August 1st Draft of Offshore Aquaculture Amendment

Gulf Council MeetingAugust 11-15, 2008

Key Largo, FL

Tab J, No. 6

Major Revisions to FMP (Tab J-4)

• Document converted from an Amendment to a FMP

3.0 Purpose and Need – 7 objectives added

4.0 Management Alternatives– Changes proposed to alternatives by IPT– Socioeconomic/biological summaries revised – Action 10: Framework procedures added

Major Revisions to FMP (Tab J-4)

5.0 Affected Environment– Description of fishery added

6.0 Environmental Consequences- Biological/socioeconomic consequences revised- Sections 6.12 and 6.14-6.20 revised - Discussion of FMP requirements added (Section 6.13)

7.0 RIR and 8.0 IRFA- Both sections were entirely revised

Objectives1. Provide for the development of environmentally sound

and economically sustainable aquaculture fishery, consistent with the goals and objectives of the MSA.

2. To achieve OY, while not adversely affecting wild stocks, protected resources, and essential fish habitat.

3. To conserve and protect EFH through proper aquaculture facility siting.

4. To obtain necessary data and information for issuing aquaculture permits and monitoring potential impacts of aquaculture operations.

Objectives

5. To minimize user conflicts among aquaculture permit operations, comm. fishermen, and recreational anglers.

6. To prevent or mitigate to the extent practicable adverse impacts to wild stocks, protected resources, and EFH resulting from aquaculture activities.

7. To reduce the nation's dependence on imports by supplementing wild domestic harvest with cultured products to meet growing U.S. consumer demand.

Action 1: Aquaculture Permit Requirements, Eligibility, and Transferability (pg. 19)

• The following requirements were added to Preferred Alternative 2: – An aquaculture permit authorizes a person to land at a

U.S. port species cultured in the Gulf.– Prohibits landing of cultured species at non-U.S. port.– A dealer permit is required to receive cultured organisms.

• Definitions for U.S. citizen and permanent resident alien provided as footnotes.

• Dealer reporting requirements included in Table 4.1.2 (pg. 23).

Action 2: Application Requirements, Operational Requirements, and Restrictions (pg. 29)

• Major revisions and additions include: – Alt 3(a)(2)(v): Only hatcheries located in the U.S. may

provide juvenile organisms for grow-out.

– Alt 3(a)(2)(ix) – Requires permittees describe protected resources, EFH, and wild marine organisms at the aquaculture site, including their abundance and distribution.

– Alt 3(a)(xii) – Allows NMFS to sample cultured organisms to determine genetic lineage. NMFS may order the removal of all cultured organisms if they have been genetically modified or are transgenic.

Action 2: Application Requirements, Operational Requirements, and Restrictions (pg. 29)

• Major revisions and additions include: – Alt 3(b)(6): Requires compliance with monitoring and

reporting requirements specified in ACOE and EPA permits. – Alt 3(b)(7): Requires permittees inspect allowable

aquaculture systems for entanglements or interactions with marine mammals or protected species.

– Alt 3(b)(10): Language was modified to allow possession of wild organisms within an aquaculture restricted access zone for hatchery purposes.

Action 3: Permit Duration (pg. 43)

• No changes were made to the range of alternatives.

Action 4: Species Allowed (pg. 47)

• Species that all allowable species will be included in the Aquaculture fishery management unit.

Action 5: Allowable Marine Aquaculture Systems (pg. 52)

• No changes were made to the range of alternatives.

Action 6: Marine Aquaculture Siting Requirements and Conditions (pg. 56)

• Preferred Alternative 3(d) was added:

Provide NMFS with a video survey of benthic habitat at the proposed marine aquaculture site.

Action 7: Restricted Access Zones (pg. 66)

• In Preferred Alternative 3(e), the reference to seagrasses was replaced with “important fishery habitats.”

• No other changes were made to the alternatives.

Action 8: Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements (pg. 68)

Revisions:- Alt 2(b) – Specifies permittees maintain monitoring reports

from other federal agencies for 3 years.

- Alt 2(c)(1) – The definition for major escapement was changed to reflect Council recommendations in June.

- Alt 2(c)(2) – Additional requirements were added for reporting when an entanglement or interaction occurs.

Action 8: Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements (pg. 68)

Revisions:- Alt 2(d) – Allows NMFS to order the removal of all cultured

organisms if a suspected disease or pathogens exist, which pose a threat to the health of wild organisms.

- Alts 2(h) and 2(i) – Should the notification timeframes for harvest and landing be extended from 24 to 72 hours?

- Alt 2(k) – Requires permittees to maintain a daily record of the number of cultured animals introduced or removed from each grow-out system, including mortalities.

Action 8: Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements (pg. 68)

- Alt 2(m) – This alternative was partially duplicative of Alt. 3(a)(2)(v) in Action 2. Duplicative text was deleted.

• Alt 2(n) – Requires a permittee to submit a report to the RA after broodstock collection is complete.

• Alt 2(o) – Describes modifications to recordkeeping and reporting requirements during catastrophic conditions.

• Discussion of electronic reporting was added (pg. 72)

Action 9: Biological Reference Points and Status Determination Criteria (pg. 78)

• The Council’s preferred alternatives for MSY, OY, and production capacity were specified.

Action 10: Framework Procedures (pg. 83)

• New action

• Intended to provide timelier process for implementing regulations.

• Alternatives 2 and 3 would establish an Aquaculture Advisory Panel.

Action 10: Framework Procedures (pg. 83)

• annual planned production levels relative to MSY/OY.

• the status of marine resources and whether or not their status is adversely affected by aquaculture through:– diseases and pathogens– changes in water quality and benthic loading– entanglements and interactions– escapement– other factors

• Economic and social effects of aquaculture on fishing communities

The advisory panel would meet annually and review:

Action 10: Framework Procedures (pg. 83)

Regulatory Changes Alt. 2 Alt. 3

Changes to OY/MSY Yes Yes

Permit Application Requirements No Yes

Operational Requirements/Restrictions No Yes

Allowable system requirements No Yes

Siting requirements No Yes

Recordkeeping and reporting requirements No Yes

Panel recommendations would be provided to the Council. The Council could then recommend regulatory changes to NMFS:

• Under Alt. 3, the Council would submit to NMFS:– a report from the Aquaculture AP– any relevant public comments – a regulatory amendment

• Alt. 2 would not require submission of a regulatory amendment.

• Both alternatives would continue to allow numerous opportunities for public comment.

Action 10: Framework Procedures (pg. 83)

Questions?