Part
2, Sec. 2C11
Human Activities - Mariculture
11.
Mariculture
Given
the open-ocean environment of Stellwagen Bank, the only form
of commercial fish culture (or mariculture) operation likely
to be sited on or adjacent to the Bank would be a finfish pen
or cage-culture operation. ("Aquaculture" operations involve
freshwater areas.) These are generally "grow-out" operations,
where fish smolts are held in pens, usually fed from the surface
and medicated with antibiotics to control diseases, and harvested
when they reach marketable size.
Most
existing operations at other locations involve the culture of
salmonids (principally Atlantic salmon); however, a number of
experimental attempts are being proposed to expand the effort
to species such as cod, haddock, striped bass and halibut (C.
Mantzaris, NMFS, pers. comm., August 1991). As of 1989, there
were 37 commercial mariculture leases in New England (18 in
operation), with most located on the coast of Maine (Bettencourt
and Anderson, 1990).
NMFS
has identified, in the NMFS Strategic Plan, aquaculture as one
of ten agency-wide priorities. However, the NMFS Northeast Regional
Office does not anticipate embarking on any new policy initiatives
or major projects related to aquaculture (C. Mantzaris, NMFS,
pers. comm., August 1991). NMFS has nonetheless issued joint
State/Federal guidelines (prepared by NMFS, the Army Corps of
Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the State
of Maine) for net pen finfish aquaculture projects. In this
joint guidance, finfish leases are prohibited in, or within
1/4 mile of, any area "named in acts of Congress or Presidential
proclamations such as national parks, national wilderness areas,
national recreation areas, national lakeshores, national natural
landmarks, national wildlife refuges, and such areas as may
be established under federal law for similar and related purposes."
Similar guidance has been developed by the New England Division
of the COE, for information required in applying for floating
fish pen project permits.
Mantzaris
(1990) identifies five key factors related to siting issues
and environmental impacts associated with finfish pen culture:
1) distance between the bottom of the net and the sea floor
- minimum has been 30 feet, but recently reduced to 10 feet;
2) currents - should be sufficient to insure the dispersal of
organic matter generated by the operation; 3) tidal range -
as with factor #1, this factor is a consideration only with
the siting of inshore operations; 4) location with respect to
rare, threatened, endangered, or otherwise protected species
(particularly seal nursing sites); and 5) commercial and recreational
conflicts - operations should not be located or interfere with
significant commercial fishing or recreational areas.
Wildish
(1990) generally identified five basic ecological issues of
interest concerning aquaculture: 1) organic site-specific pollution
or waste-related pollution; 2) eutrophication or nutrient enrichment;
3) interaction of aquaculture with traditional fisheries; 4)
toxic chemicals in cultured products (antibiotics, pesticides,
hormones, antifoulants); and 5) disease transmission (principally
to native fish stocks). With the exception of conflicts with
traditional fisheries and other human activities, the remainder
of the issues are generally not problematic with offshore operations.
While
no mariculture facility is currently operating in the offshore
waters of New England, in 1987 a proposal was developed by American
Norwegian Fish Farm, Inc. (based in Gloucester, Massachusetts)
to establish a floating mariculture facility offshore of Cape
Ann, for commercial production of salmon. Application was made
to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to obtain a permit under
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, for construction,
installation, and maintenance of two facilities, one inshore
for raising juvenile salmon (smolts), and a second offshore
site for raising the smolts to market size.
The
original application proposed an inshore facility to be moored
to the seabed adjacent to the southwest side of the Federal
breakwater in Sandy Bay, approximately 1-1/2 miles offshore
of Rockport, Massachusetts. At this site, smolts were to be
raised between April and October annually, to 5" in size, and
then transferred to the offshore site, for growth to market
size. The offshore site would encompass a 7-nautical-mile by
7-nautical-mile area, situated 27 miles east of Cape Ann.
In
addition to the requirements of § 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act, the applicant was required to comply with §
402 of the Clean Water Act (requiring a National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System, or NPDES, permit), administered by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).
Following
public hearings and consultation with Federal and state agencies
on the structural, environmental, and economic feasibility of
this proposal, the applicant withdrew entirely plans for the
inshore facility and combined the proposed operation to a single
site, located approximately 37 miles (59.5 km) offshore of Cape
Ann. This location occurs slightly northeast of Sanctuary boundary
alternative #3.
The
modified configuration of the offshore facility would consist
of nine anchored strings of 10 fish pens each, for a total of
90 pens. The conical-shaped pens would each measure 90' from
top to bottom, and 90' in diameter at the top. At optimum capacity,
each pen would hold approximately 500,000 pounds of fish of
market size (8" to 10"). Nets hanging beneath the water surface
would be 1-1/2" mesh, and designed to exclude marine mammals,
fish, and seabirds.
The
total area required for the site would be approximately 55.6
square nautical miles. Water depths at the revised location
are approximately 700 meters (2,296.5 ft.), deeper than the
300-400 foot depths at the original offshore location. The proposed
site is located outside normal commercial vessel traffic lanes,
and would be marked in conformance with U.S. Coast Guard guidelines.
Several
aspects of the offshore facility have presented siting, structural,
environmental, and economic concerns. In response to the original
application, the COE required extensive additional information
before processing of the application could proceed, covering
structural, resource, operational, administrative and financial
specifics of the proposed project. Additionally, a Section 7
consultation (pursuant to the Endangered Species Act) with the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) was conducted, and
resulted in a biological finding of "no jeopardy" to endangered
marine species in the vicinity of the proposed aquaculture facility.
(C. Mantzaris, NMFS, pers. comm., May 1990).
Although
the fish farm operation would be "self-monitoring" to attain
best management practices, both COE and EPA permits would carry
with them several requirements, including an endangered species
monitoring program requirement.
Under
this "monitoring program" requirement, fish pen operators would
conduct monitoring activities during four months of each year.
During those periods, 360o surveys of the pens would be made
to determine the presence of any endangered species, and to
note any interaction between endangered species and the fish
pens. These surveys would be made every 15 minutes, over an
8-hour period, on a total of six days during a two-week period
(total of 48 observations of all pens over each two-week period).
Secondly, boat surveys would be made during the same time periods
to note (from the water's surface) any interactions between
endangered species and the fish pens.
If
the results of these monitoring activities indicate interaction
problems, the permits would be subject to additional NMFS and
EPA review (and possible hearings) to determine whether the
permits should be withdrawn.
A
Section 10 permit was recently issued by the COE for this project.
Subsequent to the issuance of this permit however, two actions
have resulted in uncertainty regarding the future of the Norwegian
Fish Farm proposal. The COE permit was challenged in court by
the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) which charged, among other
claims, that the fish farm facility would unreasonably displace
other human uses of the site.
Secondly,
the Department of the Navy has recently raised strong objections
to the permit on the grounds that the proposed location for
the facility conflicts directly with certain Navy air and sea
operations. On the basis of national security, the COE was requested
to revoke the Section 10 permit for this project. The Norwegian
Fish Farm proposal has currently been moved to a site further
north, offshore of New Hampshire.
next
section
|
