|
Back to Bay Management Oversight
From: Governor's Task Force on the Planning and Development of Aquaculture in Maine:
Report and Recommendations. January 30, 2004
VI. Bay Management: Findings & Recommendations
Issue Summary: The Task Force undertook an examination of the concept of bay management, exploring
both how it has been used in other parts of the world, as well as how proponents in Maine
envision its application.
Findings
1. Under the current lease system the consideration of local and regional knowledge and
issues is limited to the decision criteria and their application to a specific lease site.
2. Several of the issues raised by proponents of bay managment are being addressed
through recently implemented revisions to the lease process (e.g. the community
scoping meetings, which were added to the leasing regulations in February 2003).
3.A well-designed, well-executed approach to bay management could offer benefits
that modifications to the existing lease process may not. These include:
· If local stakeholders had a formalized role in the leasing process beyond the
opportunity to testify at public hearings, they would be more inclined to
participate;
· Local stakeholders would be able to provide more detailed ecological and
social information than the State can collect;
· The comprehensive collection of local information would result in an
improved decision-making process for future lease requests.
· Decentralization of the planning process would include a broader
representation of local interests;
· The Department might be better able to consider the bay-wide implications of
each lease application; and
· Bay management could be applied to other use conflicts in state waters.
4. If not properly constructed, bay management could be detrimental to the aquaculture
leasing process, and could jeopardize the state’s protection of the public trust.
Concerns that the Task Force heard include:
· If not carefully structured, bay management could be used locally to override
larger, statewide public trust issues and/or to exclude aquaculture from an
area;
· The jurisdiction of any multi- stakeholder group will need to be limited to
ensure that the legitimate needs and concerns of growers are adequately
represented in a multi- stakeholder group, particularly if no aquaculture exists
in an area;
· A new level of review may prolong an already lengthy lease application
process;
· Bay management may exacerbate the situation it was designed to mitigate by
adding another layer of review to an already complex process; and
· The financial costs of staffing and administering one or more bay
management efforts could be extensive.
5. Bay management means different things to different people, and the Task Force was
unable, given time constraints, to develop a working definition of the term. Ideas
about bay management ranged from bay planning (issue identification, inventory, and
recommendations) to bay management (providing advice and/or decisionmaking).
The Task Force also debated whether bay management should be limited
to just aquaculture. Most Task Force members felt strongly that any bay management
effort should apply to all public trust uses. Others were comfortable with the initial
efforts focusing on aquaculture.
There are many questions that would need to be
answered before bay management could be implemented. For example:
· Is bay management an a priori planning exercise or reactive to specific lease
requests?
· What is the incentive for communities to participate in bay management?
Greater standing in the lease process, the obligation of DMR to take into
consideration the information presented in the plan, or some limited decisionmaking
authority?
· How are the boundaries of the bays to be managed determined - ecologically,
or adhering to political (municipal) boundaries?
· How is membership in the bay management committee/board determined -
appointed by DMR, the municipalities, or another body?
· How will representation on the committee or board be ensured – prescribed
seats, or different on a bay-by-bay basis, depending on stakeholder
composition?
· Is the bay management committee/subcommittee providing information only
on topics in the existing decision criteria, or is this viewed as an opportunity
to influence the decision in ways that are not provided for in the existing
criteria?
· Is there a need for the adoption of the plan by a formal body (town meeting,
selectmen, or town council) in order to ensure that the recommendations
reflect a broader public policy and not just a small interest group?
6. The Task Force agreed that if bay management is pursued in the future, it should not
be mandated, but directed on a voluntary basis in those regions that have an interest.
7. The Task Force agreed that it would be necessary to have statewide standards that
would have to be met by any bay management exercise. The Task Force was not
afforded the time necessary to develop these standards and meet their statutorily
required deadline.
8. The Task agreed that in no case should the development of a bay management plan be
used as a reason to institute a moratorium on new lease applications.
Recommendations
VI.1. After extensive public input and considerable delibe rations the Task
Force was divided on the issue of bay management. Due to the enormous
complexity of and disagreement about the nature, scale, process and detail of
bay management the recommendation of the Task Force is to not proceed
with implementing bay management specifically for aquaculture at this time.
VI.2. The Legislature should charge DMR to convene a group specifically to
study bay management. That group should utilize the values and
information collected, discussed, and debated by the Task Force. There are
two topics the group should investigate: 1) how best to define bay
management, and 2) whether this concept can meet the needs of Maine
people.
VI.3. The state should encourage industry cooperation to protect fish and
shellfish health and biosecurity, such as that practiced in Cobscook Bay for
finfish.
End of Bay Management section of Aquaculture Task Force Report to the Maine Legislature, January 30, 2004
|