Two years after a barge spilled 828,000 gallons of oil in Block Island Sound, a plan has been unveiled to restore the millions of lobsters and fish that were killed as well as protect environmental resources in the future.
Highlights of the proposal include releasing 1.5 million adult lobsters into the sound, stocking shellfish in coastal ponds and buying land to enhance the breeding habitat of loons and other marine birds.
The restoration plan, now open to public comment until Nov. 16, has already received mixed reviews, particularly from members of the fishing community.
“This plan shows absolutely no understanding of the people who make a living fishing,” said Ralph Boragine, executive director of the Rhode Island Seafood Council.
Boragine said his membership would much rather see additional money spent on dumping more lobsters into the water, opposed to spending funds on buying up land to protect various birds.
The three state and federal agencies overseeing the restoration plan say there is a misunderstanding of how they developed the proposal.
Steven Morin of the state’s Department of Environmental Management said Eklof Marine, owners of the barge — North Cape — that spilled the oil in January, 1996, will be asked to pay for restoration that could be as much as $28.3 million. Retrieval of the money is expected to end up in court.
Morin said the DEM, along with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, reached that figure by following the Federal Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
Under the act, the agencies are charged with doing scientific studies to determine the number a various animals killed by the spill. They then have to create a restoration plan for each particular group of animal, with a different price tag for each.
“(Critics) think that it is a pie. We have this much money and we are dividing the pie among the different animals, which isn’t true,” Morin said. “Instead, we have reached a certain amount of money on each group of animals by figuring out how much it would take to restore their population.”
He said the controversy appears to be over how much money they propose spending on loons. Under the plan $9 million will go to buying up waterfront property in northern New England to protect where the loons nest. Loons do not nest in Rhode Island, but spend their winters on the Rhode Island coastline.
Morin said it was the only way the three agencies thought they could help restore the 402 loons killed by the spill.
“The commercial fishermen might think that we are selling them out for loons, but it’s not the case. How much money we spend on loons or anything else had no impact on how much we decided to spend on the lobsters,” he said.
Under the plan, the agencies want to spend $10.9 million to buy 1.2 million female and 300,000 male lobsters that will be returned to the ocean with the idea they will reproduce the nine million lobsters killed in the spill.
For two years, Rhode Island fishermen will not be able to catch these lobsters, which will have v-shaped notches cut into their tails.
“The 1.5 million figure was reached because that is the number we calculated would replace the lobsters that were killed. In following the national guidelines set, we can’t go a lobster over,” he said.
Another restoration cost will be buying $3.8 million worth of small sea clams that will be placed in Rhode Island waters. Hundreds of thousands of dollars will also go to protecting water and land where other fish and birds live.
Boragine said the restoration plan has “some nice ideas,” but aren’t very realistic.
“Either Connecticut and Massachusetts sets up laws against catching these v-notched lobsters or we must have a little talk with each lobster to make sure they don’t leave the state,” he said.
Boragine plans on suggesting changes to the proposal during a public hearing to be held on October 28 at Narragansett Town Hall.
”
There is a lot of warm and fuzzy stuff that everybody would like to do with the money. I think we are better off putting as much money into repairing what got hurt the most. Don’t forget the money commercial fishermen make goes back in taxes,” he added.
Save The Bay spokesman John B. Torgan, who has been following the issue closely, said he constantly hears the displeasure of fishermen concerning the plan.
“They are furious that these steps don’t include compensation to them, but that’s not what it is about. It’s about restoring the environment,” said Torgan.
He said in general the restoration plan is a good one. But, his organization will also be pushing for some changes.
“We want them to revisit some of the options they dismissed as too expensive,” he said. “For example, there is now a problem with salt ponds. The oil spill had an acute toxicity impact that killed off a lot of fish in salt ponds.”
He suggests dredging salt ponds and planting eel grass to enhance that environment so fish can thrive.
“We are not saying that their model is flawed. All these things are good, but its a matter of which is best,” he said. “Obviously, only nature can over time restore the environment to pre-spill condition, but people can help by taking some of the stresses off the system for quicker recovery.”
