1 / 13

Michael Baicker and Ke Zhao Presented to the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services

This report presents a comparative case study of aquaculture regulation in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Maine, highlighting the successes, failures, and viable tactics of each state. The research examines the permitting process, public input, economic consequences, and environmental consequences of aquaculture regulation. The findings provide insight into current regulatory policies and can inform the development of aquaculture regulation in New Hampshire.

kstaples
Download Presentation

Michael Baicker and Ke Zhao Presented to the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Developing New Hampshire aquaculture regulationA Comparative Case Study of Eastern Coastal States Michael Baicker and Ke Zhao Presented to the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services April 23, 2015 The contents of this report were developed under grant P116B100070 from the U.S. Department of Education. However, these contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the U.S. Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.

  2. Introduction • Overview of Task • Introduction to Research Design and Methodology • Comparison of Existing State Policies • Conclusions

  3. Why a Comparative Case Study? • Provides insight into current regulatory policies in place. • Allows for a comprehensive overview of relevant states’ policies. • Highlights successes, failures, and viable tactics of each state.

  4. Criteria for Comparison • Oceanic and climatic conditions • Aquacultured species • Existing regulatory framework

  5. Research Methodology • States: Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Maine • Permitting Process • Enforcement • Environmental Consequences • Economic Consequences • Public Opinion

  6. Permitting Process Characteristics • Percentage of rejected permit applications • Permit cost • Length of permit • Length of time to obtain permit • # of people running large scale operations without permits • Extent of state oversight • Involved agencies • Forbidden coastal environments

  7. Public Input • Public hearing processes • Opportunities for public comment • Reconciliation of Public Trust

  8. Economic Consequences • How much time does the process consume? • Cost to obtain license including site assessment • Effects of Best Management Practices (BMPs)

  9. Environmental Consequences • Environmental costs • Coastal water quality • Wetlands protection

  10. Findings: Massachusetts • “Home rule” town-by-town approach • Multi-layered permitting process • Local review • Public hearing • Division of Marine Fisheries • Public trust a concern in judicial system • Mix of family-run and commercial operations • Foreseeable expansion limited at best

  11. Findings: New Jersey • Two systems in place: ADZs and standard application • NJDEP oversees all aquaculture license applications • Up to nine different agencies can be involved in permitting process • New ADZ system employs a “parking lot” design, clearly designating certain areas for aquaculture use, eliminating public trust issues.

  12. Findings: Maine • Unified permitting process overseen by Department of Marine Resources • Tiered leasing system designed to streamline and scale process to size of aquaculture operation. • Public comment periods allow for reconciliation of public and private use of waters. • Lack of data surrounding environmental effects.

  13. Conclusions • Massachusetts demonstrates issues that arise from localized regulation – lack of standardization and inter-municipal coordination. • New Jersey’s ADZ system potentially applicable to New Hampshire due to small coastal area that could easily be divided into lots. • Maine’s tiered system scales well as compared to Massachusetts and New Jersey. It is also the most integrated process.

More Related