Protected Species and Marine Aquaculture Interactions

Recommendations

Info

SPRING BAY SEAFOODS Fishermen working with mussel spat with a specific focus on mussel culture and ESAlisted whales and sea turtles in the northern Atlantic Region. Members of the committee included personnel from the NMFS Greater Atlantic Region’s protected resources and aquaculture programs to provide expertise on marine mammals and sea turtles, and knowledge of regional aquaculture activity, and the National Ocean Service (NOS) National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) Coastal Aquaculture Planning and Environmental Sustainability (CAPES) program specializing in environmental effects of marine aquaculture. Information about aquaculture infrastructure and gear, and alternative farm management options that could reduce negative interactions is vital. Because there is little direct data, research or observation at open ocean mussel farms, the committee broadened the scope of the assessment to include information about the effects of other marine aquaculture sectors on protected species and other species of conservation concern. Additionally, there was interest in examining possible similarities between fishing gear and aquaculture gear because a great deal of research has focused on fishery 1 gear impacts, and the efforts to redesign gear to be less harmful. Thus, there may be lessons that can be learned and gear modifications that can be transferred to aquaculture structures to decrease opportunities for negative interactions and take of ESA listed species. Methods To ensure comprehensive coverage of all available information, we reviewed a range of sources (Table 3). Beginning in Fall 2014, we collected scientific papers, government reports, and books for this review through keyword searches of electronic databases, primarily Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts (ProQuest, LLC) and Google Scholar TM . To ensure comprehensive coverage, initial searches included broad keyword combinations such as “mussel aquaculture + marine mammal” and “marine fish farming + protected species,” which were then narrowed down by carefully reviewing each abstract and full text for direct relevance. Colleagues and early reviewers provided recommendations for additional relevant publications. Unpublished data from operational commercial farms were obtained through direct personal communication. A draft assessment was prepared and internally reviewed by the NOAA steering committee preceding a workshop held in Gloucester, MA on 28– 29 September 2015 (NMFS 2016) that brought together local and national regulators, industry, researchers, 1 The term “fishery” in this document refers to wild harvest. 6 | ProtEctEd SPEciES and MarinE aquaculturE intEractionS
Table 3 Sources of information (n=177) cited in this assessment, their relative benefits and drawbacks, and number included in the assessment. Nine sources did not fit into any of the listed categories (e.g., websites). Sources of Information Peer reviewed scientific literature High credibility 74 Few published studies NOAA Technical Memorandums High credibility 12 Few published studies Government Reports Not always peer reviewed 57 Good quality, scientific studies Book Chapters High credibility 6 Few published studies Non-governmental organization May be biased 16 (NGO) publications May be qualitative Student Theses & Dissertations High credibility 3 Few published studies conservation groups and other stakeholders to cooperatively refine the risk analysis and needs assessment included here. The workshop partici pants were asked to review the draft assessment and their feedback was incorporated. Expected Outcomes Science-based determinations during permit review for mussel farms and other aquaculture operations in the north Atlantic and other federal waters throughout the United States will be aided by this assessment. We present a preliminary risk assessment, identify knowledge gaps and suggest management options which may be implemented at offshore farms to reduce harmful interactions with protected marine spe cies. Farm owners and operators can apply these to guide permit applications, siting decisions and farm management practices. Coastal managers and community planners can use this information to make environmentally responsible decisions about the economic opportunities that aquaculture offers. Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies can consider these practices as they develop and implement permitting and monitoring processes for the offshore aquaculture industry. Future coordination of permit review will be successful by having transparent scientifically-informed expectations for guidance from government regulators for their review of permits for marine aquaculture. Finally, we anticipate this work will help understand the broader ecological role of aquaculture operations within the marine environment. Successful future coordination of permit review will be aided by having transparent, agreed upon and scientifically informed expectations. introduction | 7
Page 1 and 2: Protected Species and Marine Aquacu
Page 3 and 4: CAROL SEALS PRICE* NOAA Affiliate |
Page 5 and 6: Humpback whale
Page 7 and 8: tory agencies may look to informati
Page 9 and 10: Introduction SPRING BAY SEAFOODS Th
Page 11 and 12: FEDERAL Human Health APPROVED Biodi
Page 13: Table 1 ESA species under NMFS’ j
Page 17 and 18: (A) (B) Figure 2. Representative sc
Page 19 and 20: The site specific features of the f
Page 21 and 22: GABRIEl BARATHIEu activity (Keeley
Page 23 and 24: fully or partially excluded from ar
Page 25 and 26: Table 6 underwater noise caused by
Page 27 and 28: Table 8 Global cases of protected s
Page 29 and 30: overlap with any protected species
Page 31 and 32: 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 Applicatio
Page 33 and 34: eported by the farmers as more effe
Page 35 and 36: Research results support the views
Page 37 and 38: Bottlenose dolphin An ecosystem mod
Page 39 and 40: kAllERNA assessing overlap with act
Page 41 and 42: any loose lines or floating equipme
Page 43 and 44: individual level, but requires perm
Page 45 and 46: Table 10 Overview of potential effe
Page 47 and 48: turtles and seabirds from marine aq
Page 49 and 50: uoys associated with fishing gear a
Page 51 and 52: dian waters was 3.85 right whales,
Page 53 and 54: equaling 19- 29 deaths per year (Ro
Page 55 and 56: In the U. S. northeast region, sea
Page 57 and 58: northeast and southwest were not av
Page 59 and 60: Table 11 Fishery gear impacts to pr
Page 61 and 62: Table 12 Fishery gear modifications
Page 63 and 64: into aquaculture gear development f
Page 65 and 66:
use of visual deterrents and prelim
Page 67 and 68:
Knowledge Gaps There is still much
Page 70 and 71:
References Alston DE, Cabarcas A, C
Page 72 and 73:
.ufsc.br/index.php/biotemas/article
Page 74 and 75:
enclosures for growing algae (OMEGA
Page 76 and 77:
Marine Mammal Commission, February
Page 78 and 79:
Otts SS, Bowling T (2012) Offshore
Page 80 and 81:
Scholl MC, Pade N (2005) Salmon far
Page 82:
PENNY PRITZKER Secretary of Commerc
show all

Protected Species and Marine Aquaculture Interactions

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?