Aquaculture & Fisheries

Report: Aquaculture Industry Declining Slightly in Ocean State

Share

While Rhode Island’s main aquaculture crop is oysters, farmers are also raising hard-shell clams, mussels, and seaweed. (istock)

WAKEFIELD, R.I. — Oysters, scallops, and clams may still be growing by the bushel in state waters, but the aquaculture industry as a whole is declining in Rhode Island, according to a new report.

The latest numbers released by the Coastal Resources Management Council, the state agency that oversees Rhode Island’s burgeoning aquaculture sector, show that the dollar value for products grown in aquaculture farms declined 2.42% in 2023 compared to the previous year, earning slightly above $8 million. The industry saw a similar decline in employment, shedding 7.3% of part-time and full-time jobs in the industry in 2023 compared to the previous year. The figures come from a yearly questionnaire distributed to all aquaculture leaseholders by CRMC.

The declines are in spite of the fact the agency approved a new aquaculture lease last year, and approved more than 10 additional acres of state waters for aquaculture use. Benjamin Goetsch, the agency’s sole aquaculture staffer who wrote the CRMC report, found demand for farm-grown shellfish remains robust, noting that “demand and production remained very strong, with 2023 out-pacing all other years other than 2022.”

“Rhode Island aquaculturists are resilient and continue to work on and invest in their farms to meet this strong demand for high-quality shellfish,” Goetsch wrote. “Many farmers remain optimistic that strong demand for sustainably grown R.I. aquaculture products, both locally and throughout the country, will only continue into 2024 and beyond.”

The industry’s growth has been stagnant since just before the pandemic. The state has added on average about one new aquaculture site a year since 2019, a far cry from the industry’s rapid rise in its first two decades. In the five-year period prior to 2019, the agency approved 16 new aquaculture sites. Acreage over the past decade, meanwhile, has nearly doubled from 206 acres of aquaculture in 2014 to 384 acres today.

While shellfish, and the restaurants that serve them, have grown in popularity in recent years, so has the community backlash to new or expanded aquaculture production sites in Rhode Island. The backlash carries a specific not-in-my-backyard flavor: opponents say they aren’t opposed to the industry as a whole, just the specific sites that are chosen for the aquaculture farms.

Many of the best sites are typically located in quiet inlets in Narragansett Bay, or in coastal ponds with a strong saltwater presence, that typically also coincide with recreational water uses such as swimming, boating or jet skiing, and the waterfront homes with high values that accompany such areas. The ponds that run along the state’s southern shore — Green Hill, Ninigret, Point Judith, Potter, Quonochontaug. and Winnapaug — have natural barriers that separate the coastal lagoons from the ocean, forming an excellent environment for aquaculture as well as summertime activities.

Another issue aquaculture farm owners face is the slow pace of the CRMC when it comes to ruling on applications.

Perry Raso, the owner and operator of the popular Matunuck Oyster Bar, applied for an expansion to his scallop farm in South Kingstown’s Potter’s Pond back in 2019. It took over five years of deliberations, disputes, and public hearings before CRMC’s executive body voted to approve a slimmed-down version of his application in June 2023, allowing for 2 additional acres of aquaculture.

Raso’s original application, which sought to add 3 acres to his 10-acre aquaculture farm, was denied in November 2021, primarily because of neighbors’ complaints that the proposed expansion would deeply cut into water-based activities, with the aquaculture cages posing a hazard for everyone else using the pond.

John and Patrick Bowen show another example of the tug-of-war over coastal ponds and aquaculture. In 2020 the brothers applied to install up to 200 oyster cages in an area totaling less than an acre 285 feet offshore in the Sakonnet River. Their proposal, which would have sited their farm close to Sapowet Marsh, a state-managed area in Tiverton, set off years of opposition from anglers, residents, and others who said it would interfere with other uses of the water and intrude on the public trust.

Despite submitting their application over four years ago, the Bowens still have not received a final decision from the agency. Last year the council voted to have the application heard by CRMC’s newly minted hearing officer, Mark Krieger, who almost a year later has not issued a final decision on the matter.

According to the report, oysters remained the No. 1 aquaculture product with 10,648,321 pieces sold for consumption. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation Service worked with R.I. aquaculturists to purchase and seed a record number of approximately 1,700,551 oysters to restoration sites throughout the coastal ponds and Narragansett Bay.

Join the Discussion

View Comments

Recent Comments

  1. If part of your point was to suggest that opposition to aquaculture is fueled primarily by NIMBYism and that has caused significant delay in approval, it missed the mark. Much, if not all, of the opposition is supported by facts for the specific location that demonstrate non-compliance with Category B requirements, and not simply because of a waterfront owners view.

    For disclosure, I am a pro se Objector to the Bowen application, so the reader of my comments may consider them biased. They are not, because my comments are supported by undisputed facts.

    In the Raso matter, it would have been helpful to give the reader more information on the Council’s watered-down approval, and that it went against the factually supported recommendation of its own subcommittee to deny the request after many months of public and expert testimony, review and thoughtful consideration.

    Regarding the Bowen application, much of the delay can directly be attributed to the CRMC, and some matters outside of anyone’s control.

    COVID intervened with a lockdown resulting in significant delay, as well as many agencies gearing up for the “Zoom” meeting process. Since the submission of the Bowen application, at many meetings the Council lacked a quorum, so it would have been unable to decide on granting an assent or not. Again, delay not caused by the opposition or NIMBYism.

    In May 2023, because the original notice seeking public comment was deficient, the CRMC was required to re-notice the Bowen application. Clearly not a delay caused by the opposition, but a procedural necessity.

    More importantly, in November 2023, only four months after the expiration of the re-noticed public comment period, the Council determined that the Bowen application was a contested matter, and overwhelmingly voted to send the matter for review to and a recommendation from the newly appointed Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer held his first hearing in February 2024, after he was provided with over 1,000 pages of public comment and other information submitted by various stakeholders. Delay, if any, cannot be attributed to NIMBYism.

    Also not mentioned is the fact that generally supportive groups, like the East Coast Shellfish Association, are against the Bowen application. Certainly not NIMBYism.

    The article also fails to mention the June 2024 passage of RIGL §32-1-5.2, which law prohibits at any time the commercial development of Sapowet Cove or in any way the modification of Sapowet Cove from its current undeveloped state. The Hearing Officer currently has under advisement the Objectors’ motion to dismiss the Bowen application for an aquaculture farm in Sapowet Cove as moot. NIMBYism? No, an issue of law.

    Delay is not in the best interest of the applicant or the public. Perhaps, as has been suggested by others in recent years, the CRMC needs an overhaul so that delays are minimized.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your support keeps our reporters on the environmental beat.

Reader support is at the core of our nonprofit news model. Together, we can keep the environment in the headlines.

cookie