was approved by the legislature and established a Blue Ribbon Task Force and a Stakeholder Advisory Panel to jointly study aquaculture’s siting issues. “This Task Force provides a much-needed opportunity for the kind of focused deliberation that will help us to move forward with marine aquaculture,” Baldacci said. It was the start of what many hoped would be the seed for a sweeping aquaculture reform bill for this legislative session.

LD 1857 - Fair or Failure?
    After countless hours of work and months of discussion and public hearings up and down the coast, the volunteer Task Force, led by Paul Anderson, director of the Maine Sea Grant program, submitted their recommendations, a 190-page document, which was then proposed as a bill identified as LD 1857. “As Task Force Chair, I obviously think the process was good and the outcomes well thought out and fair to all parties,” Anderson said. “It represents the best thinking possible given the time and information we have.”
    LD 1857, if made into law, would double the acreage that aquaculture companies can lease, revoking the authority that Maine municipalities have to issue aquaculture mooring permits, and eliminate the right of Maine citizens to require a public hearing of aquaculture lease renewals. It also drops the concept of bay-level management plans that would ensure that floating fishpens and mussel rafts be required to coexist with local businesses like fishing and tourism as well as other users. It would also: require that a private pre-application meeting and public scoping session be held in the municipality prior to the completion of an application; require the commissioner to explain if conditions requested by a municipality are not imposed on a lease; limit the size and color of buildings and equipment on farm sites; and change the rental fees for lease holders and establish penalties for lease violations.
    They say that you can’t please all the people all of the time, and the report from the Task Force and LD 1857 would certainly be a case in point. In fact, the only ones who seem to be smiling are the aquaculture companies. In the January 15th IntraFish story, “New Task Force Recommendations Could Prove Boon To Maine Salmon Industry,” the Task Force recommendations were seen as a victory for the salmon aquaculture. The story’s lead-in says that the Task Force’s proposed policies, “Will significantly benefit salmon farmers in the state.” .
“Another bonus for the industry was the group’s (Task Force) decision that the state does not need to consider the views of private landowners in the site review process and that the aquaculture commissioner is qualified to make final decisions on leases” the IntraFish story said.
    Among those generally supporting the bill were the DMR and the Maine Aquaculture Association (MAA).
    The bill, said MAA executive director Sebastian Belle, “establishes a balanced vision and state policy.” Still, said Belle, the MMA has numerous concerns regarding a number of conclusions. “I am concerned that the process of continually changing the leasing system in response to pressure from a relatively small group of constituents is irreparably harming what was a fair and balanced process,” Belle said. “This harm will inevitably lead to an increase in litigation and more, not less conflict.”
    Erick Swanson, owner of Trumpet Island Salmon Farm and a member of the Task Force’s advisory panel, told IntraFish that the report from the Task Force was, “Favorable for everyone.” But many people don’t agree with Swanson. Included in that list of those disappointed by the report, would be Marsden Brewer, a commercial fisherman out of Stonington, as well as the President of the East Penobscot Bay Environmental Alliance (EPBEA).
    In an emailed statement, the EPBEA said that the Task Force failed. By its consistent refusal to honor such a huge number of citizen concerns, and so create a broader consensus about aquaculture in Maine, the Task Force has failed in its mandate from the Maine State Legislature.”
    Brewer is personally concerned about what he sees as the process of, “Taking submerged Maine land, that’s held in public trust, and basically leasing it to foreign corporations.” “That’s a major loss for the people of this great state,” Brewer told the Marine Resources Committee during hearings held regarding LD 1857 at the end of February.
    Brewer’s primary concern over LD 1857 was that it was, “Moving too fast for the public to digest, understand the implications, and respond to,” Brewer said. In addition to being disappointed that the bill makes no mention of bay management, Brewer was adamantly opposed to an aspect of LD 1857 that would increase the limit for aquaculture leases from 250 acres up to 500 acres.
    “As a commercial fisherman, the only thing I have heard the DMR talk about over the last ten years is limits,” Brewer said. “Limits on the amount of days you can fish, limits on the size of the gear you can fish, limits on entry, and if you are scalloping in Cobscook Bay, there are even limits on how much you can catch. It is mind-boggling that the same department that promotes limits in all the fisheries advocated no limits with regard to the amount of acres that can be leased by any one corporation or individual. A lobsterman that fishes “the limit,” ñ 800 traps ñ covers 6,400 square feet of bottom when he goes home at night; there is about 45,000 square feet in an acre. It takes over seven lobstermen fishing the limit to utilize the square footage of one acre of bottom. If a company can’t make a go of it on 250 acres do you really think 500 is going to make any difference?” Brewer asked.

Damon Supports Bill, Praises Task Force
    Sen. Dennis S. Damon, from District #5, is the chairman of the Joint Standing Legislative Committee for Marine Resources. Because of his position, he finds himself in the center of the debate over the report and the proposed LD 1857. “I think the Aquaculture Task Force was an extraordinarily qualified and dedicated group,” Damon said. They gave their time and their knowledge willingly in an effort to break through the logjam of rhetoric and bias that has beset this issue for some time. Their examination of the issues was thorough. Their deliberations were thoughtful. Their conclusions and subsequent recommendations were non-biased and reflected their opinions.”
    Damon said that he has received considerable criticism of their work from people who have accused them of being nothing more than rubber stamps for the DMR. “I find those comments extremely demeaning and offensive,” Damon said. “They reflect not only ignorance of the Task Force’s work, but they are so rooted in the bias that has plagued this debate – they are childish.”
    “The report, as thorough a document on the state of aquaculture as it presently exists in Maine, combined with recommendations for its place in the future, is exemplary in its objectivity,” Damon said. “Given that the Department (DMR) has come out against many of the recommendations of the Task Force should serve any objective observer well in dispelling the claims of “rubber stamp.”

Bay Management
    Above all of the other issues, it was a concept for bay management that the environmental groups were hoping would come from the Task Force report. “Fundamentally, bay-wide planning and management means that planning and management decisions for Maine’s marine resources would be considered at the local scale, and would involve a broad spectrum of users who operate in or value that area,” Roger Fleming, an attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), explained. “It is an opportunity for these stakeholders, or communities of interest, to participate in a proactive management system and to influence the decisions that affect the future of the marine waters upon which they live and depend. Decision-making that includes those who actually bear the costs and the benefits of the decisions made can increase stewardship, facilitate adaptive management practices, provide incentives for improved self-management, and improve compliance.”
    Fleming feels that the recommendations from the Task Force do not address the critical issues of the original resolve, and would do little to increase consensus about the place of aquaculture in our waters. “Somewhat inexplicably, some actually reduce the opportunity for the public to participate in the lease decision-making process, which can only increase the conflict and controversy over the siting of new aquaculture projects.” Fleming added that LD 1857 does not advance a long-term solution for balancing the multiple uses of Maine’s marine waters, “Including for aquaculture and other commercial uses, into the future,” Fleming said.
    The CLF was advocating that the proposed LD 1857 be tabled, “To allow for a more thorough review of the Task Force report by the legislature,” Fleming said.
    Brewer’s group, the EPBEA, insists that the legislation had been rushed through before the committee or the public had a chance to absorb it. “We need time to consider this legislation carefully,” an email notice from EPBEA said recently. “It should be held over until next year.”
    The EPBEA was urging Maine fishermen to protest the proposal to increase the acreage for aquaculture leases, the proposal to eliminate the requirement for a hearing for lease renewals and experimental leases, the proposal to prevent municipalities from having any say on aquaculture in their waters, and the proposal to prevent municipalities from having any jurisdiction over aquaculture moorings.
    The EPBEA is calling for baseline studies of our bays, “So we can tell what impact aquaculture has if they are allowed leases.”
    In Anderson’s comments to the Committee for Marine Resources, regarding fears of overproliferation of aquaculture, he said they were generally unfounded. “Not only has the industry slowly and incrementally improved over the years,” Anderson said, “it is also in large part limited by Maine’s environmental conditions; only a small part of the coast is suitable for farming.”
    That’s the least of the issue says Brewer, who feels it’s all about economics. “You really want to look at what we have for economic benefit out of the finfish sector?” Brewer asked. “The pens come from Canada, the feed comes over from Canada, when it is time to change the nets a barge comes over from Canada, changes the nets and takes them back to Canada for cleaning and repairs, and, finally, a harvest vessel comes over from Canada and takes the fish back to Canada to be processed. These are Canadian jobs, not American.”
    No decision will be made on LD 1857 until early this month (March). Whether it is tabled, recommended or not recommended remains to be seen. Between last year’s super-chill and outbreaks of the ISA disease, Maine’s salmon aquaculture has been dealt some serious blows. As an industry, how will they weather the storm? Some industry analysts predict that US firms will re-purchase Maine’s aquaculture and a wave of downsizing will ensue. Or that open-ocean pens and the introduction of our species will make coastal aquaculture in Maine a thing of the past. One thing is for sure, aquaculture is a hot topic in Maine and will certainly continue to be, especially as ramifications from the big picture continue to filter into this regional level.
    This is part two of an exclusive two part series on aquaculture, part one was published in the February 2004 issue of the Fishermen’s Voice.