Ocean Rainforest Meeting with CFSB Minutes
March 28, 2022 4PM PST
Attendance: Eliza Harrison, Chris Voss, Kim Selkoe, Paul Teall, John Hudson, Bernard Fried, Mary Nishimoto, Andy Rasmussen, Jeff Maassen, Gary Burke, Mike Conroy, Doug Bush, Nels Frederickson, Michael Harrington, Michael Nelson, Wes Newbury
Notes: Ava Schulenberg
Ocean Rainforest’s Agenda:
In line with Ocean Rainforest’s commitment to the commercial fishing community, the next gathering to discuss our draft Lost/Damaged Fishing Gear Recovery Plan will take place Monday, March 28 from 4:00 - 6:00 pm at the Santa Barbara Harbor Classroom. To create the opportunity for a productive conversation, Ocean Rainforest intends to distribute a digital version of the draft Plan in advance of the gathering. We hope this forum yields a mutually acceptable Plan that effectively addresses the risk of lost or damaged gear within the shared offshore ocean space. Please contact Eliza Harrison ([email protected]) with any questions or concerns.
Eliza opened the meeting on March 28, 2022 at 4:00pm. Meeting was held in person in the harbor classroom and via Zoom.
Eliza Harrison begins the meeting by passing out the lost/damaged fishing gear compensation plan; a required condition of their Consistency Determination from the California Coastal Commission. The document outlines how they will comply with all coast guard guidelines and regulations specifically in terms of marking the system and updating NOAA charts to show the installation. It also walks through the claims process, and discusses a tentative evaluation and compensation program. Kim asks if this draft is a legal document and Eliza says no, it’s more of an application to submit a claim in the event there is interaction between fishing gear and the seaweed cultivation facility.
Gary Burke asks what surveillance they will have and Eliza says there will be cameras on each of the four corner buoys. He also asks how many anchors will be on the site and what kind of bottom impact? Eliza responds by saying they did a comprehensive engineering analysis to come to the conclusion of 28 sled anchors that are designed to withstand a 100 year storm event and are less expensive to remove at the end of the event. Jeff asks if there will be radar reflectors, Eliza says yes. Paul asks if they will have AIS beacons on buoys and Eliza says she believes so.
Kim asks Bernard what his experience is in comparison - He says he’s in state waters and he has zero lights marking his site. He said he can light them, but he might get complaints from homeowners, etc. he also says he doesn’t put huge buoys out there because it’s a hazard. Instead he uses large, hollow, plastic balls. Paul says it’s still a hazard to not have it lit up and wants to ensure Ocean Rainforest’s site will be well lit, which Eliza says it 100% will be.
Mary asks if this plan has been reviewed by the Coastal Commission. Eliza responds that it has not because she had previously committed that the draft plan would be reviewed by groups like fishermen, etc. first before submission.
Gary has another question: if he has a boat without radar and, in dense fog, runs into the Ocean Rainforest site gear, who is at fault? Eliza says that’s why they’ve drafted this plan and that type of situation would follow the claims process outlined in the draft plan.
Paul asks if a fisherman is determined to be negligent, are they responsible to pay for ORI equipment. Eliza says that the question falls out of scope of the plan, but the plan doesn’t preclude Ocean Rainforest from independently filing a claim against the vessel owner/operator. Kim asks if they have insurance and Eliza confirms that they will have insurance on the site.
Jeff asks what the target installation date is and Eliza confirms this September/October (2022). He asks what kind of tonnage estimation they have and Eliza says they will have that information later this summer.
Paul asks what the scope is and Eliza says they have not yet determined that because they have not yet finalized the type of buoy they will use.
Chris asks Mary if fishermen lost a bunch of gear on an oil platform, what happens? Mary says if you lose gear and feel it has something to do with the oil platforms, you would go to Mary and work with her to try and identify the oil company responsible for that loss. Mary would then help develop that claim and act as the liaison with the oil company at hand. Paul asks if she will be involved at all in this Ocean Rainforest claims process and she says no that she is here because she likes to know about any kind of spatial use out in the channel because it affects fishermen but also service vessel patterns, etc.
Paul has concerns about overall liability under section 3, paragraph 2 - Eliza says the purpose of that paragraph is to define what level of compensation they would be able to administer in the event of an interaction. Kim says this clause is the really important part of this draft because it says they will only cover the cost of the gear and depreciated cost so they would never cover the lost fishing time. Eliza says they will cover the cost of lost fishing gear and catch (catch that was lost in the incident itself); there would be no compensation for the time and lost fishing opportunity that would occur after an event. Eliza says they haven’t included that explicitly in the plan because it was not a requirement of the Coastal Commission’s conditions, but if we have language we want to suggest be included on that topic, we are welcome to. Kim suggests they should have a certain dollar value per day lost. Bernard says if any boat hits any gear they’re liable, this opens up a big can of worms to all parties that have gear in the water.
Eliza says the system should appear similar to a natural kelp forest with a canopy on the surface. That canopy would be surrounded by buoys within the system. Bernard emphasizes that this kind of environment will greatly attract fish and everyone fishes around his site all the time. Paul says it’s just like the MPAs where people fish right on the perimeter. Andy says he’s sure white seabass will likely fish through the site.
Mary asks if it will be a no-go area or if people can fish in the site. Eliza says it’s technically not prohibited to fish through it, but there are hazards because there are lines and buoys in the water. Paul asks how many buoys there will be inside, which Eliza says about 96 surface buoys. Bernard says this is better because it’s more visible than having less. He says he noticed more people went through his site before he put more buoys out.
Gary asks if they had to post a bond for cleanup, Eliza says it’s a $119k letter of credit that Coastal Commision and Ocean Rainforest have determined is sufficient to fully decommission the site.
Chris’ thought is that even though this is a small experiment, if a giant aquaculture facility is anticipated to exist on the flats at some point, we should think about how we’re setting precedent. Bernard says this should not be an us vs. them situation and aquaculture is the future and we shouldn’t make an enemy out of aquaculture. Bernard says commercial fishing vs. aquaculture is more spread out vs aquaculture is concentrated and fishermen and farmers have a lot more in common than they think.
Andy says Ocean Rainforest just wants a big block of the ocean. Eliza says no, we want to do it differently. They have seen and understand some of the issues with the AOA presentations, and are thus trying to go about the process differently. .
Paul says they need to add something about vessels to the plan because if someone’s boat gets damaged because of their gear, there needs to be something. Eliza says the draft is based on the Coastal Commission requirements and Paul says they should go above and beyond just the minimum requirements if they want to look out for fishermen. Eliza says the boats haven’t been included yet because this is a gear focused draft, but she hears the concerns around vessel damage and she will go back to the team to work to incorporate boats. She recognizes the need to go beyond the minimum requirements of the Coastal Commission in an effort to build a relationship with commercial fishermen. Bernard says maybe they should just have insurance that will cover it. Doug says how this is not just a pointless redundancy to a traditional general liability policy and wonders why the Coastal Commission even required this clause. Kim asks about the Catalina Sea Ranch situation, to which Eliza responds that there was gross negligence in that incident. They had floating gear on the surface and were aware of that violation and ended up having their permits revoked.
Kim asks where’s the rest of the Ocean Rainforest team? Eliza says they were thinking about this earlier that day and decided it would be best for her to come alone this time given how the meeting went last time, However,she can certainly plan another meeting with more people from her team in the future.
Mary asks if they will only be running boats from their site to and from the Santa Barbara harbor. Eliza confirms yes and only during the day. They will be checking on the site once a week during the first month after installation, every two weeks thereafter.There also will likely be a third party that they will hire to do additional monitoring. Mary asks what kind of vessel they will use for the installation and Eliza says something like the Danny C. Ocean Rainforest will use smaller boats for all other monitoring operations at the site.
Andy has a concern about depreciated cost vs. replacement cost.Doug asks what the precedent is like if you crash your car you don’t get a brand new car, you get the depreciated value for the replacement. Andy says you should be replaced with a net that you can fish. Doug asks if there’s a market for used nets and the answer is no. When a net is destroyed, you have to wait to buy a new net, it will take at least 4 months (which means that’s 4 months lost working time), it’s a lot more complicated than just buying a new car. Bernard emphasizes that Andy will not wreck his nets, the more likely scenario is damage to the vessel or other gear.
Gary asks how much does Ocean Rainforest estimate how much it will cost to put this project on and what return are they looking to get to call it successful? Eliza says the return is based on yields and emphasizes again that this part of the project is exclusively dedicated to research; Ocean Rainforest will not generate any revenue from the demonstration project.
Kim suggests they should hold another meeting once the details of their general liability insurance policy are confirmed, to which Eliza agrees. Kim says there seems to be a role for this type of “Plan”, but there needs to be more clarity as to what the insurance companies will deal with and what exactly will be done with this separate claims application draft.
Mary suggests Eliza speak with an oil company and see how they handle claims. Eliza says yes they can do that.
John asks how many claims Bernard has had - He says he has had no claims, but has had lost/damaged gear because there will always be gear interactions. He again emphasizes that all fishermen have gear in the water and thus interaction is inevitable.
Meeting adjourned at 5:36pm.