Clifford Farm Receives Wright Treatment

By ecoRI News staff

Clifford Farm in North Smithfield can't be developed.NORTH SMITHFIELD — The Agricultural Land Preservation Commission recently acquired the development rights to the 18-acre Clifford Farm on Iron Mine Hill Road. The property will be permanently preserved for agricultural use and open space purposes.

Twelve acres of the land are actively farmed for hay. Overall, the property consists of more than 45 percent prime farm soils, and the remaining 6 acres are woodlands, according to the commission. The land is situated in an important drinking water supply area.

Total cost of the acquisition is $400,000. Funding includes $200,000 from the Agricultural Land Preservation Commission and $200,000 from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Services Farm and Ranchland Protection Program.

“The preservation of this farm, which has been in cultivation for generations, is another step towards sustaining the future of farming in Rhode Island,” said Janet Coit, director of the state Department of Environmental Management (DEM).

The preservation commission acquired the development rights from Michael Clifford, executor of the estate of his late mother, Nella Clifford. The land has been in the Clifford family for generations. The 5-acre parcel of the farmland known as the “barn lot” was acquired from Michael Clifford’s great-grandfather’s 106-acre farm, which was purchased in 1871. Michael’s parents inherited the rest of the acreage. The hay fields on the parcel to which the commission holds the development rights represents the last piece of original acreage still being farmed.

“Anyone who knew my late parents would agree with me when I say that I am certain that my parents would be very happy to see their land preserved as farmland,” Michael Clifford said. “They would be delighted to know that their land is protected from development and that it will now be farmed and maintained by Wright’s Dairy Farm.”

Farms to which the state acquires development rights are working farms and remain in private ownership. The development rights require that the lands remain in agriculture or in a condition available for agricultural use. Clifford has transferred ownership of the farm to Wright’s Dairy Farm so it can expand its operation. Wright’s Dairy Farm will use the land to grow feed for its animals and utilize the farm’s cow manure for fertilizer.

Slow Down: This Whale Needs the Right of Way

By TIM FAULKNER/ecoRI News staff

The North Atlantic right whale.BRISTOL — The 33-foot fiberglass replica at the Audobon center on Hope Street might be the closest the North Atlantic right whale gets to Rhode Island this time of year. The endangered whale — fewer than 500 exist — is the focus of a new international and local campaign to keep a regulation known as Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction Rule (pdf) from expiring at the end of 2013.

A recent right whale seminar at the Audobon Society of Rhode Island explained how pollution, collisions with ships and entanglements with fishing gear have been the biggest killers of these giant sea mammals. Before the age of whaling, some 10,000 North Atlantic right whales roamed offshore from Nova Scotia to Florida, according to Anne DiMonti, director of the Audbon's local center. But even with the end of commercial whaling, unintentional deaths caused by human activity in right whale habitat have kept the birth rate barely exceeding the rate at which they are dying off, she said.

"Most of the area is protected, but it's not helping," DiMonti said.

North Atlantic right whale pass Rhode Island in early spring on their way to feeding and breeding grounds off Cape Cod and Canada. Occasionally, the whales visit local coastal areas. In 2010, a group of right whales was spotted in waters between Newport and Block Island, as well as off Misquamicut in Westerly.

Right whales are slow swimmers and spend much of their time at shallow depths within a few miles of land, making them prone to encounters with fishing nets and boats. States such as Massachusetts and Maine have helped reduce whale entanglements through programs that allow fishermen to replace dangerous floating lines with sinking lines.

But the controversial ship strike rule challenges the much bigger and more powerful shipping industry.

Since December 2008, the ship strike rule requires cargo vessels, ferries and cruise ships 65 feet or longer to cut their speed to 10 knots when entering the whale's management and feeding areas. The law has been highly effective, cutting the whale's mortality rate by 71 percent, DiMonti said.

Much of the shipping industry, however, doesn't like that the speed limit covers areas close to major ports, where most collisions occur. Adding travel time to shipping, of course, costs money — about $112 million over five years, less than 1 percent of shipping revenue, a federal study estimated. Opponents of the rule had a major ally in delaying the implementation of the regulation in former Vice President Dick Cheney, whose Office of Domestic Policy was accused of watering down the terms once they were announced.

Nevertheless, hefty speeding fines have been assessed by the Coast Guard (none in the Rhode Island zone), and the regulations are generally favored by environmental organizations and the scientific community.

University of Rhode Island marine scientist Robert D. Kenney said slow speed zones have been effective in reducing whale kills. He hopes that the ship strike rule is extended another five years so that the data can be definitive on either side of the issue.

But it's hard to deny, he said, that cargo ships in particular need to change their practices. "Something has to be done to mitigate the the deaths of right whales from ships," Kenney said.

Kenney has studied whales for 30 years and through URI's oceanography program runs the research database for the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium. His latest data indicates that the North Atlantic right whale population is increasing by some 2 percent. A growth rate of at least 7 percent, he said, is needed for the endangered whale to he headed for recovery. But at least fewer appear to be getting killed by ships. "It's a sign of hope," he said.

To watch a brief video of a North Atlantic right whale injured by a ship strike, click here.

URI Project Aims to Rescue Bluefin Tuna Fishery

By RUDI HEMPE/ecoRI News contributor

A ladder is needed to gain access to the huge tank. Taylor Voorhees, a graduate student, exits the tank before flooding it. The project is being led by Terence Bradley, middle, and Peter Mottur watch. (Photo courtesy of URI)NARRAGANSETT — The water was cascading into the Blount Aquaculture Lab at the University of Rhode Island Bay Campus at a rapid pace and Terence Bradley wasn’t a bit worried that his latest research project was being inundated with close to 20,000 gallons of seawater.

That’s because the water was filling a huge tank that he, his graduate students and a research partner assembled in the laboratory as the first step in a project to breed bluefin tuna in tank captivity. If they succeed, it would be the first such operation in the country.

Bluefin tuna are an endangered species whose numbers in the world’s oceans are being depleted by the voracious market for such delicacies as sushi. The Atlantic bluefin tuna fishery is in danger, as are the fisheries for other types of giant tuna in the Pacific and the Mediterranean.

In fact, the market for tuna is so great that tuna “ranching” operations have sprung up around the world. Entrepreneurs capture wild tuna and place them in huge pens to fatten them up. Out of fear that the market will collapse unless steps are taken to increase the species, some ranching operations are now entering into aquaculture to try to breed the fish.

But breeding bluefin tuna is a difficult task requiring precise conditions and timing. That’s why Bradley, a professor in URI’s Department of Fisheries, Animal and Veterinary Science, and Peter Mottur, a fisheries graduate (1991) and president of a Newport-based firm called Green Fins, are partnering in this project. They are starting off using the smaller, less demanding — so far as breeding is concerned — yellowfin tuna.

Bradley and Mottur plan to soon be off the North Carolina coast in Mottur’s 35-foot research vessel in quest of several 10- to 15-pound yellowfin tuna that they will bring to the Blount Lab tank. There they hope to see the fish spawn under controlled conditions.

The plan is to get the methodology down so they can proceed with the next step — build a bigger tank with bluefin tuna as tenants. The project is being funded by Green Fins, which signed on as a research partner with URI in January and has committed about $700,000 to this project.

With this funding, they ordered the tank from an aquaculture tank-building company. The tank arrived in 8-foot sections that had to be bolted together with joints sealed with ample layers of fiberglass.

“We used 800 stainless steel bolts and wore out 36 drill bits,” Bradley said.

To make room for the 20-foot diameter tank that stands 8 feet high — the biggest at URI — they prepared a bed of pea gravel on the concrete floor and surrounded that with concrete blocks. PVC piping, some as large as 4 inches in diameter, had to be rigged up to bring in salt water and filter it. URI already had the pumps needed for the project. The water will be heated to 23 degrees Celsius using an energy-saving heat exchanger. That temperature is deemed ideal for spawning yellowfin.

One unique thing about the tank was that the room where it was installed had a support beam holding up part of the roof. The beam had to stay, so the tank was built around it. The beam, encased in fiberglass, stands in the middle of the tank. Actually, that will be a bonus, Bradley said, as it will force the fish to swim in a circular fashion rather than swimming across the tank and potentially colliding with the tank walls.

Vertical black stripes painted on the tank walls also give a visual reference for the fish.

The yellowfin will be fed frozen squid, shrimp, herring and mackerel. Mahi larvae will be used to feed the tuna larvae.

The rearing of yellowfin tuna should give the researchers the opportunity to get the bugs out of the procedure of breeding fish under controlled conditions, Bradley said, and the experience will be valuable for the next phase — building a bigger tank and stocking it with a few bluefin tuna in the 150- to 300-pound range. The challenges will be to get the fish to spawn at the right time, to get the larvae to survive and then to get the juvenile fish to survive to a weight of about 100 grams. The fish could then be sold to firms that want to produce larger fish or be released into the wild.

The tank needed for the bluefin project will be more than double the size of the present one — 50 feet wide and 15 feet high. There’s no room for something that size at the Blount Lab, so another site, nearby it is hoped, will be obtained.

The graduate students involved in the project are Taylor Voorhees, Donald Bacoat and Tori Spence.

Menhaden Feed Local Fishing Economy

By SARAH SCHUMANN/ecoRI News contributor

Menhaden are a vital food for striped bass, weakfish and bluefish.NARRAGANSETT — For a fish that never graces a dinner plate, menhaden is central to the local seafood industry. Lobstermen use it to bait their traps; anglers use it to bait their hooks; and the menhaden reduction fleet converts these oily fish into animal feed, cosmetics and human dietary supplements that are used by most of us.

And that’s only what happens once these fish are removed from the sea. In their natural habitat, they are a vital food for striped bass, weakfish, bluefish and ospreys.

But many observers believe that menhaden can’t keep up with all of these roles. On Nov. 9, the efforts of recreational fishermen, scientists and environmental groups led the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) to make definitions of overfishing used to manage this species more conservative. This means that in the future, more of these fish will be left in the water to reproduce.

“The essence of this plan is to take into account the ecological needs — the things that people never think about,” said Theresa Labriola of Pew Oceans, which supports the changed overfishing definitions. Calling menhaden “a little snickers bar in the ocean,” Labriola noted that removing too many of these forage fish can deprive other species of a critical food source.

The ASMFC is a coast-wide organization made up of states from Maine to Florida that serves to jointly formulate management plans for 24 coastal migratory fish species. The organization’s menhaden board developed the new plan in response to a 2009 stock assessment of the species, which found that abundance had been declining since the 1980s and that renewal of young menhaden wasn’t as vigorous as in previous time periods.

Some scientists and anglers also allege that lower numbers of menhaden are responsible for malnourishment in striped bass and the appearance of skin lesions on these highly prized game fish.

Until now, managers’ approach to gauging overfishing has hinged on whether the eggs produced by fish remaining after harvest are sufficient to replace the stock at current levels. Under the new definitions, reproductive potential of remaining fish would be measured against that of a theoretical “unfished” stock.

In other words, overfishing would be deemed to occur when fished stocks are unable to produce a certain percentage of the eggs that would be produced in the absence of fishing. That number of eggs is referred to as maximum spawning potential (MSP).

In 2008, the last year of the ASMFC’s stock assessment, menhaden up and down the East Coast were at 8 percent MSP; that is, they were considered capable of reproducing only 8 percent of their historical stock numbers. At stake in ASMFC’s menhaden board meeting this week in Boston was the percentage MSP to aim for in the future.

Board members voted on two aspects of the new overfishing definition: the menhaden fishing threshold and the fishing target. The threshold is the level at which the stock is deemed overfished, and at which managers must take immediate action to reverse overfishing. The target, in contrast, is a level that signals to managers that the stock is approaching overfishing. When fishing hits the target, managers may, but are not required to, take action to slow the rate of harvest.

At the Nov. 9 meeting, the menhaden board considered adopting a threshold of 15 percent MSP, and targets of 20 percent MSP, 30 percent MSP and 40 percent MSP, respectively. With more than 90,000 public comments submitted on this issue, the atmosphere was charged.

Most conservation organizations and recreational fishermen pushed for the higher numbers. Higher targets, they explained, represent a stronger buffer against overfishing. Scientists have established that 40 percent MSP is the minimum safeguard for forage fish, such as menhaden, that form the basis of whole food chains.

The menhaden reduction industry disagreed. Omega Protein, which manages an 11-boat fleet in Reedville, Va., and holds a monopoly in the East Coast menhaden reduction business, favored a target of 15 percent MSP.

“The stock is not overfished and is, in fact, at target levels of abundance,” according to Omega in its public comment testimony to the ASMFC. “Any action the Board takes will trade real jobs for speculative conservation benefit.”

Rhode Island commercial fishermen were largely silent on the issue, perhaps because they are caught between their own conflicting interests. On one hand, commercial lobster boats and rod-and-reel fishers depend on the continued availability of menhaden for bait. But many commercial fishermen also have an interest in healthy populations of striped bass and bluefish — species that depend on the menhaden remaining in the water.

The final vote resulted in a new target definition of 15 percent MSP and a new threshold definition of 30 percent MSP.

Here in Rhode Island, anglers celebrated.

“We were very pleased with the final result,” said Steve Medeiros, head of the Rhode Island Saltwater Anglers Association. “Menhaden is very important to fishermen in Rhode Island. The spring arrival of menhaden brings in striped bass, which is the primary product, but along with it come the bluefish and others. Narragansett Bay is a booming fishing area mostly because of menhaden.”

Others were less jubilatory.

“I don’t know how I feel about it, because I’m suspicious of the motivation,” said Andrea Incollingo, owner of The Bait Company and sole supplier of menhaden and other bait fish to Point Judith’s lobster fleet. “It’s not always the fish stock that’s the main concern.”

Having observed a “nice mixed run of pogies (another name for menhaden) all year long” in her bait barrels, Incollingo isn’t sure there is need for drastic action. Instead, she believes that ups and downs are part of the species’ natural cycle.

“The pogies disappear overnight,” she said. “They may go way offshore. They go wherever they want to go. Nobody knows.”

900 Acres of R.I. Habitat Protected

By TIM FAULKNER/ecoRI News staff

PROVIDENCE — Nine hundred acres in the second-most densely populated state has been officially protected as open space. At a Statehouse ceremony Nov. 2, a $4.3 million grant was split between 16 organizations to protect sensitive wildlife areas and open recreational trails and preserve farmland.

The public money, raised through a 2004 state bond referendum, will seem like a bargain in the years ahead, according to Rupert Friday, head of the Rhode Island Land Trust Council. "It just goes to show you these really are investments and these (properties) are going to be worth a lot more in the future than they are now," he said.

Although the land is undeveloped, it will be a boost for the economy, bringing hunters, hikers and tourists to rural communities. "It's out-of-state money coming in and it's economic development for Rhode Island," Friday said.

He added that another bond referendum will be needed soon, as only about $2 million remain from the $70 million raised in '04.

Here's how the money was divided:

Barrington: $240,690 to the Barrington Land Conservation Trust for the 10.6-acre Stanley Farm on the Palmer River.

Block Island: $400,000 to the Block Island Conservancy for a conservation easement on 6 acres of managed grassland.

Charlestown: $367,000 to the Charlestown Land Trust to acquire 28 acres of YMCA property on the eastern shore of Watchaug Pond.

Chepachet: $387,825 to the Gloucester Land Trust for a 56-acre parcel with frontage on the Smith and Sayles Reservoir.

Coventry: $325,000 to the town's land trust for 175 acres in western Coventry adjacent to the Neylon Property Conservation Area.

Exeter and South Kingstown: $370,000 to the Audobon Society of Rhode Island for the 50-acre Quaiapen property. It will add to the 1,100-acre Marion Eppley Wildlife Sanctuary.

Johnston: $170,800 to the town for the 84-acre Vacca parcel, a heavily wooded site contiguous to the town forest and Johnston Memorial Park.

North Kingston: $400,000 to the Narrow River Land Trust for more than 200 acres in 11 parcels located south of Snuff Mill Road.

North Smithfield: $400,000 to the North Smithfield land Trust and the town for the 38-acre Booth Pond property. It will include hiking trails to protected lands in Woonsocket.

Portsmouth: $400,000 to the Aquidneck Island Land Trust for 70 acres of forest, fields and wetlands within the Center Island Greenway.

Richmond: $159,000 to the Nature Conservancy for the 35-acre Rihonen property on the Usquapaug River. The land includes public recreational trails.

South Kingstown: $300,000 to the South Kingstown Land Trust for a conservation easement on the 31-acre Wells Farm with 900 feet of frontage on Yawgoo Pond.

Tiverton: $187,500 to the Tiverton Land Trust for the 16-acre Clark Parcel located within the state National Heritage Sin and Flesh Brook Habitat, near the Fort Barton redoubt; $81,250 also was awarded to the Tiverton Open Space Commission for the 23-acre Baier property within the Pocassetlands regional forest.

Westerly: $134,000 to the Westerly Land Trust for a 72-acre former camp used by Girl Scouts of Rhode Island. The land is within the Woody Hill Management Area and Shelter Harbor Golf Course.

The state Department of Environmental Management (DEM) approved the grants from a pool of 30 applications requesting $7.72 million.

Fishing Industry Report Shows Promise, Concern

By TIM FAULKNER/ecoRI News staff

A new report on the Rhode Island fishing industry has revealed some positives and questions about the future of the sector.

Here are a few of the report's findings:

$201 million: annual fish sales caught by Rhode Island vessels then sold to dealers, processors, restaurants and grocers.
$562 million: annual imported fish sales to the Ocean State.
2,500: approximate number of full- and part-time fishermen in the state. Their median age is 44.
4,450: approximate number of processors, distributors and sellers employed in the industry.
Top fish sold by volume in 2010: squid, Atlantic herring, little skate, Atlantic mackerel, scup, skate, silver hake, lobster, Jonah crab.
Top fish sold by value in 2010: lobster, squid, summer flounder, quahog, monkfish, scup, sea scallop, silver hake, Atlantic mackerel.
The number of commercial fishing boats decreased from 1,488 in 2005 to 1,298 in 2010.

The report also found that Rhode Island is gaining in its reputation as a regional center for commercial fishing services such as boatyards. Other New England and mid-Atlantic ports have shrinking commercial fishing services, according to the report.

The $74,000 study was performed by Cornell University and commissioned by the Commercial Fisheries Research Foundation (CFRF), which is based in Saunderstown.

Margaret Petruny-Parker, director of the CFRF, noted that the report showed Rhode Island's role as global leader in squid fishing. The lobster industry is also proving resilient despite the many problems facing lobstermen and the species, she said.

Despite growth as a regional commercial fishing hub and several waterfront-related businesses around the state, the age of those in the industry as well as the age of the fishing fleet are a concern.

"It worries us a little bit that we're not seeing the new blood to support this business," Petruny-Parker said.

The pilot study, she added, is already being seen as a model other states want to duplicate. The findings of which might lead to local and regional planning for fishing and other businesses, such as wind energy, that want to expand in the bay and coastal areas.

"We need to understand the opportunities for job growth and our future for the industry, infrastructure both private and public and work with other industrues using these waters," she said.

Click here for a pdf of  the report.

State’s Native Rabbit Population All But Gone

By ecoRI News staff

The Rhode Island population of New England cottontails is in trouble.KINGSTON — Rhode Island’s native rabbit, the New England cottontail, is on the verge of being extirpated from the state after a survey of appropriate habitat and historical breeding sites by more than 100 University of Rhode Island students and staff from the Department of Environmental Management found evidence of just one animal.

According to URI professor Thomas Husband and DEM wildlife biologist Brian Tefft, who have been studying the rabbits for nearly 20 years, the New England cottontail has been supplanted in the region by the abundant eastern cottontail, of which more than 200,000 were introduced to New England in the early 1900s for hunters.

In 2005, the last time biologists searched for the animal, Tefft found the cottontail in only a few locations. None were found at those sites during this year’s survey.

“The animals have been declining throughout New England for a number of years, but nobody knows for certain why,” said Husband, noting that the species has nearly disappeared from New Hampshire and few populations remain in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine and New York.

Researchers say that habitat loss and predation may be among the causes of the New England cottontail’s decline, though the eastern cottontail uses similar habitats and must deal with the same predators.

“It’s also possible that subtle differences in their morphology could contribute to their decline,” Husband said.

New England cottontails have smaller eyes placed farther forward on their head than their eastern cousin, which may give them a lesser ability to see predators in their peripheral vision, suggesting that they may not be as willing to use open habitat as the eastern cottontail. The eastern cottontail also tends to run away from approaching predators sooner than the New England cottontail.

“But it’s all speculation as to whether or not that’s a factor,” Husband said.

The two species of cottontail are virtually identical. The researchers say that the best way to distinguish the two is to examine their skulls or to compare DNA.

To survey for the New England cottontail, scientists sent more than 100 URI students and DEM staff members to random locations in appropriate habitat and known historical breeding sites to collect rabbit droppings for DNA analysis. Of the nearly 1,000 samples collected from more than 100 locations, only one contained the DNA of the New England cottontail, according to T.J. McGreevy, a former URI postdoctoral researcher who supervised the analysis conducted by URI graduate student Mary Niebels.

Husband said another survey for the native rabbit will be conducted next year to confirm the results. He and Tefft and a regional team of biologists are strategizing about how to reintroduce the species. A URI graduate student, Amy Gottfried, is trying to identify the subtle differences in habitat preferences between the two species so the New England cottontail’s preferred habitat can be restored.

“We’ve got to look for refugia for these animals, a place where we can perhaps breed them before reintroducing them to the state,” Husband said.

He said a habitat analysis is being conducted on an island in Narragansett Bay, to determine if the rabbits could be introduced there as a test site. The island has never had a population of either cottontail species in the past.

The New England cottontail is a high priority candidate for the federal endangered species list, and the U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Service is providing funding for habitat restoration projects in the region.

Husband said some people have asked why there is a concern when one rabbit disappears and another nearly identical one takes its place.

“‘If we’ve got little brown rabbits, then who cares which species it is,’ they ask me,” the URI professor said. “Well, on one hand, everything has a right to exist and even thrive, in spite of what humans think or do. But also, we probably caused this problem, by dumping 200,000 non-native rabbits here, so we should try to fix it. Predators have returned to the state in big numbers — fishers, bobcats, coyotes — and that may be in part because we have this abundant eastern cottontail for them to feed on. New England cottontails seem to be more vulnerable, and they’ve become collateral damage."

Is Local Seafood Sustainable?

By MEREDITH HAAS/special to ecoRI News

Charlestown resident Rich Cook, the co-founder of The Local Catch, operates the 34-foot F/V Sandra Lynn out of Snug Harbor. He fishes off Block Island for lobster, black sea bass, scup, fluke, monkfish and skates.The number of farmers’ markets has more than tripled in the past 15 years and there are now about 6,000 across the country, with Rhode Island leading the largest growth in the nation in small farms, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

It seems as though we’re really getting to know our farmers and have a better understanding of where our food is coming from — except for seafood. Who are our fishermen and where is our seafood coming from?

The demand in Rhode Island for local seafood is slowly gaining traction but still a little wobbly on the first steps toward building a strong and sustainable local seafood economy. Most seafood products at Rhode Island farmers’ markets are limited to aquaculture shellfish products, wild lobsters and crabs, according to Farm Fresh Rhode Island, a nonprofit that distributes local food throughout the state.

But when talking about local sustainable seafood is the term “sustainable” synonymous with the term “local”? Not always. There seems to be much confusion about what “sustainable seafood,” and even what “local seafood,” really means and a lot of that depends on where you’re coming from on a broad spectrum that encompasses perspectives on the environment, the economy, and social and health issues.

The goal of the sustainable seafood movement is to reduce pressure on vulnerable species. The goal of the local seafood movement is to sustain local communities and reduce food miles, according to Ann Cook, co-founder of the local seafood processor The Local Catch. While seemingly different, she said, these goals do complement each other and that going local is a route to sustainability.

“There’s nothing inherently more sustainable about eating local,” she said. “When fishermen sell locally, they are more accountable to the public. They have more incentive to be sustainable.”

However, there still is conflict on what sustainable and what local mean.

“The term ‘sustainable’ is the conflict of discussion,” said Cathy Roheim, professor at the University of Rhode Island and director of the URI Sustainable Seafood Initiative. “Is it a point or a path? Do you reach a sustainability point or is it a process of moving toward something?”

In other words, is the notion of being sustainable the goal alone, or is it the framework of how we operate?

Specifically regarding the sustainability of seafood, Cook summarized the general assumption that sustainability means that any particular species of fish, or shellfish, is abundant enough to satisfy current demand without compromising the resource for future generations. However, different stakeholders define sustainability in various ways, so there is no general consensus.

The criteria for deeming sustainability in fisheries, and even aquaculture, is much more involved, Roheim said. It includes assessing the health of the environment and the impacts fishing gear may have on habitat quality, and assessing management tools that most effectively promote a healthy environment while also sustaining those economies dependent on the resource. The criteria for sustainable aquaculture, she said, includes assessing fishmeal products, pollution and operation risks.

“When consumers ask Local Catch about sustainability it’s hard to answer because it’s not as black and white as some campaigns imply,” Cook said. “Sustainability can be assessed in many more ways than just by species.”

And so can “locally caught.”

In finding out what “local” means to locals, former URI Sustainable Seafood fellow Sam Grimley, now the sustainable seafood project coordinator at Gulf of Maine Research Institute, found in a survey of 200 Rhode Island consumers that buying local seafood meant one of three things:

Seafood was either caught or grown within Rhode Island waters, which extend 3 miles offshore and includes Narragansett Bay.

Seafood was landed in a Rhode Island port.

Seafood was brought in from a fishermen register in Rhode Island.

All of these points are valid. It demonstrates, however, the various ideas of what “local” means to different people and how difficult seafood is to label as local.

One thing that is for certain is that the relationship between fishermen, suppliers, chefs and consumers is the key in building a better sustainable and local seafood industry in the Ocean State.

There are nearly 40 operational aquaculture farms that cover about 140 acres and 1,300 fishermen in Rhode Island working to bring fresh, sustainable and local seafood to farmers’ markets, restaurants and local processors such as The Local Catch and Deep Sea Fish. The direct interaction between fishermen and consumers, Cook said, increases consumer knowledge on where fish are coming from and allows for the introduction of underutilized species such as sea robin and scup.

“There’s a value decision when making a product,” said Ken Watt, executive chef of Practicum Properties at Johnson & Wales University, explaining that it’s not just the cost chefs and restaurant owners take into account when buying seafood. It’s the story about where the food came from and who caught it that adds value, he said.

The current challenges remain in market demand for “locally caught” seafood and regulation restrictions on fishermen to directly distribute.

“There isn’t a market in Rhode Island to match local consumers,” said Roheim, explaining that not everything in demand, such as salmon, is locally caught and that fishermen make more selling outside the state where demand is high.

One solution is to use these underutilized species so that consumers are more aware of the resources here in Rhode Island. Chef Derek Wanger, owner of Nick’s on Broadway in Providence, said he talks to fishermen and prints menus daily based on what is available.

“It’s still evolving and I’ve seen good response from guests,” he said. “The connection allows for complete traceability that I can now offer customers.”

The Matunuck Oyster Farm and Matunuck Oyster Bar is a unique operation to note because it brings locally grown oysters from a 7-acre farm directly to restaurant patrons and farmers’ markets across the state. The American Mussel Harvesters in Quonset Point also grow locally, producing mussels and clams in addition to oysters. There are many restaurants and markets that also support local catches that include flounder, scup, lobster, scallops and clams.

Consumers are growing more interested and concerned about where food is coming from and how it impacts the environment and local business. We as consumers, however, have little knowledge of where our seafood is coming and who caught it. The key is building relationships with fishermen and getting better educated on the issue so we can make better decisions. The consumer, Grimley said, has strength in the local sustainable seafood movement.

Meredith Haas is the research communications specialist for Rhode Island Sea Grant. This article originally was published in the Fall 2011 Narragansett Bay Journal.

Shoring Up the Shoreline Isn't Cheap

By TIM FAULKNER and DAVE FISHER/ecoRI News staff

The state plans on letting some storm-related erosion repair itself. (Tim Faulkner/ecoRI News staff)Though Irene spared Rhode Island from major damages, save for the inconvenience of anywhere from 12 to 168 hours without power and the hefty cost to remove sand from roads and parking lots and put it back on the beach, weather events such as tropical storms and hurricanes do have the potential to cause significant harm to the lynchpin of the state's tourism economy: our beaches.

Given the importance of the Ocean State’s beaches to the tourism economy, the maintainance — and rebuilding, when necessary — of our beaches seems like a no-brainer.

Storms such as Irene, currents from inlets and sea level rise cause beaches to erode. A beach can all but disappear after a Nor'easter or an El Nino-fueled storm. Coastal states and communities rely on the process of replacing sand — what the Army Corps of Engineers calls “beach nourishment” — to maintain tourist traffic, protection of coastal property and the continued health of coastal economies.

But some environmentalists say nourishment doesn't last, is environmentally questionable and is bad fiscal policy.

Beach nourishment can have drastic effects on habitats. Sessile organisms such as barnacles can be immediately killed when buried in new sand. Seafloors can be compromised. Special care must be taken to ensure that replacement sand is similar in grain size and chemical composition to that of the target environment, and contains no non-native species or substances that may be toxic to native wildlife. Native plants and algaes can be affected by a short-term lack of available light associated with the dredging and depositing of sand. Newly deposited sand can harden and rob birds and sea-borne reptiles of nesting areas.

Some beach-nourishment projects have gone tragically awry, most notably in Hawaii, on the island of Maui.

A project at Sugar Cove transported upland sand to the beach. The sand was of a finer grain than the native sand and when it washed out it smothered the coral, killing it and many of the organisms that call the coral home. Another project, intended to slow rather than halt erosion, used sand-filled tubes as groins to retain the beach sand. The project saw the tubes and their anchors break free and destroy a nearby reef.

The U.S. government, through the Army Corps of Engineers, pays 65 percent for the initial project construction and 50 percent of the maintenance costs for the next 50 years, with state and local funding carrying the remainder of the cost of the replenishment. Opponents of beach replenishment argue that federal subsidies simply make people in landlocked states pay to protect coastal residents' and businesses’ beachfront properties.

According to a 1998 study by Duke University’s Developed Shoreline program, an estimated $3.5 billion had been spent on 1,305 beach replacements since 1965, at an average of $5.7 million per mile of beach. The Army Corps of Engineers cites much lower figures, but spends about $150 million a year on beach replacement.

The real economic hitch in beach-nourishment projects is that they're only good for 3 to 10 years. After that, it's re-nourishment time. As the cost of these projects inevitably goes up, unfortunately, that 3-to-10-year window doesn't show signs of changing. A severe storm can wipe out a beach overnight. In an age of more frequent and violent weather patterns, it can be assumed that beaches will be destroyed on a more frequent and violent basis, making beach replenishment necessary more often.

Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) officials recently toured, by boat, damaged waterfront areas with officials from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

"Everywhere, you have a lot of overwash," said Janet Freedman, a coastal geologist with CRMC.

Easton's Beach in Newport, along with much of the South Shore to Westerly, experienced significant movement of beachfront and dunes. Marsh grass was buried on Misquamicut and along the west side of the Charlestown Breachway camping area.

Freedman's overall assessment was that it could have been worse. "That's what dunes are supposed to do," she said. "It's the first line of defense in a storm."

The real culprit in erosion is development. Beaches naturally move and shift. Beach houses, hotels, roads and other structures interfere with the movement of beach sand. Beach sand trying to move in from the ocean gets jammed up against man-made structures and has nowhere to go but out to sea. As a result, replenished beaches erode again. The only permanent solution is to moving buildings away from the beach. The cost of beach nourishment is relatively low in comparison to the cost of moving infrastructure.

Attempting to prevent erosion by building seawalls, groins and jetties is futile, and is illegal in Rhode Island. Seawalls accelerate erosion by giving the sand nowhere to go but back out to sea. Groins, jetties and man-made channels can disrupt natural currents that carry sand from beach to beach, which may save the sand on one beach, while starving another. History has shown that building barriers only delays the inevitable.

"It might protect your property, but it might harm adjacent properties," Freedman said.

Jon Boothroyd, a respected local geologist, favors beach replenishment on public beaches, parking lots and roads. Help, he said, is needed to keep fixed, man-made structures operational, if only until a bigger storm wipes them out.

He opposes planting beach grass and trees to limit sand migration, which naturally pushes inland. Building sea walls and other artificial aids also shouldn't be relied on to protect buildings and undeveloped habitats, Boothroyd said.

Freedman agreed. "If it's a natural area, leave it alone," she said.

Replenishment of Rhode Island's beaches, luckily, won't be needed in the aftermath of tropical storm Irene. Lost beach fronts are already returning on their own and may be at pre-storm capacity within a month, according to Freedman.

"The sand is coming back," she said.

Massive Clam Kill in Upper Narragansett Bay

By TIM FAULKNER/ecoRI News staff

John Torgan of Save The Bay holds the tiny sand-like clams killed with sea stars and other clams by tropical storm Irene. (Tim Faulkner/ecoRI News staff)RIVERSIDE — The stench is hard to miss. 

A powerful, albeit natural, effect of tropical storm Irene are hundreds of thousands of beached sea stars and baby clams that cover the sandy shoreline along the Providence River.

The mass aquatic kill was the result of the huge influx of wind and rain that raked upper Narragansett Bay on Sunday.

Save The Bay's John Torgan suggested large waves, the storm surge and low levels of oxygen in the bay during the summer combined to create the die-off.

"They just gave up and they end up here," Torgan said while sifting through the white blanket of tiny shells, most no bigger than a pea.

The tiny steamer clams formed a 100-yard blanket littered with displaced sea stars, razor clams and quahogs. The decay created a smell that enveloped the Rosa Larisa Park Beach and nearby Crescent Park carousel.

Torgan believes the die-off happended well before the diesel oil spill that occurred up the river near Dexter Street on Wednesday. Some 50 gallons of diesel fuel drained into the Seekonk River. The total amount of the spill exceeded 50,000 gallons of fuel, Torgan said. 

Scientist Chris Deacutis of the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program said initial evidence suggests that the storm hit the habitat during a series of cyclical spring tides, which have higher high tides and lower low tides. The low tides in particular allowed the potent winds and powerful waves to pull sea life from this shallow stretch of the bay. 

"What it probably did was, as [the tide] went out the strong winds ripped out anything that can't hold on to something," Deacutis said. "They were in a super-exposed condition."