diversity and abundance of the water column biota, including phytoplankton,
zooplankton, and meroplankton.
(iii) Water quality in and around the facility including analysis of phytoplankton
and particulate material filtration by the cultivated shellfish and release of
nutrients such as ammonia nitrogen and phosphorus.
(iv) Type and amount of commercial and recreational fishing activity that occurs
at and around the facility as well as compilation of all reports of lost or
damaged fishing gear or catch (for which CSR may be libel) that occurs as a
result of contact with the facility.
(v) Production of eggs and larvae from the cultivated non-native species, the
regional dispersion of this reproductive material, and its contribution to the
regional presence, persistence, and expansion of populations of these
non-native species outside of cultivation.
(vi) Diversity and abundance of fouling organisms that establish on the shellfish
cultivation facility, including its ropes, buoys, cables, cultivation structures,
and cultivated shellfish.
These extraordinary monitoring measures contrast with any other existing
shellfish farm in State waters in California. For example, a mussel farm, Santa
Barbara Mariculture, has been operating 1.6 km offshore in California for over
10 years without any monitoring requirement or suspected environmental impact.
No example of documented negative impact of shellfish farms in open or offshore
waters are known anywhere else in the world.
9.3.3.2 Massachusetts Case Studies—A Tale of Two Projects
Cape Ann Mussel Farm
In 2012, a mussel farming project was proposed in federal waters 8 miles off Cape
Ann by Salem State University, and funded by NOAA as a research demonstration
project. One of objectives was to advance and further define the permitting process
in Federal waters, and another was engage and train displaced fishermen in a new
venture. In this case, 2 sites were chosen but one was abandoned due to conflicts
identified early with the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary nearby and its
management plan that does not permit aquaculture within its boundaries.
Despite substantial collaboration and engagement with the capture fishing
industry to identify the preferred site, there was potential conflict with commercial
vessel traffic requiring that the longlines be deployed at 15.2 m below the ocean
surface instead of 9.1 m. The potential for marine mammal entanglement was a big
issue, in both the CA and MA cases. Project proponents were unaware of these
potential conflicts and/or mandatory permitting or consultation requirements that
might require remediation or project alteration—in part due to a lack of data or prior
permitting experience that would help predict and avoid these hurdles.
9 Regulation and Permitting of Standalone …
213
zooplankton, and meroplankton.
(iii) Water quality in and around the facility including analysis of phytoplankton
and particulate material filtration by the cultivated shellfish and release of
nutrients such as ammonia nitrogen and phosphorus.
(iv) Type and amount of commercial and recreational fishing activity that occurs
at and around the facility as well as compilation of all reports of lost or
damaged fishing gear or catch (for which CSR may be libel) that occurs as a
result of contact with the facility.
(v) Production of eggs and larvae from the cultivated non-native species, the
regional dispersion of this reproductive material, and its contribution to the
regional presence, persistence, and expansion of populations of these
non-native species outside of cultivation.
(vi) Diversity and abundance of fouling organisms that establish on the shellfish
cultivation facility, including its ropes, buoys, cables, cultivation structures,
and cultivated shellfish.
These extraordinary monitoring measures contrast with any other existing
shellfish farm in State waters in California. For example, a mussel farm, Santa
Barbara Mariculture, has been operating 1.6 km offshore in California for over
10 years without any monitoring requirement or suspected environmental impact.
No example of documented negative impact of shellfish farms in open or offshore
waters are known anywhere else in the world.
9.3.3.2 Massachusetts Case Studies—A Tale of Two Projects
Cape Ann Mussel Farm
In 2012, a mussel farming project was proposed in federal waters 8 miles off Cape
Ann by Salem State University, and funded by NOAA as a research demonstration
project. One of objectives was to advance and further define the permitting process
in Federal waters, and another was engage and train displaced fishermen in a new
venture. In this case, 2 sites were chosen but one was abandoned due to conflicts
identified early with the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary nearby and its
management plan that does not permit aquaculture within its boundaries.
Despite substantial collaboration and engagement with the capture fishing
industry to identify the preferred site, there was potential conflict with commercial
vessel traffic requiring that the longlines be deployed at 15.2 m below the ocean
surface instead of 9.1 m. The potential for marine mammal entanglement was a big
issue, in both the CA and MA cases. Project proponents were unaware of these
potential conflicts and/or mandatory permitting or consultation requirements that
might require remediation or project alteration—in part due to a lack of data or prior
permitting experience that would help predict and avoid these hurdles.
9 Regulation and Permitting of Standalone …
213