41˚n summer 2014

A41˚ N spring/summer 2014

EROSION

R H O D E I S L A N D ' S O C E A N A N D CO STA L M AG A Z I N E VO L 7 N O 2 S P R I N G /S U M M E R 2 0 1 4 •

A P U B L I C AT I O N O F R H O D E I S LA N D S E A G RA N T & T H E COASTA L I N ST I T U T E AT T H E U N I V E R S I TY O F R H O D E I S LA N D A S E A G RA N T I N ST I T U T I O N •

41°N

B 41˚ N spring/summer 2014

CHANGE IS BAD“what makes an authentic, rhode island-style clam chowder?” Chef William Idell posed this question to the audience at the recent R.I. Seafood Challenge chowder cookoff at Johnson & Wales University.

“It’s wicked good!” someone answered.Also, of course, it has to have a clear broth. Beyond that, Idell, department

chair in the Johnson & Wales University College of Culinary Arts, said the contestants had gotten creative with their recipes. He told the audience, “Keep an open mind.”

Those of you who are native Rhode Islanders likely know what that means—people have very … distinct … opinions about what ingredients must or must not be in our iconic chowder.

We Rhode Islanders are also famous for giving directions based on landmarks that no longer exist, and holding on to memories of places that used to be (Rocky Point fans, I’m talking to you). It may be in human nature, but it is certainly in our nature, to struggle with change. As I look over this issue of 41°N, I reflect that many of the articles are about change. There are changes to fisheries, both capture and culture, that reflect changes in culture and society: Who eats what? How much alteration, in the form of aquaculture expansion, are people willing to accept in Rhode Island waters? There are also changes to the landscape, past and present, as winds and waves move sand around our shorelines. There are changes to life on the planet from climate change and human activities.

There are some changes, of course, that bring perils that we must be aware of, address, and even fight. But one word in particular has been repeated recently in resources management, and that is “adaptation.” It recognizes that some changes are inevitable, and that we must change our own behaviors to maintain our homes, livelihoods, and cultures. We may pursue different fisheries or retreat from threatened shorelines. But as the article on Napatree Point indicates, Rhode Islanders have adapted to major changes in the past.

This issue of 41°N certainly does not provide answers to all of the challenges of erosion, global warming, or fisheries management, but it indicates that there are ways to move forward, and there are people who are working to do so. What will happen next? And will we accept it?

Keep an open mind. It might be wicked good.

—MONICA ALLARD COX Editor

FROM THE E D I TO R

P.S. And if you’d like to find out more about the chowder cookoff, including the winning recipe, be sure to read the next issue of 41N. If you are not on our mailing list, sign up at seagrant.gso.uri.edu/41N. Subscriptions are free!

41° N

EDITORIAL STAFF

Monica Allard Cox, Editor

Judith Swift

Alan Desbonnet

Meredith Haas

ART DIRECTOR

Ernesto Aparicio

COVER AND BACK COVER

Photographs by John Supancic

ABOUT 41° N

41° N is published twice per year by the Rhode

Island Sea Grant College Program and the

Coastal Institute at the University of Rhode

Island (URI). The name refers to the latitude at

which Rhode Island lies.

Rhode Island Sea Grant is a part of the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-

tration and was established to promote the

conservation and sustainable development of

marine resources for the public benefit through

research, outreach, and education.

The URI Coastal Institute works in partner-

ships to provide a neutral setting where knowl-

edge is advanced, issues discussed, information

synthesized, and solutions developed for the

sustainable use and management of coastal

ecosystems. The Coastal Institute works across

and beyond traditional structures to encourage

new approaches to problem solving.

Change of address, subscription informa-

tion, or editorial correspondence: 41° N, Rhode

Island Sea Grant, University of Rhode Island,

Narragansett Bay Campus, Narragansett, RI

02882-1197. Telephone: (401) 874-6800. E-mail:

[email protected]

Reprinting material from 41° N is encour-

aged, but we request that you notify us of your

intentions, give credit to 41° N and the article’s

author(s), and send us a copy of your final

publication.

Not a subscriber? You can get 41°N free.

Sign up at seagrant.gso.uri.edu/41N (click the

“subscribe” button) or call (401) 874-6800.

141˚ N spring/summer 2014

THE SECRET LIFE OF WHELKS

Local fisherman leads effort to better understand, manage whelk fisheryby rudi hempe

BUILDING ON BORROWED TIME How long can we hold on to the coast? by meredith haas

KEEPING WATCH

Researchers study the beach at Napatree Pointto understand impacts of climate changeby alan desbonnet

MY OCEAN CRUSADE

An oceanographer talks about getting people to “dive in” and save the planetby leslie smith

TAKING STOCK OF CURRENTS AND QUAHOGS

Researchers seek better estimates, understanding of clams in Narragansett Bayby zoe gentes

2

6

22

26

30

RAISING OBJECTIONS

R.I. shellfish farms face increasing oppositionby rudi hempe

CELEBRATING A DECADE OF CULINARY EXPRESSION

THE ART OF THE OCEAN

Exhibit celebrates 25 years of Visual Arts Sea Grantby meredith haas

NARWHALS: ARCTIC WHALES IN A MELTING WORLD BY TODD McLEISH

Reviewed by kelly kittel

32

3840

44

32Contents

40

22

2 41˚ N spring/summer 2014


The secret life of whelks

Local fisherman leads effort to better understand, manage whelk fishery

underwater, whelks are slow-moving sea snails that like to pry open and de-vour quahogs. They are also the unlikely focus of a campaign by an energetic woman who catches them for a living to protect her chosen occupation.

Katie Eagan is a whelk fisherman, or as she and most of the other 200-plus whelk fishermen in Rhode Island prefer to call themselves, a “conch fisherman,” even though the larger and quite dif-ferent conchs live in far warmer waters down South (see sidebar).

At age 30, Eagan has fallen in love with a job that requires her to get up at dawn seven days a week to cruise parts of Narragansett Bay harvesting creatures that end up on plates in Asia and in the popular “snail salad” stateside.

There are two whelk-fishing sea-sons—spring (April until late June) and fall (October until “the snow flies”) says Eagan. In the dead of winter, whelks burrow into the mud. When the water

by Rudi Hempe

Markets for whelk are increasing, and a team of

fishermen and researchers is seeking to better

understand these creatures.

Photos by Melissa Devine


warms up, they emerge to feed. When the water gets too warm, they burrow in the mud again to mate, not coming out until the fall when the water cools. Between seasons Eagan goes lobstering or shore-quahogging with her father.

Eagan graduated in 2006 from the uri Marine Affairs program. Soon after she decided to go to Fiji as a Peace Corps volunteer to help small communities with their fisheries management and data collection issues. “It was not in the tourist area,” she laughs, explaining she was based in an area of 11 fishing villages quite distant from the travel-poster ver-sion of Fiji.

When she planned to return home, “I started to think the best thing for me was to … go fishing with my Dad,” who, she notes, had to figure out whether it was economically feasible to take on a full-time hand. It was—but getting the

necessary commercial licenses was not a simple matter. At the time, management restrictions meant she couldn’t get a lobster or quahog license. She decided to go for a whelk license because it was available.

“When I started, the prices were not really high—it was just something we did” between lobster and quahog sea-sons, she says.

But now the picture is different. The market for whelk has grown substan-tially and the prices are up. New buyers got into the market and started ship-ping whelk overseas—the majority of whelk meat is sent to China—although the domestic market has increased with the popularity of snail salad, especially around the holidays.

The rising whelk market has attracted a lot of fishermen, so much so that Eagan, with her marine affairs educa-

tion, started worrying about the future of the fishery.

For the most part, the whelk fishery is unregulated. There is a state mini-mum size for whelk—2.75 inches for the shell width or 4.75 inches for the shell length. However, Eagan says, those figures were not based on science but rather on market desirability. In fact, there is very little research on whelks—little is known about their growth rate, maturity, migration, diet, and preferred habitats.

“It’s pretty amazing how little we know about them,” says Eagan.

The most recent study was done last spring by another uri alum, with a de-gree in fisheries, Steven H. Wilcox, now a biologist at the Massachusetts Depart-ment of Marine Resources, who did a master’s thesis at UMass-Dartmouth on the size and age of maturation of chan-

Katie Eagan deploys baited traps to catch

whelk in Narragansett Bay.

FOCUS ON F I S H E R I E S


Technically whelks are gastropod mollusks that are carniv-orous (conchs, on the other hand, are herbivorous).

In Rhode Island there are three species of whelk: chan-neled whelk (Busycotypus canaliculatus), knobbed whelk (Busycon carica) and lightning whelk (Busycon sinistrum). The species favored by fishermen and dealers is the chan-neled whelk. The knobbed whelk, with its thick shell, does not render as much meat per pound and the lightning whelk is rarely captured.

Whelks are caught using rectangular wire or wooden traps that are baited with horseshoe crabs, quahogs, or fish parts. The traps are smaller and simpler in design than lobster traps. The traps’ sides are lined with rubber, plastic, or wood strips that make it easier for the whelks to climb up to the top. Once there, they fall through a large square opening. A wire rim around the opening prevents them from getting out.

The traps, five or more, are usually attached to a line with a special harness. When fishermen winch up the traps, the design of the harness prevents the traps from turning upside down, thus reducing the chance of dumping the catch. Traps are pulled every 2-3 days, depending on weather conditions.

A WHELK PRIMER

neled whelk. Wilcox raised the question whether the current market-established minimum sizes are conducive to pro-tecting the fishery.

Eagan is concerned about the same thing, so, one day last winter when she heard that Rhode Island Sea Grant had issued a request for proposals for grants to undertake shellfish research to aid management, she decided to apply. The problem was the deadline for the pre-proposals was two days away. She called on Kathleen Castro, a lobster fisheries researcher Eagan knew from her URI student days, who came to the rescue.“I knew nothing about whelks,” con-fesses Castro. “But when she called me up and said she and other fishermen were concerned about the future of the fishery, I said I would help her.”

The pre-proposal was dashed off, followed by a more detailed proposal, and in September, Sea Grant awarded a $185,000 grant for the two-year re-search project that began in February.

The proposal itself was to conduct research about the biology and ecology of whelk in Rhode Island, as well as the fishery, that would serve as the ba-sis for establishing a management plan. However, Castro recommended that Eagan also form a whelk association, which would have more of a say in the management process than an individual fisherman might.

The project will start this winter with meetings with whelk fishermen. Involved will be Carlos Garcia-Quijano, a uri anthropologist who will conduct the sessions designed to obtain lo-cal knowledge. Fishermen “are the best observers,” Castro says, adding that they will be involved collecting and

understanding the data throughout the project, “and they are going to take that to the management process.” The project will also involve the R.I. Department of Environmental Management.

To gather the data, tablet comput-ers, purchased through the grant, will be issued to the 20 participating fisher-men, who will upload their data daily to a cloud-based system. A local Wireless Zone firm is providing the tablets at a discount, and will also train the fisher-men in their use.

Part of the study will even put whelks on camera. Underwater cameras will be attached to at least one trap to capture the whelks in action—their approach to traps, their capture, and perhaps their escape. (Obviously high-speed cameras will not be needed.)Organizing the whelk fishermen is the

task on Eagan’s plate. “Now we have to get people onboard, says Eagan, who will serve as industry liaison, develop meeting agendas, provide input to participating fishermen, and collect local knowledge.

“The reality is if we don’t regulate it somehow we won’t be able to fish,” continues Eagan. “I would not say the way it is fished now will become a problem, but it has the potential if not done properly.”

“This is an opportunity for the fishermen and the scientists to work together and to use each other’s knowl-edge to manage this fishery, with a lot of input from the fishermen because we have the practical knowledge and have been following the species for a long time,” says Eagan.

FOCUS ON F I S H E R I E S


Building on Borrowed Time


rhode island is the second most densely populated state, and its 420 miles of coastline are crowded with homes and businesses, residents and tourists. The increasing rate of erosion and sea level rise, and the effects of coastal storms and flooding, are making the state’s coastal landscape ever smaller.

For those who think that engineering solutions will hold back the sea, Robert Fairbanks, a Rhode Island-based engineer who designs and constructs hard struc-tures to protect coastal properties, has some bad news.

“Everything is temporary,” he said in a recent interview. Fairbanks explained that when built correctly, barriers such as seawalls, revetments, or even dunes can protect an area for an extended period of time, but not indefinitely. “It’s always an educational process explaining to a homeowner who just spent a million dollars and now thinks they’re completely protected forever. I explain to them, that’s not the way Mother Nature works.”

While hurricanes and storms such as Sandy can move sand from one place to another—Sandy alone stripped over 1,600 tons of sand away from Narragansett Town Beach and dumped over 18,000 tons onto Atlantic Avenue in Westerly—ul-timately, the state is losing land over time. Despite seawall construction, beach renourishment, and other measures, Rhode Island’s coastline has lost over 250 feet of beach in just 50 years. This has been felt most acutely along the more exposed southern shoreline in communities from Point Judith to Westerly. Matunuck, Misquamicut, and South Kingstown Town Beach have lost over 400 feet of beach combined in the last 40 years.

Narragansett’s seawall—a mile-long, steel sheet pile seawall capped with con-crete—has protected downtown Narragansett since 1933, and Newport’s Cliff Walk has endured since the end of the 19th century. Though they have weathered many storms over time, they were both damaged heavily by Sandy, and required millions of dollars in repairs.

Efforts are underway to restore these existing structures and others, as well as to rebuild beaches, an undertaking funded in part by the $61.4 million Rhode Island

HOW LONG CAN WE HOLD ON TOTHE COAST?

Meredith Haas is Rhode Island Sea Grant’s science writer

by Meredith Haas

Aerial Photographs by John Supancic


Brothers Merrick Slade, front, and Seamus Slade, left, play on Matunuck Beach, next to the Ocean Mist bar.

© Photo by Gretchen Ertl

received from federal disaster relief programs to help the state recover from Sandy. And many residents and businesses are demanding the right to build new sea-walls despite strict permitting regulations in the state that largely prohibit them in many areas.

These efforts illustrate the challenges in educating people about the risks of coastal living. Dan Goulet, engineer at the Coastal Resources Management Coun-cil (crmc), the state agency responsible for protecting coastal resources, likened the issue to the failed bank bailouts in 2008, and said that coastal communities need long-term solutions that will require a differ-ent way of thinking for how people live on the coast instead of continually investing in infrastructure that does not work.

“It’s risky to live on the coast and people don’t get it,” he said, talking about the many oceanfront proper-ties owned by seasonal residents. “They come in the summer and it’s wonderful, but they don’t see when the ocean is lapping at their property.”

Rhode Island is one of the few states with a near-ban on construction of new hard shoreline protection structures despite the strong push to build. With the exception of preexisiting structures, this ban is pri-marily along Rhode Island’s southern shore in waters classified by crmc as a Type 1, which abut natural, un-disturbed shorelines. The south shore is also exposed to high wave energy, flooding, and erosion. crmc officials say that new construction is banned for all Type 1 waters to protect natural habitats and because

FOCUS ON E R O S I O N


FOCUS ON


such structures interfere with natural transportation of sediment and accelerate erosion. Preexisting structures can be maintained but are not permitted to expand.“We’re very concerned about sediment supply and have a limited supply on the south coast. Seawalls block the supply, and that has downstream impacts on beaches. You can have a wall or a beach, but you can’t have both,” said Grover Fugate, crmc executive director, in a public meeting to address the benefits, hazards, and limitations of hard structures.

Seawalls are vertical structures made of concrete or timber, and are driven into the soil to deflect oncom-ing waves. The deflected wave force, however, has to go somewhere and is generally reflected back out. This accelerates erosion in front of the wall, or to the sides, causing scouring to the outside edges and damaging adjacent properties, and ultimately eroding behind the wall and rendering it useless. Revetments are also engineered rock walls, but they follow the natural slope of the beach to break up wave energy and minimize erosion impacts. However, they can still pose scour-ing problems, and any beach in front of them will be eroded away.

This is the case in Matunuck, where a 200-foot long steel sheet pile seawall was approved to protect a portion of Matunuck Beach Road. This proposed structure, currently being appealed, would be an ex-ception to protect public health and safety since the road is the only access to 250 homes, and protects the water supply for 1,600 homes. The total estimated cost of this project would be $1.38 million, which would be funded by the R.I. Department of Transportation.

“YOU CAN HAVE A WALL OR A BEACH, BUT YOU CAN’T HAVE BOTH”



“I’m working with South Kingstown to protect Matunuck Beach road because that area has eroded right to the edge of the road,” said Fairbanks. “We’ve [designed] to limit erosion at the wall by not only us-ing a steel sheet pile structure buried about 8 feet, but also burying stone up against it so if we do lose the sand on top, the stone will be exposed. This will help stop the erosion so it won’t continue to dig the hole deeper and deeper. When the storm is over you can back in and replace the sand, to recreate area.”

There was opposition to the town’s original plan, which called for the wall to extend the length of the entire road. Janet Freedman, coastal geologist at crmc, says that construction will not go past the existing revetment at the Matunuck Trailer Association prop-erty on Matunuck Beach Road so as not to compromise local businesses and homes beyond. This construction, however, comes at the expense of keeping a beach in favor of protecting the road.

Not only can seawalls accelerate erosion, they can also harm the structures they are intended to protect when they are not built adequately to withstand wave forces and instead create harmful debris. The Andrea Hotel, a landmark in Misquamicut for nearly a century, which ultimately had to be torn down and rebuilt due to flooding damages, also suffered structural damage from seawall debris during Sandy.

“The stones were not the correct size and were like flying torpedoes,” said Michelle Carnevale, Rhode Island Sea Grant and Coastal Resources Center exten-sion specialist, who is working with Fugate on the R.I. Shoreline Change Special Area Management Plan

This stretch of Matunuck Beach Road in South Kingstown is the site of a controversial

effort to build a seawall.

“EVERYTHING IS TEMPORARY”



(Beach samp)—a management plan being developed to help coastal communities and homeowners adapt to sea level rise, flooding, and erosion. She explained that part of the problem was that the wall was under-designed because it predated the crmc regulations.

“The damage that was done during tropical storm Sandy to the Andrea Hotel shows that an undersize seawall can do as much or more damage as no seawall at all,” said Fugate.

Fairbanks believes that there’s a stigma against seawalls, and other hard structures, as a result of poor siting and construction.

“This is where seawalls have gotten a black eye,” he said. “People have gone in places and built things without taking into account what effect their structure was going to have on the adjacent property.”

Fairbanks said that when built correctly, hard structures can be very effective. Each structure must be designed and built to withstand the wave energy expected at its location. Structures need to withstand up to tens of thousands of pounds of force from a breaking wave during a storm. Many such structures are sloped with an uneven surface designed reduce the impact of wave energy.


Lifelong South Kingstown resident

Mike Couchie looks out over the Atlantic

from a window at the Ocean Mist.

He remembers when 100 feet of beach

lay between the bar and the ocean.



Management Agency, incorporate the last 20 years of data. Work on the maps began in 2009, and was com-pleted prior to Sandy.

Still, she said that after Sandy, federal contractors did survey the coastline and felt the data collected did not indicate a need to re-delineate the maps.

Fairbanks said he doesn’t trust the maps and that their accuracy has huge implications for the effective-ness of engineered structures if they are not con-structed to withstand actual conditions. Freedman said this could also hurt homeowners who believe they are outside the flood zone and yet may find their prop-erties flooded during a major storm without having insurance to compensate them.

Even when an adequate seawall or other structure is built, the initial construction expenses are only the beginning—maintenance accounts for a huge part of the overall cost, said Fairbanks. Structures will need repairs from the normal wear and tear of the ocean as well as damages from storms, and dunes will need to be restored and replanted. Many state beaches have maintenance funds incorporated into their budgets, and dole out hundreds of thousands of dollars each year, but not all homeowners have the resources to maintain private shoreline protection over the long-term, which can do more damage. Old timber and stone groins first installed in Buttonwoods, Warwick, in 1962, for example, were not properly maintained, said Fairbanks, ultimately accelerating erosion in the area.

S O U T H K I N G STOW N TOW N B E AC H

“I have to understand how big the waves are dur-ing storms in order to be able to know what type of structure to use, and what it should look like—height, width, material, slope,” said Fairbanks, explaining that he designs for the so-called 100-year storm, or the storm with a one percent chance of happening in any given year, utilizing flood maps and studies as recom-mended by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The larger the waves anticipated at a given site, the more expensive the structure. “A 27 percent increase in wave height doubles the amount of force, and that’s all cost,” Fairbanks said.

Even designing seawalls to withstand a 100-year storm may not provide the protection the name im-plies. First, new climate research suggests that such storms may now have a 5 or 10 percent chance of happening in any given year. Second, the coastal zone subject to wave action is determined on federal flood maps according to a set of variables that, for Rhode Island, do not adequately represent true flooding risk, according to Fairbanks, Fugate, and Freedman. Part of the problem is that the new flood maps fail to incorpo-rate flood marks from storms such as Sandy.

“We know they’re not accurate because we know we’ve flooded more than what they have mapped. There’s physical evidence,” said Freedman. “We know the Sandy waves were higher than the max wave they modeled for this area.”

The new maps, according to Jessica Stimson, floodplain mapping coordinator for the R.I. Emergency

2006

2005

1995

1985

1975

1963

1951


1951

1963

1975

1985

1995

2005

2006

0 ft

100 ft

200 ft

300 ft

400 ft

1951

1963

1975

1985

1995

2005

2006

0 ft

100 ft

200 ft

300 ft

400 ft


The potential damages to the shoreline are not the only reason crmc places strict regulations on con-struction of new hard structures. Those structures can also block public access to the shoreline, which begins at the high tide mark in Rhode Island.

“One thing about shoreline structures is that you lose public access,” said Freedman. “As that beach moves, you protect your house, but the public loses that right of access to the shore, and why should we?”

Property that’s been eroded cannot be reclaimed and there is no compensation for homeowners. This means as the water rises, it’s taking what used to be private land and turning it into public trust shoreline.

“The dry is becoming wet, and public property is becoming bigger, encroaching on private property,” said Susan Farady, former director of the Marine Affairs

Institute at Roger Williams University and of the Rhode Island Sea Grant Legal Program. “The big issue here is private versus public rights.”

Farady explains that the dilemma on building structures involves how to weigh the right to protect private property against the public trust to access resources, and also determining who is responsible for the damages incurred to the surrounding proper-ties resulting from a structure. This is one of the many issues the Beach samp will tackle in order to provide consistent management and expectations.

“We base our management and property interests on a set of conditions that we’ve assumed are going to be relatively stable, which we know is clearly not the case,” Farady said at the Beach samp public meeting in December, explaining that as these conditions change

In some states, more than 99 percent of resi-

dents depend on public beach access points in

order to exercise their right to enjoy the beach.

Public demand for beach access has continu-

ally increased since the 1960s. In the advent of

unprecedented shoreline development and with

fewer people able to afford living on the coast,

beach access has become a necessity in addi-

tion to remaining a legal right. For the public to

be able to exercise its right to access shoreline

areas held in trust, the public must be granted

reasonable access.

Although subject to state police powers,

there is an equal protection component to the

guarantee of public trust resource access. At a

certain point, the deprivation of access to such a

resource cannot be justified by the state.

Generally, the public right to horizontal use

of the beach is enforceable under the legal

theory of the public trust doctrine. The public

trust doctrine originates from natural law and

recognizes the importance of citizens’ use of

waters for fishing, commerce, and navigation.

The state of Rhode Island has traditionally de-

fined the boundaries of the shore for purposes

of the public trust doctrine as the mean high

tide mark seaward. In Rhode Island, there are

236 public beach access points along about 400

miles of Atlantic Ocean and Narragansett Bay

waters presently identified. The state’s Constitu-

tion ensures that individuals “shall continue to

enjoy … the privileges of the shore.” The right to

fish from shore, pass along the shore (horizontal

access), gather seaweed, and recreation rights

such as to swim to sea from the shore and stroll-

ing along the shore are all recognized activities.

This summary of the legal precedents of public

access in the U.S. and Rhode Island was taken

from the research of Elizabeth Blank, a 2013

Rhode Island Sea Grant Law Fellow. Her project

with the Warren Harbor Commission originated

from the commission’s objective to identify

public access rights-of-way in the town to pursue

opportunities for improving existing and provid-

ing new areas for public access and conservation.

For more information, visit law.rwu.edu/academ-

ics/institutes-programs/marine-affairs-institute/

sea-grant-law-fellows.

PUBLIC TRUST The right to beach access explained



Sandbags are piled on the beach

in Matunuck in an effort to keep

the sea at bay.



“Water is going to do what water is going to do”



Visit the Beach SAMP website at www.beachsamp.org/calendar/

meeting-documents to watch the livecast of Grover Fugate,

Robert Fairbanks, and Susan Farady discussing seawall benefits

and limitations for protecting Rhode Island’s coast.

along the coast, management and property interests are going to be changing as well. “Water is going to do what water is going to do. The issue isn’t the ocean. It’s our responses and abilities to manage our own actions.”

Current management of coastal resources in Rhode Island is framed around balancing all interests along the coast but not at the expense of public access.

“We try to take emotion out of it and be pragmatic to balance it for everybody because you’ve got fisher-men, people that just want to walk down the beach, the health of the beach itself, and nobody likes to be told to let [their homes] fall in the ocean. That’s tough,” said Goulet.

Many residents in Matunuck are indeed struggling with their limited options, and have petitioned for the shoreline there to be reclassified as manmade in order to allow hard structures. They have also requested that the existing stone revetment be extended, or that the approved seawall be moved seaward to protect water-front properties. Although these requests have been denied in order to preserve the coastal environment and public access to the shoreline, there are still op-tions remaining. These include soft solutions such as planting vegetation or non-permanent structures, such as coir logs that are biodegradable erosion prevention logs made from coconut fiber to aid in the stabilization and revegetation of hillsides, banks, shorelines, and other areas prone to erosion. These methods, however, may not always be effective in such exposed areas, said Fairbanks.

“There’s a general thought that we can go to soft solutions,” he said, arguing that in high energy areas like Matunuck, the beach isn’t wide enough to disperse the forces coming from the ocean. “We just don’t have that kind of width here.”

For coastal headlands in Misquamicut and Matu-nuck, crmc has approved non-permanent experimental erosion control measures, such as marine geomattresses that are rock-filled containers intended to slow or abate erosion without the damages inflicted by sea walls.

While some of these methods have been effective in other areas around the country, it is unclear how they will fare on Rhode Island’s coast.

As the results of the experimental measures being undertaken in Matunuck and Miquamicut become more apparent, more options for property owners may become viable. Nevertheless, both coastal engineers and resource managers say that all measures are just buying time. The question is, how much?



Alan Desbonnet is the Assistant Director of Rhode Island Sea Grant and a Coastal Institute Senior Fellow

Researchers study the beach at Napatree Point to understand impacts of climate change

KEEPING WATCH

napatree point is a one-and-a-half mile barrier beach stretching from the town of Watch Hill, R.I., out west towards Fisher’s Island, N.Y. A group gathered at Napatree in late August to learn about the pending impact to area beaches from ris-ing sea level and increasing storminess.

“In the early 1900s, Napatree hosted a row of houses standing atop the dunes that no doubt gave owners priceless views into Block Island Sound,” Judith Swift, director of the University of Rhode

Sunbathers enjoy the beach at Napatree Point circa 1930, prior to the devastation of the Hurricane of ’38. Photo courtesy of the Rhode

Island State Archives

by Alan Desbonnet

OPPOSITE

Napatree Point beach

Photo by John Supancic


Island Coastal Institute, told the group of Coastal Institute Senior Fellows. “The hurricane of ’38, however, collected a heavy fee. All the houses were washed away completely and with several lives lost.”

The houses were not rebuilt. “Maybe people were smarter back

then than they are today,” Swift quipped.Today, there is no option to build on

Napatree Point. Managed as a conser-vation area by the Watch Hill Conser-vancy in cooperation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the barrier beach hosts low-intensity uses—largely beach strolling and nature watching.

Bryan Oakley, a professor of geology at Eastern Connecticut State Univer-sity says, “The lack of houses or other built structures on the barrier beach is a major asset in attempting to understand impacts on the shoreline from storms.” This is a major reason that he, along with Jon Boothroyd, emeritus profes-sor of geology at uri, and others have

elected to use Napatree Point as a focal point for beach erosion studies.

“Conducting research at Napatree allows us to see the entire process play out,” said Oakley.

For instance, after Superstorm Sandy came through, researchers, as well as anybody who bothered to look, were able to see the immediate impacts wrought by wind and waves along south shore beaches such as Matunuck. But then the bulldozers and backhoes arrived to remove the sand overwashed onto roads and dump it back on the beach. This type of cleanup prevents researchers from seeing how the beaches react post- storm or to study beach behavior over the long term.

Because there are no roads and no structures on the Napatree barrier beach, researchers get the opportunity to watch how the beach responds, over both long and short terms, to storm events. Taking a long-term approach is important, because as sea level rises, the

Homes on Napatree Point prior to the Hurricane of ’38

Photo courtesy of the Rhode Island State Archives

THE HURRICANE OF ’38, HOWEVER, COLLECTED A HEAVY FEE



beaches may behave differently in the future than they do today.

Oakley was pointing to a red-dashed line on a map of Napatree Point. By comparing aerial photographs from the late 1930s to those of today, Oakley points out that “The Napatree barrier has moved about 200 feet north. That’s the natural progression of events. The beach is still here and to the casual observer seems about the same as it was decades ago. And it is, except for being relocated a few hundred feet.”

While comparing historical to cur-rent-day photos shows dramatic change, the researchers need a higher degree of accuracy to best understand the dynam-ics and the interplay between rising sea level and impacts of storms on beaches.

To that end, the research team has set up “sentinel sites”—stainless steel rods driven nearly 30 feet into the sand—that serve as long-term reference points for measuring changes in the beach face within a couple of centime-ters. Already, interesting information is emerging.

“Steeper parts of the beach, such as that to the east and nearest to town, saw

dramatic erosion during Sandy, while less steep areas to the west saw sand being washed over the dunes, moving them northwards,” Oakley said.

Some of the eroded sand will return to the beach, but not all of it. Storms are the major force shaping beaches, accord-ing to Oakley and Boothroyd, and the natural reaction is for beaches to move

inland over time. How fast and how far is determined by the frequency and intensity of storms.

Climatologists think that New Eng-land could see increased storminess in the future, and seem pretty sure that the intensity of storms will increase as well.

“Beaches will overwash the dunes during storms a lot more often,” said Boothroyd. “And it’ll be hard for beach migration to keep pace if both frequency and intensity increase.”

There is also no question that sea level is rising, and rising rapidly. The combination may cause beaches to retreat more swiftly than dune grasses and other vegetation can stabilize them, creating a possible endpoint where beaches are lost.

Researchers are using Napatree Point to help them better comprehend these processes, but as for what to do about them, there may be no better solution than what Napatree residents decided three quarters of a century ago. Fol-lowing the Hurricane of 1938, resi-dents of the Watch Hill area, while not understanding the detailed mechanics of beach dynamics or dune migration, certainly understood the futility of hav-ing structures on Napatree.

The Napatree barrier seems the same as decades ago, except that it’s moved 200 feet north.

Photo by John Supancic

The Hurricane of ’38 destroyed these homes on Napatree Point. They were not rebuilt.

Photo courtesy of the Rhode Island State Archives



as a child in the late 80s–early 90s, i grew up fascinated by Ranger Rick and Bill Nye, sparking my interest in science and the natural world. There was nothing more terrifying than the hole in the ozone, and nothing more awesome than curbside recycling and composting … or at least I thought so. Looking back on my childhood, I reflect not only on my regrettable wardrobe choices involving neon suspenders, but also on the patience of my parents regarding my militant recycling and building a composter in the backyard.

MY OCEAN CRUSADE

An oceanographer talks about getting people to “Dive In” and save the planet

OPPOSITE

Greenhouse gases are making oceans warmer as well as more acidic.

Leslie Smith is the owner of Your Ocean Consulting, LLC, and Dive into the Ocean, Inc.

by Leslie Smith


As a native Virginian, I spent my summers playing in the Chesapeake Bay. It was there that my parents taught me what it meant to be a steward of the environment. With them, I watched beaches and banks erode from new development, saw blue crab populations decline, and observed how fertil-izer runoff and sewage discharge could harm Bay ecosystems.

Along the way, I learned that not only could I make a difference in my small way at home, but that people could make a big difference for the planet.

I felt so empowered watching the public and policy makers stand up to say “No” to the ozone hole, through the 1987 Montreal Protocol, arguably one of the most successful environmental treaties ever ratified. Since then, the world has cut the produc-tion of ozone-depleting chemicals by 98 percent.

Today, more than ever, it is critical for the public to have access to and an understanding of science. Covering over 70 percent of the Earth, the oceans provide over half the oxygen we breathe. In addi-tion, they play a critical role in transportation, food supply, and the global climate.

Though there is a lot of amazing oceanographic research occurring around the world, not enough is being done to communicate it to the public. Com-municating with the public is not every scientist’s strength, of course, which is why I have made it my career goal to work as a translator of sorts, to communicate complex scientific findings to the public in a clear and concise way, while maintaining scientific integrity.

It felt like destiny to me to pursue a Ph.D. in oceanography at the uri Graduate School of Oceanography. While in graduate school, in addi-tion to my rigorous course work and research on reduced oxygen (hypoxia) in Narragansett Bay, I sought out opportunities to interact with a variety of audiences to develop my skills translating sci-ence for nonscientists. Through working with wonderful mentors, and a lot of trial and error, not only did I learn about ocean science, but also how to communicate that science.

In one memorable experience, I gave a presenta-tion to a group at a senior center on the impacts of climate change in Rhode Island. I was very excited as I thought this was a perfect audience; they had lived through all these things I was going to talk to them about. I was also very excited about the shiny new projector I was bringing. My audience, however, turned out not to be excited about the projector, nor the fact that I was lecturing them.

After a very awkward twenty minutes talking to a void of disinterest, my shiny new projector broke. That was the best thing that could have happened. After having a good laugh at my expense, the conversation turned around. I sat on the front table and we just talked—about the ocean, about Rhode Island, about their kids and grandkids. They asked me questions about current science and I asked them about lobstering 50 years ago and what things were like before they started to change. Needless to say, I learned my lesson. Not only did I need the ability to distill only the most relevant and impor-tant pieces of information from my research, but I also needed to make that information engaging to my audience. I realized that making information engaging is not the same thing as doing a puppet show or pyrotechnics; it is speaking in terms of things the audience relates to and values.

After graduate school, while my classmates went on to post-doctoral research fellowships, entered federal employment, or worked at large consulting firms, I took a different turn to further develop my skill set in science communications. As my doctorate was in science, I realized most employers would not feel that I had any experience in communications, so I took a low-paying intern-ship in the field with a non-profit in Washington, D.C., and moved back in with my parents. It was from that internship I learned how to properly run a communications department and how to develop effective communication strategies.

Filling a need

Having worked to develop a background in both ocean science and communications, I launched two complementary businesses. The first is Your Ocean

Ocean acidification will not kill all ocean life. But many scientists

think we will see changes in the number and abundance of

marine organisms. Many marine ecosystems may be populated

by different and fewer species in the future.

Roughly 50 percent of the carbon emitted from human activi-

ties between 1800 and 1994 has been absorbed by the ocean.

One-third of carbon emissions today from automobiles and

factories are currently being absorbed by the ocean.

Impacts to reproduction and larval development of marine

animals have already been shown in a lab setting, but additional

possible impacts could include effects on immunity and devel-

opment at other life stages.

Source: riclimatechange.org

OCEANS+ACIDIFICATION

FOCUS ON O C E A N S


Consulting, llc, a consulting company that works with universities as well as nonprofit and for-profit companies, focusing on oceanographic research and how to effectively communicate that research to non-scientific audiences. The second is Dive into the Ocean, Inc., a nonprofit that teaches elemen-tary school students about the oceans and provides hands-on learning activities to help them under-stand how important the ocean is and how they are connected to it.

For children of the new millennium, there is so much to fear for in the well-being of the environ-ment. Kids have to worry about floating plastic islands, ocean acidification, sea level rise, global temperature increase, and extreme weather events. In order to tackle these global issues, they need to be informed and understand the science behind these phenomena, regardless of their future careers.

A college student working at my gym is taking an environmental science course that touches on all these concerns. Knowing I am a scientist, he asked if there was any hope and wondered how I did not get depressed thinking about this every day. When I told him, there is always hope, look what we did with the hole in the ozone, he replied, “The what?”

At first I was taken aback. But perhaps in a strange way, this is a sign of successful environ-mental management, as the ozone hole is not something we have to worry about as much now as I did in my childhood.

I can only hope that my generation solves these problems of oceans rising, warming, acidifying, and filling with plastic, so that when my children tell their kids about it they will reply, “The what?”

In order for that to happen, great science will need to be done, and equally as important, it will need to be effectively communicated and serve as the basis for sound policy. That is my goal and my mission, and one that I know I share with more and more scientists every day.

My generation must develop solutions—ground-ed in science and effectively communicated—for the problems facing the ocean. Because, as writer Elizabeth Kolbert once said, “We have already deter-mined the climate for our children. Now we’re working on the climate for our grandchildren.”

Melting Arctic sea ice may be accelerating climate

change and contributing to colder, snowier winters in

parts of the U.S.

FOCUS ON O C E A N S


F O C U S O N O C E A N P L A N I N G

Taking Stockof Currents and Quahogs


over 39 million clams were harvested from Narragansett Bay in 2012, supporting a $5.15 million commercial fishing industry, according to figures by Jeff Mercer, principal biologist in marine fisheries for the R.I. Department of Environmental Management (dem).

The estimates of clams in the Bay are used to set fishing limits. In Rhode Island, commercial shellfish-ermen use a bull rake for harvesting clams. The dem, however, uses a hydraulic dredge to collect clams for population estimates. Fishermen say that the dredging method of harvesting is inefficient and inaccurate, and is likely to result in unnecessary limits on the com-mercial fishing operations.

Dale Leavitt, an associate professor of marine sciences at Roger Williams University, is conducting a study that compares the efficiency of dredge gear to that of a bull rake. He is going out on commercial shellfishing boats that are using bull rakes alongside dem dredges to compare the results for clam popula-tion numbers.

Being able to accurately take stock of clam popula-tions in Narragansett Bay will be important for making more effective management decisions concerning commercial shellfishing. Another aspect of population dynamics researchers are addressing is determining where the clams are coming from within the Bay and how they are dispersed.

Understanding dispersal of quahogs, specifically, is of particular interest to researchers because quahogs do not move much once they settle as larvae. They may move only a couple meters in their whole lifetime. To better target their harvesting efforts, “knowing where the quahog larvae move to is incredibly important for fishermen,” says Azure Cygler, an extension special-ist from Rhode Island Sea Grant who is leading the R.I Shellfish Management Plan.

One management strategy that has been used to a small degree in Rhode Island is to create “spawning sanctuaries” by closing off areas and prohibiting fish-ing where large numbers of quahogs are located. “The idea is that they maintain a population of reproduc-tively active quahogs where they will spawn and broad-cast larvae out for distribution about the Bay,” Leavitt explains. However, if it isn’t known where the larvae will go, it is difficult to judge how effective the sanctu-ary may be in replenishing the bay with quahog seed.

Also, potential overcrowding at the spawning site may lead to poor conditions and even to low reproduction rates, defeating the purpose of the supposed sanctuary.

Leavitt and collaborators are using a hydrodynamic computer model called the Regional Ocean Modeling System (roms) to make an educated guess as to where the quahog larvae may be distributed when originat-ing from a specific area. They are testing a number of locations to see which ones contribute the most seed to the upper Bay.

roms has been developed and calibrated against years of detailed hydrographic information with Sea Grant funding by Christopher Kincaid, a professor and researcher at uri’s Graduate School of Oceanography (gso) and David Ullman, a marine research scientist at uri gso, to create a picture of how currents, circula-tion, and nutrients affect water quality in the Bay.

Kincaid, Ullman, and a number of uri students now use roms simulations to predict circulation and transport within the Bay under different conditions. For instance, if they want to see how a certain area of the Bay will circulate and flush without wind, they can select for those parameters. Then they can add the wind back in, and see how the system behaves differently. “Using roms in this way you can hone in on which environmental and manmade factors lead to which response in the estuary,” Kincaid says.

By simulating quahog larvae in the Narragansett Bay roms program, including adding a larval behavior component, researchers can predict how the larvae will be dispersed by currents within the estuary under cer-tain conditions. These predictions can help shellfish-ermen better understand where the quahogs are ending up, and what their populations might be.

These efforts are being undertaken as part of the R.I. Shellfish Management Plan, which is being developed to provide comprehensive policy guidance for management and protection measures for shellfish located in state marine waters.

“The objective with our quahog management is to have the Bay produce enough quahogs to keep the fishing fleet economically viable,” Leavitt says. “In ad-dition, quahogs are a part of the ecological fabric of the Narragansett Bay and therefore need to be managed in a way that keeps them as a functioning part of the ecosystem.”

RESEARCHERS SEEK BETTERUNDERSTANDING OF CLAM DISPERSALIN NARRAGANSETT BAY

E CO SYST E M

by Zoe Gentes

Taking Stockof Currents and Quahogs


photographs by Acacia Johnson

Raising objections:

R. I. SHELLFISH FARMS

FACE

INCREASING OPPOSITION

Perry Raso’s Matunuck Oyster Bar, on the waterfront of South Kings-town’s Potter Pond, is jammed in the summer, and does respectable business year-round, even on a snowy day in January. Raso’s restaurant, however, is only the most visible part of his Matunuck Oyster Farm operation, and his success has not come without challenges in a state that boasts myriad regulatory hurdles amid increasing opposition to the aquaculture industry.

Raso’s oyster venture, with well over 100 employees, is considered by many of his peers a sign that aquaculture is flourishing in Rhode Island. But while his diners savor the fresh delectables on their plates, most have no idea what is involved in starting and maintaining an oyster farm in Rhode Island.

Raso grew up on the shore, and at age 12 was digging and diving for littlenecks in the salty water of Potter Pond. His oyster operation got its start when he was an aquaculture and fisheries student at the University of Rhode Island, where he graduated in 2002.

He obtained two “commercial viability” aquaculture licenses for two small areas in Point Judith Pond. These licenses, issued by the R.I. Coastal Resources Management Council (crmc), allow applicants to set up trial operations. That initial venture did not work out—the two 50-by-50 foot areas were in deep water and algae growth on the bagged oysters made it almost impossible for him to harvest them using the small gear-less boat he had at the time. He then decided to shoot for his favorite fishing spot—Potter Pond—and in 2002 filed for a preliminary determination, the first step in the permitting process, to construct an oyster farm there in three shallow acres.

Perry Raso founded Matunuck

Oyster Farm in 2002 on a

7-acre commercial aquaculture

lease on Potter Pond in East

Matunuck. Today his operation

also includes a restaurant and

a vegetable farm.

by Rudi Hempe


“I never thought in a million years that I was go-ing to get accepted,” says Raso, noting that nearby residents did not even like to see divers in the ponds, taking what they perceived to be food from their back-yards.

“People who live on a body of water have a sense of ownership,” he says, recalling the days of his youth when he drove his boat over an oyster farm and he himself questioned “how anyone can own a part of the ocean.”

To his surprise, no one objected to his farm pro-posal. The same was true a few years later when he applied for an expansion of his farm to double its size. However, as aquaculture has grown in the state, so, too, has opposition, says David Beutel, the crmc’s state aquaculture coordinator.

“This is a busy year. There are objectors all over the place,” says Beutel, himself a former fin fisherman. By objectors, he explains, he is referring to nearby residents, recreational-use proponents, commercial interests, and at times regulatory agencies.

It is to Beutel’s desk in Wakefield where all the ap-plications for new aquaculture farms, farm expansions, and farm ownership transfers are brought. The first step is the “preliminary determination” process, which costs applicants a mere $25. That, however, triggers a barrage of paperwork and involves a slew of agencies and special interests that have the opportunity to com-ment on the proposal.

Applicants “come in with an idea what they want to grow, how they want to grow it, and have a vague idea of where they want to grow it,” says Beutel. “We do not tell people where to do it but will work with people, trying to determine what the level of conflict will be in the sites that they are choosing, and we do recommend to them that they try to minimize that. Not everyone does that.”

If the applicant wishes to proceed, Beutel and the crmc staff send notifications to local fishing associa-tions, both recreational and commercial, notify the town where the farm is to be located, and also alert a host of state and federal agencies. Then a preliminary determination public meeting is scheduled. “The intent is to get any immediate issues out on the table. For example the applicant might not know that the site he wants overlaps a mooring field or that it is heavily used by bullrakers. So we try to work with those groups to relocate the proposal,” Beutel says.

Beutel hosts the meeting, describes the regulatory process, explains the proposal (or has the applicant do so) and in the process, “invariably somebody will care about something.” For example, a neighborhood association may point out that their members swim in the area proposed for the farm. “I even had someone tell me they don’t like that spot for an oyster farm because their dog swims there—it goes to that level of absurdity.”

After the session, Beutel composes a prelimi-nary determination report based on the information received. He also conducts a shellfish density survey at the site to make sure the area is not already productive for shellfish even if people are not using it. If the site is a potential commercial or recreational shellfish area “we try not to lease that,” he says, noting that policy eliminates a lot of potential opposition.

The other ecological hurdle is whether eelgrass is present. Areas with eelgrass are considered ideal habitats for the spawning and breeding of all sorts of marine life. Beutel relies on a set of eelgrass maps that have been devised by the state. If the maps indicate there may be eelgrass present he will inspect the site, but that can only be done in the summer months.

The presence of eelgrass is a showstopper. In fact Raso last year applied for yet another expansion of his oyster farm and was rejected because eelgrass, which was not there when he started and expanded his opera-tion, was present now. “Right now there is eelgrass everywhere there,” says Beutel. It might have happened because the oysters enhanced the water quality and the environment, he suggests, adding, “I’m sure the oysters did not hurt the chances of eelgrass.” If eelgrass ap-pears in an established oyster farm, “we acknowledge it but we do not try to take (the permit) away.”

Once the preliminary determination is prepared,

FOCUS ON AQ UAC U LT U R E


the applicant can decide not to apply, may make chang-es to the application based on the recommendations, or can choose to make no changes and forge ahead.Then the application goes to a formal process. Ev-erybody and every agency that was notified before is notified again of a public hearing. Notice is also sent to a host of other concerned parties.

A permit is needed from the Army Corps of En-gineers. The R.I. Marine Fisheries Council Shellfish Advisory Panel is asked for a recommendation. If that

panel objects, the applicant can ask the R.I. Marine Fisheries Council to hear the matter. In one recent case, the council overrode the advisory group. In addi-tion, there is a requirement for a water quality certi-fication and a letter from the R.I. Department of En-vironmental Management (dem) that says the impact on indigenous fisheries is acceptable. The Coast Guard will report only if there is a navigation issue involved. Even the state Historic and Conservation Commission has to submit a letter regarding whether or not there

Perry Raso grows vegetables as well as

shellfish for his restaurant, the Matunuck

Oyster Bar.



is a historical or cultural impact posed by the project. If there are objections, then the matter goes before the crmc for a hearing. Beutel then writes his own opinion on the issues that were raised, and that, too, is sent to the crmc.

Usually, Beutel says, there are no lawyers involved unless there is heavy opposition, but the whole process can take months. The fee for this process is between $250 and $500, depending on the amount of capital investment the applicant proposes.

Even after a lease is granted, Beutel’s job is not over. He visits every aquaculture operation in the state (there are 51) annually to make sure the terms of the permits are being followed.

This past year was a busy one–10 preliminary de-terminations in 2012 resulted in six applications. Only two were approved in 2013, as objections are pending on the rest.

The state has a so-called 5 percent rule, i.e., that no more than 5 percent of a body of water can be leased for aquaculture. To date, Point Judith Pond has

the highest percent of aquaculture of all of the state’s coastal ponds—3 percent. Interestingly, the 5 percent limitation was adopted from an Australian ecological study based on science that measured the “carrying capacity” of a body of water for aquaculture.

While ecological questions and opinions from other fishing interests constitute many of the objec-tions, there is yet another area of objection that is more difficult to analyze and quantify—something called “social carrying capacity.”

To try to get a handle on this aspect—which includes the concerns of owners of swimming dogs—two researchers in the uri Department of Marine Affairs will be studying coastal pond uses and perceptions.

Associate professors Tracey Dalton and Robert Thompson are planning to embark on the studies with funding from Rhode Island Sea Grant. One of the stud-ies will attempt to quantify public opinions. “We want to look at what people think about aquaculture facili-ties in Rhode Island, and so we are going to develop a mail survey for residents and target some other more specific groups such as waterfront property owners, commercial wild harvest fishermen, and aquaculture farmers,” says Dalton.

“We are going to look at different reasons that people support or don’t support different types of

Raso’s restaurant is popular, along with tours of his oyster farm, but not everyone supports a growth in aquaculture operations in state waters.


aquaculture, different sizes of farms, different methods of growing and use the findings to understand what specific types of aquaculture are appropriate in specific water bodies,” she adds.

Thompson will be heading up the other study working with dem to map the activities of people in the coastal ponds. This will be an observational study that will also include interviews of the users.

“One of the primary reasons for the studies is that people are strongly opposing a lot of projects and it would be useful to understand before someone makes a proposal how it might get received, how much opposi-tion will come about for a particular water body and plan more efficiently. The 5 percent rule is based on ecological factors but is really the result of a political decision. It will be interesting to see through our stud-ies what the carrying capacity is” from social use and perception aspects, Dalton says.

All of this research activity is coming about now because Rhode Island Sea Grant issued a request for proposals for shellfish fishery research projects last winter, explains Dennis Nixon, the new director of Rhode Island Sea Grant. While the decision was made before he came aboard, he notes, the chosen theme

is evidence that the shellfishing industry, wild and farmed, is considered to be tremendously important and deserves more study.

As for Raso, besides the restaurant and oyster farm, he owns a 6-acre vegetable farm at the head of Potter Pond that includes his home, the 1740 house built by Captain John Potter, a notable historical figure in the South County area and for whom Potter Pond is named. In addition, he leases six acres from a land trust, also for growing vegetables. The two farms, complete with greenhouses, supply “farm-to-plate” offerings at his restaurant and the high-end Ocean House restaurant in Westerly, as well as the Alterna-tive Food Cooperative in Wakefield.

Still, Raso is not completely satisfied—yet. “If I am still in business after 15 years I’ll consider it a suc-cess,” he says, adding that he is convinced aquaculture will expand in Rhode Island and also globally. He has traveled to Africa and in late 2013 spoke at aquaculture conferences in Vietnam and China.

Aquaculture has a place in developing countries, says Raso, and he hopes to take what he has learned in Rhode Island and use that knowledge to help others in need of sustainable food sources.



Celebrating a decade of culinary expression

one evening each summer for the past decade,

Rhode Island seafood aficionados have turned

out to local libraries and community centers to be

treated to a demonstration—and taste—of prepara-

tions for everything from fluke, bluefish, and black

sea bass to scallops and even lobster.

Normand Leclair, one of Rhode Island’s re-

nowned chefs and the former owner of the Red

Rooster Tavern in North Kingstown and the Pump

House in Peace Dale, has demonstrated for rapt

audiences how to prepare a wide variety of local

seafood at the annual community lecture series

sponsored by Rhode Island Sea Grant, the URI

Nutrition and Food Sciences Department, the URI

College of the Environment and Life Sciences, and

the R.I. Coastal Resources Management Council.

Since he began, Leclair has taught and served

over 600 participants using dozens of seafood

recipes taken from his cookbook, Culinary Expres-

sions, in which he shares tales of his time in the

food industry as well as over 200 recipes and tips

for entrees, appetizers, side dishes, and desserts.

September marked Leclair’s final seafood cook-

ing demonstration for the series, but for those

who have enjoyed his presentations over the years,

and for those who have missed them, he shares

here one of his preparations for bluefish, along

with some tips for selecting and handling seafood.

Chef Normand Leclair encourages his audience to prepare seafood at home.

FROM T H E C H E F


Bluefish is found along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts; it has a fine-textured flesh and can be silver

gray in color. Remove the dark oily strip that runs down the center of the filet to prevent the

flesh from absorbing a strong fishy flavor. Bluefish ranges from 3 to 10 pounds and should be used

within a day of being caught.

I N G R E D I E N T S

1 pound bluefish fillets, skinned, check for bones,

cut into two servings

2 tablespoons butter

½ teaspoon grated lemon peel (zest),

save juice from lemon

1 tablespoon peeled minced fresh ginger

¼ teaspoon Dijon-style mustard

½ teaspoon soy sauce

Dash cayenne

¼ cup chopped green onions (scallions)

2 tablespoons sesame seeds

P R E PA R AT I O N

Over medium heat, in a medium skillet,

melt 2 tablespoons butter, stir in in grated lemon peel

and minced ginger and cook for one minute. Stir in

lemon juice, sesame oil, mustard, soy sauce, cayenne,

and green onions. Cool.

A S S E M B LY

1. Select an ovenproof casserole dish just large enough to

contain the bluefish side by side. Place skinned fish skin side

down; spoon sauce on and around fish. Spread sesame seeds

evenly over bluefish.

2. Bake in a preheated 400° oven for 20 minutes.

3. Remove fish from casserole with a spatula to heated

plates. Spoon sauce on and around fish.

H I N T S A N D S U G G E S T I O N S

Skin side down: The smoother side with a darker color is usu-

ally the skin side. If you have any doubts about what side is

the skin side, ask the clerk when you purchase the fish.

Skinning fish: To skin fish, use a long sharp knife, grasp skin

tightly, and move knife forward, keeping it tight against the

skin to cut the fish away. (An easier way is to ask the clerk to

do it for you.)

This recipe was taken from Culinary Expressions, available at

www.culinaryexpressionscookbook.com.

BLUEFISH WITH SESAME

Normand Leclair includes

tips for selecting seafood in

Culinary Expressions. He

recommends buying the fish

last when shopping, ensuring

that it looks firm and passes

the smell test, and asking

for a small bag of ice from

the fish counter to pack along

with the seafood when

bagging at the register (or

bringing a cooler with ice

packs in your car).

Photo by Matthew Stavro

FROM T H E C H E F


EXHIBIT CELEBRATES 25 YEARS OF VISUAL ARTS SEA GRANT

The Art of the Ocean


the ocean has long been a source of inspiration and inquiry for scientists and artists alike, so it was only fitting that in 1988, an oceanographer and an art professor from the University of Rhode Island conceived the Visual Arts Sea Grant program to support artists whose work explored marine themes.

Artists have used their grants to pro-duce paintings, sculpture, photographs, and other works that have captured the essence of coastal communities, ex-pressed concern about ocean pollution, reflected on the history of maritime culture, and represented microscopic marine organisms in unexpected ways.

“I view the sea as our planet’s lifeblood; when disturbances happen in our oceans it slowly pollutes the whole world,” said Brooklyn-based artist Manju Shandler, referring to her recent body of work featured this past fall at an exhibit celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Visual Arts Sea Grant program at

by Meredith Haas

Meredith Haas is Rhode Island Sea Grant’s science writerEXHIBIT CELEBRATES 25 YEARS OF VISUAL ARTS SEA GRANT


the Main Gallery in the uri Fine Arts Center. “I have become increasingly aware and alarmed about the amount of plastic refuse accumulating in our oceans.”

She received a Visual Arts Sea Grant award in 2012 for her piece, Moby Under —a compilation inspired by Herman Melville’s Moby Dick and Homer’s Odyssey that explores fictional narratives of ocean lore and contrasts them with the real threats to the ocean today.

Boston-based Nathalie Miebach, a 2010 Visual Arts Sea Grant recipient,

created a piece that represents oceano-graphic data in a three-dimensional installation. Her work incorporates basket-weaving techniques and resem-bles the type of beaded wooden toy commonly found in doctor’s offices to keep children entertained.

Shandler and Miebach were among 19 artists from New York to Maine that participated in the event, which honored the late Visual Arts Sea Grant founders, former Rhode Island Sea Grant Direc-tor Scott Nixon, and Robert Rohm, uri professor of art.

For more information on the Visual Arts Sea

Grant program, please visit www.uri.edu/artsci/

art/visual_arts_sea_grant.html.

PREVIOUS PAGE Detail from In a Drop of Sea,

40º 07’ 20” N / 69º 56’ 92” W,

shibori on hand-dyed silk organza

by Lilla Samson, 2010

ABOVE LEFT

Moby Under

by Manju Shandler, 2012

ABOVE RIGHT

Blue Heron by Ana Flores, 1998

THE PROGRAM SUPPORTS ARTISTS WHOSE WORK EXPLORES MARINE THEMES

FOCUS ON A R T


CLOCKWISE Changing Waters by Nathalie Miebach, 2010

Plastic Ocean by Susan Schultz, 2005 and Point of Entry by Richard Keen, 2012

FOCUS ON A R T


Narwhals: Arctic Whales in a Melting World

by Todd McLeish

Reviewed by Kelly Kittel

In his recent book “Narwhals: Arctic Whales in a Melting World,” Rhode Island native Todd McLeish takes readers on a rare journey to the Arctic to learn about creatures who are at home in one of the planet’s most hostile environments. McLeish sheds light on the narwhal, which spends its winters in 24-hour darkness, while debunking the myths often associated with these “sea unicorns” and their unusual tusks.

The unicorn tusk is actually the front left tooth which grows, spirally, to 8 feet long and is one of the reasons the narwhal is hunted, with tusks selling

for up to $150 per foot. The exact purpose for the tusk is unknown, except as a secondary sexual characteristic. “Only males sport tusks,” writes McLeish, “If they were essential, the females would also have them.”

Despite the disadvantages tusks prove for swimming, one of the more remarkable characteristics of the narwhal is its ability to dive up to a mile to reach the sea floor, where it feeds primarily on halibut and cod. Narwhals don’t eat in summer, but in winter they make this trip 10 to 20 times a day.

Narwhals are difficult to count, but some of the researchers McLeish spoke with believe there are fewer than 100,000 narwhals worldwide. Limited subsistence hunting is allowed in both Canada and Greenland where the animal’s blubber, called muktuk, is an important food for native people.

In addition to threats from predators, which besides humans include orcas (or “killer whales”), narwhals, McLeish writes, are among the Arctic marine mammals most vulnerable to threats from climate change. Changes in sea ice may shift where their prey is found, and may make it more difficult for them to find a place to surface for air under large shifting ice floes. Increased shipping, oil exploration, or other human interactions may disrupt the narwhals’ migration and feeding. And narwhals have not proven very well able to adapt to such changes.

McLeish made several trips to the far north, living alongside researchers and hunters alike, to provide readers with an armchair tour of the Arctic, in addition to a profile of the narwhal. He concludes by asking leading scientists what the future holds for these animals. One replies, “They live in one of the most hostile environments on the planet, having so much darkness in their world, their access to air covered by ice most of the year, competition for food with commercial fishing, and all the predators literally wanting a piece of them, including man, of course. It’s a credit to the species to be here at all.”

B O O K REVIEW

C41˚ N spring/summer 2014

FAC TS

Rhode Island National Flood Insurance Program Facts (see http://www.beachsamp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Jul-2nd-Presentation-Turning-Point-with-graphs.pdf)

Flood Risk

39 1 All 39 communities and 1 tribe participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). %

Currently 16,271 flood insurance policies in Rhode Island (Data as of July 3, 2013)

Bristol: 2,128

Kent : 2,495

Newport: 2,996

Providence: 2,733

Washington: 5,919

Average R.I. premium is $1,303/annually

As sea levels continue to rise, the extent of flood damage

and storm surge will increase. The National Flood

Insurance Program estimates that if sea levels rise just

one foot by 2100, there will be a 36-58 percent

increase in annual flood damage.

Erosion

Sea Level Rise

The most eroded portions of the Rhode Island coastline

have lost over 250 feet of beach in just 50 years.

Misquamicut headland – approximately 90 feet

of total shoreline displacement between 1939 and 2004

Matunuck headland – approximately 150 feet of net erosion

along the widest beach since 1963

South Kingstown Town Beach to the Cards Pond

barrier – approximately 250 feet lost between 1951 and 2006

Since 1930, sea level rise in Rhode Island has increased an average of 1 inch per decade.

However, between 1970 and 2012, the rate of sea level rise increased; sea level rose an average of 6 inches during those four decades.

CRMC estimates projected sea level rise for Rhode Island at between 3 and 5 feet by 2100.

90 150 250

An estimated 60 per-cent of R.I. properties in the high-risk floodplain carry flood insurance, leaving 40 percent uninsured. (R.I. Emergency Management Agency).

D 41˚ N spring/summer 2014

41° N

A PUBLICATION OF RHODE ISLAND SEA GRANT

& THE COASTAL INSTITUTE AT

THE UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND

A SEA GRANT INSTITUTION

NONPROFIT ORG.

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

WAKEFIELD, RI

PERMIT NO. 19

ABOUT THE PHOTOGRAPHER

Aerial photographs of coastal southern

Rhode Island were taken for this issue in

the spring and summer of 2013 and

the winter of 2014 by John Supancic, a

pilot flying out of North Central Airport

in Lincoln, R.I.

Supancic has been flying over and

photographing Rhode Island’s south

shore, on and off, for 20 years.

41˚n summer 2014

Documents