Editor:
In your Aug. 22 article on the appeal of the Humboldt County Planning Commission’s environmental review of Nordic Aquafarms’ proposed Samoa Penninsula industrial fish farm, you cite several reasons for the appeal (“Fishing Association, Environmental Groups Appeal Fish Farm EIR Certification”).
You cite the under-calculation of greenhouse gas emissions by the omission of the quite considerable carbon footprint of the manufacture and transport of industrial fishmeal.
A major ingredient of industrial fishmeal is soy, and much of that soy comes from Brazil, where the Amazon rainforest is being torched to clear land for soy production — a carbon and climate disaster. Not to mention the carbon footprint of transporting soy and fishmeal from South America, Asia and Africa.
The article cites effects on local salmonid fisheries, including exposure to disease. Here in Maine, Nordic first said fish could escape from land-based fish farms — thus risking the spread of disease — but now Nordic says they can’t, despite large-scale escapes from land-based fish farms in Norway and New Brunswick, Canada.
And there are other risks to wild fish. Nordic’s daily discharge of 7.7 million gallons of effluent will likely attract sea lice, which will likely attach to passing wild fish, potentially devastating local fish populations.
Finally, the article cites the failure to complete required scientific studies. Here in Maine, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has simply refused to enforce legally prescribed permit application requirements and, like in Humboldt County, this abject breach of duty has been one of the grounds for appeal of Nordic’s DEP permit.
This failure to enforce environmental laws — by the very agencies charged with enforcing those laws — is disgraceful and I fully support the groups in Humboldt County and here in Maine that are fighting this governmental failure of duty.
Lawrence Reichard, Belfast, Maine
This article appears in Uniting for Ukraine.
Attacking a government agency on this project when there have been no laws broken is not how the NGOs have been operating on the west coast. There has been good collaboration, in fact. As far as the concerns you have raised: Nordic’s choice of fish feed (far into the future in an ever-evolving industry) will be made with considerations on sustainability, fish health, and quality. Our intent is to make choices that align with our environmental stewardship goals. On fish escape: Nordic’s fish will be maintained on-site from hatch to harvest. There are redundant water filtration systems with screening down to .04 microns. One micron is 1000 times smaller than 1 mm. Atlantic Salmon eggs are about 5-6mm. Any incidences of fish escape you might be referring to happen from ocean based net pens. On your sea lice theory: I’d counter by saying it’s quite unlikely in this case, which is good news for wild salmon. Our fish will not have exposure to disease or parasites, being in a clean and controlled environment. Thank you Lawrence for this opportunity to share some important information. ~Jacki Cassida, Nordic Aquafarms
Wouldnt it be crazy if everyone just admitted the truth and made the right decisions instead of exscuses…its real simple.go home.in just my ipinion everyone should just stay where your from,dont invade just visit.then go home.
I am not referring to sea pen. There have been numerous fish escapes, involving tens of thousands of fish, from land-based industrial fish farms like the ones Nordic Aquafarms wants to build in Maine and California. It would be very helpful to a healthy, honest debate if Nordic would stop misrepresenting this danger to wild fish populations.
I was not referring to escapes from sea-pen industrial fish farms. That is clear in my letter. Fish can an do escape from land-based industrial fish farms such as those Nordic Aquafarms wants to build in my home of Belfast, Maine and in Humboldt County. Nordic itself has repeatedly said this, as demonstrated in the below letter I wrote to the Maine legislature’s Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee after Marianne Naess of Nordic Aquafarms falsely testified to the committee that fish could not escape from land-based industrial fish farms. I would invite Ms. Cassida to do her research before she disparages the considerable research I have done on this topic.
To members of the Joint Standing Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry:
Greetings. As you know, on February 28, the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee held a
public hearing on LD 620. At that hearing, I testified that I had, as a journalist, spoken with aquaculture
experts who said that fish can escape from land-based fish farms and by doing so wreak havoc with wild-fish populations. I also said that Nordic Aquafarms, which wants to be build large land-based fish farm in Belfast, had itself said that such escapes were possible.
After I testified, Marianne Naess of Nordic Aquafarms testified, and when she finished her prepared
remarks, Rep. Hickman asked Ms. Naess whether fish could escape from land-based fish farms. Naess
said, unequivocally, “No.” As this answer by Ms. Naess directly contradicts what I said in my testimony, I think it’s important to set the record straight, which I have done below in four parts.
1. The first part is a video of a Nordic Aquafarms public information meeting held May 9, 2018 in the
University of Maine Hutchinson Center in Belfast. In the video I ask Nordic Aquafarms about the
potential for fish escape, and Nordic Aquafarms CEO Erik Heim answers by saying, in part, that fish
escape is indeed possible. The entire exchange takes less than two minutes and it can be found at 1:26:30 of the video.
Here is the link: https://belfastme.swagit.com/play/05102018-530
2. The second part is a statement, quoted below and made by Nordic Aquafarms in a Question and
Answer section of the company’s website. While Nordic’s statement suggests that the risk of fish escape
is unlikely, it nonetheless establishes that escape is possible, which conflicts with what Nordic’s Marianne Naess stated in her testimony at the February 28 public hearing.
From the Nordic Aquafarms website: “What is the risk of fish escape? There is virtually no risk. We are farming Atlantic Salmon, in safe indoor systems. Land-based salmon farming is widely recognized as a solution to the problem of fish escape, due to its location on land. Bad weather and storms will not result in escape. A number of mechanical barriers in the indoor production modules prevents escape. For this reason, land-based operators internationally are allowed to work with a range of species that are not native to their location, as is the case with our Danish facility Sashimi Royal working with Yellowtail Kingfish. These species would normally be forbidden for ocean farming in many locations.”
The Question and Answer part of the website can be found at:
http://www.nordicaquafarms.com/portfolio_page/belfast-questions-and-answers/
3. The following link is to a video of a February 21, 2018 Nordic Aquafarms public information meeting, also held at the University of Maine’s Hutchinson Center in Belfast. At 12:00 minutes into the video, Nordic Aquafarms CEO Erik Heim states that it would be hard for fish to escape from Nordic’s proposed Belfast fish farm – but he does not rule out the possibility. (The segment in question lasts less than 30 seconds.)
https://belfastme.swagit.com/play/02212018-1358
4. The fourth part is the below excerpt from an email I received from Anders Karlsson-Drangsholt, an
aquaculture expert with the Bellona Foundation in Oslo, Norway. This statement also suggests that fish
escape may be unlikely, but it too establishes that fish escape is nonetheless possible.
“Fish can escape from land based facilities. Human errors and technical issues can happen, despite
implemented security measures and automated systems. The advantage of land based systems are less
potential for mechanical damage from operations in the net pens and easier installation of secondary
barriers to escape. However, the statistics from Norway clearly show that fish also escape from land
based facilities. Land based facilities are the norm for producing small salmon for ongoing in the sea,
and escape events occur from time to time in those facilities in Norway.
Caveat: The Nordic Aquafarms technology may be different from the normal land based facilities used in Norway. If they don’t have any substantial water outlet to a water body, the effect of any escape events will be negligible as escapees will simply die after exiting the facility.”
Given all this, the evidence is clear and unequivocal: fish can escape from land-based fish farms, and
even Nordic Aquafarms admits this. Thus I urge you to not take at face value the statement made by
Marianne Naees of Nordic Aquafarms at the February 28 public hearing on LD 620 to the effect that fish cannot escape from land-based fish farms.
And to recap my testimony, this is important because fish that escape from land-based fish farms can and in all likelihood will breed with wild fish and create offspring that are weaker and less able to survive in the rigors of open water. They will also compete with wild fish for prime spawning grounds; they will in all likelihood destroy wild-fish eggs; and they can spread to wild fish disease that are unknown to wild fish and for which wild fish have little or no resistance.
Thank you very much for your time and attention. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Lawrence Reichard
Belfast