[Senate Hearing 109-1109]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-1109
OFFSHORE AQUACULTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL OCEAN
POLICY STUDY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 6, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
64-138 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Chairman
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas Virginia
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada BARBARA BOXER, California
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BILL NELSON, Florida
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
Lisa J. Sutherland, Republican Staff Director
Christine Drager Kurth, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Kenneth R. Nahigian, Republican Chief Counsel
Margaret L. Cummisky, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Samuel E. Whitehorn, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General
Counsel
Lila Harper Helms, Democratic Policy Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY STUDY
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska BARBARA BOXER, California, Ranking
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 6, 2006.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Boxer....................................... 10
Article from the Marine Aquaculture in The United States
Report entitled, ``Disease and Parasites''................. 62
Letter, dated April 5, 2006, to Hon. Ted Stevens and Hon.
Daniel K. Inouye from Peter M. Douglas, Executive Director,
California Coastal Commission.............................. 63
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Statement of Senator Inouye...................................... 12
Statement of Senator Snowe....................................... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Statement of Senator Stevens..................................... 54
Statement of Senator Sununu...................................... 1
Witnesses
Belle, Sebastian, Executive Director, Maine Aquaculture
Association.................................................... 49
Prepared statement........................................... 51
Cates, John R., President, Cates International, Inc.............. 18
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Goldburg, Rebecca, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Environmental Defense 28
Prepared statement with attachments.......................... 30
Hogarth, Dr. William T., Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (DOC)............................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Langan, Dr. Richard, Director, University of New Hampshire Open
Ocean Aquaculture Project...................................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Vinsel, Mark, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska..... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Appendix
Anderson, Bruce S., Ph.D., President, Oceanic Institute, prepared
statement...................................................... 65
Ayers, Jim, Vice President and Michael F. Hirschfield, Ph.D.,
Vice President, Oceana, joint prepared statement............... 94
Benetti, Dr. Daniel, Chairman, Division of Marine Affairs and
Policy, Assoc. Professor and Director of Aquaculture,
University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric
Science (UM-RSMAS), prepared statement......................... 88
Connelly, John, President, National Fisheries Institute (NFI),
prepared statement............................................. 95
Cufone, Marianne, Esq., Environmental Attorney and Advocate,
Environment Matters, prepared statement........................ 91
Hauter, Wenonah, Executive Director, Food & Water Watch, prepared
statement...................................................... 93
International Game Fish Association, Marine Fisheries Advisory
Committee, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(DOC)--Offshore Aquaculture Act--Resolution (March 3, 2006).... 65
Kent, Donald B., President, Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute
(HSWRI), prepared statement.................................... 90
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, prepared
statement...................................................... 65
Letter, dated May 24, 2005, Subject: Protect Ocean Health and
Ensure Responsible Governance, Do Not Support NOAA's Offshore
Aquaculture Bill............................................... 70
Letter, dated April 4, 2006, Subject: Protect Ocean Health and
Ensure Responsible Governance, Do Not Support NOAA's Offshore
Aquaculture Bill............................................... 76
Nardi, George, Chief Technical Officer, GreatBay Aquaculture,
LLC, prepared statement........................................ 92
MacMillan, John R., Ph.D., President, National Aquaculture
Association, prepared statement................................ 96
O'Hanlon, Brian, President and Founder, Snapperfarm, Inc.,
prepared statement............................................. 101
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, prepared
statement...................................................... 78
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Barbara Boxer to
Dr. William T. Hogarth......................................... 110
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell
to:
Sebastian Belle.............................................. 128
John R. Cates................................................ 119
Rebecca Goldburg, Ph.D....................................... 124
Dr. William T. Hogarth....................................... 110
Dr. Richard Langan........................................... 117
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye
to:
John R. Cates................................................ 118
Rebecca Goldburg, Ph.D....................................... 122
Dr. William T. Hogarth....................................... 106
Dr. Richard Langan........................................... 113
Mark Vinsel.................................................. 120
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe
to:
Sebastian Belle.............................................. 125
Rebecca Goldburg, Ph.D....................................... 124
Dr. William T. Hogarth....................................... 105
Dr. Richard Langan........................................... 116
Sims, Neil Anthony, President, Kona Blue, prepared statement..... 68
Taylor, William, President, Taylor Shellfish Farms, prepared
statement...................................................... 103
The Ocean Conservancy, prepared statement........................ 72
OFFSHORE AQUACULTURE
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Ocean Policy Study,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in
room SD-562 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John E.
Sununu, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. SUNUNU,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Sununu. Good morning. Welcome to this hearing of
the National Ocean Policy Study on offshore aquaculture. I want
to welcome our witnesses and appreciate them taking the time to
be here today. Some of you have traveled from very far away,
but we value your expertise, and we appreciate your patience.
American consumers are enjoying more seafood every year. But to
a large degree, the increase in consumption is not coming from
the wild. Global fishing harvests nationally have been level
for the past decade, and we are seeing increased pressure on
wild fish populations in all of our fisheries. We are getting a
great deal of this increase from overseas, and much of the
increase in imports comes from fish farms far from the reach of
U.S. environmental regulations. We have imported over a billion
pounds of shrimp for each of the last 3 years. Atlantic salmon
imports have more than doubled since 2000, and tilapia imports
have tripled in the same time. Today's hearing will examine an
alternative method for meeting this growing demand; growing
fish in underwater cages in the open ocean, aquaculture. The
United States lags behind a dozen nations, as far away as
China, Norway, and Australia, and as close as Mexico and
Canada, in developing offshore aquaculture. We are joined today
by some of our country's pioneers in this emerging field. We'll
learn how far aquaculture technology has come in recent years
and the complex questions that need to be answered before we
can implement a strong national policy for offshore aquaculture
in this country. Today, I'd ask that the witnesses submit any
written testimony that they have and that all of the material
they submit be part of the record, but we will keep the record
open for 2 weeks for any additional questions that Members of
the Commerce Committee might have for today's witnesses. We
have also received testimony from a number of organizations,
including the National Fisheries Institute, Hubbs-SeaWorld
Research Institute, The Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee,
and Environment Matters, and I ask consent that all of their
testimony be made part of the record.
We also have opening statements from Senators that have
been submitted, and all Senators opening statements will be
included in full in the record.
We have six witnesses with us today, each providing a
different perspective of background experience and expertise,
which the Committee values. It has been a long time since
Congress has really taken up the issue of aquaculture. I
believe the first national aquaculture legislation was passed
back in 1980. But even though that legislation called for a
national framework, we have still yet to develop a
comprehensive national policy. So, my hope is that this hearing
will be part of the process of developing legislation that
makes sense, that exercises the right amount of caution and
prudence in dealing with environmental matters, but at the same
time, takes advantage of the technologies and the approaches
that we know exist and that can provide safe quality seafood
for consumers in America and around the world. I will ask that
we provide testimony. We'll go from left to right. Let me
briefly introduce each of our panelists, and then we'll begin
with Dr. Bill Hogarth. Dr. Hogarth is Assistant Administrator
of the National Marine Fisheries Service, responsible for
overseeing the management and conservation of marine fisheries
and the protection of marine mammals, sea turtles, and coastal
fisheries within the United State's Exclusive Economic Zone. We
are also joined by Dr. Richard Langan from UNH. That's the
University of New Hampshire for those of you that aren't
running for President this year. They have partnered with NOAA
for 10 years, since the late 1990s, on demonstration products
for showing different techniques for raising species in the
often chilly, and sometimes rough waters off the coast of New
Hampshire. Randy Cates is President of Cates International. He
founded Cates International 5 years ago and has harvested over
a million pounds of native Hawaiian moi--I believe--is that how
we pronounce that--in waters just south of Oahu. Mark Vinsel is
Executive Director of the United Fishermen of Alaska. Dr.
Rebecca Goldburg is a Senior Scientist with Environmental
Defense. She helped to write the Pew Oceans Commission's 2001
report on marine aquaculture. As everyone knows, the Pew Oceans
Commission's work has been part of the body of work that our
Subcommittee has drawn on for some guidance in areas where we
need to conduct hearings and craft legislation to do a better
job in formulating a comprehensive approach--not just to
aquaculture, but to fisheries and our oceans management,
generally speaking. And Sebastian Belle serves as Executive
Director of the Maine Aquaculture Association. He began his
career as a commercial fisherman and has served as a technical
consultant and project manager on over 20 major commercial
aquaculture ventures in 14 different countries. Welcome to all
of you, and let us begin today with Dr. Hogarth.
STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM T. HOGARTH, ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR FISHERIES, NATIONAL MARINE
FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (DOC)
Dr. Hogarth. Chairman Sununu, good morning, and thank you
for inviting me here today to testify on behalf of the
Administration. I am Bill Hogarth, the Assistant Administrator
for Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
within the Department of Commerce. My testimony today will
address the opportunities and challenges posed by the offshore
aquaculture and present some compelling reasons for prompt
Congressional action on S. 1195, the National Offshore
Aquaculture Act of 2005. To begin, I would like to note that
the Secretary of Commerce, Carlos Gutierrez, was very
interested in testifying today and regrets that he could not be
here this morning. However, he expresses his full support for
the bill and asked that I share his statement with the
Subcommittee. His statement is: I am convinced that the United
States must explore the potential of offshore aquaculture to
help meet the growing demand for seafood in this country and to
create jobs and economic opportunity for coastal communities.
To support that, we are making the National Offshore
Aquaculture Act of 2005 a priority of the Department and this
country. We need to create this opportunity now. As the
Secretary states, we believe there is a compelling case for the
development of the domestic marine aquaculture industry in the
United States to meet the growing demand for seafood. Seafood
is a very healthy food, and nutritionists are encouraging
Americans to increase their consumption of seafood. We already
import over 70 percent of our seafood, and half of these
imports are products of aquaculture. With an annual seafood
trade deficit on the order of $8 billion dollars, the United
States clearly could benefit from increasing its domestic
aquaculture production. Aquaculture operations in Federal
waters can increase domestic seafood supply, provide jobs for
economically-depressed coastal communities, reduce our Nation's
growing dependence on seafood imports, and increase regional
food supply and security. However, at the same time, these
operations must be carefully sited, regulated, and monitored.
S. 1195 maps out a strong framework for safe, sustainable
marine aquaculture operations in the U.S. One of the driving
forces behind this bill is the need for regulatory certainty,
which is vital for potential investors in offshore operations.
Business needs regulatory certainty in order to make sound
investment and financing decisions. Those concerned about the
impacts of offshore aquaculture need to recognize that the
industry will be held to strict environmental standards.
Enactment of S. 1195 would provide the Department of Commerce
authority to directly regulate aquaculture in Federal waters
and to establish a coordinated process among the Federal
agencies that have responsibilities over certain aspects of
offshore aquaculture operations under other statutes. We
envision a one-stop permitting system coordinated by NOAA and
integrated with NOAA's environmental stewardship
responsibilities. Action on S. 1195 will allow us to begin a
public rulemaking process to produce a comprehensive
environmentally-sound permitting and regulatory program for
aquaculture in Federal waters, as we indicated we would do as
part of the President's U.S. Ocean Action Plan. Since last
June, we have heard from many stakeholders who are eager to
discuss the pros and cons of the bill. I have included an
attachment to my written testimony that will clarify specific
questions that have been posed by the stakeholders during the
discussions we have had. We are also aware of the additional
statements which have been submitted by other groups for this
hearing. I would like to use the rest of my time to focus on
what this bill means for our coastal communities and especially
for the fishing industry. First, aquaculture is an important
opportunity for coastal communities. More and more communities
are recognizing that aquaculture presents a sustainable
alternative for areas hard hit by job loss, natural disasters,
or other challenges. As interest grows, these communities are
beginning to take the initiative to integrate aquaculture into
their economy. For example, in New Hampshire, the Isle of
Shoals blue mussels, and in Brownsville, Texas, red drum and
shrimp. And now, they're looking at scallops and offshore
aquaculture. Second, offshore aquaculture properly managed,
will complement our Nation's commercial fisheries--I said
complement our Nation's commercial fisheries. Some critics of
S. 1195 expressed concern that offshore aquaculture will hurt
wild harvest in the United States. Properly managed
aquaculture, we do not believe will affect annual harvests from
our Nation's wild harvest. We recognize that aquaculture,
whether imported or domestic, does in fact compete with wild
fisheries products in the marketplace. That competition will
not go away in the absence of domestic aquaculture. We live in
a global market. The challenge is to integrate aquaculture into
domestic seafood production so that our fishermen, processors,
and marketing companies can benefit directly from aquaculture.
Recreational and commercial fishing will also benefit from
hatcheries and stock enhancement techniques developed for
offshore aquaculture. Currently, U.S. hatcheries are used to
grow finfish and shellfish for stock enhancement to support
recreational and commercial fisheries--red drum enhancement in
the Gulf based at the Gulf Coast Research Lab, and the white
seabass enhancement program in California. In summary, the
United States needs a strong commercial fishing industry and a
robust aquaculture industry. Demand for seafood products in
this country is growing, and we do not have the ability to meet
domestic demand through wild-caught fishing alone. We estimate
that one million tons of domestic aquaculture production from
all forms of aquaculture will create 25,000 direct and 50,000
indirect jobs in the United States. This bill is the first step
in a process to establish a regulatory structure. We want to
work with the Committee to develop language to address the opt-
out and environmental standards and amendments. Mr. Chairman
and Members of this Subcommittee, the Department is looking
forward to working with you, the public, the fishing and
aquaculture industries, and the environmental community to
craft a regulatory framework for offshore aquaculture. The
United States must take the initiative to become self-
sufficient in the production of healthy seafood, provide jobs,
and reduce the seafood trade deficit. We must develop
aquaculture as a tool to complement commercial fishing because
we will need both to produce from wild and aquaculture to meet
our growing demand for healthy seafood. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hogarth follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator
for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (DOC)
Chairman Sununu, and members of the Subcommittee, good morning and
thank you for inviting me here today to testify on behalf of the
Administration. I would also like to thank Senator Stevens and Senator
Inouye for introducing S. 1195, the National Offshore Aquaculture Act
of 2005. I am William Hogarth, Assistant Administrator of the National
Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce.
Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez was interested in testifying
today and regrets that he could not be here this morning. He expresses
his full support for the bill and asked that I share this statement
with the Subcommittee.
``I am convinced that the United States must explore the
potential of offshore aquaculture to help meet the growing
demand for seafood in this country and to create jobs and
economic opportunity for coastal communities. To support that,
we are making the National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2005 a
priority for this department and this country. We need to
create this opportunity now.''
We believe that there is a compelling case for the development of
the domestic marine aquaculture industry in the United States to meet
the growing demand for seafood. Nutritionists are encouraging Americans
to increase our consumption of seafood. We already import over 70
percent of our seafood and half of those imports are products of
aquaculture. The United States could benefit from increasing its
domestic aquaculture production, which includes the propagation and
rearing of aquatic organisms in controlled or selected environments for
any commercial, recreational, or public purpose.
We want to work with you and our stakeholders to create an
opportunity for aquaculture in Federal waters so that we can ensure
that the industry develops in a predictable, environmentally-
compatible, and sustainable manner, in cooperation with our wild
harvest. We also want to ensure that the protection of the marine
environment, the rights of other users of marine resources, and human
health and safety are a top priority. At NOAA, we have already taken
steps to prepare for our role as the regulator for offshore
aquaculture.
My testimony today will address the opportunities and challenges
posed by offshore aquaculture. I am also including an attachment that
will clarify specific questions commonly posed by stakeholders with
regard to S. 1195, NOAA's Aquaculture Program, and broader issues
related to aquaculture.
The National Offshore Aquaculture Act Is a Starting Point
Offshore aquaculture requires careful consideration on many levels,
and S. 1195 maps out a strong framework for safe, sustainable marine
aquaculture operations in Federal waters. Regulatory uncertainty is
widely acknowledged as the major barrier to the development of offshore
aquaculture in the United States. The bill will provide regulatory
certainty, which is important to the offshore aquaculture industry as
well as to those who are concerned about the potential impacts of
offshore aquaculture. Business needs regulatory certainty in order to
make sound investment decisions and obtain financing. Those concerned
about the impacts of offshore aquaculture need to know that the
industry will be held to strict environmental standards.
Enactment of S. 1195 provides the Department of Commerce the
authority to directly regulate aquaculture in Federal waters, and to
establish a coordinated process among the Federal agencies. We envision
a one-stop regulatory shop, coordinated by NOAA, and integrated into
NOAA's environmental stewardship responsibilities. Action on the
Administration's bill will allow us to begin a public rulemaking
process to produce a comprehensive, environmentally-sound permitting
and regulatory program for aquaculture in Federal waters, as we
indicated we would do as part of the U.S. Ocean Action Plan.
At the same time, NOAA views S. 1195 as a starting point. Since
last June, there have been a number of suggestions from a variety of
stakeholders to improve the bill. One example is environmental
standards. NOAA acknowledges the concerns expressed by stakeholders and
would like to work with Congress to take a closer look at their
suggestions.
Aquaculture Is an Important Opportunity for Coastal Communities
More and more communities are recognizing that aquaculture presents
a sustainable alternative for areas hit hard by job loss, natural
disasters, or other challenges. As interest grows, these communities
are beginning to take the initiative to integrate aquaculture into
their economy. For instance, in Brownsville, Texas, a diverse set of
interests, including local fishermen, seafood processors, distributors,
entrepreneurs, university representatives, and others met recently to
discuss opportunities for aquaculture operations in their city. Like
other maritime communities, Brownsville has boats, fishermen,
processing plants, hatcheries, distribution centers, and a whole
seafood infrastructure that could be put to work year round with a
steady, reliable source of product from aquaculture.
Aquaculture, like agriculture, requires inputs of goods and
services from many sources, while its outputs are processed into value-
added offerings. Beneficiaries include owners and employees of
aquaculture businesses, equipment suppliers, boat owners and operators,
feed ingredient suppliers such as soybean farmers and fishermen who
supply fishmeal, feed manufacturers, seafood processors, and
transportation and distribution companies. Other opportunities include
sales, marketing, and accounting services. In turn, these activities
benefit the coastal communities in which these businesses operate, as
well as the increasing portion of the general public who eat seafood
and benefit from its health attributes.
Overall, NOAA estimates that one million tons of domestic
aquaculture production--from all forms of aquaculture, including
freshwater and marine--will create 25,000 direct and 50,000 indirect
jobs in the United States. Aquaculture in Federal waters could make a
significant contribution to this level of job creation.
Offshore Aquaculture and Commercial Fisheries
While we are certain that there could be direct economic benefits
from our bill, we must consider its potential impacts, including the
impact on our Nation's commercial fisheries. Some have expressed
concern that offshore aquaculture will hurt wild harvest in the United
States. If aquaculture is managed correctly, we do not believe wild
harvest will be impacted.
Aquaculture, whether imported or domestic, competes with wild
caught fisheries. We acknowledge that concern, but that competition
will not go away in the absence of domestic aquaculture. We live in a
global market. Demand for seafood products in this country is growing
and we simply do not have the ability to meet that demand through wild-
caught fishing activities alone. Significant competition is already
coming from imports and from other forms of protein such as beef and
chicken. Over 70 percent of the seafood Americans' consume annually is
imported. Half of those imports come from foreign aquaculture
operations. The challenge is to integrate aquaculture into domestic
seafood production so that our boat owners, fishermen, processors, and
marketing companies can benefit directly from aquaculture.
In some cases, U.S. fishermen have already integrated with or
linked to aquaculture. Examples include:
Fishermen in New England who are interested in adding
aquaculture as part of their business and researchers at the
University of New Hampshire are working in tandem to design
equipment, site operations, share knowledge, and service and
operate cod and mussel farms in open ocean locations.
Fishermen in Florida and New England, displaced by closures
of wild fisheries or declining catches, have turned to
shellfish aquaculture.
States along the Gulf of Mexico are looking to aquaculture
to help rebuild seafood infrastructure and retain seafood jobs.
Fishing communities damaged by the hurricanes are seeking to
rebuild docks, processing, and distribution facilities.
Aquaculture could provide additional fish and shellfish to
local processing plants, and fishermen may be able to use
existing vessels to support aquaculture operations.
Recreational and commercial fishing will also benefit from
hatcheries and stock enhancement techniques developed for offshore
aquaculture. Currently, U.S. hatcheries are used to grow finfish and
shellfish for stock enhancement for recreational and commercial fishing
with great success. For example, recreational fishermen in Southern
California work closely with the Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute on a
white seabass restocking program. It is an excellent program and one
that helped rebuild and sustain the valuable recreational fishery for
seabass in California.
The United States needs a strong commercial fishing industry and a
robust aquaculture industry in order to meet projected seafood demand
and supply the Nation's stock enhancement needs. While we look for
aquaculture to help meet demand, NOAA will continue to assist wild
capture fisheries with management programs, stock enhancement, and
marketing to channel wild capture products to high-valued premium
markets outlets--such as the shrimp and salmon marketing programs. But
we also need to supply that vast middle market that demands a year-
round supply of affordable, healthy, safe seafood--and we can do that
through domestic aquaculture.
Aquaculture Research and Technology Development Provide Economic
Benefits
As the world moves toward aquaculture in offshore waters, another
key factor is technological innovation--an area where the United States
is a world leader. As a concept, offshore aquaculture has been around
for years. However, the technological advances and other research
applications that now make offshore aquaculture possible have only come
online within the last 10 years. For example, equipment innovations for
the offshore include submersible cages and remote-controlled feeding
apparatuses--all designed to withstand the challenges of the ocean
environment.
To date, with leadership and foresight provided by NOAA through the
National Marine Aquaculture Initiative, the United States has invested
just over $10 million in offshore aquaculture research, and the
technology is now being used in commercial applications. Examples
include:
Two finfish operations in Hawaii and one in Puerto Rico
using submersible cages designed and produced in the United
States have become commercially viable. The owner/operators of
these facilities include a local commercial fisherman, a family
company in the seafood business, and U.S. investors.
Two commercial mussel farms owned and operated by fishermen
have started production off New Hampshire.
Additional projects are in design in the Gulf of Mexico, the
Virgin Islands, and California. All involve some combination of
U.S. investors, coastal fishermen, university scientists, and
local processing, hatchery, feed, and equipment supply
companies.
U.S. research and technology development will continue to provide
key contributions to aquaculture development made possible by S. 1195.
S. 1195 Will Provide for the Sustainable Development of Offshore
Aquaculture
The National Offshore Aquaculture Act will enable offshore
aquaculture, provide safeguards for the marine environment, and balance
multiple uses of the oceans and coasts by providing for the
establishment of siting, operating, and environmental criteria; the
monitoring of environmental impacts; and the enforcement of regulations
and permit conditions.
The bill will:
Authorize the Secretary of Commerce to issue offshore
aquaculture permits and to establish environmental requirements
where existing requirements under current law are inadequate;
Stipulate that aquaculture products will not be subject to
fishing regulations that restrict size, season, and harvest
methods;
Require the Secretary of Commerce to work with other Federal
agencies to develop and implement a coordinated permitting
process for aquaculture in Federal waters. This includes the
authority to set additional environmental requirements to
ensure that such development proceeds in an environmentally-
responsible manner that is consistent with stated policy to
protect wild stocks and the quality of marine ecosystems and is
compatible with other uses;
Authorize the establishment of a research and development
program in support of offshore aquaculture; and
Provide for enforcement of the Act.
The bill will not supersede existing laws such as those concerning
navigation, offshore structures, management of fisheries, environmental
quality, protected resources, and coastal zone management.
If the legislation is enacted, NOAA estimates that development of
detailed implementing regulations should take two to 3 years, including
the development and publication of draft rules, a review period, and
publication of final rules. Environmental standards and other permit
requirements will be designed with public input, and the process will
allow for public review and comment through Federal Register notices as
well as meetings with states, fishery management councils, and other
forums. We already have good models of regulations from coastal states
and other industrialized countries as well as industry best management
practices.
Other Federal activities, led by NOAA and supported by other
Federal agencies, that will support implementation of the bill--and
ensure rational and sustainable development of aquaculture--will
include:
Mapping and data gathering to identify areas best suited for
offshore aquaculture;
Additional economic and social analysis of regulatory
options, species, and production methods;
Continued research on environmental issues and best
management practices; and
Pilot and demonstration projects with public and private
sector partners and coastal communities.
This bill is a first step in what will be a careful and inclusive
process to establish a regulatory structure for offshore aquaculture.
This will be done step-by-step. NOAA believes that carefully sited,
regulated, and monitored finfish and shellfish operations in U.S.
Federal waters can be an effective way to reduce our Nation's growing
dependence on seafood imports, provide jobs for economically-depressed
coastal communities, and increase regional food supply and security. We
also believe that this is an opportunity for the United States to lead
by example and encourage aquaculture operators in other countries to
adopt best management practices developed here.
NOAA Prepares for Offshore Aquaculture in the United States
NOAA has been working on this issue for the last 10 years,
preparing for it on many fronts. Specific steps the agency is currently
taking to prepare include:
Designing environmental risk management guidelines for
aquaculture, as highlighted in a recently published NOAA
technical memo;
Developing an economic analysis of offshore aquaculture for
delivery later this year;
Outlining environmental impact statement (EIS) and
regulatory design steps to be taken if legislation is passed;
Conducting ongoing consultations with communities and
businesses; and
Examining aquaculture's role in ecosystem management with an
international group of experts.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman and members of this Subcommittee, the Department is
looking forward to working with you, the public, the fishing and
aquaculture industries, and the environmental community to craft a
regulatory framework for offshore aquaculture. A strong, comprehensive
framework will offer the regulatory certainty industry needs while
safeguarding the marine environment, and creating economic
opportunities for those Americans who depend on an abundance of marine
resources for their livelihood. The United States must take the
initiative to become more self sufficient in the production of healthy
seafood, provide jobs for coastal communities, and reduce the seafood
trade deficit. We must develop aquaculture as a tool to complement
commercial fishing because we will need both to produce seafood to meet
the growing demand.
I appreciate the opportunity to present the National Offshore
Aquaculture Act of 2005 to you today, and I would be happy to answer
any questions.
Attachment
The information in this attachment is intended to clarify specific
issues or questions posed by stakeholders with regard to S. 1195, as
well as broader issues related to aquaculture.
Definition of Aquaculture--NOAA's definition of aquaculture is,
``The propagation and rearing of aquatic organisms in controlled or
selected environments for any commercial, recreational or public
purpose.'' This definition was established in the 1998 NOAA Aquaculture
Policy.
Role of Coastal States--S. 1195 requires coordination with states
during the regulatory design process and establishment of environmental
and other requirements that would follow enactment of a bill, and also
as part of the review of each individual permit application. S. 1195
specifically includes a provision on the need to consult with state
agencies as part of the coordinated and streamlined permit process for
offshore aquaculture, so states will have a say in decisions on
offshore aquaculture permits as well. S. 1195 does not supersede any
other laws, such as the Coastal Zone Management Act, that include a
role for states with respect to activities in Federal offshore waters.
In addition, the offshore aquaculture facilities will require support
facilities on land and the landing of seafood product on land--both of
which will be subject to state and local approvals.
Role of Fishery Management Councils--NOAA has an ongoing working
relationship with the Regional Fishery Management Councils, established
under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. S.
1195 requires NOAA to consult with these Councils in developing and
implementing the regulatory regime for offshore aquaculture
development. Since the Administration's bill was introduced, NOAA has
briefed the councils on the legislation, and begun to engage them in
our planning for how the bill would be implemented. NOAA would consult
with the Councils in the regulatory design process, in the
establishment of environmental and other requirements--especially as
they relate to interactions with wild stocks managed by the Councils--
and in the review of individual permit applications.
Environmental Standards--The question of environmental standards
for offshore aquaculture is an important one and the establishment of
rigorous environmental standards for offshore aquaculture is central to
the National Offshore Aquaculture Act. S. 1195 provides the necessary
authority to require, through regulations or permit conditions,
appropriate measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate unacceptable
impacts. The bill also provides authority to take emergency actions to
address unanticipated impacts in a timely manner. S. 1195 does not
override or preempt existing laws to protect the marine environment,
wild stocks, endangered species, marine mammals, and habitat.
Space Requirements and Siting--We believe that space requirements
and siting issues for offshore aquaculture operations can be addressed
by careful mapping of existing uses of the open ocean and in
consultation with coastal communities and users of ocean space. The
U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is the largest in the world. It
spans over 13,000 miles of and contains 3.4 million square nautical
miles of ocean. It is larger than the combined land area of all 50
states. Based on our pilot and demonstration projects, the total
spatial demands for the different components of an offshore operation
are relatively small compared to the EEZ. According to estimates from
experts at NOAA, it would require less than 1 percent of the area
currently set aside for the National Marine Sanctuaries to produce
about one million tons of seafood in the United States. To get a sense
of spatial requirements, it is estimated that 100 farms producing 1,000
tons of seafood each would, in total, occupy an area about the size of
the Pentagon complex [1 square mile]. Another example of the projected
spatial impact of offshore aquaculture is the area needed to produce
80,000 metric tons of mussels. According to NOAA experts, that level of
production would require an area less than 10 square miles, or less
than the size of the Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral.
Fish Meal--In the wild, fish such as salmon will consume roughly 10
pounds of fish to gain one pound of body weight. Cultured marine
finfish also consume wild fish--albeit as an ingredient in formulated
feed made from fishmeal and oil, and vegetable-based fats, proteins,
and carbohydrates. As a result, cultured fish consume only about three
pounds of processed, wild fish for every pound they gain. Because feed
is a major component of an aquaculture operation's cost of production,
there are strong economic incentives for the aquaculture industry to
substitute less costly ingredients for fish meal and fish oil in feed
formulas, and to become more efficient in converting feed into product.
Research into plant-based alternatives to fish meal, such as soybeans,
is expanding. However, research on plant-based alternatives in fish
meal has found that maintaining some fish oil or suitable alternatives
in fish feed is important in order to maintain the health benefits of
marine fish, including the Omega-3 fatty acids. In addition to
industry, NOAA and other Federal agencies are working on research to
develop protein substitutes to reduce reliance on fish meal and oils,
such as marine algae. These agencies will continue to work with grain
and feed companies and feed researchers to find suitable alternatives.
The source for most of the world's fish meal in feed is the anchovy
fishery off the coast of South America. U.S. fishermen also land
sardines and menhaden used in fish meal. The annual capture of these
fish has remained stable since the 1960s, despite the steady rise in
aquaculture and the continued consumption of fish meal in the pork,
poultry and pet food industries. However, wild caught fishmeal sources
are not likely to continue to be able to satisfy the demand for fish
meal from aquaculture and terrestrial agriculture.
Escapes--The issue of escapes is being addressed with technological
innovation, best management practices, and careful species selection.
For example, the use of submersible cages for offshore aquaculture
reduces the vulnerability to storm damage that can lead to escapes. In
addition, the knowledge NOAA and other agencies have gained from stock
enhancement programs for commercial and recreational fishing--
deliberate releases of finfish, oysters, and crabs--allows managers to
design safeguards for conserving wild stock.
Aquatic Animal Health--Disease transmission is becoming less of a
concern for aquaculture, since the marine aquaculture industry has
replaced antibiotics with vaccinations administered before fish are
stocked into cages. NOAA, working with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and other Federal agencies, is also at the forefront in
developing a National Aquatic Animal Health Plan which will provide for
safe national and international commerce of aquatic animals and the
protection of cultured and wild aquatic animals from foreign pests and
diseases.
Senator Sununu. Thank you very much, Dr. Hogarth. We are
joined by my Co-Chairman on this Subcommittee, Senator Boxer,
and Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye as well, and I would
like to turn to them now before proceeding with Dr. Langan for
their opening statements. So, we'll begin with Senator Stevens.
Senator Stevens. Well, I'm just happy to be here with Mark
Vinsel.
Senator Sununu. Thank you. Senator Boxer?
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much. Mr. Chairman, it's great
to join you again. We did some good work last year with the
help of our Co-Chairs. We legislated on ballast water invasive
species prevention and coral reef protection, and I'm hoping we
can make some headway on this issue. I'd ask unanimous consent
that my full statement be placed in the record, if I might----
Senator Sununu. Without objection.
Senator Boxer.--but I would like to share with the
Subcommittee and the witnesses some of my thoughts here because
perhaps they can answer some of my questions. Last June, I
introduced the National Oceans Protection Act, which is a
comprehensive bill based on the recommendations of the United
States Commission on Ocean Policy. And today, we address one of
those very important matters covered in the bill--offshore
aquaculture. And I think it's important because I think it
raises a number of concerns as well as some wonderful
possibilities. Let me begin by saying I am not opposed to
offshore aquaculture, but it has to be clear that when you
raise these fish in crowded cages on the open seas, there are a
number of health, safety, economic, and regulatory concerns
that I think are raised. And I think we need to make sure that
strong safeguards are in place before we proceed with any
offshore aquaculture permitting. In other words, let's try to
do this wisely so that we are not facing issues later that come
back to haunt us or trouble us. Let me quickly state those
concerns. Offshore fish farms can create clouds of ammonia,
phosphorus, and other wastes, and they could contribute to
problems such as poor water quality that not only harm the
farmed fish, but also the marine ecosystem. Escaped farmed fish
can adversely harm wild fish. They can threaten the genetic
stock of wild fish and introduce diseases and parasites.
Escaped farmed fish will also compete with wild fish for food
and habitat. The biggest concerns I have about offshore
aquaculture deal with potential threats to human health from
large-scale farmed fish operations. In 2004, a study published
in Science found that farm-raised salmon contain higher levels
of chemical pollutants than wild fish, including PCBs, which
are known carcinogens. And I just wanted to say to my
colleagues, when you go to a restaurant in my state, in
California, the patrons just always ask are you serving wild
fish, or is it farmed fish. And I will tell you, many people
will not eat the farmed fish because of these concerns.
Increased PCBs are due to the fishmeal that's often used to
sustain mass-scale aquaculture. In May 2005, a study found that
chemical levels in farm-raised salmon were so high that in
order to lower the cancer risk to the middle of the EPA's
acceptable range, people should effectively stop eating them.
Another major health concern is the excessive use of
antibiotics to prevent and treat diseases in farmed fish. These
are very legitimate concerns, and this is why we must move in a
deliberate, careful way before any regulatory program is
authorized. I am concerned that if we go into a fast-track mode
here and we allow this to go forward without the standards in
place, that it--again, it could be a bad situation. And
rather--I would rather see us establish uniform and strong
standards nationwide as called for by the U.S. Ocean
Commission. And so, I am concerned that the way the
Administration is moving on this and some of our colleagues,
the bill would allow for permitting each potential fish farm on
an ad hoc basis before we have, you know, really taken a look
at this in a global fashion. My Oceans bill requires a full
regulatory process be in place to address the concerns I have
discussed before any aquaculture is permitted. In closing, I
think there are still many open questions. I hope that the
witnesses today will answer some of my concerns. I am really
looking forward to that so we can learn more about how we can
address some of these problems and make sure that they don't
occur. So, I do look forward to the testimony, and I thank you,
Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on this.
[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator from California
Mr. Chairman, it is great to join you again--Last year, this
subcommittee held hearings on two very important oceans issues: ballast
water invasive species prevention and coral reef protection.
This year, the Subcommittee has a tremendous opportunity to hold
hearings on very important matters of ocean policy.
Last June, I introduced the National Oceans Protection Act--a
comprehensive bill based on the recommendations of the U.S. Commission
on Ocean Policy.
Today, we address one of those very important matters covered by my
bill--offshore aquaculture--and it is important because I believe there
are a number of concerns that we need to carefully consider.
Let me begin by saying that I am not opposed to offshore
aquaculture--however, it should be clear to everyone here that raising
carnivorous fish in crowded cages on the open seas raises a number of
health, safety, economic, and regulatory concerns--because of these
concerns, I think we need to make sure that strong safeguards are in
place before we proceed with any offshore aquaculture permitting.
I would like to take a few minutes and discuss some of those
concerns now.
Offshore fish farms can create clouds of ammonia, phosphorus and
other wastes--wastes that can contribute to problems such as algal
blooms and poor water quality, harming not only the farmed fish, but
also the marine ecosystem.
Escaped farmed fish can adversely harm wild fish too--they can
threaten the genetic stock of wild fish and introduce diseases and
parasites. Escaped farmed fish will also compete with wild fish for
food and habitat.
The biggest concerns I have about offshore aquaculture deal with
potential threats to human health from large-scale farmed fish
operations.
In 2004, a study published in Science found that farm-raised salmon
contain higher levels of chemical pollutants than wild fish, including
PCBs, which are known carcinogens--the increased PCBs are due to the
fish meal that is often used to sustain mass-scale aquaculture.
Another major health concern is the excessive use of antibiotics to
prevent and treat diseases in farmed fish. Such use of antibiotics
could strengthen bacterial resistance to antibiotics in fish, and,
potentially, increase drug resistance in humans.
These are very legitimate concerns and this is why we must move in
a deliberate, careful way before any regulatory program is authorized.
Unfortunately, the Administration's proposal jumps full sail into
fast-track permitting for large commercial fish farms, with few
criteria for protecting the environment, consumers, or fishing
businesses and communities.
Rather than establishing uniform--and strong--standards nationwide,
as called for by the U.S. Ocean Commission, the bill instead allows for
permitting each potential fish farm on an ad hoc basis.
This is not the kind of policy we should be promoting, especially
when there are so many potential environmental and health concerns
associated with large-scale aquaculture.
My Oceans bill requires that a full regulatory process be in place
to address the concerns I have discussed, before any aquaculture is
permitted in offshore waters.
It also sets up a governance structure for offshore uses, requiring
that environmental concerns be addressed before any potential offshore
use is officially sited, and it prohibits siting in special protected
areas, such as National Marine Sanctuaries.
Clearly, there are still many open questions and it is my hope that
over the course of this hearing and the coming months, we can learn
more about how we can address some of the problems that aquaculture has
had in the past.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses and to
working with my Chairman and my colleagues on this important issue.
Senator Sununu. Thank you, Senator Boxer. Senator Inouye.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for scheduling
this hearing. Obviously, the State of Hawaii is very much
concerned about aquaculture in its surrounding waters. We are
constantly alert to invasive species and alien species and the
impact it would have upon the wild stocks, but I am also aware
that one-fourth of all the fish consumed in this world are the
results of aquaculture. It is big business. It is necessary to
feed our population. And so, I will be listening to the remarks
and testimony very carefully, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very
much.
Senator Sununu. Thank you, Senator. Dr. Langan, welcome.
STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD LANGAN, DIRECTOR,
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE OPEN OCEAN
AQUACULTURE PROJECT
Dr. Langan. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee,
thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to share my
thoughts with you about this topic. I think this is a very
important topic for the U.S. economy and also for the health of
the American people. My testimony today reflects my involvement
in offshore aquaculture research in New England. However, it's
also influenced by my past experience as a commercial
fisherman, an oyster farmer, and a seafood business owner.
Twenty-five years ago, I was working on a dragger, fishing for
cod, haddock, and flounder in the Gulf of Maine. One night when
I was at the wheel, I looked out the pilothouse window, and I
saw the lights from what must have been 50 other boats, all
doing the same thing we were--catching as many fish as we could
as fast as we could. It was a life-changing moment for me. I
knew that at that level of exploitation, commercial fishing
would never last and that there had to be an alternative to
hunting down the last fish in the sea. From what we heard from
Dr. Hogarth's testimony plus some of the other comments from
the panel, it's clear that if we expect to eat seafood, we must
agree that aquaculture is here to stay. It's a question of
whether the United States wants to be a producer, that we are
addressing today. We have done a pretty good job of being
consumers of aquaculture products. Now, it's time to decide
whether we want to be producers. At UNH, I am part of a team of
scientists, fishermen, and aquaculturists, exploring the
technical feasibility, the environmental soundness, and
economic viability of farming fish and shellfish in offshore
environments. Our laboratory is a 30-acre field site, six miles
off the coast of New Hampshire where we are putting these
questions through the most rigorous of tests in a very
difficult open ocean environment. The findings from our
research indicate to us that we can build systems that can
withstand the worst the north Atlantic has to offer. Native
fish species, halibut, cod, and haddock do very well in these
environments, and look very promising for commercial
production. The offshore mussel culture technology that was
developed through our project is a clean, sustainable practice,
and it's a tremendous economic opportunity for local and
regional fishermen. Our findings are consistent with the
results of some of the commercial operations going on in
Hawaii, in Puerto Rico, and abroad. However, we do recognize
that for this industry to get to the scale where it's going to
really solve our seafood trade deficit problems, there are a
number of challenges that remain to be addressed. Where are the
feed ingredients going to come from? There is a limited supply
of fish meal and fish oil. We need to develop integrated
farming systems that consider all aspects of culture, including
operations such as harvesting, feeding, and issues like worker
safety and environmental effects. We need to develop hatchery
capacity to produce the juveniles and to develop new species. A
number of other challenges exist, however, I don't have time
today to mention all of them. These challenges underscore the
need for a strategic and comprehensive research and development
program, that includes basic and applied research, and
demonstration of technologies and environmentally sound
operational methods. This is a model that has served the
agriculture industries very well, and a model that I believe is
appropriate for offshore aquaculture. The Offshore Aquaculture
Act provides an excellent framework from which to move forward.
I believe, however, that the Act should be further developed to
authorize a research and development (R&D) program to support
and guide this fledgling industry. Independent, scientifically-
verified R&D will make the difference between a successful
industry and a struggling one, between one that harms the
environment and one that is engaged in systematic environmental
protection. It has been nearly a year since the Offshore
Aquaculture Act was introduced. Since that time I have heard
offshore aquaculture described as the silver bullet to solve
all our seafood problems. I have also heard it called an
environmental disaster waiting to happen. As a scientist and a
citizen, I don't subscribe to either of those opinions. I
believe that offshore aquaculture represents a tremendous
opportunity for the U.S. I think we also need to recognize that
there are and will continue to be a number of research,
technology, economic and environmental issues that need to be
resolved. It is clear the world will not wait for us in this
matter. Offshore aquaculture is already being developed in the
Caribbean, Europe, and Asia. And in some instances, this has
been with the benefit of U.S. research and development. I do
not believe we should relinquish the fruits of our investments
to other nations without first exploring the potential for
offshore aquaculture in this country. Nor do I believe that we
should rely solely on other nations to develop and regulate an
offshore aquaculture industry that will impact the
environmental quality of our oceans and the health of U.S.
consumers. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Langan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Richard Langan, Director,
University of New Hampshire Open Ocean Aquaculture Project
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to testify on the future of offshore aquaculture in the
United States. My name is Richard Langan, and I am the Director of the
University of New Hampshire (UNH) Open Ocean Aquaculture Project. I am
honored to have this opportunity to inform you not only about the work
of our Project, but also to convey my thoughts on a subject to which I
have devoted a good part of my life.
Twenty-five years ago, I was a commercial fisherman in the Gulf of
Maine. I worked on a dragger, harvesting groundfish like cod, haddock,
and flounder. We fished round the clock for several days at a time,
dragging our trawl gear over the seafloor, briefly interrupting our
``bottom time'' every few hours to bring the catch on deck. One night
when I was at the wheel, I looked out the pilothouse window and saw the
lights from what must have been at least 50 boats, all doing the same
thing as ours--catching as many fish, as fast as they could. It was a
life-changing moment. It was clear to me that New England's commercial
fisheries could not sustain that level of exploitation, and that there
had to be a better way to provide seafood and make a living.
At that time, what we now think of as aquaculture was only as blip
on the radar screen of global seafood production. Most of the seafood
we consumed came from the commercial fishing of wild stocks. That
situation has changed dramatically. Many of New England's marine fish
populations crashed in the 1990s, and despite severe restrictions on
commercial fishing, they have yet to recover. Commercial fishing and
all of its related industries--seafood processing, restaurants
hospitality, tourism--have felt the pressure. Fishing fleets are
underutilized, fishermen are under-employed, and prospects for the
future are bleak.
Globally, the catch from wild fisheries essentially has remained
unchanged since 1984, despite the proliferation of larger, more
efficient boats fishing every corner of the world's oceans. At the same
time, demand for seafood has been on the rise. As a result, many
countries have turned to aquaculture, which now accounts for roughly 40
percent of global seafood production. Here in the U.S., we consume
nearly 17 pounds of seafood per person each year, and more than 70
percent of that is imported. The U.S. trade deficit for seafood now
exceeds $8 billion a year, second only to oil as a deficit commodity.
The practice of farming marine fish and shellfish has become part
of an international approach to seafood production. Today, U.S.
aquaculture takes place almost exclusively in land-based operations or
in sheltered, nearshore waters. There is a limit to what these
approaches can produce, particularly in coastal waters that are already
crowded by other activities. There is also evidence that some nearshore
venues may not be environmentally suitable for large-scale finfish
production.
The Need for Offshore Aquaculture
There is growing consensus among many scientists, Federal and State
marine resource managers, and industry representatives that moving
aquaculture offshore could greatly expand our capacity for seafood
production and reduce the environmental impacts associated with
nearshore aquaculture. It seems shortsighted for the U.S.--in need of a
solution to the problem of growing seafood demand and limited supply--
not to pursue a sustainable approach to offshore aquaculture. Developed
and regulated responsibly, an offshore aquaculture industry could boost
the national economy, reduce pressure on commercial fisheries, and
provide a secure and healthy food source for the American people.
It has been my privilege to work with a highly talented and
environmentally-minded team of engineers, fisheries biologists,
ecologists, and social scientists at UNH on this very issue. More than
a decade ago, this interdisciplinary team recognized that the U.S. was
headed for a seafood supply crisis. Understanding the limits of wild
fisheries as a resource, and the constraints on the expansion of
nearshore aquaculture, we became one of the first groups in the country
to develop research programs that explored the feasibility of offshore
fish farming.
A few, small-scale pilot projects in the mid 1990s yielded
encouraging results. This led to the concept of an offshore facility,
where researchers could work in cooperation with fishermen and industry
partners to develop, test, and demonstrate offshore mooring and cage
designs, feeding and communication systems, and cultivate native
species from wild broodstock.
University of New Hampshire Open Ocean Aquaculture Project
In 1997, fortunate to have the support of Senator Judd Gregg (R-
NH), the UNH team received funding from NOAA to establish the Open
Ocean Aquaculture Project. At the Project's inception, our goal was to
explore the environmental soundness, technological feasibility, and
economic viability of farming finfish and shellfish in exposed ocean
environments. To this end, we have combined stringent engineering
design, progressive fish husbandry with native broodstock, advanced
communications technology, rigorous environmental assessment, and
community outreach--all in support of the development of an
environmentally-sustainable, offshore aquaculture industry in New
England and nationwide.
The heart of this Project is a 30-acre field site, six miles off
the coast in New Hampshire State waters. The site is fully permitted by
State and Federal agencies, just as any commercial venture would have
to be. There we raise native finfish species in submersible cages and
native shellfish on submerged longlines. All of this takes place in 180
feet of water and is fully exposed to the high-energy environment of
the Gulf of Maine. This is where the questions about offshore
aquaculture that the Project was created to answer are put to the most
rugged of tests. With consistent funding, a dedicated and talented
team, and a substantial infrastructure, we have made tremendous strides
toward bringing offshore aquaculture closer to commercial reality.
Lessons Learned
After 8 years of offshore aquaculture research and development,
environmental monitoring, and economic assessment, our research team
has reached some conclusions about the viability of offshore
aquaculture.
Finfish and shellfish culture systems (farms) can be
installed, maintained, and operated in the harshest oceanic
conditions.
Farm-raised finfish and shellfish can thrive in these
conditions. Halibut, haddock, and cod--all of which we have
raised in and harvested from offshore cages--demonstrate
excellent commercial potential. With further research to
improve growth performance, offshore cod and halibut farming
could become commercially viable in the near future.
Remotely-controlled feeding and observation systems, which
have been greatly advanced by our Project's engineering team,
are essential to the success of offshore aquaculture.
With properly sited farms, appropriate system design, and
sound management and husbandry practices, the environmental
impacts of offshore finfish culture would be negligible. After
6 years of farming fish and shellfish at our research site, we
did not detect any changes to the water quality, sediment
conditions, or biological communities in the vicinity of our
field site.
The offshore mussel culture technology developed by our
Project is a clean, sustainable practice and an economic
opportunity for fishermen. The first commercial enterprise
using this technology (with assistance from our Project) is a
small-scale farm licensed to a N.H. fisherman. This farm is
projected to generate $250,000 annually, and we estimate that a
modest expansion of this technology in N.H. waters could yield
local fishermen $2 million per year. The area from Cape Ann,
Massachusetts, to Cape Elizabeth, Maine, could yield as much
$40 million per year.
Based on conservative estimates of the production value per
unit area, applying a very small percentage of the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) toward aquaculture production
would go a long way in closing the gap between domestic seafood
supply and demand.
Challenges Ahead
Our research indicates that there is tremendous potential for a
commercially viable and environmentally sound offshore aquaculture
industry in the U.S. This optimism is supported by the success of
commercial operations in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and abroad. However, we
also recognize that for this industry to succeed at a scale that will
meet current and future demand, significant technical and operational
challenges must be addressed. These include the following.
Improve efficiency and safety of operations: Working on the
open ocean is challenging and costly. Offshore farming systems,
the vessels that attend them, and related equipment all must be
designed with efficiency and worker safety in mind. Currently,
routine operations, such as cage maintenance and harvesting,
require SCUBA diver support. This is expensive and dangerous,
even in the best of circumstances. Alternative approaches for
routine operations and a greater level of automation and
mechanization must be developed and implemented in the U.S.
Minimize fish escapes: The unintentional release of farmed
fish is an economic risk for the farmer and--depending on the
genetic makeup of the cultured species--a potential risk to
wild fish. The U.S. must continue to develop and refine secure,
predator-proof containment systems and management practices
that minimize the possibility of fish escape.
Mitigate potential resource and user conflicts: Properly
locating an offshore aquaculture farm is the critical first
step in insuring its economic success, protecting natural
resources, and preventing conflict with other activities. The
U.S. must develop and apply a systematic, ecosystems-based
approach to identifying optimal aquaculture sites in the EEZ.
This approach should employ geospatial technology, ocean
observing data, and physical and biological modeling and
simulation. This should be coupled with environmental
guidelines that minimize potential impact on the ecosystems
surrounding these farms.
Develop hatchery production capacity: Where will the
juvenile fish that stock offshore farms come from? The answer
to this question is a classic ``chicken and egg'' scenario. The
U.S. currently lacks hatchery capacity to supply even a modest
expansion of offshore farms. At the same time, existing marine
finfish hatcheries struggle from lack of customers for their
fish. A strategy to maintain and enhance hatchery capacity is
vital to offshore aquaculture's commercial development.
Secure sustainable feed sources: Aquaculture relies on a
steady supply of raw material to formulate fish feed. Marine
fish, in particular, require diets high in protein and lipid
content. Currently, these nutritional requirements primarily
come from fishmeal and fish oil. Aquaculture accounts for only
30 percent of the fishmeal consumed; the rest is fed to poultry
and swine. However it is attributed, fishmeal is a finite
resource. The U.S. must identify alternative and renewable
sources of nutritionally-appropriate proteins and lipids in
support of a large-scale expansion of marine fish culture.
Improve production efficiency: Successful and profitable
offshore aquaculture can only be achieved in conditions that
are optimal for the fish. Just as with humans, lower stress
equals better health. To develop cages, feeds, and feeding
schedules conducive to healthy fish, the U.S. needs a more
nuanced understanding of the physiological and behavioral
responses of fish to their environment.
Identify alternative energy sources: Everyone is feeling the
pressure of rising fuel prices, and potential offshore fish
farmers are not an exception. The cost of powering offshore
farms will have a tremendous impact on the industry's economic
viability. This could be offset by harnessing the tremendous
power of ocean wind, waves, and currents.
Need for Public Support of Research and Development
The challenges that face an emerging offshore aquaculture industry
underscore the need for a strategic, comprehensive program of basic and
applied research, and technology development, demonstration, evaluation
and transfer. This, in turn, raises the question of whether such a
program should be the responsibility of the private sector or the U.S.
Government.
Publicly-supported research and development has been essential to
the creation and continued success of many U.S. industries. This is
particularly true for agriculture. Even in industries that generate the
most profitable of commodities, private investment only occurs when
adequate scientific evidence warrants economic risk. That the U.S. is a
world leader in many agricultural sectors is due in large part to
public support--for research conducted at universities and government
laboratories, and for the network of agriculture experiment stations
and farms that apply new technologies and demonstrate their usefulness
to farmers.
Research and demonstration, coupled with a well-developed system
for technology transfer through the agricultural extension service, is
a formula that has served U.S. agriculture remarkably well.
Aquaculture, in particular offshore, must adopt a similar approach to
guide industry development and insure environmental stewardship.
National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2005
As it has been proposed, the National Offshore Aquaculture Act
offers an excellent regulatory and procedural framework from which the
U.S. can build a sustainable, offshore aquaculture industry. What the
Act now requires is the input of informed stakeholders.
As a scientist immersed in developing solutions to the technical,
social, environmental, and economic hurdles that face offshore
aquaculture, I believe that Act should be further developed to
authorize a research and development (R&D) program to support and guide
this fledgling industry. Independent, scientifically-verified R&D will
make the difference between a successful industry and a struggling one,
between one that harms the environment and one that is engaged in
systematic environmental protection.
Such a program would have two components: commercially independent
and broadly credible demonstration projects to test the effectiveness
of available technology; and competitive, peer-reviewed research
funding opportunities to address evolving challenges. This is,
effectively, the approach that has made U.S. agriculture the envy of
the world--competitive research combined with learning platforms that
transfer the fruits of this work directly to those who can apply it to
the benefit of the American consumer.
To determine the appropriate levels of Federal, State, and industry
investment in this program will require careful planning and
discussion. However, it is clear that for such an investment to be
effective, it must be commensurate with the challenge at hand. What is
it worth to the United States to replace an $8 billion trade deficit
with a strong, successful offshore aquaculture industry, one that
bolsters the economy and provides a secure source of healthy food? U.S.
investments in agricultural technology development and transfer should
help us answer that question.
Fortunately, we do not have to start from scratch. The future U.S.
offshore aquaculture industry is already supported by NOAA's Sea Grant
program, research projects underway at laboratories and universities
like UNH, and private sector initiatives. Indeed, last year Congress
took a strategic step in leveraging these efforts by appropriating the
funds for the UNH Open Ocean Aquaculture Project to become the Atlantic
Marine Aquaculture Center. Implicit in this decision is the
acknowledgement that while offshore aquaculture is a national issue, it
manifests differently at the regional level.
This new center for New England mirrors similar initiatives in the
Gulf States and Hawaii. The motivation for these regional centers is a
product of local opportunity and need. As such, each plans to work
closely with local fishing interests and coastal communities to develop
approaches to offshore aquaculture that complement local economies,
geography, and culture. At the same time, each will benefit from
participating in a national consortium that collaborates to identify
bottlenecks to industry advancement, prioritizes research topics, and
freely exchanges information and technology.
Closing Statement
It has been nearly 1 year since National Offshore Aquaculture Act
was introduced. In that time, an offshore aquaculture industry in the
U.S. EEZ has been described as both a panacea for an impending economic
crisis and a serious environmental hazard. As a scientist and a
citizen, I do not subscribe to either opinion. The research data from
our Project at UNH strongly suggests that there is a bright and
sustainable future for offshore aquaculture in this country and that it
may help relieve pressure on our fisheries. It also suggests that for
that to occur, the U.S. must allocate appropriate investments in
related R&D and develop sound regulatory oversight with the input of a
range of marine resource stakeholders.
It is clear the world will not wait for us in this matter. Offshore
aquaculture is already being developed in the Caribbean, Europe, and
Asia. And in some instances, this has been with the benefit of U.S.
research and development. I do not believe we should relinquish the
fruits of our investments to other nations without first exploring the
potential for offshore aquaculture in this country. Nor do I believe
that we should rely solely on other nations to develop and regulate an
offshore aquaculture industry that will impact the environmental
quality of our oceans and the health of U.S. consumers.
Senator Sununu. Thank you very much, doctor. Mr. Cates,
welcome.
STATEMENT OF JOHN R. CATES, PRESIDENT,
CATES INTERNATIONAL INC.
Mr. Cates. Thank you, Chairman, members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for having me here. It's a great honor
for me to come here a long ways from Hawaii. I am owner and
President of Cates International. I am the hundred percent
owner of the company. I have an operational commercial fish
farm in Hawaii, as many of you know. It's quite interesting to
note in your opening remarks about submerged cages, our company
has developed that and was the first one in the U.S. to do such
and to have an open ocean lease. We currently have raised over
a million pounds. My former job as a commercial fisherman--it
is a monumental task what it would have done for me to have
taken that from the wild, and I cannot explain or express the
feeling that I get from not taking from the wild any longer.
It's a feeling of--that I can see longevity in my career now
whereas a commercial fisherman, I was constantly looking at
getting out of the industry because it was going to be short-
lived. All of us here today in this room are concerned about
the health and well being of our oceans. And as we talk about
these issues, I look forward to answering some of the questions
from an operational side. But I also would like to note that we
need to think about the health and well-being of our
communities and our society. An example that I use in many of
my talks is about my father-in-law who is native Hawaiian from
the island of Hawaii. He was raised in a very rural area,
raised mainly on vegetables and fish. And on his 18th birthday,
is when he had his first steak. And in a single generation, his
diet and my wife's diet completely changed, and that has
significant health implications for many of the people in
Hawaii. As Senator Inouye will know, we have a health issue.
Their bodies have been engineered to eat in a certain manner,
and it's completely changed. Our fishery has changed. Hawaii is
a window to the future of the rest of the country. Our
nearshore fisheries have been depleted. Yet, we have strong
offshore fisheries that are relatively healthy. We need to
recognize, as the Hawaiians did thousands of years ago, we have
to farm our fish. So, I implore this subcommittee to take that
into consideration as we also discuss the health and well-being
of our oceans. Prior to me coming here, I asked my community
and some very important members who I trust what they thought
about this bill, including the Governor of our state. She has
authorized me to state--that her intention is full support of
this bill, and I have not heard any opposition, although I
would have two simple recommendations. The first, as an
investor in this business, I am concerned about the 10-year
lease being too short. I--even though I invested my own money
into offshore fish farming, I would not invest in an EEZ if I
only had a 10-year lease. It's just too short for that level of
investment. And the second is a state's opt-out, and the reason
I am concerned about that is--it's for the same issue, whether
you invest in this and--you invest in the industry, whether a
state can just pull the plug and leave without--because of
political and not environmental reasons. I hope this
subcommittee will consider the importance of all these issues.
As I look at my newborn son, I hope that he can be raised on a
diet of fish and vegetables and a healthy diet that closely
resembles his ancestors and all Americans. This is a bill that
is for all of Americans, not just certain coastal communities.
Clearly, farmed fish is of major importance, and we need to
look at the success of farmed salmon. A lot of people look at
it as a negative thing, but I look at it as a success. Salmon
is available year-round to many Americans at a reasonable cost.
Seafood should not be just for the wealthy. We need to find
ways to get it down to the people that really need it the most
and who are going to benefit the most. And I look forward to
any questions, and I thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cates follows:]
Prepared Statement of John R. Cates, President, Cates International,
Inc.
Aloha Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am greatly honored to have been asked to provide testimony and
share my personal experience regarding offshore aquaculture. The
responsibility of this subcommittee is an important one, as is the
legislation regarding our oceans. As you navigate through the input
regarding this issue, I have faith that the Nation's best interest will
prevail.
I was born and raised in Hawaii, on the Island of Oahu. My first
employment opportunity concerning marine life and the ocean began at
the age of 15 when I started training dolphins for the United States
Navy out of the Kane'ohe Marine Corp Base. Training mammals for the
Navy allowed me to travel to many parts of the country and I was
exposed to vast and diverse ocean conditions. In 1991, I became a
contractor for the United States Defense Intelligence Agency, and
although I did travel a good amount, this opportunity allowed me to do
commercial fishing whenever at home. Throughout the 1990s, I became
interested in research projects regarding marine environments and
fisheries, and as a result, created a business to support research by
providing ocean vessels, equipment, and manpower. This led to my
involvement with the Hawaii Offshore Aquaculture Research Project
(HOARP), which conducted research into the feasibility of open ocean
aquaculture. My experience with, and the success of, this research
project opened up my eyes to the realization that we can farm our
seafood and do it in an environmentally sustainable manner while
protecting our wild fish stocks. It was apparent then, just as it is
today that the longevity of commercial fishing in my area will be
short-lived.
With the success of the HOARP project, it became apparent that
commercial success of open ocean aquaculture in Hawaii would require
changes to State laws and legislation. John Corbin with the Aquaculture
Development Program (ADP) in Hawaii, along with a coalition of players
and pioneers in the industry, were instrumental with the implementation
of Chapter 190D, Hawaii Revised Statutes, addressing ocean and
submerged land leasing that ultimately allowed utilization of Hawaii's
ocean resources for research and sustainable development of open ocean
aquaculture. In essence, this Hawaii statute is very similar to the
Administration's bill regarding offshore aquaculture in Federal waters.
Many of the concerns being raised now are similar to concerns that were
raised back in 1999 in Hawaii. Amendments made to Chapter 190D allowed
our company, Cates International Inc., to become the first business in
the United States to be issued an open ocean lease for mariculture.
Being the first was not easy, nor should it have been, and I continue
to feel a personal responsibility for how this new industry develops
both in Hawaii and in the U.S. We have much to offer, and I personally
share experiences and learning lessons with the public as often as the
opportunity presents itself.
There are many lessons to be learned from processes developed for
the aquaculture industry in Hawaii. A fundamental lesson is that open
ocean fish farming does work, and that it can be done without causing
significant effects upon the environment. In fact, environmental
changes associated with habitat creation have been seen as an
environmental benefit. The Environmental Assessment (EA) process in
place has proven to be adequate and successfully addresses concerns
posed by the community. Our strict EA process forces potential
companies to engage and meet with their communities and make themselves
available to be questioned and challenged. While there are currently
two successful companies operating in Hawaiian waters, there have been
multiple attempts by potential companies to obtain leases, however,
they were not able to satisfy regulatory standards due to inadequate
planning and knowledge and their applications were therefore denied.
This is testament that our community's expectations are high and that
their concerns are being legitimately addressed. Another important
aspect of the EA process is having a lead agency, such as the
Aquaculture Development Program, which is essential in helping to
create a straight-forward system to assist companies and investors. In
addition, a Federal agency such as NOAA is vital in having the
authority to issue such leases. A compilation of State, Federal, and
community resources is a fundamental and important marriage in the
creation of an EA process that works.
During our EA process, many concerns were raised. Some were valid
and some were not, many were scare tactics fueled by misinformation,
however, all were addressed. In Hawaii, we have made great strides in
educating our communities and public about our industry, and continue
to do so. This commitment will be ongoing on our part.
Environmental issues are a huge concern in our industry and there
are safeguards in place. Hawaii legislation mandates that only
indigenous fish be stocked in any offshore cage. It is my opinion that
this is an important and sensible safeguard, but if a particular
species could be grown without the possibility of causing harm to the
wild sector, I think this should be looked at on a case-by-case basis.
For example, if a certain species was proven to be sterile prior to
being grown in an open ocean fish farm, thus eliminating the
possibility for reproduction, this could be a consideration. Currently
however, farming species native to the area is the safest approach to
this issue.
Regarding the issue of disease, open ocean fish farming must face
these issues just as traditional land-based farms. Like all farming, we
are always on the lookout for disease; we check for disease prior to
putting the fingerlings into the offshore cages and diseases endemic to
the environment will have to be managed at the farm level through
careful monitoring of the fish stock and perhaps through crop rotation,
limitation of crop density, or by pre-approved vaccinated stock just as
is done in any farm where animal husbandry is practiced. My experience
with disease however is limited. We have been in business for 7 years
and harvest upwards of 8,000 pounds of fish per week, and we have not
had issues with disease.
As this subcommittee and the Federal Government try to create a
regulatory body for permitting, it is my belief that if the Federal
Government needs to follow a path similar to that of Hawaii, the
permitting process will likewise eliminate the potential for ``bad
actors.'' I am confident in the process and oversight of offshore fish
farming in Hawaii; there is currently an adequate system of checks and
balances. We are a self-regulated as well as a state and federally-
regulated industry, and I am concerned that any further regulation will
deter investment into offshore fish farming by making the permitting
process too cumbersome and slow. Presently, the permit process has
proven to weed out weak companies and the EPA and other agencies that
currently regulate our industry are sufficient. I am 100 percent owner
of Cates International Inc., and purposely put my family name in the
company's title because I believe in and endorse all that we do
completely. My community can be assured that I will not allow my
operations in any way to harm the environment. I am also confident that
as other new companies are permitted that they will have to follow the
same regulations that I do. We as an industry do not want this to be an
easy process; we want to ensure that adequate standards and regulations
are in place to protect all we have invested and I am fully confident
that the current regulations in place are sufficient.
Today, offshore leasing for reasons other than aquaculture, such as
alternative energy and ports, is foreseeable and there are concerns
that these leases may unfairly disadvantage or damage aquaculture
operations. However, aquaculture as an industry has the right to expect
that permits issued to other operations will not jeopardize its own
operation or cause environmental damage. In fact, aquaculture would
presume that permits would not be given to any operation that would
impact the environment in such a way as to cause harm to aquaculture
stock. Issues, therefore, could be directed to use of space. However,
the Exclusive Economic Zone, or EEZ, is almost the same square miles as
is the land area in the continental U.S. so a conflict with other
structures over use of space seems improbable. According to
calculations done recently by Dr. John Forester for NOAA, ``Looking
much further ahead, an industry producing two mmt [million metric tons]
per year (NOAA's projected additional deficit by 2025) would require
about 10,000 acres of surface space for cages and 350,000 acres for
placement of multiple anchors. These areas represent about 0.003
percent and 0.01 percent of the U.S. EEZ respectively and only 0.2
percent and 6.8 percent of the 11.9 million acres that are already
allocated to marine sanctuaries. As noted earlier, two mmt of seafood
per year produced by aquaculture represents about $5 billion of imports
and 150,000 direct and indirect jobs based on today's metrics.''
Issues with mobile users of leased space, such as ships and
fishermen, seem at first glance to be more of an issue. However, if
such aquaculture operations are not permitted in or near shipping lanes
or commercial fishing grounds this concern is alleviated. Also,
operations should have to meet all of the lighting and safety standards
and have proper navigation aids for standard ocean safety practices. We
must keep in mind that these aquaculture operations, though they may
seem large in scale, are actually miniscule when put in an ocean
environment. For example, in Norway their fish farming industry exceeds
over $1 billion a year, but the footprint of all of the sea cages
combined for this industry is smaller than most runways at our large
airports. The open ocean is immense and fishing vessels will have ample
room to go around such areas. Likewise, we have many marine protected
areas and large bodies of water that fishermen are prohibited from
entering, such as sanctuaries, and there is no problem there.
As this subcommittee considers legislation regarding open ocean
fish farming, it is important to note what current research needs are,
and what they will be. It will not make sense to pass such legislation
unless we are willing to invest in this new industry, thus relieving
pressure both on our wild stocks and on the trade deficit. The current
level of funding available for research in offshore fish farming, to my
knowledge, is less than $5 million per year, and I strongly believe
that we will need a level of around $50 million per year to adequately
satisfy needs on a national level. There is a sufficient level of
funding for commercial venues to build new fishing vessels, but
inadequate levels available for aquaculture ventures. This shortcoming
needs to be addressed and fairly balanced.
At the same time, I strongly believe that the aquaculture industry
should also be investing in research as well as other areas that we
will directly benefit from. I feel some of the areas that industry
should be responsible for are:
Harvesting techniques which will be species and site
specific
Vessels used for daily operations
Operational gear
Marketing
However, there is a long list of areas that I feel our government
could and should play a role in assisting the offshore industry in
research and development. I have often been told that the three rules
to a good business are location, location, and location. This is also
applies toward offshore fish farming; however, in reference to open
ocean fish farming, I would argue hatchery, hatchery, hatchery.
Nationally, we are not leaders when it comes to hatchery technology or
species development and this area is vital! A successful fish farm is
dependant upon a successful hatchery. I have found that other areas in
need are development and testing of feedstock alternatives, deep water
mooring systems, disease prevention, and research into new fish
species.
I have been asked what the realistic expectations are that
aquaculture can do for the U.S. regarding economic returns, food
supply, and balance of trade. My response to this question is that I
personally feel that if this legislation is implemented, we won't see
an investment into salmon farming in the EEZ, but we will see an
investment into new species, and most likely in the warmer water
climates of the U.S. While a lot of opposition for this bill comes from
Alaska fishermen, I seriously doubt that anyone would invest in the EEZ
in Alaska. The environment there is very tough, and although it can be
argued that it is tough anywhere in the U.S., it is doubly tough in
Alaska. If it were to occur at all in Alaska, it will happen in State
waters because of favorable working conditions. If the legislation
encourages investment from the private sector, I predict a slow start,
approximately 2-4 years and we will possibly see several farms. But as
we as an industry prove to ourselves and to others what our
capabilities are and what the benefits that come along with it are,
there will be significant growth. In Hawaii, we currently have invested
nearly $11 million between two farms, Cates International Inc. and Kona
Blue Water, exclusively from the private sector, and I believe that we
have the potential to be a $100 million a year industry within the next
7 to 10 years. For the rest of the country, it really depends on two
significant factors--first, whether or not upcoming legislation
encourages investments without overburdening constraints, and second,
whether or not the Federal Government seriously invests in research
(e.g., hatchery development). To put this in perspective, in Hawaii, it
is doubtful that we will venture into the EEZ in significant numbers
due to the depth of water, but for the rest of the country, it will
most likely have to occur in the EEZ due to the shallow water
conditions near shore.
In 1999, many in Hawaii predicted open ocean fish farming would be
an ecological disaster. These concerns led both State and Federal
Government agencies to research and investigate the negative impacts of
fish farming on our site, and nearly 6 years later, no negative impact
has been found. On the contrary, although no funding has been provided
to research positive impacts, it is readily apparent that there has
been much. Positive impact is evident in our production numbers; we
have been able to raise over 1 million pounds of fish that would have
otherwise been taken from the wild by commercial fisheries. This has
been done in an area of approximately two acres which consisted of only
a sandy bottom habitat (no fish were observed during site surveys prior
to farm development). This area is now home to a vast and diversified
ecosystem. In fact, some of the very individuals that raised
environmental concerns now benefit directly from our site and routinely
fish the area. Our community also benefit with fresh, local, farm
raised fish available year round that is not affected by limited
fishing seasons. We raise Hawaiian moi, a fish once reserved for
Hawaiian Ali'i or Royalty and a fish that was nearly extinct in the
wild. It is now available to everyone at an affordable price. I have
often been thanked by members of our elderly community, many of whom
were raised eating this particular fish and can now enjoy eating it
again.
Our local chefs and restaurants also benefit by having a fresh,
locally grown product available year round. In Hawaii, the term
``farmed raised'' is positively used in advertising and marketing, and
many of the top chefs and restaurants overwhelmingly endorse our
company and product. As an employer and fish farmer, I have financially
been able to increase the income of my employees nearly 70 percent, and
we go home to our families every night. All of these reasons, in my
opinion, are positive impact and have never been measured by opponents
of aquaculture.
In conclusion, as this subcommittee evaluates whether to allow
offshore aquaculture facilities to operate within the U.S. Exclusive
Economic Zone, I am reminded of a lesson I learned very early in life.
My father, who was also born in Hawaii, was very involved with Hawaiian
canoe paddling and when I was a young child at the age of seven, he
would take me out on the ocean with his canoe team. A well respected,
strong Hawaiian man by the name of ``Cappy'' was teaching me how to
steer a canoe, and I once asked him how do you know where you are going
once it gets dark. He said ``If you don't change course, you will end
up were you are heading.'' Simple words spoken by a true Hawaiian man.
We as a Nation know where we are heading with respect to our fisheries;
we are all aware of the enormous demand for seafood, and the pressure
that places upon our wild stocks. NOAA and the National Marine
Fisheries Service have done a good job in identifying what course we
are on and have made good recommendations on what needs to be changed.
It is now time to change direction and that responsibility lies with
this Committee. Change is not easy--it never is, but I am confident
that when presented with all of the information, this Committee will
make the right decision and support this legislation for the benefit of
all Americans and our oceans. The ocean and the EEZ is a public
resource, and the American public deserves to have fresh fish that is
affordable, both wild and farmed.
I sincerely thank all of you for taking the time to listen to my
testimony and for inviting me to take part in this historic step in the
world of aquaculture. I truly believe that this will put us all in a
better place during a time that we as a society are consciously trying
to live healthier, and I am thankful that I could play a small part in
a monumental Act that will benefit the generation of my young son, as
well as those to come.
Mahalo.
Senator Sununu. Thank you very much, Mr. Cates. Mr. Vinsel,
welcome.
STATEMENT OF MARK VINSEL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UNITED FISHERMEN
OF ALASKA
Mr. Vinsel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee. The United Fishermen of Alaska represents 31
Alaska commercial fishing organizations from throughout Alaska,
the Bering Sea, and the Gulf of Alaska. We represent roughly
half of the United States domestic seafood production. We don't
have any depleted stocks. I think our experience in our
science-based management is very different from the two former
commercial fishermen that you heard speak. There is a lot of
misunderstanding about Alaska's well-known ban on finfish
farms. It is not in opposition to all aquaculture. Even among
UFA's 31 member groups, seven of them are nonprofit aquaculture
associations that raise salmon fry and smolts and release them
into the wild. And they are then a common property resource
available for not only commercial, but sport and subsistence
harvests. And those are done with science with the guidance of
the Alaska Department of Fish and Game in harmony with the
natural stocks and result in a sustainable salmon stocks with
the last 2 years--having been in the top 4 years of all
history. Our fisheries with science-based management, we
consider it like mowing the lawn. You do have to mow the lawn
or else it'll kind of go to weeds, but cutting the grass every
year doesn't cause a problem to your lawn. It is common to hear
of the talk of fishermen as the last of a vanishing hunter
gatherer tradition that is on its way to extinction, to be
replaced by agrarian food producers. But to us, there is a big
difference between land- and water-based agriculture. Husbandry
of terrestrial ecosystems has clearly provided increased food
production. But in healthy ocean systems, we don't think that
man's best efforts can make any net gain. Feeding fish to other
fish as done in finfish-based net pen agriculture or
aquaculture is not a net food production increase. Wild salmon
depend on the pasturage of the open oceans, and putting netpen
fish farms in the open ocean will interfere with the wild fish
food chain. Where healthy oceans exist, they are worth saving.
Where waters have been impaired, priority should be given to
restoration of healthy natural systems that can sustain the
progression of life for productive fisheries as consideration
is given to fencing them off for fish farms. If the goal is to
increase production and consumption of domestic seafood, a
sizable gain could be made with an investment in basic
infrastructure in Alaska communities and attention to the
rebuilding of the Gulf of Mexico coastal communities in a
planned way to retain the most value in wild seafood harvests.
Arguments that the United States needs to promote finfish
agriculture technology to help our balance of trade are belied
by history in fish markets and current trends in all industries
that require labor. Finfish aquaculture technology was
developed by U.S. universities, then adopted by other countries
where lower costs of labor and lesser environmental
restrictions allow producers a lower cost of production than
possible in the U.S., and imports have swamped U.S. domestic
producers whether they are salmon, shrimp, or catfish farmers.
Those three U.S. domestic producers were the three initial
product categories that qualified for USDA Trade Adjustment
assistance. There were really no major agricultural commodities
in the first 2 years of that program. Other than Maine wild
blueberries and Florida lychee fruit, it was salmon, catfish,
and shrimp when the USDA decided that we needed to have a
temporary adjustment program to help with the spike in imported
production.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council has a good
track record of looking into the science and economics of
fisheries and taking a precautionary approach. We insist that
the Council have authority, not merely consultation because the
Council is--effectively governs our ocean systems and our
fisheries, and we need them to have the authority on that. We
also look for a serious study of the social and economic
effects, as included in Senator Murkowski's amendment 1727
before this moves forward. The ability of a state to modify
aquaculture practices to fit the unique circumstances is--needs
to be effectively coded in this legislation. The Senate can
delegate authority of aquaculture permitting to the states, and
this needs to be clear and incontrovertible language in the
bill. Species that do not occur naturally in an area should not
be considered and neither should genetically-modified fish.
They will escape with unpredictable consequences to the local
ocean. Farmed fish can and must be marked, every one, by
scientifically valid methods that are very economical, such as
thermal otolith marking to ensure that any escaped fish can be
attributed to their producer. In the future, there may be a
place for aquaculture in maintaining healthy oceans, but
current technology does not adequately protect existing ocean
resources from harm from fish farms seeking to grow fish to
market size in coastal or ocean waters. It may be worthwhile to
look at the model of Alaska's salmon aquaculture programs to
raise and release fingerlings with the emphasis on enhancing
rather than replacing natural stocks for a common property
resource available to all and to help restore diminished fish
stocks with long life cycles and extended predicted rebuilding
times for the benefit of all Americans. These operations must
be consistent with ecosystem-based management based on sound
science and a precautionary approach. Please be very cautious
in your drafting of regulations and heed the old saying,
please, first, do no harm. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vinsel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Vinsel, Executive Director,
United Fishermen of Alaska
United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) represents 31 Alaska commercial
fishing organizations from fisheries throughout Alaska, the Bering Sea,
and Gulf of Alaska, with fishermen from 46 states, accounting for
almost half the domestic seafood production of the United States. I am
Mark Vinsel, Executive Director of UFA. I also serve as Chairman of the
Alaska Fishing Industry Relief Mission, a volunteer effort to provide
assistance to the Gulf of Mexico fishing industry in the wake of last
summer's hurricanes.
We thank you for the invitation to share our point of view
regarding offshore aquaculture and hope that our concerns will guide
you in establishing a framework for offshore aquaculture management
that will be a benefit to the Nation's food production, while
sustaining healthy oceans and recovering depleted or diminished stocks
for the benefit of all.
There is much misunderstanding of Alaska's well-known ban on
finfish farms. It is generally viewed as opposition to all aquaculture.
However, Alaska has viable aquaculture operations that produce a
variety of shellfish and enhance our natural salmon runs.
The connotations around the term aquaculture have largely come to
mean ``farm,'' as it is in S. 1195. There is much more to the term than
that. Alaska's nonprofit regional aquaculture associations release
immature salmon as fry or smolt, from coastal bays where there are few
or no resident salmon and no identifiable interference with returning
natural wild stocks. From the point of their release on, the immature
salmon are a common property resource, ranging freely, subject to
natural environmental conditions and available for commercial, sport,
subsistence and personal use harvests. The intention of Alaska's
aquaculture program is to augment, not replace natural stocks,
especially during years of lower than average returns. The success of
this program is illustrated by the abundance and health of Alaska's
salmon populations with recent yearly returns at all time high levels.
It is common to hear talk of fishermen as the last of a vanishing
hunter gatherer tradition that is on the way to extinction, to be
replaced by agrarian food producers. We feel there is an unarguable
difference between land- and water-based agriculture. Man's husbandry
and manipulation of terrestrial ecosystems clearly has provided
increased food production, but in healthy ocean systems it is
questionable if a real gain of production could be obtained through
man's best efforts. In healthy oceans there are no fences and all biota
feeds and is fed upon, creating an integrated food web. This food web
produces fish that are a high-quality protein with great flavor and
nutrition. Free-range wild and enhanced salmon harvests depend on the
flux of this fluid web of life. Introducing large scale net pen
operations would inevitably draw from the natural pasturage available
to wild fish.
Wild salmon depend on this pasturage. Large scale fish farms will
interfere with their physical presences as well as interdicting the
food web which is the sustaining pasturage of viable wild stocks.
Precedence has to be given to healthy wild stocks where they exist.
Fishermen that have learned to shepard their fisheries to harvest
responsibly and sustainably deserve the opportunity to continue.
Where healthy oceans exist, they are worth saving. Where waters
have been impaired, priority should be given to restoration of healthy
natural systems that can sustain the progression of life for productive
fisheries, as consideration is given to fencing them off for fish
farms.
We see a big difference between free-ranging fish and sedentary
mussels growing on ropes, and so far the economic results affirm the
viability of the mussel production as a form of aquaculture that can
benefit local fishermen and their communities and coexist with existing
fisheries. Large scale finfish operations in net pens bring much
greater risk and would provide less economic benefit to coastal
communities, especially in coastal Alaska where infrastructure is the
impediment to getting our fish to market, not a lack of fish.
Arguments that the United States needs to promote finfish
agriculture technology to help our balance of trade are belied by
history in fish markets, and current trends in all industries that
require labor. Finfish aquaculture technology was developed by U.S.
universities then adopted by other countries where lower costs of labor
and lesser environmental restrictions allow producers a lower cost of
production than possible in the United States, and their imports
swamped U.S. domestic producers be they salmon fishermen or catfish
farmers. It bears noting that in the USDA Trade Adjustment assistance
program, U.S. catfish farms and shrimp farms, along with salmon
producers from AK, Washington and Oregon were qualified for benefits to
compensate from the market effects of increased imports while Maine
blueberries were the only non-seafood crop that qualified in the first
year. The differences in labor and environmental costs will continue to
favor low-cost foreign producers, with little likelihood of erasing the
seafood balance of trade.
If the goal is to increase production and consumption of domestic
seafood, a sizable gain could be made with an investment in basic
infrastructure in Alaska communities, and attention to rebuilding Gulf
of Mexico coastal communities in a planned way to retain the most value
in wild seafood harvests.
There is no fish farm technology that can more cheaply produce the
``superfood'' that is Alaska's pink salmon--for which last year's
average dock price of 12-14 cents per pound was a strong uptick--and
which is proving to be an important source of non-perishable quality
protein in government aid programs as we speak.
We recommend that with whatever direction domestic high seas
aquaculture development takes, equal attention be paid to protecting
existing seafood production. Market impacts should be studied for
individual projects. In many coastal communities, there are no other
job opportunities available to displaced workers so operations that
have the potential of interfering with existing fisheries need to be
carefully assessed before damage is done.
Local scientific input is needed in permitting and location. A fish
farm operator might desire to utilize areas of natural upwelling to
benefit from the availability of a natural free food source. The ocean
environment is fluid and dynamic, and every component of the food chain
is a necessary component in this complex web of life. We are concerned
that placement of large scale fish farms in areas of open ocean would
rob the existing web of life in unpredictable ways.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) has a good
track record of looking into the science and economics of fisheries,
and taking a precautionary approach to opening new fisheries and
management concepts. They have made difficult decisions and set harvest
levels in favor of maintaining stock viability over short-term economic
gains, and the NPFMC has been party to setting aside large tracts of
ocean to be protected from direct fishing activities. The sensitivity
of oceans are considered and the very fact of human activity has been
deemed a significant impact to the ocean's sensitivity. The NPFMC has a
proven track record of good judgment and is the only forum in place for
prudent management of the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea. Fishermen will
be affected by location and operation of fish farms in areas where they
fish or travel. The regional councils should hold management authority
over fish farm operations, with consideration for the social,
environmental and economic effects upon ocean resources and existing
users, not merely consultation as included in S. 1195.
Should offshore aquaculture be allowed in U.S. marine waters,
fishing businesses and coastal communities need to be considered, and
must be allowed to compete on a level playing field in the marketplace.
Salmon, halibut, sablefish, and other species that compete with farm
raised product need to enjoy access to the same types of research,
marketing and support programs provided by the Department of Commerce
and Department of Agriculture for fish farm operations.
The ability of a coastal state to modify marine aquaculture
practices to fit unique circumstances or to opt out if the state deems
the aquaculture activity to be unjustified must be effectively codified
within the legislation. The U.S. Senate can delegate authority of
aquaculture permitting to states, and this needs to be clear and
incontrovertible.
UFA supports S.B. 2859, which has been re-introduced by Senator
Murkowski as Senate amendment 1727 to S. 1195, calling for serious
study of the social and economic effects before offshore aquaculture is
considered.
The precautionary principle is the concept of proving no
identifiable harm before implementing substantial changes, and is a
fundamental tenant behind Alaska's fisheries resource management. The
cost of altering a project or not moving forward with a proposed
change, to prevent damage, is far less than trying to restore damage
that is already done.
The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, and Pew Oceans Commission,
both pointed to the need for ecosystem-based management, and called for
increased funding for ocean science to better understand these highly
dynamic systems. Meanwhile, climate and regime changes are occurring
that compound the difficulties in obtaining this baseline science. To
introduce large-scale aquaculture to these ocean systems without
thorough scientific understanding in place to gauge the effects as they
occur is irresponsible. It is very troubling that S. 1195 contains so
much consideration for existing offshore oil platforms and so little
language on the environment into which the farms are to be introduced.
Progress has been made in some areas of large scale fish farming
that were troublesome. Antibiotics are not as widely used in
technologically-advanced aquaculture operations, having been replaced
by vaccines that are cheaper and more effective. And it may seem that
the concentration of wastes may be less of a problem in the open ocean
than they are in nearshore environments. But the oceans are not
limitless and in large scale operations the effects may not be as
noticeable but are there nonetheless. The Pew Oceans report noted that
the cumulative effects of many sources of non-point source pollution
are a huge problem to ocean health, and introduction of large scale
fish farms would further this problem. A further problem with
cumulative non-point source pollution is that it precludes any
meaningful concept of responsibility. Waiting until the fish are gone,
then trying to figure out who to blame does not protect the fish. At a
minimum, fish farms need to have proven standards which substantially
reduce risks before permitting.
Near shore fish farms continue to suffer from increased parasites
such as sea lice with harm to naturally-occurring fish stocks that pass
through the area. With a tremendous increase in investment in science
required for ecosystem-based management, we may someday be able to pick
a site for a fish farm where we can safely assure that no natural fish
will be affected, but we are a long way from that level of knowledge
now. We feel that the potential environmental impacts justify a
thorough legislative environmental impact statement.
There should be no exemption from existing labor laws and
applicable regulations concerning transportation such as the Jones Act,
and no bypassing of regulatory framework in place for our coasts and
oceans.
The term ``Exclusive Economic Zone'' clearly should preclude
foreign ownership.
Species that do not occur naturally in an area should not be
considered, as they will escape with unpredictable consequences. Farmed
fish can and must be marked by economical but scientifically-valid
methods such as thermal otolith marking to ensure that any escaped fish
that cause harm can be attributed to their producer.
In the future, there may be a place for aquaculture in maintaining
healthy oceans, but current technology does not adequately protect
existing ocean resources from harm from fish farms seeking to grow fish
to market size in coastal or ocean waters. It may be worthwhile to look
to the model of Alaska's salmon aquaculture programs to raise and
release fingerlings with the emphasis on enhancing rather than
replacing natural stocks, for a common property resource available to
all, and to help restore diminished fish stocks with long life cycles
and extended predicted rebuilding times, for the benefit of all
Americans. These operations must be consistent with ecosystem-based
management based on sound science and a precautionary approach. Please
be very cautious in your drafting of regulations for the permitting of
offshore aquaculture, and heed the old saying--first, do no harm.
Senator Sununu. Thank you very much, Mr. Vinsel. We are
also joined by Senator Snowe of Maine. And before continuing
with Dr. Goldburg, I want to give Senator Snowe a chance to
make any opening remarks she might have.
STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE
Senator Snowe. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I
certainly thank you for convening this hearing today on
offshore aquaculture. It's certainly a critical issue for my
state, and I'll ask unanimous consent to include my entire
statement in the record----
Senator Sununu. Without objection.
Senator Snowe.--but I do want to recognize Mr. Sebastian
Belle, who is here today from the State of Maine and head of
the Maine Aquaculture Association. We have certainly had long-
standing experience with aquaculture in the State of Maine, and
I think it is important to look at specific legislative
proposals for regulating fish farming. We have certainly been
able to draw on our experiences in the state and we know how
important it is going to be for the future of our industry--and
important for the seafood industry as well. So, I appreciate
the fact that you are holding this hearing here today because I
do hope that we can determine what would be the best
legislative initiatives to develop. We must respond to the
issues concerning the problems that have stemmed from fish
farming and identify what we can do to ensure that we preserve
this vital industry for the state. We have more than 150
operations in the State of Maine that yield more than $80
million annually. So, it is a critical industry, and we want to
be sure that we do everything we can to maintain and preserve
the future of this vital industry for my state and this
country. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Snowe follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Olympia J. Snowe, U.S. Senator from Maine
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for convening today's hearing on offshore
aquaculture. The State of Maine has decades of experience in fish
farming, especially in near-shore state waters, and we recognize that
this industry could soon have new opportunities to pursue aquaculture
in offshore, Federal waters. Therefore, this timely hearing will help
ensure that Congress understands the issues and challenges facing this
emerging industry, so we can authorize an appropriate Federal framework
for developing and promoting offshore aquaculture.
Before we discuss the specific issues of the legislative proposals
for regulating fish farming, we should take a step back and look at the
global dimensions of seafood production and demand. The United Nations
tells us that 60 percent of the world's fisheries are either depleted
or fully exploited, yet global demand for seafood--a healthy source of
protein--continues to grow, perhaps up to 70 percent in the coming
decades. Not surprisingly, the world is looking to aquaculture to meet
this ever-increasing demand.
While many countries, especially in Asia, have developed aggressive
policies promoting fish farming, the United States has not kept pace.
Less than 40 percent of our seafood is produced domestically, making
the U.S. very reliant on imported seafood--a majority of which comes
from foreign aquaculture. This makes it possible for us to enjoy easy
and affordable access to our favorite seafood dinners, but this
convenience and nutrition does not come without costs.
For example, after several decades of industrial aquaculture around
the world, we have seen that large-scale fish farming may lead to
marine pollution and habitat loss if it is not done correctly. Fish
raised at high densities can also transmit disease more easily, which
may necessitate the use of antibiotics and other medicines. And
considering that many farm-raised species have limited genetic
diversity, they can expose wild stocks to a host of risks--from
interbreeding or co-mingling of wild stocks with potentially unhealthy
fish.
The experience of aquaculture in Maine has cast a spotlight on many
of these issues, but at the same time it provides examples of how the
industry can address and overcome problems like disease and escapement.
Today, nearly 150 aquaculture operations in Maine grow Atlantic salmon,
oysters, mussels, and other commercially valuable seafood, growing
products worth more than $80 million annually. As a pioneer in this
field, Maine is finding ways to create jobs in coastal communities and
sustain a vital component of the seafood economy, and ongoing research
is pointing to new ways to support this industry's expansion.
Despite these potential challenges, the economic and public health
benefits that could accompany aquaculture and the value of it in Maine
make it worthwhile for us to consider the future of this industry in
the United States. Currently, there is no Federal framework
specifically designed to address the unique regulatory issues
surrounding offshore aquaculture, so in building one we must seek to
prevent the mistakes and shortcomings of the past from being repeated.
The Administration's proposed bill for offshore aquaculture moves us in
this direction, as it proposes a number of criteria aimed at ensuring
environmental protection and sustainable fish farming development.
It is now our responsibility to critically examine this proposed
bill, listen to the expert testimony provided to us today, and chart a
way forward through these complex--and potentially controversial--
issues. I am impressed with the caliber of the panel assembled here
today, and I thank all the witnesses for appearing--Dr. Bill Hogarth of
the National Marine Fisheries Service; Dr. Richard Langan of the
University of New Hampshire; Mr. Randy Cates, President of Cates
International, all the way from Hawaii; Mr. Mark Vinsel of the United
Fishermen of Alaska; and Dr. Rebecca Goldburg of Environmental Defense.
And of course, I am very grateful that our Chairman has invited
Sebastian Belle, Executive Director of the Maine Aquaculture
Association, to testify before us today. Sebastian, I am confident that
your testimony will shed light on many of the key issues in the already
complicated state-Federal regulatory environment of this industry.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing the
testimony and working with you on this critical legislation.
Senator Sununu. Thank you very much, Senator Snowe. Dr.
Goldburg, welcome.
STATEMENT OF REBECCA GOLDBURG, Ph.D.,
SENIOR SCIENTIST, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE
Dr. Goldburg. Thank you very much. I am honored to have the
opportunity to testify today. And as you noted Mr. Chairman, I
am a biologist and Senior Scientist with Environmental Defense,
a national nonprofit organization. My testimony will focus on
environmental concerns with offshore aquaculture and
aquaculture legislation. Environmental Defense supports
aquaculture as a means to increase seafood supplies.
Nevertheless, pursuing aquaculture development without adequate
safeguards may be worse than not pursuing aquaculture at all.
Although aquaculture and capture fishing are sometimes viewed
as separate endeavors, the future of some aquaculture sectors
is intertwined with fisheries and the health of marine
ecosystems. Offshore aquaculture is patterned after salmon
aquaculture and could be expected to have somewhat similar
impacts. Like farmed salmon, finfish raised offshore will be
housed in net-cages, which sit directly in marine waters and
are vulnerable to at least four types of environmental
problems. One of these is escaped farmed fish. Ecological
damage caused by escaped farmed fish include the introduction
of non-native fish species and reduced so-called fitness of
wild fish as a result of interbreeding with escapees of the
same species. The likelihood of large-scale escapes from
offshore farms is high, for example, from storms or from shark
attacks on cages. Moreover, some of the fish targeted for
offshore production breed in ocean enclosures. And ocean fish
cages, no matter how sturdy, are incapable of containing fish
eggs. Another concern stems from the spread of pathogens and
use of antibiotics and other drugs. Experience in both
terrestrial and aquatic animal production demonstrates that
concentration of large numbers of animals in a small area
facilitates outbreaks of disease and parasites. Such pathogen
outbreaks can jeopardize wild fish. They also lead producers to
administer antibiotics and other drugs, usually via feed, to
entire cages of fish so that the drugs inevitably end up in the
marine environment. It is possible to significantly reduce drug
use through vaccine development, as salmon farmers have
accomplished to their credit, but these vaccines have not
eliminated problems with pathogens and drug use. A third
concern is water pollution. Raising large numbers of animals in
small areas can result in pollution from fish wastes. In the
case of fish pens or cages, these wastes flow directly into
surrounding waters. In a scientific paper, I calculated that a
$5 billion per year offshore aquaculture industry, a target
figure used by NOAA, would discharge annually an amount of
nitrogen equivalent to that in untreated sewage from 17 million
people or the entire North Carolina hog industry of about 10
million hogs. In other words, although moving fish farms
offshore should help dilute fish wastes, we cannot ignore the
potential for water pollution. A fourth concern is farming of
carnivores. Most of the species targeted for offshore
production, such as halibut, cobia, and moi, like farmed
salmon, are raised on feeds with high levels of fish meal and
fish oil made from wild-caught fish. Unless new feed
technologies are commercialized, farming fish offshore will
likely require two to four times more wild fish to be caught
for their feed than is ultimately harvested. Moreover, as noted
by Senator Boxer, fish meal and oil can contain significant
levels of chemicals such as PCBs. Without careful attention to
the composition of fish feeds, offshore fish farming could
produce relatively contaminated food products. Well, especially
given the serious concerns about the impacts of offshore
aquaculture development, it is critical that mandates to
protect the marine environment and the public interest be
incorporated in any offshore aquaculture legislation. One of
the necessary mandates is environmental standards. To provide
adequate protections for marine fisheries and ecosystems, no
permit for offshore aquaculture should be issued unless the
permit will not result in significant adverse impacts to marine
fisheries and ecosystems. Unfortunately, S. 1195 lacks such
mandates for environmental protection and instead gives NOAA
enormous discretion to implement environmental standards. The
bill thus appears to conflict with NOAA's own Code of Conduct
for Responsible Aquaculture Development, which emphasizes such
protections. Another key is public participation and access to
information. A transparent public process helps to ensure that
offshore aquaculture will not harm ocean resources important to
stakeholders outside the aquaculture industry. Yet again, S.
1195 lacks any such provisions concerning transparency, public
notice, and public comment periods for permit applications, and
thus again is in conflict with NOAA's own aquaculture code. A
third element of legislation is managing ocean resources to
minimize conflicts and maximize public benefits. Offshore
aquaculture is one among many oceans uses that can affect the
health and sustainability of ocean resources. Ideally, an
offshore aquaculture system would operate within a broader
regime that minimized conflicts and meet environmental and
economic objectives for our oceans. Unfortunately, S. 1195 does
not provide for such planning and governance, but rather
establishes a national policy for aquaculture development
without adequate balance of other interests. Well, in closing,
NOAA's pursuit of offshore aquaculture development raises a
number of concerns based on experience with other types of
marine aquaculture. Offshore aquaculture should only go forward
following implementation of strong environmental safeguards,
and one of those which I didn't discuss would be the assessment
of potential cumulative impacts of aquaculture development.
Appropriate legal requirements must be established to ensure
that projects meet strong environmental standards, are subject
to public process, and are consistent with a larger framework
for ocean governance. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Goldburg follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rebecca Goldburg, Ph.D., Senior Scientist,
Environmental Defense
Introduction
I am honored to have the opportunity to testify today about the
important issues surrounding offshore aquaculture. My name is Rebecca
Goldburg. I am a biologist and Senior Scientist with Environmental
Defense, a national nonprofit organization. Environmental Defense not
only employs traditional advocacy tools, but also works with corporate
partners such as FedEx, McDonald's, and CitiGroup. In a current
partnership, Environmental Defense is working with Wegmans, a leading
supermarket chain, to support producers of both wild and farmed seafood
who are achieving high environmental standards.
I have co-authored a number of scientific articles concerning
environmental impacts of aquaculture and was co-author of the Pew
Oceans Commission's report on marine aquaculture. Among my current
responsibilities, I serve as a member of the Marine Aquaculture Task
Force, sponsored by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Pew
Charitable Trusts, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Working
Group to develop organic certification standards for aquaculture. I
have an M.S. in Statistics, Ph.D. in Ecology, and honorary Doctorate of
Laws, all from the University of Minnesota.
My testimony will focus on environmental concerns with offshore
aquaculture development and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Agency's (NOAA's) offshore aquaculture legislation, S. 1195. My
testimony reflects my views and those of Environmental Defense, but not
necessarily the task forces of which I am a member.
Aquaculture Is Essential to Expanding Future Seafood Supplies, but Can
Also Diminish Them
Aquaculture is frequently cited as means to increase seafood supply
in a world where greater quantities of fish cannot be obtained from the
oceans. Without a doubt, our oceans are finite, and many fisheries are
now overfished or heading toward depletion. At the same time,
aquaculture is becoming an increasingly important source of seafood.
Roughly 40 percent of all fish directly consumed by humans worldwide
now originate from fish farms.
Environmental Defense supports aquaculture development as a means
to increase seafood supplies; nevertheless, pursuing aquaculture
development without adequate safeguards may be worse than not pursuing
aquaculture at all. Although aquaculture and capture fishing are
sometimes viewed as separate endeavors, the future of some aquaculture
sectors is inextricably intertwined with fisheries and the health of
marine ecosystems. While the production of channel catfish in
freshwater ponds, tilapia in tanks, or crawfish in rice fields has
little or no impact on marine fisheries, some coastal forms of
aquaculture, such as salmon farming in netpens or cages, or shrimp
farming in saltwater ponds, typically degrade marine ecosystems and can
result in a net loss of fish.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Naylor, R., R.J. Goldburg, J. Primavera, N. Kautsky, M.
Beveridge, J. Clay, C. Folke, H. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and M. Troell.
2000. Effect of Aquaculture on World Fish Supplies. Nature 405: 1017-
1024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Offshore Aquaculture Could Cause Significant Harm to Marine Ecosystems
and Fisheries
Offshore aquaculture is patterned after salmon aquaculture, and can
be expected to have similar (although not identical) impacts. Like
farmed salmon, finfish raised offshore will be housed in net-cages.
These are essentially animal feedlots which sit directly in marine
waters, and are vulnerable to at least four distinct types of
environmental problems.
1. Escaped farmed fish: Numerous studies \2\ document the
ecological damage caused by escaped farmed fish. Depending on the
location, these include the introduction of nonnative fish species and
reduced ``fitness'' of wild fish as a result of interbreeding with
escapees of the same species. The offspring of crosses between escaped
farmed with wild fish are a bit like pups from matings between domestic
dogs and wolves--they are not as capable as surviving and reproducing
in nature as their wild ancestors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Reviewed in Naylor, R., K. Hindar, I. Fleming, R. Goldburg, M.
Mangel, S. Williams, J. Volpe, F. Whoriskey, J. Eagle, D. Kelso. 2005.
Fugitive Salmon: Assessing Risks of Escaped Fish from Aquaculture.
BioScience 55:427-437.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The likelihood of large-scale escapes from offshore farms is high
if cages are sited in storm-prone areas such as the Gulf of Mexico.
Even without storms, escapes frequently occur. In the Caribbean and
Hawaii, sharks have torn open fish cages, letting fish escape.
Moreover, unlike salmon which breed in freshwater, the marine species
targeted for offshore production breed in marine waters. Atlantic cod,
for example, breed in ocean enclosures, and although ocean fish cages
are relatively sturdy, their very design renders them incapable of
containing fish eggs.
The impacts of such fish escapes on the health of wild fisheries
could be large if farmed fish are genetically less well-adapted to the
ocean environment than local populations of wild fish. Farmed fish may
be weaker genetically as a result of selective breeding, genetic
engineering, or simply because fish being farmed were taken from a
geographic area with different ecological conditions.
2. Spread of pathogens and use of antibiotics and other drugs:
Experience in both terrestrial and aquatic animal production
demonstrates that concentration of large numbers of animals in a small
area almost inevitably facilitates outbreaks of disease and parasites.
Such pathogen outbreaks can jeopardize wild fish. One recent study,\3\
for example, shows that salmon farms in British Columbia spread
parasitic sea lice from salmon farms to wild pink and chum salmon. It
is reasonable to anticipate that similar situations will occur on
offshore fish farms, especially if farms become large.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Krosek, M., M.A. Lewis and J. Volpe. 2005. Transmission
dynamics of parasitic sea lice from farm to wild salmon. Proc. Royal
Society B. 272: 689-696.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disease and parasite outbreaks also lead producers to administer
antibiotics and other drugs, usually via feed to entire cages of fish.
These drugs inevitably end up in marine ecosystems, where they select
for resistant bacteria, sometimes in types of wild fish consumed by
humans.\4\ In addition, their use results in foods from drug-treated
animals--which many consumers prefer to avoid. It is possible to
significantly reduce drug use through vaccine development, as salmon
farmers have accomplished, to their credit. But, these vaccines have
not eliminated problems with pathogens and drug use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Ervik A., Thorsen B., Eriksen V., Lunestad B, Samuelsen O.B.
1994. Impact of administering antibacterial agents on wild fish and
blue mussels Mytilus edulis in the vicinity of fish farms. Diseases of
Aquatic Organisms. 18:45-51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Water pollution: Modern ``industrial'' farms or feedlots--
whether hog farms or fish farms--raise large numbers of animals in
small areas, often using feeds imported from distant places. One common
consequence is water pollution, as a significant fraction of the
nutrients in feeds end up in the animals' wastes. In the case of fish
pens or cages, there is no attempt to capture these wastes, which flow
directly into surrounding waters.
In a scientific paper I published last year with Rosamund Naylor at
Stanford University (copy included),\5\ we estimated the potential
impacts of waste discharges from a $5 billion U.S. aquaculture
industry--a target figure used by NOAA. Using figures from salmon
farming, we calculated that a $5 billion per year offshore aquaculture
industry would discharge annually an amount of nitrogen equivalent to
that in untreated sewage from 17.1 million people or the entire North
Carolina hog industry of about 10 million hogs. Nitrogen is the
nutrient primarily responsible for ``eutrophication,'' including algal
blooms and dead zones, in marine waters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Goldburg, R. and R. Naylor. 2005. Future seascapes, fishing,
and fish farming. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 3:21-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, widely spaced marine fish farms sited in areas with
strong currents would likely have little impact--an argument for moving
marine fish farms out of the coastal zone and into marine waters.
Nevertheless, fish farms may cluster geographically near infrastructure
such as processing plants and transportation, just as terrestrial hog
farms tend to do. If farms become large and clustered, or are sited in
areas especially vulnerable to nutrient pollution, their water
pollution impacts could be marked--just as water pollution has been a
major impact of North Carolina's large, clustered hog farming industry.
4. Farming carnivores: Most of the species targeted for offshore
production, such as halibut, cobia, and Pacific threadfin (moi), are--
like farmed salmon--highly carnivorous. These fish are now raised on
feeds with high levels of fish meal and fish oil made from wild caught
fish. Until and unless new feed technologies are developed and
commercialized, farming fish offshore will likely require two to four
times more wild fish to be caught for their feed than is ultimately
harvested.\6\ The resulting net loss of fish protein means that
offshore fish farming is not an alternative to capture fishing, and may
actually increase fishing pressure on wild fish populations as demand
and prices rise for fish meal and fish oil. Moreover, the current
practice of capturing massive quantities of small fish such as
sardines, anchovies, and mackerel to manufacture feed, may deprive
marine predators, including many commercially important fish, of the
food they need to flourish.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Naylor, R. and M. Burke. 2005. Aquaculture and ocean resources:
Raising tigers of the sea. Ann. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30:1.1-1.34
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farming carnivorous fish can also increase the amounts of
environmental contaminants that consumers are exposed to in their food.
Fish meal and oil can contain significant levels of chemicals such as
PCBs. Several studies show that farmed salmon have higher
concentrations of these contaminants in their flesh than most wild
salmon. Without careful attention to the composition of fish feeds,
offshore fish farming could not only increase pressure on wild
fisheries but also produce relatively contaminated food products for
U.S. consumers.
An Analysis of the Potential Cumulative Impacts of Offshore Aquaculture
Development Is Essential
The environmental impacts of offshore aquaculture will depend,
somewhat ironically, on the success of NOAA's push to develop offshore
farms. Experimental or small-scale commercial fish farms, such as those
now funded or subsidized by NOAA, are unlikely to have major
environmental effects--as evidence to date confirms. But, what if
offshore farming booms, and becomes a major means of food production,
akin to the poultry or swine industries? What are the potential impacts
on marine ecosystems and America's wild fisheries if NOAA policy
``succeeds?''
A number of environmental, fishing, and consumer organizations,
including Environmental Defense, have repeatedly asked NOAA over the
last 18 months or so to draft a legislative environmental impact
statement for S. 1195. However, the agency has not done so.
Nevertheless, an analysis of the potential cumulative impacts of
offshore aquaculture is clearly essential if NOAA is to pursue offshore
aquaculture in a careful and informed manner. Environmental Defense
recommends that Congress require NOAA to complete such an assessment
before legislation on offshore aquaculture is enacted.
NOAA's Offshore Aquaculture Legislation Lacks Provisions Essential To
Safeguard Marine Fisheries and Ecosystems
Especially given the serious concerns about the impacts of offshore
aquaculture development, it is critical that any pertinent legislation
contain strong environmental safeguards. This case is argued
persuasively by Stanford University scholar Rosamund Naylor in a Spring
2006 paper published in the National Academy of Sciences' journal
``Issues in Science and Technology'' (copy included).\7\ Unfortunately,
S. 1195 lacks key mandates essential to protecting the marine
environment and the public interest, three of which are detailed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Naylor, R.L. 2006. Environmental safeguards for open-ocean
aquaculture. Issues in Science and Technology. Spring issue: 53-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandatory environmental standards: To provide adequate protections
for marine fisheries and ecosystems, no permit for offshore aquaculture
should be issued unless the permit will not result in any significant
adverse impacts to marine fisheries and ecosystems. Permits should be
consistent with environmental standards that include provisions to
minimize the ecological and genetic impacts of escaped farmed fish (for
example by prohibiting farming of non-native fish); prevent the spread
of disease and parasites by farmed fish; require monitoring for water
pollution; strictly limit alteration of marine habitat; encourage the
use of feeds with reduced levels of fisheries products; and bar harm to
marine wildlife.
S. 1195 lacks such mandates for environmental protection, and
instead gives NOAA enormous discretion to implement environmental
standards the agency chooses to develop. S. 1195 thus appears to
conflict with NOAA's own ``Code of Conduct for Responsible Aquaculture
Development in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone,'' published in 2002,
to provide guidance on marine aquaculture development. NOAA's Code
stipulates that, ``aquaculture development in the EEZ will adopt the
guiding principle of a precautionary approach combined with adaptive
management to achieve sustainable development in offshore waters.''
Moreover, the Code includes provisions intended to minimize disease,
parasites, chemical inputs, and impacts on wild stocks, and to protect
local communities.
Congress can also look to states for guidance. The State of
California, which already bans the cultivation of salmon, non-native
species and genetically-engineered organisms in marine fish farms,
appears poised to enact legislation (S.B. 201) to mandate comprehensive
environmental standards for farming of native fish species in the
State's coastal waters. The California standards would address crucial
issues, including selecting appropriate fish farm sites, preventing
fish escapes, and minimizing use of fish-based feeds, drugs, and
chemicals.
Public participation and access to information: A transparent
public process helps to ensure that offshore aquaculture will not harm
ocean resources important to stakeholders outside the aquaculture
industry. Yet, S. 1195 lacks any provisions concerning transparency,
public notice, and public comment periods for permit applications, nor
do existing Department of Commerce regulations speak to these matters.
Although S. 1195 mandates that NOAA ``consult'' with regional Fisheries
Management Councils before issuing a permit, it is unclear what such
consultation would entail. As a result, it is conceivable that NOAA's
permit process could largely escape public scrutiny if an applicant
declared the information in a permit application ``confidential
business information,'' or NOAA provided no public notice and comment
period concerning the application.
This lack of transparency and public process is contrary to NOAA's
2002 ``Code,'' which urges both transparency and public participation.
The public should have access to information in permit applications
needed to evaluate the environmental impacts of proposed facilities,
and public notice and comment should be required.
Managing ocean resources to minimize conflicts and maximize public
benefits: Offshore aquaculture is one among many oceans uses--such as
energy production, conservation areas, and fishing--that affect the
health and sustainability of ocean resources. A key conclusion of the
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy \8\ is that while the Federal
Government should manage ocean resources for the maximum long-term
benefit of the Nation, current uncoordinated and incoherent offshore
management undermines such management. A shift toward ecosystem-based
management of offshore resources coupled with a strengthened governance
system is necessary to better conserve and manage ocean resources.
Decisions regarding the establishment of standards and approval
processes for offshore aquaculture should take into account the need to
establish an offshore management regime for all ocean resources and
activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. An Ocean Blueprint for
the 21st Century.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ideally an offshore aquaculture system would operate within a
broader offshore regime that minimized conflicts and meet environmental
and economic objectives, including those of conservationists and
fishermen. NOAA's 2002 Code of Conduct for Responsible Aquaculture
urges that aquaculture zones be established to prevent conflicts and
provide for efficient siting of facilities. Other areas might be off-
limits because they are fishing grounds, shipping lanes, military
sites, National Marine Sanctuaries, recreational areas, and so on.
Unfortunately, S. 1195 does not provide for such planning and
governance, but rather establishes a national policy for offshore
aquaculture development without adequate balance of other economic and
conservation interests.
S. 1195 also fails to require offshore aquaculture companies to pay
back to the public a fair return for use of public trust resources. A
key part of the government's commitment to maximizing the benefits to
the Nation of public trust resources is compensation--called resource
rents--for their use by the private sector. The principle of returning
a fair portion of funds to the public is applied on land to ranchers,
timber and mining companies, and in the ocean to oil and gas companies.
Environmental Defense recommends that resource rents from offshore
aquaculture be required and that they are applied to activities that
protect and restore the ocean environment.
Conclusion
NOAA's pursuit of offshore aquaculture development raises a number
of concerns, based on experience with other types of marine
aquaculture. These concerns are not purely environmental; degradation
of marine ecosystems can harm fishermen's economic livelihoods, as well
marine resources more broadly. Offshore aquaculture should only go
forward following implementation of strong environmental safeguards,
including assessment of potential cumulative impacts of aquaculture
development. Appropriate legal requirements must be established to
ensure that projects meet strong environmental standards, are subject
to public process, and are consistent with a larger framework for ocean
governance.
These requirements may seem stiff, but it is now widely recognized
that our oceans are finite and vulnerable to abuse. Offshore
aquaculture should only proceed under a framework that recognizes what
we now know is necessary to protect and restore the health of our
oceans and all of us who depend on them.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
The Ecological Society of America
Future Seascapes, Fishing, and Fish Farming
by Rebecca Goldburg and Rosamond Naylor
The depletion of many marine fisheries has created a new
impetus to expand seafood production through fish farming, or
aquaculture. Marine aquaculture, especially of salmon and
shrimp, has grown considerably in the past two decades, and
aquaculturists are also beginning to farm other marine species.
Production data for salmon and shrimp indicate that farming
supplements, rather than substitutes for fishing. Since most
farmed marine fish are carnivores, farming them relies on the
capture of finite supplies of wild fish for use in fish feeds.
As aquaculture is not substituting for wild fisheries, heavy
dependence on wild fish inputs is a concern as marine
aquaculture grows. Other likely impacts include escapes of
farmed fish and large-scale waste discharges from fish farms. A
viable future for marine ecosystems will require incorporation
of ecological perspectives into polices that integrate fishing,
aquaculture, and conservation. Front Ecol Environ 2005; 3(1):
21-28.
In a nutshell:
Fish farming appears to be supplementing, not substituting
for, capture fishing.
The growth in marine fish farming may lead to increased
competition for small fish, which serve as feed inputs for
farmed fish and as prey for commercially valuable predatory
wild fish.
Farming of new marine species may lead to increased impacts
from marine fish farming, including greater numbers of escaped
farmed fish that interact with wild fish, and significant
cumulative impacts from farm wastes.
Policies governing marine ecosystems must incorporate
ecological perspectives and integrate fishing, aquaculture, and
conservation objectives.
People have long regarded the oceans as vast, inexhaustible sources
of fish--a view reinforced by the copious catches of the past. Even
when fish became scarcer or harder to catch, many people continued to
assume that more fish were available (Kurlansky 1997). In the past
decade or two, this view of fisheries has been transformed. Fisheries
statistics suggest that annual global fish catches have plateaued at
roughly 90 million metric tons (mt) per year (FAO 2002), or may even be
declining (Watson and Pauly 2001). Global catch statistics present only
part of the picture, however. Many fisheries are overfished or heading
toward depletion (Hilborn et al. 2003). The mean trophic level of fish
caught worldwide has declined substantially, in part because humans
tend to consume larger, predaceous fish (Pauly et al. 2002; Hilborn et
al. 2003). According to one estimate, commercial fishing has wiped out
90 percent of large fish, including swordfish, cod, marlin, and sharks
(Myers and Worm 2003).
The oceans may now be poised for another transformation. Fisheries
depletion has created new impetus to expand seafood production through
fish farming, often known as aquaculture. Aquaculture is frequently
cited as a way to increase seafood supply in a world where greater
quantities of fish cannot be obtained from the oceans. It has become an
increasingly important source of food; between 1992 and 2002, global
production of farmed finfish and shellfish (``fish'') almost tripled in
weight and nearly doubled in value (FAO 2003). Currently, roughly 40
percent of all fish directly consumed by humans worldwide originate
from commercial farms.
To date, most aquaculture production has been of freshwater fish,
such as carp and tilapia, in Asia (Naylor et al. 2000; FAO 2003).
However, marine aquaculture, particularly production of salmon and
shrimp, has been growing rapidly. Salmon aquaculture originated in
Norway in the 1970s, and has since boomed worldwide. Global production
of farmed salmon roughly quadrupled in weight from 1992 to 2002, and
farmed salmon now constitute 60 percent of fresh and frozen salmon sold
in international markets (FAO 2003). This spectacular increase and the
resulting decline in salmon prices (Naylor et al. 2003) have encouraged
aquaculturists to begin farming numerous other marine finfish species,
many of them now depleted by overfishing. New species being farmed
include Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus
hippoglossus), Pacific threadfin (Polydactylus sexfilis), mutton
snapper (Lutjanus analis), and bluefin tuna (Thunnus spp).
As with salmon, these new species are typically farmed in netpens
or cages, anchored to the ocean bottom, often in coastal waters. In the
U.S., where expansion of salmon farms in coastal waters has been met
with local opposition and state-level restrictions, the U.S. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is pursuing the
development of large offshore aquaculture operations, primarily in the
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), away from coastal activities and beyond
the reach of state laws (DOC 2004). In some areas, such as the Gulf of
Mexico, there are plans to use offshore oil and gas rigs, some of which
would otherwise have to be decommissioned, as platforms for new
aquaculture facilities.
Taken together, these developments signal a new trend in marine
fisheries production, away from capture of wild fish to human-
controlled production. Supplementation of wild fish populations with
hatchery-produced fish is also part of this trend, particularly since
hatchery production of salmon set the stage for salmon farming.
Does this mean that production of farmed fish will supplant wild
fisheries in the future? Aquaculture development is sometimes promoted
as a means to relieve the pressure on wild fisheries. Some authors
argue that capturing fish is akin to hunting terrestrial animals for
food, an activity that has almost entirely been replaced by farming
livestock (e.g., Avery 1996). This comparison is imperfect, however, in
part because fish tend to have much higher reproduction rates than
warm-blooded land animals and therefore can generally sustain higher
capture rates. Nevertheless, expanding production of farmed fish could
lower prices and create economic conditions that, over time, will
decrease investments in fishing.
Will fish farming supplant fishing?
Recent experiences in the salmon and shrimp sectors provide
insights into the dynamics of farmed and wild production. The late
1980s marked a transition in global salmon markets. Quantities of both
farmed stock and wild-caught fish jumped, causing total salmon output
to increase from 776 thousand mt in 1988 to two million mt in 2001
(Figure 2). Farmed salmon production reached 1,217 thousand mt in 2002,
68 percent higher than the 722 thousand mt of wild-caught fish.
Over 90 percent of the farmed product is composed of Atlantic
salmon (Salmo salar), a species that is nearly extinct in the wild.
With a high degree of consumer substitution among salmon species,
prices for all species have fallen as a result of increased market
supplies. Between 1988 and 2002, the price of farmed Atlantic salmon
fell by 61 percent and the price declines for North American Pacific
salmon ranged from 54 percent for chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) to
92 percent for pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) (Naylor et al.
2003).
While global salmon catch has fluctuated between 720 thousand and 1
million mt since 1989--during a time when aquaculture was expanding--
capture levels remain higher today than in the period leading up to
1990, when salmon farming was insignificant in global markets. It would
therefore be premature to conclude that salmon farming is supplanting
wild capture worldwide.
Moreover, ``wild'' salmon stocks are not entirely wild. Salmon
capture has increased and salmon prices have fallen, in part because
wild salmon populations have been supplemented by hatcheries. An
estimated 4.4 billion salmon fry were released by hatcheries in Japan,
the U.S., Russia, and Canada in 2001 (NPAFC 2004). Despite extremely
low survival rates, hatchery fish currently account for one-third of
the total salmon catch in Alaska (averaged across all species; ADFG
2004) and virtually the entire chum catch of 211 thousand mt in Japan
(FAO 2003; G. Knapp pers. comm.).
Farming of marine shrimp in coastal ponds boomed during the same
period as salmon farming, but the dynamics between farmed shrimp and
wild-caught shrimp differ from those seen in salmon. There is no
hatchery supplementation of wild shrimp, and market demand for shrimp
from the US, Europe, and Japan is seemingly limitless. Commercial
farmed shrimp production began in the late 1970s, grew substantially in
the 1980s, and reached 42 percent of total shrimp production by 2001
(Figure 3). At the same time, the quantities of wild-caught shrimp
increased from 1.3 million mt in 1980 to about 1.8 million mt in 2001,
and the total quantity of farmed and wild shrimp roughly doubled.
Shrimp prices have generally fallen over this period; for example,
prices for ``26/30 count'' frozen white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei)
fell approximately 13 percent between 1990 and 2002 (H.M. Johnson pers.
comm.). However, shrimp prices have been much more volatile than salmon
prices (FAO 2003), in large part because outbreaks of various shrimp
diseases have caused large country-specific fluctuations in shrimp
numbers. Prices aside, the upward trend in shrimp capture indicates
that aquaculture has not supplanted shrimp fishing globally.
There are signs that at least some types of marine aquaculture may
be decreasing fishing activity in some regions, despite the lack of
clear evidence that salmon and shrimp aquaculture are replacing
fishing. Many Alaskan salmon fishermen have seen their incomes decline
and some have quit fishing altogether (Naylor et al. 2003, in press).
Declining incomes for shrimp fishermen in the southern U.S. have led
the fishermen to press for anti-dumping tariffs against a number of
major shrimp farming countries (Hedlund 2004). Over time, aquaculture
may reduce the volume of wild-caught fish. However, economic inertia in
the fishing industry, due to capital investments in fishing vessels, an
inelastic labor force, and government subsidies, may mean that the
fishing industry is slow to reduce capture rates in response to price
declines (Naylor et al. 2000; Eagle et al. 2004).
Ecological Impacts of Fish Farming
The growth in marine aquaculture, and possibly also in hatchery
production, will alter not just sources of marine fish and the
economics of fishing, but may also transform the character of the
oceans from relatively wild, or at least managed for fishing, to
something more akin to agriculture. It is tempting to compare the
future of the oceans to that of the North American prairie 150 years
ago, which was mostly plowed under to grow crops. However, there are
important differences. First, most marine fish farms will essentially
be feedlots for carnivores, particularly if the salmon farming model is
copied. Second, although fish farms are unlikely to occupy a large
area, the ecological impact on marine resources could be much greater
than the geographical extent of fish farms implies. This is because
fish farming depends heavily on, and interacts with, wild fisheries.
Farming Carnivores
One obvious consequence of the proliferation of aquaculture is that
more marine resources are required as inputs. Over the past two
decades, roughly 30 million mt per year--close to one third of the
current annual global fish catch--has been used for the production of
fishmeal and fish oil for animal feeds. An increasing proportion of
this catch is used in fish farming, as aquaculture production grows and
the livestock and poultry sectors replace fishmeal with less expensive
ingredients. In 2001, 17.7 million mt of marine and freshwater farmed
fish were fed fishmeal containing ingredients derived from 17-20
million mt of wildcaught fish, such as anchovies, sardines, and capelin
(Tacon 2003). Other farmed species, such as filter-feeding carp and
mollusks, require no feeding.
Most farmed marine finfish are carnivores and are much more
dependent on wild fisheries for the fishmeal and fish oil used in fish
feeds than are farmed freshwater fish, which tend to be herbivores or
omnivores (Naylor et al. 2000; Delgado et al. 2003). Fishmeal (at 38
percent) and oil (at 18 percent) are dominant components of salmon
feeds (AGJ Tacon pers. comm.).
Continued growth in marine aquaculture production could outstrip
the current supply of fish used for fishmeal and oil production,
potentially jeopardizing the industry's economic sustainability (Naylor
et al. 2000; Delgado et al. 2003). In early 2004, fishmeal prices rose
to $650 per ton, the highest price since the 1997-1998 El Nino event
and close to the record high (CRB 1998; FAO 2004). Moreover, this price
seems to reflect a longer-term trend rather than the result of a sudden
climatic event. Because feeds account for a large share of variable
costs, aquaculturists raising carnivorous species are increasingly
replacing fish-based products with plant-based ingredients in fish
feeds (Powell 2003), but not fast enough to reverse the trend in
fishmeal use caused by rising aggregate production (Aldhous 2004).
Farming salmon and other carnivorous marine fish represents a net
loss of fish protein, as about two to five times more wild-caught fish
are used in feeds than are harvested from aquaculture (Naylor et al.,
2000; Weber 2003). Some aquaculturists argue that catching small, low
trophic level fish to feed large, high trophic level farm fish is
desirable, because this is more efficient than leaving small fish in
the ocean to be consumed by wild predatory fish caught by fishermen
(Hardy 2001). The relative efficiency of fish farming versus fishing is
difficult to quantify, in part because energy transfer between trophic
levels in marine systems is not well documented, and some farmed
species, such as marine shrimp, feed at a higher trophic level than
they would in the wild. Nevertheless, fish farming is probably more
efficient than catching wild fish, because farmed fish are protected
from some causes of mortality, especially predators.
Even if fish farming is comparatively efficient, its heavy
dependence on wild fish inputs is both economically and ecologically
problematic if aquaculture is supplementing, rather than substituting
for, capture fisheries. Not only is the supply of these low trophic
level fish finite, but the small fish used to make fishmeal and oil are
critical food for wild marine predators, including many commercially
valuable fish (Naylor et al. 2000).
Growth in aquaculture may shift fishing pressure from output fish
such as salmon to the input species used in feeds (Delgado et al.
2003). Fisheries management has kept the total global catch of small
fish for fishmeal and oil relatively constant in recent years. However,
as demand for these commodities increases, rising prices could increase
the incentives and therefore the political pressure to allow capture of
a larger fraction of fish to produce meal and oil.
On the other hand, if marine aquaculture does begin to supplant
capture fisheries, the impetus will shift from managing the oceans for
fisheries production to managing them for aquaculture production. In
this scenario, capturing low trophic level wild fish for aquaculture
feeds, with little concern for the effect on higher trophic level wild
fish, could form the basis for economically rational--although not
ecologically sound--ocean management.
Stocking the Oceans
Another impact of the growth in marine aquaculture and
supplementation of wild stocks stems from interactions between escaped
farmed fish, hatchery fish, and wild fish. Escapes of farmed salmon
from pens, both in episodic events and through chronic leakage, are
well documented (Naylor et al. in review). The expansion of marine
aquaculture and hatchery supplementation could substantially increase
the numbers of introduced fish in marine waters.
Numerous studies have documented the ecological damage caused by
escaped farm fish, especially among wild salmon, although some authors
have found otherwise (Waknitz et al. 2003). Depending on the location,
these may include the introduction of non-native fish species and
reduced fitness of wild fish as a result of interbreeding with escapees
of the same species (McGinnity et al. 2003; Naylor et al. 2004). Ocean
``ranching'' of hatchery fish, which are often genetically distinct
from their wild counterparts, can cause similar problems (NRC 1996;
Levin et al. 2001; Kolmes 2004). The impacts of fish escapes may not be
recognized until they are irreversible (Naylor et al. 2004).
Most of the literature on the harmful effects of interbreeding
between introduced and wild fish concerns salmon. These anadromous fish
spawn in freshwater and will not reproduce in ocean pens. Other truly
marine finfish, such as cod, do produce fertilized eggs in ocean
enclosures (Bekkevold et al. 2002). Although cages used for offshore
farming are more secure than salmon netpens, neither pens nor cages
will prevent fish eggs from escaping. Farming at least some fish
species might lead to ``escapes'' on a much larger scale than is seen
in salmon.
One potentially mitigating factor is that populations of marine
fish species may be less genetically differentiated than salmon, which
have subpopulations adapted genetically to local conditions in river
drainages. Salmon are therefore particularly prone to reduced fitness
as a result of interbreeding with escaped, genetically distinct farmed
and hatchery fish. Interbreeding may therefore have less genetic impact
in truly marine fish species. All the same, some marine fish also have
distinct subpopulations. Atlantic cod form aggregations that are
genetically differentiated and there appears to be little gene flow
between them (Ruzzante et al. 2001).
Both hatchery supplementation and escapes have the potential to
supplant wild fisheries by reducing their fitness as well as their
market share. Ironically, salmon aquaculture has provided the fishing
industry with incentives to restructure and become more efficient
(Eagle et al. 2004), yet part of the response to date has been to
release more hatchery fish, making up in volume what is lost in value.
If aquaculture begins truly to replace capture fishing, however, the
impetus for hatchery supplementation will be reduced. Meanwhile,
escaped farmed fish and wild-farmed crosses are likely to become
increasingly prevalent, unless new technology is developed that
prevents the escape not only of adult fish but also of their gametes
and embryos.
Nutrient Loading
Most marine aquaculture is modeled after terrestrial feedlots or
``industrial'' farms used to raise most hogs and poultry in the U.S.
and elsewhere. Large numbers of animals are confined in a small area,
and their feed imported, often from distant sources. Industrial animal
facilities typically cluster geographically to benefit from economies
of scale and favorable politics (L. Cahoon pers. comm.). One
consequence is water pollution, since a substantial fraction of
nutrients in animal feeds ends up in animal wastes, which often cannot
all be assimilated by local croplands (Aneja et al. 2001; Gollehon et
al. 2001; Mallin and Cahoon 2003). Water pollution from animal wastes
is a major environmental issue in coastal North Carolina and other
areas where animal production has concentrated.
Waste from finfish netpens and cages flows directly into marine
waters and, in contrast to terrestrial farms, there is usually no
attempt to capture it. Nutrients and suspended solids discharged by
salmon farms can have considerable effects on a local scale (Goldburg
et al. 2001), although salmon farms sited in well flushed areas often
have minimal impact on the quality of surrounding waters (Brooks and
Mahnken 2003). Dilution of nutrients means that widely spaced marine
fish farms sited in areas with strong currents will probably have
little impact, an argument for moving marine aquaculture out of coastal
waters and into the open ocean (Marine Research Specialists 2003).
It is instructive to examine the potential cumulative impact of
expanded marine aquaculture. NOAA's stated goal is the development of a
$5 billion U.S. aquaculture industry by 2025. Using figures from salmon
farming in British Columbia, we estimate how much nitrogen (N), the
nutrient primarily responsible for eutrophication in marine waters, a
$5 billion marine finfish aquaculture industry might discharge.
Producing a kilogram of salmon releases approximately 0.02 to 0.03
kg of N, excluding losses from uneaten feed (Brooks and Mahnken 2003).
About 70,000 mt of salmon were produced in British Columbia in 2003 (C
Matthews pers comm) with a gross domestic product value of C$91
million, or approximately US$66 million (Marshall 2003). Thus the BC
salmon farming industry discharged about 1,435 mt to 2,100 mt of
nitrogen. Extrapolating from these figures, a $5 billion would
therefore discharge approximately 108,000 mt to 158,000 mt of nitrogen
per year.
Americans excrete approximately 0.016 kg of N per day (Stipanuk
2000). Assuming conservatively that a $5 billion aquaculture sector
discharges 100,000 mt of N per year, this discharge is equivalent to
the amount of N in untreated sewage from approximately 17.1 million
people for 1 year.
Every ton of hog waste contains about 12.3 lbs of N and a hog
produces about 1.9 tons of waste per year (Shaffer 2004). Converting
these numbers to metric figures, the North Carolina hog industry of 10
million hogs (USDA 2004) produces about 106,000 mt of N per year--
roughly equivalent to the output from a $5 billion aquaculture
industry.
Thus a $5 billion marine finfish aquaculture industry would
discharge annually an amount of N equivalent to that in untreated
sewage from 17.1 million people or the entire North Carolina hog
industry of about 10 million hogs. On the other hand, a $5 billion
offshore aquaculture industry would produce only about one tenth of 1
percent as much N as the 121 million mt annual biological nitrogen
fixation in the world's oceans (Galloway 2003). On balance, therefore,
the potential impacts of wastewater from marine aquaculture facilities
are not cause for alarm, but should not be ignored, either, especially
if such facilities are to be clustered geographically or sited in only
moderately flushed areas.
Envisioning the Future
A viable future for marine ecosystems will almost certainly require
integrating management for fisheries, fish farming, and conservation.
Even if aquaculture begins to supplant wild fisheries, this process
will probably be gradual, and fisheries will continue to be a major
component of seafood production for some time.
Greatly improved fisheries management is essential (Pauly et al.
2002). Current management is based largely on single species models for
which there is often inadequate data and which do not reflect
interactions in marine ecosystems. Many scientists have called for a
more risk-averse, ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management (NRC
1999; Dayton et al. 2002). As aquaculture grows, a more ecosystem-based
approach will be critical in helping to balance the competing demands
for low trophic level fish used either as feed or left in the oceans to
support capture fisheries and conservation objectives. We are only just
beginning to work out what an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries
management should entail, so this is a topic that still requires
extensive research (Pikitch et al. 2004).
Improving fisheries management is not solely a matter of better
management science. Economic (and therefore political) factors also
play a major role. Fisheries are generally a ``commons'' and fishermen
lack a financial incentive to leave fish in the water for the future
(NRC 1999). Steps that would alter this economic distortion include the
removal of fishing subsidies (Milazzo 1998), the use of tools such as
individual fishing quotas that create long-term fishing rights and
incentives for fisheries conservation (Fujita et al. 1996), and the
establishment of consumer and corporate purchase preferences for more
sustainably produced seafood (Duchene 2004). Although economic, policy,
and business research on these and related subjects is largely outside
this paper's ecological focus, the success of new approaches will need
to be validated by biologists as well as other experts.
Policy measures will also play a major role in marine aquaculture
development. The Pew Oceans Commission (2003) called for a halt to the
expansion of marine finfish farms until national standards and a
comprehensive permitting authority are established for the siting,
design, and operation of ecologically sustainable marine aquaculture
facilities. Standards for environmentally sound marine finfish farming
need to be defined, especially to implement NOAA's policies concerning
offshore aquaculture development. Further research on the population
genetics of marine fish species, related to the potential impacts of
farmed fish escapes, is particularly important for setting standards.
Innovative approaches to fish farming, as well as a better
understanding of the potential cumulative impacts of large-scale ocean
farming, could help marine aquaculture to become more environmentally
sustainable.
The industry is already addressing some important issues, driven at
least partly by financial considerations. Feed is a major cost, and
potential future increases in the price of fishmeal and fish oil could
make it a larger one. There has already been a substantial reduction in
the fishmeal and oil content of aquaculture feeds, and increased
efficiency of feed use, particularly for salmonids (A.G.J. Tacon per.
comm.).
Identifying lower trophic level marine finfish suitable for farming
may be another step toward more sustainable aquaculture. Integrated
systems, in which mussels, seaweeds, and other species are grown in
close proximity with finfish to recycle wastes, shows great promise
(Neori et al. 2004), but a greater understanding of the interactions
and processes that take place among jointly cultured species, as well
as larger scale experimentation, are necessary to help make integrated
marine aquaculture commercially viable (Troell et al. 2003). Market
research on products from integrated systems is also needed,
particularly if chemicals or pharmaceuticals are used in the finfish
netpens.
One recent, comprehensive analysis (Delgado et al. 2003) identifies
fish, fishmeal, and fish oil as commodities almost certain to increase
in price by the year 2020, while prices for commodities such as beef,
eggs, and vegetable meals are likely to come down. Rising prices for
fish will probably cause further exploitation of the oceans for fishing
and aquaculture, and make competition for marine resources more
intense. Protecting ocean resources may require deliberative processes
to partition them--for example, designating certain areas of the ocean
for certain uses or for non-use. The development of marine protected
areas where fishing and other activities are not permitted is under
active testing as a tool for both conservation and fisheries management
(Lubchenco et al. 2003), but there has been little systematic
investigation of possibilities for demarcating the ocean in other ways
(e.g., temporally) or for other purposes (e.g., aquaculture).
The future prospects for ocean fisheries appear grim, given current
trends in fish production. Many capture fisheries are declining, and
marine aquaculture--the alleged escape valve for fisheries--offers its
own challenges, including a heavy dependence on robust fisheries
resources. Establishing viable, long-term solutions to problems in
fisheries and marine aquaculture will require the incorporation of
ecological perspectives into the policies governing fisheries
management, aquaculture systems, and the rationalization of ocean
resources.
Acknowledgements
We thank M. Burke, S. Lamster, L. Jantzen, and B. Goodman for
comments and assistance, and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation
for funding.
References
ADFG (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 2004. Alaska Salmon
Enhancement Program--2003 Annual Report. Juneau: Alaska
Department of Fish and Game.
Aldhous P. 2004. Fish farms still ravage the sea: sustainable
aquaculture takes one step forward, two steps back.
www.nature.com/nsu/040216/040216-10.html. Viewed 25 June
2004.
Aneja V.P., Roelle P.A., Murray G.C., et al. 2001. Atmospheric nitrogen
compounds II: emissions, transport, transformation,
deposition and assessment. Atmos Environ 35: 1903-11.
Avery D. 1996. Farming: a fish story. Journal of Commerce September 27,
1996.
Bekkevold D., Hansen M.M., and Loeschcke V. 2002. Male reproductive
competition in spawning aggregations of cod (Gadus morhua
L). Mol Ecol 11: 91-102.
Brooks K.M. and Mahnken C.V.W. 2003. Interactions of Atlantic salmon in
the Pacific Northwest environment II: organic wastes. Fish
Res 62: 255-93.
CRB (Knight-Ridder Commodity Financial Research Bureau). 1998.
Commodity Yearbook. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Dayton P.K., Thrush R., and Coleman F.C. 2002. Ecological effects of
fishing in marine ecosystems in the United States.
Arlington, VA: Pew Oceans Commission.
Delgado C.L., Wada N., Rosegrant M.W., et al. 2003. Fish to 2020:
supply and demand in changing global markets. Washington,
D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute and
Penang, Malaysia: WorldFish Center.
DOC (Department of Commerce). 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce
Aquaculture Policy. www.lib.noaa.gov/docaqua/
docaquapolicy.htm. Viewed 25 June 2004.
Duchene, L. 2004. Eco-buying ups the ante. Seafood Business 20: 1, 22-
40.
Eagle J., Naylor R., Smith W.L., et al. 2004. Why farm salmon
outcompete fishery salmon. Mar Policy 28: 259-70.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2002.
The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2002. Rome,
Italy.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2003.
FishStat--Fishery Information, Data and Statistics Unit,
Rome, Italy.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2004.
International Commodity Prices website. www.fao.org/es/esc/
prices/PricesServlet.jsp?lang=en&ccode. Viewed 25 June
2004.
Fujita R., Hopkins D.D., and Willey W.R. 1996. Creating incentives to
curb overfishing. Forum for Applied Research and Public
Policy 11: 29-34.
Galloway J.N., Dentener F.J., Capone D.G., et al. 2004. Nitrogen
cycles: past, present, and future. Biogeochemistry 70: 153-
226.
Goldburg R.J., Elliott M.S., and Naylor R.L. 2001. Marine aquaculture
in the United States. Arlington, VA: Pew Oceans Commission.
Gollehon N., Caswell M., Ribaudo M., et al. 2001. Confined animal
production and manure nutrients. USDA ERS Agriculture
Information Bulletin No. 771. 40 pp, June 2001
Hardy R.W. 2001. Urban legends and fish nutrition, part 2. Aquaculture
27: 57-60.
Hedlund S. 2004. Antidumping cases cloud shrimp market. Seafood
Business 23: 1, 12.
Hilborn R., Branch T.A., Ernst B., et al. 2003. State of the world's
fisheries. Ann Rev Env Resour 28: 359-99.
Kolmes S.A.. 2004. Salmon farms and hatcheries. Environment 46: 40-43.
Kurlansky M. 1997. Cod: biography of the fish that changed the world.
New York: Penguin Books.
Levin P.S., Zabel R.W., Williams J.G., et al. 2001. The road to
extinction is paved with good intentions: negative
association of fish hatcheries with threatened salmon. P
Roy Soc Lond B 268: 1153-58.
Lubchenco J., Palumbi S.R., Gaines S.D., et al. 2003. Plugging a hole
in the ocean: The emerging science of marine reserves. Ecol
Appl 13 Supplement 2003, S3-S7.
Mallin M.A. and Cahoon L.B.. 2003. Industrialized animal production--a
major source of nutrient and microbial pollution to aquatic
ecosystems. Popul Environ 24: 369-85.
Marine Research Specialists. 2003. Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute
Platform Grace Mariculture Project final report.
Marshall D. 2003. Fishy business--the economics of salmon farming in
BC. British Columbia, Canada: Canadian Center for Policy
Alternatives.
McGinnity P., Prodohl P., Ferguson A., et al. 2003. Fitness reduction
and potential extinction of wild populations of Atlantic
salmon, Salmo salar, as a result of interactions with
escaped farm salmon. P Roy Soc Lond B 270: 2443-50.
Milazzo M. 1998. Subsidies in world fisheries: a re-examination. World
Bank Technical Paper No. 406.
Myers R.A. and Worm B. 2003. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory
fish communities. Nature 423: 280-83.
Naylor R.L., Goldburg R.J., Primavera J.H., et al. 2000. Effect of
aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature 45: 1017-29.
Naylor R., Eagle J., and Smith W. 2003. Salmon aquaculture in the
Pacific Northwest: a global industry with local impacts.
Environment 45: 18-39.
Naylor R., Hindar K., Fleming I., et al. Fugitive salmon: assessing
risks of escaped fish from aquaculture. In review.
Naylor R., Eagle J., and Smith W. Response of Alaska fishermen to
aquaculture and the salmon crisis. Proceedings of the
American Fisheries Society. In press.
Neori A., Chopin T., Troell M., et al. 2004. Integrated aquaculture:
rationale, evolution and state-of-the-art emphasizing
seaweed biofiltration in modern mariculture. Aquaculture
231: 361-91.
NPAFC (North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission). 2004. 2001 Statistics
Tables. www.npafc.org. Viewed 25 June 2004.
NRC (National Research Council). 1996. Upstream: salmon and society in
the Pacific Northwest. Washington, D.C.: National Academy
Press.
NRC (National Research Council). 1999. Sustaining marine fisheries.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Pauly D., Christensen V., Guenette S., et al. 2002. Toward
sustainability in world fisheries. Nature 418: 689-95.
Pew Oceans Commission. 2003. America's living oceans: charting a course
for sea change. Arlington, VA: Pew Oceans Commission.
Pikitch E.K., Santora C., Babcock E.A., et al. 2004. Ecosystem-based
fishery management. Science 305: 346-47.
Powell K. 2003. Fish farming: eat your veg. Nature 426: 378-79.
Ruzzante D.E., Taggart C.T., Doyle R.W., et al. 2001. Stability in the
historical pattern of genetic structure of Newfoundland cod
(Gadus morhua) despite the catastrophic decline in
population size from 1964 to 1994. Conserv Genet 2: 257-69.
Shaffer K.A. 2004. Livestock manure production rates and nutrient
content. North Carolina Agricultural Chemicals Manual.
College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, North Carolina
State University.
Stipanuk, M.H. 2000. Biochemical and physiological aspects of human
nutrition. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders.
Tacon A.G.J. 2003. Sustainable aquaculture feeds: an overview and
global perspective. Abstract, SEAfeeds Workshop, April
2003, Stirling, Scotland, UK.
Troell M., Hallig C., Neori A., et al. 2003. Integrated mariculture:
asking the right questions. Aquaculture 226: 69-90.
USDA (United State Department of Agriculture). 2004. National
Agricultural Statistics Service. 2002 Census of
Agriculture--State Data, Table 12. www.nass.usda.gov/
census/census02/volume1/us/index1.htm. Viewed 23 June 2004.
Waknitz F.W., Iwamoto R.N., Strom M.S. 2003. Interactions of Atlantic
salmon in the Pacific Northwest IV. Impacts on the local
ecosystems. Fish Res 62: 307-28.
Watson R. and Pauly D. 2001. Systematic distortions in world fisheries
catch trends. Nature 414: 534-36.
Weber M.L. 2003. What price farmed fish: a review of the environmental
and social costs of farming carnivorous fish. Providence,
RI: SeaWeb Aquaculture Clearinghouse.
______
Issues in Science and Technology, Spring 2006
Environmental Safeguards for Open-Ocean Aquaculture
Expanding aquaculture into federal waters should not be promoted
without enforceable national guidelines for the protection of marine
ecosystems and fisheries
by Rosamond L. Naylor
Because of continued human pressure on ocean fisheries and
ecosystems, aquaculture has become one of the most promising avenues
for increasing marine fish production. During the past decade,
worldwide aquaculture production of salmon, shrimp, tuna, cod, and
other marine species has grown by 10 percent annually; its value, by 7
percent annually. These rates will likely persist and even rise in the
coming decades because of advances in aquaculture technology and an
increasing demand for fish and shellfish. Although aquaculture has the
potential to relieve pressure on ocean fisheries, it can also threaten
marine ecosystems and wild fish populations through the introduction of
exotic species and pathogens, effluent discharge, the use of wild fish
to feed farmed fish, and habitat destruction. If the aquaculture
industry does not shift to a sustainable path soon, the environmental
damage produced by intensive crop and livestock production on land
could be repeated in fish farming at sea.
In the United States, aquaculture growth for marine fish and
shellfish has been below the world average, rising annually by 4
percent in volume and 1 percent in value. The main species farmed in
the marine environment are Atlantic salmon, shrimp, oysters, and hard
clams; together they account for about one-quarter of total U.S.
aquaculture production. Freshwater species, such as catfish, account
for the majority of U.S. aquaculture output.
The technology is in place for marine aquaculture development in
the United States, but growth remains curtailed by the lack of
unpolluted sites for shellfish production, competing uses of coastal
waters, environmental concerns, and low market prices for some major
commodities such as Atlantic salmon. Meanwhile, the demand for marine
fish and shellfish continues to rise more rapidly than domestic
production, adding to an increasing U.S. seafood deficit (now about $8
billion annually).
The U.S. Department of Commerce has articulated the need to reverse
the seafood deficit, and under the leadership of its subagency, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has a stated
goal of increasing the value of the U.S. aquaculture industry from
about $1 billion per year currently to $5 billion by 2025. In order to
achieve this goal, the Department of Commerce has set its sights on the
Federal waters of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), located between
the 3-mile state zone and 200 miles offshore, where the potential for
aquaculture development appears almost limitless. The United States has
the largest EEZ in the world, amounting to 4.5 million square miles, or
roughly 1.5 times the landmass of the lower 48 states. Opening Federal
waters to aquaculture development could result in substantial
commercial benefits, but it also poses significant ecological risks to
the ocean--a place many U.S. citizens consider to be the Nation's last
frontier.
On June 8, 2005, Commerce Committee Co-Chairmen Sens. Ted Stevens
(R-AK) and Daniel Inouye (D-HI) introduced the National Offshore
Aquaculture Act of 2005 (S. 1195). The bill, crafted by NOAA, seeks to
support offshore aquaculture development within the Federal waters of
the EEZ; to establish a permitting process that encourages private
investment in aquaculture operations, demonstrations, and research; and
to promote R&D in marine aquaculture science and technology and related
social, economic, legal, and environmental management disciplines. It
provides the secretary of Commerce with the authority and broad
discretion to open Federal waters to aquaculture development, in
consultation with other relevant Federal agencies but without firm
environmental mandates apart from existing laws. The bill's proponents
argue that fish farming in the open ocean will relieve environmental
stress near shore and protect wild fisheries by offering an alternative
means of meeting the rising demand for seafood. However, because it
lacks a clear legal standard for environmental and resource protection,
the bill's enactment would likely lead to a further decline in marine
fisheries and ecosystems.
The introduction of S. 1195 came as no surprise to the community of
environmental scientists and policy analysts who have followed the
development of aquaculture in the United States. In 1980, Congress
passed the National Aquaculture Act to promote aquaculture growth, and
in the process established the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture, an
interagency body whose task was to provide coordination and seek ways
to reduce regulatory constraints on aquaculture development. Despite
these actions, local concerns and associated regulatory burdens have
limited the expansion of marine aquaculture within the 3-mile
jurisdiction of many states, and regulatory uncertainty has discouraged
investment in offshore production between the 3-mile state zone and the
200-mile EEZ. The Bush administration is now prepared to support
efforts to streamline regulatory authority within the Federal waters of
the EEZ, promote open-ocean aquaculture, and make the United States a
more competitive producer of marine-farmed fish.
Implementing S. 1195 would involve a two-tiered process: first, the
creation of a law authorizing the leasing and permitting of open-ocean
aquaculture facilities by the secretary of Commerce; and second, the
start of rulemaking procedures within and among Federal agencies. If
passed, the bill would allow NOAA to issue site and operating permits
within Federal waters with 10-year leases, renewable for 5-year
periods. Decisions on permit applications would be granted within 120
days and would not require a lengthy inventory process to assess the
state of marine resources at each site. The proposed legislation
requires NOAA to ``consider'' environmental, resource, and other
impacts of proposed offshore facilities before issuing permits;
however, there is no requirement that NOAA actually identify and
address those impacts before the permits and leases are granted.
Similarly, the bill does not require that, during the permitting
process, NOAA weigh the risks to the marine environment against the
commercial benefits of aquaculture development.
The pro-fish-farming language of S. 1195, without commensurate
language on the conservation of ocean resources and ecosystems, is
extremely worrisome. It is unlikely that ocean resources will be
protected in the face of aquaculture development unless the statute
requires specific language on environmental mandates--not just
``considerations''--for the rulemaking and permitting processes.
Open-ocean aquaculture encompasses a variety of species and
infrastructure designs; in the United States, submersible cages are the
model used for offshore finfish production. These cages are anchored to
the ocean floor but can be moved within the water column; they are
tethered to buoys that contain an equipment room and feeding mechanism;
and they can be large enough to hold hundreds of thousands of fish in a
single cage. Robotics are often used for cage maintenance, inspection,
cleaning, and monitoring. Submersible cages have the advantage of
avoiding rough water at the surface and reducing interference with
navigation. A major disadvantage of offshore operations is that they
tend to be expensive to install and operate. They require sturdier
infrastructure than near-shore systems, they are more difficult to
access, and the labor costs are typically higher than for coastal
systems.
The economic requirements of open-ocean aquaculture suggest that
firms are likely to target lucrative species for large-scale
development or niche markets. In the United States, moi is produced
commercially far from shore in Hawaii state waters, and experiments are
being conducted with halibut, haddock, cod, flounder, amberjack, red
drum, snapper, pompano, and cobia in other parts of the country. Tuna
is another likely candidate for offshore development. Altogether, about
500 tons of fish are currently produced each year in submersible cages
in the United States, primarily within a few miles of shore. The
technology appears to have real promise, even though it is not yet
economically viable for commercial use in most locations, and it is not
yet deployed widely in Federal waters far from shore.
Some of the species now farmed in open-ocean cages, such as bluefin
tuna, Atlantic cod, and Atlantic halibut, are becoming increasingly
depleted in the wild. Proponents of offshore aquaculture often claim
that the expansion of farming into Federal waters far from shore will
help protect or even revive wild populations. However, there are
serious ecological risks associated with farming fish in marine waters
that could make this claim untenable. The ecological effects of marine
aquaculture have been well documented, particularly for near-shore
systems, and are summarized in the 2005 volumes of the Annual Review of
Environment and Resources, Frontiers in Ecology (February), and
BioScience (May). They include the escape of farmed fish from ocean
cages, which can have detrimental effects on wild fish populations
through competition and interbreeding; the spread of parasites and
diseases between wild and farmed fish; nutrient and chemical effluent
discharge from farms, which pollutes the marine environment; and the
use of wild pelagic fish for feeds, which can diminish or deplete the
low end of the marine food web in certain locations.
Because offshore aquaculture is still largely in the experimental
phase, its ecological effects have not been widely documented, yet the
potential risks are clear. The most obvious ecological risk of offshore
aquaculture results from its use of wild fish in feeds, because most of
the species being raised in open-ocean systems are carnivorous. If
offshore aquaculture continues to focus on the production of species
that require substantial quantities of wild fish for feed--a likely
scenario because many carnivorous fish command high market prices--the
food web effects on ecosystems that are vastly separated in space could
be significant.
In addition, although producers have an incentive to use escape-
proof cages, escapes are nonetheless likely to occur as the offshore
industry develops commercially. The risks of large-scale escapes are
high if cages are located in areas, such as the Gulf of Mexico, that
are prone to severe storms capable of destroying oil rigs and other
sizable marine structures. Even without storms, escapes frequently
occur. In offshore fish cages in the Bahamas and Hawaii, sharks have
torn open cages, letting many fish escape. In addition, farming certain
species can lead to large-scale ``escapes'' from fertilization. For
example, cod produce fertilized eggs in ocean enclosures, and although
ocean cages are more secure than near-shore net pens, neither pens nor
cages will contain fish eggs. The effects of such events on native
species could be large, regardless of whether the farmed fish are
within or outside of their native range. At least two of the candidate
species in the Gulf of Mexico (red drum and red snapper), as well as
cod in the North Atlantic, have distinct subpopulations. Escapes of
these farmed fish could therefore lead to genetic dilution of wild
populations, as wild and farmed fish interbreed.
Offshore aquaculture also poses a risk of pathogen and parasite
transmission, although there is currently little evidence for disease
problems in offshore cages. In general, however, large-scale intensive
aquaculture provides opportunities for the emergence of an expanding
array of diseases. It removes fish from their natural environment,
exposes them to pathogens that they may not naturally encounter,
imposes stresses that compromise their ability to resist infection, and
provides ideal conditions for the rapid transmission of infectious
agents. In addition, the production of high-valued fish often involves
trade in live aquatic animals for bait, brood stock, milt, and other
breeding and production purposes, which inevitably results in
transboundary spread of disease. The implications of open-ocean farming
for pathogen transmission between farmed and wild organisms thus
remains a large and unanswered question. Moreover, pathogen
transmission in the oceans is likely to shift in unpredictable ways in
response to other human influences, particularly climate change.
Even the claim that open-ocean aquaculture provides ``a dilution
solution'' to effluent discharge may be disputed as the scale of
aquaculture operations expands to meet economic profitability criteria.
The ability of offshore aquaculture to reduce nutrient pollution and
benthic effects will depend on flushing rates and patterns, the depth
of cage submersion, the scale and intensity of the farming operations,
and the feed efficiency for species under cultivation. Scientific
results from an experimental offshore system in New Hampshire indicate
no sedimentation or other benthic effects, even when the cages are
stocked with more than 30,000 fish. However, commercial farms will
likely have 10 or more times this density in order to be economically
viable; commercial salmon farms commonly stock 500,000 to a million
fish at a site. It is not a stretch to imagine a pattern similar to
that of the U.S. industrial livestock sector, with large animal
operations concentrated near processing facilities and transportation
infrastructure, and in states with more lenient environmental
standards.
An essential question in the debate thus remains: What is the
vision of the Department of Commerce in developing offshore
aquaculture? If the vision is to expand offshore production to a scale
sufficient to eliminate the $8 billion seafood deficit, the ecological
risks will be extremely high.
In 2003 and 2004, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew
Oceans Commission completed their reports on the state of the oceans
and suggested various policy reforms. Both reports acknowledged the
rising role of aquaculture in world markets, described its effects on
ocean ecosystems, and recommended NOAA as the lead Federal agency to
oversee marine aquaculture in the United States. The main difference
between the reports is captured in the recommendations. Whereas the
U.S. Commission recommended that the United States pursue offshore
aquaculture, acknowledging the need for environmentally sustainable
development, the Pew Commission recommended a moratorium on the
establishment of new marine farms until comprehensive national
environmental standards and policy are established. The drafting of S.
1195 clearly follows the U.S. Commission approach but uses even weaker
environmental language, which allows for multiple interpretations and
no clear mandate on marine resource and ecosystem protection.
The main problem with the proposed legislation is the broad
discretion given to the secretary of Commerce to promote offshore
aquaculture without clear legal standards for environmental protection.
The authority is intended to facilitate a streamlining of regulations,
yet it provides minimal checks and balances within the system. The bill
states that the secretary ``shall consult as appropriate with other
Federal agencies, the coastal states, and regional fishery councils . .
. to identify the environmental requirements applicable to offshore
aquaculture under existing laws and regulations.''An implicit
assumption of the bill is that most of the needed environmental
safeguards are already in place. Additional environmental regulations
targeted specifically for offshore aquaculture are to be established in
the future ``as deemed necessary or prudent by the secretary'' in
consultation with other groups. Yet timing is everything. If the law is
passed without the establishment of comprehensive national guidelines
for the protection of marine species and the environment--and the
requirement that these guidelines be implemented--such protection may
never happen, or it may happen after irreversible damages have
occurred.
Are current Federal laws sufficient to protect the environment in
the EEZ? The answer is no. As a framework, they leave major gaps in
environmental protection. The Rivers and Harbors Act gives the Army
Corps of Engineers the authority to issue permits for any obstruction
in Federal waters (including fish cages) but does not provide clear
environmental mandates. The Corps has the broad discretion to ensure
environmental quality but is not required to do so. The Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act extends this authority farther offshore
beyond the territorial waters of the EEZ and applies to any offshore
facilities that are anchored on or up to 1 mile from offshore oil rigs;
in this case, further permit approval is required from the Department
of Interior. The Clean Water Act gives the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) the authority to regulate waste discharges from
aquaculture facilities, but the agency's recent effluent guidelines for
aquaculture net pens, which presumably would be applied to offshore
cages, focus simply on the use of best management practices.
Aquaculture discharge is not currently regulated through the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the permitting system
used for municipal and industrial point-source discharge to U.S.
waters. The Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act
both are applicable in the EEZ and can be used to limit offshore
aquaculture operations if they are proven to threaten any listed
threatened or endangered species, or if they unlawfully kill marine
mammals. In addition, the Lacey Act gives the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service the authority to regulate the introduction of exotic species in
Federal waters if they have been listed specifically as ``injurious''
to other species. The Lacey Act applies to any species that are
transported or traded across borders, but not to species that already
exist within borders. Finally, all international treaties and protocols
would apply to offshore aquaculture in the EEZ.
The only Federal law that the proposed bill would explicitly
supersede is the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) of 1976, which stipulates a
balance between fishing and conservation. S. 1195 does not include any
specific balancing requirements between ecosystems and industry.
Regional fishery management councils established under the MSA as well
as the public would be consulted in the process of environmental
rulemaking but would not have a determining effect on the outcome.
Although S. 1195 supersedes only one Federal law, existing
legislation does not adequately address the major risks of farmed fish
escapes and genetic dilution of wild stocks, pathogen transmission from
farms to wild organisms, and cumulative effluent discharge. Most
existing laws and regulations for marine aquaculture are found at the
state level, where current near-shore systems operate. Few states have
comprehensive regulatory plans for marine aquaculture, and there are no
regional plans that address the risks of biological, chemical, or
nutrient pollution that spreads from one coastal state to the next.
The proposed bill gives coastal states an important role in
influencing the future development of offshore aquaculture. Indeed,
coastal states would be permitted to opt out of offshore aquaculture
activities. The bill states that offshore aquaculture permits will not
be granted or will be terminated within 30 days if the secretary of
Commerce receives written notice from the Governor of a coastal state
that the state does not wish to have the provisions of the act apply to
its seaward portion of the EEZ. The Governor can revoke the opt-out
provision at any time, thus reinstating NOAA's authority to issue
permits and oversee aquaculture operations in that portion of the EEZ.
Although the bill does not grant coastal states any jurisdiction over
that part of the EEZ, it does provide them with potential exclusion
from offshore aquaculture activities.
This amendment ensures a role for coastal states that is stronger
than that which would apply through the Consistency Provision (section
307) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). Section 307 of the CZMA
requires that federally permitted projects be consistent with select
state laws that safeguard coastal ecosystems, fisheries, and people
dependent on those fisheries (collectively called the state's ``coastal
zone management program''). To complete the permitting process for an
offshore aquaculture project, the project applicant must certify the
project's consistency with the state's coastal zone management program
to NOAA. Even if the state objects to the applicant's consistency
certification, the secretary of Commerce can override the state's
objection and issue the permit simply by determining that the project
is consistent with the objectives or purposes of the Federal Coastal
Management Act or that the project is necessary in the interest of
national security. Thus, the Department of Commerce retains ultimate
authority over whether state laws apply to the EEZ.
Although the decision by different coastal states to opt out of the
proposed offshore aquaculture bill is yet to be determined, some states
have already adopted policies related to aquaculture development within
state waters. In Alaska, state law prohibits finfish farming within the
3-mile state zone. In Washington, House Bill 1499 allows the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife to have more control over environmental
damages caused by near-shore salmon farming. In California, salmon
farming and the use of genetically modified fish are prohibited by law
in marine waters, and a new bill currently being reviewed in the state
assembly (SB. 210) requires strict environmental standards for all
other forms of marine aquaculture introduced into state waters. The
California legislation, in particular, provides an excellent model for
a redrafting of the National Offshore Aquaculture Act.
The Need for National Environmental Standards
Whether environmentalists like it or not, marine aquaculture is
here to stay and will inevitably expand into new environments as global
population and incomes grow. Although the United States is in a
position to make itself a global model for sustainable fish production
in the open ocean, the proposed bill unfortunately falls far short of
this vision. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Pew Commission, an
aggressive marine aquaculture policy is needed at the national level to
protect ocean resources and ecosystems. Within this policy framework,
several specific features are needed:
The establishment of national environmental standards for
siting and operation that minimize adverse effects on marine
resources and ecosystems and that set clear limits on allowable
ecological damage.
The establishment of national effluent guidelines through
the EPA for biological, nutrient, and chemical pollution from
coastal and offshore fish farms, using NPDES permits to
minimize cumulative effluent impacts.
The establishment of substantive liability criteria for
firms violating environmental standards, including liability
for escaped fish and poorly controlled pathogen outbreaks.
The establishment of rules for identifying escaped farm fish
by their source and prohibiting the use of genetically modified
fish in ocean cages.
The establishment of a transparent process that provides
meaningful public participation in decisions on leasing and
permitting of offshore aquaculture facilities and by which
marine aquaculture operations can be monitored and potentially
closed if violations occur.
The establishment of royalty payments process for offshore
aquaculture leases that would compensate society for the use of
public Federal waters.
At the same time, firms exceeding the minimum standards should be
rewarded, for example, through tax breaks or reductions in royalty
fees, in order to encourage environmental entrepreneurship and
international leadership. By articulating a comprehensive set of
environmental standards and incentives within the draft of the law, the
bill would gain acceptance by a broad constituency interested in the
sustainable use of ocean resources.
Proponents of offshore aquaculture might argue that these
recommendations hold the industry to exceedingly high standards. Yes,
the standards are high, but also essential. There is now a widespread
realization that the ability of the oceans to supply fish, assimilate
pollution, and maintain ecosystem integrity is constrained by the
proliferation of human activities on land and at sea. Offshore
aquaculture could help to alleviate these constraints, but only if it
develops under clear and enforceable environmental mandates.
Senator Sununu. Thank you, Doctor. Mr. Belle, welcome.
STATEMENT OF SEBASTIAN BELLE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MAINE
AQUACULTURE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Belle. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of
the Subcommittee, and a particular thanks to Senator Snowe for
all her hard work. Her constituents appreciate it, and we know
you have worked hard down here. My name is Sebastian Belle. I
am the Executive Director of the Maine Aquaculture Association.
The Maine Aquaculture Association is the oldest state
aquaculture association in the country. We represent finfish
and shellfish growers that grow fish and shellfish in both
fresh and saltwater. Based on farm gate value sales, we have
about an $80 million industry on an average year in the State
of Maine. We have been operating for over 20 years. The first
farm went in 30 years ago in Maine, and I would like to say a
couple things before I start. The challenges that have been
identified by the previous witnesses are fair and real. The
concerns are fair and real. Solutions are possible, and I would
encourage you to look to Maine and our experience there in
terms of how we have balanced these concerns and the ability to
have a sustainable development over the last 20 years. I think
we have learned a lot. We have made some mistakes. But the
solutions are out there, and the problems are not
insurmountable. I'm going to make two general comments, and
then I would like to focus on a couple of the specifics of the
bill. If we don't do it, somebody else will, and I think the
case of Alaska is a great example. Although Alaska moved early
to prohibit salmon farming, farmed salmon supplies now exceed
wild catches worldwide. Salmon farming has developed rapidly in
other countries irrespective of Alaska's prohibition on salmon
farming. This has happened because aquaculture development
worldwide is being driven by strong fundamental economic
trends. If somebody else does it, environmental risks will be
larger, not smaller, and I have firsthand experience in that. I
have worked in many other countries around the world where
aquaculture is growing much more rapidly than in the United
States. Many of those countries have little or no environmental
restrictions, and we are eating the seafood coming from those
countries in this country. If we do not allow a competitive
domestic aquaculture industry to develop in this country, we
will in part be contributing to environmental impacts in other
places in the world, and I think we need to understand that and
be prepared to accept responsibility for that. Finally, I'd
like to say that balanced development between commercial
fisheries and aquaculture is achievable. We have done it for 20
years in Maine. If we can do it in nearshore locations in Maine
with significant commercial fisheries, diverse and healthy
marine ecosystems, extensive recreational use and commercial
shipping, it can be done in the EEZ. It takes time, patience,
hard work, and agency resources, but it can and has been done
successfully. Whether aquaculture products are produced in the
U.S. or overseas has little to do with whether these products
will compete with wild products. As highlighted in my previous
points, the United States has a choice. We can either allow the
development of domestic aquaculture, help it compete with
overseas producers, and ensure a balance between commercial
fishing and aquaculture interests. Conversely, we can prohibit
domestic aquaculture and force our domestic commercial
fisheries to compete directly with low-cost, unregulated
overseas aquaculture producers. A couple of specific points on
the bill--the site permits, and I think Mr. Cates alluded to
this, the site permits are initially issued for 10 years and
then renewed for 5 years. From the private sector's point of
view, the investment and time involved in developing an
offshore operation is extensive. There is a lot of money
involved. A 10-year time horizon is too short. Very few
investors are going to invest if their leasehold is only for 10
years. It's particularly concerning that the 5-year renewal
period is shorter than the initial period. You would assume
that if somebody was out there and had been operating for a
period of 10 years, that they would have a track record, and
that, in fact, the renewal would be for a longer period, not a
shorter period. During the permit review process, S. 1195
requires the Secretary to consult with other Federal agencies.
S. 1195 further requires that the Secretary renders a permit
decision within 120 days of the application being deemed
complete. S. 1195 contains no requirement for the timely reply
by other Federal agencies to the Secretary's request for
consultation and review. S. 1195 should establish a time
shorter than 120 days within which other Federal agencies must
reply to the Secretary. This requirement should include a
provision that clarifies that a lack of reply within that time
period constitutes agreement by other Federal agencies to the
permit's issuance. If regional fisheries management councils
are consulted, this provision should apply to them as well. My
final comment is on the State opt-out. I have worked for a
period of my career for a state agency, and I have a great deal
of respect for state's rights and the ability for states to
determine their own future. Having said that, the amendment
769, as it's written now, my interpretation is that it would
significantly reduce investor confidence and decrease the
likelihood of investment due to its impact on the security of
their investment. Any aquaculture operation that has gone
through all the permitting processes and is being operated
responsibly and in good faith could have its license to do
business revoked without cause with 30 days notice. No investor
is likely to move forward with a project with that level of
uncertainty and risk. If a State wants to opt-out as a matter
of policy prior to the initiation of any permit applications,
it should have the right to do that as that opt-out will have
direct impacts on the economic potential of Federal waters that
all U.S. citizens have an interest in. That State should be
required to justify the grounds for the opt-out and document
the economic impacts of the opt-out on the national economy.
Thank you very much for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Belle follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sebastian Belle, Executive Director,
Maine Aquaculture Association
Senator Stevens, Senator Sununu, Honorable Members of the U.S.
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee
on National Ocean Policy Study:
Thank you for providing me the opportunity to speak with you today.
My name is Sebastian Belle and I am the Executive Director of the Maine
Aquaculture Association (MAA). The MAA is the oldest state aquaculture
association in the country. We represent aquatic farmers who grow both
shellfish and finfish in salt and freshwater farms. We also represent
the many infrastructure companies that provide goods and services to
our producers. Based on farm gate sales, Maine has been the number one
marine aquaculture state for 10 of the last 15 years. On an average
year, our members grow products worth over $80 million at the farm
gate.
I stand before you today to testify in support of S. 1195, ``The
National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2005''. S. 1195 establishes a
framework through which the Department of Commerce can oversee the
development of aquaculture in Federal waters referred to hereafter as
the EEZ.
I would like to begin my testimony with some general comments and
then respectfully suggest a few specific modifications that would be
constructive from the private sector's perspective. I will start with a
disclaimer. MAA has a diverse membership that ranges from mom-and-pop
owner operated farms to larger corporately-owned farms. My comments
today are my own and are based on my experience of 30 years in
commercial fishing and aquaculture. Given our diverse membership, any
number of my members may submit comments directly. I would encourage
the Committee to carefully review those comments as well.
General Comments
1. If We Don't Do it Someone Else Will
Perhaps the best example of this is in Alaska. Although Alaska
moved early to prohibit salmon farming, farmed salmon supplies now
exceed wild catches worldwide. Salmon farming has developed rapidly in
other countries irrespective of Alaska's prohibition. This has happened
because aquaculture development worldwide is being driven by strong
fundamental economic trends. According the Food and Agricultural
Organization, wild fisheries landings for direct human consumption have
been flat since the late 1980s. Seafood demand is increasing, per
capita consumption of seafood in the United States alone has risen 1.8
pounds since 2001. World aquaculture production has increased steadily
from 20.8 million metric tons (MMT) in 1994 to over 40 mmt in 2003.
Whether the U.S. allows offshore aquaculture development or not,
experts expect these trends to continue.
Countries like China, Japan, Norway, Canada, and Ireland have
embraced aquaculture development as a way to supply domestic markets,
diversify coastal economies, preserve working waterfronts, employ
fishermen displaced by conservation measures, secure national food
supplies and address trade imbalances through increased exports. The
choice we have is not will aquaculture expand but whether we as a
Nation want to be producers or consumers. For all of the reasons cited
above I would argue we need to be producers to protect our countries
interests and give working waterfront families another way to continue
their maritime heritage.
2. If Someone Else Does It, Environmental Risk Will Be Larger
Like any human activity, aquaculture involves risk and can have
environmental impacts. With good science, political will and technical
expertise impacts can be prevented and/or mitigated. Achieving a
balance between conservation and economic development is possible. In
Maine, we currently have some of the strictest aquaculture
environmental regulations and monitoring requirements in the world. We
also have the most extensive and diverse marine aquaculture sector of
any State in the Nation. I have worked in 14 different countries
growing over 15 species using a number of different production methods.
I have seen firsthand both the potential and the risks aquaculture
development poses. If aquaculture is only allowed to develop overseas
it will develop in jurisdictions that often have no environmental
standards or enforcement. The environmental risk and potential damage
of those operations will be much larger than operations allowed to
develop in the U.S. under the framework proposed in S. 1195. If the
environmental community is sincere about its environmental concerns it
should support S. 1195 and work to ensure that any environmental
regulations promulgated as a result achieve a reasonable balance
between environmental protection and sustainable development. If S.
1195 fails or environmental restrictions are so severe that no
investment occurs, we will all bear the responsibility of increased
environmental impacts in jurisdictions with lesser environmental
oversight.
3. Build it and They Will Come Is Not Enough
S. 1195 authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to establish a policy
framework and rules designed to facilitate aquaculture development in
the EEZ. It is an important first step. It will not in and of itself
ensure investment and aquaculture development. Investment and
development will only occur if the business community has confidence
that its investments will be safe and will yield a reasonable return.
Investor confidence is impacted by many factors. One of these is
the level of commitment demonstrated and resources allocated by
government to business development. Our competitors in other producing
regions have aggressive regional and national aquaculture development
programs that support and promote aquaculture development. Last year,
for example, the Canadian province of Nova Scotia spent $45 million to
support and promote the development of marine aquaculture. In Ireland,
where aquaculture is viewed as a rural development tool, an
entrepreneur starting an aquaculture business can get 30 percent of
their initial capital investment as an outright grant. Not a loan, not
a loan guarantee, but a grant. In Japan, whose coastlines are already
highly developed, local prefectures (similar to our states) spend
millions of dollars each year to support and assist local aquaculture
cooperatives.
NOAA Fisheries is a professional, hard working group of natural
resource managers. With limited resources and multiple challenges they
do a difficult job under very difficult circumstances. Currently, the
Division has over 50 percent of its staff persons working on protected
resources and endangered species. The remaining staff is principally
involved in research and management of commercial fisheries The focus
of most of this work is related to stock assessments, reductions in
fishing capacity and allocation of resources between various
constituencies. NOAA fisheries predecessor NMFS did play an important
development role for the decade after the passage of the original
Magnuson-Stevens Act. If the potential of S. 1195 is to be realized,
the U.S. must invest significant funds in a targeted National
Aquaculture Development Program. This program should not focus on
research or demonstration projects but on commercial aquaculture
development and support. This program should include funds and
personnel who are responsible for assisting potential aquaculture
entrepreneurs in project development and permitting. The program should
have a financing component to assist with start-up funds and the
development of investment incentive programs. We did it for land-based
agriculture and commercial fisheries. These sectors are now vital to
our rural economies and national security. We need to do the same for
domestic aquaculture development so that it too can contribute to our
Nation's future.
4. Balanced Development Between Commercial Fisheries and Aquaculture Is
Achievable
A number of groups have regularly asserted that commercial fishing
and aquaculture constituencies are inherently in conflict. These
assertions generally focus on conflicts over space, market share or
potential environmental impacts. Conflicts over space and potential
environmental impacts can be addressed through appropriate permitting
and monitoring procedures. We have done it for twenty years in Maine.
If we can do it in near shore locations in Maine with significant
commercial fisheries, diverse and healthy marine ecosystems, extensive
recreational use and commercial shipping, it can be done in the EEZ. It
takes time, patience, hard work and agency resources, but it can and
has been done successfully.
Conflicts over markets are more complicated. Aquaculture and wild
fisheries products have at times competed in the market. Seafood
markets have changed dramatically in the last twenty years.
International and domestic distribution channels are more efficient.
Consumers demand a diverse array of product forms that must be high
quality, consistently available at a reasonable price. The most
effective way to address market conflicts is through product
differentiation, market segmentation and market expansion. This is
happening very fast in seafood markets and aquaculture companies are
leading the way in these trends.
Whether aquaculture products are produced in the U.S. or overseas
have little to do with whether these products compete with wild
products. As highlighted in Point 1 above, the United States has a
choice. We can either allow the development of domestic aquaculture,
help it compete with overseas producers and ensure a balance between
commercial fishing and aquaculture interests. Conversely, we can
prohibit domestic aquaculture and force our domestic commercial
fisheries to compete directly with low cost unregulated overseas
aquaculture production.
Specific Comments
1. Page 5, Line 19
Strike ``belonging to sedentary species''. There are a number of
invertebrate species such as scallops, some gastropods, urchins, etc.
that would not be classified as strictly sedentary nor would they be
cultured in a structure. If only sedentary species are allowed on the
seabed or in the subsoil, these species would be precluded for coverage
under the statute. A number of these species have significant economic
potential and should not be inadvertently excluded.
2. Page 10, Lines 15, 16, and 17
Site permits are initially issued for 10 years and then upon
renewal drop to 5 year periods. Both the initial and the renewal
periods are too short. Investment levels required for aquaculture
operations in the EEZ will be relatively high and the time required to
apply for permits relatively long. Initial investments will likely be
over $1 million with permitting time-frames in years, not months.
Investors who choose to pursue operations in the EEZ will need permit
lengths significantly longer to provide regulatory stability,
investment security and adequate payback periods. Permits should be for
at least 25 years. Renewals should be automatic unless significant
objections are raised and those objections are based on substantive
technical grounds. Permits being renewed should be for the same or
longer time periods than originally granted because the operator has a
track record to examine. If permit holders have been bad operators, the
agency has a powerful way to deal with permit violations through a
strongly worded revocation for cause clause.
3. Pages 10 and 11
The current draft establishes the need for two permits; a site
permit and an operating permit. These are in addition to a number of
already existing Federal permits from other agencies. In instances
where the site permit holder and the operating entity are the same, two
permits are unnecessary. In those instances, one site permit that
addresses agency concerns should be enough. Two permits will
significantly increase the amount of time and expense required of the
aquaculture entrepreneur. As long as the site permit addresses agency
concerns and includes language that protects the public trust and the
environment, an additional operating permit would be unnecessary.
4. Page 12
During the permit review process, S. 1195 requires the Secretary to
consult with other Federal agencies. S. 1195 further requires (Page 9,
Line 1) that the Secretary renders a permit decision within 120 days of
the application being deemed complete. S. 1195 contains no requirement
for a timely reply by other Federal agencies to the Secretary's request
for consultation and review. S. 1195 should establish a time shorter
than 120 days within which other Federal agencies must reply to the
Secretary. This requirement should include a provision which clarifies
that a lack of reply within that time period constitutes agreement by
the other Federal agency to the permits issuance. If regional fisheries
management councils are consulted, this provision should apply to them
as well.
Specific Comments on Amendments
Amendment SA 769
State Opt-out. As written, SA 769 would significantly reduce
investor confidence and decrease the likelihood of investment due to
its impact on investment security. Any aquaculture operation that has
gone through all the permitting processes and is being operated
responsibly and in good faith could have its license to do business
revoked without cause on 30 days notice. No investor is likely to move
forward with a project with that level of uncertainty and risk.
If a state wants to opt-out as a matter of policy prior to the
initiation of any permit applications, it should have the right to do
that. As that opt-out will have direct impacts on the economic
potential of Federal waters that all U.S. citizens have an interest in
said state should be required to justify the grounds for the opt-out
and document the economic impacts of the opt-out on the national
economy.
Amendment SA 1727
The purpose of this amendment appears to be to delay or preclude
the implementation of S. 1195. This amendment does not propose any
requirement that is substantively more protective than S. 1195. This
amendment, if included, will result in years of delays and investment
will occur overseas. The amendment will not in any way defend its
assumed constituents (domestic commercial fishing interests) because
they will continue to have to compete with overseas production.
I thank you for your attention and patience.
Senator Sununu. Thank you very much. I would like to begin
with any questions or comments from Chairman Stevens.
STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Stevens. Mr. Chairman, I said I didn't have an
opening statement. I do have a summary, really, of comments I
made. Plus, I'd like to put into the record a summary of the
bill itself, S. 1195, that Senator Inouye and I introduced at
the request of the Administration and the amendments that we
filed at the time we introduced it, including the opt-out
amendment that Mr. Belle has just commented on. My only comment
would be that while it may be that amendment needs some
clarification, clearly it should be the right of a state that
has wild fish to protect its fish without an economic analysis
just on the basis of the sheer right to protect it. I do
believe that we have half the coastline of the United States.
We harvest 60 percent of all the commercial fish harvested in
the Untied States on the waters off of the Untied States, and
that amendment would allow a portion of the coastline off of
Alaska to be excluded from the concept of aquaculture while at
the same time permitting other areas to be used if it was
consistent with the problems of our wild fish. I, myself, doubt
seriously that we would ever be able to protect wild fish if we
had aquaculture off of our shores. I have told the Chairman
that I just learned last week that I should refer to
mariculture when I refer to the shellfish. Is that right, Bill?
Dr. Hogarth. Yes, sir.
Senator Stevens. So, all of you have only been talking
about fish, not about shellfish.
Dr. Hogarth. We have talked about both. Most of the
shellfish fisheries are directed by the state because they are
in state waters.
Senator Stevens. Well, I only want to state the amendments
we filed will not impact mariculture. They only impact
aquaculture, as I understand it. We do not seek to prohibit
shellfish-types of mariculture off of our shores, as I
understand it. Is that right, Mr. Vinsel?
Mr. Vinsel. Yes, that is the term we use in Alaska.
Mariculture for shellfish, and we do have thriving shellfish
mariculture, as many other states do, with very minimal
problems, both to the environment or the existing fisheries.
The finfish are our big concern.
Senator Stevens. I have never been told of any conflict
between the shellfish mariculture and our wild fish production.
Mr. Vinsel. We do not see any within the United Fishermen
of Alaska, and we generally get along with the shellfish
farmers and support their activities, and they're well-guided
with the Department of Fish and Game.
Senator Stevens. Dr. Hogarth, do you agree with the
statement that I just made?
Dr. Hogarth. Senator Stevens, basically yes. This bill is
only for offshore. It has no effect on what the states are
doing in state waters. This is only in the Federal waters.
Senator Stevens. Well, our amendment goes beyond that,
Bill.
Dr. Hogarth. Right.
Senator Stevens. Yes, and I am saying in that area, which
is--you describe as Federal waters, in that area, mariculture
is not inconsistent with the production of wild fish, as I
understand it.
Dr. Hogarth. No.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Senator Sununu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. I mean, I--we don't have any problem with
the shellfish. We think it's actually helpful, Dr. Goldburg,
could you talk a little more about the levels of PCBs and other
contaminants in farmed fish? What dangers could they pose to
human health, if any? What could we do to prevent them? What
are some of the problems and risks of using excess antibiotics
to treat farmed fish? So, I mean I'm just looking to you to
talk about the antibiotics, the PCB issue, and how these relate
to public health.
Dr. Goldburg. Absolutely. I'll first talk about
environmental contaminants in farmed fish. There have been a
number of environmental contaminants documented in farmed fish
that are carcinogenic. These include PCBs, dioxins, and a
number of pesticides. And there are now several studies in the
scientific literature concerning these contaminants, which show
that at least in some farmed fish that have diets high in fish
meal and oil, the contaminants can be at levels at which the
EPA would advise very little consumption of those fish.
Senator Boxer. So, does this come from the food that is fed
to these fish?
Dr. Goldburg. It absolutely appears to come from the food
that's fed to the fish. And it is possible to grow a farmed
fish without high levels of contaminants by reducing fish meal
and oil levels, by very careful sourcing of feed ingredients,
by using some emerging technology to clean fish oil before it's
put in fish feeds, but NOAA's proposal does not consider any of
those technologies and the need to produce really safe food----
Senator Boxer. OK.
Dr. Goldburg.--for American consumers. People want to eat
seafood because of health benefits.
Senator Boxer. So, you don't think that the bill that was
requested by the Administration addresses this issue at all.
Dr. Goldburg. I don't see any mention of it.
Senator Boxer. OK, and the antibiotic issue?
Dr. Goldburg. Well, antibiotics are used in aquaculture
around the world when fish get sick. Use of antibiotics in
animals, be they fish or terrestrial animals, can result in the
proliferation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. This was a big
concern in Norway a decade or two ago when salmon farming
started and was using very large amounts of antibiotics. And it
was well-documented that antibiotic-resistant bacteria were
turning up in blue mussels near fish farms, were turning up in
wild fish near the fish farms that people were catching, and
the Norwegians, to their credit, developed some vaccines for
farmed salmon to reduce antibiotic use. But we have enough
problems with antibiotic resistance now that--clearly critical
medicines that we have to protect the efficacy of. And if we're
going to go forward with large-scale fish farming that's
essentially patterned on the poultry industry and the salmon
farming industry, we need to do it in a way that absolutely
minimizes or eliminates drug use.
Senator Boxer. Well, doctor, I would love to work with you
further on this as we--if we move forward with this bill, Mr.
Chairman, because I think, you know, the irony of it is that
Mr. Cates talks about his children, yes. I mean, that's what
it's about, and we need to protect our children and make sure
that what we are doing here at the end of the day is healthful,
isn't harmful to them and to the wild fish. The irony is we
could have a system if we're not careful, Mr. Chairman, that
winds up reducing, you know, the wild fish and getting our
people sick. This is not an alternative. As I said already in
California, we have got people going to the restaurants and
saying if it isn't wild fish, don't put it on my plate. I
mean--and I know California is usually first with these things,
but this will spread, and I just don't want to see that happen.
I don't want to see your investments go down the tubes. I mean,
that's--so we need to do something that's good for everybody.
Dr. Hogarth, I have concerns about NOAA's budget. Perhaps you
can explain this to me. The Senior Scientist for NOAA's
National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Dr. Paul Sandifer,
first said it would cost $3 million a year to get an
aquaculture program off the ground, and continuing costs would
be $7 million. How will NOAA have the ability to effectively
enforce its program when just this year NOAA's requested a 65
percent decrease in funding for its current marine aquaculture
program, a decrease from the $4.5 million it received in
appropriations in 2006. It's going to go down to $1.6 million.
So, I don't see how we embark on this expansion, this whole
program even with all--and I hope that we would get it to a
place where we could all be proud of it--if NOAA's budget is
slashed like this. So, can you explain to me how you're going
to do this. You going to cut other programs and put more money
in this? What's your plan?
Dr. Hogarth. Well, Senator Boxer, this is a priority of the
Administration. And if we get the bill passed so that we can
begin to work--I think one thing I really need to clarify very
quickly is that this bill was to put into place the
comprehensive framework to enable the U.S. to go into offshore
aquaculture. It was not intended to have all the detailed
criteria. This will be done through preparing a programmatic
environmental impact statement and developing regulations in
conjunction with the public, with the fishery management
councils, with the states, with the NGO's.
Senator Boxer. That's a lot of work, sir.
Dr. Hogarth. It's a lot of work. It'll probably take about
2 years to do at a cost of about $2.2 to $2.3 million a year.
Senator Boxer. So, you're saying that if this bill passes
the Administration will reprogram and ask us for more money to
do it.
Dr. Hogarth. Well, If this bill passes, we will work with
the Administration to get the money that's necessary. We have
some funds within our budget, and we'll work through the budget
process to ensure that it is done accurately.
Senator Boxer. Well, good luck doing that. I certainly
would want to help on that, but we have got a hard time at the
moment, and you only have $1.6 million, you have cut this
program down. So, if this is a priority of the Administration,
they don't seem to have much faith in their own bill because
they're certainly not prepared for it, but we'll talk more
about that. Can I have a second round after----
Senator Sununu. Well, yes.
Senator Boxer. I mean after everybody.
Senator Sununu. A vote has begun----
Senator Boxer. OK.
Senator Sununu.--but we have----
Senator Boxer. I'll wait.
Senator Sununu.--probably 15 minutes.
Senator Boxer. I'll wait.
Senator Sununu. I will, if time permits, have a second
round, but I would like to turn to Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much. I have been listening
to the testimony very carefully, and terms such as invasive
species, genetic contamination, environmental contamination are
used quite often. Do we have technology at this time that can
ensure that the wild stocks are protected from this type of
contamination, Dr. Hogarth or anyone here?
Dr. Hogarth. I'll take the first stab. I think definitely
we do, yes, and I think the U.S. would be much more concerned
about what is used in aquaculture. Now, we import fish from
abroad which we know have chemicals that we do not allow in
this country to be utilized. So, all those would be taken into
account in the permits that we issue. The siting will be looked
at very carefully and then we do another permit for operations.
We think the technology that's being developed for our industry
now would definitely be an improvement over the technology for
cages that has been used in the past. We are also working very
hard with the soybean industry and others to develop feed that
would not have to be so dependent on using fish. And we also,
in the permitting, will approve whatever species are utilized.
And so, we will not allow species that we feel would be harmful
to the environment if there were some escapes, which we think
we could control. So, all of that is part of the permitting
process--what's utilized, where they're sited. You know, we
have about 3.4 million square miles of waters in the EEZ. So,
we're talking about less than 1 percent that would be utilized
to produce a million tons of aquaculture species, which is less
than probably all of the national marine sanctuaries put
together. So, I mean it's a small area is what I'm trying to
get across, that would be utilized. And we will handle all this
through the permitting process, through the regulations and
through a programmatic EIS, but we feel like the issues that
have been raised can definitely be taken into account as we
move forward with offshore aquaculture. The technology is
developing. That's one reason we think that some of this should
not be legislated, but should be part of the regulations
because the permit can be changed to take into account any
issues you see plus the technology as it develops. So, the
permit and the regulations we feel are better. Thank you.
Senator Inouye. Mr. Cates, you have been involved in this
business for some time. What are your thoughts?
Mr. Cates. Thank you for letting me respond to that. It's
quite difficult sitting here listening to this dialogue when I
lived and breathed this industry for nearly 7 years. The real
world experience for me in Hawaii is we have not used any
antibiotics, any vaccines. And prior to me being able to even
use that, I would have to get approval from the State of
Hawaii. We have not had any disease, any of those issues. We
use only fish native to Hawaii, which I'm a firm believer in.
That's one way to mitigate invasive species and that issue. So,
I think as I'm hearing all this, my sense is there are
solutions to all of these concerns, and we need to take the
first step. And I think back when our country decided to enter
into space, we didn't have all the answers. But our country
made it a conscious decision to try, and that's kind of where
we are right now. Some will argue don't proceed until you have
all the answers. Well, we're a new industry. We're going to
make mistakes, but we can overcome those challenges. We can
give our best effort. And I think the regulations and rules
that are in place ensure that we're entering into this
cautiously, and we're taking a first step. Also, we're saying
let us provide some funding to answer a lot of these concerns,
but we're not going to be able to answer them until we take the
step. We have a lot of learning to do. Thank you.
Senator Inouye. Dr. Goldburg?
Dr. Goldburg. There are technologies available to address
some of the problems, but certainly not all of them. If we're
going to proceed in this direction, we need a lot more
technology development. And to my mind, we need environmental
requirements that ensure that facilities do not go forward
unless they meet some strong environmental standards for
protecting the environment and fisheries. I think that one of
the things NOAA could do that would be very helpful would be to
ask the question what will happen if we're successful and we
really get a large offshore aquaculture industry that meets our
goals, what are the potential impacts of that industry, and how
do we frame a regulatory program to deal with those potential
impacts. Unfortunately, the potential cumulative impacts of the
industry have not been addressed to this point, and I think
that that's really important to do before we go forward--to
look at where we have technological answers, where we don't,
and how we frame a system that will result in healthy oceans as
well as more farmed fish.
Mr. Vinsel. Specifically, some problems that haven't been
solved--the escapes. Even in Norway, which is really the
world's leader in salmon fish farming, there was an escape of
500,000 this September. That was millions and millions of
dollars, and an escape like that anywhere near Alaska would
have serious impact. Another one is sea lice. It's well-
documented that there are concentrations of sea lice around the
fish farms of British Columbia, and these do affect Alaska
salmon already that pass through that area. And another is our
concern with the wastes, these non-point-source cumulative
effects added, you know, together, whether it's, you know, lawn
chemicals, oil and gas washing off our roadbeds--all of these
things add up to cause harm to our oceans, and these are
pointed out by the Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy. And the trouble with increasing
those in a major way with large-scale net pen fish farms is
that is not able to be attributed back, you know, to hold
responsible the different sources. And so, you keep adding them
together. And any single entity may not be the cause of decline
in fisheries, but added together, if they are--Alaska's coastal
communities don't have other options. And if harm is done and
it's not able to be compensated for in some way--which brings
us to a whole another question I'm not going to go to. I
personally don't think it's possible to compensate for damage
done to our fisheries, but these are grave concerns for
Alaska's fishermen.
Senator Inouye. Thank you.
Senator Sununu. Mr. Belle, why don't we pick up there, talk
about the Maine experience on some of these very specific
concerns. Disease, what's been the experience with----
Mr. Belle. Well, I----
Senator Sununu.--the 30 years working in Maine, and any
impact on any domestic wild fish species?
Mr. Belle. True, thank you very much. As Randy alluded to
earlier, it's difficult to sit here when you live and breathe
this industry and listen to all this stuff. A lot of what we
have talked about from the concerned point-of-view is based on
the early history in the salmon farming industry and
principally overseas. In Maine, we have had disease issues on
salmon farms, and we have dealt with them, I think, very
effectively. There has not been a single documented case in
Maine of a wild fish being infected by any disease organism
that was detected on a farm. It has not happened, and we have
looked extensively. The Federal and State governments have both
looked extensively. With respect to antibiotic use, we are more
strictly regulated with antibiotic use than your family
physician, OK? We have to have prescriptions. We have to have
resistance tests done on the pathogens that are detected. We
can only use an antibiotic under very limited circumstances,
and we have many farms in Maine that have never used
antibiotics.
Senator Sununu. Are farmed fish tested for contamination
levels, or PCBs as was mentioned specifically. Are they tested
for contamination levels of PCB? What has been the history?
Mr. Belle. The fish grown in Maine and in other parts of
the country are tested by FDA as part of their market basket
study. And we, like many farmers in the world, always look at
feed ingredients and have learned some hard lessons in the last
few years. We have certainly changed the way we formulate feed
based on what some of the data coming out of the study says,
and we now have very proscriptive feed contracts that require
testing of feed ingredients and testing of the finished fish.
It's kind of--there's--I think--to put things in perspective,
think about this--if you have an animal that you husband for
its entire life span, that you can control what it feeds and
what it doesn't feed versus an animal that you have no control
over what it's exposed to, where it goes, or what it eats--
ultimately, which animal are you going to be able to control
the toxins and contaminant levels in? It's a pretty intuitive
thing. And I think both wild and aquaculture folks in the
seafood industry are very concerned about toxins and
contaminants, and I think both groups are working very hard to
try to minimize any exposure to the consumer.
Senator Sununu. Dr. Langan, do you measure water quality at
the 30-acre site off the coast?
Dr. Langan. Yes, we do. We have a very rigorous monitoring
program capable of detecting even small changes in water
quality conditions. We also look at the sediments to see if
we're changing the organic content of the sediments, the oxygen
levels in the sediments, and we also look for changes in the
biological communities.
Senator Sununu. What do you see, and to what degree are you
able to minimize the impact or control that water quality?
Dr. Langan. Well, we don't see any difference whatsoever
between our reference stations, our stations directly under the
cage or in the near field zone. And we have defined these zones
by doing some modeling studies and projecting where particulate
materials may be dispersed and settle. There was mention from
one of the other panelists of cumulative impacts. There are
modeling tools that allow us to predict where particles are
going to go, and then we can verify this with our sampling
program. But we don't see any difference whatsoever. We can't
detect any changes as a result of our operations.
Senator Sununu. I don't want to say really, but you can't
detect any significant difference in water quality, and do you
think that that type of performance can be replicated even in
expanded operations?
Dr. Langan. Well, we don't know that for sure yet. I think
we do need to look at gradually increasing production at these
demonstration farms so that we're approaching commercial size.
But I think that based on what effects we see relative to what
we are putting in the water in terms of fish feed and what
we're generating in terms of fish wastes, we could use modeling
capabilities to predict what type of changes you might expect
to see as a result of expanded farming operations.
Senator Sununu. Mr. Cates, do you measure water quality,
and what do you see? You know, how many fish do you harvest a
year? I know you gave a tonnage or a pound level.
Mr. Cates. Yes, we have had over a million pounds. My farm
is----
Senator Sununu. How many fish a year is this?
Mr. Cates. About 1.8 million.
Senator Sununu. A million fish a year?
Mr. Cates. Yes, but we raise them until they are about
three-quarters of a pound.
Senator Sununu. OK. Go ahead and----
Mr. Cates. So, our water is----
Senator Sununu.--talk about water quality and measuring
water quality and measuring contamination levels.
Mr. Cates. Correct. First of all, our farm is undoubtedly
the largest-scale open ocean farm in the U.S. We have raised
the most fish to date. When we started our business, the
Federal Government provided some funding to look at this issue.
And ironically, their budget was double of my start-up budget.
So, they spent an incredible amount of time and energy looking
for water quality. After several years, the bottom line of what
they found is at about 50 feet from my operation, it was almost
unmeasurable, and it frustrated the scientists greatly. And in
fact, above current were higher levels of nitrogen and other
things, that was very confusing to them. And the reason that
they came up with this is because of the algae that grows on
our cages is a filter. And so, we have, you know, looked at
this issue, and it really comes down to a scale. What we are
talking about is at what scale, and a lot of the problems that
you're referring to have been in coastal waters and closed
areas. When you go in the EEZ, it's a different area. And to
end that point is in Norway, their large $1.8 billion-a-year
industry--the total square footage of all their cages combined
is about the size of a large airport runway. And when you put
that in the EEZ, it's different. When I hear references about
if this industry reaches to the scale, we're talking about its
equivalent to a city of 17 million people. But that's not in
one location, that's spread out throughout the whole EEZ, which
is enormous. And so, it's a little misleading.
Senator Sununu. I think your point is a very fair one. To
my understanding, the EEZ and its aggregate is roughly the size
of the continental United States. I have one final question
before giving the last comment to Senator Boxer. There was a
point raised by Senator Snowe, and I think it's an important
one. Dr. Hogarth, you talked about one--I think you used the
phrase one-stop shopping, at least with the permitting, but
it's a two-stage permitting process. There is one for siting
and one for operations. What's the rationale there, and does it
make sense? Whatever standards we set, you know, we want the
standards to be reasonable. That's important. A lot of
questions have been raised here. But once we set those
requirements, is there any reason not to integrate the
permitting process?
Dr. Hogarth. Well, I think the--basically, that's what we--
we think it is important to site these facilities properly. And
we think once you site these properly, you need some certainty
in a siting permit. From the operation standpoint, if a person
decides he wants to change species, you know, if he wanted to
go from summer flounder to king mackerel or something, then we
don't think he should have to go through the whole permitting
process again. You would utilize the operations permit. The
operations permit would set the conditions for monitoring and
for the type of species you can utilize, things like that. The
day-to-day operations are covered in that permit, and that can
be changed quicker, we think, than going back to the entire
siting permit. Because if you go into the bank, the business
people need certainty that they have a site to utilize for at
least 10 years, and that's what we are trying to do. Yes, sir.
Senator Sununu. Mr. Belle, does that dual-siting cause
problems, or do you see, at least from a business perspective,
economic risk to having that two-stage process?
Mr. Belle. Well, in my written testimony, I expressed some
concern about the two permit approach. And basically, the
reason is that in my experience, any time you add another
permit, you at least double permitting time and maybe quadruple
it, depending on what the permit is. Now, if, as Dr. Hogarth
has related, the intent of the Department is to allow the
operating permit to be amended in a shorter time frame, then
that may not be an issue. And it makes some sense to allow some
flexibility in terms of how operations change over time, but I
would for sure need to see the specifics around that before I
signed on.
Senator Sununu. Thank you. I appreciate all of your time.
I'm going to submit Senator Snowe's additional questions for
you to respond on the record. And Senator Boxer, any closing
comments?
Senator Boxer. Yes, very briefly because we do have a vote.
First of all, thank you, everyone. You have been terrific. I
just--all of you. I would like to place in the record a number
of things. First is this report called Marine Aquaculture in
the U.S. prepared for the Pew Oceans Commission, the pages nine
and ten that deal with disease and parasites. If I might do
that, Mr. Chairman?
Senator Sununu. That will be included in the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
Marine Aquaculture in The United States
Disease and Parasites
Many diseases and parasites are capable of spreading between farmed
fish and wild stocks. Historically, a number of diseases and parasites
were introduced through aquaculture operations, and aquaculture can
magnify the level of those diseases already present (NMFS/FWS, 2000).
In the early 1900s, for example, the Japanese oyster drill and a
predatory flatworm were introduced to the West Coast with the Pacific
oyster, and at that time they contributed to the decline of native
oyster stocks (Clugston, 1990). Accidental disease and parasite
introductions are now much better controlled, but recent experiences in
salmon and shrimp farming indicate that problems remain.
Some disease outbreaks on salmon farms appear to impact wild
populations today. Sea lice--parasites that eat salmon flesh--are a
serious problem on salmon farms and can even kill fish (McVicar, 1997;
Finstad et al., 2000). Norwegian field studies observe that wild salmon
often become heavily infected with sea lice while migrating through
coastal waters (Finstad et al., 2000), with the highest infection
levels occurring in salmon-farming areas (McVicar, 1997; Hindar,
2001).While these parasites are relatively common, sea lice epidemics
have occurred in wild salmon and trout in every major salmon-farming
country (Finstad et al., 2000). Sea lice may also serve as a host for
other lethal diseases, such as Infectious Salmon Anemia (ISA) (Johnson
et al., 1997).
In January 2001, ISA was detected for the first time in the United
States at a Maine salmon farm, and has since shown up in two more farms
(Journal, 2001). ISA appears to be moving south from New Brunswick,
where it made its first North American appearance in 1996. Since then,
the disease has been detected in both escaped farmed fish and wild fish
(FWS/NOAA, 2000; NMFS/FWS 2000). To protect Maine's Atlantic salmon
from ISA and other introduced diseases, the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) is considering mandatory escape-prevention and sea-lice
control measures (NMFS/FWS, 2000).
Farmed shrimp also experience elevated disease incidence because
the animals are often raised in high densities and are physiologically
stressed. During the 1990s, the shrimp-farming industry in the United
States and abroad was rocked by viral diseases that spread throughout
the world, costing the industry an average of one billion dollars
yearly since 1994 (Lightner, 1998). The presence of at least two of
these shrimp viruses has now been documented in wild shrimp in the Gulf
of Mexico (JSA, 1997; Ray, pers. comm.). However, marine viruses are
little studied and there is only one known example--the ``IHHN'' virus
in Mexico--where shrimp farm outbreaks might have depressed wild shrimp
populations (JSA, 1997).
To reduce the effects of biological pollution, aquaculture
facilities can grow fish that are unlikely to harm wild fish
populations. Raising native fish species is generally preferable to
raising non-natives unless escaped non-natives are unable to survive
and reproduce outside of the farm (e.g., due to cold winters).
Problematic genetic interactions can be reduced by farming fish away
from endangered or threatened populations of the same species, and by
escape-proofing facilities (FWS/NOAA, 2000). Options for minimizing
escapes include using improved cage and pond designs, and moving fish
out of netpens and into land-based facilities.
Stocking certified pathogen-free fish, reducing fish stress, and
filtering or ozonating effluent from pond and recirculating tank
systems can minimize disease transmission. The state of Texas requires
shrimp facilities with virus problems to retain their wastewater until
viral particles become inactive (Ray, pers. comm.).
Senator Boxer. Just to quote briefly, a Norwegian field
study has observed that wild salmon often become heavily
infected with sea lice while migrating through coastal waters,
with the highest infection levels occurring in salmon farming
areas. While these parasites are relatively common, sea lice
epidemics have occurred in wild salmon and trout in every major
salmon farming country. Sea lice can serve as a host for other
lethal diseases such as infectious salmon anemia. Because I
don't think we should understate what we are facing here, and I
think--to say to Mr. Cates, you know, you may do best
practices. A lot of this is not aimed at the people who do best
practices. We want to emulate you. I certainly do. I want to
work with my co-chair here to make sure that we have a bill
that emulates best practices. OK, a letter of concern from the
California Coastal Commission. I would ask that we put that in
the record.
Senator Sununu. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
California Coastal Commission
San Francisco, CA, April 5, 2006
Hon. Ted Stevens,
Chairman,
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
Co-Chairman,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Washington, DC.
Re: National Ocean Aquaculture Act of 2005, S. 1195
Dear Senators Stevens and Inouye,
The Coastal Commission staff appreciates the opportunity to comment
on S. 1195. We are concerned about a lack of governance at the Federal
level over open ocean aquaculture, and we applaud your willingness to
address this absence with the currently proposed legislation. We feel,
however, that the bill should be much stronger in certain essential
aspects, as described below.
The staff of the Coastal Commission has a number of concerns about
S. 1195. The first is the legislation results in weakened environmental
protection standards that will adversely affect marine and coastal
resources. The second concern is that the legislation contains Federal
preemption provisions that will eliminate the right of coastal states
to enforce stricter environmental protection relative to aquaculture
development. If ocean aquaculture is not conducted with extensive
environmental safeguards, it can cause serious environmental
degradation. The primary environmental effects of finfish aquaculture
include:
Biological Pollution. Fish that escape from fish pens may
harm wild fish populations through competition and
interbreeding, or by spreading diseases and parasites. Farming
non-native species, transgenic or genetically modified fish
should be prohibited.
Fish Feed. Some types of aquaculture use large quantities of
wild-caught fish as feed ingredients, thus potentially causing
overfishing of low-trophic ``forage'' fish such as anchovies
and sardines. Alternatives to use of fishmeal and fish oil
should be required.
Organic Pollution and Eutrophication. Aquaculture can lead
to nutrient loading through discharges of fish wastes and
uneaten food. An aquaculture operator should be required to
provide baseline benthic habitat assessments before
installation, regular monitoring, and site remediation after
the project has ceased operations.
Chemical Pollution. The variety of chemicals used in
aquaculture, such as antibiotics and pesticides, should be
monitored frequently, and minimized.
Use Conflicts. The physical structures can conflict with
commercial and recreational fishing activities.
We respectfully urge you to include in S. 1 195 standards that
result in avoidance or reduction of these significant adverse marine
and coastal effects.
In addition, we strongly oppose the preemption of states' rights
resulting from S. 1195. Pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972, states have the ability to adopt coastal zone management
programs, and regulate ocean development such as aquaculture. State
standards may indeed be stronger than the provisions contained in S.
1195, and that important concept must not be lost here. The Coastal
Commission respectfully requests that our concerns be addressed in the
legislation.
Sincerely,
Peter M. Douglas,
Executive Director.
Senator Boxer. A letter from all over the country signed by
53 different organizations expressing concern, a letter from
Oceana expressing concern, a letter from the Pacific Coast
Federation of Fishermen expressing concern, a letter from
everyone from Alaska--Longline Fishermen to Reef Relief and
United Anglers. Many organizations here expressing concern, and
a letter from The Ocean Conservancy. If I could put those in
the record * and say to you, Mr. Chairman, I know that you are
fair, and you're a good legislator, and I think we have enough
information to guide us in writing a bill that will be a win
for everybody.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The information referred to is printed in the Appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Sununu. Thank you very much. Again, thank you to
the panelists. I apologize that we have this responsibility to
vote, but it is what it is. So, we appreciate your testimony
and your expertise and look forward to following up with you in
the record. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:19 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
U.S. Senator from New Jersey
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on an important
issue. I look forward to hearing from our diverse panel of witnesses.
One of the best things about a visit to the Jersey Shore is the
seafood. You can enjoy clams, shrimp, scallops and fish, fresh from the
ocean. Many people agree that aquaculture can play a role in putting
seafood on the table for American families. Perhaps it can even help us
reduce our trade deficit with other nations.
However, offshore aquaculture raises serious environmental concerns
and poses risks that need to be addressed up front, not after the fact.
Fixing a problem is always more expensive than doing it right the first
time. I understand that Senators Stevens and Inouye have introduced
this bill at the request of the Bush Administration. I am concerned
that the Administration's bill does not do enough to address concerns
about offshore aquaculture raised by the U.S. Oceans Commission, the
Pew Oceans Commission, and others.
I am also concerned that we do not yet have sufficient
understanding of how offshore aquaculture might affect our commercial
and recreational fishing industries, which are important to New Jersey
and other states. I hope our Committee can work in a bipartisan fashion
to ensure that any aquaculture bill contains strong safeguards for fish
species and marine habitats, and that its potential impacts on
recreational and commercial fishing are fully considered.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for joining
us today.
______
International Game Fish Association, Marine Fisheries Advisory
Committee,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (DOC)--Offshore
Aquaculture Act--Resolution (March 3, 2006)
The Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee (the Committee), in light
of:
1. The growing scientific recognition of the health benefits of
seafood;
2. The growing dependence of the U.S. on imports and the
resulting trade deficit to meet growing demand;
3. The increasing recognition of the importance of food
security in today's world;
4. The opportunity to conduct commercial aquaculture in the
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) consistent with environmental,
conservation and protected species goals;
5. The opportunity to provide direct economic benefits to
coastal communities through development or expansion of shore-
based support services and complementary economic strategies
and incentives.
6. The opportunity to establish mechanisms for cultured and
wild market development and education (e.g. marketing
councils); and
7. The opportunity for U.S. leadership to develop, test and
implement best practices for offshore aquaculture; therefore
The Committee strongly supports the need for legislation to
authorize establishment of a regulatory framework to permit commercial
aquaculture in the EEZ.
______
Prepared Statement of Bruce S. Anderson, Ph.D., President,
Oceanic Institute
Mr. Chairman,
We greatly appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to you
and the Subcommittee on the pending open ocean aquaculture legislation,
lessons learned from our research and experiences in Hawaii, areas of
need, and the potential benefits of this technology to the Nation.
The Oceanic Institute (OI) is a nonprofit, private research
organization dedicated to marine aquaculture, biotechnology, and
coastal resource management. Our mission is to provide biologically,
economically, and environmentally sustainable technologies, products,
and services that are required to increase aquatic food production to
meet growing national and world needs. With over 100 employees located
at our main facility on the island of Oahu, OI is recognized worldwide
for its significant contributions to research and development of shrimp
and marine fish aquaculture, aquatic feeds and nutrition, and marine
stock enhancement and environmental management.
For the past 7 years, OI, in partnership with the University of
Hawaii, the State of Hawaii, and commercial collaborators has been
conducting offshore aquaculture research under the NOAA-funded Hawaii
Offshore Aquaculture Research Project (HOARP). These efforts led to the
first successful demonstration of offshore aquaculture in the U.S., and
the establishment of the country's first commercial offshore farm.
Hawaii is in the national spotlight of offshore aquaculture
development, with two commercial farms operational, and at least one
other farm in early stages of permit approval. The lessons learned and
experiences gained provide a basis for comment and vested interest in
the development of responsible approaches toward this important
technology.
The science and technology to support offshore aquaculture is still
in the early developmental stages. The fledgling offshore industry in
Hawaii is faced with a number of challenges and issues that need to be
effectively addressed. To date, I believe the companies that are
pursing open ocean aquaculture in Hawaii have done so responsibly.
Nevertheless, reasonable safeguards need to be established in
legislation and through rulemaking if we expect it to grow in a
sustainable manner in the United States, but they should not be unduly
constraining to the industry.
The lessons learned in Hawaii should be carefully considered in
developing Federal legislation that will allow leasing of public lands
for aquaculture. Indeed, the most important policy decision made by
states that support aquaculture, including Hawaii and Florida, is that
aquaculture is ``in the public interest.'' This enabled those states to
lease public lands for this purpose. In doing so, these states used
existing authorities and developed new regulations, when necessary, to
ensure that public health and safety and concerns about environmental
impacts were addressed. An extensive public participation process helps
to assure that siting and user conflicts were identified and addressed
by the permittee. The concept of ``shared use'' helped mitigate
concerns that the leased lands would be used exclusively for
aquaculture.
In Hawaii, the Department of Land and Natural Resources, has the
authority to issue leases of state land. In that respect, it served
much the way that NOAA would serve in the proposed legislation. A key
to Hawaii's success in permitting these facilities was that no attempt
was made to transfer authorities from one agency to another. For
example, the State Department of Health has delegated responsibility
from the Federal EPA to issue NPDES permits. An NPDES permit was issued
by the DOH to control water pollution from open ocean facilities. Other
permitting and regulatory authorities remained with the responsible
agencies.
When the subject of aquaculture arises, conversation invariably
ends with a discussion about the sustainability of the industry and
availability of feeds to support the industry. The use of fishmeal has
become a key topic of debate. Although many animal production systems
rely on fishmeal and fish oil as components of diets, the aquaculture
sector is particularly vulnerable since supplies are limited and very
few alternative ingredients have been identified for this sector.
Projections for use for aquaculture alone worldwide in 2015 are roughly
75 percent and 145 percent, respectively, of the existing fishmeal and
fish oil supplies. Hawaii currently imports all of its aquaculture
feeds, and with shipping costs expected to rise substantially with
rising fuel costs, feedstocks will be one of the most critical items
limiting the long-term sustainability of offshore aquaculture in our
state.
Further research on aquatic feeds is needed to ensure that the
offshore aquaculture is sustainable. This should include research on
alternative feeds, development of guidance and best management
practices to maximize the substitution in aquaculture feeds of
alternatives to fish meal and oil derived from directed reduction
fisheries, including:
Seafood processing wastes and unavoidable fisheries bycatch;
Cultured marine algae and other microbial sources of omega-3
fatty-acids;
Crop plants and other terrestrial protein sources; and
Other products produced in an environmentally sustainable
manner.
Prior to feedstocks becoming an issue, however, is the need to
consolidate existing hatchery and production technologies of the farmed
species. Although Hawaii leads the Nation in the number of offshore
farms, the methods used to establish broodstock, raise seedstock, and
guard against disease are still in their early stages of development.
Farms are beginning to experience hatchery production and disease
bottlenecks that require solid, scientific investigation. These
problems need to be resolved before the industry can significantly
expand. Sustainability requires constant vigilance and improvement and
has been the basic tenet of all other successful animal agriculture
systems in the U.S. today. The more we know about a species, the better
its production can be managed, and the more efficient production will
be.
Key environmental issues that face the industry include concerns
about water pollution and other effluent impacts, potential genetic and
biological interactions with escaped farmed fish, diseases and
parasites that may be present in the wild that could affect farmed fish
and vice versa, and marine wildlife interactions.
Environmental monitoring of facilities in Hawaii has shown that
water pollution impacts are negligible down-current of existing cages.
Nevertheless, cumulative impacts of multiple cages and expansive growth
of the industry needs to be carefully monitored. New methods need to be
developed to assess those impacts based on sound science.
Genetic interactions between wild fish and those that escape from
cages has been a very controversial issue, particularly as it applies
to the salmon fisheries. It is strongly recommended that offshore
aquaculture be limited to species of the genotype native to the
geographic region. However, programs need not be based on wild
broodstock exclusively. This would severely limit the potential for
reducing the costs and improving the efficiency of offshore aquaculture
production in the long-term. Animals can be bred for faster growth,
improved feed utilization and survival, disease resistance, etc., that
have the biggest impact on break-even costs of offshore operations.
Moreover, selective breeding can be done responsibly to ensure that the
genetic make-up of wild stocks is not adversely affected if (and when)
an accidental release happens.
Selective breeding has been the major reason for improved growth
and production of all other animal agriculture systems and is being
applied in other aquaculture sectors. A case in point is the growing $9
billion worldwide shrimp farming industry. Disease is so rampant among
wild broodstock that the world is now rapidly moving to domesticated
animals bred for disease resistance and other economic characteristics.
Development of disease- (or specific pathogen-free broodstock for
selective breeding, and biosecurity protocols to assist that
development will be key to the long-term future of offshore aquaculture
as well.
It is also recommended for the long-term that a national program of
research be established with centers across the country that are tied
together and focused working on key regional issues that parallel
national needs. The work needs to be well-funded, focused, and
responsive to industry needs. The key areas of research addressed above
include:
Culture (new species; hatchery scale-up; selective breeding
and broodstock management; nutritional requirements,
alternative feeds and ingredients, grow-out densities, etc.);
Disease--of hatchery and offshore growout (pathology,
diagnostics, epidemiology, treatment, biosecurity);
Environmental--addressing genetic as well as organic
pollution issues (explained above).
These areas of research critical to the development of this nascent
industry are not well funded by the government and the private sector
is not in a position to devote the resources necessary to adequately
address these issues.
It is well recognized worldwide that capture harvest of wild
fisheries has reached critical levels and will not be sustainable into
the next decade. With a seafood deficit currently at $8 billion, the
U.S. faces critical issues in being able to meet growing domestic
seafood demands. Great strides have been made in marine aquaculture
technologies in the past decade, and it is now possible to produce many
species of fish in land-based intensive culture systems at costs that
are substantially below those of harvesting wild stocks. Yet,
substantial expansion of land-based aquaculture is limited due to
competing interests for suitable land and because of environmental
concerns. Offshore aquaculture production has been viewed as a means
toward meeting future seafood demands in an environmentally-acceptable
way. It will be the ability to develop capacity (culture research),
avoid disease (disease research), and minimize risk to wild stocks
(genetics research), and the environment (organic pollution research)
that will determine the size of this industry in the future and what it
can do on economic returns, the Nation's food supply, and balance of
trade.
We deeply appreciate the opportunity to provide our perspective on
this important issue and hope these viewpoints are looked upon
favorably as the legislation moves forward.
______
Prepared Statement of Neil Anthony Sims, President, Kona Blue
Dear Senators,
Kona Blue would like to offer the following testimony in relation
to the ``National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2005'' and amendments.
Kona Blue is the first integrated offshore fish farm and marine
hatchery in the U.S. Our operation is based a half-mile off the Kona
Coast, in waters over 200 ft. deep. We are culturing sashimi-grade Kona
KampachiTM. This species is considered a trash fish in the
wild, and so we do not compete with commercial fisheries. As we control
the fish's diet from hatch-to-harvest, we are able to produce a superb
product, rich in heart-healthy Omega-3 fatty-acids, and with no
detectable mercury and no detectable PCBs (at detection levels more
than 20 times the sensitivity of FDA's ``unlimited consumption''
levels).
We are growing a product that is incredibly appealing; it is tasty,
it is the epitome of healthy eating, and it is produced in an
environmentally-sound manner. Monthly tests have found no discernible
difference between the up-current and the down-current water quality
around our offshore pens. We have stocked over 140,000 fish into our
cages over the last year. Presently, we are harvesting around 8,000 lbs
per week, and we have fish in the water to produce over 25,000 lbs per
week by the end of this year.
Our operation in State waters is, we believe, an excellent example
of what could eventually happen in Federal waters if this bill is
passed. We would like to lend our support for the bill.
This nascent industry represents both an opportunity, and an
imperative. It is an opportunity to grow healthful, tasty products in
pristine offshore waters, without impinging on other user group
interests in nearshore areas. It is an opportunity for the U.S. to show
innovation and leadership in an area that offers huge growth potential.
It is an opportunity for the U.S. to develop codes of practice and
environmental standards that could be more broadly applied, to the
betterment of all the world's oceans, and all the world's consumers.
Open ocean aquaculture is also an imperative. Our oceans have been
plundered for too long. As a former fisheries biologist, once charged
with the discouraging task of managing commercial fisheries on
depauperate coral atolls in the South Pacific, I have a keen insight
into the limitations of fishing wild stocks. Aquaculture is clearly the
only viable solution to increasing demand for high-value fish and other
marine products. And the open ocean is the ideal realm for supporting
this needed growth. Rather than simply taking from Nature, we must
ourselves start to nurture.
The fundamental message is that open ocean fish farming does work.
Our Kona Kampachi TM are testament to this fact.
There are certainly challenges, both now, and in the future. New
engineering technologies are needed for efficient and safe operation in
the offshore realm, and major research efforts need to be focused onto
hatchery production and grow-out technologies for new fish species that
could diversify the industry. Perhaps most importantly, the projected
growth in aquaculture worldwide means that alternative sustainable feed
sources need to be developed.
Private companies such as Kona Blue and Cates International are
already pioneering the development of this industry by essentially
investing in prototypes that will be scaleable in Federal waters. By
year's end, Kona Blue will have invested $8M in venture-capital to
bring our operation from plan to profitability.
However, venture-capital-funded start-up companies alone will not
solve the challenges we face. There is a clear and pressing need for
Federal research funds to support the development of this industry.
Federal support for offshore aquaculture research is abysmally low.
Previous sources of research funding that might have assisted (Advanced
Technology Program under NIST, Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program under
NMFS) have been zeroed out in the last few years. NOAA had a total of
only $4M available this year, and received over 220 applications for
research support for open ocean aquaculture development. There needs to
be recognition of the potential for U.S. leadership in this industry.
Federal research funding should be concomitant with that recognition,
and with the size of the U.S. seafood market (around $55 billion).
I would like to provide our perspective, as a functioning offshore
fish farm, on two specific areas of opposition to aquaculture in the
U.S. EEZ: the potential environmental impacts of fish farms, and the
issue of the sustainability of culturing carnivorous fish.
First, our project has demonstrated that the potential
environmental impacts of offshore fish farms are negligible, provided
that projects are sited properly and operated correctly. How are we to
ensure that such a condition is adhered to? There is already an
extensively-tested process for review of projects through NEPA, and
this should become part of the review process for open ocean
aquaculture projects proposed in the EEZ waters. As Hawaii's experience
shows, the public review process works well. The pathway provides ample
opportunity for public input. The public review and consultation that
is part of the EA/EIS process has been shown capable of identifying
project proponents who have selected a less-favorable site, or not
fully thought through the community's concerns, or who have not
invested sufficient time with the various stakeholders to assess what
these concerns might be. The experience here in Hawaii should assure
the public that similar processes in Federal waters will provide
adequate opportunity to address the salient public health and safety,
siting and use conflicts, and environmental and biodiversity concerns
for each project, as it is proposed. These processes should be
transparent to the public, and there should be a single, central
coordinating Federal agency that oversees the review and approval
process.
While the culture of carnivorous fish is much-maligned, the
feedstocks issue should not constrain industry development--or cloud
your decisionmaking--now. As a company committed to sustainability in
all our endeavors, we recognize that feedstock supplies are indeed a
concern in the long-term. Current sources of supply of fish meal and
fish oil are stable, yes, but they are certainly not scaleable. To be
truly sustainable, we must be able to assure future generations that
the practices we adopt can continue.
Recognizing this, our company--in partnership with several feed
companies--is expending considerable funds and effort into developing
replacement diets for our Kona Kampachi TM. We are striving
to incorporate more agricultural grains into our fish diets, as well as
by-products from other seafood processing. Achieving this goal will not
only render our operations more sustainable and profitable in the long-
term, but will also have economic and environmental benefits to the
broader America, beyond the ocean's shores. Wider use of agricultural
grains will bring real economic opportunity to the breadbasket of
America (the sources of soy, wheat, canola and other protein or oil
crops). In addition, waste streams from processing of wild-caught
seafood is presently underutilized, with much of it being diverted to
cat food or chicken food, or sent to fish farms in Japan or China.
Offshore aquaculture is the best possible use of these by-product
proteins and lipids from both an environmental and an economic
perspective.
Considerable, concerted research is needed to address the
challenges of feeding a growing industry, and a Nation hungry for great
seafood. We believe--and we are sure that you will agree--that a
vibrant, innovative offshore fish farming industry is the best engine
to drive the necessary research for resolving these future bottlenecks
in global feedstock supplies. The U.S. offshore aquaculture industry
should not be hamstrung because of these concerns, but should rather be
encouraged to partner with other U.S. industries to address these
issues proactively. Significant Federal support for this critical long-
term research need is also both appropriate, and necessary.
Thank you for your consideration, aloha.
______
Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association; Center for Food
Safety; Cook Inlet Keeper; Environment Maine; Environment
Matters; Environmental Defense; Environmental Defense
Center; Florida Fishermen's Federation; Friends of Casco
Bay; Go Wild Campaign; GRACE Public Fund; Greenpeace; Gulf
Restoration Network; Hawaii Audubon Society; Institute for
Agriculture and Trade Policy; KAHEA; Mangrove Action
Project; Maryland Conservation Council; National
Environmental Trust; Natural Resources Defense Council; The
Ocean Conservancy; Oceana; Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen's Associations; PCC Natural Markets/Sound
Consumer; Public Citizen; Sierra Club; Reef Relief;
Southeastern Fisheries Association; Southern Offshore
Fishing Association; United Anglers of California; U.S.
Salmon Network; United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters;
Versaggi Shrimp Corporation; Whale Center of New England
May 24, 2005
Hon. Ted Stevens,
Hon. Daniel Inouye,
Hon. Olympia Snowe,
Hon. Maria Cantwell,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard Pombo,
Hon. Nick Rahall,
Hon. Wayne Gilchrest,
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Re: Protect Ocean Health and Ensure Responsible Governance,
Do Not Support NOAA's Offshore Aquaculture Bill
Dear Chairs and Ranking Members,
To protect our oceans, native fish populations, and human health
and livelihoods, the above groups urge your leadership to ensure
legislation to promote aquaculture in offshore ocean waters is governed
by a strict regime of scientifically sound regulations. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has drafted legislation
that it intends to soon transmit to Capitol Hill to promote offshore
aquaculture in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. We are concerned that
this legislation is not adequately protective of our oceans, including
fisheries and other ocean uses. We hope you will work with us to ensure
that any offshore aquaculture legislation introduced protects all ocean
interests.
Fish farming and other forms of aquaculture have received
widespread attention, including as posited as a solution to dwindling
wild stocks and the growing U.S. seafood trade deficit. The Department
of Commerce has called for a five-fold increase in domestic aquaculture
production by 2025. We recognize that some types of aquaculture offer
potential benefits. However, without comprehensive Federal permitting
requirements, offshore aquaculture poses numerous serious risks to
marine ecosystems, native fish stocks, and public health. Offshore
finfish farms are vulnerable to the escape of farmed fish, which may
interbreed with and alter the genetic makeup of local fish populations.
Fish farms concentrate parasites and diseases, which can spread to
other fish. Antibiotics and other chemicals used to treat or prevent
these diseases can bring unintended consequences. Large quantities of
uneaten fish feed and wastes are discharged from farms directly into
ocean waters and may pollute the surrounding ecosystems.
Moreover, we question claims that offshore aquaculture supplements
dwindling fish stocks and will reduce the Nation's ``seafood deficit.''
Most marine finfish are carnivores and currently require large
quantities of fisheries products, made largely from wild-caught fish,
in their diets. Farming these marine finfish actually reduces the net
supply of fish. In this way, aquaculture diminishes rather than adds to
fish supplies, and although it might reduce the U.S. seafood deficit in
monetary terms, it does not reduce it in ecological terms. Moreover,
NOAA has not justified its economic claims for reducing the U.S.
seafood trade deficit.
Significantly, NOAA's proposal does not provide adequate safeguards
to ensure our oceans, fisheries, ecosystems and public health are
protected. NOAA has rejected Congressional and stakeholder comments to
include specific precautions and provide further necessary study in
conjunction with its legislation, including requests that the Agency
comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by completing
a Legislative Environmental Impact Statement before submitting its
legislation to Congress. Rather than comply with NEPA, NOAA has ignored
these requests dating from late 2003.
Based on our understanding of NOAA's proposed legislation, specific
concerns shared by our groups include:
Almost total discretion given to NOAA regarding permits and
conditions;
No coordination with other offshore uses such as navigation,
recreation, defense, or fishing except ``to the extent
practicable;''
Lack of baseline environmental protections for incorporation
within permits;
Allowance of genetically modified and non-native fish
species that may compete with and cause harm to native
populations;
No clear process for public or state government
participation in the consideration of permits;
Lack of detailed provisions as required of other offshore
industries making the permittee responsible for the life of the
offshore structures, and providing for general financial and
environmental risks, including bankruptcy;
Lack of critical implementation language regarding
enforcement and no provisions for citizen suits;
Absence of rapid response provisions for known risks, such
as disease outbreaks.
Two recent national commissions, the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission, recommended that ocean uses be
better managed and coordinated. NOAA's bill does not accomplish such
coordination, nor does it adequately protect our oceans. For these
reasons, we urge you to forgo sponsorship of NOAA's proposal at this
time, and to only support legislation which provides sufficient
parameters to ensure our oceans and fisheries are protected, and to
ensure that any aquaculture facilities in public waters enhance, not
diminish, our food supply.
Sincerely,
Catherine Hazlewood, The Ocean Conservancy, Washington, DC.
Tracie Letterman, Center for Food Safety, Washington, DC.
Becky Goldburg, Ph.D., Environmental Defense, Boston, MA.
Zeke Grader, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's
Associations, San Francisco, CA.
Marianne Cufone, Environment Matters, Tampa, FL.
Andrianna Natsoulas, Public Citizen, Washington, DC.
Bob Jones, Southeastern Fisheries Association, Tallahassee,
FL.
Robert Spaeth, Southern Offshore Fishing Association,
Madeira Beach, FL.
Cyn Sarthou, Gulf Restoration Network, New Orleans, LA.
Mark Ritchie, Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy, U.S.
Salmon Network, Minneapolis, MN.
Sal Versaggi, Versaggi Shrimp Corporation, Tampa, FL.
Kate Wing, Natural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco,
CA.
Mike Hirshfield Ph.D., Oceana, Washington, DC.
Anne Mosness, Go Wild Campaign, Bellingham, WA.
Linda Behnken, Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association,
Sitka, AK.
Linda Paul, Hawaii Audubon Society, Honolulu, HI.
Eric Wickham, Canadian Sablefish Association, Vancouver, BC
Canada.
Caroline Karp, Sierra Club, Exeter, RI.
Kenneth Duckett, United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters,
Ketchikan, AK.
Matthew Davis, Environment Maine, Portland, ME.
Bob Shavelson, Cook Inlet Keeper, Homer, AK.
Tracy Wolpert, Randy Lee, Trudy Bialic, PCC Natural Markets/
Sound Consumer, Seattle, WA.
Andrea Kavanagh, National Environmental Trust, Washington,
DC.
Ray Pringle, Florida Fishermen's Federation, Panacea, FL.
Cha Smith, KAHEA, The Hawaiian Environmental Alliance,
Honolulu, HI.
Joseph E. Payne, Casco Baykeeper, Friends of Casco Bay,
South Portland, ME.
Alfredo Quarto, Mangrove Action Project, Port Angeles, WA.
Alice Slater, GRACE Public Fund, New York, NY.
Paul G. Johnson, Reef Relief, Crawfordville, FL.
Mason Weinrich, Whale Center of New England, Gloucester, MA.
Bob Strickland, United Anglers of California, San Jose, CA.
Mary P. Marsh, Maryland Conservation Council, Annapolis, MD.
Brian Trautwein, Environmental Defense Center, Santa
Barbara, CA.
John Hocevar, Greenpeace, Washington, DC.
______
Prepared Statement of The Ocean Conservancy
We are writing to register The Ocean Conservancy's (TOC) concerns
regarding the National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2005 (S. 1195) as
introduced, and to offer recommendations for improving the bill. While
the development of offshore aquaculture may have significant potential,
it also has significant risks. To protect human health, native fish and
wildlife populations, and ocean ecosystems, TOC believes that
aquaculture in ocean waters must be accompanied by a stringent
statutory and regulatory framework.
We appreciate your efforts, as well as those of many of your
colleagues, to ensure environmental standards are developed to
accompany any legislative authorization of this new ocean use. As it
stands, S. 1195 is strongly weighted toward the promotion of commerce.
It fails to provide adequate criteria and standards to guide NOAA in
accounting for other interests, such as the protection of wild stocks,
protection of the environment, and coordination of other uses. In fact,
without your amendment upon introduction, even the duty to develop
standards would have been left solely to the discretion of the agency.
In this context, we would appreciate your consideration of our
comments on the bill as introduced. We look forward to working with you
to develop a more effective and efficient management regime that will
safeguard the environment and the public trust.
Background
The potential of open ocean aquaculture is promoted as a solution
to the ocean's diminishing resources. However, it also poses
significant risks, including escapement of fish, damage to the
surrounding environment, harmful effects on native fish populations,
and pollution. These risks, and their consequences, are largely
dependent upon the location of the operation, its size or scope, the
stringency and comprehensiveness of the management practices, the
capacity of the receiving water body, and the choice of species to be
raised in a particular area.
Both the Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy recommended that Congress improve the governance framework to
address the many challenges and risks associated with the development
of offshore aquaculture.
Risk of Escapement of Potentially Invasive Species
In our view, the single greatest ecological and economic threat
associated with a rise in offshore aquaculture is the potential to
introduce potentially invasive species to the surrounding ecosystem and
nearby coastal communities. According to the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) and the Fish and U.S. Wildlife Service (FWS), escapes
are resulting in harmful interactions with native fish. These
interactions include competition with wild stock for food, habitat and
mates, genetic modification of wild stocks through inter-breeding, and
transfer of potentially deadly diseases and parasites to wild stocks.
The potential for escapement of farmed fish is greater in
facilities sited further offshore, where containment structures face
increased exposure to wind and wave power as well as to predators.
Offshore structures pose unique challenges for monitoring as well as
rapid response in the event of escapement. Additionally, many of the
species favored for offshore aquaculture use are highly pelagic, and
consequently, once they escape, are capable of traveling thousands of
miles.
Moreover, we currently have no way of determining in advance which
species that escape into the wild are likely to cause harm. No common
statutory definition of invasive species exists; nor has the Federal
Government implemented comprehensive screening protocols to discern
which non-native or genetically modified species have the potential to
become invasive upon introduction into a given environment. Therefore,
the utilization of non-native species in offshore aquaculture
facilities is dangerously premature.
Additional Biological Threats
Offshore aquaculture presents numerous additional biological
threats to ocean ecosystems. The excreta from an average floating cage
farm can produce nutrients equal to a city of 7,500.\1\ Depending upon
pollutant composition and the cumulative effects of similar cages in a
particular area, discharges may present harmful effects on the
surrounding environment. Additionally, outbreaks of diseases and
parasites are a constant risk because the density of fish in
aquaculture operations is so much higher than in nature. Diseases in
farmed salmon have been found to significantly threaten the health and
vitality of nearby migrating wild stocks. Farmed species, depending
upon species and diet, can even present increased public health risks
to the people who consume them.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See What's Behind That Farmed Salmon Steak? Salmon Nation
(2002) at http://www.salmonnation.com/farmed.html, citing David Suzuki
Foundation, (2002) Ocean Pollution from Salmon Farming, http://
www.davidsuzuki.org/Oceans/Fish_Farming/Salmon/Pollution.asp.
\2\ See Hites, et. al, Global Assessment of Organic Contaminants in
Farmed Salmon, 203 Science at 226 (concentrations of PCBs, toxaphene,
and dieldrine have been found to be significantly greater in farmed
salmon species than in wild species, and applications of risk indicates
risks may detract from beneficial effects of consumption).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aquaculture operations also may require dredging, drilling, the use
of large heavy anchors, and other disturbances to sediment and bottom
habitats, which can displace ocean wildlife, smother bottom-dwelling
animals, destroy hiding places for young fish, and cause other
ecological changes to the sea floor. Finally, aquaculture may create an
incentive to overexploit targeted wild fish populations to provide
inexpensive feed for farmed fish.\3\ Farming carnivorous marine fish
such as salmon currently represents a net loss of fish protein.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``An annual production of 1 million mt of farm fish may require
1-5 million mt of compounded feed, depending upon its formula and
conversion rates . . . For carnivorous fish, like most marine species,
feeds contain proteins mostly of animal origin, particularly high
quality fish meal and fish oil.'' Achieving policy objectives to
increase the value of the seafood industry in the United States: the
technical feasibility and associated constraints, C.E. Nash, 29 Food
Policy 621-641 (2004).
\4\ ``[A]bout two to five times more wild-caught fish are used in
feeds than are harvested from aquaculture,'' Future seascapes, fishing,
and fish farming, R. Goldburg and R. Naylor, 3(1) Front. Ecol Environ,
21-28, p. 23 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lack of Capacity of Regulatory Regime to Address Risks
Unfortunately, current regulations and mitigation strategies are
simply inadequate to guide the aquaculture industry or manage its
risks. Regulatory agencies with overlapping and conflicting authority
have thus far demonstrated significant confusion regarding
environmental requirements, siting considerations, leasing procedures
and jurisdictional responsibility. Without careful legislative
coordination of NOAA's jurisdiction and responsibilities with those of
other agencies, we believe problems will persist, with potentially
serious environmental consequences.
For these reasons, clear, coordinated and comprehensive standards
must accompany the development of this new ocean use. This is
especially critical given the projected growth of the industry: the
U.S. Department of Commerce has called for aquaculture production in
the United States to increase fivefold by 2025.\5\ In this context, the
remainder of our comments will address our specific concerns with the
bill as introduced, organized section-by-section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See, Biliana Cicin-Sain and Robert W. Knecht, Development of a
Policy Framework for Offshore Marine Aquaculture in the 3-200 Mile U.S.
Ocean Zone (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 2. Findings
As currently drafted, the findings of Congressional policy in this
section generally promote the development of aquaculture while
incorporating too little acknowledgement of either its risks or its
effects on other ocean uses. We encourage the Committee to ensure this
policy reflects a more balanced perspective on the development of a new
ocean use and its relationship to other ocean uses and the marine
environment.
Section 3. Definitions
Section 3(1) defines ``demonstration'' to include both pilot scale-
testing of aquaculture science and technologies, or farm-scale
research. We believe generally this definition is too vague to give
sufficient guidance. ``[P]ilot scale,'' ``science,'' ``technologies,''
and ``farm-scale research'' are potentially subjective terms not
defined further in the bill. We would encourage you to clarify these
terms to ensure even demonstration projects are conducted in an
ecologically protective manner.
Section 4. Offshore Aquaculture Permits
Generally speaking, we would like to see section 4 amended to
provide a framework to ensure offshore aquaculture is well coordinated
with other ocean uses and protects the public trust. This section
directs the Secretary of Commerce to establish a site and operating
permit process to make areas of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
available to persons to develop and operate offshore aquaculture
facilities. However, it leaves to agency discretion particular
procedures to be followed, including timing of regulatory processes,
and scope and criteria for decisions.
Legislation Should Include a Method for Initially Determining Suitable
Areas for Aquaculture
We recommend that the Committee include a more comprehensive siting
process than the proposed lease-by-lease, operation-by-operation
approach. Although subsection (b) requires the Secretary to specify in
a site permit the size and location of an offshore aquaculture facility
and, under subsection (d), to consult with other Federal agencies to
ensure that an offshore aquaculture facility is compatible with other
uses of the EEZ, the bill lacks a mechanism to determine, in advance of
individual operation-by-operation siting decisions, where offshore
aquaculture is, and is not, appropriate. The process we envision would
clearly articulate criteria and a process for NOAA to follow in
establishing zones appropriate for development of aquaculture leases
and operations that also would not interfere with other ocean uses,
such as shipping channels and commercial fisheries.
Legislation Should Prohibit the Permitting of Commercial Operations
Until NOAA has Promulgated Necessary Regulations
We also urge you to include language prohibiting the issuance of
any aquaculture permits under this section until the agency has
promulgated comprehensive regulations to guide its decision-making. The
timely establishment of clear, consistent, and enforceable regulations
is critical for both the public and industry.
Legislation Should Ban the Use of Non-native or Genetically Modified
Species in
Offshore Aquaculture
For the reasons articulated in the background section to these
comments, we oppose the use of non-native or transgenic species in
offshore aquaculture. Some states, including Maine, California,
Washington and Oregon have already implemented such prohibitions in
legislation to protect state waters, while other states such as Alaska
more broadly prohibit the development of offshore aquaculture in state
waters. We urge you to amend section 4 to prohibit the use of non-
native species and transgenic species in section 4 of S. 1195.
Section 5. Environmental Requirements
Legislation Must Include Strong, Clear Operational and Site Permitting
Requirements
We are concerned that S. 1195 establishes few parameters to guide
agency consideration of the ecological impacts of aquaculture
facilities. Although subsection (4)(c) authorizes the Secretary to
issue operating permits under ``such terms and conditions as the
Secretary shall prescribe'' and subsection (4)(d) directs the Secretary
to ``consult as appropriate'' with other Federal agencies to ensure
that offshore aquaculture facilities meet the environmental
requirements established under section 5(a) of the bill, section 5(a)
does not establish any new requirements. Instead, it simply directs the
Secretary to consult with other Federal agencies to identify the
environmental requirements applicable to offshore aquaculture under
existing laws and regulations. Although the bill authorizes the
Secretary to establish additional environmental requirements, the
process for consultation with other stakeholders as well as the content
of any such additional requirements is left to the discretion of the
Secretary. Furthermore, subparagraph (d)(6) requires only that the
Secretary ``periodically review'' the criteria for issuance of site and
operating permits.
We recommend that the Committee include standards in the bill for
siting and operating permits that are precautionary, comprehensive,
clear, and legally binding. Specifically, we recommend that such
standards address the following general issues:
Siting
Description of site characteristics, and proximity to other
ocean uses;
Consideration of cumulative effects of similar facilities in
an ecosystem;
Prioritization of ocean uses such that aquaculture does not
unreasonably interfere with other ocean uses, such as the
protection of a sensitive marine environment, popular
recreational fishery, or vessel lane used in commercial
fishing;
Requirements that facilities be designed and operated to
prevent escapes and interactions with wild species.
Cultured Species
Proposed sources for organisms to be grown at the site;
Procedures for the introduction of fish stocks to stock
facilities, including brood stock quarantine, limited
introduction of first-generation progeny to assess interactions
with native species in open waters, and continued study of the
introduced organisms in their new environment;
Maximum allowed density, numbers and biomass of fish allowed
in a particular type of structure;
Minimization of the use of fishmeal and fish oils in feeds.
Pollution Standards
An analysis of the quality of the receiving waters (with
bioassays, as appropriate). Analysis of the potential for
pollutant transport by biological, physical or chemical
processes, and availability of alternatives to pollutant
discharge from the facility;
Development and application of water quality criteria and
pollutant effluent limits established by the Environmental
Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act;
Requirements that the use of drugs and chemicals be
minimized and that detailed records be kept on all drugs and
chemicals used in an aquaculture facility, including the
amounts used and frequency applied. Drugs, pesticides, and
other chemicals not authorized and registered by the Food and
Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency for
the particular use should be specifically prohibited. In
addition, drug and chemical records should be available to the
public at all times;
A detailed plan in the event of escapement to rapidly
respond, including tagging and notification procedures.
Monitoring and Permitting
Minimum standards for record keeping, including records of
the total number of each species grown and harvested, and
specific maintenance and inspection procedures carried out;
Ongoing monitoring of benthic habitat and water quality both
in and immediately surrounding the containment structure;
Limitations on the duration of permits and a specific
timeframe for review of criteria for the issuance of site and
operating permits. Specifically, the legislation should provide
for an initial period for an operating period that is
economically and environmentally reasonable, not to exceed 8
years. Once that initial period has elapsed, operating permits
should be reviewed and renewed at least every 5 years.
Similarly, criteria for the issuance of site and operating
permits should be reviewed not less than once every 4 years;
Bonding procedures to ensure restoration of the site and
financial liability of the owner/operator of the facility.
In sum, given the risks associated with offshore aquaculture, we
believe it should be carefully regulated from its inception to ensure
its economic and environmental success.
Section 6. Research and Development
S. 1195 allows the Secretary to conduct research and development to
advance technologies that are compatible with the protection of marine
ecosystems. We believe this work should be carried out in close
coordination with other relevant agencies. We also note that while many
international, national and state governments have implemented
recommended management measures drawing upon existing science, NMFS has
not yet promulgated best management practices under existing law. We
urge the Committee to direct NMFS to develop and publish such research
in time to help guide development and promulgation of regulations under
section 4 of the bill.
Section 7. Administration
We believe S. 1195 should establish reasonable timelines and
deadlines for the promulgation of regulations necessary to administer
this program. As outlined earlier, we believe that the bill should make
clear that permitting for commercial aquaculture facilities may not
proceed until NMFS has promulgated those regulations.
Additionally, we request that the Committee amend subsection (c) to
detail processes for resolving disputes that may that arise in
decisionmaking. Other than requirements that the Secretary consult with
other relevant agencies ``as appropriate'' (section 4(d)(1)) and the
requirement to obtain ``concurrence'' (section 4(a)(2)) from the
Department of Interior on some decisions, the bill currently does not
articulate a process for resolving interagency disputes.
Despite the language of subsection (f), subsection (g) takes the
highly unusual step of authorizing the Secretary to apply the
provisions of any other Federal statute to offshore aquaculture
facilities if the Secretary determines that it is in the public
interest. In our view, Congress, and not the Secretary, should
determine in the first instance whether those laws apply to offshore
aquaculture facilities.
Similarly, subsection (h) would Federalize the law of the nearest
adjacent coastal states even for state laws that have not yet been
adopted. Although we appreciate that state resources may be adversely
affected by aquaculture operations in Federal waters, and support
states' ability to adopt more stringent laws governing such facilities,
subsection (h) is not an adequate substitute for a sufficiently
comprehensive and stringent Federal program.
Section 8. Authorization of Appropriations
Section 8 authorizes to be appropriated to the Secretary such sums
as are necessary to carry out the Act. Although this section gives the
appropriators wide latitude, an authorization for a specific dollar
amount in each of the Fiscal Years authorized by the Act would give the
members of the appropriations committee and the public some indication
of the resources needed to fully and effectively implement this
program. We suggest that this section also include specific
authorizations for research and the promulgation of regulations.
Section 10. Enforcement Provisions
We urge the Committee to clarify the circumstances and use of
available enforcement authority. We urge the Committee to incorporate a
citizen suit provision, similar to those utilized in other Federal
statutes regulating biological pollution.
Section 11. Civil Enforcement and Permit Sanctions
We urge the Committee to consider including a liability in rem
provision.
Section 13. Forfeitures
We urge the Committee to include language ensuring that forfeited
resources made available for sale do not endanger public health.
Conclusion
Thank you for your efforts to ensure that offshore aquaculture is
guided by strong environmental standards. We look forward to working
with you to advance legislation that would ensure prudent, consistent,
and responsible controls on the siting and operations of open ocean
aquaculture facilities.
______
April 4, 2006
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Boxer:
In light of the upcoming Senate National Ocean Policy Study (NOPS)
subcommittee hearing on offshore aquaculture, the undersigned
organizations, representing consumer and conservation organizations,
recreational and commercial fishing groups and business interests,
would like to share our concerns about legislation to allow permitting
of commercial offshore aquaculture in Federal waters without adequate
safeguards for protecting marine ecosystems, wild-fish populations,
consumer health and the economic livelihood of fishing businesses and
communities. We therefore ask that you oppose the National Offshore
Aquaculture Act (S. 1195)--introduced on June 8, 2005 at the request of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)--and any
similar future proposal until pertinent questions are answered.
We recognize that some types of aquaculture offer potential
benefits; however, independent reports from two recent blue ribbon
commissions, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans
Commission, highlight the threats that farming carnivorous finfish,
such as cod, halibut and red snapper, can pose to the environment and
native fish populations. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy's report
cites numerous concerns, including the spread of disease and parasites;
genetic ``contamination'' and competition between wild- and farmed-fish
populations; degradation of water quality; harm to marine mammals;
increased pressure on already-exploited fisheries from an increased
demand for fishmeal and oil; and the possible introduction of non-
native or genetically-modified species. The Pew Oceans Commission
recommended a moratorium on offshore fish farming until such concerns
are addressed.
The issues raised by offshore aquaculture development are not just
environmental, but also include the impacts on fishermen and women. In
the 1990s, increased imports of low-cost farmed salmon substantially
depressed commercial salmon prices, contributing to financial
instability for many fishing families and fisheries-dependent
businesses. Yet NOAA appears to be promoting offshore aquaculture
without consideration of such impacts. To our knowledge, NOAA has not
analyzed the potential socioeconomic impacts of offshore aquaculture
development, nor has the agency articulated a strategy to minimize or
balance the impacts offshore aquaculture will have on the livelihoods
of U.S. commercial fishermen and women.
S. 1195 gives NOAA the authority to issue permits for the
construction of private fish farms, or marine aquaculture operations,
in federal waters from three to 200 miles from shore. Unfortunately,
this bill does not address the problems with offshore aquaculture and
instead allows the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with other
Federal agencies, to fast-track the permitting of large commercial fish
farms with little protection for the marine environment, consumers or
fishing businesses and communities. For example, the bill fails to
require the Secretary to conduct appropriate mapping, planning or
zoning to minimize conflicting uses or protect sensitive areas and
ecosystems. The bill gives the Secretary nearly unlimited discretion to
determine the siting- and operating-permit conditions, including the
environmental criteria, if any, that apply to facilities. It provides
no requirements for tagging, tracking or monitoring of fish farms to
assess their impacts on wild fisheries or on consumer health. Contrary
to the laws of several states, the bill fails to prohibit the raising
of genetically modified and non-native fish species, and it provides
for little or no oversight from the public, states or fishery
management councils.
Moreover, NOAA has refused repeated requests from a number of the
organizations below to conduct a Legislative Environmental Impact
Statement on the bill, as required by the National Environmental Policy
Act, so that Congress can begin to assess the effects of offshore fish
farming before voting on this major change to the management of our
ocean resources.
In short, S. 1195 is an example of a bill that lacks safeguards
necessary to protect marine ecosystems, including marine fisheries. We
therefore urge you to oppose S. 1195. We would be happy to discuss our
concerns further and to work with you to protect our oceans and
America's fisheries.
Sincerely,
Organizations/Associations
George A. Kimbrell, Center for Food Safety.
Beth Fitzgerald, Greenpeace USA.
Wenonah Hauter, Food and Water Watch.
Gerry Leape, National Environmental Trust.
Kate Wing, National Resource Defense Council.
Tim Eichenberg, The Ocean Conservancy.
Caroline Gibson, Pacific Marine Conservation Council.
Linda Behnken, Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association, AK.
Dorothy Childers, Alaska Marine Conservation Council, AK.
Sharry Miller, Prince William Soundkeeper, AK.
Chris Zimmer, Transboundary Watershed Alliance, AK.
Kenneth Duckett, United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters, AK.
Becca Robbins, Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association,
AK.
Kathy Hansen, Southeast Alaska Fishermen's Alliance, AK.
John L. Wathen, Hurricane Creekkeeper, Inc., AL.
Erich Pfuehler, Clean Water Action, CA.
Dan Jacobson, Environment California, CA.
Nadananda, Friends of the Eel River, CA.
Marianne Cufone, Environment Matters, FL.
Frank Carl, Executive Director, Savannah Riverkeeper, GA.
Cha Smith, KAHEA: The Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance, HI.
Tracy Kuhns, Association of Family Fishermen, LA.
Cyn Sarthou, Gulf Restoration Network, LA.
Michael Roberts, Louisiana Bayoukeeper, LA.
Peter Baker, Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's
Association, MA.
Marine and Fish Conservation Program, Institute for
Agriculture and Trade Policy, MN.
Bill Schultz, Raritan Riverkeeper, NJ.
Ken Hinman, National Coalition for Marine Conservation, VA.
Alaska Independent Fishermen's Marketing, Association, WA.
Anne Mosness, Go Wild Campaign, WA.
Stephen Taufen, Groundswell Fisheries Movement, WA.
Alfredo Quarto, Mangrove Action Project, WA.
Chuck Owens, Peninsula Citizens for the Protection of
Whales, WA.
Businesses
William T. Black, F/V Carol M, AK.
Gulkana Seafoods-Direct, AK.
Tom Waterer, Nautilus Marine, Inc., AK.
Norman Van Vactor, Bristol Bay Manager, Peter Pan Seafoods,
AK.
William (Bill) Webber, Webber Marine & Mfg., Inc., AK.
Robert A. Bonanno, F/V Night Train II, CA.
Chris White, F/V Vulcan, ID.
Peter Girvan, F/V Karma, UT.
Paul Gilliland, Managing Director, Bering Select Seafoods
Company, WA.
Nadine LaPira-Wolos, Bristol Bay Wild 'N Red Salmon, WA.
Clipper Seafoods, Ltd, WA.
Jay Follman, F/V Erika Lynn, WA.
Fisher's Choice Wild Salmon, WA.
Buck Meloy, Flopping Fresh Fish Company, WA.
John Jovanovich, Jovanovich Supply Company, WA.
Justin Marx, Marx Imports, WA.
Ron Richards, F/V Ocean Dancer, WA.
Tracy Wolpert, Chief Executive Officer, PCC Natural Markets,
WA.
John R. Adams, President, Seattle General Agency Inc., WA.
Warren ``Buck'' Gibbons, President, Wildcatch, Inc., WA.
______
Prepared Statement of The Pacific Coast Federation
of Fishermen's Associations
At the urging of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), Senate Bill 1195, the National Ocean Aquaculture Act of 2005
(NOAA Bill) was introduced last June. The Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen's Associations and the Institute for Fisheries Resources
write to oppose NOAA's NOAA Bill as currently drafted. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations
represents working fishing men and women in the West Coast commercial
fishing fleet. The Institute for Fisheries Resources is a non-profit
organization dedicated to the protection and restoration of fish
resources and the human economies that depend on them and is engaged in
research, public outreach and education regarding marine and anadromous
fish resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historic Overview
Aquaculture, or fish farming, has existed for some 3,000 years or
more. In marine settings it is sometimes referred to as mariculture. It
has been used for the rearing of fish, shellfish and aquatic plants for
a portion of a species' life (e.g., public mitigation hatcheries) or
for the entire life of the species (e.g., commercial salmon netpen
operations). The Chinese, for example, often raised carp in ponds as an
integral part of their other farming operations. Along France's
Atlantic Coast, Bretons have cultured oysters for centuries. Trout
farms (mostly private) have existed for more than a century in North
America, used to stock lakes and rivers for sport fishing and produce
food fish.
Since the 1870s, hatcheries (mostly public) have been built to
supplement salmon runs, rearing fish for release into the wild. Salmon
hatcheries have been widely used in the west to mitigate for fish
losses attributable to the construction and operation of the large
Federal dam projects. These hatcheries spawn adult fish returning from
the wild, and hatch and raise the progeny anywhere from a few months to
a year before releasing them into the wild. In some of the more
``highly developed'' (i.e., dammed) watersheds, over half of the fish
released in the wild may have come from hatchery production.
Although aquaculture in various forms has been around for thousands
of years, a major push has come about in the past thirty years to
greatly expand its scope and forms. Governments have begun looking for
ways to supplement wild fish production, which in some cases has been
stagnant or falling. Governments have promoted fish farms to create new
jobs in high unemployment rural areas, much as Norway did when it began
pushing salmon farms in coastal villages. Still others began calling
for a ``blue revolution,'' following agriculture's ``green revolution''
(or not so green), claiming it was needed to increase world food
production.
Some large food corporations and grocery chains have been attracted
to the controlled nature of aquaculture operations as a means of
profiting from the public's appetite for such things as shrimp and
salmon by providing these products without being limited to natural
seasons. Mariculture has attracted fishery biologists as a tool to lure
government or private research grants. Moreover, it has even caught the
attention of oil companies looking for a use for their offshore
platforms once the wells went dry. These companies, obligated under
their leases to remove the old structures and clean up the seafloor,
have looked for ways to use the structures for other purposes (e.g.,
``rigs-to-reefs''), in order to evade their obligations under the
leases and save the millions of dollars required for removal and clean-
up.
If, in fact, aquaculture is a food production technology that has
been around for centuries, with new operations utilizing cutting edge
technology, and all this in furtherance of increasing food production
and even taking pressure off wild fisheries which could help the U.S.
reduce or eliminate its ``seafood deficit,'' then what is the problem?
Let's have a closer look.
The Nature of the Problems
Although aquaculture is currently the fastest-growing type of food
production in the world, and holds the illusion of vastly increasing
the world supply of fish, shellfish and aquatic plant life, it has a
number of hazards that cannot be ignored. While the promise remains,
the problems identified below call for a more careful approach to its
development, where the pre-cautionary principle should be the guiding
force.
1. Pollution. The use of net pens and other ``open'' systems (e.g.,
cages) in the marine environment means waste from aquaculture
operations ends up being disposed of, often in high concentrations, in
open waters. Since the fish in such operations are highly concentrated,
waste is a significant problem compared to that of fish in the wild.
The situation is somewhat analogous to a comparison of the waste
problem between a cattle feedlot and cattle grazing on open rangeland.
Pollution from salmon netpen operations, for example, has created
anaerobic conditions under the pens with nothing living on the seabed
below. Pollution will also emanate from closed systems when the
wastewater from aquaculture is not properly treated before being
discharged. The pollution is generally attributed to three sources:
Fecal Material. Fecal matter from highly concentrated
numbers of fish in pens, or other forms of containment, builds
up and cannot be readily absorbed by the environment (as it is
when fish are swimmingly freely in the wild). A leading
scientist that supports the aquaculture industry wrote a paper
indicating that a fish farm of 200,000 fish produces as much of
some types of sewage as almost 65,000 people. Many farms now
have over 1,000,000 fish and British Columbia has over 100
farms.
Feed and Medicines. Uneaten fish feed collects on the ocean
floor. This uneaten feed in high concentrations, like fecal
matter (which can also carry disease or parasites), can result
in anaerobic conditions. Moreover, the feed may contain
medicines intended for the farmed fish, such as antibiotics
needed to combat disease when fish are held in concentrated
situations over a period of time.
Pesticides/Fungicides. Pesticides and fungicides are
occasionally used in aquaculture operations to control
parasites (such as sea lice that may attach to the fish), as an
anti-fungal agent or to control algae and other growth on the
meshes of net pens or other containment facilities. Even in
oyster culture operations, usually considered sustainable and
environmentally benign, there have been problems when growers
(e.g., Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor, Washington) sprayed beds
with the pesticide carbaryl, aimed at killing burrowing shrimp
populations.
2. Spread of Disease, Parasites. Aquaculture operations in contact
with the ocean environment can infect wild fish populations, putting
native stocks at risk. There have been numerous instances where disease
from trout farms has infected wild salmon in rivers. In California,
wild populations of abalone were infected with and nearly destroyed by
a disease called ``withering foot syndrome'' as a result of out
planting of aquacultured abalone from South Africa. An infestation of
sea lice from salmon netpen operations in British Columbia infected
juvenile wild pink salmon, having a devastating impact on that
population of native fish. These scenarios appear all over the world
including in Norway and Scotland as the same open net pen technology is
being employed throughout.
3. Habitat Loss. Some aquaculture operations have resulted in
significant habitat losses. The types of losses vary with each
operation. Salmon netpen facilities, as mentioned above, have damaged
or destroyed seafloor ecosystems as a result of pollution. The clearing
of mangroves to establish farmed shrimp operations has acted to destroy
these natural habitats for fish and other marine life, as well as
eliminate important coastal barriers that provide low lying lands with
protection from ocean storms and tsunamis.
4. Escape. The escape of farmed fish from finfish mariculture
facilities is a frequent occurrence. Since their establishment along
the eastern shore of Vancouver Island and the southern mainland waters,
millions of Atlantic salmon have escaped from British Columbia
mariculture farms. Netpens, anchored in coastal waters are the
predominant type of facility used for farming salmon and are vulnerable
to storms and accidents. In Scotland, over a million farmed salmon
escaped in January 2004, following the storm damage done to the netpens
and over a million farmed salmon escaped in July 2004 from farms in
Chile, also due to severe storms. Programs to recover escaped farmed
fish exist, but are only marginally successful. Moreover, as is the
case in Canada, the costs for such programs are usually borne by
taxpayers, not the aquaculturists.
At first blush, the escape of farmed fish into the wild may not
seem to be a problem. Aren't hatchery fish, after all, released into
the wild for purposes of mitigation or enhancement? The problem is the
types of fish or shellfish being raised are not always the same as
native stocks, and become non-native invasive species when they enter
the wild. Atlantic salmon, for example, are neither native to the
Pacific, nor the southern hemisphere, yet they are being raised in
netpens in the Pacific in both the northern and southern hemispheres,
where they can, and do, escape into the wild to compete with wild
stocks or spread disease.
Even utilizing native broodstock in mariculture operations, as has
been ordered in the State of Maine for salmon farms, does not
completely address the escape problem. Farmed fish, after generations
of being raised in aquaculture facilities, begin to differ genetically
from their wild cousins through a process of directional selection. The
end product, most notably, is the loss of genetic diversity and the
traits needed for fish to survive in the wild. The four principle
problems presented by escaped farmed fish are:
Predation. Predation by farmed fish on native fish stocks,
particularly juvenile wild fish, can be deleterious to wild
populations. The introduction of farmed fish into the wild
upsets existing marine ecosystem predator-prey relationships.
Competition. Escaped farmed fish are potential competitors
with wild fish for forage or habitat.
Interbreeding. Where farmed fish are the same species as
natives in the wild, there is a danger of their interbreeding.
The problem here is that farmed fish, which may be lacking the
traits for survival in the wild, could weaken wild populations
through interbreeding. The interbreeding of hatchery and
natural-spawning fish, for example, has led to changes in
salmon hatchery practices. The problem is magnified, however,
with farmed fish that, unlike hatchery fish, are intended to
live their complete life in captivity and display fewer natural
survival traits than fish released into the wild from
hatcheries.
Colonization. There is a danger, too, that escaped non-
native fish can establish self-sustaining populations in the
wild. In British Columbia, for example, despite denials by the
government, Atlantic salmon have been found spawning in several
B.C. streams, producing a second generation. It is not simply a
matter of one type of salmon replacing another; the non-native
invasive Atlantic salmon spawn at different times and in
different numbers than Pacific salmon, causing further adverse
effects on the natural balance.
Another issue related to escapes are plans for the use of
genetically-engineered (``transgenic'' or ``genetically-modified'')
fish/shellfish in aquaculture operations. One U.S. Company, Aqua
Bounty, is currently awaiting Food & Drug Administration approval for
use of its genetically modified Atlantic salmon in fish farm
operations. These fish are modified to grow up to seven times faster
than a normal salmon through the introduction of a growth regulating
gene from an Atlantic pout and a Pacific Chinook salmon.
The faster growth would allow fish farmers to bring fish to market
much quicker and, in theory, reduce their costs. Aqua Bounty, which is
working as well on genetically modified shrimp, has also submitted an
application to the Canadian Government for approval of the use of its
fish in that nation's salmon farms. Genetically modified zebra fish
(``Glo Fish'') have already been approved in most states for use in
home aquariums (aquariums are a major source of aquatic invasive
species). It is seen as just a matter of time before GE fish begin
finding their way into aquaculture operations, whether in the U.S. or
other nations.
It is nothing but foolhardy to allow genetically modified fish into
the wild. The impact of GE fish getting loose into the wild from
aquaculture operations is yet unknown, but the fact that it has been
impossible to contain genetically modified corn or soy from spreading
into the wild, does not bode well for attempts to prevent the spread of
GE fish from aquaculture facilities into the wild, particularly from
operations in coastal or open ocean waters.
5. Displacement of Fishing Communities. Aquaculture operations vie
for space in coastal zones with traditional fishing operations. This
competition for space has caused the displacement of fishing
communities along the southern coast of Chile, where salmon farms have
removed access to or destroyed fishing areas of Chile's artisanal
fishermen. In much of Central America and South Asia, shrimp farms have
also displaced fishermen. In California, proposed abalone farms in the
middle of Pillar Point, just south of San Francisco, threaten to remove
an anchorage needed by fishing vessels and pleasure craft seeking
refuge from storms. Even in the open ocean, depending on placement,
structures created for aquaculture operations could displace fishermen
from critical fishing grounds.
6. Impairment/Endangerment of Traditional Maritime Activities.
Depending on where and how they are located and the sheer number,
aquaculture structures in the ocean could impede navigation and, as
noted above, interfere with or impair fishing activities. Although not
normally considered impairment, the location of visible aquaculture
structures could also affect land values. The proposed wind farm
offshore Cape Cod, for example, has drawn criticism for impairing
views; the same could be said for certain types of aquaculture
structures. Coastal and open ocean aquaculture structures, particularly
those that are floating, could endanger fishing operations and maritime
activities when the structures, on the surface or submerged, break
loose and become navigational hazards.
7. Net Loss of Protein. Aquaculture is being promoted as a means of
increasing the production of fish, thereby expanding the world's food
supply. The problem is that much of the aquaculture taking place today,
and most of that proposed for open ocean waters, will actually decrease
the amount of edible, usable protein available. The types of
mariculture being considered, from the tuna ranching ``feed lots''
(capturing tuna in the wild and holding and feeding them in pens, until
suitably ``fattened'' for market), to coastal net pens and open ocean
cages, involve finfish and most of those are carnivorous. This means
these fish have to be fed other fish, usually a meal made into pellets
from species such as menhaden, anchovy, herring, pilchards and other
smaller fish. Yet even under the best feed-to-meat ratio, between 3:1
and 5:1 for salmon and 17:1 for tuna, for example, more of these small
fish have to be harvested and processed to produce a lesser amount of
the final product. As a result, fishing pressure actually intensifies
on wild stocks instead of being reduced, causing an effect opposite to
what the aquaculture proponents often claim.
Much of the fish being taken for meal, such as anchovy, herring and
pilchards, are perfectly good fish in themselves for the dinner plate
and are, in fact, the staple of the diet of many coastal communities.
Industrial fishmeal fleets, in nations such as Peru, threaten the
smaller artisanal fisheries that supply the local communities their
food. This raises the question: Is aquaculture about impoverishing, or
subjecting to malnutrition, communities in developing nations to feed
gluttonous consumers in first world countries? Why grind up five pounds
of good sardines or anchovy to get one pound of farmed salmon?
Aquaculture proponents point to the fact that salmon are one of the
most efficient animals at converting feed to protein. The problem is
they are converting usable protein to usable protein with a loss of
about 70 percent in the conversion. Compare that to ``less efficient''
cattle that convert grass to protein, admittedly at much higher ratios,
but are converting a feed (grass) to protein in ways that most other
animals are incapable of doing, and the argument for salmon efficiency
begins to break down. One of the solutions offered up to address the
fishmeal issue has been to feed carnivorous fish more plant protein,
such as soy, or convert the fish to herbivores. This is not really a
solution, since soy, too, is a protein easily used by humans. Some
alternatives such as creating meal from fish offal (instead of whole
fish) and utilizing invasive fish and plants for meal may hold some
promise, but whether it would meet the demand for vastly expanded
aquaculture operations is highly speculative.
Aquaculturists' Arguments
The proponents of NOAA's NOAA Bill will make several erroneous
arguments in support of their position. They include:
1. The ``seafood deficit'' threatens our ``food security.'' Right
out of Orwell, the Bush Administration is playing the terrorist card by
raising fears that we might go hungry if we do not build fish farms in
the ocean. NOAA has traveled the globe from Ireland to Seattle to the
Philippines presenting their top level analysts' and department heads'
view that mariculture is both inevitable and safe. Besides the
disingenuousness of those positions, their statements that mariculture
is needed because of a supposed ``seafood deficit'' that threatens our
food security is especially manipulative.
Seafood is second to oil in the ``natural resources'' subcategory
of all of the items that we ship in and out of the U.S. at a deficit,
but hardly second in all categories. In addition, since the ocean fish
farms have a significant potential of diminishing or destroying wild
fish, ocean fish farming could, in fact, increase the seafood deficit.
NOAA would like to talk about the seafood that we import while ignoring
the seafood that we export. NOAA simply ignores the option of
increasing U.S. seafood exports as a way of decreasing the ``seafood
deficit'' because that option would require greater protection of our
lands, waters and oceans. Finally, the U.S. produces far more food than
it needs or imports, thus operating as a net world food exporter. Any
contention that we need mariculture to have national ``food security''
is therefore pure myth at best and exaggeration at its worst.
Many would argue that NOAA is a large part of why there is a
seafood deficit. It was that agency that pushed for and assisted in
expanding the commercial fishing fleet in the 1970s well beyond its
known sustainable level for many species. In fact, some of the same
bureaucrats that over-sold expanding the commercial fleet to take
advantage of the then newly recognized EEZ are now salespeople for
growing mariculture. It seems many of those who began their careers in
NOAA, and are now in senior positions, have learned little from
history.
2. ``Escapes are way down.'' The vast majority of mariculture
facilities in North America are in British Columbia, at least 130 at
last count. Those farms are required to report escapes and it is true
that the escapes reported by the farming industry have decreased over
the last few years. However, a statistical reduction of escapes is an
inexcusable rationalization because these invasive species are still
invading otherwise natural areas. As indicated above, in Scotland, over
a million farmed salmon escaped in January 2004, following the storm
damage done to netpens there and over a million farmed salmon escaped
in July 2004 from farms in Chile due to severe storms. During the 2004
hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, six oil platforms collapsed and
several more suffered severe damage, while many more than that were
destroyed as a result of the 2005 hurricanes. These are the same
platforms that are being proposed for staging areas for mariculture
facilities. Since the purported reduction, in addition, is via numbers
reported by the industry, its accuracy is also suspect.
3. ``Better monitoring of feed and better feed systems have greatly
reduced pollution from sewage (uneaten feed).'' There may be better
monitoring of feed and better feed systems, but feed is only a
percentage of the total pollutant entering the ocean. Reducing the
amount of a pollutant, moreover, is still no excuse for dumping the
pollutant in the first place.
4. ``Sewage from experimental projects is barely measurable.'' It
is not easy to obtain all necessary information about how these
experimental projects are operated; however, the stocking densities are
very important to the sewage generated. (Those densities are also very
important to the spread and eradication of disease.) Sewage
measurements without all of the information about how the measurements
were done and what the stocking densities were are useless. One recent
study found that NOAA's goal of a $5 billion ocean fish farming
industry would add sewage to the ocean equivalent to that of 17 million
people.
5. ``It is too expensive to build a closed containment system on
land.'' The startup costs associated with land based production are
higher, but the production costs are lower, and eventually the startup
costs are amortized. It is true that larger capital requirements make
it difficult to compete on price with lower cost operations. The money
NOAA is investing in ocean fish farming, however, would be better spent
supporting land based operations and differentiation of the land-based
product as ``eco-friendly'' or ``sustainable'' would encourage more
closed land-based systems.
6. ``Wild fish will eat fish anyway.'' This argument is the most
insidious in that it presumes that it's OK to interfere with a natural
system just because we can. The ocean ecosystem is complex and varied.
Removing a majority of its small fish will deprive the fish that depend
on them their food source. Removing those small fish will also cause
the even smaller creatures to lose their natural predators, causing
them to multiply beyond their healthy numbers. The consequences are
largely unknown but potentially disastrous. Our attempts to modify the
ocean ecosystem should be minimized, not maximized.
NOAA's NOAA Bill Lacks Provisions Essential To Safeguard Marine
Fisheries And Ecosystems Along With Protections For The Use Of
A Public Resource
The Administration claims that this bill is ``to provide the
regulatory framework for the development of aquaculture in the United
States Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ),'' the area three to 200 miles
offshore. Unfortunately, the bill contains no environmental protections
or standards specific to fish farms, gives away the right to use the
public's land (use of the seabed and the waters above) to private
entities and allows all of this to be done in secrecy. Without these
protections, massive offshore aquaculture development would threaten
ocean fisheries in a number of ways and we must oppose the bill as now
drafted.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Along with introduction of the bill, NOAA issued a document
titled Section-By-Section Analysis, National Offshore Aquaculture Act
of 2005 (``NOAA's Analysis''), available at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
mediacenter/aquaculture along with other Administration documents on
the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administration is touting this legislation as the centerpiece
of the President's ``Ocean Action Plan'' developed last year in
response to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommendations. Three
amendments were immediately made to it by the bills own authors, and a
fourth was introduced by the authors and Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME).
Among the amendments introduced by Senators Stevens and Inouye is one
to allow coastal states to decide whether or not they even want
offshore aquaculture in the EEZ off that state's coastline.
The bill contains serious problems apparent to anyone concerned
about wild fish stocks and the ocean environment. Even the title is
problematic, since it has the same acronym as the implementing agency,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), indicative
either of a lack of thought or someone's attempt at being cute. Imagine
NOAA implementing ``NOAA.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Please note that the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary and
NOAA may be used interchangeably throughout this letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Findings
The first major section called ``findings'' contains statements
that highlight just how biased toward fish farming the bill really is.
It states that it is the policy of the U.S., for example, to support
``an offshore aquaculture industry that will produce food and other
valuable products, protect wild stocks and the quality of marine
ecosystems, and be compatible with other uses of the Exclusive Economic
Zone.'' Yet the pollution generated by these ocean-based feed lots
along with the damage caused by escaping non-native fish in conjunction
with the net loss of protein due to feeding requirements means that the
farms would actually threaten wild stocks and the ocean ecosystem. The
bias of the bill is shown by the fact that it ignores the damage done
by the activity that it is itself encouraging.
The bias of the bill is also evident in a finding that expresses a
desire for a permitting system ``to encourage private investment,'' but
with no mention of the permitting system's potentially positive
environmental protection aspects. Most Federal environmental statutes
contain a policy statement that encourages the industrial conduct while
reciting the need for protecting the environment from the effects of
that industrial conduct. The findings in this bill do not even give lip
service to using the permitting system to protect the marine
environment.
This is especially troublesome because the lack of any policy to
protect the ecosystem could be interpreted as a decision by Congress to
give preference to fish farms over ecosystem protection in all cases of
conflict. It could be argued that by not including a ``balancing
approach'' in the bill, but by including balancing approaches in other
statutes, Congress was making a clear choice to open up the EEZ to fish
farming without regard to the ecological consequences.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ By a comparison, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires a balancing
of several interests and leaves the outcome of that balancing to the
individual fisheries councils, while the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA) explicitly prohibits the intentional taking of marine mammals
without any balancing. Lack of any balancing language makes this
finding section potentially a very dangerous portion of the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site Permitting Ocean Fish Farms
Section 4 is the heart of the bill in that it sets up the
procedures for the two permits that a farmer will need to obtain: a
site permit and an operating permit. Section 4 is divided into the
following subsections: (a) general provisions (with eight
subdivisions); (b) site permits (with four subdivisions); (c) operating
permits (with two subdivisions); (d) criteria for issuing permits (with
six subdivisions); (e) exclusion from provisions of Magnuson-Stevens
(with four subdivisions); (f) fees and other payments (with three
subdivisions); (g) authority to modify or suspend permits (with two
subdivisions); (h) actions affecting the outer continental shelf (with
four subdivisions); and, (i) transferability of permits.
The general provisions authorize the Secretary of Commerce ``to
establish . . . a process to make areas of the [EEZ] available . . .
for the development'' of ocean fish farming by setting up the
permitting procedures. That permitting process must include: (A)
``development of procedures necessary to implement'' the process; and
(B) ``coordination of the offshore aquaculture permitting process . . .
with similar activities administered by other Federal agencies and
States.''
Authorizing the Secretary to ``establish a process to make areas of
the [EEZ] available . . . for the development'' of ocean fish farming
is, like some of the statements in the ``findings'' section, another
sign of the explicit bias built into the bill. There is no attempt to
make it look like a balancing approach with any reference to
environmental protection. There is no standard by which to judge the
point at which open ocean aquaculture should not be developed; only
that it is to be developed.
The second part of this subdivision is especially confusing and
subject to two differing interpretations. It could be interpreted as
allowing NOAA to set up a coordination procedure that is required to be
followed by all Federal and state agencies with permitting authority.
It could also be interpreted as allowing NOAA to set up a coordination
procedure that might be followed by those same agencies. NOAA's
Analysis describes this by stating that ``[c]oordination with other
Federal agencies and States is an important element of the regulatory
system established in this Act.'' This provision is worthy of note for
three reasons:
It vests sole authority in the Secretary of Commerce to
develop the rules governing this coordination, as opposed to
other possibilities such a committee from the relevant agencies
setting the rules or Congress laying out the rules. By granting
that authority solely to one department, the bill allows
Commerce (under the first interpretation) to make rules that
govern other departments, such as the EPA, Army Corps of
Engineers and Department of the Interior.
It also leaves the permitting authority with the original
agency, as opposed to allowing NOAA to issue permits on those
other agencies behalf.
This coordination provision, finally, brings in States'
efforts to address ocean fish farming facilities by bringing
them into the coordination rules.
The bill also adds an additional permit where the permit
application is for a farm on or within one mile of a permit issued
under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). In those
situations, the additional permit requires the ``concurrence of the
Secretary of the Interior.'' This formally acknowledges that ocean fish
farming immediately off of or near a drilling platform could be
allowed.
Subdivision (a)(4) of Section 4 requires that a permit holder must
be an U.S. resident or other U.S. organized business entity. This
requirement can be waived (under certain conditions not relevant here),
thus allowing non-citizens and foreign corporations to hold ocean fish
farming permits. On the same day that Senators Stevens and Inouye
introduced the bill they also introduced an amendment that removed the
waiver provisions. It may be that this is a distinction without
difference since a foreign corporation could simply set up a U.S.-based
shell corporation to qualify.
The bill provides that site and operating permits may be submitted
and reviewed at the same time. While it may be hard to argue with this
``good government'' provision, it does have the effect of speeding up
the process and of lumping the site considerations together with the
operating aspects of any particular project. This is in contrast to the
proposed California system that requires appropriate sites be
inventoried before specific operations are considered.
The Secretary must also rule on a permit application within 120
days of completion of all applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements. Extra time is allowed at NOAA's request (but not at the
public's), under certain circumstances. Requiring a ruling on permit
applications within 120 days is solely for the protection of the fish
farmers by protecting them from regulation by delay. NOAA's Analysis
indicates that this 120-day requirement is ``needed to ensure an
efficient permitting process in which applicants receive decisions on
proposed operations within a reasonable timeframe.'' This, of course,
only highlights the bias of the bill by the failure to acknowledge the
time needed to prepare a response to any application.
Several provisions of the bill confirm that the bill does not
supersede other Federal laws and regulations (except the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, as discussed below). Under the preemption doctrine,
however, state law applies unless it is in conflict with Federal law.
Thus, for example, a state ban on salmon farming would still apply in
state waters, but since the Federal fish farming bill allows salmon
farming in Federal waters the state ban would have no effect on Federal
actions in Federal waters. State laws protecting their offshore
resources thus become irrelevant outside state territorial waters.
The subsections that address site and operating permits give the
Secretary total discretion regarding the permits terms, conditions and
restrictions. The only requirement for a site permit is that it must
specify ``the duration, size and location of the [fish farming
facility].'' The operating permit must additionally indicate the
species to be raised. Thus, the Secretary is given the legislative
equivalent of carte blanche regarding the site and operation permit
conditions, except for the few obvious and non-controversial details
listed just above. This is one place in the bill where standards might
be placed, but the only standards are incorporated by reference. Those
references to environmental protection are: (1) in the incorporation of
pre-existing environmental law; (2) in the ``Criteria'' section
(Section 4(d), discussed just below), and; (3) in the Environmental
Requirements section (Section 5, discussed below).
The site permit subsection also compels the permits to have a
duration of 10 years and be renewable in 5-year increments. The
duration of permits for facilities that are also covered by a lease
issued under the OCSLA (e.g., offshore drilling platforms) is
determined by the Secretary of Commerce in consultation with the
Secretary of the Interior. Leases for ``demonstration projects'' are
also not included in the 10-year/5-year requirements and could go on
indefinitely.
Elsewhere in the bill, the Secretary of the Interior is given
authority to enforce lease, permit and OCSLA requirements and to issue
emergency orders over fish farming that occurs on or within one mile of
drilling platforms. This again confirms the possibility that fish farms
will be authorized at or near a producing oil or gas drilling platform.
It also repeats earlier provisions that grant Interior some concurrent
authority over fish farms on and near these platforms.
The site permit subsection also compels holders of a site permit to
``remove all structures, gear, and other property from the site as may
be prescribed by the Secretary'' when the permit term is complete. As a
part of those removal provisions, should a fish farmer not be able to
remove the farming facilities from a drilling platform, the owner of
the platform could be responsible for those costs. This subsection also
provides further confirmation that fish farms are contemplated on and
near drilling platforms.
Issuing Ocean Farming Operational Permits
Section 4(d) is entitled Criteria for Issuing Permits. This
subsection requires the Secretary to ``consult as appropriate with
other Federal agencies to ensure that'' a permitted ocean fish farm
``meets the environmental requirements established under section 5(a)
and is compatible with the use of the Exclusive Economic Zone for
navigation, fishing, resource protection, recreation, national defense
(including military readiness), mineral exploration and development,
and other activities.'' Unfortunately, this provision borders on
meaningless for ensuring any protection of the marine environment.
The first requirement, that ocean fish farming only meet the very
minimal environmental requirements of Section 5 of the bill will be
discussed below. This ``criteria'' subsection, moreover, only requires
that NOAA ``consult as appropriate'' with other agencies to insure
compatibility with the other listed uses, not that it actually protect
other listed uses. As a part of that consultation, fishing and resource
protections are accorded the same weight, if any, as navigation,
recreation, national defense, mineral exploration and development, and
``other activities.''
A second part of this ``criteria'' subdivision compels the
Secretary to ``consider risks to and impacts on natural fish stocks,
the coastal environment, water quality and habitat, marine mammals and
endangered species, and the environment, as identified by the Secretary
and other Federal agencies.'' Again, risk and impact consideration is
the only thing required here. Once those risks and impacts are
considered, the Secretary is still free to ignore them. This
consideration requirement adds no protections that are not already
required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). There is no
requirement that those risks be minimized or balanced against other
aspects of an ocean fish farm. There is also no requirement that the
process of that consideration be public. These ``criteria for issuing
permits,'' therefore, do nothing to assure any ecosystem protections.
The final subdivision under 4(d) requires NOAA to ``periodically''
review the criteria for permits and to modify them ``based on the best
available science.'' This is also such a vague standard as to make it
unenforceable and meaningless. ``Periodically'' and ``best available
science'' are so vague that the subdivision essentially gives complete
discretion to NOAA. The language, moreover, does not compel NOAA to
change the criteria based on that review.
Subsection 4(e) excludes the permitting system set up under this
bill from the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Whether permits under this bill
should be governed by the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its regional
councils may be subject to debate and full discussion of that issue is
beyond the scope of this article. Some of the points to consider,
however, are that Magnuson-Stevens, at least, require some balancing of
competing interests and transparency of the process. This bill does
neither.
The bill also requires that the Secretary consult with the local
Regional Fishery Management Council prior to issuing a permit.
Requiring consultation may be a positive step, but without requiring
that action be taken based on that consultation or, better yet,
requiring that the regional council also permit farming facilities, the
consultation requirement is hollow.
Finally, this portion of the bill authorizes, but does not require,
the Secretary to require ocean fish farmers to ``track, mark, or
otherwise identify'' the farms' product. Tagging farmed fish should be
required.
Not Paying Their Way
A ``Fees and Other Payments'' subsection authorizes the Secretary
to set application and permit fees and to waive those fees for research
or hatchery facilities. The Secretary is also required to demand a bond
to insure payment of unpaid fees, the cost of removing the farming
facilities at the end of the permit period, ``and other financial risks
as identified by the Secretary.'' The worst part of this section is
that there is no requirement for royalty payments for use of a common
public resource.
Most statutory schemes that allow extraction of a public resource
also require some sort of a lease or royalty payment to the government.
Oil, gas and coal extraction, for example, requires a royalty, while
grazing requires a lease payment. These are paid to the Federal
Government to help compensate for the value lost to the public and/or
for the damage that the activity does to the environment.
This bill, on the other hand, gives away large plots of ocean to
private corporations, without requiring either royalty payments or a
compensating high level of employment/economic benefit to coastal
communities. Adding a lease or royalty payment requirement would be the
fair thing to do because: (1) it would be consistent with most other
Federal laws; (2) it would more fully internalize the true
environmental costs of the operation; and (3) it would compensate the
public for the loss of a public resource.
This fee subsection, moreover, also has no requirement that fees
even cover the costs of reviewing permit applications or enforcement
duties, and is totally discretionary. The bond (as opposed to the fee)
requirement is limited to insuring payment of unpaid fees, the cost of
removing the facility at the end of the permit period, ``and other
financial risks as identified by the Secretary.'' Lacking is a
requirement for the bond to cover clean-up costs, damage done by
escapes, and damage done by the spread of farm-based disease. Finally,
the provision that allows for waiver of fees for research or hatchery
facilities should be limited to facilities that are not showing any
monetary profit.
The Secretary is also given broad discretion in the bill to modify
or suspend the permits. This power is subject to ``consultation with
Federal agencies as appropriate and after affording the permit holder
notice and opportunity to be heard'' unless an emergency situation.
This subdivision lists some of the factors that can be considered, but
compels nothing other than reasonable notice to and right to be heard
by the fish farmer. In another sign of the bill's bias, these
provisions omit notice to the public when considering modification of a
permit and contain no attempt to conform modification requirements to
requirements of original permits.
The final subsection addresses the transferability of permits by
making them fully transferable subject to procedures established by
NOAA. There is nothing that prevents NOAA from allowing transfer to a
less solvent corporation or a foreign corporation, nor to prevent
consolidation of fish farms under the ownership of a few or single
corporations.
Section 5: Few Environmental Requirements
Section 5, in spite of its promising title, contains little actual
environmental protection. The single requirement of Section 5 is to
``consult with other Federal agencies and identify the environmental
requirements applicable to [ocean fish farming] under existing laws and
regulations.'' In other words, they are compelled merely to follow the
laws they were already compelled to follow before.
The Secretary is allowed under Section 5 to ``establish additional
environmental requirements'' for ocean fish farming ``if deemed
necessary.'' These additional requirements, if any, are to be made in
consultation with other Federal agencies, coastal states and the
public. The environmental requirements under this section shall
consider risks and impacts on ``natural fish stock'', ``marine
ecosystems,'' various features of ``water quality and habitat,''
``marine wildlife and endangered species,'' and ``other features of the
environment.''
The second part of Section 5 allows, but does not compel,
``regulations regarding monitoring and evaluation of compliance with''
permit requirements. Also authorized, but not compelled, is monitoring
of the effects of ocean fish farming and of compliance with the
``environmental requirements.''
In other words, though this section contains a number of phrases
that sound like environmental protection, being only advisory they have
no force. As in other parts of this bill, this ``consideration''
requirement adds no protections that are not already generally required
by NEPA and other laws.
In general, the bill completely ignores the fact that ocean fish
farming presents a set of known risks to the environment and to fish
stocks that should be addressed. While not perfect, the current version
of the pending California fish farming bill, for example, requires,
among other things, that: the use of fish meal and fish oil be
minimized; fees be sufficient to pay for the costs of administering the
permitting program, and for monitoring and enforcing the terms of the
leases; a baseline assessment be done along with regular monitoring of
fish stocks and facilities; drugs and antibiotics usage should be
minimized and reported; and all farmed fish be tagged. The Federal bill
contains none of these protections.
The Environmental Requirements of Section 5 and the total
discretion it, along with Section 4, gives to the Secretary also
completely ignore NOAA's own past policy statements. The National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (now pompously calling itself ``NOAA
Fisheries'') has previously developed A Code of Conduct for Responsible
Aquaculture Development in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (www.nmfs
.noaa.gov/trade/AQ/AQCode.pdf). That Code calls for use of best
management practices and site evaluation consideration of effects on
local communities, adoption of the precautionary approach, escape
prevention, inventory tracking systems, and predator protection.
While these statements do not go nearly far enough, it is
outrageous that NOAA is ignoring even its own weak standards in the
legislation that it designed and is now aggressively promoting.
Administration
Administration of offshore aquaculture is found in Section 7 of the
bill, which has eight subsections. The first authorizes the Secretary
to promulgate rules to carry out the bill and to amend those rules as
need be. The next authorizes the Secretary to promulgate rules to
``protect marine aquaculture facilities,'' and to request the Coast
Guard to ``establish navigational safety zones around such
facilities.'' The ``Secretary of the department in which the Coast
Guard is operating'' may also designate a navigational safety zone that
excludes other uses.
Subsections 7(c) and 7(d) require the Secretary to ``consult'' with
other Federal agencies with permitting authority in the EEZ to develop
a coordinated and streamlined permitting process for ocean fish
farming. Problems with the permit coordination provisions are discussed
above. Neither the Section 4 permits nor the Section 7 coordination
provisions supersede or substitute for any of the other permits
currently required by law for a fish farming facility; e.g., section 10
permits from the Corps, CWA permits from EPA, and incidental take
permits under the MMPA and ESA. In other words, they do not shift other
permit reviews from EPA, for example, to NOAA.
There does appear to be a conflict between the Section 4 and the
Section 7 coordination provisions. The Section 7 coordination
provisions are not mandatory while the Section 4 coordination
provisions, while vague, seem to allow NOAA to set-up a required
coordination process. Section 7 only requires that the Secretary
``consult'' with the other agencies ``to develop'' the streamlined
process. The Section 4 provision, however, authorizes NOAA to establish
a process for development of fish farming in the EEZ that includes the
coordination of the permitting process ``with similar activities
administered by other Federal agencies and States.''
What's Not in the Bill
Transparency: This bill does not address any issues of transparency
and the extent that other statutes like the Administrative Procedures
Act may require public notice of things like permit applications or
disclosure of documentation. Moreover, because ocean fish farming under
this legislation would be exempt from the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the
public process provided under that Act for the conservation and
management of capture fisheries would not be available for ocean fish
farming. The NMFS Code of Conduct, however, does encourage public
participation.
Private Attorney General Actions: Almost all Federal environmental
statutes contain provisions for private suits against those in
violation of the statute, including alleged permit violators. The
purpose of those provisions is to allow individual groups to help
police the statute, especially when the government does not act or does
not act fast enough. Since this bill contains no such provisions, only
the Federal Government would be left to enforce the Act. Thus fishing
and conservation groups or the public would be precluded from suing the
Secretary for any violation under this Act.
Liability: This bill contains no provisions regarding who is liable
for escaped fish. As a general rule, the negligent owner of escaped
private livestock is responsible for the damage done by that escaped
livestock. If sheep escape through a negligently maintained fence and
eat a neighbor's lettuce crop, for example, the owner of the fence is
liable for the value of the lost lettuce crop. However, proof that
escaped farmed stock did any alleged damage could be difficult, if not
impossible, depending on the type of farmed fish, the location and the
damage. Section 4(e)(4) authorizes, but does not require, the Secretary
to require farmers to ``track, mark, or otherwise identify'' the farms'
product. This should be a requirement.
Conclusion: A Seriously Flawed Bill
NOAA's ocean fish farming bill does not exempt those farms from
NEPA, CWA, CZMA or any other Federal environmental statutes other than
the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Other than that, however, it ensures no
environmental protection from the effects of ocean fish farming because
it gives the Secretary of Commerce nearly complete discretion to manage
them as s/he sees fit, regardless of the environmental consequences.
What few environmental standards exist in the bill are either
optional or have to do only with ``consultation'' on and
``consideration'' of environmental issues, but with no objective or
mandatory targets to meet, and no attempt to balance one interest
against damage to the others. In short, the bill as it now exists is
seriously flawed and would open the road to further disaster for the
ocean.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Daniel Benetti, Chairman, Division of Marine
Affairs and Policy, Assoc. Professor and Director of Aquaculture,
University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science
(UM-RSMAS)
Besides my research and academic responsibilities at UM, I am in
charge of R&D and technology transfer projects for the development of
sustainable aquaculture worldwide. I have over 25 years experience in
this field and have published close to a hundred articles in
aquaculture science and technology. I have extensive experience with
the industry and outreach, and have been a consultant for the
government and private sectors in the U.S., Latin America, Europe,
Asia, Caribbean, Middle East, Africa, and Australia.
As a team leader working ``on the ground'' of a major
interdisciplinary, multiinstitutional effort to demonstrate the
technological feasibility of offshore aquaculture in the SE U.S. and
Caribbean regions, I would like to provide a few comments in rebuttal
of criticisms and in support of the National Offshore Aquaculture Act
of 2005. The following are my direct, no-nonsense views on some of the
issues at stake. These comments represent my opinions, and do not
necessarily represent the opinions of the University of Miami or any of
its schools.
User conflicts and pollution concerns suggest that major
environmental benefits are to be gained by moving cage aquaculture
operations further offshore. The U.S. is paving the technological road
to sustainable development of offshore aquaculture through university-
industry-government partnerships. Emerging technology, in collaboration
with the private sector, is being used to demonstrate the environmental
sustainability and economic viability of raising hatchery-reared fish
in submerged cages in exposed sites in the U.S., notably in Hawaii,
Puerto Rico and New Hampshire.
Critics say that there are no environmental safeguards in place for
obtaining permits for open ocean aquaculture in the U.S. because they
never applied for one. During our permit application for the
development of one such project in Puerto Rico in 2001, we had to
fulfill the requirements of 13 agencies (including EPA, ACE, NOAA, FWS,
among others)--each one competently justifying its existence. When
applying for the permits for the expansion of the project in 2005, the
list of agencies involved increased to over twenty. (A list of agencies
involved in the permitting process is available upon request). The
permitting process is complex, lengthy and expensive, requiring a great
deal of scientific and legal expertise. Prospect applicants are advised
not to even try applying for a permit if they don't have the expertise
and cannot afford waiting several years and spending hundreds of
thousands of dollars. The Offshore Aquaculture Act proposes to organize
the permitting process with NOAA as the leading agency centralizing the
application. This is clearly the right and sensible path to follow.
The offshore aquaculture demonstration projects currently being
conducted in Puerto Rico, Hawaii, New Hampshire and the Bahamas are
completely submerged, thereby preserving the aesthetic appearance of
the areas. Systems clear at least 12m from the surface in order to
avoid impediments with navigation. The depth of the sites (25-30m) and
steady currents (0.5-1.5 knots) maintain water movement in a downstream
direction, dispersing organic and inorganic materials that could
potentially be associated with the operations. Considering the cages'
volume and the current velocity, approximately 2 billion liters of
clean oceanic water flow through each cage daily. The cages are stocked
with hatchery-reared fingerlings of endemic, native species such as
cobia, snapper, amberjack, moi and cod--species whose fisheries are
mostly depleted. We have enough data to show that the nutrients and
suspended solids generated by the cage systems would not dramatically
affect the oligotrophic offshore environment due to its carrying
capacity. This premise is important because of previous indications
that inshore cage culture of marine finfish may be detrimental to
coastal waters due to excessive nutrient loading, hypernutriphication
and euthrophication with subsequent harmful algal blooms. Please note
that we have data, reports and publications to support these
assertions.
Environmental monitoring studies are being conducted in all
demonstration projects in the U.S. (Puerto Rico, Hawaii and New
Hampshire) and the Bahamas to determine whether there is or will be an
impact of such activities in the areas surrounding the cages. I have
been coordinating the assessments conducted by the University of Miami
and the University of Puerto Rico in the areas surrounding the cages in
both Puerto Rico and the Bahamas. In summary, over the last 4 years,
sampling stations were set up at different distances and directions
from the fish cages. Possible eutrophication of the local environment
was evaluated monthly by measuring dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus,
phytoplankton biomass, epiphyte growth potential, sinking flux of
organic matter into sediment traps, organic content of the sediments,
and benthic microalgal biomass. In all cases, no significant
differences were found as a function of distance from the cages or
relative to upstream-downstream direction. Environmental data from
Puerto Rico and the Bahamas indicate that the current regime and
resulting dilution of nutrients from the submerged cages do not lead to
a significant change in the ecosystem near the cages. There were no
significant differences in any of the water quality parameters measured
in the area surrounding and beneath the cages, indicating that
fluctuations appeared to be seasonal, affecting the cage and control
site more or less equally. These findings are relevant because elevated
nutrient concentrations are usually only found once the assimilation
capacity of the autotrophic community has been exceeded or when large
nutrient imbalances exist. The final reports of the first 2 years of
studies on the environmental impact of the offshore cages in Puerto
Rico and the Bahamas are available upon request. Similar findings
resulted from the environmental assessments conducted in Hawaii and New
Hampshire.
Also importantly, taking into account that energy loss between
trophic levels in nature results in an ecological efficiency of only
around 10 percent, our data show that practicing aquaculture as a means
to produce high-value fish for human consumption is more efficient than
this transformation in nature. Nevertheless, the need to reduce and
perhaps eliminate the use of fishmeal in aquaculture feeds is widely
recognized. Research in this area progresses fast, and we aquaculture
scientists are making a strong effort toward this goal. Our research
indicates that, when relying on fishmeal from sustainable fishery
resources and properly sited and managed facilities, aquaculture of
carnivorous fish can be conducted responsibly. However, the efficiency
of fishmeal use in the culture of carnivorous fish as it relates to
long-term sustainability is a complex issue. It is dependent on the
management of small pelagic fisheries, which in turn depends on fishing
pressure, oceanographic and meteorological parameters, as well as long-
term climate changes and anthropogenic factors.
There are still many hurdles to overcome before open ocean
aquafarms can become economically viable. Indeed, high risks associated
with offshore operations may conspire against their economic viability.
When we began developing these projects, our primary concern was with
the environmental impact that the cages could potentially cause in the
surrounding areas. Our focus and attention have shifted to the economic
viability of the operations, since the first 4 years of studies did not
show any harmful effects on the environment. Regarding this matter,
there have been fish escapements and production losses, compromising
the economic viability of the operations. Even though these fish are
native to the region, and healthy, disease-free, some scientists and
environmentalists believe that such escapements could compromise the
genetic makeup of the local population of the species. This nonsensical
claim--the equivalent of denying human immigration on ethnic grounds--
does not fly with an immigrant who has made a productive life in this
country, like many of you or your ancestors did before me. After all,
diversity is one of the main reasons for the greatness of this country.
Some environmentalists are quick to criticize what they hear and
read about what a handful of U.S. entrepreneurs are doing to develop a
new, environmentally sustainable and economically-viable industry that
will help alleviate our dependency on seafood imports and reduce an
escalating trade deficit currently at almost $10 billion/year. The
world is not waiting for us. Taking into consideration current global
trends, it is certain that we need to develop aquaculture.
The offshore areas of the U.S., its Islands and Territories have
extraordinary potential for the development of an environmentally
sustainable offshore aquaculture industry. We at the U.S. are ahead of
the world in technology for open ocean aquaculture and cannot afford
losing the edge as we are already doing in other fields. American
entrepreneurs and venture capitalists are interested in investing in
the industry but--in light of the negative perception that the
environmentalists are selling to the public--are already beginning to
look abroad. We must simplify the process and move ahead with this
legislation so as to keep the industry within our control--and the
National Offshore Aquaculture Act is the first step toward U.S.
autonomy in seafood supply.
We have created the opportunity in the U.S. and must capitalize on
it. Moving the industry offshore is the right path to the development
of a low impact, high yield industry that will produce most needed
seafood while creating jobs and other socio-economic benefits. Beyond
economics, the importance of developing the offshore aquaculture
industry in the U.S. EEZ may become a matter of national food security
soon. We cannot afford not to do it. Indeed, not allowing offshore
aquaculture to develop in the U.S. would be the equivalent of having
used the precautionary approach for not having allowed the wine and the
computer industries to develop in California because of potential,
unsubstantiated environmental risks. Plain nonsense.
______
Prepared Statement of Donald B. Kent, President,
Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute (HSWRI)
The Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute (HSWRI) has conducted marine
aquaculture and fisheries research for the past 30 years. We offer the
following comments on the proposed Offshore Aquaculture bill that has
been introduced by Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye.
Your Subcommittee is already aware of the significant trade deficit
caused by our Nation's dependence on imported seafood needed to feed
its citizens. Many of our fisheries are already fully exploited and
cannot meet the anticipated doubling of demand that our Nation will
require over the next several decades. This increased demand can only
be met with the development of aquaculture. As Jacques Cousteau said in
1973, ``we must farm the sea as we farm the land, by sowing as well as
reaping.''
HSWRI, working in collaboration with the California Department of
Fish and Game, commercial fishermen, recreational anglers and the
National Marine Fisheries Service, conducts the Nation's largest marine
finfish replenishment program. This program has afforded us the
opportunity to test already established, commercial-scale, open-ocean
technologies on species of regional importance to the Southwest. This
technology can be applied to any region of our Nation to culture native
species of economic importance to that region, and is already being
applied around the world. I believe it is critical for our Nation to
incorporate this technology into the development of a consistent,
domestic supply of seafood from aquaculture.
The proposed legislation would establish a standardized process by
which aquaculture could be developed in an ecologically appropriate and
sustainable manner. Our Institute has consistently demonstrated how
this can be done by working in concert with fishermen, anglers and
regulatory agencies and in a manner that decreases the pressure placed
on our already heavily exploited wild fish stocks. We would welcome the
opportunity to share with you the results of our research and to answer
your questions regarding the development of aquaculture in our Nation's
Exclusive Economic Zone.
______
Prepared Statement of Marianne Cufone, Esq., Environmental Attorney and
Advocate, Environment Matters
My name is Marianne Cufone, I am an environmental attorney and
advocate in Tampa, Florida. I work with a number of groups and
individuals on offshore aquaculture issues throughout the United States
and I am very involved in the Gulf of Mexico region with fishermen,
consumer and conservation organizations, academics, government agencies
and others. I am the Vice Chair of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council Offshore Aquaculture Advisory Panel and a member of
the State of Florida Aquaculture Task Force. These bodies are tasked
with helping to develop local and regional regulations on open water
aquaculture.
It is a privilege to submit the following for your review and
consideration.
There are many concerns about development of offshore aquaculture,
far more than I can cover in a few pages. I will therefore concentrate
on the primary concerns that I and the various people I work with have
regarding S. 1195. The first is pollution: both of wild fish
populations and the environment. The second is user conflicts.
Pollution of wild fish populations is the intermixing of
aquacultured fish with wild fish through escapes from cages and pens in
open water. Offshore aquaculture of finfish currently uses a cage or
pen to contain the fish. Some fish will escape from these containers
into the open ocean from various complications like severe weather,
predators tearing at netting, faulty equipment, human error and a
number of other possibilities. Because these fish are captive and bred
for profit they are often different from wild fish. They may be exotic
species, from a different area entirely to introduce a new product to a
local market. Aquacultured fish can mutate in captivity for unknown
reasons, or because of inbreeding. Some fish behaviors are learned from
natural communal interactions, so even unaltered captive fish can have
different behaviors than wild fish and if released, the aquacultured
fish can change natural behaviors in the wild. Perhaps most disturbing,
fish used for aquaculture might be genetically modified in a lab to
create faster growing and larger fish or might be continually
selectively bred to achieve the same result. Escape of fish that are
different from wild fish could change the ecosystem and natural fish
populations permanently.
Pollution of the environment refers to wastes coming out of the
aquaculture facility into our waters, like excess food, fish waste,
parasites and other diseases, excessive algal growth, dislodged cage or
other facility materials and antibiotics or other chemicals. These all
can destroy important habitat, like corals and seagrass, even far from
the facilities, carried by currents. Debris and wastes can contaminate
our water and cause safety hazards for boaters, fishermen and divers
and of course, harm wildlife.
Because offshore aquaculture facilities will take up real space in
the marine environment, various user conflicts are expected between
offshore aquaculture and other ocean uses. Contributing to this is the
express provision in S. 1195 that allows creation of buffer zones
around aquaculture areas in which no activities will be permitted other
than those relative to the aquaculture facility. Some of the most
likely and troubling conflicts are those regarding fishing grounds and
routes to those fishing grounds, other vessel traffic lanes, military
sites and areas of concern regarding national security, marine reserves
and otherwise protected or vulnerable areas and areas of significant
multiple use, for example boating, diving, and swimming. Essentially S.
1195 will re-allocate public resources for private gains without
protecting existing uses.
Another area of significant conflict involves composition of
aquacultured fish feed. Cultured species are often directly fed wild
caught species or products that contain wild species. This is an
inefficient use of the available natural protein resources. Lower
trophic level species like krill, squid, and other small coastal
pelagic fish are a crucial part of the marine ecosystem, serving as
prey for marine mammals, birds and fish yet are still used to make
captive fish feed. Many commercially and recreationally important fish
species depend directly on the availability and abundance of such prey
species for their survival and recovery. Prey species also support
diverse marine mammal and seabird communities in the world including
several species of endangered marine mammals and seabirds. In order to
effectively protect and restore our natural ocean resources, it is
critical to protect the health of prey species. Wild fish populations
can only recover if the ecosystem upon which they depend is intact. Use
of wild fish in creating feed for captive fish creates a very real
problem for wild fisheries.
These are all serious issues nationwide, but particularly here in
the Gulf of Mexico, many people are very concerned about expansion of
offshore aquaculture. We are coastal people and are known for our
commercial and recreational fisheries including shrimp, crab, lobster
snapper, grouper and more. Tourism, based on our environment, is a key
economic factor and so many of us live here to enjoy the benefits of a
coastal lifestyle: relaxing on white sand beaches, swimming in clear
blue waters, boating and every water sport imaginable. Also, the severe
hurricanes of the past 2 years make us very vulnerable to any further
alterations in our marine world.
I will provide one local example to illustrate regional concerns
about pollution. It involves the use of oil rigs as sites for
aquaculture facilities. This past year the Gulf of Mexico had several
violent storms. A number of oil rigs were destroyed, some even being
carried miles to shore. Had offshore aquaculture been developed on
these rigs at the time of the storms, there would have been massive
releases of captive fish, feed and other pollutants into the Gulf of
Mexico.
Our region is taking steps to protect unique local resources
because S. 1195 in its current form is insufficient to do so. The Gulf
of Mexico Fishery Management Council has been developing an amendment
to the fishery management plans for the Gulf of Mexico to regulate
offshore aquaculture. I am the Vice Chair of their aquaculture advisory
panel. Now, the draft regulations contain provisions to deal with many
of the problems associated with offshore aquaculture. Things like
preventing use of exotic or genetically modified fish, preventing use
of antibiotics and certain chemicals, and requiring efficient waste
management.
S. 1195 does not provide similar protections. Additionally, it
removes real authority from fishery management councils to regulate
offshore aquaculture, though they are in the best position to
understand local needs. Under S. 1195, regional Councils would be
demoted to a consulting or consenting role rather than a regulatory
one.
In general, S. 1195 in its current form does not protect our
resources or the people that rely on them and it is not an adequate
means of regulating offshore aquaculture.
Specifically, I urge you to consider:
Preventing use of areas like marine reserves, National
Marine Sanctuaries and otherwise protected or vulnerable sites
for aquaculture facilities.
Establishing buffer zones around areas like marine reserves,
National Marine Sanctuaries and otherwise protected or
vulnerable sites to prevent potential harm from nearby offshore
aquaculture facilities.
Prohibiting the use of exotic species and genetically
modified organisms.
Specifying offshore aquaculture can only be developed over
sand or mud bottom and in areas where effluent will not impact
important and fragile resources.
Establishing stringent environmental requirements before any
permits are issued.
Conditioning annual permit renewal on compliance with
environmental performance.
Requiring development and submittal of a plan to mitigate
potential harms due to unexpected circumstances, including fish
escapes, chemical pollution, illness and others, as a permit
condition.
Preventing use of oil rigs in offshore aquaculture.
I appreciate this opportunity to comment on the National Offshore
Aquaculture Act, S. 1195, and I look forward to working with you and
others on these important matters.
______
Prepared Statement of George Nardi, Chief Technical Officer,
GreatBay Aquaculture, LLC
GreatBay is a young, but respected pioneer in the marine
aquaculture field. We are a 10 year commercial operation and work
closely with the University of New Hampshire and other research
institutions around the country. In addition to domestic sales, our
products are also exported to other countries such as China, Mexico and
Canada. We operate in a global industry and must compete globally as
well. We are looking to expand our production base in the region and a
promising area for future sustainable development is in the offshore
region of the U.S. EEZ. We have invested considerable resources in this
investigation.
It is critical that this legislation is passed as many user
conflicts will prevent us from developing this industry in populated
near shore areas, and without this enabling legislation, opportunity
will be lost--not for the industry, but for the region and the country,
opportunity for new business development and jobs; opportunity for
enhancing our national food security position. Industry will simply
move forward, but to the benefit of another country.
Without this legislation GBA may have to pursue expansion, not just
out of the region, but out of the country as the ``price'' to do
business may become prohibitive and too complicated for innovative
companies such as GreatBay Aquaculture.
I support the position of the National Aquaculture Association and
hope you will support this important legislation, whose true value will
be measured in the future production of quality protein for all to
enjoy and benefit from.
______
Prepared Statement of Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director,
Food & Water Watch
Food & Water Watch, a nonprofit consumer rights organization that
challenges corporate control and abuse of our food supply and
freshwater and ocean resources, wishes to thank you for the April 6th
National Ocean Policy Study subcommittee hearing on offshore
aquaculture. We are pleased to submit these comments for the record in
order to highlight some of the issues surrounding offshore aquaculture
that were not thoroughly examined at the hearing. We urge the
subcommittee not to move forward on legislation to permit offshore
aquaculture in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) until NOAA provides a
detailed assessment of all the potential negative impacts of offshore
aquaculture and ways these problems can best be addressed.
As detailed at the hearing, offshore aquaculture involves the
raising of carnivorous finfish, such as cod, halibut, and red snapper,
in often large, crowded cages where fish waste and chemicals flush
straight into the open ocean. We are very concerned that offshore fish
farming in the U.S. EEZ may pose many of the same problems for marine
ecosystems, consumer health, and the economic livelihoods of fishing
businesses and communities as large-scale industrial farming of
carnivorous finfish has in other countries. While we were pleased that
many of these issues were raised at the hearing, many of the issues
about the likely effects of offshore aquaculture were not adequately
examined at the hearing:
Dr. Hogarth did not provide any analysis of the likely individual
and cumulative environmental and socioeconomic effects of offshore
aquaculture due to, for example, chemical and nutrient pollution,
escaped fish, or diseases and parasites transmitted to wild fish
populations. Such impacts could negatively alter entire ocean
ecosystems and harm fishing communities dependent on them.
Dr. Hogarth did not detail NOAA's plans, if any, to minimize the
discharge of wastes and chemicals from offshore fish farms into the
ocean environment. In the past, NOAA officials have argued that Clean
Water Act discharge permits were sufficient. But under EPA's current
regulations, such permits don't require limits in the use of pesticides
or other chemicals. Further, EPA's regulations only require companies
to maintain best management practices to reduce nutrient emissions,
``to the extent reasonably necessary to sustain an optimal rate of fish
growth''--regardless of the cumulative impacts of multiple farms. More
information is needed on how best to limit wastes and why closed
containment systems are not a better option for aquaculture than
offshore cages.
While Dr. Hogarth indicated in his testimony that NOAA supports
``careful mapping of existing uses'' of the EEZ, he did not provide
much detail about the agency's plans, if any, to engage in planning,
zoning, or the development of siting criteria for offshore aquaculture.
He also did not discuss whether NOAA plans to assess and maintain
environmental carrying capacities of each region where offshore
aquaculture is planned. All of these measures are recommended by a
recent Sea-Grant-funded October 2005 University of Delaware report,
``Recommendations for an Operational Framework for Offshore Aquaculture
in U.S. Federal Waters.''
Dr. Hogarth did not discuss whether NOAA would prohibit the siting
of offshore fish farms in National Marine Sanctuaries or other
protected areas. Nothing in S. 1195 currently prohibits such siting.
Dr. Hogarth did not discuss whether NOAA is opposed to prohibiting
non-native or genetically modified species in offshore fish farms.
There are no such prohibitions in S. 1195.
While Dr. Hogarth's testimony stated that ``technological
innovation, best management practices, and careful species selection''
can limit fish escapes, he did not discuss whether NOAA would support
requiring offshore aquaculture facilities to adopt these measures and,
if so, the level of mitigation anticipated using different technologies
and practices. He did not discuss whether offshore aquaculture
facilities would be required to tag or track farmed fish or whether
NOAA was opposed to such measures.
While Dr. Hogarth's testimony indicated that he believes that
offshore aquaculture could benefit coastal communities, he did not
provide a detailed analysis of the likely impacts of offshore
aquaculture on commercial fish prices and employment.
Dr. Hogarth did not discuss whether NOAA was planning to provide a
Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS), which is required by
the National Environmental Policy Act. An adequate LEIS would enable
the subcommittee and the public to thoroughly evaluate all of the risks
of offshore aquaculture, possible alternatives, measures that NOAA
would recommend to mitigate these risks, and any unavoidable
consequences of offshore aquaculture. Unfortunately, NOAA has thus far
not produced an LEIS, despite the request from 16 members of the House
of Representatives and repeated requests from conservation and fishing
organizations.
These are only some of the most obvious issues that were not
examined at the hearing. We urge the Subcommittee to not move forward
on legislation to permit offshore aquaculture in the EEZ until NOAA
adequately assesses all the potential problems of offshore aquaculture
and how these can best be mitigated.
We would be happy to discuss our concerns further and look forward
to working with you to protect our oceans and America's fisheries.
______
Joint Prepared Statement of Jim Ayers, Vice President and
Michael F. Hirschfield, Ph.D., Vice President, Oceana
We appreciate your long-standing leadership on ocean conservation
and management issues and urge you to continue that tradition by
opposing the National Offshore Aquaculture Act (S. 1195), introduced at
the request of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). The upcoming Senate National Ocean Policy Study subcommittee
hearing to examine current proposals to regulate offshore aquaculture
will bring much needed attention to the potential threats offshore
aquaculture poses to our marine resources. In contrast to S. 1195, the
Natural Stock Conservation Act of 2005 (S. 796), introduced by Senator
Murkowski, represents a much more progressive policy on offshore
aquaculture that puts protecting our fisheries and the ocean
environment that nurtures those resources first.
National Offshore Aquaculture Act (S. 1195)
The National Offshore Aquaculture Act (S. 1195) would expand
aquaculture offshore without addressing the large environmental impacts
that have become apparent from nearshore aquaculture operations. Both
the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission
highlighted the real and significant problems that marine aquaculture,
in general, poses to our marine resources and ecosystems. Risks to wild
populations of fish include the spread of disease and parasites, the
introduction of nonnative or genetically-modified species,
interbreeding with farmed fish, competition for resources with escaped
farmed fish, and increasing demand for forage fish to produce fish
meal.
Other environmental impacts include pollution and harm to marine
mammals. Many of the problems found with nearshore aquaculture
operations, such as escapes, are likely to be magnified in the much
rougher and less predictable offshore environment. In addition to
environmental impacts, offshore aquaculture will likely impact fishing
families by decreasing commercial fish prices with a flood of low-cost
farmed fish--prices that are low only because the operations are not
required to pay the true costs to the oceans. The environmental and
socioeconomic problems of aquaculture need to be fully understood and
solved before aquaculture is brought into our offshore waters, or we
will be irresponsibly bringing known problems into new ocean areas.
We also oppose the State Opt-Out amendment (SA.769) to the National
Offshore Aquaculture Act (S. 1195). If enacted, this amendment will
bring a false sense of security from environmental impacts to states
not participating in offshore aquaculture, and it does not address the
potential socioeconomic impacts of aquaculture. For example, Alaska, a
relatively remote state, would be threatened by the expansion of salmon
aquaculture into the offshore waters of Washington. A few escaped fish
carrying an exotic disease could infect and cripple Alaska's renowned
salmon fisheries. In addition, there are already large economic impacts
to Alaska's salmon fishermen from the flood of farmed raised fish in
the market. Therefore, we ask you to also oppose the State Opt-Out
amendment.
While we urge you to oppose the National Offshore Aquaculture Act
(S. 1195) altogether, we also note that a Legislative Environmental
Impact Statement (LEIS) is needed to accurately assess the
environmental risks of S. 1195. A clear and unbiased assessment of
those risks will allow members to make informed decisions about this
legislation. The LEIS on S. 1195 could also be helpful in the
consideration of standards to protect our fisheries and our ocean
environment called for in the Natural Stock Conservation Act (S. 796).
We ask you to request the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration to conduct a LEIS and a socioeconomic impacts study of
S. 1195.
The Natural Stock Conservation Act of 2005 (S. 796)
Fortunately, a good solution is already available. With one
modification, we support the Natural Stock Conservation Act of 2005 (S.
796). This bill, which prohibits offshore aquaculture until
environmental and socioeconomic safeguards are established, would be
strengthened by an amendment to include a ban on the use of
genetically-modified organisms in aquaculture. Genetically-modified
species may act like invasive species if introduced into the wild. They
may be able to out-compete wild fish stocks, and interbreeding could
ultimately modify the wild gene pool. With the inclusion of this ban,
S. 796 is a forward thinking bill that makes sure the socioeconomic and
environmental problems from aquaculture are addressed before
aquaculture is expanded into offshore waters.
The risks of offshore aquaculture are too great to blindly stumble
forward with an irresponsible piece of legislation. An amended Natural
Stock Conservation Act (S. 796) with a ban on the use of genetically-
modified organisms in aquaculture represents an opportunity for
Congress to move forward with their eyes wide open. Please oppose the
National Offshore Aquaculture Act (S. 1195) and the State Opt-Out
amendment (SA.769) and push for enactment of an amended Natural Stock
Conservation Act (S. 796).
______
Prepared Statement of John Connelly, President,
National Fisheries Institute (NFI)
Chairman Sununu and Members of the Committee:
We appreciate the opportunity to submit a statement for the
Committee record on the important issue of offshore aquaculture and the
promising impacts that this developing technology could have on the
U.S. seafood industry and the American families who depend on fish and
seafood as part of a healthy diet and lifestyle.
The National Fisheries Institute (NFI) is the Nation's leading
advocacy organization for the seafood industry. Its member companies
represent every element of the industry from commercial boat owners to
national seafood restaurant chains. NFI and its members are committed
to sustainable management of our oceans and being stewards of our
environment. We endorse the United Nations' Principles for Responsible
Fisheries, and our members conduct their business in ways that can feed
Americans now and in the future. Our members value our surrounding
ecosystems and native species. Our investment in our oceans today will
provide our children and future generations the health benefits of a
plentiful supply of fish and seafood tomorrow.
Mr. Chairman, what might have appeared in a Jules Verne novel is
coming true. The story of fish farms far off the coast and deep in the
ocean is no longer the stuff of science fiction; it is becoming
reality. But until it becomes reality for companies in the United
States, Americans will miss out on this potential boon to our economy.
The Senate has pending before it now one of the key outcomes of
last year's U.S. Oceans Action Plan: a proposal to establish the
regulatory infrastructure for a national offshore aquaculture program.
S. 1195, the National Offshore Aquaculture Act, would create a
framework for the Department of Commerce to issue permits for offshore
aquaculture. This legislation would streamline the permitting process
and allow permits to be granted to build fish farms in certain
geographic areas and for certain types of fish. The permits would be
renewable. Finally, the permitting process would take into the account
the views of states, other Federal agencies, and other impacted parties
(such as fishing vessels operators and off shore oil drilling
companies).
A number of nations are already engaged in offshore aquaculture.
This kind of cutting-edge technology will become essential to meet the
ever-growing demand for seafood around the world. The U.S. has the
advantage of being able to rapidly develop the high technology systems
that would be required to commercialize off shore aquaculture. What is
missing is the regulatory system to develop this business.
The National Offshore Aquaculture Act is the beginning of a
dialogue. The bill's sponsors, Senators Ted Stevens (Alaska) and Daniel
Inouye (Hawaii), and Congress on the whole will examine these
recommendations and undoubtedly adjust the initial language as part of
the legislative process.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act--legislation that provides guidance for
management of wild capture fisheries in the U.S.--is the priority fish
and seafood issue for Congress. The aquaculture bill should not be far
behind. Many in Congress clearly recognize that we will be unable
sustain our level of consumption or expected increases in the future by
relying solely on wild capture. Aquaculture is that complement to wild
capture fisheries.
The 80 million metric ton difference estimated by the U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO), or ``aquaculture gap,'' between our
global wild harvest and the world's demand for healthy seafood needs to
be met.
Farm-raised products are sustainable sources of food that help
retailers and restaurants meet the ever-growing demand for seafood
across our Nation and around the world. Aquaculture practices--
traditional and marine alike--should be viewed in the public eye as a
``relief valve'' for wild capture fisheries, not a replacement for
them.
Furthermore, aquaculture products are often a cost-effective
alternative for the producer. That benefit can be passed along to
consumers by expanding the kinds of fish available and reducing prices.
Five of the top ten kinds of fish Americans eat are to some extent
farmed, including shrimp, salmon, catfish, tilapia, and clams.
Time and again we hear the health benefits of fish and why people
should include it as part of a healthy diet. Now as the level of
consumption rises, the Federal Government is working to ensure we have
the ability to meet that demand. This bill will strengthen that ability
while ensuring appropriate safeguards are in place.
NFI looks forward to working with the Congress and with your
Committee on this legislation that will help ensure a sustainable and
environmentally sound resource for future generations. I appreciate the
opportunity to submit these comments, and look forward to working with
you on this important initiative in the coming weeks and months.
______
Prepared Statement of John R. MacMillan, Ph.D., President,
National Aquaculture Association
The National Aquaculture Association (NAA) is the largest trade
organization representing fish and shellfish aquaculture producers in
the United States. Our members produce food fish, recreational fishing
stock and baitfish, aquarium ornamental fish and shellfish. The NAA
strongly supports the development of a national offshore aquaculture
program that is environmentally-responsible and commercially feasible.
The NAA offers the following comments regarding development of an
offshore aquaculture legal framework, and looks forward to working with
others to support enabling legislation that will assist the United
States in meeting the seafood demand of present and future generations.
I. The United States Must Establish a Federal Marine Aquaculture
Production Program
U.S. Demand Outstrips Current Capabilities
The U.S. consumer demand for fish and shellfish continues to rise
at an increasing rate. In 2005, seafood consumption in the U.S. soared
to 16.6 pounds per person.\1\ Marine and freshwater aquaculture
production, as well as product from capture fisheries, will be needed
to meet this demand.
Presently, foreign imports overwhelmingly dominate the U.S. seafood
market. In 2005, the United States imported $12.1 billion worth of
seafood compared to $11.3 billion in 2004.\2\ Fifty-three per cent of
the 2004 imports originated in Asia.\3\ Accounting for U.S. exports of
$3.8 billion, our annual seafood trade deficit has reached $8.3 billion
in 2005 compared to $7.4 billion in 2004.\4\ Remarkably, Americans rely
on imports for the majority of their seafood.
Substantial increases in the domestic capture fishing industry
cannot be expected to meet projected U.S. demand. Maintaining the
health of our wild seafood stocks requires careful management and
monitoring. The necessity of limitations on production and fishing
effort in management of natural populations can interrupt supplies to
buyers, jeopardize consumer allegiance for domestic product species and
cause greater demand for foreign product. Despite suggestions to the
contrary, responsible management of capture fisheries cannot be
expected to simply adopt aquaculture technologies in such a way as to
meet demand solely through marine fishing. For example, modern
hatcheries (aquaculture) produce an estimated forty percent of the
harvested pacific salmon stock, but simply increasing stocking efforts
will not provide reliable production increases or meet demand for other
food fish species. We must look to the use of aquaculture technology to
provide the substantial increased domestic production required to meet
our needs for marketable seafood.
Today's Decisions May Write the Story of Our Future
For the past quarter century, Congress has recognized that our
dependence on seafood imports adversely affects the national balance of
payments and contributes to the uncertainty of supplies.\5\
Unfortunately, not a single commercial marine finfish facility has been
established in Federal waters over that period. In terms of offshore
aquaculture, we have failed to even begin to implement the national
policy established by the National Aquaculture Act of 1980 to
``encourage the development of aquaculture in the United States.'' \6\
Now more than ever, food security is becoming a critical concern
for all countries, and the United States is no exception. Not long in
the future, the economic strength of nations, and health of their
citizens, may reflect the availability of high-quality protein sources.
Food security may supplant energy security as the strategic issue of
the day. Our collective inability to develop the means to produce food
fish in the Federal waters of the exclusive economic zone may have dire
consequences that should not be ignored today.
The United States was the world's food basket. Today, in addition
to unexpected foreign competition in everything from Russian wheat to
Central American produce, we realize we are not immune to a variety of
national food production risks. Our critical protein production
industries are vulnerable to natural disease risks, intentional attacks
on food supplies by our enemies, transportation disruptions, and trade
disputes between nations. All such factors could affect the health of
generations to come. As a nation, we would be remiss not to pursue the
protein production opportunities provided by offshore aquaculture on
grounds that we may be faced with challenges, or that we will need to
resolve our differences of opinion regarding its costs and benefits.
II. Legislation Should Create the Mandate; Regulation Should Provide
the Operating Standards
Congress should create the mandate to pursue offshore aquaculture
as an important element of our food production strategy for the 21st
century. However, the legislative, policy development arena is not the
proper forum for creating the detailed system that must integrate new
legal authorities with numerous existing legal and regulatory standards
applicable to aquaculture operations in the exclusive economic zone.
Aquaculture opponents speculate that a litany of potential dire
consequences will create insurmountable environmental obstacles to
development of offshore aquaculture. Those opponents would prefer that
enabling legislation create numerous, specific aquaculture operating
criteria without the benefit of public investigation and analysis that
would be performed in rulemaking. In reality, there also exist many
environmental standards that can be used to address the primary issues
raised by opponents. Moreover, only in notice and comment rulemaking
can all stakeholders have an opportunity to participate in the detailed
scientific and governmental review required to formulate a supportive
yet protective program.
What is needed is a clear legislative directive to guide both
detailed rulemaking by administrative agencies and potential judicial
review. Congress must be unwavering in meeting its responsibility to
clearly restate that the fundamental objective of the offshore
aquaculture legislation is food production.
Available Water Quality Protection Standards Exist Today, Additional
Regulation Is Unwarranted
Maintaining water quality is a first priority for all successful
aquaculturists. The technology for doing so is readily available, and
the regulatory programs to ensure protection of water quality already
exist.
In 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency completed
approximately 4 years of work to investigate the primary methods of
aquaculture production (including coastal net pen operations), and
develop discharge permit regulations.\7\ The USEPA promulgated specific
effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs); an unfortunate term for
enforceable permit standards for aquaculture operations.\8\ Aquaculture
facilities are required to meet these standards as elements of their
NPDES permit under the Clean Water Act.\9\ In addition, the Clean Water
Act and its regulations have long required additional permit standards
specifically tailored for discharges to ocean waters.\10\ The Federal
ocean discharge regulations act to supplement ELG standards to provide
an adaptive process to ensuring ocean water quality.
Ocean discharges are subject to criteria that require an assessment
of their impact to biological community resources.\11\ In its review of
a permit application for a proposed ocean discharge permit, the EPA
must consider the discharge's effect on the receiving water ecosystem,
and specifically ensure that there is no ``unreasonable degradation''
of the marine environment.\12\ The operating conditions required to
meet this requirement are developed in the permit application process,
where the project factors such as location, design, proposed stock
species and receiving water characteristics are taken into account in
order to develop appropriate safeguards.\13\ Existing Federal
regulations require an evaluation of ten criteria to determine whether
an unreasonable degradation of the marine environment will occur.\14\
Permits cannot be issued when there is insufficient information to
determine that no unreasonable degradation will occur, unless the
applicant can demonstrate that: (a) the discharge will not result in
``irreparable harm;'' (b) no reasonable alternatives to the discharge
exist; and, (c) the applicant complies with other permit
conditions.\15\ Permits issued under this authority are also
specifically conditioned upon the risk of termination in the event that
new data demonstrate that the continued discharge would result in
unreasonable degradation of the marine environment.\16\
A valid regulatory permit program is available to regulate offshore
ocean discharges from aquaculture facilities. The proposed legislation
need not duplicate this program, and efforts to do so will only create
potential conflicts and unnecessary additional regulation.
Species Restrictions and Stock Escapes
Potential impacts to native species and natural stock populations
are legitimate concerns to consider in the development of offshore
aquaculture facilities. However, blanket legislative prohibitions may
preclude development of production technologies that are protective of
native species and provide enhanced food fish production systems to the
United States and others.
The aquaculture legislation should allow NOAA to review and approve
proposed stock species and operating systems on a case-by-case basis,
and thereby not bar the United States from the benefit of innovation
and technological advancements. Sufficient levels of security for the
circumstances may be achieved by incorporating a variety of safeguards.
Depending on the specific circumstances, appropriate safeguards might
incorporate stock restrictions (e.g., triploid (non-breeding) stock),
improved containment designs (e.g., multiple netting, hard containment
structures, vessel-contained stock) or new methods of protection not
yet identified.
Offshore Aquaculture's Potential Contribution to Health Quality
The increase in domestic consumption of seafood is, in part,
related to greater availability of seafood in the U.S. at competitive
prices and to increased realization that consumption of seafood high in
omega-3 fatty acids appears to have profound health benefits. Marine
fish species, particularly those that are carnivorous, are typically
high in omega-3 fatty acids relative to many freshwater species. Demand
for healthy seafood is expected to grow as the U.S. population
increases and as seafood health benefits become more broadly
acknowledged. Offshore aquaculture presents a tremendous potential for
increased supply of fresh, healthy seafood to the American consumer. It
is incumbent on Congress to provide opportunity for offshore
aquaculture in the U.S. EEZ to help improve U.S. public health.
Antibiotic Use Is Properly Regulated
Opponents of aquaculture often allege rampant misuse of antibiotics
by producers. Such opponents speculate that such misuse will be a
standard practice if we create a marine aquaculture system. This is a
red herring issue. Aquaculture opponents never discuss the various
Federal programs designed to ensure public health and environmental
safety are maintained when the few available antibiotics are used.
Critics fail to recognize the scientifically-rigorous U.S. Food and
Drug Administration drug approval process. There are very few drugs
approved for use in aquatic animal farming in the United States and the
three approved antibiotics are only available for a few specific fish
species. Ongoing efforts to develop vaccines will dramatically reduce
the need for antibiotics. New drugs are strictly regulated, and must
pass rigorous evaluation for their potential environmental impacts
under the Investigational New Animal Drug approval process. Existing
laws specifically protect the public health and prescribe the standards
for management of drug use and quality assurance in marine aquaculture.
Alleged Aquaculture Health Risks Are Unfounded
Some aquaculture critics express fears that antibiotics used in
aquaculture will harm the surrounding environment or lead to antibiotic
resistance in humans. In fact, there is no credible scientific
literature documenting environmental harm from the extremely low
concentrations of antibiotics occurring in the environment due to
treatment of aquatic animals. Moreover, antibiotics are not used to
protect fish (i.e., prophylactic use) nor are they used to promote
growth in domestically reared fishes. The only antibiotics approved for
use in the U.S. domestic aquaculture industry are approved to treat
specific bacterial diseases in specific kinds of aquatic animals.
Similarly, critics often mistakenly claim that hormones are used in
aquaculture to promote growth. In fact, there are no U.S. FDA approved
hormones for growth promotion of aquatic animals. Critics also fail to
identify the ongoing efforts of the Federal Joint Subcommittee on
Aquaculture to develop a national aquatic animal health plan. Last,
opponents of offshore aquaculture argue that farming of aquatic animals
will create disease or enhance disease of wild fish. In fact,
infectious diseases affecting farmed aquatic animals already occur in
the wild. The pathogens causing aquatic animal disease in marine
species are most frequently transferred from wild fish to farmed fish.
III. Fundamental Issues Must Be Addressed in Legislation in Order To
Create a Viable Program
A. The Proper Role of the States
The coastal states have a legitimate interest in the development of
offshore aquaculture and may have aquaculture experience that would
assist in the evaluation of offshore marine aquaculture projects. The
Federal process for review of offshore marine facilities must include
state participation procedures. However, the potential adverse impacts
of aquaculture in Federal waters must be kept in perspective. Unlike
other projects that may potentially create greater, wide-range impacts
to state water quality, such as offshore oil and gas production
facilities, marine aquaculture facilities beyond the limits of state
waters are unlikely to create similar concerns.
Offshore marine facilities in Federal waters should not be required
to receive a formal state consistency determination under the Coastal
Zone Management Act unless the facility is reasonably likely to violate
state marine water quality standards or violate an approved state
coastal management program requirement in state jurisdiction
waters.\17\ Any land-based operations or related industries that
support offshore aquaculture should be reviewed under the applicable
local zoning regulations and related coastal zone management standards
that are part of that review.
State Veto Authority Must Be Limited
Giving states the ability to close Federal waters to offshore
aquaculture creates a dangerous precedent, and is inconsistent with the
national objectives of the proposed legislation. States should not have
carte blanche authority in Federal waters; whether it concerns the
operation of proposed aquaculture facilities, management of fish
stocks, or the presence of nuclear-powered vessels or armaments in the
U.S. exclusive economic zone.
There would be little incentive for private industry to develop
offshore production facilities if their operation could be terminated
and investment forfeited by subsequent state opt-out decisions. Any
opt-out authority provided to states must be reasonably limited in
scope and reflect a valid public policy purpose. States should be
limited to a one-time opt-out decision, and should be required to
notify NOAA of their opt-out decisions within 6 months of promulgation
of the program regulations. The state opt-out decision also should be
limited in effect to only the area within five nautical miles from the
state-Federal boundary. A similar procedure could apply to state-
Federal boundaries areas that create jurisdictional ``donuts.'' The
five nautical mile boundary area could be considered a rationally
defined setback area to further protect state waters from potential
aquaculture facility impacts. Naturally, NOAA would still be able to
consider specific impact factors and additional, appropriate protective
standards under regulations established for review of proposed
facilities.
An additional limitation needed to support the concept of a
legitimate decision by states to remove Federal waters from potential
development would be to condition a state opt-out decision upon the
existence of a corresponding state prohibition of finfish or shellfish
aquaculture in state waters. It would be unreasonable to allow states
to prohibit aquaculture in neighboring Federal waters when such
activities are allowed in state waters.
B. Aquaculture Is Not a Fisheries Management Issue
The NAA strongly supports exempting offshore commercial aquaculture
from regulation under wild fisheries management programs such as the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the
jurisdiction of the fisheries management councils.\18\ As is the case
with other Federal entities with offshore responsibilities, the
Councils should be provided with an opportunity to comment on proposed
offshore aquaculture programs but not be provided with approval or veto
authority, or the ability to regulate aquaculture operations. The only
proper application of such a management program with respect to
offshore aquaculture is the regulation of the release of farmed fish
under wild stock enhancement programs. Otherwise, aquaculture fish
stocks are to be recognized as private property; they are not part of a
wild fishery resource.
Fish farm operations also should not be subject to standards
established by the Councils that are not part of the regulations
promulgated under authority of the proposed offshore aquaculture
legislation. While Congress is only now first considering offshore
aquaculture enabling legislation, some Councils have already produced
onerous environmental and operations policies for potential aquaculture
operations in the exclusive economic zone. These policies have been
drafted without the benefit of formal rulemaking processes, or
rulemaking safeguards with respect to economic evaluations, small
business considerations or protections against anticompetitive effects.
Congress should confirm that the evaluation, approval and operation of
offshore aquaculture facilities will be performed under the regulations
promulgated by NOAA to implement the aquaculture legislation, and that
such operations are not intended to be regulated by policies created by
the Councils under the wild resource programs. Of course, there are
also other existing regulations and specific statutory directives for
regulating aspects of Federal offshore aquaculture, such regulations
under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and regulations of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.\19\
C. Site Permit Terms
The proposed offshore legislation establishes a site permit to
authorize an aquaculture production facility in Federal waters. The
proposed term of this permit is an initial period of 10 years,
renewable at 5 year terms thereafter. This approach does not present a
viable development and investment option. The proposed length of the
site permit presents a significant obstacle to business and financial
planning. Offshore aquaculture operations will be expensive, and will
typically require private sector financing. The uncertainty created by
potential disruption of established operations after a 10 year initial
permit periods will create too great a degree of risk. The transaction
costs attendant to initial permitting of production sites, and
potential additional costs to re-permit initial sites, or new sites, is
a substantial burden that must be supported by product prices. These
significant transaction costs may make product prices unmarketable.
By comparison, other Federal leases that authorize the consumptive
use of public trust resources (as opposed to use of a site for private
resources) provide even longer use periods than the proposed
aquaculture legislation. Federal oil and gas leases run for twenty
years.\20\ Federal deep seabed mineral leases run for initial recovery
periods of twenty years, and indefinitely thereafter if minerals are
being recovered.\21\ The term of aquaculture site permits should be
extended to initial periods of twenty-five years, and should be
renewable for terms of twenty-five years. Shorter periods result in
business instability, substantial overhead and transaction costs, and
potential lease speculation that could create bidding wars for
established production sites. The objective of Federal legislation
should be reliable production of food fish, not speculative markets in
production sites.
IV. Aquaculture Development in a Global Market
Large-scale marine aquaculture of the type likely to be considered
for development in the U.S. exclusive economic zone is being undertaken
in many other countries as we speak. In fact, we must recognize that
this type of operation will be a much larger scale and more capital
intensive than most other forms of aquaculture in the United States. As
such, many of those who would consider undertaking these projects will
readily evaluate foreign development locations as alternatives to
development in the United States. To the extent that we create
obstacles to development in this country, marine aquaculture projects
will be located in Australia, Belize, Canada, Chile, China, Mexico,
Norway, New Zealand, Scotland, Spain, Vietnam and other countries. The
transportation requirements do not present a significant barrier to
U.S. markets from these locations, particularly when we consider the
disparity in labor costs and regulatory costs.
If we are to have any hope of creating a commercial offshore
aquaculture industry in the United States, and addressing food security
requirements and the current seafood trade imbalance, we will have to
eliminate existing unwarranted barriers to development and create a
reasonable program for evaluation and approval of offshore aquaculture
projects.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments.
ENDNOTES
\1\ U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Import and Export of Fishery
Products Annual Survey 2005 (``Survey 2005''), (http://www.st.nmfs.gov/
st1/trade/documents/TRADE2005.pdf, visited April 2006).
\2\ Id.; NOAA, Fisheries of the United States 2004 (Fisheries
2004), p. 53,
(http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/fus/fus04/08_perita2004.pdf).
\3\ Id., p. 55.
\4\ Survey 2005, Fisheries 2004, p. 53.
\5\ National Aquaculture Act of 1980, 16 U.S.C. 2801 et seq., 16
U.S.C. 2801(a)(2).
\6\ National Aquaculture Act of 1980, 16 U.S.C. 2801 et seq., 16
U.S.C. 2801(c).
\7\ See, 69 FR 51891, 51897 (December 23, 2004).
\8\ See, 40 CFR Part 451.
\9\ 33 U.S.C. Sec. 402.
\10\ 33 U.S.C. 403; See also, 40 CFR Sec. Sec. 125.120 through
125.124.
\11\ 40 CFR Sec. 125.122(a)(3).
\12\ 40 CFR Sec. Sec. 125.121(e), 125.122.
\13\ 40 CFR Sec. 125.122.
\14\ 40 CFR Sec. 125.122(a).
\15\ 40 CFR Sec. 125.123.
\16\ 40 CFR Sec. 125.123(d)(4).
\17\ See, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1456(c)(3)(A); See also, 16 U.S.C.
Sec. 1453(1).
\18\ 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
\19\ 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 40 CFR Part 451.
\20\ 30 U.S.C Sec. 223.
\21\ 30 U.S.C Sec. 1417(b).
______
Prepared Statement of Brian O'Hanlon, President, Snapperfarm, Inc.
Dear Committee Members,
Many of the negative comments I heard at the hearings unfairly and
inaccurately portrayed our fledgling industry and products. We (our
company and colleagues) are very sensitive to all environmental issues
and other concerns surrounding our industry and work very hard to
produce some of the most environmentally responsible, healthy and safe
seafood products available to American consumers.
The following are some of the key issues I heard being discussed at
the hearing and my comments on each issue. In an effort to maintain
transparency with respect to these issues and concerns, we try to post
as much nonproprietary information on our website as we can. If you are
interested in additional information to support my comments I will be
happy to provide it upon request.
Environmental Impact: Senator Boxer from California worried
that offshore aquaculture will ``create clouds of ammonia,
phosphorous and other waste''. Dr. Rebecca Goldberg calculated
that a $5 billion offshore aquaculture industry will discharge
waste equivalent to 17 million people or the entire North
Carolina hog industry.
It sure sounds dramatic and complicated when it is explained
that way, but when describing what impact Rebecca's $5 billion
industry will really have on the EEZ Randy Cates put it in
simpler, less dramatic terms. Norway's entire $1.8 billion
salmon industry has the footprint equivalent to a large runway
in the U.S. while the EEZ is roughly the same size as the
continental U.S. Now consider that this footprint and loading
is going to be divided among dozens or even hundreds of farms
spread out over a couple of million square miles in the EEZ.
We must consider the staggering volumes of water that will move
through these farms on a daily basis. For example, at our site
in Puerto Rico, we have an exchange rate in each cage of over
1,000 times per day which equates to over 2 billion liters of
clean seawater flowing through every cage every day. Over the
past 4 years, NOAA has funded two detailed environmental
studies (reports available on our website) at our farm site.
Both were conducted by the University of Miami and University
of Puerto Rico and both proved that there is no significant
environmental impact from our operation. Even if we tried to, I
do not think we can create the dramatic impact described by
Senator Boxer.
Social Impacts: Comments were made at the hearings that
suggested that offshore aquaculture products will compete with
and eventually displace segments of the U.S. fishing industry.
Whether or not offshore aquaculture develops in U.S. waters,
the U.S. fishing industry will compete with aquaculture
products in the U.S. markets. If the products are not produced
domestically, they will be produced overseas, imported and
consumed in the U.S. Offshore aquaculture should grow to work
with and compliment the U.S. fishing industry. None of the
species of fish currently being produced offshore in U.S.
waters are competing with a wild capture fishery of the same
species. In addition, it is not biologically, technologically
or economically feasible to produce all seafood products
through aquaculture.
Fishmeal Use: Comments were made at the hearings that suggested
offshore aquaculture consumes more protein from the wild than
it creates.
Approximately one third of the world's fishmeal and fish oil is
consumed by aquaculture while the other two thirds are consumed
by pig and chicken industries. Fish are far more efficient at
converting fish-based proteins into biomass than any other farm
raised animal. In just 4 years operating our farm in Puerto
Rico, we have dramatically improved the growth efficiency of
our crops. Most of the protein in our feed comes from grain
based products, while the smaller amount of fishmeal in our
feed comes from a carefully managed fishery in the U.S. One of
our primary goals is to constantly improve growth efficiency
and reduce the total amount of fishmeal used in our feeds. A
tremendous amount of research is being conducted around the
world to develop substitute protein sources that still retain
the health benefits of fishmeal and fish oil. We strongly
believe that the industry will grow to reduce its reliance on
wild fish protein. We are already headed in that direction.
Product Safety: Senator Boxer questions whether this industry
will be helpful or harmful to the future health of our children
and fisheries. Dr. Rebecca Goldberg questioned the health risks
of farm raised fish because of trace levels of PCBs and other
contaminants.
Most foods we consume such as beef, chicken, pork, milk, butter
and cheese contain very small traces of PCBs and other
contaminants. American consumer ingests far more of these
contaminants from these other food items than they would from
fish. Our fish are tested for PCBs and other contaminants. The
certified labs conducting the tests have not detected any trace
of PCBs or contaminants in our fish. In addition, our fish are
very high in heart healthy Omega-3's and other essential fatty
acids. The reason for our clean, safe and very healthy fish
products are the clean, safe and high quality ingredients used
in our feeds.
American consumers should be more concerned with the fact that
if we do not produce these fish here in the U.S. where the
industry and products will be highly regulated, it will be done
somewhere else where there is less, little or no regulatory
oversight when it comes to environmental impacts and product
safety. If we do not substantially increase domestic
aquaculture production, importing foreign aquacultured products
will be the only choice for the American consumers increased
demand for seafood.
Consumer Acceptance: Senator Boxer mentioned that consumers in
the State of California prefer wild fish over farm raised fish
and that this is a trend that will spread across the country.
While this may be the case for a select group of people, we
think that generally, Americans will choose their seafood based
on value, quality and availability. This is certainly the case
for farmed salmon, shrimp, tilapia and other cultured products.
Our customers have a choice when buying our cobia products.
They can purchase wild cobia from South America or farm raised
cobia from Vietnam. They repeatedly choose our fish over the
others even with a 50 percent price premium because of the
superior quality, value and the peace of mind knowing the fish
has been carefully cared for its whole life.
Exotic Species: There were concerns from many Subcommittee
Members and some panel members about exotic species escaping
from the cages.
We believe that exotic species should not be allowed for
culture. Offshore farms should only be allowed to farm species
of fish that are native to their waters.
Escape: There is concern that fish will escape from cages and
breed or compete with wild fish for habitat and food source.
The last thing a farmer wants is to lose valuable crop, but it
is nearly impossible to guarantee that no fish will ever escape
from offshore farms. If we use native and nongenetically-
modified fish the risks associated with escape are reduced or
eliminated. We are constantly working closely with our cage
manufacturers to improve on already great cage designs.
Improvements in cage technology are moving at a rapid pace.
Just like our computers, the day after our cages are installed,
there is a better model available.
Disease and Drug Use: Concerns were raised at the hearings
about disease outbreaks among fish crowded in offshore cages
and the disease transfer from the farmed fish to wild fish.
Concerns were also raised about the use of antibiotics and
other drugs to treat diseases.
One of the benefits of moving offshore is that we provide a
healthier environment for our crops of fish. Because of strong
currents, the water exchange rate is very high and because of
the depth and vastness of the offshore waters, our fish never
see the same water twice. Proper farm management practices such
as the use of high-quality diets and reasonable stocking
densities also help to prevent disease. We believe that the
salmon industry experienced early problems with disease
interaction between farmed and wild fish partly because the
farms are located in areas that are migratory routes and are
frequented by wild salmon. Currently, this is not the case for
the species of fish being produced offshore.
If not properly administered, antibiotics and drugs can impact
surrounding ecosystems and product health. However, the drugs
used in the U.S. are highly regulated and the frequency of use
offshore should be minimal because of the healthier environment
described above. The salmon industry has come a long way with
the development of vaccines for their crops. With the right
resources, this vaccination technology can be modified and
adapted for use with a wide variety of marine fish species.
We do agree that offshore aquaculture expansion should not go
unchecked and a proper regulatory structure will help weed out poorly
planned and managed projects. However, the existing regulatory
structure is too expensive, complex and overburdening for even the most
serious and well organized businesses. I can easily claim that the
regulatory system is the single largest constraint to the growth of our
business. We strongly support the goals of the Offshore Aquaculture Act
of 2005. However, I have a few comments I would like to make regarding
the bill.
Permit Terms: We believe that the proposed time period for the
permits (10 years and renewable for an additional 5 years) is
too short. Offshore aquaculture operations take a tremendous
investment in capital and time to start. It will be difficult
to justify this investment without the security of longer-term
permits.
State Opt-Out: It is clearly a state's right to not want this
industry to develop just outside of its costal waters. However,
the state should make this determination before farms are
established. It is not fair to the private industry to have
their permits canceled with such short notice if the state
decides at a later date that it does not want the industry
offshore.
Government Support: The government must invest substantially
more financial and research support to further the development
efforts of private, academic and nonprofit organizations. Our
company has endured a substantial share of the cost burden in
bringing the offshore aquaculture production of cobia to
commercial reality in the U.S. The same can be said for the
companies in Hawaii with respect to their products.
Our company and our colleagues are working hard to develop a
responsible, highly productive industry in the U.S. If you focus too
much on the misconceptions I heard emphasized at the hearings and not
the facts, you are going to force the technology, jobs and income to
other countries where there will likely be less regulatory oversight,
less regard for the health of the environment and less concern for
product quality. You have a tremendous amount of influence in the
future of offshore aquaculture in the U.S. Please consider the facts,
not misconceptions when determining our future.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input.
______
Prepared Statement of William Taylor, President, Taylor Shellfish Farms
Taylor Shellfish Company is a large (perhaps the largest in the
United States) producer of farmed molluscan shellfish. Beginning in the
1880s we've taken five generations of experience and coupled it with
modern technology to create state-of-the-art production facilities for
Manila clams, a variety of oyster species, mussels and geoduck clams.
Most of these are produced on approximately 9,000 acres of tidelands we
own or lease here in Washington with the exception of mussels which are
grown suspended from rafts. We ship seed and mature shellfish all over
the world.
I am writing today in support of Congress passing authorizing
legislation that will allow and encourage environmentally responsible
aquaculture in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Taylor Shellfish
belongs to the National Aquaculture Association and fully supports the
detailed comments submitted by them regarding the offshore aquaculture
legislation. We would welcome Federal legislation which would increase
opportunity for domestic aquaculture and provide a commensurate
national research and development program.
Our company employs approximately 380 people full time at our
hatcheries, nurseries, farms and processing facilities in the Unites
States and typically add another 30-40 employees seasonally.
Collectively these employees earn about $12.3 million annually and most
have medical, vacation and retirement benefits.
In recent years, Taylor Shellfish Company has been expanding to
include operations in Canada, Fiji and Mexico. Our decision to locate
in foreign waters has in part been driven by opportunities in other
countries where aquaculture development is supported and encouraged.
Less stringent environmental standards are not the appeal. In our
experience they have been similar. Most significantly, aquaculture is
desired in these countries, public policy facilitates it and there are
research and development programs which support it.
In Totten Inlet, Washington, which is in the southern part of Puget
Sound, our company currently has two mussel farms. We lease
approximately 11 acres from the state on which we anchor these farms.
The surface area actually covered by rafts is far smaller. These farms
were permitted between 1992 and 1994. Together they produce
approximately 1.5 million pounds of mussels annually. We have been
attempting to get a third farm permitted in the same inlet since 1997.
The 58, 30, x 38, rafts proposed for the new farm would cover
approximately two acres of the surface. Unfortunately recent shoreline
development, occurring since the earlier farms were permitted, has
brought with it an onslaught of new competing uses, not the least being
a desire for an unobstructed view. The legal challenges and
environmental study required to site this new farm have cost hundreds
of thousands of dollars and delayed the project years. As none of the
required studies to date has found evidence of negative environmental
impact, we anticipate we will ultimately prevail on getting this new
farm permitted.
To meet market demand for mussels while fighting to site a third
farm in Totten Inlet, we have purchased three farms in British
Columbia. These three farms collectively provide us approximately 250
acres of surface area on which to anchor rafts and culture mussels.
Currently we employ 12 people in BC who earn approximately $400,000
collectively. We are now looking for an appropriate location to build a
hatchery and processing plant in British Columbia to accommodate these
farms and facilitate their full development. This will ultimately
represent 40-50 good paying full time jobs that could have been located
in the United States.
While state and local land use laws are the main culprit for our
problems in Totten Inlet, not the Federal Government, we can't help but
wonder if the outcome would have been different were the United States
actually implementing a National Aquaculture Development Plan that
promoted aquaculture (called for by the National Aquaculture Act of
1980). Perhaps Washington State would have a State Shoreline Management
Act that supported the National Aquaculture Development Plan which
would have provided direction to local governments to do the same.
Perhaps NOAA would have had aquaculture coordinator positions in their
regional offices, testifying supportively at local permit hearings.
Perhaps Washington State would be seeking our jobs instead of shunning
them.
Seafood demand as you heard in your April 6th hearing continues to
rise and demand will not be met by wild fisheries alone. According to
NOAA's 2002 document The Rationale for a New Initiative in Marine
Aquaculture, aquaculture is the fastest growing food industry in the
world. While global aquaculture production has grown at an annual rate
of 10 percent, the growth of aquaculture in the United States has been
only 1 percent--and most of that has been in the fresh water
environment.
Part of our decision to locate in other countries is because public
policy here in the United States is not conducive to aquaculture
development. Actually, to be more accurate, Federal public policy, in
particular the National Aquaculture Act of 1980 and aquaculture
policies at the Department of Commerce and National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration are very supportive.
Unfortunately the rubber has yet to meet the road when it comes to
implementing these laws and policies. To the contrary, it has only
become more difficult in recent years to continue to operate existing
farms, never mind expanding operations.
Opportunities for shellfish culture in the EEZ are limited, at
least with today's technology. That could clearly change in future
years with advances in technology. Despite the limited opportunity we
support the legislation to preserve future opportunity. The shellfish
industry could see immediate growth opportunities if NOAA were to
develop a comprehensive marine aquaculture program which included
facilitating nearshore aquaculture development. This could be through
research and development and aquaculture zoning under Section 309 of
the Coastal Zone Management Act.
Thank you for consideration of these comments.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Dr. William T. Hogarth
Regulatory Streamlining
Question 1. Why does the Administration's bill propose having two
separate permits for siting and operations? Would these replace, or be
in addition to, other state and Federal permits? As we now have an
opportunity to design a permitting system from scratch, how can we take
steps to reasonably integrate these permits?
Answer. The two-permit system was designed to give industry long-
term security of tenure along with the flexibility to modify operations
over time (e.g., in response to changing technology and market
conditions). The site permit allows a permit holder to use a specific
area of the ocean for aquaculture for 10 years, renewable every 5
years. The operating permit covers what the site permit holder could do
at the site [e.g., type of structure, species, operational details,
etc.]. If a site permit holder wanted to switch to a different type of
operation or grow a different species, the operating permit could be
amended without affecting the site permit.
The Administration's bill will not override existing laws, but it
does call for a coordinated permit process to address the legal and
regulatory requirements under other statutes. It also authorizes other
Federal regulatory agencies to modify their regulations to implement
the coordinated permit process. For example, the bill preserves the
roles and responsibilities of other Federal agencies in establishing
environmental requirements under current law, while giving the
Secretary of Commerce authority to impose additional requirements
specifically relating to offshore aquaculture activities for which
permits are issued under this Act. The intent is to avoid duplicative
and/or conflicting requirements, allow the Secretary to fill in any
gaps or deficiencies in such environmental requirements, and facilitate
the identification of all requirements that apply to an offshore
aquaculture operation regardless of which Federal agency has primary
responsibility.
Question 2. Should the law mandate an integrated state-Federal
permitting process, a ``one-stop shop'' for all permits, or other
specific measures? What other steps could NMFS take to reasonably
improve the efficiency of the permitting process?
Answer. As stated in Dr. Hogarth's testimony, an offshore
aquaculture bill provides the Department of Commerce the authority to
directly regulate aquaculture in Federal waters, and to establish a
coordinated process among the Federal agencies. We envision a one-stop
regulatory shop, coordinated by NOAA, and integrated into NOAA's
environmental stewardship responsibilities. S. 1195 does not
specifically address the integration of a state-Federal permitting
process, as referenced in the question, but the bill does call on NOAA
to consult with the states in drafting implementing regulations and in
the review of Federal permit applications.
NMFS is already taking steps to improve the efficiency of the
aquaculture permitting process under current law by developing
guidelines and reference materials for use in the review of proposed
aquaculture facilities in coastal waters under the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the Endangered Species Act.
Future steps could include the designation of aquaculture coordinators
for each region to provide a local point of contact for permit
applicants.
Role of Regional Fishery Management Councils
Question 3. We need to consider the serious issues about how
offshore aquaculture would affect Federal fisheries management, and
vice versa. NOAA's proposed bill would exempt offshore aquaculture from
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, but clearly we have to make sure that
aquaculture is compatible with the conservation and management work of
the Regional Fishery Management Councils. NOAA's bill would require it
to consult with these Councils in the permitting process, and one of
Senator Stevens' amendments would require Council consultation in
setting environmental requirements.
What specific activities does NOAA envision when NOAA ``consults''
with Councils under your bill--mere information sharing, or a more
substantial review and comment process? What else? Should we be more
specific in the Act about what ``consult'' means?
Answer. The implementation of an offshore aquaculture bill will
complement NOAA management responsibilities over wild fisheries and
resolve some of the challenges the agency has faced trying to manage
aquaculture under laws, regulations, and fishery management plans
written for wild harvest fisheries. Once a bill is enacted, NOAA
envisions that a substantial role for the Fishery Management Councils
will be developed as part of the implementing regulations. A well-
defined role for the Councils in the consultation process will be
critical to the success of the permitting process for aquaculture in
Federal waters.
Under S. 1195, NOAA would consult with the Councils in the
development of regulations, in the establishment of environmental and
other requirements (especially as they relate to interactions with wild
stocks managed by the Councils), and in the review of individual permit
applications. In anticipation of the rulemaking process, NOAA is
working with the Councils to explore an appropriate consultation
process for Federal aquaculture permits.
NOAA does not believe a more specific statutory definition of
``consult'' is necessary. The role of the Councils--including the
definition of ``consult''--will be clarified as part of the rulemaking
process once the bill is enacted.
Question 4. Does NOAA support the amendment to require additional
consultation with councils in setting environmental requirements? What
other specific aquaculture-related activities require consultation
between NOAA and the councils?
Answer. The Administration supports the inclusion of language
requiring consultation with Fishery Management Councils in setting
environmental requirements, as well as in the development and
implementation of the permitting process. Councils may also be
consulted to help identify areas of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ) where offshore aquaculture would be least likely to interfere
with known fishing activities and other marine managed areas.
Question 5. Although we do not have fisheries management councils
represented here today, do you think councils now have the staff and
financial resources to become properly involved in this new
consultation function?
Answer. We anticipate that enactment of this legislation will not
impose significant additional work on the Fishery Management Councils.
Funding Authorizations
Question 6. Currently the Administration's bill proposes that we
authorize ``such sums as may be necessary'' for implementing this Act.
As you can imagine, that is a very difficult request in this budget
climate. As authorizers, we simply must have more specific information
from you on what funding is needed and what elements of the program it
would go toward.
Given your expertise in the costs associated with regulating major
industries, how much funding would NOAA require to implement the Act it
has proposed?
Answer. NOAA estimates that the cost of implementing S. 1195 would
be under $2.5 million annually over a period of 3 to 4 years. This
estimate, which is based on experience with other permit programs,
includes funding to develop implementing regulations. This estimate
does not include funds for demonstration projects and other research
and development in support of regulatory decisions.
Question 7. Out of this funding, exactly how would NOAA spend it?
For example, how much would it allocate to research and development,
program administration, monitoring and enforcement, and so on?
Answer. Implementation of S. 1195 would include stakeholder
meetings, Federal Register notices, drafting of regulations, design and
issuance of the permit system, monitoring requirements, Geographic
Information System (GIS) mapping, and compliance with NEPA to the
extent applicable.
Question 8. Does NOAA currently have the necessary staff and
expertise ``in-house'' to implement this Act? How many staff members
would be needed to effectively and efficiently administer this program?
Answer. NOAA has in-house staff and expertise to begin the
implementation of the National Offshore Aquaculture Act, and our budget
requests reflect required staffing. Full implementation of the bill,
assuming significant industry interest in applying for offshore
aquaculture permits, could require additional staff, including
personnel to administer, monitor and enforce permits. Although the
exact number of additional staff needed will depend on the level of
permit activity, we expect any increase in staffing to be gradual and
incremental to address identified needs.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Dr. William T. Hogarth
Environmental Concerns, Introduced Species, and Disease
Question 1. Both nearshore and offshore aquaculture raise many
environmental concerns, from water quality to disease. For example,
fish that escape from aquaculture facilities may harm wild fish
populations through competition or interbreeding, or by spreading
diseases and parasites. An issue of increasing concern is the possible
introduction of non-native species. This is a particularly acute
concern in Hawaii. In the United States, many cultured marine species
are not native to the area where they are being farmed. Non-natives may
establish new populations that may out-compete native populations for
food and habitat.
How can we ensure the protection of wild stocks from the potential
dangers of invasive species, genetic contamination, or disease?
Answer. S. 1195 would authorize the Secretary of Commerce to impose
specific terms and conditions on permits. NOAA will be able to use its
authority to require appropriate management measures to protect wild
stocks and prevent and mitigate adverse environmental impacts. We can
protect the marine environment--including wild stocks--through careful
planning, proper management, and the implementation of and adherence to
environmental standards. Specific examples of planning and management
actions that will help ensure the protection of wild stocks include
proper siting, species selection, facility design, implementation of
and adherence to best management practices, and the application of
aquatic animal health practices in aquaculture that have proven
effective. NMFS believes these actions and techniques are the best
defense against the introduction of invasive species, genetic
contamination, and disease.
All of the open ocean aquaculture efforts currently in the United
States involve species native to the region in which the demonstration
project or commercial operation is located. For example, the University
of New Hampshire's Open Ocean Aquaculture project raises blue mussels,
cod, haddock, and halibut--all native to the Northeast region. The open
ocean operations in Hawaii raise Pacific threadfin and yellowtail, both
native to the islands. Under S. 1195, anyone requesting a permit for a
non-native (and therefore potentially invasive) species would need to
demonstrate that the risks to the environment or wild stock would be
negligible. There are well-established scientific protocols for
considering and testing the use of non-native species. With careful
broodstock management, selective breeding protocols to minimize risks
to wild stocks, and technologies and good management practices to
prevent escapes, the culture of indigenous species should present few,
if any, risks to wild stocks.
It is also important to note that aquaculture operations in the
United States have never raised genetically modified fish in coastal
waters--another concern often raised in the context of non-native
species. For years, NOAA and other agencies have studied the genetic
and other interactions between hatchery and wild fish as part of
existing stock enhancement programs for commercial and recreational
fishing. Based on that experience, which includes the deliberate
releases of finfish, oysters, and crabs for replenishment, it will be
possible to design appropriate safeguards for conserving wild stocks.
NOAA is also aware of aquatic animal health issues based on
research over the past 25 years. Comprehensive aquatic animal health
programs that entail health experts administering vaccines and
monitoring aquatic species further reduce the possibility of negative
impacts on wild resources by cultured aquatic animals. Because aquatic
animal pathogens occur naturally in open waters and wild marine
organisms serve as natural reservoirs for these disease-causing agents,
disease outbreaks may occur in both wild and farmed aquatic animals.
There is little scientific evidence to link disease episodes in wild
populations of fish, caused by endemic pathogens, to cultured animals.
In its work with the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and the
Interior and with other Federal agencies, NOAA is at the forefront in
developing a National Aquatic Animal Health Plan that will provide for
safe national and international commerce of aquatic animals and the
protection of cultured and wild aquatic animals from foreign pests and
diseases. Technological and scientific advances also continue to refine
aquatic animal health practices. For example, as a result of scientific
advances, the marine aquaculture industry has largely replaced
antibiotics with vaccinations administered before fish are stocked into
cages.
With these factors in mind, NOAA will continue its focus on
research and technology development that will lead to more
environmental safeguards. NOAA will also continue its work with
stakeholders to create an opportunity for aquaculture in Federal waters
so the industry develops in a predictable, environmentally compatible,
and sustainable manner, in cooperation with our wild harvest.
Question 2. What kind of environmental safeguards have effectively
addressed public concerns about these and other environmental problems?
Answer. Based on over 30 years of improvements to marine finfish
aquaculture practices in the United States and abroad, the most
effective environmental safeguards to address public concerns are
technological innovation, best management practices, careful species
selection, and proper site selection.
Today's aquaculture cages, pens, and anchoring systems are more
robust, and have dramatically reduced the number of escaped fish. We
expect these types of technological innovations will continue to
develop. For example, new equipment for open ocean conditions has been
developed and refined in the past 10 years.
Best management practices to ensure that aquaculture operations
minimize risk and operate safely and securely have also been developed
and refined over time. Some standard management practices used today to
reduce or mitigate the risks associated with aquaculture include:
Regular inspections by divers to ensure the integrity of
nets and net infrastructure.
Cameras and surveillance to monitor efficient use of feed,
which reduces discharges of uneaten feed into the marine
environment.
Regular health inspections to prevent disease.
Comprehensive sanitary and biosecurity programs to prevent
the introduction and/or spread of pests or diseases from one
farm site or cage to another or into the marine environment.
Another key environmental safeguard, species selection, is one of
the most effective techniques available to reduce the impact of
escapes. The knowledge NOAA and other agencies have gained with regard
to species selection from over 30 years of stock enhancement research
and programs to support commercial and recreational fisheries will
allow managers to design safeguards for conserving wild stock.
NOAA is advocating careful site selection as one of the keys to
minimizing environmental risk and maximizing environmental benefits of
aquaculture--no matter what organism is under culture. Local site
characteristics will dictate the proper organism or mix for that site,
as all areas do not have the same environmental conditions and
concerns. In some cases, it may be important to encourage a mix of
organism types, including cultured finfish, filter feeding mollusks,
marine algae, and other taxa. These decisions will depend on which
species, or mix, will provide the maximum benefits with the smallest
ecological footprint.
Question 3. What are realistic expectations of what aquaculture can
do for the United States to improve our economic returns, food supply,
and balance of trade?
Answer. Economic returns will ultimately depend on market
conditions and costs of operations, including the costs of complying
with government regulations. Offshore aquaculture has great potential
to make a significant economic contribution, but this potential will be
realized only if we can provide the regulatory certainty for businesses
to make sound investment decisions. S. 1195 will give NOAA the
authority it needs to provide that regulatory certainty.
By enacting legislation to allow offshore aquaculture to develop in
the United States, we are creating opportunities for coastal
communities struggling with issues of overcapitalization and limited
harvests in commercial fishing. With a more robust domestic aquaculture
industry, boats used for fishing could also be used to service
aquaculture operations. Similarly, seafood industry infrastructure
could be used for the processing and distribution of aquaculture and
wild harvest fishery products. Domestic aquaculture could provide a
steady, year-round source of product and, in some locations, it could
prevent processing facilities from closing down altogether due to
insufficient harvest from wild fisheries.
NOAA is working with top social scientists and economists across
the Nation to analyze the economics of marine aquaculture as it relates
to commercial and sport fishing, market opportunities, global trends,
underused processing capabilities, value-added niche markets, and
coastal job development. The results of this analysis will be available
in late 2006.
Preliminary economic assessments by NOAA indicate that the
development and expansion of marine aquaculture in the United States
could trigger a ripple effect throughout the economy. Additional jobs
and economic benefits from aquaculture production could accrue
throughout the U.S. seafood value chain and among suppliers to the
aquaculture industry, such as boat owners, fishermen, feed and
equipment manufacturers, processing, feed suppliers (e.g., the soybean
industry), cold storage operators, seafood marketers, and the food
service industry.
Preliminary production estimates indicate that the United States
could increase domestic aquaculture production of all species to 1
million tons per year by 2025. The additional production could include
760,000 tons from freshwater and marine fish aquaculture, 47,000 tons
from crustacean production and 245,000 tons from mollusk production. Of
the 760,000 tons of finfish aquaculture, 590,000 tons could come from
marine finfish aquaculture.
Question 4. How much growth can we reasonably expect for the U.S.
offshore aquaculture industry with all the competing uses of our
coastal areas, particularly when combined with our need to provide
adequate protection for wild stocks, environmental conditions, and--of
course--the people who have to live with the choices?
Answer. Prospects for future growth of offshore aquaculture in the
United States depend on many factors, including the details of the
regulatory structure that would be developed under S. 1195. The
industry will be operating and competing in a global market, where a
range of economic factors (e.g., consumer demand and the costs of
labor, capital, and competing products) will determine the commercial
viability of U.S. operations.
It is also important to address concerns for protecting the marine
environment. Based on 25 years of scientific research, technology
development, extension work, development of best management practices,
and advances in stock enhancement techniques, NOAA is confident that
concerns can be addressed effectively through proper siting and
operation of aquaculture facilities, followed by careful monitoring.
The U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone is 3.4 million square miles. NOAA
is confident there are enough appropriate sites where aquaculture
facilities could operate without compromising the protection of wild
stocks, environmental quality, or people's livelihoods. In the long
run, U.S. fishing communities will be harmed more by foreign
competition than by a robust domestic aquaculture industry. The
challenge is to find ways for our domestic fishing industry to benefit
from the use of aquaculture technologies to produce additional
seafood--as fishermen are doing in some parts of the United States and
in other countries.
Foreign Ownership
Question 5. The Administration's bill allows for foreign ownership
of aquaculture permits. However, we do not allow foreign fleets to fish
in the EEZ, and we require that fishing companies be U.S. owned or
controlled. Senators Inouye and Stevens introduced an amendment to the
bill that deleted the Administration bill provision that would have
allowed foreign citizens to hold permits.
The Administration's proposal would have allowed for foreign
citizens to own and operate offshore aquaculture facilities in the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Why was this provision necessary?
Answer. With the Inouye-Stevens amendment, the provision would
require that offshore aquaculture permit holders be a citizen or
resident of the United States, or a corporation, partnership, or other
entity organized and existing under the laws of a state or the United
States. This provision was included in the bill because the development
of offshore aquaculture by foreign entities can provide many of the
benefits to the United States that operations by U.S. entities would
provide--from creation of jobs in the United States to reductions in
the U.S. trade deficit. The Administration bill does not foreclose
offshore aquaculture opportunities to foreign persons, as long as such
persons agree to be subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts with
respect to activities related to a permit. The provision is consistent
with our international trade obligations.
Question 6. How much foreign investment and ownership do you
anticipate in offshore aquaculture?
Answer. Most of the interest in offshore aquaculture to date has
come from U.S. entrepreneurs and investors. However, given the more
advanced development of aquaculture in other countries, it would be
unrealistic to expect zero investment by non-U.S. citizens and
aquaculture companies. Foreign investment and ownership will depend on
market and regulatory conditions in the United States and other
nations. Many U.S. investors have established aquaculture operations in
other countries in the absence of a clear regulatory regime in the
United States.
Question 7. How does allowing foreign ownership contribute to the
Administration's stated interest in increasing U.S. competitiveness and
improving our balance of trade?
Answer. The U.S. aquaculture industry can learn from overseas
companies, practitioners, and partners who, in many cases, may have
greater expertise and experience in aquaculture operations. By allowing
foreign participation in offshore aquaculture, we will also maintain
good investment and trade relations with other nations, which may also
import seafood produced by the U.S. offshore aquaculture industry. The
more our domestic aquaculture businesses can produce, the greater the
opportunity to reduce imports or to increase exports and reduce the
almost $8 billion annual seafood trade deficit in the United States.
Our challenge is to integrate aquaculture into domestic seafood
production so our fishermen, processors, and seafood marketing
companies can benefit directly from aquaculture.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Barbara Boxer to
Dr. William T. Hogarth
Question 1. What are NOAA's specific recommendations for mitigating
some of the likely cumulative and individual environmental and
socioeconomic effects of offshore aquaculture? Would NOAA oppose
incorporating these protections into this legislation?
Answer. NOAA believes that offshore aquaculture will present
benefits as well as challenges. The benefits will include more
resilient coastal communities that will have another compatible option
to produce seafood. These communities will benefit from the ripple
effect created by expansion of local industry. S. 1195 would provide
the necessary authority to require, through regulations or permit
conditions, appropriate measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate
unacceptable environmental and socioeconomic impacts. The bill also
provides authority to monitor operations and to take emergency actions
to address unanticipated impacts in a timely manner. NOAA expects that
the public rulemaking process will address specific mitigation steps in
more detail.
Question 2. What are NOAA's specific recommendations for minimizing
the possible human health problems surrounding the consumption of
farmed fish, such as the effects of antibiotics and PCBs? Is NOAA
opposed to incorporating these protections into this legislation?
Answer. NOAA's mission includes a focus on human health and safety,
and NOAA seeks to maintain a positive connection between human health
and seafood. Unfortunately, there is misinformation about the safety of
our seafood supply and some published research has been shown to be
inadequate, flawed, or biased. The issue of seafood safety requires
clarification based on the latest information from leading scientists,
nutritionists, and medical and healthcare professionals. Studies,
including those presented at the international Seafood & Health
Conference in December 2005, link seafood consumption to higher
intelligence in babies and children, lower heart rates in adults, lower
cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and lower body weight. As stated in
Dr. Hogarth's testimony to the Subcommittee, the health benefits of
eating seafood far outweigh the risks due to trace level contaminant
exposure. Seafood has been scientifically shown to fight cardiovascular
disease, cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and many other major illnesses.
To help clarify the issue of antibiotics and aquaculture, it is
important to understand that the marine aquaculture industry in the
United States has largely replaced antibiotics with vaccinations
administered before fish are stocked into cages. If an antibiotic is
necessary, it is applied under the supervision and prescription of a
licensed fish veterinarian, and is governed by Federal legislation and
regulations.
All food, including beef, chicken, seafood, grains, and vegetables,
contain trace levels of persistent organic chemicals such as PCBs,
because these chemicals are everywhere in our environment in very small
quantities. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration regularly monitors
food products--including cultured seafood--to ensure they are safe to
eat.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Dr. William T. Hogarth
Protein Conversion Ratio
Question 1. Many of the people I talk with in Washington State are
on the whole positive about aquaculture of shellfish, catfish, and
other herbivorous or filter feeding species. Carnivorous species,
however, are less well received--a perception that comes in large part
from negative environmental and economic experiences with net pen
salmon farming. I am concerned that carnivorous finfish culture, as
currently practiced, creates a net-loss of ocean protein and that large
scale exploitation of forage fish species used for fish meal could have
profound ecosystem effects. How has NOAA encouraged or sought solutions
to overcome the reliance on wild fish stocks as feed, which in many
ways seems to be an Achilles heel for any large-scale carnivorous
finfish aquaculture operation?
Answer. On a global scale, significant advancements have been made
in reducing the reliance on fish meal and fish oil for feeds used in
aquaculture, and NOAA plays a vital role in this research. For example,
scientists at NOAA's Northwest Fisheries Science Center, along with
scientists from other agencies and industry, are active participants in
ongoing research focused on the development of alternative feed
ingredients for cultured species, including finfish.
Among the most notable advancements in feeds are plant-based
alternatives to fish meal and fish oil. This groundbreaking research--
using soybeans, barley, rice, peas, and other crops as alternatives--is
expanding in the United States and across the globe. Other meals such
as canola, lupine, wheat gluten, corn gluten, and various plant protein
concentrates--many of them grown in the United States--have already
been shown to be highly palatable and digestible for fish. As the price
of alternative ingredients drops below that of fish meal, those
ingredients will be substituted for fish meal and fish oil.
Further development of plant-based feeds also represents a huge
opportunity for American agriculture, as the United States produces an
abundance of high-quality proteins and fats that could be used in fish
production. Increased production of high-protein by-products from bio-
diesel production, and high-protein and high-fat by-products from
ethanol and bio-plastics production are likely in the future. Feed
experts believe these by-product meals will be ideal for fish
production.
Although the amount of fish meal and fish oil in feeds will be
reduced as alternative ingredients come online and the cost drops, they
likely will not disappear from feed altogether. Research on plant-based
oils has found that maintaining some fish oil or suitable alternatives
derived from algae, for example, in fish feed is important to maintain
the health benefits to humans of eating marine fish, including the
long-chain Omega-3 fatty acids.
Scientists are most concerned about two healthy fatty acids--
decosahexinoic acid (DHA) and ecospentanoic acid (EPA). These fatty
acids are not produced by fish, but fish concentrate them in their fats
from the prey they eat. DHA and EPA are made by algae and
microorganisms and are passed up the food chain. These organisms can be
cultured directly to produce concentrated DHA and EPA. In fact, all the
DHA currently used in baby formula in the United States comes from
production of micro-algae, not from fish oil. Although it is costly,
experiments have shown that a small amount of this concentrated algae
oil can be added to vegetable oil to restore the healthy fatty acids in
the final product. In addition, other healthy fats, such as the shorter
chain Omega-3 fatty acids found in olive and flax oil, can also be
incorporated into the cultured fish. NOAA and other Federal agencies
are working with industry on research to develop lipid substitutes,
such as marine micro-algae production, to reduce reliance on fish and
oils. The agencies, research institutions, and others will continue to
partner with grain and feed companies and with feed researchers to find
suitable alternatives for fish meal and fish oil.
From a purely economic perspective, it is also well understood that
feed is a major component of the cost of production in an aquaculture
operation. Typically, the cost of feed accounts for over 60 percent of
operating costs, so there are strong economic incentives for the
industry to help develop suitable alternative ingredients for feed
formulas, and to become more efficient in converting feed into product.
Question 2. If the current bill is passed, will NOAA in any way
encourage or offer incentives to operations that raise herbivorous or
filter feeding organisms?
Answer. We do not intend to promote any particular type of
aquaculture in the implementation of an offshore aquaculture act. NOAA
plans to consider the risks and impacts associated with proposed
offshore aquaculture facilities in making permit decisions. NOAA will
also consider any research proposals relating to these and other types
of aquaculture for possible funding under our competitive grants
program, the National Marine Aquaculture Initiative.
Few truly herbivorous marine fish are of significant commercial
value. The majority of herbivores in the marine ecosystem are
microscopic zooplankton. Emphasizing herbivorous or filter-feeding
organisms could diminish the tremendous opportunity for American
agriculture to provide plant-based feed ingredients for finfish (as
addressed in the previous answer) and to supply the market with marine
fish that are in high demand and provide important nutritional benefits
to U.S. consumers.
Regional Fishery Management Council Oversight
Question 3. S. 1195 contains specific instructions for the
Secretary to ``consult'' with the appropriate Regional Fishery
Management Council before issuing an offshore aquaculture permit. In
his testimony, Mr. Vinsel insisted on more than consultation and stated
that Councils should have some degree of authority throughout the
process. What specifically do you see as the Councils' role in planning
for a sustainable offshore aquaculture industry? Please describe the
Councils' probable role in permitting individual sites and oversight of
a permitting regime?
Answer. NOAA has a long-standing working relationship with the
Regional Fishery Management Councils established under the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. S. 1195 requires NOAA
to consult with the Councils in developing and implementing the
regulatory regime for offshore aquaculture. NOAA would consult with the
Councils in drafting implementing regulations, in the establishment of
environmental and other requirements (especially as they relate to
interactions with wild stocks managed by the Councils), and in the
review of individual permit applications. NOAA intends to use the
rulemaking process to define the Councils' role in permitting
individual sites once the bill is enacted. In the meantime, NOAA has
identified opportunities to begin discussing the consultation process
with the Councils on an informal basis.
Multiple Use Planning
Question 4. In an October 2005 NOAA-funded University of Delaware
report titled ``Recommendations for an Operational Framework for
Offshore Aquaculture in U.S. Federal Waters'' the authors recommend a
multiple use planning process in order to identify suitable areas for
offshore aquaculture and avoid those susceptible to environmental harm
or prone to potential user conflict. According to the report, mapping,
planning, or zoning activities should take place before the EEZ is
offered for aquaculture leasing. If S. 1195 becomes law, will NOAA
engage in such an exercise? What would such a plan look like and would
it follow this report's Chapter Four recommendations?
Answer. NOAA values the recommendations provided in the University
of Delaware report, which was intended to inform the policy process as
we move forward with the development of offshore aquaculture. We agree
on the need for comprehensive mapping of offshore areas to identify
areas suitable for the offshore aquaculture industry, and we are
already working with partners in several regions who are interested in
completing this type of GIS mapping exercise. As we move forward with
rulemaking following enactment of an offshore aquaculture act, we will
consider the options proposed by the University of Delaware study for
the placement of offshore aquaculture operations. These range from a
case-by-case approach to the establishment of pre-permitted sites,
designated areas for pilot projects, zoned areas, and marine
aquaculture parks. We will seek public input on these approaches as
well as the criteria to be considered in the siting of offshore
aquaculture.
Legislative EIS
Question 5. Does NOAA plan on conducting a legislative EIS on S.
1195 as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969? If
not, please explain your reasoning. If yes, please describe the process
and what it will accomplish.
Answer. NOAA acknowledges and understands the environmental,
economic, and social concerns associated with marine aquaculture. NOAA
agrees that these issues need to be considered as part of an evaluation
of implementation of any legislation regarding offshore aquaculture. It
is clear that the offshore aquaculture bill will be amended as it moves
through Congress. It is also likely that the various aspects of the
bill analyzed through a legislative environmental impact statement
(EIS) process would change. With that in mind, NOAA does not currently
plan to prepare a legislative EIS.
Question 6. Will NOAA conduct a programmatic EIS if S. 1195 becomes
law? If not, please explain your reasoning. If yes, please describe the
process and what it will accomplish.
Answer. Yes, NOAA will focus its efforts and resources on preparing
a programmatic environmental impact statement once legislation is
passed. This programmatic EIS will contain many of the same components
as a legislative EIS, and will be available for full public comment.
The process will be driven as outlined in Sec. 4(d)(2) of S. 1195--
Criteria for Issuing Permits. As stated in the bill, the Secretary
shall consider risks to and impacts on natural fish stocks, the coastal
environment, water quality and habitat, marine mammals and endangered
species, and the environment.
Socioeconomic Concerns
Question 7. Please describe NOAA's process for considering the
socioeconomic impacts of their actions. To your knowledge, has NOAA
analyzed the potential socio-economic impacts of offshore aquaculture
development? If so, can you please provide me with copies of relevant
documents? If such a study has not been conducted, will one be in the
future?
Answer. NOAA is working with top social scientists and economists
across the Nation to analyze the economics of marine aquaculture as it
relates to commercial and sport fishing, market opportunities, global
trends, underused processing capabilities, value-added niche markets,
and coastal job development. The results of this analysis will be
available in late 2006.
Question 8. Does NOAA have a strategy to balance or minimize the
economic and social impacts of increased offshore aquaculture on
fisheries-dependent communities? If so, please describe and provide me
any relevant documents.
Answer. NOAA believes that offshore aquaculture will present
benefits as well as challenges. As noted above, NOAA is working on a
comprehensive analysis of the economics of marine aquaculture. We
anticipate that the benefits will include more jobs and more
opportunities in coastal communities that can benefit from the ripple
effect created by expansion of local industry. S. 1195 would provide
the necessary authority to require, through regulations or permit
conditions, appropriate measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate
unacceptable impacts. The bill also provides authority to monitor
operations and to take emergency actions to address unanticipated
impacts in a timely manner. NOAA expects that the public rulemaking
process will address specific mitigation steps in more detail.
Improving the Bill
Question 9. After listening to today's testimony, I still have
serious concerns about the environmental, social, and economic impacts
that might result from passage of S. 1195 as it is currently drafted.
Would you be willing to work with Members of this Committee to make
changes to the bill so that these concerns are addressed?
Answer. Yes, NOAA is willing to work with the Committee to address
specific concerns about the bill. As Dr. Hogarth stated in his oral and
written testimony to the Subcommittee, NOAA views S. 1195 as a starting
point, and the agency is willing to work with the Committee to address
concerns about the bill as well as the amendments.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Dr. Richard Langan
Environmental Concerns, Introduced Species, and Disease
Question 1. How can we ensure the protection of wild stocks from
the potential dangers of invasive species, genetic contamination, or
disease?
Answer. The starting point is to be clear that systems must be
designed to ensure this outcome, rather than viewing these as add-ons.
Experience in aquaculture, agriculture, and other fields, all suggest
that effective independent research and demonstration programs are
critical in making this happen. It costs money to learn the best ways
to raise fish, and early investment in developing environmentally wise
approaches will pay big dividends.
At this point, I don't see the need for introducing non-native
fish. There are many native warm and cold water fish that are good
candidates for culture. The most effective way to protect wild stocks
is to use native species that are produced from wild broodstock and
genetically identical, or at minimum genetically very similar to the
wild populations in the region. That way in the event that fish do
escape, they will not have any negative impact on wild stocks. This is
the approach we have followed in our demonstration project.
It would be unwise to absolutely rule out the culture of non-native
fish. But doing so depends on two factors. One is the development and
demonstration of systems that are highly reliable over extended
periods. The other is to put in place procedures that ensure careful
consideration of all potential impacts of escaped fish before allowing
the culture of non-natives.
Disease is a very serious issue and disease management is at the
top of the list of concerns for fish husbandry. While there has been a
lot of discussion about the potential for diseases and parasites to be
passed from farmed fish to wild fish, it is very important to remember
that diseases and parasites also can be passed from wild to farmed
fish. In the past decade, the aquaculture industry has made good
progress in developing vaccines and this trend should continue. Salmon
farmers have been able to reduce the use of antibiotics by more that 99
percent during the same time that production has increased by 300
percent. Good fish health is also achieved though good nutrition and
low stress levels, so we need to provide the right feed in the right
amounts and create low stress environments for the fish. Fish farmers
routinely develop and implement biosecurity plans for all phase of
culture that include inspection for potential signs of disease and
prescribed actions should an incident occur.
As with all other aspects of aquaculture, consistent maintenance of
fish health needs to be designed into operating systems from the
outset, not viewed as a reaction-based treatment issue. Our project has
invested significant sums in innovative monitoring systems, such as
real-time video monitoring of cages and electronic tagging of specific
fish, in order to identify ways of designing systems that maximize the
right outcome--healthy fish. To cite but one small example, our work
with cod revealed an unexpected tendency to crowd into any available
distant corner rather than utilize open spaces. This has implications
for fish cage design, and ultimately fish health.
Question 2. What kind of environmental safeguards have effectively
addressed public concerns about these and other environmental problems?
Answer. There have been many lessons learned over the past two
decades of nearshore aquaculture expansion here and abroad. Many
pollution issues can be addressed through proper siting of farms and
responsible farm management. Insuring adequate dispersion of fish
wastes by locating farms in areas with sufficient water circulation and
carefully monitoring fish feeding behavior with video cameras in the
cage so that food is not wasted can significantly reduce accumulation
of organic materials on the seafloor. It should be noted that waste
from farmed fish is not the same as, nor does it pose any of the human
health risks as human sewage or swine wastes. It is in fact, identical
to waste from wild fish. The ocean has been assimilating fish wastes
for millions of years and as long as too much isn't concentrated in one
place, there is no harm done to the environment.
Coupled with siting and farm management, there must be
scientifically appropriate environmental standards and monitoring
programs to insure that these standards are met. There are a number of
good examples to draw from. The States of Maine, Washington and Hawaii
have established good environmental standards, as have Norway and the
European Union. There is a recently published multi-author document
entitled Recommendations for an Operational Framework for Offshore
Aquaculture in U.S. Federal Waters that was produced by Center for
Marine Policy at the University of Delaware. This document provides
guiding principles and specific provisions for leasing and permitting
of aquaculture facilities, site planning and assessment, potential
environmental ramifications and steps to mitigate them, and proposed
monitoring strategies for facilities raising native fish, shellfish and
seaweeds. This document and the U.S. State and European programs can be
used as model guidance for offshore development.
The use of fishmeal and fish oil for formulated feeds is often
cited as a major environmental issue for aquaculture development. It
certainly is true that we need to continue to do research on developing
alternative protein and lipid sources for fish. However, it should be
recognized that when this issue is raised, it is usually done so
without the proper context. Fishmeal and oil are produced from several
species of small, short-lived fish that are rarely consumed by humans.
The primary fishery that supports the global fishmeal supply is the
anchovy fishery off the Pacific coast of South America. It is one of
the best-managed fisheries in the world and catches have been stable
for more that two decades.
Perhaps more important, however, is the fact that aquaculture
currently uses about 30 percent of the fishmeal supply; the remaining
70 percent is fed to poultry and swine. Fish are several times more
efficient in converting fishmeal protein into edible flesh than both
poultry and swine. Because of this conversion efficiency, it is likely
that a greater percentage of fish meal will go toward feeding fish in
the future. It is, however, a finite resource, therefore, we must
continue to conduct research into alternatives to fishmeal if we wish
to vastly increase our aquaculture production. Just as we cannot rely
on wild caught fish for all of our seafood requirements, so too we
cannot rely on wild caught fish for feeding captive fish.
Question 3. What are realistic expectations of what aquaculture can
do for the United States to improve our economic returns, food supply,
and balance of trade?
Answer. In 1999, the Department of Commerce released an initiative
to increase domestic aquaculture production from a $1 billion to a $5
billion dollar per year industry by 2025. This is an ambitious goal
that will require substantial new development. Some increases can be
gained through expansion of nearshore and land-based culture, however,
expansion to this scale will require significant offshore development.
We may not entirely reverse the trade deficit by 2025, but if we are
successful in developing offshore farms, U.S. consumers will have much
greater access to high-quality domestically-produced seafood to the
benefit of the local and regional economies. It should be recognized,
however, that this is unlikely to happen without public sector
investment into research and technology development and demonstration
so that operational, economic and environmental risk is well understood
by practitioners and regulatory bodies.
Question 4. How much growth can we reasonably expect for the U.S.
offshore aquaculture industry with all the competing uses of our
coastal areas, particularly when combined with our need to provide
adequate protection for wild stocks, environmental conditions, and--of
course--the people who have to live with the choices?
Answer. There are certainly many competing uses in the ocean and
areas that are environmentally sensitive that need to be protected,
however, the actual production space needed to produce $5 billion worth
of seafood annually is about 350,000 acres, or about 0.01 percent of
U.S. EEZ waters. It is essential that we move well offshore, rather
than trying to do too much in the heavily utilized nearshore areas. Our
project is about six miles offshore, and utilizes cages that are
totally submerged. There are substantial engineering challenges in
developing viable, secure systems for operating in the open North
Atlantic Ocean. However, we are showing that it can be done. Provided
that we are willing to invest what it takes to do this right, then it
should be feasible to successfully operate such systems far offshore.
And by ``successfully'', I mean with containment systems that meet all
of the standards needed to ensure successful growing of fish, and also
protection of wild stocks and the environment. With offshore
aquaculture, the big choice involved is to commit ourselves to doing it
right, designing it for success, and designing it to be environmentally
friendly. Done right, it is entirely possible to locate farms at this
scale such that user conflict is avoided and environmental impact is
minimized.
Public Outreach
Question 5. There have been many concerns raised in local
communities about the effects of offshore aquaculture. Many feared that
they would lose access to productive fishing grounds or that areas that
were once public would become private. Mr. Cates mentions that many
concerns were raised by the communities--some that were valid and some
that were not questions.
Many on this Committee are concerned about the effects of offshore
aquaculture on local communities which rely on the sea for income from
tourism and other uses. Please tell us about how we can work with local
communities to address their concerns and to involve them effectively
in the decisionmaking process.
Answer. Aquaculture needs local community support to succeed. I
believe that Mr. Cates and Mr. Sims from Kona Bluewater were successful
in obtaining permits for their offshore farms because they engaged the
local communities to hear and respond to their concerns. They designed
and now operate their farms in way that benefits rather than impacts
the social and economic fabric of local communities. I believe this
approach is the proper one, and that local communities must have a
voice. Public venues, whether they are informal events organized by the
entrepreneurs or required by the regulatory process, are an important
component of the permitting process. Convening meetings with local fish
cooperatives and associations are also another way to engage the
community.
I also believe that the public should be provided with third party,
independent, and scientifically valid information on the costs,
benefits, and potential impacts (economic, environmental) of
aquaculture. We must find some way of providing unbiased information to
local communities so they can decide for themselves what is best. There
are many scientists and extension educators in the fields of biology,
public health, and environmental studies, as well as economists and
social scientists that are capable of providing unbiased information. I
believe their services should be enlisted to provide information that
is backed by scientific fact.
Question 6. What are some of the valid concerns and lessons learned
at the state and local level that we can apply to this Federal process?
Answer. I have addressed some of the concerns such as proper siting
in my answers to previous questions, and determining the right location
for farming operations is certainly an important first step in avoiding
user conflict and potential environmental impacts from fish wastes.
This requires the informed input of the local resource users
(fishermen, boaters, whale watchers, environmentalists, commercial
industry, etc.), and knowledge of physical and biological oceanographic
conditions. Baseline knowledge of the local ecosystem is important in
order to select the appropriate environmental indicators and to set
environmental standards. The proposed infrastructure (e.g., cages and
moorings) should be carefully evaluated by knowledgeable individuals to
insure the equipment is appropriate for the oceanographic conditions at
the proposed location. Operator qualifications and management plans for
operations, biosecurity and containment should also be evaluated by
experts.
Question 7. Which groups and issues should we be sure to include?
Answer. Potential user and cultural conflict can be assessed by
engaging local and regional resource users, and knowledgeable and
unbiased engineers, environmental and social scientists, and economists
can provide informed assessments of the viability and anticipated
economic, social, and environmental impacts of proposed operations.
NOAA should also consult with state and Federal agencies charged with
enforcement of statutes that may be affected by proposed operations.
Question 8. Is there a model process used in other permitting
schemes that could be incorporated into legislation for offshore siting
of aquaculture?
Answer. A number of states, including Maine, Washington and Hawaii,
have developed permitting processes that include engineering,
environmental and economic evaluation, as well as opportunity for
public input. While they may not work perfectly in all cases, their
frameworks are applicable to offshore permitting and can be used as a
starting point. Norway and the European Union have also developed
permitting processes that balance economic development with protection
of natural and cultural resources, and have established appropriate
environmental standards for farm operations. The document I mentioned
earlier that was published by the University of Delaware also contains
relevant information about the permitting process.
Massachusetts has developed Geographic Information System (GIS)
mapping inventories of their nearshore waters that include natural and
cultural resources, human activities such as fishing grounds, shipping
lanes, recreational areas and aquaculture sites. A similar approach can
be taken with offshore waters. With the additional of tools such as
physical and biological oceanographic modeling, remote sensing and
ocean observing, similar mapping resources can be developed to identify
both appropriate and inappropriate locations for siting offshore farms.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Dr. Richard Langan
Research and Development
Question 1. The Open Aquaculture Program at the University of New
Hampshire is making great strides in research and development of
offshore aquaculture operations in New England, and you have unique
insight into the technical, economic, and ecological feasibility of
such an industry. And you know, perhaps better than most, exactly what
further research is needed to develop the industry. The
administration's bill does include, in Section 6, language authorizing
a research and development program, but it is somewhat vague and open-
ended in its proposal.
Could you please elaborate on how you think the bill's section on
research and development could be improved? Right now, is the language
specific enough to authorize the research and development program you
describe in your testimony?
Answer. First, I'd like to thank Senator Snowe for the opportunity
to comment on this aspect of the Bill. The discussions that followed
the witness testimony at the hearing on April 6 did not address the
topic of R&D.
I agree that the language as currently written is vague. Coupled
with the history of minimal Federal financing for marine aquaculture,
the language offers little assurance of the kind of effort needed to
successfully establish a well-designed offshore aquaculture industry.
Building on what I described in my written testimony, I would
suggest that this section be restructured to achieve the following:
Include the designation of regionally relevant centers and
demonstration projects and a comprehensive and strategic
competitive, peer-reviewed national program for funding R&D.
Engage the services of technology transfer professionals to
link practitioners with the most recent advances in science and
technology.
Be very similar to the USDA model for agriculture industry
sectors and would be a collaborative effort between the Federal
Government led by NOAA, and appropriate research institutions
in the regions.
Include specific features like SBIR and STTR funding from
SBA to foster innovations and startups.
Engage State Sea Grant/Cooperative Extension Programs for
outreach.
Some of these components are already in place. NOAA has a small but
effective national marine aquaculture competitive program based at the
National Sea Grant Office in OAR. Unfortunately, this program has
received little or no funding in the past, severely constraining the
potential impact of the research it supports. In addition, the Sea
Grant program has funded some marine aquaculture activities over the
years. Finally, each state Sea Grant program has extension agents that
connect local and regional stakeholders to research results. This
program could be strengthened and expanded to lead technology transfer
efforts for offshore development.
There are currently three regional centers either in operation or
in development, ours in the Northeast, and centers in Hawaii and the
northern Gulf of Mexico. Formal designation and consistent funding of
these three and perhaps others in the future would provide the
stability needed to integrate research findings, demonstrate and
evaluate technologies, and conduct environmental and economic
assessments. These three centers are already working as envisioned and
are places where integrative research or broad utility can occur that
benefits many open ocean aquaculture sectors (e.g., fin fish,
shellfish, specific regional stock culture).
Translating this response into a specific suggestion, I might offer
the following, using the proposed National Aquaculture Act as a
starting point. Add a new subsection to Section 6, as follows:
(c) The research program shall include, at a minimum, the following
elements--
(1) At least three regional Marine Aquaculture Centers
operating sites for research, development, and demonstration of
innovative and best practice technologies,
(2) A national competitive research program, and
(3) Regional competitive research programs managed by or in
cooperation with the Marine Aquaculture Centers.
Question 2. How should NOAA set research priorities for this
program? Would you advise us to direct research toward certain topics,
or should we allow NOAA develop its own criteria for pursuing research?
Answer. Ideally, setting research priorities should be a
collaborative effort between NOAA, the research community, the
practitioners, nongovernmental organizations (NGO's), and
representatives from the states. One such example is important to
highlight as it is already a model for a national integration system.
On behalf of our center, I have proposed to NOAA a process in which the
regional centers, in collaboration with NOAA, engage stakeholders to
develop regional priorities. The centers and NOAA can then come
together to share regional findings, set national priorities, and
develop a comprehensive R&D strategy for a five-year period, and set
performance measure to evaluate success. NOAA and the regional centers
would then meet annually to evaluate progress and adjust the research
strategy as needed.
Question 3. How much funding should Congress authorize for this
research and development program?
Answer. The amount the government should invest in R&D should be
commensurate with the goal (a $5 billion offshore industry by 2025) and
the size of the problem (an $8 billion trade deficit). I would think
$50 million per year over a five-year period would be the minimum
amount needed to begin to have the desired impact. This amounts to an
investment each year equivalent to 1 percent of the $5 billion industry
goal. Typically, R&D and technology transfer expenditures in a new
business area would be much higher (>10 percent), but the figure I
suggest reflects the budget realities for the current Federal budget
and for NOAA at this time.
We should also take a careful look at what the investments by
foreign governments (e.g., Ireland, Norway, Japan and South Korea) have
yielded for their aquaculture industries as a measure of what would be
needed.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Dr. Richard Langan
Question. From your research, do you think that herbivorous or
filter-feeding organisms can be profitably raised in the EEZ, or is
offshore aquaculture likely to be dominated by carnivorous species such
as salmon, black cod, and halibut?
Answer. We have had great success in developing offshore
technologies, operational methods, and business planning tools for
producing high quality filter feeding shellfish (blue mussels) in New
England. Our research has led to a commercial venture that if
successful, could lead to a thriving regional industry and an important
business opportunity for underemployed commercial fishermen. These
technologies could be adapted for use with filter feeders indigenous to
other regions of the country. Farms for filter feeders can be operated
independently or in conjunction with fish farms to balance the addition
of nutrients from fish feeds by removing suspended particulates and
algae that grow in response to nutrient additions.
Regarding your question about herbivorous fish, most marine fish
that are palatable to humans are carnivores and require a high protein
diet, which for most species now requires the use of fishmeal in order
to meet their nutritional requirements. There has been some success in
substituting vegetable proteins for some of the fishmeal, however for
some marine fish, vegetable proteins like soy meal in its current form
contain anti-nutritional factors. Further research on the properties of
soy may solve these problems, however, research on proteins from other
plants such as seaweeds should continue as well.
The use of fish meal and fish oil for formulated feeds is often
cited as a major environmental issue for aquaculture development, and I
agree that we need to continue to do research on developing alternative
protein and lipid sources for fish. However, it is important that we
address this issue in the proper context. Fishmeal and oil are produced
from several species of small, short-lived fish that are rarely
consumed by humans. The primary fishery that provides the global
fishmeal supply is the anchovy fishery off the Pacific coast of South
America. It is one of the best-managed fisheries in the world and
catches have been stable for more that two decades. Aquaculture
currently uses about 30 percent of the fishmeal supply; the remaining
70 percent is fed to poultry and swine. Fish are several times more
efficient in converting fishmeal protein into edible flesh than both
poultry and swine and because of this conversion efficiency, it is
likely that a greater percentage of fish meal will go toward feeding
fish in the future. It is, however, a finite resource, therefore, we
must continue to conduct research into alternatives to fishmeal if we
wish to vastly increase our aquaculture production.
Your question does highlight an important benefit from a
substantial, creative research and development program. Industry
necessarily focuses on the easiest, most profitable opportunities.
However, there are always potential activities that warrant
exploration. Some degree of ongoing investment in a wide variety of
environmentally advantageous species is needed. For example, we have
explored sea scallops, others at my university are working with sea
urchins, and we are interested in such things as seaweed. Clearly,
profitable culture of various filter feeders would open the way for
environmentally beneficial development. From an industry perspective,
these are not obvious candidates for investment, however, so the only
way we can get them to that point is through methodical research and
demonstration.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
John R. Cates
Fish Escapes, Introduced Species, and Disease
Question 1. Although you use native fish in your farms, some
believe even native fish escapes may have negative impacts on wild
populations. Have you experienced escapes at any of your facilities?
Answer. We have not had any escapes on our site. In my opinion is
due to the type of cage and gear that we use, all of which is submerge
40 feet below the surface.
Question 2. What are the specific concerns in Hawaii about non-
native species as well as escapes?
Answer. The issue on non-native species as well as escapes has been
addressed here in Hawaii several years ago when we developed our Ocean
Leasing policy. The policy clearly states that we can only use native
species. Our fish are the same as what are being used for stock
enhancement.
Question 3. Are there concerns about genetic contamination?
Answer. The issue of genetic contamination has also been addressed,
our leasing law states that we use wild broodstock, thus our
fingerlings are F1 generation which addresses this issue.
Question 4. What preventative measures can be taken to avoid this
from happening?
Answer. As stated above, if we use only native fish this issue goes
away. Alaska has the most experience with this issue, that state
releases millions of fingerlings into the wild every year. This issue
can be managed properly.
Question 5. Are you using sterile fish to eliminate this concern?
Answer. No, we do not use sterile fish.
Question 6. What research is necessary to answer these questions?
Answer. More research could be done, but I believe we already have
enough information on this issue to do it safely, Alaska is a good
example. Though many in Alaska state that they have banned aquaculture,
in fact, that state has the most production from hatcheries and release
them into the wild every year.
Environmental Concerns, Introduced Species, and Disease
Question 7. How can we ensure the protection of wild stocks from
the potential dangers of invasive species, genetic contamination, or
disease?
Answer. If we follow the above examples, we can proceed safely. Man
has for a very long time been affecting the genetics of our fisheries.
The policy of keeping bigger fish and releasing smaller fish has had an
impact on the genetics of the population. The new technologies in
fishing can now catch entire schools of fish in large scale operations
which affect the genetics.
Question 8. What kind of environmental safeguards have effectively
addressed public concerns about these and other environmental problems?
Answer. Once again, if we follow similar policies that both Hawaii
and Alaska have developed, we can proceed safely. Hawaii has developed
ocean farming, and Alaska has developed hatcheries and releasing them
into the wild. Much work has been done on the genetics with salmon and
this issue.
Question 9. What are realistic expectations of what aquaculture can
do for the United States to improve our economic returns, food supply,
and balance of trade?
Answer. Aquaculture can achieve two different things, first, it can
start to fill the gap with the shortfall from our wild fisheries. Every
year, more and more closures, and less production from our wild
resources. Second, it can raise awareness with the public about the
state of our fisheries, and the need to act responsible and grow our
seafood as we do with all other protein sources.
Question 10. How much growth can we reasonably expect for the U.S.
offshore aquaculture industry with all the competing uses of our
coastal areas, particularly when combined with our need to provide
adequate protection for wild stocks, environmental conditions, and--of
course--the people who have to live with the choices?
Answer. This is a very difficult question because growth depends on
the political status of each area, many will always say ``not in my
back yard.'' But for potential, I like to use the fact that in Norway,
they have over a billion dollar industry, and the square footage
footprint of all of the fish cages would fit on any large airport
runway in the U.S. It is not a very large area when compared to the
ocean.
Public Outreach
Question 11. There have been many concerns raised in local
communities about the effects of offshore aquaculture. Many feared that
they would lose access to productive fishing grounds or that areas that
were once public would become private. Mr. Cates you mentioned that
many concerns were raised by the communities--some that were valid and
some that were not.
Many on this Committee are concerned about the effects of offshore
aquaculture on local communities which rely on the sea for income from
tourism and other uses. Please tell us about how we can work with local
communities to address their concerns and to involve them effectively
in the decisionmaking process.
Answer. In our experience, many have benefited from our operations,
fishermen routinely use our site to assist them with commercial
fishing, and we are a good source for their bait. Also dive operations
continually asked to use our site as a popular dive location. But to
answer this in a better manner, once we as a society make the
commitment to grow our food, we will find the right locations. Our site
would not be appropiate to locate off of Waikiki, but off of Ewa Beach,
2 miles out, we have had no conflicts.
Question 12. What are some of the valid concerns and lessons
learned at the state and local level that we can apply to this Federal
process?
Answer. Each community must have a voice and choice in this. Also
each new company should have community acceptance, and also each
community should be respectful of change. Also, I feel strongly that
each new company trying to conduct this business, should have to prove
that it is capable of conducting such an operation in a safe manner for
both the environment, and for its personnel.
Question 13. Which groups and issues should we be sure to include?
Answer. Each area will be different, but for Hawaii, we need to
include native Hawaiians, fishermen, and all ocean users. In my case, I
did all of the above and more, but also I used our Kupuna's Knowledge
to assist me in my siting and operations. There is valuable information
out there, we just need to be respectful and ask for it.
Question 14. Is there a model process used in other permitting
schemes that could be incorporated into legislation for offshore siting
of aquaculture?
Answer. I am not sure, but for Hawaii, it has worked very well thus
far, and not everyone that has tried has been successful.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
John R. Cates
Question. Mr. Cates, I understand that a 3 to 1 feed conversion
ratio for carnivorous finfish culture is fairly typical--that is, it
takes 3 pounds of wild caught fish to produce one pound of farmed fish.
Could you please tell me what the feed conversion ratio is for your
aquaculture operation? Are you or others working on improving your
operation's feed conversion ratio?
Answer. I do not believe that the feed conversion ratio that was
stated is correct. I have for years heard so many different numbers
being used, but I can tell you for a fact that on our operation we have
been and are achieving numbers lower than 2 to 1. Salmon farming is
even lower. But you must remember that the feed that I use is 60
percent wheat and soy bean, and only 40 percent is fish meal. There are
solutions to the fish meal issue, but it doesn't make sense to me that
as a society we feed fish meal to chicken, pork, and cattle with not
much concern, but when we use it in fish feed, all of a sudden we are
committing some sort of sin. We need to have a more balanced approach
to this issue, and to all of our fisheries.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Mark Vinsel
Environmental Concerns, Introduced Species, and Disease
Question 1. How can we ensure the protection of wild stocks from
the potential dangers of invasive species, genetic contamination, or
disease?
Answer. For wild stocks to be protected from risks of invasive
species and genetic contamination, permits should not be issued for the
farming of any species that is not indigenous to an area, and if the
farming of species that occur naturally is to be considered, then
natural local stocks should be used.
To protect from the possibilities of disease transmission, fish
should not be raised in concentrations that exceed the natural
population distributions for fry and juvenile fish, or after
assessment, do not risk exceeding ocean carrying capacities identified
as being necessary to the well-being and productivity of local fish
populations. Fish farms should not be located in areas where natural
fish occur.
Question 2. What kind of environmental safeguards have effectively
addressed public concerns about these and other environmental problems?
Answer. Offshore finfish farms have not adequately addressed these
environmental problems. A recent report on a finfish farm operation in
Hawaii suggests that the presence of fish farming has caused diminished
species diversity and eutrophication. We feel that large scale finfish
farms cannot help but pose unacceptable risks to naturally occurring
fish populations in the area.
(Lee, Han et. al ``temporal Changes in the polychaete infaunal
comminuty surrounding a Hawaiian mariculture operation'' Marine
Ecology Progress Series, Vol. 307. pp 175-185, January 2006--
for abstract see: http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v307/
p175-185/)
Question 3. What are realistic expectations of what aquaculture can
do for the United States to improve our economic returns, food supply,
and balance of trade?
Answer. We see little help available in the domestic seafood food
supply or balance of trade. While increased volume of fish may occur,
environmental problems that they bring suggest to us that the fish farm
production will create a significant cost to existing seafood
production.
Regarding the seafood balance of trade, costs of domestic
production will necessarily include wages and environmental standards
concurrent with U.S. standards, which history indicates will be
undercut by foreign producers. If domestic production of high volumes
of fish were to occur, prices for U.S. wild and farmed raised fish
would likely suffer, eroding any net economic gain.
Alaska's coastal communities rely on the local fishing economy to a
high degree. Many of these communities do not have the basic
infrastructure that most U.S. citizens take for granted to support
alternate business. A good example of the economic problems caused by
fish farms is shown in the price of salmon during the 1990s to the
present, as foreign salmon farms proliferated. Operations initially
produced fish at approximately $4 per pound, and were planned to be
profitable at that price. Production in excess of market demand soon
caused a drop in price, even of foreign farmed fish, to around $2 per
pound, and at this price point the foreign fish farms were no longer
profitable, and domestic producers and communities were devastated by
the impacts on domestic wild salmon prices. Salmon farm businesses are
not the profitable business ventures they were projected to be, and
consolidation is occurring that is moving ownership away from local
businesses to foreign corporations.
Meanwhile in Maine, wild Atlantic Salmon are nearly extinct and
have suffered from diseases and escapes from salmon farm operations.
Question 4. How much growth can we reasonably expect for the U.S.
offshore aquaculture industry with all the competing uses of our
coastal areas, particularly when combined with our need to provide
adequate protection for wild stocks, environmental conditions, and--of
course--the people who have to live with the choices?
Answer. The projections of $5 billion, compared to current domestic
wild fisheries ($4 billion?) is a grossly optimistic expectation. If
finfish farms, under the current levels of technology were to reach
that high level of production, it would necessarily come with some
diminishment of current domestic seafood production. The push for fish
farms seems more likely to shift the economic benefits from current
wild catch industry to new fish farm corporate businesses, with no net
economic benefit to the country as a whole, and also putting at risk
the general health of our oceans.
Public Outreach
Question 5. There have been many concerns raised in local
communities about the effects of offshore aquaculture. Many feared that
they would lose access to productive fishing grounds or that areas that
were once public would become private. Mr. Cates mentions that many
concerns were raised by the communities--some that were valid and some
that were not.
Many on this Committee are concerned about the effects of offshore
aquaculture on local communities which rely on the sea for income from
tourism and other uses. Please tell us about how we can work with local
communities to address their concerns and to involve them effectively
in the decisionmaking process.
Answer. A public process is needed with meaningful local community
and stakeholder input, under the overriding guidance of state-of-the-
art science, with attention also given to the local and wider economic
effects on other users of the ocean resources and participants in
competing markets.
Question 6. What are some of the valid concerns and lessons learned
at the state and local level that we can apply to this Federal process?
Answer:
Do not raise finfish in net pens.
Do not disrupt existing markets through production in excess of
market demand.
Do not bring polluting enterprises to oceans.
The model of Alaska's aquaculture associations may be suitable for
helping to restore populations of diminished local stocks. If
aquaculture were to be conducted with the intention of helping in the
rebuilding of stocks, it may well be welcomed by local communities. It
may be possible to conduct ocean ranching operations to raise fry or
fingerlings then release them, avoiding the long-term cumulative
enegative environmental effects. With thermal otolith or other genetic
markings, and sampling of catch among commercial and sport fishing
communities, it may well be feasible to allow compensation of the
producers to allow profitable ventures with fewer of the negative
effects.
Question 7. Which groups and issues should we be sure to include?
Answer:
Commercial fishermen
Fisheries Scientists
Market economists
State fisheries management
Federal fisheries management
Seafood processors
Aquatic environmental organizations
Coastal community representatives
Large and small business representatives interested in
developing offshore aquaculture
Issues:
1. Biological relationships and physical ocean impacts on
potential aquaculture sites.
2. Economic integration with existing local industry and
impacted communities, both in immediate region and in the
global markets.
Question 8. Is there a model process used in other permitting
schemes that could be incorporated into legislation for offshore siting
of aquaculture?
Answer. We feel that the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
is the closest thing we have to an appropriate body for permit
authority over offshore aquaculture permitting. A standing committee on
offshore aquaculture, tied to a Science and Statistical Committee, with
ongoing economic analysis, would fit within the existing council
process and should be required.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Rebecca Goldburg, Ph.D.
Environmental Concerns, Introduced Species, and Disease
Question 1. How can we ensure the protection of wild stocks from
the potential dangers of invasive species, genetic contamination, or
disease?
Answer. Congress should require that NOAA ensure that the risks
posed by escapes and disease are evaluated prior to issuing site and
operating permits which meet a legal standard of negligible risk to
marine life.
Escapes of farmed fish from native species that are not more than
two generations removed from local, wild populations ``local fish''
should generally pose negligible risk (except possibly from disease--
see below). Congress should create strong incentives to raise such fish
by creating a two-tiered regulatory process which requires stringent
regulatory review for permits to raise ``non-local'' fish, including
completion of a qualitative or quantitative risk assessment that
provides strong and convincing evidence that raising ``non-local'' fish
poses negligible risk to marine life. In addition, Congress should
create accountability for fish escapes by requiring that all ``non-
local'' farmed fish be marked, or otherwise identifiable, so that they
can be traced to their farm of origin should they escape.
Both native and non-native farmed fish can potentially introduce or
magnify diseases (including parasites) and spread them to wild fish
populations. Preventing disease and ecological impacts from disease is
best accomplished through a suite of measures--use of specific
pathogen-free stocks, use of vaccines (when available), disease
monitoring, moderate stocking densities, siting facilities away from
wild fish aggregations, fallowing sites, and more. Congress should
require that NOAA develop guidance on preventing the occurrence and
spread of disease, including emergency responses to disease outbreaks,
and that all applicants be required to develop a fish health plan
consistent with the guidance to be enforced as a condition of a farm's
operating permit.
Congress should also stipulate that operating permits for farms
require reporting to NOAA of fish escapes of disease incidence, and
that this information be available to the public. Not only do escapes
and disease potentially affect public resources, but the potential for
public scrutiny should act as an incentive for escape and disease
prevention.
Question 2. What kind of environmental safeguards have effectively
addressed public concerns about these and other environmental problems?
Answer. To date, none have successfully addressed the suite of
concerns about marine net cage aquaculture. Coastal salmon farming--the
primary model for offshore aquaculture--continues to be dogged by
environmental problems.
However, there are some instances where environmental measures are
helping to address specific problems associated with marine
aquaculture:
In response to concerns about rising antibiotic use, the Norwegian
government and salmon farmers developed vaccines for common bacterial
salmon diseases, which have sharply reduced the use of antibiotics in
the production of Atlantic salmon in much of the world.
In response to concerns about the genetic impacts of farmed
Atlantic salmon on endangered, wild Atlantic salmon, the State of Maine
is now requiring that farmed fish be of local genetic origin and be
marked (so farms are accountable for any escapes).
Question 3. What are realistic expectations of what aquaculture can
do for the United States to improve our economic returns, food supply,
and balance of trade?
Answer. Aquaculture can provide jobs to U.S. communities, but it is
probably unrealistic to expect that U.S. marine aquaculture production
will make a major difference in the U.S. balance of trade in seafood.
Projects to train individuals in fishing communities as shellfish
producers, for example, have helped provide income to local
communities. However, labor and other costs in the United States make
it difficult for many aquaculturists (e.g., tilapia producers) to
compete with producers abroad. In the case of offshore aquaculture,
technology developed in the United States to produce marine finfish may
be taken to countries where fish can be produced more cheaply and
easily near shore--where facility and transportation/energy costs are
lower than in offshore locations. The one exception may be Hawaii,
which as a volcanic archipelago has open ocean conditions in nearshore,
state waters.
It is important to recognize that all the U.S. open ocean fish
farms built to date have had some type of public subsidy (for example,
production in publicly-financed hatcheries of fish to stock farms). It
remains to be seen whether offshore aquaculture in the U.S. can be
competitive in world markets.
Question 4. How much growth can we reasonably expect for the U.S.
offshore aquaculture industry with all the competing uses of our
coastal areas, particularly when combined with our need to provide
adequate protection for wild stocks, environmental conditions, and--of
course--the people who have to live with the choices?
Answer. As in my answer to Question 3 above, a major factor
limiting growth of U.S. offshore aquaculture will almost certainly be
lower costs in other countries, including the ability to farm fish near
shore. Nearshore production in the United States is of course possible,
but subject even more than offshore aquaculture to concerns from
competing users of public waters.
Offshore aquaculture finfish production may also be limited by feed
prices. The marine finfish species targeted for production are almost
all carnivores, and thus have diets high in fish meal and oil made from
wild caught fish. Until and unless new, inexpensive alternative feed
ingredients are developed, booming global demand for fish meal and oil
(which are used in feed for terrestrial animals as well as fish) may
result in high feed prices and favor production of freshwater
herbivorous and omnivorous fish, such as tilapia and catfish, which do
not receive large amounts fish meal and oil in their diets.
Public Outreach
Question 5. There have been many concerns raised in local
communities about the effects of offshore aquaculture. Many feared that
they would lose access to productive fishing grounds or that areas that
were once public would become private. Mr. Cates mentions that many
concerns were raised by the communities--some that were valid and some
that were not.
Many on this Committee are concerned about the effects of offshore
aquaculture on local communities which rely on the sea for income from
tourism and other uses. Please tell us about how we can work with local
communities to address their concerns and to involve them effectively
in the decisionmaking process.
Answer. It is essential that any bill to pursue the development of
offshore aquaculture include provisions requiring public notice and
comment for all permitting decisions, including the opportunity for
public hearings. The permitting process must also be transparent, so
that public participation can be meaningful. Information in submissions
to NOAA relevant to evaluating the environmental impact of facilities
must not be allowed to be held as confidential business information or
trade secrets. Otherwise the public may not have access to information
critical to decisionmaking about public waters.
Question 6. What are some of the valid concerns and lessons learned
at the state and local level that we can apply to this Federal process?
Answer. One lesson is the importance of a credible and
comprehensive permitting process. The Texas shrimp farming industry
provides a good example. In the mid-1980s through early 1990s, shrimp
farms sprouted along the south Texas coast in response to a lucrative
market for shrimp and state encouragement. Among other things, the
Texas State government exempted shrimp farms from discharge permit
requirements as an incentive for development.
The shrimp farming industry quickly became unpopular with coastal
homeowners and recreational and commercial fishermen. Shrimp farms were
discharging into the Laguna Madre--a coastal estuary--about 10 to 20
percent of their pond water every day. The result was clearly visible
water pollution and offensive odors. Moreover, viral diseases of shrimp
ravaged many of the farms, and commercial shrimp fisherman feared that
the viruses would infect local shrimp population.
In the mid-1990s, grassroots organizations, Environmental Defense's
Texas office, and local governments such as the Aransas County
Commissioners, all joined together to press lawmakers and agencies for
changes in shrimp farm practices and regulation.
The upshot of this activity was that in the late 1990s a new law
and agency actions created a new framework for environmental regulation
for Texas coastal shrimp farms. These new regulations, coupled with the
realization by shrimp farmers themselves that their large water intakes
and discharges were contributing to their problems with shrimp viruses,
led to major changes in shrimp farm practices. Most farms now only
discharge water at harvest, all settle or filter water before
discharge, and there have been no recent outbreaks of shrimp viruses.
Texas shrimp farming is no longer highly controversial. And,
Environmental Defense recommends Texas farmed shrimp as an
environmentally-preferable seafood choice for consumers.
Question 7. Which groups and issues should we be sure to include?
Answer. Commercial and recreational fishing organizations as well
as conservation organizations are currently particularly interested in
offshore aquaculture legislation. However, all interested groups should
be able to participate in NOAA decisionmaking about offshore
aquaculture. As in my answer to Question 1, a transparent public
process is essential.
Along with key environmental issues (water pollution, fish escapes,
disease, feed), the Committee may wish to include issues concerning the
socioeconomic impact of offshore aquaculture development. For example,
what are the consequences of fostering greatly increased production of
fish for which there is already a profitable commercial fishery? One
recent study by a Canadian economist suggests that large scale fish
farm development may significantly lower prices, hurting fishermen and
ultimately aquaculturists. Consumers would benefit, but if most fish
are exported (e.g., to Japan), these benefits may accrue abroad. See
www.fisheries.ubc.ca/publications/reports/report13_3.php
Question 8. Is there a model process used in other permitting
schemes that could be incorporated into legislation for offshore siting
of aquaculture?
Answer. The California legislature on May 11, 2006, passed the
Sustainable Oceans Act (S. 201), which if signed into law by the
Governor, will establish the most comprehensive environmental standards
in the Nation to guide the growth of the marine aquaculture industry.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Rebecca Goldburg, Ph.D.
Fish Health and Environmental Impacts
Question 1. I understand your concerns with the potential
environmental impacts that could result from poorly regulated offshore
aquaculture. Aquaculture could certainly affect surrounding waters,
just as the quality of waters could affect the suitability of offshore
aquaculture sites. This argues for a great deal of coordination in
managing and monitoring offshore habitats.
What is the best way to achieve coordination in managing and
monitoring offshore habitats? How should NOAA work with states, other
Federal bodies, industry, and other organizations on environmental
quality and fish health on an ongoing basis?
Answer. Ideally an offshore aquaculture system would operate within
a broader offshore regime that minimized conflicts and meet
environmental and economic objectives, including those of
conservationists and fishermen. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and
the Pew Oceans Commission both made a number of recommendations which
could help Congress create a larger framework for ocean governance
which includes offshore aquaculture development.
Question 2. Can you elaborate on how you think the non-governmental
organizations--including the scientific community and public interest
groups--should be involved throughout the regulatory process?
Answer. The establishment of a scientific advisory committee, which
includes scientists who specialize in aquaculture, marine conservation,
and fisheries science, as well as scientists from the public interest
community, should make a regulatory process more credible.
Question 3. Based on the environmental concerns you outline in your
testimony, do you think it would be better to forgo Senate action on
this bill altogether--even if this means maintaining the status quo,
allowing offshore aquaculture to proceed without any regulatory
framework in place?
Answer. I urge Congress to forgo passage of S. 1195, given its
numerous deficiencies, as discussed in my written testimony. Even
without passage of this legislation, offshore aquaculture facilities
are subject to permit requirements under the Rivers and Harbors Act,
administered by the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Clean Water Act,
administered by the Environmental Protection Agency. Operation of an
offshore aquaculture facility may also require amendment of applicable
Fisheries Management Plans under the Magnuson Stevens Act, as
administered by NOAA. This existing regulatory structure is
problematic, but prevents unfettered development. There is no need for
Congress to rush to pass offshore aquaculture legislation, especially
if it means passing legislation without careful consideration of the
associated issues and policy alternatives.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Rebecca Goldburg, Ph.D.
Question. You state in your testimony that S. 1195 has many
failings, but specifically three improvements are needed: (1) clear
environmental standards, (2) better public participation, and (3)
multiple-use planning and management. In your mind, if these
improvements are made, can development of an offshore aquaculture
industry be guided in such a way that the result is an environmentally
sustainable, economically viable, and socially fair outcome?
Specifically, as lawmakers, how can we ensure such an outcome and
dispel some of the current ambiguity in the bill?
Answer. The steps articulated in my testimony would go a long way
to resolve environmental and socioeconomic issues associated with
offshore aquaculture. However, some issues would remain.
Regulation would not resolve environmental issues for which no easy
solutions are currently available. As discussed in my testimony,
cultivation of most marine finfish requires that more wild fish be used
as inputs in feed than is ultimately harvested from fish farms. This
net loss of fish protein results in several problems and will likely
increase global fishing pressure on wild fish populations as demand and
prices rise for limited supplies of fish meal and fish oil. Alternative
feed sources are currently in research and development, but truly
sustainable marine aquaculture will not be possible until alternative
feeds are readily available at reasonable cost to fish farmers.
The economic viability of offshore aquaculture in U.S. waters is
another issue. As discussed in answers to questions above, it remains
unclear whether U.S. offshore fish farming can compete economically
with production abroad.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Sebastian Belle
Question 1. Following up on your testimony, can you please
elaborate upon why the additional two permits in the proposed bill
would lead to unnecessary and redundant regulations? How much money
could your operations save simply by having a single, streamlined
permitting process?
Answer. My concern about two permits stems from our experience in
Maine. In general, the more permits one has to apply for the longer the
process becomes and the less assured the process outcome is. For
example, in Maine we now have three principle permits we must apply
for. Multiple agencies are involved and multiple public hearings and
meetings take place. This process can easily take up to 3 years for a
judgment to be rendered. It is entirely possible to go through the long
process, spend large sums of money and in the end be turned down. Even
worse, it is possible to go through the process get two out of three
permits and be unable to start operations because of the lack of the
third permit. Multiple permits increase the complexity and uncertainty
involved in the permitting process. Please remember that no business
activity can begin until ALL the permits are granted. Aquaculture is a
risk laden business to begin with; it is new, occurs in an
unpredictable hostile environment and involves keeping animals alive
for long production cycles. Add to these risks permitting complexity,
uncertainty and long processes and it is difficult to convince private
capital to risk investing.
It is difficult to estimate accurately how much money would be
saved by a single streamlined permit process without knowing what the
proposed process would cost. Perhaps the best way is to look at the
Maine model. At one time Maine had a one agency, one stop permitting
process. That process has now devolved to a multi-agency, multi-permit
process. When the process was a one stop process the average permitting
costs ranged from less than $2,000 for a small scale shellfish
application to around $10,000 for a modest finfish application. Today
under the multi-agency, multi-permit model, the average application
costs range from a minimum of $3,500 to well over $100,000. On larger
finfish applications these costs can easily exceed $300,000.
What is important here is that these costs make it very difficult
for family-owned smaller operations to startup. If environmental
institutions are concerned about large ``corporate'' operations, then
they should support a tiered application process that allows smaller
operations to start with lower permitting requirements initially, good
monitoring requirements that document whether operations are having
unacceptable environmental impacts and provide for a step-up series of
permits linked to the level of operations. The key would be
establishing initial threshold levels for the step up permits that
would allow activity levels high enough to generate adequate economic
returns in the startup phase. If these thresholds were established too
low then initial investment would not be likely to occur.
In an offshore environment, acceptable thresholds might be 1-2
million animals stocked per year. If a farm wanted to stock above these
levels, an operation would have to go through a more comprehensive
permitting process with full environmental impact assessment. Below
these levels, a quick permitting system that would examine potential
user conflicts could be employed. At the lower permitting level, in
order to protect against unacceptable environmental impact, annual
environmental monitoring would be required. Above the thresholds, a
full environmental assessment would be required before operations
began. However, once operations began, assuming the original
environmental assessment included impact modeling, field monitoring
would occur only at the end of each production cycle to ground true
environmental impact predictions.
Question 2. Exactly how do you think the regulatory framework
proposed in Federal legislation should be streamlined? Are these issues
that could be worked out in the rulemaking process? If not, why not?
Answer. Combine the two proposed permits into one with interagency
consultation between NOAA and other concerned agencies and
jurisdiction. We oppose categorically giving the regional fisheries
councils permitting authority as is currently being proposed. There are
two reasons for our opposition: (a) The track record of the councils in
terms of effective management is poor. This has been confirmed by
numerous external reviews. There is widespread interest in reforming
these jurisdictional bodies. To embed aquaculture in these entities as
well as require multiple permits from NOAA would preclude any
aquaculture development. Instead of waiting for a long drawn out
permitting process which then has to go through a decisionmaking body
that has no aquaculture or environmental impact expertise, investors
will invest overseas. (b) The regional fisheries councils are in many
instances effectively controlled by commercial fishing interests. Some
of the interests may produce products that aquaculture products will
compete with in the market. Is it good public policy to give the
regulatory oversight of one industry to a competing industry,
particularly if both sectors operate under a license to use a public
resource? How likely is it that a regional council, controlled by
commercial fishing interests that may view (whether rightly or not)
aquaculture as a threat, will grant an aquaculture permit in a timely
fashion? Is this an effective way to help our country begin to realize
the economic potential of a powerful economic development tool?
The closest answer we have to these questions can be seen in
Alaska. Commercial fishermen pushed to have laws passed that precluded
net pen culture in the state. They assumed that if they prohibited
finfish aquaculture they would continue to be the major producers of
salmon and would control the market. As an aside, having been a
fisherman, I can tell you that fishermen never control markets,
processors do. History has shown us that the Alaskan fishing
communities assumptions were wrong. More salmon is farmed today than
caught in Alaska. Fishermen find themselves out-competed, and out-
priced as price takers. The reaction has been to aggressively try to
distinguish wild salmon from farm salmon in the market place, in some
cases by using irresponsible food scare tactics. Although the tactics
may have at times been irresponsible, market segmentation and product
differentiation is a good thing. Consumers like choice and price
spreads allow consumers of varying means to choose what product is good
for them. Two important facts remain however; the highest annual salmon
catches that have ever occurred in Alaska would only supply 4-6 months
of the U.S. market. Alaskan fishermen have lost the ability to use
aquaculture as a tool to increase their competitiveness. In salmon, it
is too late to catch up with countries like Chile and Norway. If
Alaskan fishermen had chosen a combination of aquaculture and effective
wild fishery management they would be the world leaders in salmon
production today and our country would have a dramatically lower trade
deficit. I would argue this is not a model we want to use if we are
serious as a nation about using offshore aquaculture development as a
powerful tool to diversify coastal communities economies, protect the
security of our national food supply and reduce our trade deficit.
Government Financial Support
Question 3. In your testimony, you stated that direct government
financial support is necessary to help get aquaculture operations off
the ground. I think we should hear more about this proposal and what
benefits the government might expect to be returned on this investment.
Could you please elaborate on what you think is the proper role of
government support and investment in aquaculture? How should such a
program work, from your point of view?
Answer. Our Nation has built many significant economic sectors
through the careful investment of public funds; commercial fisheries
and land-based agriculture are just two examples. Countries that my
constituents compete with every day have invested tens of millions of
dollars in commercial aquaculture development. These countries view
aquaculture as a new and powerful tool with which they can diversify
the economic base of coastal communities and vest those communities in
environmental stewardship of marine resources and ecosystems. We need
to do the same. Historically, Federal aquaculture involvement and
expenditures have focused on three principle areas: policy and
regulatory development, large-scale demonstration projects and a modest
investment in applied research. While these efforts can be helpful,
they do little to directly stimulate investment and innovation.
We need to refocus these efforts onto community and business
development structures. Significant investment tools such as tax
incentives, loan guarantees and outright development grants should be
the focus of a Comprehensive National Aquaculture Development Program
(CNADP). The program's express goal should be to achieve national goals
established by a private sector advisory board. Goals should include
measurable metrics such as the number of new farms started per year,
pounds produced, gross sales, numbers of people employed, percentage of
seafood produced domestically and levels of private capital invested.
This program should include a core staff with actual private sector
operational aquaculture experience, not just experience at research
institutions. The program should also include staff with significant
economic development, business management and agricultural financing
experience. The focus of the program should not be natural resource
management. We have numerous state and Federal jurisdictions and
entities already charged with this responsibility.
The CNADP should be given authority for any Federal funds to be
expended on aquaculture research including Sea Grant in order to
eliminate duplication of efforts and focus research efforts on critical
bottlenecks in the development cycle. The program should include a
research advisory board made up largely of private sector
aquaculturalists and university researchers who do not have conflicts
of interest. This advisory board should include advisors from outside
the United States from countries with growing and successful
aquaculture sectors. Both the national program and research advisory
boards should develop 5, 10, and 30-year plans with measurable
benchmarks. The 30-year plan should be reassessed every 5 years to
ensure it is technically relevant and achievable. At that review, a new
5 and 10 year program should be developed. The Director of
Comprehensive National Aquaculture Development Plan should report
directly to the Secretary of Commerce and Co-Chair of the Joint
Subcommittee on Aquaculture with a USDA representative of similar
stature. The CNADP should have resources adequate to discharge its
responsibilities and after 15 years, the level of funding for the
program should be dependent on significant progress in the measurable
goals established in the plan. The CNADP should have resources similar
to the combined budgets of the USDA land grant research budgets and all
USDA development programs combined.
Question 4. How much funding is needed to help launch commercial
operations? Following this investment, how much economic activity would
the industry generate for our country? What other social benefits could
be realized?
Answer. This depends entirely on the type of operation being
started. Typical offshore projects in other countries have ranged from
$1 million to over $40 million. If a project is successful internal
returns on investment vary from 10-18 percent. There are widely varying
estimates in terms of appropriate multiplier rates to use when talking
about economic activity and impact of aquaculture operations. I
personally am very suspicious of multipliers because they are often
used by project proponents to justify investment. Having said that, I
can report on our actual experience in Maine. These figures can give a
sense of the potential level of contribution offshore aquaculture
development might make. In a two recent independent studies that used
actual reported production and audits of internal company books, the
following ranges of economic impacts were reported. Please remember
that these figures are being reported for a period during which our
three largest salmon producers left the state due to the listing of
local wild salmon stocks as endangered species. This means that the
gross revenues and employment figures are significantly down. The
economic impact ratios should however be representative. Another thing
to remember is that our operations are a mix of fresh and saltwater
finfish and shellfish operations. These operations are all located
within state waters.
Historically, direct aquaculture sales in Maine have been as high
as $130 million. During the two recent study periods direct annual
sales for the aquaculture sector in Maine varied between $50 and $82
million. Of those revenues, between $32 and $50 million was spent on
direct inputs. An additional $30 to $48.5 million was contributed
through indirect spending. Between 800 and 1,400 Maine citizens were
employed and earned between $32 and $56 million. Average compensation
level was $40,000, significantly higher than the state average and
almost double the averages in the two counties where many operations
were located. Finally, these businesses paid between $5.6 and $9.7
million in state taxes. An examination of Federal tax contributions was
not made.
Offshore operations will likely have some different economic
characteristics, however, based on these actual figures, it would be
reasonable to assume the following returns on offshore investment. For
every $100 million in gross sales, $60.9 million in direct inputs, with
an additional $59 million in induced and indirect economic activity.
Employment numbers and taxation figures are more difficult to project.
I would however assume that average compensation rates would be higher
that for inshore operations.
Fish Health and Environmental Impacts
Question 5. As you know, aquaculture could certainly affect
surrounding waters, just as the quality of waters could affect the
suitability of offshore aquaculture sites. This argues for a great deal
of coordination in managing and monitoring offshore habitats.
What is the best way to achieve coordination in managing and
monitoring the impacts of aquaculture on offshore habitats? How should
NOAA work with states, other Federal bodies, and the industry on
environmental quality and fish health on an ongoing basis?
Answer. To some extent, I answered this in the first question. In
terms of environmental quality, appropriate site selection is the key.
This can be difficult in instances when the species is being cultured
for the first time. Without having actual farming experience with a
species, it is sometimes difficult to know what site characteristics
are important to maintain animal performance and minimize environmental
impacts. This is another argument for the tiered permitting approach.
Allow a modest operation to start up, monitor it well and encourage
farmers through incentives and disincentives to farm within the
carrying capacity of the specific site. Every site is different and
will react differently to different production cycles and species. NOAA
currently has little to no expertise in assessing these issues. EPA has
expertise and a permitting process that would be required anyway. Why
reinvent the wheel or impose an additional requirement of operators.
NOAA should consult with EPA on all environmental impact matters.
In terms of aquatic animal health, this is a relatively new field
and no Federal agency has extensive expertise in it. There are
individual professionals within NOAA, USFWS and USDA that have some
expertise. There is only one Federal staffer to my knowledge that has
any experience with production aquatic animal veterinary care. In the
face of this lack of expertise, there are significant misconceptions
about the risks associated with commercial aquaculture facilities. This
is a very serious situation that is significantly contributing to
public misconceptions and inhibiting the development of both inshore
and offshore aquaculture in the country. NOAA, USFWS and USDA have
signed an interagency MOU to try to improve interagency coordination.
From the private-sector's perspective this has achieved nothing other
than the agencies saying they will continue to do what they have been
doing and to talk to each other. It is my view that all aquatic animal
health expertise and resources should be housed within USDA. This
agency has extensive animal health experience and expertise. They
understand production veterinary animal health management and have an
established structure for regulating private farm operations. NOAA
should consult with USDA on all aquatic animal health issues.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Sebastian Belle
Question. Can you please share with me some of the most important
lessons learned from the Maine aquaculture experience?
Answer. The most important lesson has been to allow incremental
development with appropriate monitoring and adaptive management. This
approach does not inhibit investors risking capital in an uncertain
field but does ensure that inappropriate environmental impacts do not
occur. The other lesson has been that without significant government
investment in the early development stages, it is very difficult for
domestic operations to compete with overseas competitors. Maine's
aquaculture farms began operations in the 1970s. So did Norway's.
Chile's started a little later. Norway and Chile are now world leaders.
Although Maine leads the U.S. in marine production, we supply less that
2 percent of the U.S. market. Although there are a number of reasons
for this disparity, perhaps one of the largest is that both Chile and
Norway have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in economic
development funds to grow the sector. Please see my answer to the
question above on governmental financial support. Finally, the most
encouraging lesson we have learned in Maine is that significant
economic development can occur with very low environmental impact.
Maine has a thirty year track record of rigorous environmental
monitoring. This has allowed us to see when we are making mistakes,
learn from them and correct our methods before those mistakes become
critical. Maine farmers have developed some of the most innovative and
environmentally-friendly farming methods in the world. These methods
can be easily applied to offshore operations. We do not need to
reinvent the wheel. As a country, we cannot afford to delay aquaculture
development. Our economy and national food security depends on it. Our
working waterfronts will wither without it. Our marine environments
will loose citizens who are vested in their stewardship because they
rely on healthy ecosystems in order to make their living.