004 when his department asked, point-blank, if native restoration should be tabled.

Martin of the Norfolk corps was the first to respond to the challenge. He said the district had just signed long-term contracts with Bacot to produce oysters and with Langenfelder Marine, a Maryland-based marine contractor, to build more reefs.

To stop now made no sense, he argued.

Mike Fritz, a living-resources administrator with the Chesapeake Bay Program, also attended the meeting. He said then, and during an interview, that it is premature to hold the corps — or any agency — responsible for failures to resolve complex environmental problems that took decades to create.

“We’ve only just stopped doing pilot projects, we’re still learning as we go,” Fritz said.

He acknowledged that “serious obstacles” remain, and he called on the corps to be more transparent in its dealing with the public, the press and other agencies.

“We need to be clear how we’re going to spend this money, where it’s going,” Fritz said. “People have a right to know what’s worked and what hasn’t, and what we’re up to.”

—–

To see more of the The Virginian-Pilot, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.pilotonline.com.

Copyright (c) 2005, The Virginian-Pilot, Norfolk, Va.

Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News.

For information on republishing this content, contact us at (800) 661-2511 (U.S.), (213) 237-4914 (worldwide), fax (213) 237-6515, or e-mail reprints@krtinfo.com.