By LEIGH VINCOLA/ecoRI News contributor
 |
Ninigret Pond in Charlestown, R.I., is a popular spot for
boaters,
fishermen and aquaculture. (Tom Richardson/New England Boating)
|
Ask anyone who frequents the ponds and they will tell you they are special. Point Judith, Potters, Winnapaug, Ninigret, Green Hill and Quonochontaug ponds run along the southern coast of the state from Point Judith to Westerly, and into Connecticut.
These ponds are coastal lagoons with shallow
water that are separated from the ocean by a barrier, creating a protected
environment that is popular for many activities. On a given day, you can find
people boating, fishing, swimming, sunbathing and/or birding.
Aquaculture
farms also are particularly suited for salt ponds, because of the shallow water
and longer growing season. Rhode Island’s aquaculture industry is on a steady
rise, and people with a vested interest in salt ponds have expressed concern
about the proper management of aquaculture farm leases.
Once
an aquaculture farm is set, the area can’t be utilized for other purposes.
While the general sentiment across the state, both within and outside of marine
industries, is that aquaculture is good for the economy, resistance has come
from certain groups who are accustomed to enjoying the salt ponds without
restrictions.
The Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) is the agency responsible for managing all leases and it’s receiving plenty of proposals for the salt ponds.
Currently, there are 30 leases in the ponds, and
CRMC receives seven or eight new applications a year. Under CRMC regulations,
only 5 percent of any salt pond can be leased to aquaculture at one time.
Each
application goes through a lengthy process, during which the proposed site is
looked at in depth by various entities including the Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Rhode Island
Historical Preservation & Heritage Commission.
The application is also
given a 30-day public notice period. This review determines if the proposal
will be met with conflict, and the application is ultimately either accepted or
denied by Dave Beutel, CRMC’s aquaculture coordinator.
These
regulations and the formal application process provide needed structure for a
growing industry, but it’s Rhode Island General Law 20-10-1 that
requires the big picture.
The law states, “It is in the best public interest of
the people and the state that the land and waters of the state are utilized
properly and effectively to produce plant and animal life. ... The process of
aquaculture should only be conducted within the waters of the state in a manner
consistent with the best public interest.”
What
exactly is in the best public interest then? What might be the best interest
for one, may not be for another.
Aquaculture expansion is certainly positive,
as we are currently bringing back an industry that had its last boom in the
1900s. Tourism and recreation are also good for our state, but when boaters and
fishermen have less and less access to the salt pond waters, what is the effect?
In
late March, a community discussion titled “Riparian Privilege” was presented by
the Rhode Island Shellfish Management Plan.
Dennis
Esposito, adjunct professor at the Marine Affairs Institute and director of the
Environmental and Land-Use Clinical Externship Program at Roger Williams
University School of Law and who offers legal council to the CRMC around issues
of public access, was there to answer questions from community members.
About
60 people gathered in the Cross' Mills Public Library in Charlestown, many of
them coastal homeowners, to discuss how to navigate their rights within a
growing shellfish farming industry happening in their backyard.
“When
we talk about privileges to our shore and near waters, we are really talking
about a shared resource use,” Esposito said.
“This is the essence of the Public
Trust Doctrine. The more people focus on legal property rights and property
ownership, excluding those that share the resource, the more we experience
legal conflicts.”
Another
issue of concern during last month’s discussion was when aquaculture leases go
into areas that are used for waterfowl hunting. This has created a conflict for
hunters now restricted by oyster farms.
Tracey
Dalton, professor of marine affairs at the University of Rhode Island also
spoke about the topic April 12 as part of Rhode Island Sea Grant’s Ocean State Discussion Series.
To investigate the “perceptions of aquaculture,” Dalton conducted a study to
determine what influences cause people to support or oppose the industry.
Her
findings showed that a high percentage of those surveyed — coastal property
owners were targeted — believe that the presence of aquaculture farms spoils
the beauty of the ponds and inhibits navigation for boaters.
Also
included in Dalton’s survey was a small sample of wild-harvest shellfishermen,
whose answers showed an opposition to the increase in oyster farming. The
presence of farms limits the areas they are able to harvest for clams.
“Resistance
to aquaculture from wild harvesters is an old sentiment initiated by quahoggers
that are no longer alive,” Beutel said.
On
the other hand, many wild harvesters argue that aquaculture has a place in the
shellfishing economy and that there is room for everyone.
“Aquaculture
can be a growing business if sites are chosen well,” said Mike McGiveney,
president of the Rhode Island Shellfisherman’s Association.
Despite
the isolated resistance from specific groups, there is an agreement that a
growing aquaculture industry is good for the state.
If the industry and the
salt ponds are to continue to thrive and be used, we must also agree to
compromise and keep the public interest at the forefront, according to Beutel.
“We
will continue to use the process we have in place and maximize seafood
production. However that happens, there will be some compromise,” he said.