Attendance: Bill Burt, Leo Byrnes, J. Dutra, Pat Fiorelli, C. Goudey, H. Halvorson, Porter Hoagland, R. Karney, J. Johnson, G. Kelly, D. Kimball, Dale Leavitt, R. Lovett, M. Ludwig, C. Mantzaris, J. Pearce, E. Rhodes, Ken Riaf, M. Simonitsch,R. Taylor.

Welcome Remarks. Dr. Harlyn Halvorson welcomed the group and reminded them that SSWG was formed and operated in a way analogous to the Oyster Round Table that involved all stakeholders in arriving at decisions to clean up Chesapeake Bay. Today's meeting with and representatives from government agencies is an extension of that policy. Further we are very pleased with NEFMC actions this past year in establishing an aquaculture sub-committee, adopting language incorporating aquaculture into each management plan, and approving an extension of the Westport (Seastead) Project. We are indebted to CCEDC, and especially John O'Brien, for hosting these meetings and assisting us in approaching economic development of this industry.

SSWG Sub-Committee Report NOAA Aq. Policy Document Mr. Cliff Goudey distributed a draft comment report, following input from several SSWG members, on the Department of Commerce (DOC) Aquaculture Policy and NOAA Aquaculture Policy. He invited further input from SSWG. Dr. Ed Rhodes (NOAA, NMFS) noted that the DOC document is a working document whereas the NOAA document was signed earlier this year. Additional comments are welcome to both. Mr. Goudey noted that this was an important opportunity. Legislative action is required, focusing on aquaculture, to clarify the DOC mission. The objectives for aquaculture need to be stated by some fixed date, indicating the % of aquaculture in the US that is to be produced in the EEZ. 100% compliance with the code of conduct, which has no teeth in it, presents problems with competition with other countries, Tariffs could be used to encourage international compliance. The Endangered Species Act (EPA) is having a major impact on aquaculture. Evidence is lacking of the negative impacts of aquaculture and the burden of proof is on the aquaculture industry. Implementation strategy should develop techniques to utilize the EEZ. The NEFMC plan could serve as a regulatory model for the EEZ. If a lead agency is required it needs legislative clarification. He does not see the need for a lead agency. What is needed is cooperation between agencies. Certain projects will require more scrutiny by COE, others by NOAA. The lead agency might be the council. The Sustainable Fisheries Act fails to mention aquaculture, and yet it is the only legislation in which fisheries are being managed. An amendment or new legislation is required to address aquaculture. The NOAA Aquaculture Policy, while signed, will be revisited so comments are also relevant. Mr. Goudy noted that it lacks objectives and implementation plans. Agency identification , and better wording, are needed to address disease control. DOC and NOAA could play a larger role. We need a NOAA "underwater weather service" as a government function to monitor habitat conditions. Finally we need enabling legislation as to "who owns the resource". SSWG members were requested to make additional comments to this draft and send these to Cliff Goudey or Harlyn Halvorson. We expect to send in our final comments by the end of May.

Dr. Ed Rhodes stated that DOC is a "Department of Opportunity" Organization. As such it is focused on business while NOAA has a stewardship role to "monitor" DOC. Mr. Mark Simonitsch, while complementing Goudey's report, observed from his 20 years of experience that he was concerned with giving NEFMC the rule making authority. They have only begun to change attitudes re aquaculture. Mr. Richard Taylor considered the opportunities for shellfish aquaculture as radically different from finfish aquaculture. He believes that the Council is in a position to evaluate the individual projects and that the NEFMC's Aquaculture Committee is the right direction to go. Mr. Ken Riaf commented on his confrontational experiences with the Gloucester Aquaculture Project that there were different courses possible. Mr. Jay Johnson, General Council NOAA, reminded us that after the agency eliminated aquaculture in 1979, that it was reintroduced into the budget cycle last week. A lot of the problems discussed today are real ones. As to "ownership", the Supreme Court ruled years ago that marine resources are not owned until they are "possessed". In a response to a query about regulation of offshore activities under the Magnussen Act, Mr. Johnson noted that only a few "authorities", i.e. COE, NEFMC, that have the tools for offshore management. He recommended the amendment of NEFMC to include ore mariculturists to provide better balance. In response to the question as to whether this was the right vehicle, Mr. Johnson said he wasn't sure but NOAA is currently drafting new legislation which will "balance" interests among users, not just fishers. They will be asking the Interagency Aquaculture Committee to look at this. He predicted that eventually there will be clearly defined areas for different activities, providing security for the industry.

Open Roundtable Discussion of Issues Affecting Aquaculture Dr. Harlyn Halvorson, moderating the roundtable, stated we wish to focus on issues of concern to SSWG.

Threatened and Endangered Species Issues. The first will involve marine mammals, especially the right whale which has received public concern and affects aquaculture in specific areas. Recently the Navy has expressed lack of interest in monitoring. Mr. Chris Mantaris (Habitat NMFS ) commented that under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) any activity in Federal waters that requires a Federal permit requires a "consultation". The burden of responsibility falls on COE. To issue a permit they must assess the impacts. COE, NMFS and EPA exchange information. A "take" is not just the removal of an animal but "harassment". He thinks that the process is very flexible and results in a "consultation". Often applicants have to get three permits: NOAA, EPA, and COE. It is a learning experience in which they work closely with the Council (NEFMC). In response to a query about the Judge's ruling on the right whale, Mr. Mantaris replied that in Massachusetts the state must apply for "incidental take" under ESA. Massachusetts has been given time to come up with a management plan. Mr. Johnson believes that the Federal Courts can't burden the state with requirements of ESA! This issue will probably end up in the supreme Court. However as a result of these two issues, aquaculture will become the target of environmental groups. Ms. Dierdre Kimball observed that whenever someone comes up for an aquaculture permit, a biological assessment is required. She does not consider that this should be required every time. Mr. Grant Kelley (COE) believes that ESA has had a "chilling effect" on EEZ aquaculture! He favored zoning of the EEZ where you could do a biological assessment of an area and consider a wide group of parameters. This is a potential proposal which would be the ultimate answer. Ms. Judy Dutra noted that this could not be done on an individual basis. Potential aquaculturists are discouraged when they learn what they (Dutra's) have had to do. The administration of this is top heavy with fishermen.

Dr. Porter Hoagland reported that he is in the early stages of a blue musscle project that only requires a COE permit. They are doing an assessment under section 7 - which is not burdensome and utilizes the assessment of the Dutra project in modeling with updates. Their biggest hurdle is the length (months) of the process. This could be speeded up with a Webb Page. Mr. Kelley responded that without further help the provcess could not be accelerated. Mr. Cliff Goudey remarked that his earlier comments were based on perception not legality. Fishing activity goes on in areas resrticted for aquaculture. He asked whether shellfish aquaculture would be a candidate for a general permit from COE, etc., and fall within parameters which would not trigger a permit process. Mr. Kelley responded that they do have the basis for this. However he was unsure if all parties under EPA would go along with this. Mr. Simonitsch returned to the differences in regulating aquaculture vs wild fisheries. As a working fisherman it has taken 4 years to get a Nantucket Sound permit. Since success is site specific he does not know what will hen here. He asked again if COE was likely to find some activity that is below the level of threshold. Dr. Halvorson reported that in the IMBC meetings Dr. Harald Rosenthal, Chair of the European Union Aq. Committee, described aquaculture parks which were environmentally sound. Mr. Kelley thought that it would be difficult to get approval for these. Dr. Pearce thought that needs could be addressed by "case studies " based on research in Europe and elsewhere. These "case studies" would have a legal involvement from the beginning. Dr. Dale Leavitt said his perception was that people in the regulatory community were trying to help but that NMFS was not proactive. It required confrontation to obtain action. He called for an attitude change. Dr. Rhodes reminded him that in 1979 NMFS was ordered to get out of aquaculture. The attitude is now changing. The FMC has changed their attitude in the last few years and has brought their abilities to manage fisheries to the table. He cited two important factors: (1) For aquaculture to proceed in the EEZ, there is an enforcement requirement that needs to be involved in their regulatory framework. (2) They have a perception of gear conflicts - the largest tension in the industry. NEFMC provides the forum for these deliberations. Finally recalling the poor experience of summer flounder aquaculture off Plum Island, NY, he urged SSWG not to settle for poor locations because they were politically more acceptable. Mr. Ludwig noted that if you are to manage an "aquacultured" wild stock, then you need to apply the same recommendations / requirements to cultured as well as wild stocks. Thus we need to develop this body of knowledge. For an environmentally compatible aquaculture it may require a large company (e.g. Tyson) to generate that body of knowledge. Mr. Goudey commented that the Westport site was selected because nobody else wanted it. He also noted that the NOAA Aquaculture document does not state that the agency will help to identify suitable sites. It was recognized that NMFS is working in this direction.

The topic then turned to sea turtles. Mr. Mantzaris noted that sea turtles will be treated the same as marine mammals. The present management of stocks will apply with closure of areas, etc. A migratory pattern has been noted. During the past 5 years more and more are appearing off Long Island Sound. Whether this is due to population increases or temperature changes is not known. This is a larger problem for capture fisheries. Thus far there are fewer animals in Massachusetts. They are found in shallower waters feeding on crabs and mussels. Mr. Johnson noted that well tendered pen systems might mitigate against entanglement. Mr. Kelley considered remote aquaculture sites (such as EEZ), which are visited by vessels only every few weeks, might have greater problems. Well tendered aquaculture sites might be fine. The next few summers will help decide the problem here.

Ownership of Living Marine Resources in the EEZ Dr. Halvorson introduced this topic by noting that the ownership of animal released into the environment by aquaculturists has arose frequently in our discussions. Mr. Johnson, quoting the Supreme Court, said that fishermen do not own fish until it is captured. He concluded that animals which have been kept in closed environments are owned. Regarding animals released in a restricted environment, under current regulations only certain individuals are allowed to go into the area. FMC has the authority. He further stated that Congress has asked NMFS not to do any more ITQ's until 2000 and then assess what "we have done" to date. One of the side benefits in the Caribbean is that stopping fishing in an area increases marine reserves by allowing brood stocks to increase. Limited government resources do not permit genetically marked and released animals to be protected for the producer. Ms. Forielli asked about leased coral hard rocks in SE. Mr. Johnson replied that the Council prohibited removing the rocks but did give permits for aquaculture in the area. Dr. Halvorson reminded the group that an earlier OTA study looked at ownership below oil rigs and issued permits. Appreciation for the activities of the Commerce Dept. were expressed. Mr. Johnson noted that this was a matter of perception. NMFS has an aquaculture unit at Milford and governance by fish management laws. The view was expressed that FMC represents one organization, representing all stakeholders - including the state, who through its Council issues permits and focuses on environmentally sound practices. Dr. Pearce reported that at IMBC'97 Dr. Ito reported high aquaculture productivity in the near shore waters off Japan. Mr. Simmonitsch noted that in Japan they use the middle water column to avoid problems. Dr. Rhodes reported that for the first year NOAA will be doing gear research and studying whale behavior. White whales have sonar, others do not. Today there are 23 right whales off the mouth of Narragansett Bay - which was just opened for activity. They have planes flying out to follow these whales. He suggested that reflective type gear might be helpful. In response to how a new system might look, Mr. Johnson replied that the NOAA plans do not take away any authority from any federal agency. The need for aquaculture is so important there should be no threat to any federal agency from the Dept. of Commerce. They do not want to get involved in a state - federal jurisdiction conflict. The state has regulatory control in state waters. Federal government actions should be consistent with the state CZM program. NOAA staff working on legislation will insure that the Federal Program complements CZM Programs and that environmental issues will be addressed. There are two new features to the legislation: (1) Authority will be given to the Secretary of Commerce to issue permits for ocean aquaculture in the EEZ. The Councils are not constituted nor have the staff for this work load. (2) Funds for aquaculture is authorized. The Fisheries Capital Construction Fund is open to fishermen for aquaculture. The hope that the Dept. of Agriculture will extend insurance coverage to aquaculture. In response to a question from Mr. Grant as to whether NOAA sees itself dealing with environmental consequences as well as stocks per se, Mr. Johnson replied "yes".

Issues Involving Wild Resource Management vs. Aquaculture Research Regarding exclusivity of aq. permits, Mr. Johnson replied it depends on the structure. For leases of ocean bottoms, other uses could be carried out above it. A hearing would be required for a set aside. In the NOAA draft they have the ability to recover fees from the exclusive use for aquaculture. There is a parallel to management of the Outer Continental Shelf. Commercial fishermen and aquaculturists must be perceived to be treated equally. Modest fees will probably be applied to both. Dr. Hoagland notes that in OCS Lands Act, the Secretary of the Interior is asked to balance user claims. Will the Secretary of Commerce have a similar role? Mr. Johnson replied that Congress will have to establish the authority. Dr. Pearce noted that someone needs to balance the vast ocean resources for the country. He cited the high economic growth in aquaculture in Korea since the early "70's. Mr. Simonitsch stated aquaculture is going to happen - the question is whether it is the US or elsewhere. Dr. Halvorson, citing the World Bank and other NGO's interest in sustainable aquaculture, inquired about the safety standards and environmentally sound overseas aquaculture. FAO reports draw attention to Developing Countries taking sea food away from their own people for export income. Mr. Johnson stated that as living standards go up in Developing Countries, these nations will want to retain their aquaculture products and not export them. Commenting on Massachusetts activities, Mr. Scott Soares applauded NOAA and NMFS for their proactive role for aquaculture. He reviewed Mass. efforts to get a permit guidance document draft which identifies all state concerns (species, structure, water source, discharge). NMFS has assigned some one to integrate these plans with Federal Agencies (NMFS, COE, NOAA and NEFMC). They are working towards single stop (one point of entry) permitting. Their document, which does not add new regulations, will be ready by the end of May. Dr. Halvorson commented that the public, who ultimately must decide, needs to be informed and that this is a mission for all (State, Federal, and private).

Mr. Goudey reported NEFMC approval for 1 1/2 years for Westport Project at their last meeting. Ms. Fiorelli commented that this has to go to a second Council meeting for final approval.

Mr. Johnson and Dr. Rhodes expressed their appreciation for the efforts of SSWG to promote aquaculture. They noted the attitude changes in Dept. Commerce and that everything will be done to promote aquaculture in an environmentally sound way. DOC will fund projects to gain scientific information to test hypothesis. Companies were encourage to help.

Next Meeting The next of SSWG will be held at 9:30 AM Tuesday June 9. at CCEDC, Hyannis. Agenda to follow.

SSWG members are encouraged to submit comments on NOAA Draft document (see attachment) to Cliff Goudey or Harlyn Halvorson.

Harlyn Halvorson April 29, 1998