Cape Cod Times
June 8th, 2003
A RED HERRING: The Wind Farm Threat to Fishing
By David Farrell, Jr.
Among the complaints lodged against the proposed wind farm on
Horseshoe Shoal is that it would hurt fishing in Nantucket Sound.
No facts or science have been presented for this proposition and
to the contrary, the wind farm would benefit both commercial and
recreational catches. Although fishermen may have other complaints
about the wind farm, the claimed threat to fishing is a red herring.
It should first be
understood what Horseshoe Shoal is -- and what it isn’t.
A shallow area with depths at low tide from almost dry down to
20 feet or so, Horseshoe Shoal is a dynamic, mostly sandy shoal
with little vegetation. Tidal currents and storm waves constantly
shift sands and prevent the growth of mature benthic (bottom dwelling)
communities. Thus, contrary to the Massachusetts Marine Fisheries
Commission’s assertions, Horseshoe Shoal is not a nursery
for juvenile fish.
In fact, the wind farm
will diversify the Horseshoe Shoal ecosystem. Each wind tower
will be supported by a 16 foot diameter pole sunk in the bottom.
This is tantamount to 130 dispersed artificial reefs. This variation
of bottom habitat, contrasting with the sandy bottom of Horseshoe
Shoal, would spawn the growth of multivariate flora and fauna
around the wind towers, attracting bait, which in turn would attract
predator fish targeted by fishermen.
Why do fishermen like
fishing near rocks, off jetties, or from bridges? Because they
know that fish of all sizes seek food and cover from tidal currents
behind rocks and pilings and the stuff that grows on them. The
ecosystem of Horseshoe Shoal would thus be made more fertile by
the wind towers, which in the aggregate would occupy only 3 acres
out of the wind farm’s 25 square mile area.
The Save Our Sound website instead proclaims that the wind farm “project would block off a productive fishing ground to a group of people struggling to make a living.” That premise is invalid, however. Because the wind towers would be spaced 1/3 mile apart, fishing boats would have plenty of room to navigate in and around them. Similarly, the wind towers’ 1/3 mile spacing would not seem to obstruct any fish that might be migrating through the area. And as the Bouchard Transportation oil spill illustrates, the most serious threat to fishing will diminish as we reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and convert to alternative energy sources like wind power.
Let’s look at
the various gear types that fish around Horseshoe Shoal. None
will be detrimentally affected by the proposed wind farm.
• A few commercial
draggers fish on the outer edge of Horseshoe Shoal, keeping their
nets at a uniform depth. The wind farm would not disrupt this.
• Fishermen targeting
scup and sea bass with hook and line and/or pots would be able
to selectively place their gear near more productive habitat created
by the wind towers. Setting conch (whelk) pots could also continue
without interruption between the wind towers.
• It is hard
to fathom the near-shore weir fishermen’s opposition to
the proposed wind farm on Horseshoe Shoal, which is 5+ miles offshore
and not used for weirs. Furthermore, the weirs are not down tide
of Horseshoe Shoal, as shown by Eldridge’s Tide and Pilot
Book at 53-57 (2003).
• Many recreational
fishermen have opposed the wind farm as well, but they have not
articulated their reasoning. The bulk of recreational fishing
on Horseshoe Shoal now is for bluefish but with the addition of
cover provided by 130 wind towers there likely would be an increase
in stripers. Trolling around the wind towers would be easy and
casting while drifting by the wind towers would likely become
more productive.
• Charter boats
and head boats catering to tourists also would benefit from the
addition of diversified habitat. Simply put: Horseshoe Shoal would
become more productive fishing ground with the wind farm.
What then drives some fishermen to oppose the wind farm? It must
be that their fishing “experience” will be diminished
by the presence of wind towers on Horseshoe Shoal. But that is
a different argument from contending that the Nantucket Sound
fishery will be ecologically damaged by the wind farm. That contention
doesn’t hold water.
David Farrell, Jr., an Admiralty Lawyer from
S. Chatham, chairs the Fisheries Committee of the
Maritime Law Association of the United States
