Download - Marine spatial planning for shellfish aquaculture: tools ... · permitting and facilitated aquaculture expansion •The addition of environmental and shellfish models, high resolution

Marine spatial planning for shellfish

aquaculture: tools, activities, and conflict

resolution

Julie Rose

Nancy Balcom, Damian Brady, Suzanne Bricker, Susan Bunsick, Cary Chadwick, Anoushka Concepcion, Sylvain DeGuise, Tessa

Getchis, Laura Hoeberecht, Jamie Miller, Cori Rose, Michael Rubino, Bill Walton

Addressing spatial and social challenges to shellfish

aquaculture in the United States

• Spatial

• Ensuring a place for aquaculture in the coastal environment

• New tools and developments in nearshore marine spatial planning

• Strengths and limitations of GIS-based tools for conflict resolution

• Social

• Major barrier to aquaculture expansion throughout the United States

• Conflict can be both internal and external

• Opportunities provided by National and State-based Shellfish Initiatives to open dialogue, educate, and find common ground

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries |


Tools for addressing spatial challenges to

shellfish aquaculture

• GIS technology has given growers and regulators the

ability to visualize and minimize potential use conflicts

• Maps are becoming increasingly available in many

states


Mapping and site selection

Connecticut Aquaculture

Mapping AtlasMassachusetts Online Data

Viewer

New York Shellfish iMap

Aquaculture Mapping Atlas: GIS Layers

1) Street map: locate, identify area of interest

2) Add Imagery



3) Navigation layers: channel + buffer, bathymetry, cables, buoys

4) Shellfish Beds: location of municipal/state/natural beds


5) Shellfish classification: prohibited, conditional, approved


6) Environmental sensitivity index: habitats, species, diversity


7) Marina location: use conflicts


Step 1: Output“Suitable” sites based on mapping

Site 1.

Site 2.

Limitations of static mapping

Patrolia et al. (2016) combined boat-

based visual surveys with participant

intercept surveys to map human uses

of RI coastal lagoons

Participants indicated high use in the

entire area; observations suggest use

was not uniformly distributed

Some uses may appear to conflict but

in reality do not (e.g. water skiing &

recreational clamming)


Blue = reported use

Yellow = observed use

Limitations of static mapping: How well will

shellfish grow in “leftover” spaces?


Several farm-scale models are commercially available

to address biological production, ecological carrying

capacity, and environmental impacts

Pilot Study – Connecticut waters of Long Island

Sound

Sampling Details

Milford: Monthly for a year

Westport & Stonington: May-September

Station 09 and H2: Long-term water quality

monitoring stations; >15 years data

Environmental Inputs for FARM model

Temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen,

chlorophyll, particulates, current speeds

Pilot Study – Connecticut waters of Long Island

Sound

Typical culture practices

Collection of seed oysters (1-2 in) from

restricted areas

Grow out to 3 in harvest size in

conditional/approved leased areas

Days to harvest from 1 to 3 inches

indicator of site suitability

Thresholds for growth categories

High growth = <365 days

Moderate growth = 365 – 1095 days

Slow / low growth = 1095 – 1500 days

Not suitable for siting aquaculture = >1500

days

Results for pilot locations

High Growth; <365 days

Moderate Growth; 365 - 1095 days

Benefits of a combined approach

• Mapping does not address production potential - will

the target organism grow? At what rate in the system?

• Integrated, mapping + modeling allows users to

simultaneously address social, environmental,

economic factors towards an improved decision-making

process

• Responsible growth: expand into areas without

existing conflicts that are best suited for shellfish

production


Sustainable Ecological Network (SEANET)

• Damian C. Brady

• Paul Anderson

• University of Maine

• Carrie Byron

• Barry Costa-Pierce

• University of New England

Modeling and Monitoring Approach

Place-Based and Idea-Based (organism-

based)

Sea weed: hydrodynamics, light, and nutrient

dynamics

Oysters: hydrodynamics, nutrient, light,

and productivity dynamics

Salmon: hydrodynamics (sea

lice transport)

Slides from Damian Brady, U. Maine

What we are monitoring


(LOBOs):

Land Ocean

Biogeochemical

Observatories

LandSat to identify growing areas

• Unprecedented resolution

• Temperature (feeding rate, superchill)

• Chlorophyll (food)

• Turbidity (clarity)


Large-scale approach to aquaculture expansion

• “Finding the next Damariscotta River”: identify large

areas that are likely to be supportive of shellfish

growth and prioritize them for development

• Take advantage of new tools in water quality

management and apply them to aquaculture

• End of Trial-and-Error Aquaculture: Reduce risk for

new farms

Tools for addressing social challenges to

shellfish aquaculture


Social challenges can be external and internal

NIMBY opposition to aquaculture common in USA:


Social challenges can be external and internal

Internal fights can also exist within shellfish

stakeholder community


National Shellfish Initiative

Goal: increase populations of bivalves through shellfish farming and restoration

Encourage commercial and restoration shellfish communities to work together

Launched in 2011 to implement NOAA Aquaculture Policy

Slides from Michael Rubino, NOAA

Focus Areas: Benefits:

Spatial planning and efficient

permitting

Research on environmental

effects

Technologies for restoration and

farming

Coordinated and innovative

financing

Jobs

Habitat improvement

Species protection

Domestic Seafood

Shoreline protection


National Accomplishments: High Level Attention

• National Ocean Council directive: NOAA and USDA to implement National Shellfish Initiative (2013)

• National Strategic Plan for Federal Aquaculture Research 2014

• Interagency Working Group on Aquaculture: Regulatory Task Force (2012-2016)

• Guide to shellfish permitting

• NOAA-Army Corps-EPA collaboration


State and Regional Action

Initiatives

Washington

California

Connecticut

Alaska

Other Actions

Oregon

Maryland

Rhode Island

Hawaii

Mississippi

Gulf of Mexico


• First shellfish initiative of the country

• Strong champion in Governor Gregoire and support

from PCSGA

• Stakeholder meetings with targeted reps from

industry, agencies, tribes, NGOs

• Common ground in clean water, permitting, OA

• Small core group writing, organizing, tracking

implementation

State shellfish initiatives as a tool for conflict

resolution: Washington

• A major source of conflict in WA is external:

shoreline homeowners

• Strong focus on educating local officials

• Likely first in line to deal with NIMBY issues

• Identify real issues vs. red herrings

• Feel confident in having enough information to

get to the “hard yes”


resolution: Washington

• Public process to bring together all shellfish stakeholder groups and all managing local, state, federal agencies

• Small coordinating task force, large steering committee of managers & sector representatives, individual sector work groups (industry, recreational, natural resources)

• Huge list of issues → small list of consensus priorities


resolution: Connecticut

• A major source of conflict is internal: among shellfish

stakeholders and with(in) managing agencies

• Inclusive process and priority setting has identified

common ground among stakeholders

• Public forums and work groups have created

important dialogue and opened communication

• Process has garnered political support for shellfish

and raised public awareness


resolution: Connecticut

• Strong champion in Governor Bryant: Executive Order 1350, Oyster Restoration and Resiliency Council

• Driven by historically low oyster harvest in recent years – primarily wild harvest

• Small executive committee, large topic committees put plan together in <6 months

• Plan contains ~75 action items necessary to “grow the oyster resource”


resolution: Mississippi

• Recent conflict with shoreline homeowners: first proposed oyster aquaculture lease area abandoned due to opposition from local residents

• Local opposition was focused on siting, not aquaculture itself

• Oyster Restoration and Resiliency Plan called on agencies to “Promote aquaculture, not just permit aquaculture”

• MS DMR is considering other locations, engaging in public outreach & education about oyster aquaculture


resolution: Mississippi

Observations & Common Themes

• Strong political support

• Motivating issue

• National inspiration →→ state prioritization and

implementation

• Importance of local officials in determining what

gets permitted in nearshore waters

• NIMBY arguments less likely to be based on the

false premise that shellfish aquaculture is bad for

the environment

• Finding common ground within shellfish stakeholder

groups helps shift focus to the protection &

promotion of all shellfish resources


Observations & Common Themes

Conclusions

• New GIS-based spatial tools have streamlined

permitting and facilitated aquaculture expansion

• The addition of environmental and shellfish models,

high resolution monitoring, and multiple methods for

collecting spatial data will greatly improve the siting

process

• The national and state spotlights on shellfish have

provided political and community support needed to

start tackling social challenges


Acknowledgements

• NOAA Fisheries Aquaculture Program

• Tracey Dalton and Emily Patrolia, University of

Rhode Island

• Joao Ferreira, New University of Lisbon

• Jon Grant, Dalhousie University

41


Fear of the unknown: Local resident perceptions of

aquaculture can change with increased familiarity: Ireland

2008 → 2015 27 →49% “happy to see a fish farm in their area”

7 →5% opposed to fish farm in their area