Tessa GetchisTessa GetchisConnecticut Sea GrantConnecticut Sea GrantUniversity of ConnecticutUniversity of ConnecticutGroton, Connecticut 06340-6048Groton, Connecticut 06340-6048<tessa.getchis@uconn.edu><tessa.getchis@uconn.edu>

Do All Roads Really Lead to Do All Roads Really Lead to Rome? Rome?

Constructing a Roadmap for Constructing a Roadmap for Aquaculture Permitting in Aquaculture Permitting in ConnecticutConnecticut

• 61,000 acres are under cultivation for shellfish in Long Island Sound

• $13 million dollar oyster and hard clam industry

• Small freshwater finfish (trout) culture industry (10 farms; approximately 5% of revenues for aquaculture)

• Generates 40% of the total value of all fishery products landed in the state

• 600 jobs (40 companies) provided directly by the industry (shellfish shippers, harvesters, and shellfish/finfish hatcheries)

Sources: W.A. Cowan, 2001; CT DA/BA, 2002

Aquaculture in Connecticut-Brief Overview of the Industry

Aquaculture in Connecticut–The HOT issue – Marine Aquaculture Permitting

There has been a transition (1990s) from traditional bottom culture practices to use of floating and submerged grow-out structures

New legislation (1999) created a complex permitting system with multi-agency responsibilities for aquaculture practices

In-water structures (cages, longlines, racks, bags, etc.) present a unique permitting challenge to the regulatory agencies

Competing User Groups

Cultured shellfish are one of CT’s most economically viable natural resources within the state; however, there are many competing uses (users) of the waters of Long Island Sound in which these shellfish are grown:

Recreational and Charter Boating Commercial Fishing and Lobstering Swimmers Recreational Shellfish Harvesters Ferry routes Freighters

Navigation Hazards

Floating or submerged aquaculture structures may interfere with activity within major navigational channels. Areas of significant conflict are at the mouths of major rivers, narrow waterways, and adjacent to coastal islands. Structures may cause:

Interference with shipping Clogging of boater traffic Boater safety Obstruction of navigational channels

Environmental Impacts

Aquaculture structures may have a significant impact on the environment within which they are placed. Although there are beneficial environmental impacts of shellfish culture (i.e. providing structure for habitat, enhancing water clarity and quality, etc.), negative impacts must be considered when siting projects, such as:

Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAVs) Essential fish habitat Bird nesting areas Shading

Roadblocks in Permitting

The entire permitting process usually requires 60 days, but in reality, some applications have only been permitted after several months or years

Public perception of aquaculture projects weighs heavily in permitting process

Applications may require additional review if there is potential for significant

environmental impacts or navigational hazards

Permits may be issued with several conditions (e.g. water quality assessment, eelgrass survey) or may require additional permits (regulatory markers, structure permit) and fees

Any changes to application require new application

Permits issued as of 2002 are short-term (2 years)

What’s Causing Roadblocks?

Because of the number of conflicting uses and hazards within Long Island Sound, aquaculture structures are regulated strictly

Because the lead agency for aquaculture (DA/BA) is not the lead agency for coastal zone management (DEP), aquaculture structures must be approved by both state agencies

Because aquaculture structures are not necessarily present on a lease (e.g. land-based upwellers, cages under docks), the structure may require additional permits (and accounting for) from a number of agencies

Because there is a state-town jurisdiction line through LIS, municipalities may require additional leases and permits.

USACE issuesCat II PGP

Is the project exempt from DEP permits?

No Yes

USACE issuesCat II PGP

w/conditionsLetter to Applicant:Structure Regulated by DEP

Copy sent to local Shellfish Comm.

CT DOA

CT DEP Fisheries

CT DEP Boating

US ACOE

CT DEP OLISP

(1) Substantial Concerns

(2) No Concerns

(3) Minimal Concerns

(1)

(3)

(2) Cat. IIDEP sign-off

USACE Individual Pmt

Process

DEP Conducts Federal CZMP Consistency Review

Monthly Federal Joint Permit Processing

Screening Meeting

US EPA

NMFS

US FWS

Applicant Submits Joint Application

Applicant Must Obtain DEP-OLISP Permit

USACE Issues IP

USACE Denies IP

State Concurs

State Objects

USACE issuesCat II PGP

USACE issuesCat II PGP

w/conditions

USACE Issues IP

USACE Denies IP

Applicant Must Obtain DEP-OLISP Permit

This is all that the regulatory agencies expect the regulated community to know.

Applicant Submits Joint Application

Permit Streamlining

SGEP brought regulators together together to develop standard procedures for multi-agency permitting of aquaculture and to form a permitting workgroup

Stakeholder Communication

SGEP initiated a workshops series that brought in partners from USACE,DEP, DA/BA, and local shellfish and harbor management commissions to discuss local and state permitting concerns.

SGEP and permitting workshop offered several workshops for growers (e.g. completing the application, eelgrass surveys, conditions

surrounding gear types)

What role does Sea Grant Extension Play?

Development of standard procedures for multi-agency permitting aquaculture operations;

Development of a publicly available “roadmap” explaining the standard procedures for permitting;

Web-enabling the “roadmap”;

Getting more people involved and educated; and,

Assisting State in developing a strategic plan for aquaculture in CT

Goals of Permitting Workgroup

Do All Roads Lead to Rome?

(Or does the permitting roadmap really

get you to a permit ???)

The permitting workgroup has a significant task ahead of them to make permitting more efficient

for growers

RomeRome

RomeRome

RomeRomerome

Rome

Rome

RomeRome