The Social License in Offshore Aquaculture CAPs are a structured process for building relationships, sharing information, and resolving concerns that help align community expectations with company or organization performance. The goal of the CAP is to reduce the gap between performance and expectations through a structured process of identifying community concerns and discussing how they might be addressed. The first step is for CFI to identify (via invitation only) approximately 15 leaders/residents in the community, those considered to be driving change. Individuals are confirmed based on their commitment to the process, a willingness to serve as conduits for sharing information (community concerns), and their ability for raising questions and issues in a constructive manner. In the ensuing 12 months, the CAP participants will meet monthly at local area conference rooms for 90-minute sessions (lunch provided), facilitated and moderated by CFI. Leadership from Gulfstream Aquaculture will also attend. During the initial CAP meeting, the South Florida Offshore Aquaculture business concept will be presented to CAP participants where a range of issues or topics of conversation generating community concern will be identified and prioritized. During the ensuing meetings, CFI and Gulfstream Aquaculture will identify and invite a third-party Subject Matter Expert (SME) to address each of the topics of concern that are raised during the first meeting. Using CFI facilitation, the issues of concern will be deconstructed so each element can be effectively addressed by CAP participants and the SMEs thru sharing information via an open discussion forum. CAP participants are additionally encouraged to informally share their experiences with their communities of influence and bring questions and concerns from those same sectors back to the following CAP meetings for further discussion. Names and contact information of the CAP participants are held in strict confidentiality; they, their organizations, and the outcomes of the CAP meetings are purposely not made public in any social or other electronic media platforms, including email. CAP participants are invited via invitation only and provide their time on a pure voluntary basis. The CAP (closed-door) meetings serve as a pre-stakeholder outreach initiative to better understand the community sentiment of the proposed business.

Identify (via invitation only) approximately 15 leaders/residents in the community, those considered to be driving change and committed to the process and participation thru 2024.
Prioritize five (5) key topics of concerns and invite a third-party Subject Matter Expert (SME) in-person or via video to address each during the five (5) remaining CAP meetings.
Utilize the CAP discussion materials to make informed decisions respectful of the community, that fosters a mutually beneficial relationship between the community and the intended business.

Preparation of six (6) Progress Reports highlighting the outcomes of the individual CAP meetings.
Preparation of a Final Progress Report highlighting a summary benefits resulting from the project.

Updated May 24, 2024:

View uploaded report

View uploaded report 3

Updated July 2, 2024:

View uploaded report

View uploaded report 2

Updated September 12, 2024:

View uploaded report

View uploaded report 2

Updated November 19, 2024:

View uploaded report

Updated February 1, 2025:
SAA 6th B-Monthly & Final Report

Final Meting: Attendees were given a post survey to complete. Those unable to attend were emailed a web link to complete the survey. The PRE survey had 9 of the 12 participants. The POST survey represented 10 of the 12 participants. Given the activities/discussions of the previous year’s CAP meetings, the project started with a strong base of support. After the series of meetings in 2024, there were key topics that showed additional improvement based on the survey results. Individuals were given a series of statements and asked to rate their level of agreement on a scale of 1 to 10 – with 10 indicating strong agreement and 1 indicating strong disagreement. The statements were the same in both the PRE and POST surveys.

+ Five (5) individuals indicated strong agreement (10) with the statement “The proposed project … has the potential to support local communities and economies with jobs and tax revenues.” This is a meaningful increase from one respondent in the PRE survey.

+ The statement “The proposed fish farm … will pollute the local waters and negatively impact the reef” saw improvements with 2 respondents moving from a 6/7 rating to join others who indicated strong disagreement with the statement in the POST survey.

+ The following statement regarding management and integrity showed improvement in responses with 5, 6, and 7 rankings in the PRE survey moving up to 8, 9, and 10 in the POST survey as seen in the charts below.

+ The topic of the project raising fish in the U. S. sustainably and helping to reduce seafood imports showed an improvement with 8 respondents in strong agreement (9/10) with the statement compared to 6 in the PRE survey.

+ The statement regarding the business taking measures to ensure local fish and seafood are not negatively impacted by the development of the proposed project included some shifts, but did not indicate significant changes.

+ The POST survey indicates that the CAP process of engaging transparently with community residents, listening to their questions and priorities, and responding authentically with access to subject matter experts is helpful and appreciated. As can be viewed in the POST survey responses, 8 of the 10 respondents indicated strong agreement (10) to the statement below followed by 2 individuals scoring it a 9.

+ CONCLUSION
The goal of the CAP was to help build trust in the proposed project and Gulfstream Aquaculture. The CAP identified the most concerning questions and follow-up meetings with SMEs created an environment with authentic, transparent dialog enabling individuals to make informed choices as well as develop a relationship based on trust.

The priority questions addressed through the meetings included:
1. What will the impact be on water quality and ocean health? (environmental impact is a top priority)
2. What will the impact be on the local fishing industry (commercial/recreational/local fisheries)?
3. What are the labor needs of this facility, where will they come from and where will they live? (available housing is a serious challenge)
4. Where will the fish go with regard to sales, marketing, and distribution?
5. What is the project timeline and process for permits and approval; supplemented with fish health/ wellness?

We were fortunate to have excellent, knowledgeable speakers to address these questions and topics:
+ Water Quality Effects: Chris Schillaci, Research Marine Ecologist, NOAA | National Ocean Service
National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Marine Spatial Ecology Division

+ Fishing Industry Effects: Sebastian Belle, Executive Director, Maine Aquaculture Association
Former President of the Board, National Aquaculture Association (NAA)

+ Labor/Housing/Salaries: Kimberly L. Morgan, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Extension Economist
Southwest Florida Research and Extension Center (SWFREC), University of Florida

+ Seafood Product Marketing: Chris Nelson, President, Bon Secour Fisheries, Inc.
Distribution and Sales Bon Secour, AL

+ Fish Health and Wellness: Hugh Mitchell, DVM
(Broodstock thru Harvest) Aquatic NW Veterinary Services, Kirkland, WA

+ Business Update & Timeline: Dennis Peters, M.Sc., CEO/President, Gulfstream Aquaculture, LLC

+ Below is one final statement from the survey that showed an improvement, demonstrating the effectiveness of the CAP meeting process. “I have all the information I need to make an informed opinion about … the project” shifted up with 5 individual ranking that with strong agreement (10) in the POST survey.

Development of a better understanding of the likelihood of community acceptance and steps toward acquiring the necessary social license to support a commercial scale aquaculture facility in South Florida.
Development of an updated feed demand for the facility based on an estimated projection of 6,750 T/year, where the range of potential soy inclusion rates can reasonably range from ~20% SBM (minimum, based on SBM inclusion in a Skretting trial diet), and up to ~40% SPC (maximum, based on prior NE Soy Board-supported feed trials). The projected range of soy demand per year: ranging from (a) 1,350 T/year of SBM, up to (b) 2,700 T/year of SPC.