The Michigan Net-Pen Experience – PART Idepts.washington.edu/wracuw/front...
46
The Michigan Net-Pen Experience – PART I by
Transcript of The Michigan Net-Pen Experience – PART Idepts.washington.edu/wracuw/front...
The Michigan Net-Pen Experience – PART I
by
Presenter
Presentation Notes
ADVANCE I am going to talk on the rise and fall of net-pen aquaculture in Michigan. Ron Do you recognize either of these guys? I thought I would point out here that when extension appears to provide support over a controversial issue, there is a good chance you could be accused of advocating. Certainly this was the case regarding MI netpens.
Backdrop
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Michigan’s handprint includes 6 quadrillion gallons of high quality water and over 11,000 miles of coastline. The FW aquaculture potential is literally beyond comprehension.
Somewhere in Ontario waters of Lake Huron
Presenter
Presentation Notes
In fact, in this area in Ontario
Presenter
Presentation Notes
We see 7 locations in and around the Manitoulin islands
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Where rainbow trout are being produced
20,200 ft
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Sustainably along the coastline
North Wind FisheriesManitoulin Island,
Ontario
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Such as North Wind Fisheries. This particular facility produces 500,000 pounds of rainbow trout a year from fingerling to 1 kg in ~18 months. The fish are processed in Canada and exported into the United States.
Meijer’s - Petoskey, MI 2017
Meijer - Lansing, MI 2014
Ontario Industry Snapshot
Source: Aquastats
2014 2015 2016RBT Volume (tonnes) 4,000 4,510 5,060 % increase 12.8 12.2
RBT Value (CAD x million) $20.5 $23.2 $26.8 % increase 13.2 15.5
% Value from RBT sector 94 91 88
Economic Contribution (CAD x million) $70 $80 $100 % increase 14.3 25.0
Jobs direct 158 195 190Jobs indirtect 150 150 150
Approximate Scale
Presenter
Presentation Notes
In terms of scale, a 500,000 lb facility could fit in an average size marina. It important to not there are typically several marinas of this size in most port cities in Michigan
MICHIGAN AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT ACT Act 199 of 1996
AN ACT to define, develop, and regulate aquaculture as an agricultural enterprise in this state; to provide powers and duties of certain state agencies
and departments; and to provide for certain penalties and remedies.
Preamble - August 1996
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Actually this story goes back to 1996 with the passing of the Michigan Aquaculture Development Act. This was a major achievement in that day, and defined aquaculture as an agricultural enterprise
Michigan Aquaculture Development Act
• Defines “Aquaculture” as the commercial husbandry of aquaculture species on the approved list…
• “Aquaculture facility” as a farm operation in privately controlled waters
• “Privately controlled waters” as waters controlled within any structure owned or leased by an aquaculturist and used with an aquaculture facility or confinement research facility.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
However, it also defined aquaculture as a commercial activity in privately controlled waters, which are waters controlled within any structure owned or leased by an aquaculturist.
The beginning - October 2014
Off the coast of Grand Haven Michigan
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Back to 2014, one day I was sitting in my office laboriously preparing to release…
Michigan capable of $1 billion from aquaculture
• Flow-through• RAS• Net-pens
Presenter
Presentation Notes
… the 2014 Michigan aquaculture strategic plan, through a Michigan Sea Grant Integrated Assessment project. In it, through a stakeholder group forecasting exercise, we identified that Michigan aquaculture has a $1 billion potential through flow-through, RAS and net-pen systems. Because net-pens have really never been discussed in Michigan, this started a wave of emotions from various entities.
• 2 proposals for commercial net-pen aquaculture operations submitted to State of Michigan Quality of Life Group (QOL – all state agencies)
• At least one offered $2 million for research, monitoring, and an adaptive management framework
December 2014
Presenter
Presentation Notes
A few months later, 2 proposals for commercial net-pen systems were submitted to State of Michigan Quality of Life Group (QOL) One was in the Bays de Noc targeting 385,000 lbs The Other was near Alpena for 500,000 lbs At least one offered $2 million for research, monitoring, and development of an BACI adaptive management framework
Winter 2014 - Spring 2015
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Things were pretty quiet at the office through spring of 2015. No word has been forthcoming from the state regarding the 2 proposals; however, we were hearing that a number of side discussions were taking place opposing aquaculture. Taking stock of the potential support base – at that time there were about 0.6 FTEs in extension, 5 individuals in the private sector (full time jobs), 1 or 2 in economic development, 1 from an aquaculture research firm, a few in Farm Bureau (under 10)
May 2015
Presenter
Presentation Notes
In May of 2015, we heard through the media a scientific panel was being formed to assess the environmental impacts associated with net-pens in the Great Lakes. The message then was that observations in Ontario will not be considered as a framework for going forward.
Department of
Natural Resources
Aquaculture Expansion in Michigan – Thoughts on Potential
Natural Resource ChallengesFisheries Division
June 2015
June 2015(September 2015)
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The next few slides are from a presentation by a state agency (not to be named), that was given to at least 2 fishery advisory committees through the summer of 2015. Unfortunately I did not see this until September. There was some significance here because recreational and charter fisherman have strong political ties, and were voicing opposition against expanding aquaculture into the Great Lakes.
Department of
Natural Resources
Facility Types in PlanTypes
Pond Culture (Not in plan)
Recirculating – Closed system – 10%
Flow through – Open system – 10-20%
Cage Culture – 70-80% of the productionApproximately 500 acres needed – 250 operationsLikely 1 million lbs. production each facilityNet pens require onshore fingerling production, likely from flow through systems
Presenter
Presentation Notes
My understanding is that the information presented to the fishery groups was supposed to have been pulled from the Michigan Aquaculture Strategic Plan. What was interesting is that this information surfaced a number of times in public comments.
“Figure 7. What the sector might look like…It is important to note that cage culture comprises only a portion of expected output.”
Michigan Aquaculture Strategic Plan 2014
Hypothetically -$275 million
$2.00/lb~137.5 million
lbs
250 million lbs 500 acres??
Presenter
Presentation Notes
As PI on the project I was rather surprised when I heard these numbers because knew we were careful not to attribute total production across systems, frankly we had no idea on how we might get to the billion $ mark. In fact there were 2 points in the 100+ page documents that mentioned trout production numbers at all. The first was in Figure 7….
(p33)“Displacing these imports with sustainable domestic production could have a significant positive impact for aquaculture, with a farm gate value of $20-40 million ($2/lb in the round) and a gross sector contribution (5x multiplier) of $100-200 million to the economy.”
Michigan Aquaculture Strategic Plan 2014
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The second point briefly mentions the ability to replace imports with domestic production
Department of
Natural Resources
Effluent Management – None at this timePhosphorus, suspended solids and pathogens
Serious issues raised in West Coast operations
Estimated loading – 20K lbs P annually/facility11,764 person loading annually (100 gallons per day * 5.8 mg/L = 0.8 kg/capita)
2.8 million people if all 250 operations go into operation
High research, investment and unknown maintenance costs
Cage Culture
FCR = 1.212,000 lbs P
Would require a FCR = 4.4
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The presentation then went on to say each net-pen would put 20,000 lbs of phosphorus into the water annually, then equating it to 2.8 million people. Taking a closer look at this, these numbers didn’t make much sense. It’s pretty easy to estimate the amount of P that would go into solution. Using a realistic FCR value of 1.2, a 1million lb facility would add 12,000 P/yr … no basis for this slide in this presentation
Accounting for P retained by fish1,000,000 lbs fish
20,000 lbs P Loading0.45 %P loss to environment (Piper)
FC 4.44
In real life….1,000,000 lbs fish
1.2 FC1,200,000 Lbs feed
0.45 %P loss to environment (Piper)
12,000 Lbs P loss to environment
BLUE-RIBBON SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL on net-pen aquaculture in Michigan
Also in June 2015
• Eric J. Anderson, NOAA, Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory• John M. Dettmers, Great Lakes Fishery Commission • James S. Diana, University of Michigan, Sea Grant • Keith McCormack, Hubbell, Roth & Clark • James A. Morris, NOAA, National Ocean Service • David Scarfe, Aquatic Veterinary Associates LLC, USDA-APHIS-VS • Craig Stow, NOAA, Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory • Roy A. Stein, Chair, The Ohio State University
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Also in June, the state announced members of the science panel which included Jim Diana, Eric Anderson, John Dettmers, Morris, Scarfe and others. Great credentials! Overall, I think supporters were happy with the member appointments, and looked forward to a fair and unbiased review.
August 2015
Stakeholder Meeting St. Ignace
• Organized by principle supporters• Topics - fish feeds and waste, fish health and antibiotics, types of
aquaculture production systems and siting, genetics, and ecosystem and socio-economic impacts.
• Panel forum style with 2 supporting / 2 opposing views • 100+ in attendance
Committee of Advisorsto the
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
Public Statements and Resolutions in Apposition
Presenter
Presentation Notes
It was about at this point we began to understand the extent of opposition that hate the idea of pens going into the water. These groups have broad political ties, strong voice in media, and large composite membership base.
Photo: Cornell
• Addition of phosphorus
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Where we struggle, I think, is explaining the fate of phosphorus coming from net-pens. The science and management is there but who is going to listen when you have lake Erie turning into a toxic algal bloom poisoning Toledo drinking water ?
• Addition of phosphorus?
Lake
TP Water Qual Objective (µg P/L)
Average Spring TP (µg P/L)
Year Status Trend 1970 to 2010
Superior 5 3 2008 Good TP not changing Huron 5 2.7 2009 Caution TP decliningGeorgian Bay 5 2.6 2009 Caution TP decliningErie – Western Basin 15 58 2009 Poor TP decliningEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
< 4 µg/l ultra-oligotrophic system
Better question…..
Can we manage our resources better?
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Addition of Phosphorus? �The real question should be be: is there a way to manage our resources for both seafood production AND a better fishery? Discuss table – pointed this out at various forums.
Lake Huron charter boat harvests 1990-2015
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Num
ber H
arve
sted
ChinookCohoLake TroutSteelhead
Lenart 2017
• Phosphorus shunt cycle
Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 61: 1285–1293 (2004)
Presenter
Presentation Notes
In response to my comments on primary productivity issues and potential benefit of P addition, a counter argument was brought forward referring to the phosphorus shunt cycle.
‘super-FADs’ because of the large numbers of wild
fish attracted to these structures (Dempster et al. 2005).
Price and Morris 2013
Conceptual model onlyDoes not account for FADs
• Phosphorus shunt cycle
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Fish aggregation devices (FADs) are structures deployed in aquatic environments to attract fish communities, and marine cages have been called. While we do not know how this might effect the theory of the phosphorus shunt cycle, observations out of Ontario are that net pens and recreational fisherman have a beneficial relationship. This would be a great area of research if fish could be put in the water.
“We’re not against aquaculture, just
this particular kind of aquaculture… We already know
how to do aquaculture in
Michigan”
“Recirculating aquaculture… is already
being implemented in Michigan, raise mass amounts of fish… a
practice.. well suited to vacant warehouses ”
Summer 2015
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Through the summer of 2015 opposition statements were mounting in media. It also seemed like there was a shift in messaging coming out, directing aquaculture development indoors, to areas like Detroit.
September 2015
SB 526 introduced (with committee hearings)
• Would have prohibited all aquaculture operations whose discharges are hydraulically connected to the Great Lakes
Introduced Legislation
“Concentrated fish poo is just not Pure Michigan,”
“A typical 200,000 fish operation creates as much waste as a city of 65,000 people, which
would make the Great Lakes a giant toilet bowl.”
Presenter
Presentation Notes
A bill was introduced by my senator SB526 aka the Jones Bill, that would have eliminated probably all commercial aquaculture in the state. And this is my ultra favorite media statement to date
State hatcheries 20+ million
fish in 2014
Private1,000 - 20,000
lbs/y each
Private> 100,000 lbs/y
each
State net-pens 3.36 million fish
2010-2014
Aquaculture defined as
commercial
• Science • Regulatory Analysis • Natural Resource Values Potentially at Risk • Expected Economic Impact• Industry Performance
October 2015
Series of reports commissioned by state of Michigan
Reports available on the MDARD aquaculture website
MI Attorney General: The Great Lakes are not privately controlled waters therefore MDARD cannot register a net-pen facility.
November 2015
1,700 written comments 1,600 in opposition
11 in support
90% in electronic form letter through the Food and Water Watch
Presenter
Presentation Notes
There was public comment opportunity in November of 15.
More Introduced Legislation (with hearings)
December 2015
HB 5166, 5167, 5168 / SB 681, 682, 683• Defines aquaculture similar to the National
Aquaculture Act definition• Defines “water-based aquaculture facility”• Allows for up to 10 net-pen facilities in first 5 years• Creates an Office of Aquaculture in MDARD• Help streamline permitting
HB 5255
• Defines net-pen aquaculture
• Prohibits aquaculture in Great Lakes and tributaries up to first dam
Even More Introduced Legislation
January 2016
7% Strongly support 13% Somewhat support 20% TOTAL SUPPORT 68% TOTAL OPPOSE 21% Somewhat oppose 47% Strongly oppose 12% Undecided/Refused
5% Strongly support 12% Somewhat support 17% TOTAL SUPPORT 56% TOTAL OPPOSE 19% Somewhat oppose 37% Strongly oppose 27% Undecided/Refused
Rotate statements
Presenter
Presentation Notes
EPIC-MRA�Supporters of allowing fish farms in Michigan waters of the Great Lakes point out that Canadian fish farms annually produce about $16 million in rainbow trout which are sold to restaurants and groceries throughout North America, including Michigan. They say that with traditional heavy manufacturing in decline – especially in rural northern Michigan – fish farming in the Great Lakes offers a real chance for the state to expand its role in the global food economy. Supporters also point out that our state is well positioned to launch this activity because of our existing scientific resources and expertise in engineering and manufacturing. Opponents of fish farming say the Great Lakes are too valuable to put at risk by breeding and raising fish in net-pens. The waste produced by the thousands of fish in net-pens poses a real threat of uncontrollable nuisance and toxic algae blooms, posing a hazard not only to wild fish populations but also to the people who draw their drinking water from the lakes. They also point out that some fish always escape into the wider environment and because of inter-breeding, they threaten wild species such as salmon, trout and steelhead with genetic dilution. Opponents of farms in the Great Lakes believe the economic benefits of aquaculture can be achieved in land-based fish farms without threatening the health of our citizens or the $4 billion sport fishing industry and the other water dependent jobs in the tourism economy.
Source: mlive.com
February 2016
• Great Lakes net-pen aquaculture not recommended • Pose significant risks to fishery management,
recreation, and tourism• Cost state $3.3 million to implement a commercial
net-pen aquaculture program • Cost $2.33 million/yr to monitor• This level of public investment not prudent for an
estimated return of $10 million
MI QOL Synthesis Report
March 2016
Ontario Aquaculture Educational Tour
• Big production / little impact
• Thorough regulation from multiple agencies
• Sport fishing is enhanced by presence of net-pen farms
• First Nations partnerships produce over ½ farm gate revenue
• Expansion ~15-25% /yr in 2015 - 2017
June 2016
Presenter
Presentation Notes
In June 2016, a Michigan delegation consisting 26 stakeholders went to Ontario Canada to learn about their Great Lakes aquaculture sector. legislators, regulators, farmers, aquaculture and Soybean industry tribes, anglers, and tourism
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The remainder of 2016 was pretty quiet on the net-pen front, and Ron and I have met a number of times working on other aquaculture extension activities
February 2017
H.R. 961: Ban Aquaculture in the Great Lakes Act
H.R. 962: Preserve Fishing on Wild and Scenic River Act
Introduced Federal Legislation
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Daniel Kildee Representative for Michigan's 5th congressional district Democrat
End of Part 1
