|
Attendance: John Baldwin, Gary Burris, Leo Byrnes, Sebastian Belle, Sandy Campbell, Michael Chambers, John Dellea,
Alan Desbonnet, Mark Forest, Kate Foster, Rob Garrison, Cliff Goudey, Harlyn Halvorson, Rollin Johnson, Rick Karney,
Dale Leavitt, Scott Lindell, Mike Ludwig, Diane Murphy, Eric Nelson, Skip Norgeot, Curtis Olsen, Jack Pearce,
Robert Rheault, Ken Riaf, Steven Roberts, Ron Smolowitz, Scott Soares, Paul Somerville, Richard Taylor, Steve Tucker,
Beth Walton, Jim Widman, and Richard York. Welcome Harlyn Halvorson thanked the Mass. Maritime Academy, Dale Leavitt and Cam Gifford for generously arranging
and providing the facilities once again for this meeting. He reminded the group that in 1994 the SSWG was created to
work toward the "Development of Socially, Economically and Environmentally Sustainable Aquaculture" in the Northeast.
Through our regular meetings and two workshops (1995, 1999) SSWG began by tackling the legal/regulatory issues and
permitting issues associated with aquaculture in the Northeast. As members of SSWG recall this led to the Seasted Project -
a nine square mile site south of Martha's Vineyard, MA, for an 18-month experiment and demonstration project involving sea
scallop research and aquaculture. This Project was the first permit for aquaculture issued in US Federal waters.
Much has transpired over the last several years and now is the time to evaluate all these efforts and development to
develop offshore aquaculture in the EEZ. A Sea Grant funded group have been trying to come up with a framework for the
administration and management of aquaculture in the EEZ. Sea Grant has funded two projects (1) Development of a Policy
Framework for Offshore Marine Aquaculture (completed), and (2) Toward an Operational Framework for Offshore Aquaculture
(in Draft). The committee is chaired by Dr. Biliana Cicin-Sain, Director, Center for the Study of Marine Policy,
University of Delaware. Dr Bob Rheault ad I are two from the NE on this committee. Dr. Rheault, President of Moonstone
Oysters, a board member of the National Aquaculture Association, and past Acting Director of NRAC, will lead us through
the seven chapters in this draft. After each chapter there is a page for your comments.
Congressional Perspective Harlyn Halvorson in introducing Mark Forest said that he is in charge of district office
for Representative Delahunt, and prior to that Representative Studds, is one who is deeply involved with the fisheries
and aquaculture issues in this region, and was the key individual responsible for the creation of SSWG. As a deeply
involved staffer he will share with us the congressional perspective. Mark Forest said he was pleased to be there and
hear the discussion, as Rep. Delahunt is interested in many of these issues. He noted that Congress has not taken any
action on the Wind farms, any governing structure, what will the process be, etc. The Oceans Commission may well come
up with recommendations. We are interested in bringing the Oceans Commission, some of whose staff members were members
of the old House Merchant Marine Fisheries Committee chaired by Rep. Studds, to hear and address local issues. We hope
to meet with them at the end of the month. He wished us well in our endeavors.
Keynote lecture: Oceans in need of balance: Pro and anti-aquaculture meet in the middle Gary Burris expects aquaculture to increasingly become the source of food for the planet. He discussed his recent experience
in Australia, and showed a film detailing this, where fishermen themselves organized to regulate and cut back on the effort
for the fisheries. He showed a documentary showing the transition from a bust to a robust fishery. They have controlled
the amount and type of feed to generate a more nutritious product. He went on to stress the importance of public trust
considerations and conservation of energy. In this process the public must be invited and participate.
Recommendations for Operational Framework for Offshore Aquaculture in the EEZ Chapter 1 Planning and Site Selection Chapter 2 Joint Permitting Framework Chapter 3 Environmental Review Chapter 4 Leasing General Provisions Administration and oversight Monitoring may be carried out to: Information to be collected Coordination Lead Agency Planning and siting Leases Chapter 5 Operations and Monitoring
Agents which can cause environmental effects and shall require monitoring include:
o organic wastes from feces and waste feed
o nutrients within the water column, and
o medicines, therapeutants and chemicals, including antifouling agents
Data collection may be required for:
o Pre_license baseline studies e.g. determining site sensitivity; Potential weaknesses and associated risks to be avoided include:
o a failure to analyze and review the data statistical analysis should be used to meet the following operational requirements: Chapter 6 Compliance and Enforcement ENFORCEMENT OPTIONS Chapter 7 Administration Robert Rheault led the discussion of the draft chapters of the report. Jack Pearce noted that one of the tangible effects on having NOAA as the lead agency is that you have within NOAA
biological, chemical, and physical expertise about the oceans, all of which is important for marine aquaculture.
AQUACULTURE ZONES Mike Ludwig- Unless the MAZ is based on optimal habitat for the species to be grown/studied in its confines,
the researcher/grower starts with any number of natural handicaps in the hunt for success.
Katie Wilson - The zoning scheme seems to offer a range of positive advantages. It is a basic construct with
great potential, particularly because the basic scheme is something we all encounter on land. Perhaps you are also
considering incorporating provisions for rotational managment where the zoning restricitions and entitlements could
be modified to respond to certain variable or changed conditions. We see this in the agricultural context and could
be applicable here as well.
Rob Garrison noted that in Massachusetts you already have aquaculture in mooring areas. Inshore there are more
conflicts.
Scott Lindell: a concern that Leasing Provisions should include (as described on page 36) "...granting exclusive
rights to the ownership of the cultured species including shellfish or fish that are "planted" but not confined in
those waters (my addendum)". This could help community-based aquaculture initiatives that involve "ranching" of aquatic
species.
Mike Ludwig - 1) There is a body of law regarding the rights and responsibilities of leasing open ocean areas for
power generation. In the late 1980s, Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) was a hot topic for the waters off Hawaii.
Law and CFRs were put in place to manage OTEC development. That information its found in 33 CFR section 99. It could
be used as a pilot for offshore aquaculture. You'll find that NOAA was the lead on the topic.
2) There is a rapidly growing interest in placing windmill driven electric generation facilities in the EEZ.
The process and procedures are identical to those needed for offshore aquaculture. At the present time, the
Army Corps of Engineers is the lead. The efforts are focused in the Northeast right now, but what works for
permitting here will be embraced throughout the U S. You have the first big (170 units) windmill proposal by
Cape Wind in Nantucket Sound.
In developing the Clean Water Act, there was considerable concern about new technologies. This was particularly true
in dealing with EPA. The difficulty in having NOAA the lead agency is that NOAA is not a development agency. At the
beginning you need an RIIA to input private money for development at the local level. You need local focus groups to
work out the procedures. With EPA it was not until much later that they came up with local experts to develop their
strategy.
Robert Rheault, in response to doubts about the proposed procedures, thought that no one would be willing to invest
in the EEZ unless there are assurances that they have exclusive rights to the animals being cultured.
One concern was that if the office was created in NOAA, and is not used, that you have personnel which will want to
deal with inshore issues.
Mike Ludwig - There is no uniformity in the information needs of the assessment procedures, but that reflects
the diversity in the limited number of large-scale aquaculture requests we have reviewed. However, I suggest that the
Federal procedures used to assess applications do have uniformity. There is a dearth of facts regarding environmental
impacts associated with retention structures, husbandry of the farmed species and the impacts of both in an open water
setting. This situation is not unusual in the regulatory business. And, yes, the topic of aquaculture is not specifically
covered with a procedural protocol. But, few activities subject to permitting are afforded such focused attention. I
expect that regulatory types can look at any action in terms of its environmental impact by asking questions about
structures and water quality. Those two items are covered in the Rivers and Harbors Act and Clean Waters Act.
Appended to that legislation are the other laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species
Act, Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act that enable
or focus attention on specific resources. The framework for invocation of the regulatory process may appear to be a
"hodge-podge that only tangentially address aquaculture," but, I suggest that is incorrect and results from perception
and expectation rather than factual evaluation. I do agree that it is unlikely that OA will ever garner a special place
in regulatory programming, but does it need to achieve that status?
The information shortage is another matter. I have come to believe that reasonable flexibility in "growing" an OA operation is the key to a successful permitting experience. By applying profitability and issue resolution criteria, an initial installation size can be identified and a monitoring program used to address uncertainties while growing the operation to full size. Phased development of a site allows monitoring of events and conditions where insufficient information is available, but expectations are high that impacts are acceptable. There are projects that lack redeeming social value, they should not be authorized. As the monitoring information collects, the industry, public and regulators build on expectations with solid facts that should facilitate subsequent expansions and similar proposals. To that end, the Regulatory Agencies have not sat by and watched aquaculture development unfurl. We have and will continue to facilitate applications for OA. Curiously, we see that the expectation of applicants is operating, often, on a wholly different level than regulators'. The nature of the procedures needed to authorize any type of private activities within the Public Trust Waters of the US is not a simple task, nor should it be. Instant permits are not in the immediate offing.
The burden of depicting how an OA operation fits within the multi-use mix presently in-place, in ocean waters, lies with the proponent of the activity. Often times, we find the proponent has not fully appreciated the nature and breath of the information required for a complete application for activities in those Public Trust Waters. To address this situation, NMFS, in conjunction with EPA, the Corps of Engineers (COE) and the New England Fisheries Management Council, created guidance and procedures for assessing OA proposals. The information is contained on a single page of paper. The guidance is designed to facilitate the education of all parties in an OA evaluation by setting goals and noting procedures for a comprehensive presentation of the request. To facilitate the presentation, NMFS NERO developed a guidance package for aquaculture, based on meeting the National Environmental Policy Act objectives. Yes, the first applicants in the regulatory process are scrutinized more thoroughly than subsequent proponents entering the process, but that reflects, simply, the learning curve related to the development of any project, not a reticence by the regulatory community to perform their functions. We are in the throes of developing similar protocols for assessing and, potentially, authorizing offshore windmill generated electricity (offshore windfarms). There are more similarities than differences AND windfarms occupy more real estate than OAs!
NOAA does not contain a staff structure that can be redirected toward permitting or leasing sites for OA operations. Building that structure would take a lot of time and effort. There are members of NOAA that do not support those statements, but one should consider the existing staff size, mission and funding as well as the existing regulatory programs in our sister agencies. The Corps of Engineers (COE) and Minerals Management Service (MMS) do have such legislation, regulations, programs, funding, and people, their staff are located in the field and they have regulatory experience. While standards are set at the Headquarters level, the grunt work invariably falls to the field staff. Clearly, MMS and, primarily, the COE have the staffing and where-withal to permit OA. Without a significant constituency to alter Federal Law or Administration practices, it might be wiser to accept the present process and work to make it more efficient.
Curiously, efficiency in the permitting process is misrepresented or poorly perceived, all too frequently. As I noted above, there is a disconnection between the expectation of the various parties. The folks and Agencies involved in permitting require a certain level of assurance that authorized activities do not pose a threat to the resources or other users of the Public Trust. To achieve that level of confidence with a proposal, we require, often, a large and far ranging evaluation of the potential consequences of an action. The length of time needed to convince applicants of the need for such a depiction and the time needed to collect the information for that action are the two largest causes of protraction of the evaluation process. Yes, the third most common problem is lack of specific expertise on proposals, but the nature of the business is such that institutional memory is in short supply. It would not be a surprise to see that expertise more available if the flow of aquaculture requests increased. In all three situations, we should strive to make the protocols more obvious. Rebuilding the ship after it left the dock often has unanticipated consequences.
Ron Smolowitz said that siting issues were local. He thought that we were proceeding from the top down and not the reverse. We need to work with exisiting users of the EEZ (fishermen) or there will be tremendous resistance. Proposed framework will prohibit participation by small operators. We need to find some way not to inhibit small-scale entrepreneurs.
He believes that odds of getting a new Office in NOAA authorized in the current administration are exceedingly remote. (opinion shared by most)
Alternative we should be tweaking the existing authorizations in the Magnussen Act (and others as needed) and not by creating a new structure. For example : growout or spat collection will require changes in the MSA. Permit applications become EISs or EAs. Government should help by writing the EIS's that are required.
Sebastian Belle noted that private capital will move overseas before putting up with these regulatory costs. Some of the most entrepreneurial people are already being driven overseas. The present management plan is trying to reduce the number of fishermen across the board.
There was an expression of support for the structure and thrust of Chapters, 6 and 7. (Ludwig) The process works and with minor tweaking (not a new office) could work better. Permits were (eventually) given for the Norwegian project, Seasted and one for WHOI.
There was a general discussion of the importance of separating regulatory activities from advocacy. NOAA has grabbed the former through a questionable interpretation of the MSA that calls aquaculture "fishing". The USDA needs to do a better job of advocacy in Marine waters. -Regional Centers underfunded, but right idea. US entrepreneurs must compete with other nations that throw millions of dollars of subsidies at their industries. Canada declared aquaculture as a priority 15 years ago - $64 million in subsidies this year. Sebastian Bell said the real battle to be fought is on the development side. When we push investment to other nations with less environmental controls or enforcement (as we do now) then we in effect push environmetal problems to other nations. "Eco-racism"
The view was held that every grower should be able to determine what place in the ocean he could place his activity. A pre-permitted site would facilitate an application, but we cannot forsee every type of future development. Robert Rheault feels we need both; pre-permitted areas and the right to go elsewhere. Aquaculture zones will be in the areas that no one else wants and are not likely to be the areas most conducive to growth. Someone else disagreed - aquaculture should be restricted to zones or zones become meaningless.
Katie Wilson - The zoning scheme seems to offer a range of positive advantages. It is a basic construct with great potential, particularly because the basic scheme is something we all encounter on land. Perhaps you are also considering incorporating provisions for rotational managment where the zoning restricitions and entitlements could be modified to respond to certain variable or changed conditions. We see this in the agricultural context and could be applicable here as well.
Rob Garrison noted that in Massachusetts you already have aquaculture in mooring areas. In shore there are more conflicts.
Rollin B. Johnson, PhD I was really impressed by the great effort you and others put into the draft document for
NOAA for aquaculture in the EEZ. While I will probably have more comments for you soon, there are two I'd like to emphasize.
My work about and for the Federal Government persuades me that trying to make aquaculture in the EEZ work within existing
institutions and structures is a wise approach. Said another way, not to create new structures is a reasonable principle
to follow. It is always difficult to creat new offices and institutions, and then to ensure that they are actually funded. I believe it is easier to add programs items to existing institutions and their mission statements than creating new institutions.
Secondly, I hope that your recommendations encourage the entrepreneurial spirit of large and small companies. In the care
to give all parties and users of federal waters a voice, I hope you can still reward the entrepreneurs for being the first
to propose an aquaculture activity in a particular site by giving them the priority they deserve for sticking their necks
out, putting their time, energy, and money on the line, and putting together a detailed proposal. Another consideration is
whether the process (whether it be bids as for mining leases on the continently shelf, or some other strategy) puts small
operations at a disadvantage, meaning they cannot compete and an important source of creativity and pioneering spirit is
discouraged. A third point I had was on compensation. There has been a lot of criticism about how the Federal Government
has allowed ranchers to graze on federal lands in the West at bargain basement prices, and for the federal government to
sell timber on federal lands to private companies at absurdly low rates. The same criticism may be directed to aquaculture
in the EEZ if compensation isn't worked out carefully. What is the fee charged for a lease if no aquaculture is done?
Being given an exclusive use of a site is a cost to the public. How is that cost evaluated? Relevant to my second point,
if the leases are too dear, they may exclude small enterprises. Also, how to limit companies from buying up too many of
the leases and holding them?
Rob Garrison noted that in Massachusetts you already have aquaculture in mooring areas. Inshore there are more conflicts.
Harlyn Halvorson thanked the participants and requested that they fill out the comment sheets at the end of the draft document and return it to him. These comments will be very helpful to the entire committee for updating the document.
*************************************************************
Dr. Harlyn Halvorson |