Development of Best Management Practices for the

Virginia Shellfish Culture Industry

Michael Oesterling and Mark Luckenbach

Virginia Institute of Marine Science

College of William and Mary

11TH International Conference on Shellfish Restoration, Charleston, SC

November 19 – 22, 2008

ITEMS TO BE ADDRESSED:

1. Why are BMP’s necessary?

2. What process was employed to develop Virginia BMP’s?

3. Who was involved in developing them?

4. Any implementation complications?

5. Buy-in from industry?

Why are BMP’s necessary?

Why are BMP’s necessary?

1. Increasing incidents of user conflicts; scenic vistas; NIMBY

Why are BMP’s necessary?

1. Increasing incidents of user conflicts; scenic vistas; NIMBY

2. Movement towards sustainability, stewardship and the “green movement”

Why are BMP’s necessary?

1. Increasing incidents of user conflicts; scenic vistas; NIMBY

2. Movement towards sustainability, stewardship and the “green movement”

3. Continuing expansion of Virginia shellfish culture industry.

www.vims.edu/adv/aqua/index.html

What process was employed to develop Virginia BMP’s?

What process was employed to develop Virginia BMP’s?

1. Secured funding – Virginia Department of Environmental Quality; Coastal Zone Management Act, Section 309

What process was employed to develop Virginia BMP’s?

1. Secured funding – Virginia Department of Environmental Quality; Coastal Zone Management Act, Section 309

2. Don’t re-invent the wheel – collected existing examples of BMP’s, especially shellfish related.

BMP’s Consulted1. 2001. British Columbia Shellfish Growers Association. Environmental Management System Code of Practice. 33 pp.

2. 2002. British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. BC Shellfish Aquaculture Code of Practice – Final Submission. 27 pp.

3. 2003. David Suzuki Foundation, Heather Deal. Sustainable Shellfish – Recommendations for Responsible Aquaculture. 34 pp.

4. 2003. Louisiana State University Agricultural Center. Aquaculture Production Best Management Practices (BMPs). 28 pp.

5. 2004. Southeastern Massachusetts Aquaculture Center. Best Management Practices for the Shellfish Culture Industry in Southeastern Massachusetts (version 09-04a). 100 pp.

6. 2005. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Massachusetts. Shellfish Aquaculture Management. 3 pp.

7. 2005. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Aquaculture Best Management Practices Rule. 104 pp.

8. 2006. Washington Department of Natural Resources. Best Management Practices (BMP’s) for Geoduck Aquaculture on State Owned Aquatic Lands in Washington State. 8 pp.

9. 2006. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (plus others). International Principles for Responsible Shrimp Farming. 21 pp.

10. 2006. New South Wales (Australia) Department of Primary Industries. The New South Wales Oyster Industry Sustainable Aquaculture Strategy. 65 pp.

11. 2006. Maryland Aquaculture Coordinating Council. Best Management Practices Manual for Maryland Aquaculture. 42 pp.

12. 2008. Craig Tucker and John Hargreaves. Environmental Best Management Practices for Aquaculture. Chapter 11 by R. LeRoy Creswell and Aaron A. McNevin, Better Management Practices for Bivalve Molluscan Aquaculture. 60 chapter pp.

What process was employed to develop Virginia BMP’s?

1. Secured funding – Virginia Department of Environmental Quality; Coastal Zone Management Act, Section 309

2. Don’t re-invent the wheel – collected existing examples of BMP’s, especially shellfish related.

3. Based upon our knowledge of the Virginia shellfish culture industry, developed a straw-man document with features from various BMP’s.

What process was employed to develop Virginia BMP’s?

1. Secured funding – Virginia Department of Environmental Quality; Coastal Zone Management Act, Section 309

2. Don’t re-invent the wheel – collected existing examples of BMP’s, especially shellfish related.

3. Based upon our knowledge of the Virginia shellfish culture industry, developed a straw-man document with features from various BMP’s.

4. Public presentations; copies mailed to industry for comments and input.

Who was involved in developing them?

1. Mike Oesterling and Mark Luckenbach were responsible for most of the draft writing.

Who was involved in developing them?

1. Mike Oesterling and Mark Luckenbach were responsible for most of the draft writing.

2. Industry advisory group representing different geographic areas in the state and species groups; respected leaders in the industry.

Who was involved in developing them?

1. Mike Oesterling and Mark Luckenbach were responsible for most of the draft writing.

2. Industry advisory group representing different geographic areas in the state and species groups; respected leaders in the industry.

3. Advisory group was the primary sounding board, ensuring Mark and I covered all aspects of their industry, that our BMP’s were reasonable and achievable.

Any implementation complications?

1. Voluntary.

Any implementation complications?

1. Voluntary.

2. Obtained endorsements from:

Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

VDACS, Governor-appointed Aquaculture Advisory Board

Virginia Farm Bureau, Aquaculture Advisory Committee

Buy-in from the industry?

1. Remains to be seen; however, based upon comments there are few “heartburns” with the documents.

Buy-in from the industry?

1. Remains to be seen; however, based upon comments there are few “heartburns” with the documents.

2. Signable Environmental Code of Practices as a marketing tool.

www.vims.edu/adv/aqua/index.html