Project Participants 

I.    Introduction..............................................................................................2

II.     National Workshop.................................................................................2

National Workshop 1     

Washington, D.C.      

September 23-24, 2002.........................................................................2

III. Regional Workshops..............................................................................13

      Gulf of Mexico Regional Workshop

      September 10-12, 2002..........................................................................13

      Maine Regional Workshop

      September 13, 2002................................................................................15

      Massachusetts Regional Workshop

      September 17, 2002................................................................................19

      Hawaii Regional Workshop

      October 3, 2002........................................................................................26

      Seattle Regional Workshop

      October 25, 2002......................................................................................36

Towards an Operational Framework for Offshore Aquaculture in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone

National and Regional Workshop Summaries

I.  Introduction

This document provides a report on the progress of the project funded by the National Sea Grant Program to develop a detailed operational framework for offshore aquaculture in the 3-200 mile U.S. ocean zone.

One of the milestones of the project is the presentation of the draft guidelines developed by the multi-disciplinary project team at a national workshop comprising relevant stakeholders from federal and state agencies, as well as congressional staff, environmental and industry groups.  Prior to this workshop, the project team collaborated in November of 2001 and subsequently developed a thorough operational framework. 

This document includes reports from the National Workshop and five regional workshops held in the areas which currently exhibit the most extensive activity in offshore aquaculture: New England, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Pacific Islands.

Feedback emerging from these workshops will be incorporated into the revision of the operational framework.  Regarding this project, the multi-disciplinary team is currently revising individual chapters of the framework and continuing to research various environmental, leasing/permitting, administrative, planning, operation/monitoring, and compliance/enforcement avenues.  The team will hold another coordination meeting in April 2003, followed by a second national workshop later in the year.  Upon completion of the project, the revised operational framework will be prepared and presented formally to Congress, the federal agencies, and other interested parties.

II.  National Workshop 1

The purpose of the first National Workshop, held on September 24, 2002 in Washington D.C., was to present the draft recommendations developed by the project team to knowledgeable individuals from the federal and state agencies, Congress, industry and nongovernmental organizations, and to solicit feedback and comment. A project team meeting was held on the September 23, 2002 with the team prior to the National Workshop.

2. Meeting Summary September 23, 2002

The meeting began with a report on the regional workshop meetings that had been held prior to September 23, i.e., the Gulf of Mexico and two Northeast regional workshops held in Maine and Massachusetts.

Points raised at these meetings by attendees focused on:

-        the inclusion of a blanket exemption for offshore aquaculture in the FMPs

-        the advantages and disadvantages of the application process being centralized or regionalized

-        the possibility of a conflict of interest if the permitting and leasing authorities are held within the same office/agency

-        restructuring the report such that administration is one of the first sections

-        attendees of regional workshops were interested in who reviewed the Volume 1 documents

The main themes discussed by the team members regarding the draft report included:

-        the addition of a road map showing how a certain recommendation was reached for each chapter (i.e., show how the author reached a certain conclusion or recommendation)

-        recombining chapters 6 and 7 into a single chapter

-        terminology: short-term vs. long-term and "might apply" phrases

-        creation of glossary of terms

-        putting mapping and zoning towards the end as a "Long Term Planning" topic that shows our view of the future

Concerning the production of the reports, would like to issue the reports together as Volume 1 and Volume 2 in a Offshore Aquaculture Policy Series with complimentary covers and more photos

Other outputs would include the preparation of a draft bill (Tony MacDonald as a possible lead for this), the preparation of model permits/leasing applications (John Corbin lead), and other appendices (glossary, etc.).

3.      National Workshop 1 September 24, 2002

3.1  Clarifying comments during presentations

Administration:

-        The question was raised as to whether the proposed aquaculture office will be an in-line office or a program

Leasing:

-        a variety of issues need some clarification including species ownership, the exemption process from FMPs, native species, and stock ownership

Planning/Site Assessment:

-        the distinction between pre-permitted (a range of activities including aquaculture) and designated (for aquaculture)

-        McVey:  China, Japan and Korea have had some applicable coastal zone management experiences, especially with nutrient carrying capacity

Environmental Review:

-        McVey and Macon:  concerns with the impacts of native and domesticated stock escapes on genetic diversity (essentially wild stocks are currently used)

Operation, Monitoring, Compliance, Enforcement

-        McVey:  government is currently paying for 5 projects, but not a lot of money devoted to aquaculture

-           Macon: the real question will be "who is responsible for ENFORCEMENT?"

3.2     Discussion

Administration and Implementation

-        Subsidies

o           Jay: We need to pay attention to financial implications and how to deal with the bureaucracy in advance of development of the industry in terms of what the government will subsidize i.e. Hawaii provides infrastructural support and finance

o           McVey:  considering the volume of seafood imported to the United States, we are subsidizing aquaculture in other countries who may not have environmentally responsible production processes

o           U.S. need to put money into the industry if it doesn't want domestic efforts to move overseas

o           Jay: private sector will not be able to deal with the problems financially, there should be government assistance, but not necessarily in the form of direct subsidies. There is a difference between providing direct subsidies and providing an enabling environment, the latter is more of a government role.

o           Manken:  The government should be paying for monitoring if it wants the offshore aquaculture industry to expand

-        Conflict resolution:

o           Lockhart: there needs to be some framework to decide amongst users and to settle conflicts amongst users

-        Further development of databases:

§        Herman:  have to have some knowledge or database and further develop GIS technology to include the depth component of an aquaculture facility—need a 3-D projection

-        Role of Army Corps of Engineers:

o           MMS representatives: The role of the ACOE in terms of oil and gas includes an area-wide permit (this is not a heavy process for a single permit), which is easy for ACOE to have authority because it is mandated under OCSLA

o           There is no such law for aquaculture

o           In the case of the Nantucket windfarms, while this issue does not have a regulating law, ACOE has taken control of windfarms under the Section 10 process

§        Olsen:  an application for aquaculture should be sent to district offices, where the people are aware of regional issues, not headquarters

-        Regional vs. National

o           Regional differences in dealing with applications

§        Jordan: the differences for aquaculture permits state to state are often based on effluents policies

§        When there are differences from region to region, there should be scientific justification (try to go in this direction)

o           NMFS: concerned there is no national policy direction

§        A national level policy could branch out to the regions

§        Jay: certain Fishery Management Councils will be supportive and others will not be.

-        Are objections being raised regarding aquaculture "permits" based on sound environmental science or on the economic concern (competition) of the fishery industry?

-        Are offshore aquaculturists going to be competing with foreign or domestic industries?

§        Herman: industry discussion of whether aquaculture is within the pervue of the Fisheries Management Councils

§        Cobia example—has to be an amendment to FCMA or all new legislation (exemption?)

§        Jay: limits put on fisheries (size, weight, etc.) are not consistent or applicable to aquaculture

-        The Fishery Management Councils have a legislative consultative role, not a regulatory role

-        Is there a statute that states FCMs have authority over aquaculture?

o         Water quality standards

§        Hirshfield: until we get water quality standards for the EEZ into the CWA there will still be an ad hoc process

-      Can NPDES be issued in the EEZ if there are no water quality standards established?

·        A possibility, but agency in charge could be challenged and sued

§        Herman:  what kind of standards are there now?

-        Jordan: effluent guidelines for Aquatic Animal Production (EPA)—any discharges in the U.S. (could apply to the EEZ)—these standards are in public comment/review right now

-        Effluent guidelines for the oil and gas industry

o         The role of the JSA

§        JSA has the responsibility to encourage the industry (created under the National Aquaculture Act)

§        JSA is looking at broad issues (communication between agencies, health management issues)—good model of how things work

o           The USDA is looking at aquaculture development, period, not necessarily for offshore, but there is no need to distinguish between fresh and marine systems as they have essentially have the same needs and services

o           Alternative energy sources example (MMS)

§        Creation of easements for windfarms

§        LNG introduced to Port Security under DOT

§        Need to establish a way to process rights of different user groups (conflicts and equity)

-        What rights will a lease (permit) convey?

§        Need to establish a way to increase cooperation amongst related agencies

-        For example, MMS has taken over a lot of the Coast Guard inspection responsibilities because MMS already has inspectors on site

§        McVey:  Have to look into including "free ranging facilities" into framework, creation of mobile leases?

o           Should a regime be established for the water column?  Will a lease on the seafloor extend to the water column or will a new regime be more appropriate

o           NOAA is looking at establishing a new office to address cross cutting issues (Chavez)

§        Aquaculture is one of those issues

§        Broussard:  need to make sure "Office of Offshore Aquaculture" is not isolated from the parent agency and receives appropriate money and resources

Permitting

-        Agency involvement

o           Memorandums of Agreement and Understanding

§        One done in the 1980s not specific to EEZ, but could be done

o           Who can be the point for contact in a process that satisfies all agencies

§        ACOE Section 10 permit is limited to the construction of structures (enforcement capacity is limited); can't enforce antibiotic use, etc.

§        Needs to start out on a small-scale, in order to collect fees and give assistance, etc.

§        NOAA could be billed as the lead agency, but would need consultation from MMS

-        State involvement

o           State involvement in oil and gas

§        CZMA consistency and discussion of multiple state consistency review processes

§        What is the time frame to get multiple states to submit a consistency review?

§        Kay (MMS): MMS has a phased process because of uncertainty of the resource and the impacts (which include the facilities on land, i.e., ports, waterways, etc., and related shipping efforts)

o           How do states deal with landing laws?

§        This differs, some have an exemption of aquaculture in their landing laws (e.g., South Carolina where aquaculture resources are considered private property and exempt from state landing laws

Leasing

-        Collection of fees and compensation, especially since fish produced through aquaculture will be going into the same market as capture fish

o           Jay: NOAA, which has a mechanism in place for collecting royalties, can build a program with the assistance of MMS on the leasing aspect of the program

o           Should include "royalties" as a symbol that tells excluded people from the area that the "owner" has paid for the right

o           Could crop insurance by applicable to aquaculture?

§        Not really, crop insurance pays the farmer

§        In oil and gas, MMS requires a bond that the platform will be removed and a fee against oil spills and disaster

Planning and Site Assessment

-      Who should be in the process of site designation (and how)?  The operator would definitely be interested

o     Chavez:  the 1983 EEZ Proclamation did not actually map or zone the EEZ, but a number of agencies now have the capability to do the mapping/zoning

§        Mapping has been done at NOAA with Marine Protected Areas and Marine Sanctuaries

§        MMS:  Technology is there, but need to increase the information sharing and coordination between agencies

§        USGS and NOAA are working together on GIS mapping projects

§        Technology of GIS and computers is available to produce maps

§        NOAA has funded to GIS projects in this regard

§        How much of the total water areas is being blocked off and designated as restricted access or closed off entirely?

§        Hawaii is currently in the process of doing GIS mapping (but having some difficulty getting information from some agencies)

§        MMS:  GIS zoning and mapping should show the areas that are feasible for offshore aquaculture (or might be easier to show where aquaculture efforts could NOT occur due to identified pre-existing activities)

-        Should leases be competitive or negotiated, or both?

o       Compensation is good for when there are a large number of firms interested

Environmental Review

-        First couple of questions raised are general administration and policy questions, but the last couple are very specific and may need their own scientific studies

-        SeaWeb:  the estimated impacts of an offshore aquaculture project should focus on the impact of escapees on the wild population AND the impact of other species on the caged fish

-        Discussion of a MMS project occurring in California before the COUGAR project that may contribute additional insights and lessons learned for offshore aquaculture

o           The state and federal agencies worked to together to draft the environmental review

-        Antibiotics

o           Broussard:  hopes the use of antibiotics are not prohibited; should really want to utilize existing legal drugs

§        Have NEPA reviews conducted with the view that the drugs would be used in system not considered (i.e., offshore aquaculture)

o        MMS:  not necessarily concerned about the impact of antibiotics on the environment, but are concerned with antibiotic body loads

§        How antibiotics are used should be heavily regulated (which they are by the USDA

o         DeVoe:  a more specific question is how to address the current public views and concerns of the public regarding aquaculture operations

-        Native vs. nonnative species and Invasive vs. noninvasive

o         Genetic and ecological interactions

§        Salmonids example of tracking fish: fin is clipped to distinguish between wild and caged fish at the marketplace (also shows aspect of ownership) and a microchip inserted

§        Example of Atlantic Salmon in Pacific, which are both non-indigenous and noninvasive, but Atlantic Salmon in New England could cause problems within the wild population (too genetically close and able to reproduce amongst the different species)

o        Really a question of what do we put in the cage?

§        In terms of GMOs, there is some guidance on this in the FDA, who is applying a new drug approval program for aquaculture

-       Site specific questions (last three questions of issues and concerns)

o       Hirshfield:  must focus on where we want to go in the future

§        Might think about creating "principles" related to drug and antibiotic use in the industry, e.g., Principle of minimizing use of drugs

Compliance and Enforcement

-        Issue of confidentiality vs. transparency (issue because have few producers in the market at the moment)

o        If there are going to be subsidies to fund this new industry, there should be some public reporting

§        But it is not really a subsidy when government is creating the infrastructure

o       Make provision of data a part of the permit requirements

o        MMS has civil and criminal authority and uniform inspectors; there is access to data but only after so many years is the data released to the public

o        NMFS has significant enforcement capabilities to take advantage of for policy

-        Katsorous:  should add some statements about the importance of fisheries; fish products are the #2 imported item in the United States, etc.

4.      Wrap-up Session

The key points and questions emerging during the wrap-up session of the national workshop include:

Institutional authority: who should be responsible for offshore aquaculture or the agency for EEZ?

-        Need to articulate why we are going with NOAA over MMS (an agency with leasing experience)

o        It is really a mission issue; NOAA has a more appropriate mission that would benefit aquaculture in the long-term); in this case NOAA is more appropriate

o        Developing what we think is needed to foster offshore aquaculture (NOAA would be the only one with sufficient ocean knowledge)

-        Suggestions made during discussion that an "Office of…" would be better as a line agency, therefore it would not be a target, but we still need a highly visible agency

o         Concerns that an "Office of…" would only become a project within NOAA

-        MMS said the ACOE permit only deals with obstructions

o         Firestone:  We might need a new permit, where the lease governs the nuts and bolts and the operating permit has more specifics

o         Firestone:  argument for a MMS lead

o         DeVoe:  early on in the first project, the team sort of ruled out MMS

-        Should we use existing structure and infrastructure?

o         Which agency is the most likely to undergo the most change after the Ocean Commission publishes its report?

o         NOAA deals operational aspects

o         There is the additional issue of mistrust between environmentalists and MMS, but MMS does have a lot of experience issuing leases and permits

§        MMS is very advanced regarding leasing and permitting, they have a unique perspective and they are very knowledgeable and have a lot of capability in this area

§        On the other hand, NOAA has the marine experience and a good environmental track record

-        We also need to develop some direction for aquaculture, it needs some predictability

-        What about MOUs between agencies?

o         Only problem with this is that it does not create new responsibilities, we really need a new overarching framework

-        Maybe a gradation of options is the way to start:  first create the MOUs and MOAs, then create the Office/Lead Agency

o         How do we enable this in the short-term to get the industry going?

§        Short-term is not good because there would have to be a change in the law, changing the responsibilities of MMS/NOAA

§        Worries about the politics of creating new legislation to change the responsibilities of existing agencies

-        Also need to think about whether a leasor will be leasing the seabed bottom even if he is utilizing the water column

-        A solution to the leasing agency question might be to just state the need to have a leasing agency (don't name who) and wait to see what the Ocean Commission reports/recommends and then incorporate that into the report

o         We don't really want to wait for the Ocean Commission, they are waiting for us to produce something for them to review

The Report:

-        Authors need to be more thorough in documenting the process of reaching the suggested/recommended way of doing it

o         Want the thinking process, "option development," of you got to a given conclusion or recommendation

o         Options development often based on previous country's and state's experiences

o         Put together a diagram for each chapter demonstrating the recommended process for that chapter and then incorporate all diagrams into one super diagram that will show the entire process (the temporal aspect)

o         Discussion of whether or not to put the Siting section closer to the administration section

o         Need to start thinking about operationalizing whatever we recommend

o         Update of Volume 1 to include new state experiences and new offshore efforts

o         Puerto Rico, Gulf of Mexico, Puget Sound, etc.

o         Think of what changes in legislation (or new legislation) are needed

o         Timeline

o         Think about how the model permitting/leasing applications would be structured

o         In Environmental Review section:

§        Create table, something like below

-        Two-day team member meeting to be held in South Carolina, January 2003

o         Check calendars for availability during the weeks of January 13 or January 20

o         We will be building working group consensus and beginning to tie various elements together

5.      National Workshop Participants:

Charles Chestnutt---------------Army Corps of Engineers

Meryl Broussard ---------------Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture

Conrad Macon---------------- National Marine Fisheries Service

Jim Kendell---------------------Minerals Management Service

John Mirabella -----------------Minerals Management Service

Tim Redding -------------------Minerals Management Service

Amy White                              

Jay Johnson--------------------National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Frank Lockhart ----------------U.S. Ocean Commission

David Olsen--------------------Army Corps of Engineers

Kay Briggs---------------------Minerals Management Service

Jim Miller----------------------United States Department of Agriculture

Marta Jordan-------------------Environmental Protection Agency

Mary-Hope Katsorous ---------Consultant

Jean Flemma--------------------Resources Committee

Dan Herman--------------------National Fisheries Institute

Jim McVey---------------------National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Ashley Simons------------------SeaWeb

Mike Hirshfield-----------------Oceana

Forward to Webpage Part 2

Back to National Strategic Initiative Project Summaries 2001

Date this page loaded is 02/27/2003