Bill proposal stirs up debate on aquaculture

The decades-long debate over the leasing of Maine's coastal waters for aquaculture and the possible displacement of some traditional fisheries, particularly the lobster fishery, again came to the fore during an April 13 public hearing before the legislature's Marine Resources Committee on a bill sponsored by Rep. Robert Alley of Beals that seeks to further regulate the industry. While the debate has seemed settled in areas like the Cobscook Bay region, where fish farming first began in the state over 40 years ago, the controversy resurfaces as new proposals come forward in other areas of the coast. The widespread interest in the issue was reflected in the amount of written testimony, with 170 people submitting comments, with a majority in opposition to the bill.
Because the bill is a concept draft, parts of it are vague, but it would require an examination of the resources available to the Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR) for regulatory oversight of aquaculture leases; restrict any single lease from exceeding 50 acres in area and any person from having ownership interest in more than 10 leases or total lease areas in excess of 100 acres; and remove the current exemption from compliance with the state's Natural Resources Protection Act (NRPA) and the site location of development laws. It also would require the DMR to hold stakeholder meetings to develop a strategic aquaculture plan.
Rep. Alley stated that he is sponsoring the bill because lobstermen are concerned about large aquaculture leases in the state's waters. "The concerns I have heard range from the problems of navigating around large, industrialized fish farms to finding dead lobsters near the pens. Lobstermen have repeatedly raised concerns about being shut out of acreage where they have always fished. The scary thing is that any foreign company who leases such large tracts of the public trust can lease up to 1,000 acres of the Maine ocean." He added, "It's time for us to step back, take a look at how what we now do affects our oceans for years to come, review the regulations and determine what is best for all who work, live and recreate on the water."
Rock Alley of Jonesport-Beals, who is president of Protect Maine's Fishing Heritage Foundation (PMFHF) and the Maine Lobsterman's Union, stated that "the aquaculture lobby has had its way for too long with weak rules that don't protect the ocean for everyone." And Crystal Canney, executive director of PMFHF, noted that currently "at the foot of Acadia National Park a corporation wants to put in net pen salmon for over 100 acres. This is just the beginning of losing our coast to large industrial aquaculture."
But some lobstermen opposed the bill, with Prentiss Harmon, who fishes out of Roque Bluffs, stating that aquaculture farms help him secure reliable work with his boat. "There are no other industries out there putting money in my pocket," he wrote. "These aquaculture farms always make sure they are not interfering with us fishermen, and they always come to us first to hire help." His view was echoed by another Roque Bluffs fisherman, Thoren Peters, who stated, "Aquaculture operations in my area have consistently been able to hire me for seasonal work. I see no issues with these aquaculture operations interfering with fishermen or landowners." And Capt. Paul Savoy of Sullivan pleaded with the committee not to vote in favor of the bill: "Please don't do this. I beg you. If you crush this industry, I'll have to move out of Maine. This is my last hope of having a real career here in Downeast Maine, the home I've loved for decades."
Many who work for aquaculture companies testified in support of the bill, and some fired back at the lobstermen. James Balano of Wheeler's Bay Oyster Company in Spruce Head argued that wealthy interests are trying to shut down the aquaculture industry in the state. He maintained that they have "recruited a few 'plastic' fishermen to lend credence to the myth that they seek to protect Maine's coastal heritage." The "plastic" fishermen are "the ones you see standing around being quaint -- the 'Bert and I caricatures.' The ones who have failed at everything else and decided to become 'characters.'"
Sebastian Belle, executive director of the Maine Aquaculture Association, stated that in over 20 years of representing the aquaculture sector, the proposed bill "is one of the most serious threats I have ever seen to the sector." He noted that the existing regulatory system "is the product of over 40 years of legislative and public discussion. It has been repeatedly improved and refined. Maine is seen as the gold standard in aquaculture management systems and has been copied by other states and jurisdictions around the world." He objected to specific points in the bill, including the proposed requirement to force a lease holder "to go all the way back through a new application and hearing process to either renew or transfer a lease," which he said would prevent growers from getting loans for their business. The revocation of the NRPA exemption "would to nothing to increase environmental monitoring around finfish operations; it would only add requirements for viewscape impact and alternative site studies." In addition, reducing the size limit of leases would "have a devastating impact on many family-run aquaculture businesses." He noted that the cap on total acreage held by one person or business is 500 acres, not 1,000 acres, although there is a provision for an exemption to allow up to 1,000 acres if the farm files a fallowing and site rotation plan. However, no entity in Maine has ever leased more than 650 acres, with only 390 acres active in any given year. Finally, he pointed out that Maine has conducted 23 aquaculture studies over the last 35 years, and he felt it is unlikely that another task force created under the bill would develop any new policies that have not already been thoroughly discussed in the state.
A number of people in favor of the bill raised various concerns about the aquaculture industry, with Ethan Bien of Lubec noting that if the industry is unchecked if "has the potential to do egregious harm to the oceans of Maine and will come into certain conflict with our fishers." He added, "It is high time for Maine to review its tools and regulations to reduce conflict between lobstermen, aquaculturists and other stakeholders. I am concerned, in particular, about the scale of the aquaculture projects coming into Maine and creating conflict on the working waterfront." And Severine Fleming of Pembroke wrote in her testimony, "Farmed salmon do not solve the problem of killing the ocean, they exacerbate it. Sick fish, wild fish meal, additives, chemical de-licing agents, corporate behemoths..." She added, "Venture capital, private equity and carbon credit speculators should not shape the economy of our precious coastline. Conservation minded, locally owned, suitably scaled! That's the fishery I want to be a part of, welcoming back the herring, the alewives and the whales."
But Jennifer Robinson of Pembroke, who is the compliance officer for Cooke Aquaculture USA and has worked in the aquaculture field for over 23 years, stated that "to insinuate that the permitting process or regulatory oversight is broken and needs examining, I feel is a bit naive. It has taken the industry a long time to get to where we are today." She noted that fish farmers already are required to have a DMR lease, a Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) discharge permit and a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Also, a cap on individuals leases and total lease acreage would "severely impair our industry to utilize crop rotation and fallowing that we have been using for years and which supports a healthy environment."
Nicholas Branchina, director of the Fisheries and Aquaculture Program at Coastal Enterprises Inc. in Brunswick, argued that the DMR has developed a robust regulatory framework for aquaculture and that the bill would "add more layers of cumbersome bureaucratic oversight to a system that already has a substantial backlog." He added, "This is a redundant and unnecessary use of state resources."
Two former state regulators of the industry offered differing perspectives. Jon Lewis of Boothbay, who worked for the DMR's aquaculture program for 23 years and is now a consultant for the Protect Maine's Fishing Heritage Foundation, stated that "the level of conflict between aquaculture and other users of the coastal waters has and continues to increase." He added, "There is a growing dissatisfaction with the leasing process and lack of discussion and public input as to the future and fabric of our coastal waters and how aquaculture contributes or detracts from it." He noted there are concerns about the likelihood of consolidation of sectors of the industry into the hands of a few large companies and that allowing 20-year lease terms and up to 1,000 acres to be held by a single entity might be setting the table for future consolidation. "Shared use conflicts and long-term economic opportunity should be evaluated," he stated, urging support for the bill.
However, John Sowles of North Yarmouth, who worked both in the DEP and later the DMR on aquaculture regulation and is now retained by Cooke Aquaculture USA to advise on science and permitting matters unrelated to the bill, gave an overview of how aquaculture regulations had developed in the state, including a task force review of aquaculture that was conducted in the early 2000s. He opposed adding more and redundant layers of permitting and argued there is plenty of opportunity already for public input on any proposed leases. "When marine aquaculture is well done, it has much to offer in terms of addressing challenges to wild fisheries, water quality, habitat impacts from non-aquaculture activities and diversifying local economic opportunities," he stated. He argued that the angst that the proposed bill reflects "is more about the number of proposed leases and the fear of potential impacts rather than actual leases and actual impacts. Unless or until someone can show me specific impacts and conflicts, I suggest that this bill is premature."
The Marine Resources Committee held a work session on the bill on April 20.