Salt Water Anglers of Bergen County, New
Jersey
Environmental/Fishing Management Issues
Orsted Cancels 2 of
Their Offshore Wind Projects
Financial Loses May
Reach $5.6 Billion!
Orsted
stunned the offshore wind industry by announcing on October 31st
that it was stopping work on its two New Jersey wind projects. Ocean
Wind 1 was supposed to be New Jersey’s first offshore wind project,
opening the door for more to follow. The 98-wind turbine would have
been located southeast of Ocean City and would have powered about
500,000 homes once complete. A second Orsted project, Ocean Wind 2,
would also have powered another half-million homes and was under
development in waters south and west of the first project.
Years of work
had already been completed, designs approved and permits secured
from various agencies. There was outreach to various communities to
explain the projects and the numerous job offers that would result
during construction of them, also explaining the sites where they
would be installed.
Financial
loses also include payments to equipment suppliers for goods already
ordered or delivered and penalties for walking away from contracts.
Additionally, New Jersey’s legislature and Governor Murphy approved
giving Orsted a $1 billion tax break to give Orsted financial
support through their difficult financial times. Now Senator Vin
Gopal is calling on the our state’s Attorney General to sue Orsted
for fraud and negligence and to get every penny returned to our
state. On the day after Orsted walked away from their NJ Windmill
projects, Governor Murphy said that Orsted was a “dishonest broker”.
While many of
us have tried our best to pause or stop offshore wind development,
our many questions went unanswered by Orsted and their windmill
project seemed to be unstoppable. What did stop them was basically
that their windmill projects would cause Orsted to lose a lot of
money due to supply chain problems, inflation, high interest rates
and increasing labor costs. Orsted’s windmills would have been 850
feet high. Building that high of a structure would require a huge
amount of steel and high labor costs to erect them along with blades
over 300 feet long. Because of these issues, Orsted’s CEO, Mads
Nipper, decided to cancel their windmill projects in New Jersey
since going forward with them would result in more financial losses
over time.
The same
issues that caused Orsted’s financial losses to stop construction
have spread to other windmill companies. Equinor has written its
value down by $300 million. Its partner, BP (British Petroleum),
$500 million and Eversource
sliced $300 million from its portfolio. All of this chaos caused a
BP executive to lament that the offshore wind industry is
“fundamentally broken”. Hopefully, they will also follow Orsted’s
example and also cancel their offshore windmill projects.
If the
offshore wind industry is going to move forward, it will require
subsidies and tax breaks. Orsted’s CEO, Mads Nipper, said that
“Consumers will also have to pay more in their electric bills for
power generated from offshore wind, as developers demand higher
prices and protection from inflation”. Do we really need to pay more
for our electric bills so that these developers can make a profit?
However, governmental agencies in Washington and Trenton will
probably throw good money after bad since it is of no cost to them
and it also hurts to publicly admit that windmills are not a good
investment to fight Climate Change.
In speaking
of Climate Change, it has gone on for millions of years and about
several hundreds of years ago the world even had a mini Ice Age. Our
world’s temperature is not run by a thermostat and nature will go
where it wants to go. We are not going to change it by outlawing gas
stoves and replacing them with electric ones. Mandating new homes to
be heated by electric is more costly and not as efficient as natural
gas. How our electric grid can handle more demand for home heating
and electric vehicles is a question that needs more attention if we
are to move forward with these measures to reduce Climate Change.
What will change are the increased and needless costs we will be
paying in our electric bills to finance all of them, including
offshore windmills.
Sources: New York
Times, November 2, 2023
Asbury Park Press,
November 2, 2023
New York Post,
November 3, 2023
900 Hundred Dead Dolphins Wash
Ashore in Ukraine
By John Toth
Ukraine is building cases against Russia for genocide, aggression, crimes against humanity and also a new one called Ecocide. This new one is crime against Ukraine’s environment.
Since the Russian/Ukraine war began, approximately
900 dolphins have washed up
dead on Ukraine’s shore line. Russian warships menacing the
southern coast of Ukraine in the Black Sea make constant use of
acoustic sonar signals that scientists say interfere with dolphins’
sense of direction, since they use their own natural sonar for
echolocation.
Explosions, rocket launches and low-flying Russian fighter jets only
add to the cacophony traumatizing dolphins. However, scientists have
cautioned that it is too early to directly link the dolphin die off
to a single cause since fuel leaks, explosives or an assortment of
flotsam associated with the war that have spoiled vast swaths of the
Black Sea. Also, the Russians have destroyed the Kakhovka Dam
sending trillions of gallons of polluted water down the Dnipro River
to the Black Sea. However, before this dam was attacked, the
dolphins were dying in record numbers.
There are a number of environmental issues with placing windmills on
New Jersey’s shoreline and they include but are not limited to
ripping up the ocean’s floor to bury cables 6 feet deep that will
reach windmills that are 15 to 20 miles from shore. These cables
will give off electro-magnetic waves that may disrupt fish migration
patterns. They are being placed on/by productive scallop and squid
fishing areas that threatens the livelihood of commercial fishermen
and potential loss of a food source resulting in higher prices for
fish. The windmills will definitely kill a huge number of bats and
birds.
However, 900 dolphins washed up on Ukraine’s shoreline and their
scientists suspect noise is confusing these animals and their sense
of direction. Locally, we have witnessed a number of whales and
dolphins washing up on our shoreline after boats doing mapping of
the ocean floor with sonar for placement of windmill structures.
This noise will only increase when windmills are being anchored to
the ocean floor. When in operation, windmills over 850 feet high
with their swishing blades that are hundreds of feet long will be a
continual source of noise affecting all of our fisheries, especially
whales and dolphins. These huge windmills will also emit vibrating
noise as their blades turn that will add to this noise issue.
Windmill advocates insist that windmills are needed to combat
Climate Change. However, are we trading off the health of our ocean
and its marine life to stop Climate Change? Are we trying to solve
one problem by creating another one that may be more damaging than
Climate Change?
How many whales and dolphins and other marine life will wash up on
our shorelines once these hundreds of windmills are in full
operation like what is happening on the shores of Ukraine?
Source of information – New York Times, August 18, 2023
China Targets Other Nations to Supply its
Need for Fish
The more things change, the
more they stay the same. Not too long ago in the 1970’s, the Russian
fishing fleet was taking huge amounts of fish, especially cod and
haddock, off our nation’s coast line along with ships from other
nations. The Russian fleet was different in that it was able to
plunder our fisheries since it had a huge mother ship that was
refrigerated and could store huge amounts of fish in its hold.
Smaller Russian fishing boats would transfer their catch to the
mother ship so that a lot of fish could be caught without these
boats having to return to Russian ports to unload their catch. I
still remember reading that these ships were catching a lot of
lobsters but the Russians were throwing them back into the water
since they were unfamiliar with them until some Russian chef
discovered that they taste good!
To
deter the Russians from depleting our fishing grounds and putting
our fishing fleets out of business, our fishing community united
behind the proposal to extend our coastline to a 200 - hundred mile
limit. This would effectively keep the Russians and other foreign
fleets out of our prime fishing zones. I still remember Al Ristori,
who was a tireless advocate to establish the 200-mile limit,
visiting our club and directing us to write letters, post cards and
sign petitions to get our politicians on board to this 200 - mile
extension of our coastline that was eventually enacted.
Compared to what we experienced
in the 1970’s is totally different than what other nations are
experiencing now. Over the last two decades, China has built the
world’s largest deep water fishing fleet by far with nearly 3,000
ships! Having severely depleting fishing stocks in its own coastal
waters, China now fishes in any ocean in the world and on a scale
that dwarfs some countries entire fishing fleet. It also has a huge
mother ship with a hold that is refrigerated and can store thousands
of tons of fish that the smaller fishing boats transfer their fish
to it.
In the summer of 2020, the
conservation group Oceana counted nearly 300 hundred Chinese ships
operating near the Galapagos Islands, just outside Ecuador’s
exclusive economic zone, the 200 miles off its territory where it
maintain rights to natural resources under the Law of the Sea
Treaty.
Another Chinese fleet has also
moved off the coast of Argentina to catch squid. It used to have six
boats in this area and now it has 528 boats in this location and the
annual catch rose from 5,000 tons to 278,000 tons! “We have a
permanent Chinese fleet 200 miles off our coast “said Pablo Ferrara,
a lawyer and professor at the University of Salvador in Buenos
Aires, referring to the distance covered by Argentina’s Economic
Zone.
How can squid or any fish
survive this fishing pressure of 528 boats catching them on a
continual basis? We all know that squid is a valuable food source
not only for humans, but also for a large variety of fish that
target squid for their nourishment. Taking squid in such large
quantities has to severely deplete their numbers to a point where
they are overfished and the whole ecosystem in this area is
disrupted since other fish will not be able to feed on them.
The appearance of the Chinese
fishing fleet on the edge of the Galapagos Islands in 2020 focused
international attention on the industrial scale of China’s fishing
fleet. While countries like Ecuador, Peru and Argentina are trying
to restrict China from its territorial waters, there is little that
can be done to restrict China on the open seas. The consumption of
fish word wide continues to rise and at the same time stocks of most
species continue to decline.
“The challenge is to persuade China that it too has a need to ensure the long-range sustainability of the ocean’s resources” said Duncan Currie, an international lawyer who advises the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition. “It’s not going to be there forever.”
From
what I can see with China’s huge fleet and their placing 528 fishing
boats off the coast of Argentina to fish for squid until they are
gone – Good Luck with that since fish sustainability is not in
China’s vocabulary!
Comments on Going
Green with Electric cars
By John Toth
Because of
Climate Change, a number of car companies have announced that they
will be completely phasing out their manufacturing of gas powered
engines and only make electric cars. Others have said that they will
convert at least a half of their production line to electric cars.
The time line to do this is around 2030 to 2035 and these companies
include General Motors, Nissan and others. However, the snag to
doing this rests largely on China.
Electric cars need batteries to operate and they include but are not
limited to manganese, lithium, copper, nickel and especially cobalt.
Cobalt extends the range a car can travel and it also prevents
batteries from burning up. By 2018, Chinese companies owned half of
the cobalt mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the source of
most of the supply of cobalt in the world. In the last three and a
half years alone, Chinese companies have been the biggest
international buyers for additional lithium supplies. According to
Wood Mackenzie, an energy research and consulting firm, China now
possesses 90 percent of global capacity to process raw lithium,
about 70 percent of cobalt, and 40 percent of nickel. Also, China
has almost all of the manganese and graphite refining capacity. In
essence, China is now the supply chain for automakers who want to make electric vehicles.
During the 2020s and into the 2030s, America is expected to remain
reliant on Chinese metal supplies to make their vehicles.
Our relations with China are currently strained, especially over the
status of Taiwan. The Communist party leaders have made it no secret
that Taiwan is a part of China and have made threats to invade it
with only America stopping this takeover. Any incident with Taiwan
or others can make China punish us by not providing us with access
to their supply chain to produce our electric vehicles. All of this
creates a level of uncertainty for our automakers to produce
electric vehicles by their established timelines.
While electric cars are supposed to help the world combat Climate
Change, there are also downsides to them environmentally and human
lives. Retrieving all of these metals require extensive mining that
rips up the earth, especially in countries like the Congo.
Unfortunately, cobalt is also called the “Blood Diamond of Batteries” because of the perilous mining
conditions that exist to extract it in
countries like the Congo.
Desperately poor people will work in cobalt mines with little to no
safeguards that are common in most mining facilities causing
accidents and deaths. Children also work in these mines because
their families must rely on their income. Also, the Congo is run by
a dictator (Yuma) and countries cater to him so that their access to
this precious metal is maintained.
While we hear about the positive effects of electric cars, there are
also downsides to them that we also need to hear about and
understand them.
Sources for this article include the New York Times, The Wall Street
Journal, and the Asbury Park Press.
Report on the
August 6th Meeting with BOEM and Fishermen Concerning
Windmills – By John Toth
The federal
Bureau of Energy Management (BOEM) conducted the last of five
meetings on August 6th that were held with anglers, both commercial
and recreational, to receive their input on windmills that are being
planned for implementation by the New York Bight area (by the
entrance to New York harbor). BOEM has the authority to develop
where these windmills should be placed by our shore and what
language should be in the leases of the developers that will build
them.
BOEM’s plan
is to issue a final sale notice and conduct an auction sometime late
2021 or early 2022 that allow any number of developers, including
but not limited to the developer, Equinor, to bid in these leases.
Some of the
representatives from BOEM included: Amanda Lefton, Luke Feinberg,
and Brain Hooker.
This was
considered to be a hybrid type of meeting with the general public
who wanted to be on ZOOM, but it also included a number of
commercial anglers who met at a building in Belford Massachusetts to
join this ZOOM meeting. Most,
if not all of these people at the Belford location were commercial
fishermen and are especially concerned about windmills destroying
their scallop grounds.
This meeting
was facilitated by Pat Field who had the responsibility of
recognizing participants to speak and to ensure that their comments
were not excessive in length so that others had the opportunity to
make their comments heard. This ZOOM meeting was scheduled for 3:00
p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
There were a
lot of comments made in this 2 hour period and I cannot cover all of
them. However, the following represent some of the major comments
that were made:
You are not
listening to US
– A number of
participants indicated that they have gone to numerous meetings,
attended ZOOM/Webinar meetings and have asked questions or have made
comments concerning cables, loss of fishing grounds and
environmental concerns. We always hear “We want to hear the concerns of stakeholders in the fishing community” –
but our concerns are not being heard. We do not see what BOEM or the
developers are doing to actively to address our concerns. Some of
these issues include what BOEM/developers are doing to stave the
loss of fishing grounds for scallops and other species like clams
and squid. One participant, Bonnie Brady, indicated that she has
been in touch with BOEM and developers for a number of years and
while she gives them information on how these windmills will
negatively affect the commercial industry, she does not hear back
from them. She is not the only person who made this comment, but was
followed by others expressing this frustration over “we want your
stakeholder input” – but nothing is done when it is given to them.
(I totally agree with this comment since I have attended numerous
windmill meetings, in-person and on ZOOM , with a similar outcome to
the input I have given them).
Slow down and
do the windmills right
– it seems that we
are rushing to put up the windmills and then see what happens next!
There are a number of critical issues that merit further study such
as the possible harmful effects of cables that emit electromagnetic
waves, and noise generated by rotating blades that may negatively
affect the migration of fish
and whales, especially the Northern Right Whales. Another critical
issue is the possible effect it will have on the Cold Pool; a huge
body of water that fish inhabit on a seasonal basis and a disruption
of it can have a dire consequence on the future of our fishing
industry. The environmental impacts that the windmills will have on
the ocean’s environment have not been adequately studied and the
windmills should not be erected until these studies have been
completed. Do it right the
first time!
Energy vs.
food –
Why are windmills being placed on productive scallop, clam and squid
areas when they can be positioned in other areas? There seems to be
a battle between having energy over food and it does not have to be
that way. We are disrupting our seafood industry to have more energy
and threatening the livelihoods of commercial anglers who bring food
to our tables. Reducing the areas where commercial anglers can fish
will significantly raise the price of seafood to levels that we have
not seen before.
Placement of
the windmills by the New York Bight area poses safety risks
– this is a heavily traffic area by the shipping industry and
collisions will be increased due to the narrowing of transit lanes
by these windmills. It is also known that windmills have a
disruptive effect on radar and incidents of fog and storms will
increase the likelihood of collisions that can have a disruptive
effect on the shipping industry.
One mile is
not enough spacing between windmills –
Initially, the spacing between windmills was set by the developers
at .75 miles. After complaints by commercial fishermen that this was
not enough, the developers
reluctantly agreed to make the spacing one mile. Commercial
fishermen want it increased to a minimum of 2 miles or more to
prevent collisions with the boat traffic that is expected to be in
the lanes for use by commercial as well as recreational anglers.
Also, rock piles will be at the base of the windmills and these
piles will further reduce the one mile spacing that is currently
planned between them.
Safety is paramount for any industry!
Is 6 feet
enough to bury the cables?
– A lawyer who
represents the commercial fishing industry questioned whether 6 feet
is adequate enough to bury the windmill cables because of the
electromagnetic waves they generate. In some locations on the
ocean’s floor, it will be very difficult to achieve a 6 feet depth
due to hard and rocky strata. To overcome this problem, the
developers may resort to cover the cables with a blanket of sand or
other materials. If
commercial trawlers have their gear entangled with these cables, who
is liable for the damages to the trawlers?
This legal issue also needs resolution before the windmills
go up.
I have given
you a brief snapshot of this ZOOM meeting and there are certainly a
lot more issues that need resolution than what I have written. I
thought it was a frank exchange of comments that BOEM needed to hear
concerning the windmills planned for New Jersey’s shoreline.
NEW JERSEY OUTDOOR ALLIANCE
PO
Box 655
Belmar, NJ
07719
Offshore Windmill Projects – What are The Risks?
To combat climate change by moving our
country away from dependence on fossil fuels, major offshore
windmill projects are in various stages of being planned or in the
process of being implemented. From Massachusetts to Virginia,
approximately 2000 windmills are planned to be located off our
eastern seaboard. In New Jersey, approximately 600 of them will be
15 to 20 miles off our shoreline. These windmills will be about 800
feet high or more and with blades about 150 feet long. Windmills
with this size and numbers have never previously been used in our
ocean before. What are the risk factors to the ocean’s environment,
fishing industry and costs to consumers for going forward with this
huge energy producing endeavor?
Environment:
·
Noise and Vibratory Effects –
anchoring hundreds of windmills over 800 feet high will certainly
make loud noise on a temporary basis and disrupt movements of nearby
marine life. Preliminary research on pile driving has shown adverse
effects on marine animals including stress, anxiety and predatory
responses as with squid. This research is short term (one day)
rather than long term. However, once the windmills have been firmly
anchored, the continual swooshing noise created by their blades 150
feet long and the vibratory effects of the windmills columns will
last. Sound travels easily in a water environment and the
long term effects of
this noise on the east/west migration of fish and marine life are
unknown. If this noise has a detrimental effect on the migration
patterns of fish as well as spawning, it can seriously disrupt our
entre fishing industry with several years of poor to no fishing
prospects as a result. Whales are particularly sensitive to noise
and this can seriously disrupt their migration patterns.
·
Ocean
Floor Habitat & Ecosystem
– the
2000 windmills proposed
for implementation from Massachusetts to Virginia will certainly
have a disruptive effect on the ocean floor and its ecosystem. Not
only will their anchoring stir up the ocean floor, but also their
many cables that will be buried at least six feet to connect them
together and to transmit the energy to land. What will the effect of
windmill installation on the ocean’s floor and its ecosystem be in
the near and long term? What will be the impact on the ocean floor
and its marine inhabitants due to the scouring of the ocean’s floor
and deposition of materials for windmill placement and cable
installations? Will these wind farms disrupt larval shellfish and
finfish transport?
·
Cold Pool
– is a very huge band of cold bottom
water in the ocean extending from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras that is
fed by freshwater input from multiple rivers and estuaries. This
area experiences one of the largest summer to winter temperature
changes of any part of the ocean around the world. Cold Pool has
impacts on shellfish, pelagic and other fish. The migration patterns
of Atlantic Butterfish and others are influenced by this Cold Pool.
The Science Center for Marine Fisheries released a report on July
28, 2020 that windmill projects may have a disruptive effect on this
Cold Pool and further study is needed to ensure that this does not
occur.
·
Bird and Bat Kills
- will certainly increase with the 2,000
windmills in their path, including the red knot birds. While there
is less migration of birds and bats at offshore areas as opposed to
inshore, these windmills will have a killing effect on offshore bird
and bat life. By changing their migration patterns to avoid
windmills, birds and bats may use more energy to do it and die as a
result. Determining the number of bird and bat kills will be next to
impossible since wind and tide will take them away.
·
Cables and their electromagnetic effects -
on fish
movements/migration patterns need a definitive resolution instead of
continual conjecture. This issue has come up at several windmill
meetings and the response to it is that it is still under review.
This uncertainty of the electromagnetic effect needs to be resolved
due to its important impact on all types of marine life.
·
Horizontal Directional Drilling
- Orsted plans
to connect one of its two power lines from its Ocean Wind project by
Atlantic City to the Oyster Creek power plant for use of its
infrastructure to disperse its electrical energy. To make this
connection, Orsted plans to do horizontal directional drilling under
Island Beach State Park so that its power line can connect to the
Oyster Creek plant. What are risk factors of doing this type of
drilling for this park that is enjoyed by so many people?
Fishing Industry – both Recreational and Commercial:
·
Placement of windmills on/by scallop & squid areas
– an
issue of contention for commercial fishermen who see this as an
impediment to their commercial operations and the potential loss of
a valuable food source. Their livelihood is threatened and this
issue needs resolution with both commercial operators and windmill
developers. Relocating windmills away from these commercial fishing
areas does not seem to be an option for windmill developers. Can the
lease areas for developers be enlarged by BOEM so that windmills do
not have to be placed over the scallop/squid areas? What are other
options?
·
Spacing between rows of windmills has been increased from .75 miles
to 1 mile-
by developers to appease the concerns of commercial fishermen who
claim that .75 miles is not enough space for them to perform their
dragging operations. Commercial fishermen have asked developers for
at least two (2) mile spacing between rows of windmills for them to
effectively and safely conduct their dragging operations. Is a
one-mile spacing between windmills safe enough to accommodate both
recreational and commercial traffic that will be fishing through it?
·
The
New York Bight area is already congested -
with shipping
traffic going into the New York/New Jersey harbors. The shipping
lane for these ships will be further constricted by the windmills
proposed in this area by the developer Equinor with ship and
windmill collisions an increasing possibility. For example, if an
oil tanker collided with another vessel and created an oil spill, it
could create an environmental disaster. Additionally, what impact
will the wind farms have on radar for navigation and rescue
operations by the Coast Guard?
Cost & Other Issues:
·
Cost
– windmills cannot economically compete
with natural gas and must be subsidized. What can consumers expect
to be paying to subsidize windmill operations? This question has not
been answered and consumers have every right to know it.
At the moment, there are legal challenges to whether windmill
developers can even receive subsidies. The Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) report, published last year but not yet finalized,
would require wind and solar power generators to show the actual
cost of production instead of showing lower prices due to subsidies.
·
Energy Storage requirements -
for storage of
electrical power on land is needed when windmills do not turn for
lack of wind or during storms. At this time, the current generation
of batteries for electrical storage is too expensive to build and
cannot store the energy when it is required. Until and if the
technology for energy storage on land for windmills comes on line,
this needed energy will continue be backed by coal, gas or nuclear
energy.
·
Only solar and wind power for our country’s future energy needs
– this is “putting all of our eggs in one
basket” approach and other sources of energy should be considered,
especially nuclear that is being used effectively around the world.
·
Mono pile (column) construction for most windmills
– will not have the four-legged base like the ones off Block Island.
They will have a single round column going into the ocean floor with
mounting hardware and capped with an inverted pie plate type of
structure, thereby minimizing attraction to sea life. Can they
attract fish like the windmills off Block Island?
·
Will Recreational anglers be able to fish by windmills
– developers indicate that recreational anglers can fish by the
windmills, but there is nothing in writing to guarantee this access.
·
Security
– who is in charge of security for the windmills? This question has
not received an official answer. Without it, windmill power can be
easily shut down by terrorists by attacking the substations that
transmit power to land.
·
The ultimate goal of solar and windmill power is to replace all
fossil fuel -
generated by coal and natural gas. New
York has a goal of having 100% electrical power generated by wind
and solar for its state by 2040.
Retrofitting homes to provide heat and cooling solely by
solar and wind in the future would be very expensive and cost
thousands of dollars. Will consumers be able to bear these costs?
We are all concerned about the negative
effects of climate change on our environment and the deployment of
this huge number of windmills in our ocean is intended to reduce the
warming effect of fossil fuels on our climate. However, in the
attempt to address the problem of climate change, are we creating
another one, just as harmful, by seriously disrupting the health of
our ocean and the marine life that live in it? Before we move
forward with this huge energy project, the above issues need to be
addressed. Many of them have been raised at meetings with developers
and at seminars held at Rutgers and Stockton Universities, but
definitive answers to them have not been forthcoming. Until then,
and given the issues raised above, support for these windmill
projects should be delayed until we can feel comfortable that our
ocean and the marine life in it will not be harmed with so many
windmills in it.
By Trustee John Toth and Membership Director Arnold Ulrich
8/23/2020
tothjohn@verizon.net
kavester@aol.com
https://njoutdooralliance.org/
Report on Stockton
University Conference on Windmills – by John Toth
On
August 16th, I attended this “Time for Turbines”
conference that was held at Stockton’s campus in Atlantic City, an
all day event and attended by people who
strongly support the windmill
projects off our coastline. Many company representatives who want to
receive contracts associated with the building of them were also in
attendance. Approximately, 150 to 200 people were in the conference
hall. After the welcoming speeches, the conference then moved into a
panel type of format with four members discussing various topics
related to windmills. This panel format left little room for taking
questions from the audience so that the conference could adhere to
its tight schedule.
The
first panel (New Jersey State
Government Resources to Support Offshore Wind) was moderated by
Jeanne Fox from Center for Renewables Integration Inc. She asked
panel members to comment on our state’s commitment to the windmill
project and they included members from the NJ Board of Public
Utilities, Sara Bluhm, Brian Sabina, NJ Senior VP Economic
Transformation, Jane Cohen, Advisor, to our Governor, and Shawn
LaTourette, NJ DEP, Chief of Staff. All of their comments offered
strong commitment from our state for windmill development.
The
second panel (What’s New and
Spinning: Project Visions, Timelines, and Local Supplier Updates)
included Kris Oleth, Manager of Stakeholder Engagement for
Orsted, the Danish company that won the award from our state to
build windmills 15 miles off Atlantic City. She indicated that these
new windmills will light up 500,000 homes and may be in operation by
2024. At this point, I asked this panel about how it intended to
address the noise issue that would be generated by the anchoring of
windmills and its affect on whale and fish migration. I was assured
by panel members that issue was being reviewed and that measures
were being considered to mitigate it, such as stopping construction
if whales were migrating near them at the time.
The
third panel (Off Wind: An
Economic Engine That Can Deliver) focused on the many jobs that
would be created, up to 15,000 by constructing them. Union
representatives also talked about the job training programs they
will offer to get the workforce prepared for the many skills needed
to construct them. Emphasis would also be on training workers from
the local community and minorities.
Before
breaking for lunch, we saw a recorded video by Governor Murphy who
spoke enthusiastically about this windmill project. Also, Senator
Steve Sweeney, President of NJ Senate, strongly backed windmill
development because of the many jobs that would be created and its
boost to our state’s economy (he also mentioned as a former
ironworker, he would love to be building the big windmills)!
The 4th
panel (Addressing
Environmental Concerns) was moderated by Catherine Bowes,
National Wildlife Federation Program Director. Captain Paul Eidman
talked about the windmills presently off Rhode Island and not only
about the power they produce but also their reefs that are home to
many fish. On this panel was a Bill Wall, Project Director, LS Cable
America who gave a presentation on the type of cables that would be
used to transfer energy from the windmills to land. The
electro-magnetic effect emanating from these cables is a
BIG concern since they
may negatively impact fish migration. I asked him if he thinks that
these cables will not affect fish migration and he replied that he
did not think so, but could not rule it out altogether.
When
this panel finished, I met Bill Wall outside the meeting hall and
told him that this cable issue really needs a final resolution since
it is an impediment of windmill development going forward. We do not
need maybes, but an official statement from a reputable organization
stating that the cables will not have a negative effect on fish. He
told me that he will make contact with a person at Rutgers who he
thinks has been doing research on these cables and may come up with
the information I requested from him.
In
addition to this cable issue, there is the problem of windmill
placement over productive fishing grounds for scallops, clams and
squid. Commercial fishermen are planning to sue the windmill
industry over this since they will lose their access to these
fishing areas and possibly go out of business. During a break
between the panel discussions, I asked Doug O’Malley, NJ Environment
Director, if there could be some compromise like giving the
developer a larger lease space so that the windmills could be placed
in alternate locations to mitigate his problem. He referred me to
another person who is more familiar with this issue. This person,
William O’Hearn, from Business Network for Offshore Wind, told me
that “he did not have an answer for me”. I did not even get a “we
are looking into this” or at least tell me of some type of meeting
planned in the near future with the commercial industry to discuss
this problem.
In
summary, there were a lot of “heavy hitters” at this conference and
a lot of excitement to get the windmills up and operational. The
comment I heard frequently from panel members was “let’s get this
right the first time”. However, there are outstanding issues that
will not go away by ignoring them and they will ultimately delay the
installation of the windmills. The “I don’t have an answer for you”
won’t stop the commercial industry from dragging their lawsuits
through the courts that will delay movement on windmills. The cable
problem I mentioned is another obstacle that needs resolution.
Update on Offshore Wind Forum with Recreational Anglers
By John Toth
This forum was held on March 6th at the Ocean County
Library and scheduled to start at 6:00 p.m. It was hosted by Paul
Eidman, Anglers for Offshore Wind Power, and Helen Henderson from
the American Littoral Society. In attendance were representatives
from windmill developers: Equinor, Orsted, and EDF Renewables/Shell.
Approximately 50 anglers were also in attendance.
The purpose of this meeting was to have recreational anglers hear
what the developers had to say about their windmill operations and
to ask questions about how these new windmills could affect their
fishing opportunities. Before this meeting started, attendees were
asked to write their questions for the developers on a piece of
paper and the developers would then be asked to answer them in the
order that they were presented to them.
After opening statements by Paul Eidman and Helen Henderson, each
developer was asked to give background information on their
respective companies in developing windmill projects. I have to say
that I was impressed by their solid backgrounds in this industry.
For example, Equinor has developed a huge windmill farm off Denmark
and EDF Renewables also off the coast of Holland. They are not
newcomers to this industry, and they have a lot of experience in
developing and implementing windmills at many offshore locations
around the world. While
Denmark and other European countries have developed thousands of
windmills as an alternate energy source, we have only five offshore
windmills in our region located off Block Island, by Rhode Island’s
coast.
Question
–
asked by Glenn Arthur representing the Diving community – can divers
be allowed to do their diving activity by the windmills?
Answer – No problem,
diving activity is not restricted by the windmills.
Questions
– by John Toth,
representing the Jersey Coast Anglers Association (JCAA) and the New
Jersey Outdoor Alliance (NJOA) – Can anglers be allowed to fish by
the windmills? Also, as a follow up question – Do you see this
access being restricted in
the event of terrorist activity; possibly
resulting with all access restricted and resulting (as an unintended
consequence) in the creation of a Marine Protected Area (MPA)?
Answer- Anglers will be
allowed to fish by the windmills. In regard to terrorist activity,
the developers do not see this type of activity happening since
there are so much better targets on land that would be far more
effective in causing mayhem, such as bombing subways that a lot of
people use. Note: The
offshore windmills in European waters do not allow any types of
fishing by them with the exception of England that allows them.
Question
–
Have developers researched other forms of energy production
alternatives besides windmills such as energy that can be produced
by harnessing the motion of waves. Answer – No, but it is an interesting concept and may be developed
as an alternate energy source in the future.
Question
–
These windmills have a projected lifespan of 20 to 25 years and what
are your plans to decommission them? Will you just leave them at
their locations when they are not producing ay energy?
Answer – the developers
intend to remove them. They will have a bond in their contracts to
pay for their removal. (Interestingly, there were some comments made
to keep them at their location even when they are past their energy
production so that they still could be used as artificial reefs!)
These unproductive windmills could become navigation hazards and the
commercial fishing industry would want them removed.
Questions
– By Bob Rush
(member of New Jersey’s Marine Fishery Council who spoke on his
behalf and not on the Council) – Why has there not been more science
introduced to first answer the negative effects that these windmills
can cause with fish migration patterns, whale activity,
electromagnetic effects of the cables on fish life. It seems to me
“that we are building the windmills first, and then figuring out
later the negative drawbacks that they pose on marine life”.
Answer- An Environmental
Impact Study (EIS) is being conducted presently to review possible
negative impacts that the windmills can have on marine life. They
will cover the effects of noise generated by the installation of the
windmills by pile driving (that may have to stop when whales are
located nearby) and the effects of the cables (that will be buried
seven (7) feet underground). Presently, this EIS is in progress, but
final results have not been concluded and there is not a projected
time when it will be concluded.
Question
–
What kind of security will be provided by the windmills? –
Answer – the Developers do not have any plans to provide
security. They indicated that most likely, the US Coast Guard would
provide it.
Question
–
How much space will there be between windmills.
Answer – The spacing will
be .7miles. A number of attendees thought that this spacing is just
too tight with both recreational and commercial ships using this
narrow path. Note: in a
prior windmill meeting I attended with commercial anglers present,
the commercial industry wants at least two (2) miles spaced between
windmills to make navigation much easier
Question
–
Will the windmills be able to withstand the hurricanes the USA has
almost on annual basis and storms like we had with Sandy?
Answer – We have put up
thousands of windmills and we have not lost any of them, especially
the ones in or by the North Sea near Denmark. The North Sea is very
rough on many sailing vessels.
Question
–
How much will taxpayer have to subsidize these windmills?
Answer – this subject is
not part of this forum.
It will be addressed at future windmill meetings.
Unfortunately, time did not allow me to ask other questions that I
would like to have answered.
Windmills are planned to be placed on productive scallop and
clam grounds. The commercial industry plans litigation to prevent
this from happening and, consequently, this litigation will possibly
delay implementation of the windmill project. I want to know if
there any plans to change the location of these windmills. Why
should we lose a valuable food source when these windmills can be
placed in another location?
The developers talked about a substation that is part of this
windmill project and they did not explain how it ties in with the
windmills. I want to know more about it and will ask for
clarification of this substation at another meeting.
I plan
to attend future windmill meetings and keep you informed of all the
latest developments of this huge project that will affect all of us
NJ residents.
Summary of
Presentations on Windmills for Recreational Anglers
By John Toth
On
October 18th, I and about 40 other recreational anglers
attended a meeting at the Langosta Lounge in Asbury Park to hear
presentations on windmills by Zach Cockrun, Director of Conservation
Partnerships for the National Federation of Wildlife, and Captain
Dave Monti, a Rhode Island charter captain who is very familiar with
the operation of the five windmills currently in place at Block
Island. These presentations, unlike the two others I attended on
July 9th and September 30th, were geared just
for recreational anglers so that we could better understand this
huge windmill project that will be in New Jersey’s waters in the
near future.
I took notes of this meeting and
after a few days, I sent an email to Zach Cockrun asking him
questions as follow up to it.
Question
- On one of
the boards, there was a statement that anglers have guaranteed
access to the windmills.
Who is the guarantor for this access?
Does it cover all of the windmills since there are a number
of developers for different windmill locations? Will we see a signed
document to this effect?
Answer
-
Every developer we have spoken to has said they will not restrict
access. As far as I know
most are on public record, but it is a good reason to show up to
hearings to get them to say it on record.
BOEM and the Coast Guard have also said they don’t have plans
to enforce access restrictions outside of construction.
We’re trying to find the best mechanism for getting it in writing,
but would also be happy to look into meeting with NJ officials to
express access concerns.
Question
-
“Nothing has been set in stone” is the phrase we have been hearing,
but is the scallop/clammer sites still set to have windmills on
them? If this happens, not only will the commercial fishermen be put
out of business, but we will be also destroying prime areas that
produce this food source we consume. The ocean is vast and can these
windmills be moved to alternate locations?
Given the talk about compensation to commercial anglers, it
seems to me that the decision to put windmills on these sites has
already been determined. Is that true?
Answer
-
Siting the windmills is dependent on a variety of factors – bottom
type, navigation, wildlife impacts, and avoiding, when possible,
fishing grounds.
Conflicts with scallopers is definitely still a possibility despite
efforts to minimize those conflicts.
In the case of the Vineyard Wind project in MA, the developer
worked with scallopers to change the layout of the wind farm to
improve their ability to operate in the area.
They are reducing the number of turbines, and changing the
direction of the arrangement as well as adding a 4 mile transit zone
through the middle.
Finally, they are likely to increase the distance to 1 mile between
each turbine to help gear move through the wind farm area.
Even all of that said, mitigation will likely be necessary as there
will still be impacts.
However, I think it is very unlikely that even numerous wind farms
lead to the end of this industry.
Question
-These questions are more for confirmation purposes – there will be
about 400 windmills deployed, they will be about 460 feet in height,
and once they are all deployed, how many homes are they expected to
illuminate? Also, will the energy produced by them be solely used by
New Jersey residents or will the energy be sent to other states?
Also, what will be the length/width of one blade?
Answer
- A 3,500 mw commitment is between about 350 and 580 turbines,
depending on technology.
Current offshore wind turbines are 6MW each and would need more.
I think it is more likely by the time the first wind farm in
NJ gets developed that turbines will be 8-10MW and require fewer.
They are approximately 300 feet to the turbine hub.
A blade is Approximately 225 feet long.
So a blade at the peak will make the entire structure 525
feet tall. 3,500 mws of offshore wind power will power at least 1.1
million homes. This is a
conservative estimate. The power is being purchased by New Jersey to
meet its renewable energy goals.
Question
–
The windmills are expected to supply 3,500 megawatts by 2030.
Is this four times the future energy needs of our state as I
have written in my notes?
Answer-The
total potential generation of offshore wind from Maine to North
Carolina could meet 4 times the country’s energy demand.
It is not realistic that we would build this much offshore
windmills, but we say it to point out how big the potential for
energy generation is. Only a fraction of that can meet the needs of
coastal states in the Northeast and Mid Atlantic.
Question
-
What is the total area of the ocean that these windmills will cover
including the spaces between them?
In regard to this spacing, will it be enough for commercial
boats to navigate through them?
Answer-
The development farthest along will be between .8 and 1 nm apart –
more than enough for commercial traffic.
They also are including a transit lane 4 miles wild for ships
moving through the wind farm.
By that standard, a 100 turbine farm, which would be an
approximately 800mw project powering 250,000 homes would likely be
around 100 square miles (not including transit zone).
Question
-
Captain Monti indicated that the 5 windmills by Block Island are not
disrupting fish migrations etc. But his chart also indicated that
the effects of multiple windmills (400) are not known. This is an
issue of concern since anchoring this number of windmills will
produce noise, the rotating blades will make noise, the cables will
give off electro-magnetic effects, and the installation of the
cables disrupting the ocean bottom will all have a negative effect
on whales and other fishery migration patterns and also their
habitats. Placing cables on the ocean floor for so many windmills
will really tear it up and most certainly have a negative effect on
a multitude of fisheries. Migrating birds, with this number of
windmills, can also have the potential of being killed by them. Is
there an environmental impact study in progress or planned in the
near future to address these issues?
Answer-
Yes. Each project will
have to undergo an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Once produced, we can comment on the EIS to recommend other
areas of study if things were missed.
One of the key elements of an EIS is it includes what are
known as “cumulative impacts” – the idea is to assess impacts of the
entire industry. So the
first project will assess impacts of the planned 100 turbines.
The second project will assess impacts of that project PLUS
any existing projects.
The idea is that as we slowly build these out over the next few
years, we will learn more in ways that could inform how, when and
where we build specific projects.
Question
- We
all know the corrosive nature of salt on everything and windmills
will be exposed to salt 24/7. These windmills are supposed to have a
lifetime of 25 years and the corrosive nature of salt can
significantly reduce this lifetime. I remember you saying the
developers must be bonded so that they can absorb financial losses
due to this type of problem. Will this bond not only cover losses
for unexpected maintenance issues, refurbishments of blades or even
a total loss due to destruction by a storm like Sandy?
Answer-
The engineering behind these turbines is incredible.
They are built to withstand direct hits from category III
hurricanes – much bigger than Sandy.
The 25 year lifetime is a reasonable estimate.
We just witnessed the first decommissioning of a wind farm
that was built in 2001 in the UK.
The firm decommissioned them because the units were not big
enough to justify ongoing maintenance costs.
That makes sense because they were first generation
technology.The bond wouldn’t cover maintenance issues, but these
firms know how to run wind farms. Orsted, one of the lease holders
in NJ operates more than 1000 turbines across the world and knows
what the maintenance costs will be for these farms.
FYI
-At
another windmill meeting on September 20th in Long
Branch, BOEM representatives seemed to be receptive to having
developers in the process of installing windmills to remove phantom
cables lying on the ocean floor that have broken off commercial
boats and are a big nuisance to all ocean vessels. You may want to
consider this task as part of the Scope of Work for future
developers.
Answer-
We’ certainly be willing to look into this!
In regard to meeting with New Jersey officials as Zach indicated in his answer to me about guaranteed access, I plan to contact individuals in our recreational community who can assist us in trying to have this access guaranteed.
Windmills are
coming to New Jersey in a Big Way
By John Toth
On July 9th,
I attended a meeting in the Municipal Building at Belmar hosted by
the NJ DEP and the Bureau of Energy Management (BOEM), a federal
agency that is involved in determining windmill placements. Both of
these agencies explained that Governor Phil Murphy issued an
Executive Order mandating that he wants to see
3,500 Megawatts of energy
produced by windmills off New Jersey’s coast by
2030. These windmills
would be placed in federal waters approximately 17 miles off New
Jersey’s coast. NJ’s Bureau of Public Energy (BPU) would interface
with potential developers in the leasing process, and the NJ DEP
would focus on environmental issues involved in setting up these
windmills.
For
recreational anglers, there are two major concerns with these
windmills and they are: we do not want them to be placed on prime
fishing locations – and we want to be able to fish by them when they
become operational. The concern is that these windmills can be like
Earle Pier and we would get chased away by security guards if we get
to close to them. We were told that we would be able to fish by
them, but do we really know for sure? In Europe that has extensive
windmill development and with the exception of England, all other
European countries ban fishing by their windmills. In regard to
prime fishing grounds, we will have to further review their
recommended locations to determine if windmills should be placed on
them.
BOEM showed
four locations under consideration for these windmills: Fairways
North, Fairways South, Hudson North and Hudson South. These
locations were strongly criticized by commercial fishermen in the
audience since they are in the areas they fish, especially for
scallops and clams. They said that they would eventually be put out
of business. In response
to that, a BOEM representative indicated that a fund could be
established to compensate commercial anglers for loss of their
fishing business! I don’t think any of us would like to be told that
a new project will put us out of business! A number of commercial
fishermen and their families have been in the fishing business for
generations and now they hear that they will be the casualties of
these new windmills.
The
commercial fishermen requested that there should be at least two
nautical miles between the windmills to facilitate their dragging
operations. BOEM did not respond positively to this request. The
commercial fishermen were livid that BOEM would not at least do this
for them and they loudly expressed their frustration over this
issue.
I asked BOEM
how many windmills they envision being built and the answer I got is
that they don’t know. I also indicated that a couple of years ago,
Clean Ocean Action (COA) made a big fuss about seismic testing by
one boat and the blasts it produced, harming whales and other
species in their migratory patterns. Drilling the ocean bottom to
establish pylons for windmill foundations will most certainly make a
lot of noise to vastly exceed anything done by one boat doing
seismic testing. The BOEM representative conceded that this is a
major concern since it would especially affect whales. However, they
are looking at way to reduce this harmful effect.
A question
was raised from the commercial anglers about the projected lifespan
of these new windmills.
The BOEM representative indicated that these windmills will have a
lifespan of 25 years. This answer caused quite a stir among the crowd with
someone yelling “They won’t last that long with corrosive salt
water. Don’t you people know that these windmills will be in the
ocean”! Another person asked “Who is going to monitor the operation
of these windmills so that potential problems with them can be
easily rectified such as broken wind blades? The BOEM response was
that they will resolve that issue in the near future.
This is an ongoing process and at this time this major project is in a public comment period. There is certainly more to come on this windmill program and I will keep you informed as it moves forward.
Giant Sea Gate Proposed off Sandy Hook – Can it Work?
Federal
officials are considering building a
5-mile sea barrier stretching from Sandy Hook to Queens to
protect northern New Jersey and New York from devastating storm
surges - a proposal that has drawn overwhelming criticism,
especially environmental advocates. This proposal is one of six
considered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers when a 12 foot storm
inundated lower Manhattan. This proposal is in its infancy and that
the cost, how large it would be and what materials would be used to
build it still need to be developed.
Although
other states and countries use such barriers, this 5-mile barrier
would change fish migrations, affecting the recreational and
commercial industry which generates about 2.5 billion annually in
economic activity.
This 5-mile
barrier would begin from Sandy Hook in Monmouth County to Breezy
Point in Queens that would be designed to keep storm surges from
entering New York harbor, the Hudson River, Newark Bay, the
Hackensack River and Raritan Bay. It would allow passage for ships
via gates.
There are a
number of problems associated with this barrier including shutting
off the tidal system which brings in oxygen and nutrients into our
shores. Our estuaries essentially become alike a stagnant lake. More
importantly, if this barrier was in place and was hit by a huge
surge, where would the surge water go? It would go to one or both
ends of the barrier and then hit the communities at the ends of this
barrier. So, what good does that do!
The other
proposals use barriers also, but it looks like the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers need to go back to the drawing boards!
Banning
Plastic to Save the Oceans
Cities and
nations are looking at banning plastic straws and stirrers in the
hope of addressing the world’s plastic pollution problem. The
problem is so large that scientists say that is not nearly enough.
Australian
scientists (Denise Hardesty & Chris Wilcox) using trash collected on
U.S. coastlines during clean ups over five years estimate that there
are 7.5 million plastic straws laying around America’s shorelines.
They also figure means as many as 8.3 billion plastic straws are on
the world’s coastlines.
That number
is small when you look at all the plastic bobbing around oceans. A
University environmental professor from Georgia (Jenna Jambeck)
calculates that nearly 9 million tons of plastic end up in the
world’s oceans and coastlines each year.
“For every pound of tuna we’re taking out of the ocean, we’re
putting 2 pounds of plastic in the ocean”, says Sherry Lippiat, a
California regional coordinator for NOAA.
Sea birds can
ingest as much as 8 percent of their body weight in plastic, which
for humans “is equivalent to the average woman having the weight of
two babies in her stomach”, says members of the Australia’s
Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.
The United
Kingdom announced plans on April 19, 2018 to ban the sale of plastic
straws, stirrers and cotton swabs as the global war against plastic
gains momentum. As many as 1 million birds and 100,000 sea mammals
die every year ingesting some of the world’s 150 million tons of
plastic in the world’s oceans, advocates say. The proposed ban comes
as British Prime Minister, Theresa May hosts Commonwealth leaders at
a summit from 53 nations. (Asbury Park Press, April 20 & 22
editions).
After Tsunami, Sea
Creatures from Japan Come to USA Shores
By John Toth
After the
huge tsunami damaged Japan six years ago, it also unleashed a very
different threat onto the coastline of North America, a massive
invasion of marine life from across the Pacific Ocean.
Hundreds of
species from the coastal waters of Japan-mostly invertebrates like
mussels, sea anemones and crabs – were carried across the Pacific on
huge amounts of floating fishing debris. The first piece of wreckage
began washing up on the shores of Canada and then the United states.
To the surprise of scientists, this debris was covered with sea
creatures that had survived crossings that in some cases had taken
years!
It is too
early too early to tell how many of these invaders have gained a
foothold in North American waters where they could challenge or even
replace native species. While such “rafting” of animals across
oceans happened in the past, scientists say that this Japanese
tsunami is unprecedented due to the sheer numbers of organisms that
it sent across the world’s largest ocean. While there was a concern
that this debris was contaminated with nuclear waste, that fear
proved to be infounded.
Such large
numbers of marine animals were able to cross the Pacific because
they rode on debris like plastic and fiberglass – that proved
durable enough to drift thousands of miles. These synthetics can
stay afloat for years or even decades. This floating material ranged
in size from coolers and motorcycle helmets to entire fishing boats,
teeming with living sea animals that are native to Japan, but
foreign to North America. One that first appeared was a 180-ton
floating dock that washed ashore in Oregon in June 2012.
It is
remarkable that that such wide range of species could survive the
journey across the Pacific and were even able to reproduce, in some
cases, at least three generations before reaching our shores!
Approximately 634 pieces washed up to our shores and they carried
about 239 invasive species!
With rising
sea waters, this “rafting’ of invasive sea creatures on so much
debris in our oceans can become more common and also very injurious
to the eco-systems of many countries.
(NY Times, September 29, 2017).
Report on Ethanol Going From 10% to 15% - By John Toth
I wrote a letter to
various legislators asking them NOT to increase ethanol from 10 to
15% and the following is the response I received from Congressman
Pallone:
Sand Mining-by John Toth
Background - Super Storm Sandy damaged/destroyed so much of our beaches and now coastal communities want sand to bring their beaches back to what they were pre-Sandy. Beach replenishment has been an ongoing process when storms periodically hit our beaches, but the beaches now need a lot of it because of Sandy. The Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet Coastal Storm Reduction Project calls for beach fill construction along the oceanfront between Point Pleasant Beach, and the northern boundary of Island Beach State Park. This project calls for using sand from offshore sources for 50 years! Project cost - $513.9 million!
Where to Get the Sand Needed for
this huge project? - The Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
has its present focus on the Manasquan Ridge which
was formed perhaps hundreds/thousands of years ago (the last Ice
Age?). This ridge is the home of numerous sand eels and other
species that attract all types of fish that is targeted by both
recreational and commercial fishing. In 2014, commercial fishermen
netted $4.8 million worth of summer flounder on the wholesale market
according to NOAA. The Manasquan Ridge is huge, about 1,700 acres or
1,500 football fields, and it has underwater sand hills that rise
about 20 feet off the bottom. There are also a few shipwrecks and
rock ledges on it. The Corps maintains that there are not many
economically viable land sources of sand for the large quantities
needed for these replenishment projects. This ridge's sand is also
the right texture for the Corp's use. It has 38.6 million cubic
yards of suitable beach fill material. The Corps would like to take
sand from this ridge (and others) since it is a big pile of sand and
makes their job easier to pick up this sand and the cost to do it
less than looking for it elsewhere. Not all of the ocean floor has
sand on it.
Conflict - Fishermen have been weary with
the Corps over this ridge and others nearby, which they depend upon
to hold fish. They are still bitter over the Corps use of
nearly half of the Harvey Cedar Lump for the Long Beach
Island to Little Egg Harbor Inlet beach replenishment project. The
coastal communities want this sand to restore their beaches,
especially for the tourism industry. The Corps does not unilaterally
act on its own to remove this sand, but acts on the direction
provided by our NJ Department of Environmental Protection in concert
with federal agencies like the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
(BOEM) since this ridge is in federal waters. The NJ DEP has given
its approval for this project that may begin as early as next year.
At this point, BOEM has not and it is waiting for the NJ DEP to
submit a formal application to do so.
What's Next? - In an effort to come up with
some type of resolution to this conflict, a meeting was held in
Trenton on July 28th with the Director of the NJ DEP, Bob Martin,
and his staff. Representing commercial anglers was Jim Lovgren and
Scot Mackey from the Garden State Seafood Association. Ken Warchal
represented the Jersey Coast Anglers Association (JCAA). I
represented the New Jersey Outdoor Alliance (NJOA) since I am its
president and our club is also a member of NJOA. The above issues
were discussed and the following is a quick snapshot of the major
points that were raised:
While it was not the intention of the NJ DEP to disrupt
productive fishing areas, the fishing community should have been
invited to review the DEP’s plans for sand removal before it began.
Options other than taking sand from the Manasquan Ridge and
others like it included - taking sand from areas where it is has
been concentrating due to the normal washing away from the beaches
(in the Wildwood area or other locations like it) or even from areas
close to beaches that have unusual buildup from sand that washes
away from the nearby shores - taking it from one of the ridges that
is not that productive for fishing (lesser of two evils) - and
taking sand that has been dredged from inlets and then usually
dumped not far away them.
The Corps will not stop doing beach replenishment due to
the existing contracts that it has with the DEP. However, the NJ DEP
staff will do a comprehensive review of alternate locations that
sand can be taken from to lessen their impacts on our prime fishing
areas. When this review is completed, the NJ DEP will invite us to
another meeting to review their findings.
This meeting was constructive in that solutions were being offered
to mitigate the problems created by beach replenishment. I will keep
you updated as this sand mining issue unfolds.
Report on Making Sandy Hook Bay a Natural Marine Sanctuary
On behalf of the Jersey Coast Anglers Association(JCAA) and the New
Jersey Outdoor Alliance (NJOA), and our club, I attended a
presentation given by Mr. Rik van Hemmen who is proposing to
implement a Sandy Hook Bay Natural Marine Sanctuary. It would
stretch roughly from Sandy Hook to the Earle Naval pier and to parts
of the Navesink and the Schrewsbury rivers. This presentation was
given at the Red Bank library at 7:00 p.m. on March 16th and it was
attended by approximately 200-250 angry recreational anglers,
commercial fishermen, oyster harvesters, clammers, and waterfowlers.
Only about 60 could fit in the conference room and the rest waited
outside the library. This turnout was due to the threat that this
sanctuary would have on one of our most productive fishing grounds
for both recreational and commercial anglers.
Mr. Hemmen started his presentation by showing us a bunch of
pictures of this area with boats and birds, but nothing concrete
about WHY it should be a sanctuary. He did not stress any positive
results we would expect to receive by having this sanctuary. He
seems to love the area in question, but is oblivious to the
repercussions that would result by having a sanctuary. In fact, Mr.
Dan Ferrigno, a former and retired staff member of our NJ DEP with
30 years of experience, remarked that the sanctuaries we now have
around our country (about 5 of them) all end up with tough
restrictions on fishing, boating, jet skis and diminish the
enjoyment people should receive by having them. Others in the
audience voiced over and over again that this sanctuary status would
lead to more fishing restrictions and that we do not need more
regulations! Hemmen responded that he is not trying to impose these
regulations, but he seemed oblivious to this major concern voiced by
the audience.
One person told him that he lives by the affected area and that the
waters are cleaner than they have ever been and have more fish and
that he did not see a need for this sanctuary, but Hemmen just blew
off this remark. Building on this no need for a sanctuary, I
remarked that "you obviously love the sanctuary concept to keep
things the way they are for you, but YOU HAVE NOT MADE A CASE WHY WE
SHOULD HAVE IT! He responded that "we will have more fish"! One
person yelled out "do you have the data to prove it" and he said
that he did not! His answer to me like the one he made earlier about
a trash problem seems to be made up as he goes along with his
presentation since he has no real answers to the important questions
raised about his sanctuary proposal.
My take on this sanctuary issue is that Hemmen does not understand
the negative implications that a sanctuary has, but worse is that he
is not accepting the comments that were mostly made by anglers in
the room. The danger I see is that in spite of what was conveyed to
him about restrictions, he will still go forward with this sanctuary
and, of course, like- minded organizations may back him and this can
gain traction to move it further.
For this sanctuary to go to higher levels in our federal government
it has to be first approved by our state government and that is our
best hope to stop it. I will carefully track the sanctuary issue and
keep you updated. We all need to stay on top of this important issue
and all be united against it!
Be
Careful Which Fish You Choose to Eat - Skip Tilapia!
In a December 22nd article
in the Asbury Park Press, the author (Samantha Davis) writes a
"Healthy Living " column and tells how to better our health.
She tells us to eat wild salmon instead of farm raised
because the fishmeal they use to combat parasites and disease in
farm-raised commercial salmon has antibiotics and high levels of
PCBs.
One of the best
fish to eat is sardines since they contain a lot of omega-3
and one of the few foods naturally containing Vitamin D.
But, she also indicates that tilapia, one of America's most
popular fish should be avoided.
According to the National Fisheries Institute, this
freshwater fish has become the fourth most eaten fish in the
U.S.! Tilapia is always farm-raised, and often imported from China
that has an abysmal record for food safety. Farmed raised tilapia
has a high inflammatory potential, which could lead to heart
disease, asthma, and joint problems.
Researches from Wake Forest University have found that
tilapia has a higher inflammatory potential than that of a hamburger
or pork bacon! Not all
fish is healthy to eat, only the right ones!
Genetically Engineered Salmon Declared Ready for US Plates!
On November 19th, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a genetically engineered salmon as fit for consumption, making it the first genetically altered animal to be cleared for American supermarkets and dinner plates.
The approval by
the FDA caps a long struggle by AquaBounty Technologies, a small
company that first approached the FDA about approval in the 1990's.
The FDA said the approval process took so long because it was
the first of its kind.
The approval of this salmon has been fiercely opposed by consumer and environmental groups, which have argued that the safety studies were inadequate and that wild salmon populations might be affected if the engineered fish were to escape into the oceans and rivers. "This unfortunate, historic decision, disregards the vast majority of consumers, many independent scientists, numerous members of Congress and salmon growers around the world, who have voiced strong opposition" said Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director, Food and Water Watch. Within hours of the FDA's decision, a consumer advocacy group, Center for Food Safety, said it and other organizations would file a lawsuit challenging the FDA approval.
The AquaAdvantage
salmon, as it is known, is an Atlantic salmon that has been
genetically modified so that it grows to market size faster than a
non-genetically salmon in as little as
half the time. Despite
the FDA approval, it is likely to be at least
two years before any of
the salmon reaches the market.
It is also not likely that much of this salmon will be on the
market because this company's production facility is relatively
small and it is located in
Panama.
FDA officials said that the salmon would NOT have to be labeled as genetically engineered. However, it issued draft guidance as to wording that companies could use to VOLUNTARILY label the salmon as genetically engineered or to label other salmon as not genetically engineered.
This genetically
engineered salmon represents a debate between one group that wants
nature to take its natural course in the production of food and the
harvesting of animals.
The other group wants science through genetically engineering to
improve food and the harvesting of animals.
For example, scientists in China have recently created goats
with more muscle and hair.
This debate between these two groups is far from over! (NY
Times, November 20, 2015).
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Report
By John Toth
I attended a public hearing to comment on the proposal of
Canadian - based Liberty
Natural Gas LLC to develop a deep water docking station known as
Port Ambrose that would be a transfer point for ships carrying
liquefied natural gas (LNG) to
unload and pump gas to points in New Jersey and New York.
While noble in its intent to provide more energy to
consumers, this LNG project poses a number of problems for our
environment and safety.
A large number of groups, including the JCAA and the New Jersey
Outdoor Alliance (NJOA) opposed the LNG project and a public hearing
was held on November 4th to take testimony from advocates and
opponents of LNG. The US Coast Guard and the federal Maritime
Administration presided over this hearing that was attended by a
large number of people. This hearing was held at the Sheraton Hotel
in Eatontown at 6:00 p.m. Many of you, if not most, are familiar
with this issue since it has been covered in prior JCAA newsletters.
I, and all present, had
exactly three (3) minutes
to present their comments, and I had to talk fast to cover mine!.
Those people who had lengthy statements to read could not do
it in that 3 minute timeframe and they talked so fast to cover their
points that it was somewhat comical to hear them!. I gave these
written comments to the public hearing officers, and also presented
this oral testimony:
Statement by John Toth, representing the New Jersey Outdoor Alliance
(NJOA) and the Jersey Coast Anglers Association (JCAA)
As a Trustee of the New Jersey Outdoor Alliance (NJOA) and the Membership Secretary of the JCAA, I want to go on record that I am representing the NJOA and the JCAA and we are strongly against the proposed LNG project. We are against LNG for going forward for a number of reasons and they include but are not limited to the following:
1. The proposed LNG port will be located at the Gateway to the NY/NJ harbor, approximately 18 miles off Long Island and 28 miles off New Jersey. This is a highly trafficked area with thousands of boats and ships moving into and out of the New York/ New Jersey marine facilities. Under these conditions, the LNG port can pose a serious hazard to the navigation of the many ships large and small that use this important waterway system.
2. As we all know, Super Storm Sandy caused tremendous damage with waves nearly 30 feet high. Acting on warnings to this approaching storm, ships moved to different locations to avoid this super storm or took actions to better secure their craft. A storm like Sandy can come again and can the LNG port be adequately secured from the effect of this type of storm? If not, it will be tossed into the ocean with devastating economic effects on our entire region, including loss of life.
3. Exclusion zones will extend two miles from each docking buoy, eliminating the ability of fishing vessels to access or anchor in the affected area. Commercial and recreational fishermen will be excluded from these important fishing grounds. Anglers are excluded similarly from the present Earle naval fishing port and are chased away by inadvertently entering it. While it is needed for security of the naval vessels being repaired there, it is a nuisance for anglers and one that we do not want to experience again by the proposed LNG port.
4. A LNG facility would be a prime target for those groups of people who want to see a 9/11 type of disaster happening again. An exploding LNG port in our populous metropolitan area would be disastrous for the resulting damage it would cause to our entire region.
5. Notwithstanding terrorists, gas is in itself presents challenges to issues of safety. A small leakage or rupture to a line or valve can have major safety consequences. What if the gas lines from the LNG port to their shore locations rupture from some mechanical or pressure problem and spill into the ocean. What kind of damage can it cause and how easily can a rupture like this be repaired. The BP problem in the Gulf showed that repairs to mechanical systems in the deep sea can be problematic.
6.
The
construction of new pipe lines will dredge up to 20 miles of sea
floor resulting in damage to some areas of prime fishing grounds and
fish breeding areas. Super Storm Sandy caused
enough damage to sea floor and the resulting dredging needed for
beach replenishment due to this storm. More
damage to the sea floor is not what we want to see.
7.
Instead of
reducing the price of natural gas for US citizens, LNG may in fact
increase the cost due to the selling of it to foreign markets.
Because of the above reasons and more that will be expressed by
other groups at this hearing, the NJOA and the JCAA urges Governor
Christie to veto this LNG effort.
(On November 12th, Governor Cuomo came out against the LNG project,
effectively stopping it from going forward.
Governor Christie's veto of it is not necessary).
Ocean Garbage Patches Stretch Thousands of Miles
There are floating
islands of garbage in the world's oceans and are comprised of all
kinds of trash, but mostly consisting of plastic.
One is estimated to be as
big as the continental
United States!
Plastic takes a long time to
decompose and even when it does, the problems don't go away.
It simply breaks down into tiny pieces.
The debris collects in
areas known as gyres.
An ocean gyre is a circular ocean current formed by the
Earth's wind patterns and the forces created by the rotation of our
planet. The area in the
center of the gyre tends to be very calm and stable.
The circular motion of the gyre draws in debris where it
makes its way to the center where it becomes trapped and builds up.
The material builds up because much of it is not
biodegradable. The
largest of these areas is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, but
similar patches can be found in the North and South Atlantic and the
Indian Oceans.
The North Atlantic Garbage Patch is
estimated to be hundreds of
miles across in size with a density of 200,000 pieces of debris per
square mile! The
trash is not like a floating landfill, but like a big bowl of soup
flecked with pepper flakes. The pepper flakes are the tiny bits of
plastic called microplastic.
They block sunlight from reaching plankton and algae below.
Plankton and algae form their own nutrients and they are very
important in the marine food web chain and turtles, fish and other
marine species rely on them for food.
If these animals start to die, there will be less food for
predator species such as tuna, sharks and whales.
Cleaning up marine debris is not easy. Many pieces of trash are the same size as sea animals, so the nets designed to scoop up trash would catch these creatures as well. A workable solution to this problem has yet to be found. (Asbury Park Press, Sept. 5 page E3).
The Precarious Life of a Sand Crab
Anyone who has dug
their toes or fingers in the wet sand at the water's edge has most
likely unearthed a sand crab, a.k.a. sand flea or sand mole.
These armadillo-shaped creatures are usually no bigger than a
thumb and are constant burrowers.
Their daily routine is a repetition of rolling in the waves,
then frantically digging themselves back under the sand.
They can bury
themselves in 1.5 seconds!
A unique fact about the sand crab is that it cannot move
forward or sideway, but only
backward! They feed
in the swash zone- the area where the waves wash up on the beach.
To feed, the crab burrows backward into the sand using rear
claws and faces the ocean with their eyes and antennae visible.
When a wave flows over them, they uncoil a second
feather-like antennae that filters out plankton as their favorite
meal.
The sand crab is one
of the rare crab species that has no functional legs with which to
navigate themselves along the beaches. They are carried down the
beach by the wave action.
They are found around the world and are prey to birds and
fish. In some areas,
commercial fishermen harvest the crabs when they are soft shells for
bait. Anglers in
Florida prize these crabs to catch pompano and redfish
Pacific Octopus Holds Egg-Brooding Record
A pacific deep-sea
octopus (Graneledone boreopaifica) has been found to have an
egg brooding cycle of 53
months - the longest period that any animal is known to protect
its eggs.
In April 2007,
researchers observed a solitary female Graneledone in the Monterey
Canyon, off the coast of California guarding a clutch of eggs.
The same scientists returned to the site 18 times over the
next four and a half-years using a remotely operated vehicle to
monitor the octopus and her clutch estimated at 160 eggs.
She did not feed while nesting, and her body became pale and
slack. Like other octopods, the Graneldone dies after its eggs
hatch.
3.9 million Eyed Oyster Larvae
ReClam The Bay received 3.9 million Eyed
Oyster Larvae to be placed in the waters on the Barnegat bay on
Tuesday. ReClam the Bay is a volunteer-led
nonprofit organization dedicated to providing hands-on
education for
allages regarding the environmental benefits of shellfish filtering,
feeding and the resulting cleaning of the waters
of Barnegat Bay. The goal of this group is to involve the general
public in shellfish-oriented stewardship
activities so that residents can better understand that water
quality and habitat protection are everyone's
responsibility, and that healthy shellfish populations help restore
and maintain estuarine water quality. ReClam the Bay works closely with the
Barnegat Bay Shellfish Restoration Progam,
which was established by the Rutgers Cooperative Extension
Oysters — A historical perspective
Eastern oysters (Crassostrea virginica) and hard clams (Mercenaria
mercenaria) have been important natural resources in Barnegat Bay
since pre-colonial times when Native Americans gathered shellfish
for nourishment. Their importance continued when Baymen began
harvesting shellfish for sale and associated industries developed.
At the peak of the oyster industry, from 1870 to 1930, the Barnegat
Bay-Cape May area produced 20 percent of all market oysters
harvested in New Jersey. By 1930 this figure declined to less than
10 percent. Oyster harvest declined for various reasons including
overharvest, disease and changes to the bay’s
New York Was a Once City of Oysters
It is hard to believe that New York City was once surrounded by
numerous and high quality oysters! Its
surrounding tributaries, estuaries, and bays once produced enough
native shellfish that a typical city dweller ate
about 600 oysters a year! Cheap and abundant, oysters were the pizza
slice of the 1800's. For less than a penny apiece. this poor man's
dietary staple was sold at countless oyster saloons in lower
Manhattan. The happy-hour special - called the "Canal Street Plan"-
was all-you-could eat- for a six pence. Pearl Street, near Wall
Street in lower Manhattan, is so named because this street was paved
with native oyster shells. By 1910, 1.4 billion oysters a year were
pulled out of city waters! Since oysters filter water, the
increasing pollution in NYC waters began to make people sick and the
polluted waters eventually took their toll on the oysters and their
life cycle. Several environmental organizations(NY/NJ Baykeeper) are
talking about bringing them back with seeding them at various
locations, but it would take a lot of seeding and a lot of time to
bring them back to the level they once had around New York!
As New Jersey rebuilds, we can and we
should rebuild in ways that keep sewage and other forms of pollution
from fouling our waters
and threatening our health and marine wildlife.
To keep pollution from reaching the Shore, we need to upgrade our
outdated and damaged stormwater infrastructure. And we
need to rebuild with green building solutions, such as pavement that
can actually absorb water, rain gardens that can hold and filter
water, and even green roofs that capture up to 50 percent of the
rain that falls on a building. New Jerseyans have come together for
the
Shore before. When needles and garbage washed up on our Shore, we
demanded and won new laws against coastal pollution. When
Washington delayed sending relief after Sandy, we spoke out and
Congress responded. Now it's time to stand up for the Shore again.
Together, we can win
build the grassroots support to make sure we rebuild in the right
way, one that's best for our water, for our beaches and for
generations
to come.
Read More at:
http://www.environmentnewjersey.org/programs/nje/restore-our-shore
8.5 Million Pounds of Toxic Chemicals
Dumped into New Jersey’s Waterways
Delaware River tops list of most polluted
in the nation
Immediate Release
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Trenton, NJ – Industrial facilities dumped 8.5 million pounds of
toxic chemicals into New Jersey’s waterways, making New Jersey’s
waterways the 12th worst in the nation, according to a new report
released today by Environment New Jersey. Wasting Our Waterways:
Industrial Toxic Pollution and the Unfulfilled Promise of the Clean
Water Act also reports that 226 million pounds of toxic chemicals
were discharged into 1,400 waterways across the country.
“New Jersey’s waterways continue to be open for business for the
state’s biggest polluters. Polluters dump 8.5 million pounds of
toxic chemicals into New Jersey’s lakes, rivers and streams every
year,” said Megan Fitzpatrick, clean water associate with
Environment New Jersey. “We must turn the tide of toxic pollution by
restoring Clean Water Act protections to our waterways.”
The Environment New Jersey report documents and analyzes the
dangerous levels of pollutants discharged to America’s waters by
compiling toxic chemical releases reported to the U.S. EPA’s Toxics
Release Inventory for 2010, the most recent data available.
Read more at
www.environent NJ.org
Fish You Should Never, Ever Eat
Source |
Healthy Living
One fish, two fish,
bad-for-you-fish. Yes fish, no fish, red fish…OK fish? Our oceans
have become so depleted of wild fish stocks, and so polluted with
industrial contaminants, that trying to figure out the fish that are
both safe and sustainable can make your head spin. "Good fish" lists
can change year after year, because stocks rebound or get depleted
every few years, but there are some fish that, no matter what, you
can always decline.
The nonprofit Food
and Water Watch looked at all the varieties of fish out there, how
they were harvested, how certain species are farmed, and levels of
toxic contaminants like mercury or PCBs in the fish, as well as how
heavily local fishermen relied upon fisheries for their economic
survival. These are the fish, they determined, that all of us should
avoid, no matter what.
Tilapia
Why It's Bad:
Tilapia, Contains Potentially Dangerous Fatty Acid Combination.
Farm-raised tilapia, one of the most highly consumed fish in
America, has very low levels of beneficial omega-3 fatty acids and,
perhaps worse, very high levels of omega-6 fatty acids, according to
new research from Wake Forest University School of Medicine.
Nearly 90% of the
Tilapia
imported to the US, where use of antibiotics that are banned in the
U.S.
Farm-raised tilapia are a diet fishmeal made from Menhaden, Menhaden
are the pray fish for many species of fish important to the health
of our Atlantic fish population.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080708092228.htm
http://www.draxe.com/eating-tilapia-is-worse-than-eating-bacon/
Eat This Instead: US hook-and-line-caught haddock, Haddock contains 90 calories, 20 grams of protein and .55 grams of fat per 100-gram serving, which is slightly more than 3 ounces. The same amount of cooked tilapia contains 128 calories, 26 grams of protein and 2.65 grams of fat. Haddock has fewer calories and a slightly healthier fatty acid composition.
Imported Catfish
Why It's Bad: Nearly 90% of the
catfish imported to the US comes from Vietnam, where use of
antibiotics that are banned in the U.S. is widespread. Furthermore,
the two varieties of Vietnamese catfish sold in the US, Swai and
Basa, aren't technically considered catfish by the federal
government and therefore aren't held to the same inspection rules
that other imported catfish are.
Eat This Instead: Stick with domestic, farm-raised catfish, advises Marianne Cufone, director of the Fish Program at Food & Water Watch. It's responsibly farmed and plentiful, making it one of the best fish you can eat. Or, try Asian carp, an invasive species with a similar taste to catfish that's out-competing wild catfish and endangering the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Caviar
Why It's Bad: Caviar from
beluga and wild-caught sturgeon are susceptible to overfishing,
according to the Food and Water Watch report, but the species are
also being threatened by an increase in dam building that pollutes
the water in which they live. All forms of caviar come from fish
that take a long time to mature, which means that it takes a while
for populations to rebound.
Eat This Instead: If
you really love caviar, opt for fish eggs from American Lake
Sturgeon or American Hackleback/Shovelnose Sturgeon caviar from the
Mississippi River system.
American Eel
Why It's Bad: Also called yellow
or silver eel, this fish, which frequently winds up in sushi dishes,
made its way onto the list because it's highly contaminated with
PCBs and mercury. The fisheries are also suffering from some
pollution and overharvesting.
Eat This Instead:
If you like the taste of eel, opt for Atlantic- or Pacific-caught
squid instead.
Imported Shrimp
Why It's Bad: Imported shrimp
actually holds the designation of being the dirtiest of the Dirty
Dozen, says Cufone, and it's hard to avoid, as 90% of shrimp sold in
the U.S. is imported. "Imported farmed shrimp comes with a whole
bevy of contaminants: antibiotics, residues from chemicals used to
clean pens, filth like mouse hair, rat hair, and pieces of insects,"
Cufone says. "And I didn't even mention things like E. coli that
have been detected in imported shrimp." Part of this has to do with
the fact that less than 2% of ALL imported seafood (shrimp, crab,
catfish, or others) gets inspected before its sold, which is why
it's that much more important to buy domestic seafood. (Still need
convincing? Find out the
Top 5 Reasons You Should Never Eat
Shrimp Again.)
Eat This Instead: Look
for domestic shrimp. Seventy percent of domestic shrimp comes from
the Gulf of Mexico, which relies heavily on shrimp for economic
reasons. Pink shrimp from Oregon are another good choice; the
fisheries there are certified under the stringent Marine Stewardship
Council guidelines.
Atlantic Flatfish
Why It's Bad: This group of fish
includes flounder, sole, and halibut that are caught off the
Atlantic coast. They found their way onto the list because of heavy
Commercial overfishing that dates back to the 1800s. According to
Food and Water Watch, populations of these fish are as low as 1% of
what's necessary to be considered sustainable for long-term
fishing.
Eat This Instead: Pacific halibut seems to be doing well, but
the group also recommends replacing these fish with other
mild-flavored white-fleshed fish, such as domestically farmed
catfish or tilapia.
Atlantic Salmon
(both wild-caught and farmed)
Why It's Bad: It's actually
illegal to capture wild Atlantic salmon because the fish stocks are
so low, and they're low, in part, because of farmed salmon. Salmon
farming is very polluting: Thousands of fish are crammed into pens,
which leads to the growth of diseases and parasites that require
antibiotics and pesticides. Often, the fish escape and compete with
native fish for food, leading to declines in native populations.
Adding to our salmon woes, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is
moving forward with approving genetically engineered salmon to be
sold, unlabeled, to unsuspecting seafood lovers. That salmon would
be farmed off the coast of Panama, and it's unclear how it would be
labeled. Currently, all fish labeled "Atlantic salmon" come from
fish farms.
Eat This Instead:
Opt for wild Alaskan salmon now, and in the event that GE salmon is
officially approved.
Imported King Crab
Why It's Bad: The biggest problem
with imported crab is that most of it comes from Russia, where
limits on fish harvests aren't strongly enforced. But this crab also
suffers from something of an identity crisis, says Cufone: "Imported
king crab is often misnamed Alaskan king crab, because most people
think that's name of the crab," she says, adding that she's often
seen labels at supermarkets that say "Alaskan King Crab, Imported."
Alaskan king crab is a completely separate animal, she says, and
it's much more responsibly harvested than the imported stuff.
Eat This Instead: When you shop for king crab, whatever the label says, ask whether it comes from Alaska or if it's imported. Approximately 70% of the king crab sold in the U.S. is imported, so it's important to make that distinction and go domestic.
Orange Roughy
Why It's Bad: In addition to
having high levels of mercury, orange roughy can take between 20 and
40 years to reach full maturity and reproduces late in life, which
makes it difficult for populations to recover from overfishing.
Orange roughy has such a reputation for being overharvested that
some large restaurant chains, including Red Lobster, refuse to serve
it. However, it still pops up in grocer freezers, sometimes
mislabeled as "sustainably harvested." There are no fisheries of
orange roughy that are considered well-managed or are certified by
the Marine Stewardship Council, so avoid any that you see.
Eat This Instead: Opt for yellow snapper or domestic catfish to
get the same texture as orange roughy in your recipes.
Atlantic Bluefin
Tuna
Why It's Bad: A recent analysis by
The New York Times found that Atlantic bluefin tuna has the
highest levels of mercury of any type of tuna. To top it off,
bluefin tuna are severely overharvested, to the point of reaching
near-extinction levels, and are considered "critically endangered"
by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Rather than
trying to navigate the ever-changing recommendations for which tuna
is best, consider giving it up altogether and switching to a
healthy, flavorful alternative, such as Alaska wild-caught salmon.
Eat This Instead: If you really can't give up tuna, opt for
American or Canadian (but not imported!) albacore tuna, which is
caught while it's young and doesn't contain as high levels of
mercury.
Chilean Sea Bass
Why It's Bad: Most Chilean sea
bass sold in the US comes from fishermen who have captured them
illegally, although the US Department of State says that illegal
harvesting of the fish has declined in recent years. Nevertheless,
fish stocks are in such bad shape that the nonprofit Greenpeace
estimates that, unless people stop eating this fish, the entire
species could be commercially extinct within five years. Food and
Water Watch's guide notes that these fish are high in mercury, as
well.
Eat This Instead: These fish are very popular and considered a
delicacy, but you can get the same texture and feel with US
hook-and-line-caught haddock.
Menhaden the most important fish:
Video -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUdiOeDdz8Q
INTRODUCTION - HISTORY OF FISHERIES SURVEYS
by Jennifer Pyle, Assistant Biologist - Species Fact Sheets by
Maryellen Gordon, Assistant Biologist April, 2012
The Delaware estuary, New Jersey's largest estuary system, is a
semi-enclosed body of water where freshwater from the Delaware River
mixes with salt water from the Delaware Bay. The estuary is a
migratory route for many recreational and commercial fish and
provides critical spawning and feeding grounds and nursery areas for
many species.
The success of a species is contingent upon the survival of their
young. The Delaware estuary provides a suitable nursery environment
for young fish to grow. Monitoring populations of these juvenile
fish is essential for fishery managers to estimate abundance and
evaluate the success of the population. These assessments provide a
means to predict population trends and future harvest potential of
monitored species.
Bureau of Marine Fisheries
biologists within the New Jersey DEP's Division of Fish & Wildlife
conduct several surveys each year to study the status of species
populations within the estuary. One of these surveys is the
Delaware River Seine Survey.
The seine survey is a Fishery Independent
Monitoring Project required by the
Interstate Fisheries Management Plan for Striped Bass
. It is currently the Bureau of Marine Fisheries' longest
running fishery-independent survey. It began in 1980 when striped
bass stocks were severely depleted and is primarily a juvenile
striped bass abundance survey. Data collected provides an annual
abundance index for this species, reported as the number of
young-of-year per seine haul. Results have been corroborated by
other independent surveys, such as the
Delaware Division of Fish & Wildlife's striped bass spawning stock
survey.
A unique aspect of this survey is its longevity - it has been
conducted for 32 consecutive years. Data from such a large period of
time is highly beneficial to species population studies. Not only
does this survey tell us how many fish there are from year to year,
but the data also contributes to the development of fisheries
management plans and projections of sustainable harvest levels.
For more information about the value of this survey, see the article
from the 2006 Marine Issue of the Fish and Wildlife Digest:
www.njfishandwildlife.com/pdf/2006/digmar28-31.pdf (pdf, 815kb).
http://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/artdelstudy12.htm
Captain Paul Eidman was guest speaker at our November 20th
meeting to discuss the decline of menhaden (bunker) stocks. Captain
Paul is very active in bringing this important issue to the
attention of fishing clubs. If bunker is NOT around, neither will
there be striped bass or blue fish around to catch! Captain Paul
will give us a very interesting power point presentation to show
what is happening to bunker in our waters.
http://shore11.org/captpauleidman
Not so Unusual Alliance
-
Anglers and Environmentalists
In the past, anglers and environmentalists were united for
common concerns like clean water. This union has been adversely
affected by the environmentalists calling for damaging restrictions
on how much anglers can catch resulting in many boat captains going
out of business. An article in the July 4th edition of
the NY Times indicated that a third-generation fisherman from Maine
(Captain Robbins) who specializes in catching herring has been at
great odds with the environmental lobbyists and really dislikes them
because of their promoting catch restrictions on herring. However,
he has decided to work with them to stop 30 large boats that use
nets as big as a football field to scoop up hundreds of thousand
pounds of herring in the Gulf of Maine. Called mid-water trawlers,
they account for 98% of the 100,000 tons of herring caught in New
England waters. The trawlers appeared in New England waters about 10
years ago and would often come in small areas and fish until they
scooped up everything. The locals call it “Localized Depletion”. If
the herring is gone, tuna, birds and other fish have nothing to eat
and they too are gone. New rules call for observers on these
trawlers to monitor their catches and thereby have documentation to
determine if herring is being overfished. Captain Robbins is
convinced the herring is overfished and he also said that “A lot of
times in commercial fishing, there’s a saying: don’t speak against
other fishermen. But there’s times where you can’t do that, and this
is one of them”.
Impact of 'fracking' for
oil and gas:
A Toxic Spew? Coming to a water supply
near you! “fracturing-fluid”
Fracturing chemicals are routinely used on oil and gas wells where
they are pumped deep into the ground to crack rock seams and
increase production. Largely unregulated, they've been employed by
the energy industry for decades and, with the exception of diesel;
can be made up of nearly any set of chemicals.
Also, propriety trade laws don't require
energy companies to disclose their ingredients
http://www.propublica.org/article/scientific-study-links-flammable-drinking-water-to-fracking/single
EPA Scientist Points at Fracking in Fish-Kill Mystery
A mysterious fish-kill in Dunkard Creek may
have been the result of wastewater from hydraulic fracturing of
shale for natural gas.Was it coal miners whose runoff wiped out aquatic
life in the stream where locals have long fished and picnicked? Or
was it Marcellus Shale drillers and the briny discharge from their
wells that created a toxic algae bloom that left a miles-long trail
of rotting fish along the West Virginia-Pennsylvania state line?U.S.
EPA has ended its investigation and pointed the finger at a local
coal mine, Blacksville No. 2, and entered a multimillion-dollar
settlement with the owner, Consol Energy Inc.
But the lead EPA biologist on the case has challenged that idea,
saying that the most likely explanation for the fish kill involves
the environmental effects of Marcellus Shale drilling.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=epa-scientist-points-at-fracking-in-fish-kill-mystery
U.S. proposes new rules for fracking on federal lands
The Obama administration unveiled long-awaited
rules on Friday to bolster oversight on public lands of oil and
natural gas drilling using fracking technology that has
ushered in a boom in drilling but also triggered environmental
protests.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/04/us-usa-fracking-regulations-idUSTRE84315N20120504
Horseshoe Crab Sculpture
Artist Chris Wojcik and his art team built a 47-foot life-like
horseshoe crab sculpture that will be placed on the Axel Carlson
reef. Wojcik, a scuba instructor and marine biologist from Bay Head,
NJ, began building the sculpture to become part of an already
existing artificial reef last October. The sculpture, made of
reinforced concrete, will sit in 80 feet of water and become home to
a variety of marine life. It was supposed to be deployed on the reef
on July 25th, but windy weather delayed its deployment. The state
Division of Fish and Wildlife is in charge of placing the sculpture
on the reef and it announced that the sculpture will deployed in the
early part of August, weather permitting.
Horseshoe Crab Sculpture Destroyed As reported in our August
bulletin, a 47- foot horseshoe crab structure designed by artist
Chris Wojcik was to be deployed on the Axel Carlson reef. About 100
people gathered on boats to watch it sink. The sculpture, towed by
two barges, reached the designated area and the crews worked to
slowly open the hatches of the barge to flood it while the crane
workedto hold it level so it could sink properly. However, a rear
strap supporting the stern of the barge snapped and the barge and
sculpture plunged down to the reef, bow up. The sculpture weighing
about 50 tons broke into small pieces on the ocean floor! These
pieces will create an artificial reef, but not in the way it was
supposed to and the artist who spent so much time and raising a lot
of money to build it was very disappointed over this fiasco.
China to ban Shark Fin Soup at State Events
- by John Toth
I was always curious about what goes into making shark fin soup
since I have had it several times and I was always disappointed in
its lack of taste and gooey texture. The world’s shark population
has been around for millions of years and it is being depleted since
the sharks are mostly killed just for their fins. So why kill sharks
for a soup that is really not that good? The New York Times shed
some information about shark fin soup (July 4, 2012). The soup,
brewed from dried shark fins, is largely tasteless and slithery, but
its serving at weddings and other events is considered a must-serve
because of its status symbol. Essentially, you are making a
statement that you have the financial means to serve it for your
guests. Retailers in Hong Kong, the main hub for this trade, charge
$260 dollars for about a pound of the fins! That equates to about
$26 for a serving of this soup! With financial awards like that, no
wonder the shark populations are under attack. Due to pressure form
environmental groups, the Chinese government recently indicated that
shark fin soup will be no longer be served at state-sponsored
events. However, this decision is expected to take three years to be
implemented! No hurry here! With the rapid economic growth of the
Chinese middle class who can now afford this
soup, the slaughter of sharks for their fins will not end any time soon.
Big Bucks $$$ for
Small Eels
The Asian market
developed a huge taste for glass eels in our waters for their exotic
dishes (barbecued eels and other seafood).
The huge pressure on this fishery resulted in the closure of
fishing for glass eels that were once abundant during the 1990’s in
New Jersey’s waters.
Because of their scarcity,
juvenile eels fetch $2,500 a Pound and sometime even more!
An article in the March 16th edition of the Asbury Park Press reported that three fishermen from Maine came down to Absecon Creek (by Atlantic City) and set a net out early in the morning (2:45 a.m.) of March 13th to catch eels, but were being unknowingly watched by NJ conservation officers. The two men operating the net took about three pounds of glass eels that equals about eight thousand eels. On the shore, the third man from Maine was in a truck with a live holding tank that had another six pounds of eels in it or about 16,000 eels. A catch of 9 pounds of eels would bring about $22,500 for not too much effort and time. They would most likely have been around for more eels if they were not caught for more dollars to their wallets. The three men involved in this illegal activity have a court appearance in Absecon municipal court and face some hefty fines. It is amazing that such small eels could be worth $2, 500 a pound! This is probably the most expensive thing that swims in any of our waters on earth!
