[Senate Hearing 109-1118]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-1118
OFFSHORE AQUACULTURE: CHALLENGES OF FISH FARMING IN FEDERAL WATERS
=======================================================================
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
__________
JUNE 8, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
64-706 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
0SENATE 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 June 8, 2006..................................... 1
Statement of Senator Boxer....................................... 47
Additional information....................................... 50
Statement of Senator Stevens..................................... 54
Statement of Senator Sununu...................................... 1
Prepared statement of Thomas D. McIlwain, Director Emeritus,
University of Southern Mississippi, Gulf Coast Research
Laboratory................................................. 2
Witnesses
Bedford, David, Deputy Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish
and Game....................................................... 42
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Cufone, Marianne, Esq., Managing Partner, Environment Matters.... 35
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Eichenberg, Tim, Director, Pacific Regional Office, The Ocean
Conservancy.................................................... 11
Prepared statement with attachments.......................... 13
Keeney, Timothy R.E., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Department of Commerce......................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 5
MacMillan, John R. ``Randy'', Ph.D., President, National
Aquaculture Association........................................ 29
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Appendix
Ayers, Jim, Vice President, Oceana, prepared statement........... 59
Hauter, Wenonah, Executive Director, Food & Water Watch, prepared
statement...................................................... 60
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye
to:
David Bedford................................................ 74
Tim Eichenberg and Marianne Cufone, Esq...................... 69
Timothy R.E. Keeney.......................................... 66
John R. ``Randy'', MacMillan, Ph.D........................... 76
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. John E. Sununu
to:
David Bedford................................................ 73
Tim Eichenberg............................................... 72
Timothy R.E. Keeney.......................................... 64
John R. ``Randy'', MacMillan, Ph.D........................... 75
United States Offshore Aquaculture Community, joint prepared
statement...................................................... 63
OFFSHORE AQUACULTURE: CHALLENGES OF FISH FARMING IN FEDERAL WATERS
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 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 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. We're going to begin on time
this morning. For those members that may be joining us later in
this hearing, we do have a vote scheduled for 10:45 or 11, so I
am going to move forward with a very brief opening statement
but then move directly to the witness testimony so we have much
time as possible for your statements and for questions as well.
This is the second hearing of the National Ocean Policy
Study dealing with offshore aquaculture. I'll note that today
is the 13th Annual World Oceans' Day which was marked by events
all across the world. In April we heard from our panel of
experts on the potential and the challenges of allowing
deepwater fish farming operations in Federal waters.
Today we will focus on the regulatory steps that are
necessary to ensure that such operations take place in an
environmentally sustainable matter. International fish farming
accounts for a very significant and growing portion of the
seafood that Americans consume every day. These fish and
shellfish are raised and harvested overseas far from the reach
of American environmental standards, but we do not have a
functional method here in this country for American companies
to meet the growing demand in our own Federal waters.
The early results from deepwater aquaculture around the
country have been excellent. Small scale and research
operations off the coasts of New Hampshire, Hawaii and Puerto
Rico are raising high-quality products with little if any
detectable impact on water quality, wild fish stocks or human
health. This Subcommittee is exploring the best approach to
expanding these operations in the future and we ask today's
witnesses to help us identify the standards required to ensure
that water quality, wild fish stocks and human health remain
protected.
I will ask that the all of the witnesses submitted
testimony and any supplemental materials be made part of the
record and that the record will remain open for 2 weeks for
additional questions that members might want submit. I also ask
consent to place in the record a statement from Professor
Thomas McIlwain who is Director Emeritus of the University of
Southern Mississippi Gulf Coast Research Laboratory.
[The information referred to follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas D. McIlwain, Director Emeritus, University
of Southern Mississippi, Gulf Coast Research Laboratory
First I would like to thank you for introducing ``The National
Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2005'' and for this and the previous
hearing held in April on this most important legislation. It is
important legislation that will, when enacted, contribute to a stable
and sustainable domestic food supply. It is also important that all of
the issues involved in developing this new industry be fully discussed.
Seafood and the seafood industry are integral to the culture and
economy of the Northern Gulf of Mexico region (NGOM). Here as in other
places, fish stocks are under pressure and aquaculture is perhaps one
more approach to both meet the growing demand for fish and fish
products and to rebuild the seafood industry in the post-Katrina era.
Global production of wild-caught seafood is generally considered to
be at maximum capacity and unsustainable over the long term. As demand
for seafood continues to increase over the years, aquaculture
production has become the fastest growing sector of worldwide food
production. This increased production worldwide has lead in part to a
U.S. trade deficit in fishery products of over $7 billion. Worldwide,
cage or net pen culture including offshore, open ocean cage culture has
contributed a significant and growing portion of production. In the
United States, however, the growth has elicited concerns and anxieties
that include competition for space and resources with industrial and
recreational user groups, the use of non-indigenous species, impacts on
genetic diversity of wild stocks, disease, and environmental issues
such as exposure to human-induced pollution and the impact of waste
feed, chemicals, and excretory effluent. This legislation will address
these concerns and speed the development of the industry, especially
the permitting process. It is imperative that we develop information to
address these concerns as well as to designate one agency as the lead
agency responsible for the development of this new industry. The
legislation will allow the building of a foundation for sustainable
economic development of aquaculture that will contribute to the
redevelopment of the seafood industry along the NGOM following
Hurricane Katrina and contribute to the development of a more stable
domestic food supply for the U.S. and contribute to a reduction in our
fishery trade deficit.
At this time, I am going to introduce each of the panelists
and let me just check the order. We will take the statements in
the order that I introduce you.
Let me go through all of the introductions and I do
appreciate the time you have all taken to be here.
Tim Keeney is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce
for Oceans and Atmosphere. Mr. Keeney is responsible for
environmental policies, strategic planning and program analysis
for a number of ocean issues ranging from invasive species to
ocean observations, and I welcome him here once again.
Tim Eichenberg is the Director of the Ocean Conservancy's
Pacific Regional Office in San Francisco. He also teaches ocean
and coastal law at Vermont Law School.
Dr. Randy MacMillan is President of the National
Aquaculture Association. That's the largest national trade
association representing a very diverse group of aquatic animal
species producers. He also serves as a member of the National
Agricultural Research Extension's Education and Economics
Advisory Board.
Marianne Cufone. Did I pronounce that right? Marianne
Cufone is the Managing Partner of Environment Matters, an
environmental consulting firm based in Tampa and David Bedford
is Deputy Commissioner of Fisheries for the Alaska Department
of Fish and Game. That's a lot of fish and a lot of game. He
brings to this hearing great experience in government but also
as an owner and operator of a commercial fishing vessel and is
past director of the Southeast Alaska Seiners Association.
Welcome of all of you and we will begin with the testimony
of Mr. Keeney.
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY R.E. KEENEY,
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND
ATMOSPHERE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Keeney. Good morning and thank you for inviting me to
testify on behalf of the Administration on S. 1195, the
National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2005. My name is Tim
Keeney. I'm Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans
and Atmosphere at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration within the Department of Commerce.
My testimony today will address the opportunities and
challenges by offshore aquaculture and the Federal Government's
role in setting the stage for more robust commercial production
of cultured seafood. We believe the development of the domestic
marine aquaculture industry in the United States is essential
to meet the growing demand for seafood.
Right now, the U.S. imports over 70 percent of our seafood
and half of those imports are products of aquaculture. This
bill presents a rare opportunity for the United States to
become more self-sufficient in the production of health seafood
by growing more of it here at home. This bill also lays the
foundation for creating more jobs in coastal communities, and
for reducing our nearly eight billion dollar seafood trade
deficit. In terms of where aquaculture fits with commercial
fishing, we believe the U.S. must develop aquaculture as a
complement to commercial fishing because both are needed to
produce seafood to meet growing demand.
Now is the time for us to be bold and decisive, to look
into the future, to develop offshore aquaculture.
On April 6th, Dr. Bill Hogarth, NOAA's Fisheries
Administrator, emphasized that NOAA considers S. 1195 to be a
starting point. I want to underscore that point again today.
The Administration believes that S. 1195 maps out a careful and
inclusive process to establish a regulatory structure for
offshore aquaculture.
Our goal is to work with you and our stakeholders to create
an opportunity for aquaculture in Federal waters so we can
ensure that the industry develops in a predictable and
environmentally compatible and sustainable manner in
conjunction with our wild harvest. We also want to ensure that
our other top priorities, including the protection of the
marine environment, the rights of other users of the marine
resources, and human health and safety. However, we also
acknowledge that there are concerns about the bill and we would
like to work with the Subcommittee to address those concerns.
We want to assist in developing clarifying language
regarding environmental requirements, including the need to
provide for public comment and to consider risks and impacts
including cumulative impacts.
I'd also like to stress that the U.S. is prepared to take
this step forward toward offshore aquaculture. The socio-
economic issues and environmental impacts associated with
marine aquaculture are not new. NOAA and the Federal agencies
have been working to address this for over 30 years by funding
cutting-edge research and technology development. In addition
to this work, NOAA has been preparing specifically for offshore
aquaculture for the past 10 years.
Thirty years of improvements to marine finfish and
shellfish aquaculture practices in the United States and abroad
have shown that many problems can be prevented by continuous
technological innovation, best management practices, careful
species selection, aquaculture animal health programs, proper
site selection and development of alternatives to fish meal and
fish oils in feed.
I would like to give a brief overview of these
environmental safeguards. First best management practices have
been developed and refined over the years to ensure that
aquaculture operations minimize risk and operate safely and
securely. Some standard management practices used today to
reduce risk associated with aquaculture include regular
inspection by divers to ensure the integrity of nets and net
infrastructure; cameras and surveillance to monitor efficient
use of feed; regular health inspections to prevent disease and
comprehensive sanitary and bio-security programs to prevent the
introduction and/or spread of pests and diseases.
Another key environmental safeguard is species selection
which is one of the most effective techniques available to
reduce the impact of escapes. NOAA and other agencies have over
30 years of experience in stock enhancement research and
programs to support commercial and recreational fishing.
Another key safeguard for protecting wild stocks is aquatic
animal health. Good aquatic animal health practices and
programs are well established in the U.S. More important, these
practices further reduce the possibility of negative health
impacts on wild resources from cultured aquatic animals.
Another important issue that NOAA continues to advocate is
careful site selection as a key factor in minimizing
environmental risk and maximizing the environmental benefits of
aquaculture--no matter what organism is being cultured. That
means that operators and NOAA will seek to provide the maximum
benefit with the smallest ecological footprint.
Another area of aquaculture where advancements are being
made is the development of alternatives to fishmeal and fish
oil for feed. It is a fact that overall the reliance on
fishmeal and fish oil for aquaculture has been significantly
reduced based on research advances using plant-based
alternatives in feed.
NOAA plays a vital role in that research. Groundbreaking
research includes using soybeans, barley, rice, peas and other
crops as alternatives is expanding in the U.S. and across the
globe. Further development of plant-based feeds also represents
a huge economic opportunity for American agriculture.
Finally, I would like to address a vexing issue related to
both wild and cultured seafood that is the misinformation
related to the health and safety of seafood products.
Inaccurate information about the safety of our seafood supply
hurts all of us. In light of this, NOAA will take every
opportunity to address and underscore seafood safety based on
the latest, fact-based information from leading scientists,
nutritionists and medical and health care professionals. It's
clear based on the facts that the health benefits of eating
seafood far outweigh the risks due to trace-level contaminant
exposure.
In fact, recent studies link seafood consumption to higher
intelligence in babies and children, lower heart rates in
adults, lower cholesterol, lower blood pressure and lower body
weight, and seafood has been scientifically shown to fight
cardiovascular disease, cancer, Alzheimer's disease and other
major illnesses. So the bottom line here is eat seafood, both
wild and cultured. It is good for your mind and good for your
heart. This again was confirmed by an FDA advisory to consumers
2 days ago.
So in conclusion, 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. In the long run,
U.S. fish 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 and
coastal communities to benefit from the use of aquaculture
technologies to produce additional seafood as fisherman are
doing in some parts of the U.S. and other countries. Offshore
aquaculture has great potential to make a significant
contribution to our seafood supply and our Nation's economy,
but this potential will be realized in the U.S. only if we can
provide the regulatory certainty for businesses to make sound
investment decisions. S. 1195 will give the Department the
authority it needs to provide the regulatory certainty. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify today in support of
advancing the National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2005.
I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keeney follows:]
Prepared Statement of Timothy R.E. Keeney, Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Oceans and Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Department of Commerce
Chairman Sununu and Members of the Subcommittee, good morning and
thank you for the invitation to testify on behalf of the Administration
on S. 1195, the National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2005. My name is
Tim Keeney, and I am the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), within the Department of Commerce.
My testimony today will address the opportunities and challenges
posed by offshore aquaculture and the Federal Government's role in
setting the stage for more robust commercial production of cultured
seafood. We believe the development of the domestic marine aquaculture
industry in the United States is essential to meet the growing demand
for seafood.
Right now, the United States imports over 70 percent of our seafood
and half of those imports are products of aquaculture. This bill
presents a rare opportunity for the United States to become more self-
sufficient in the production of healthy seafood by growing more of it
here at home. This bill will also lay the foundation for creating more
jobs in coastal communities, and for reducing our nearly $8 billion
seafood trade deficit. The United States must develop aquaculture as a
complement to commercial fishing because both are needed to produce
seafood to meet the growing demand. Now is the time for us to be bold
and decisive, to look to the future and to develop offshore
aquaculture.
The National Offshore Aquaculture Act is a Starting Point
On April 6th, Dr. Bill Hogarth, the Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries at NOAA, testified before this Subcommittee and emphasized
that NOAA considers S. 1195 to be a starting point. I want to
underscore that point again today. The Administration believes that S.
1195 maps out a careful and inclusive process to establish a regulatory
structure for offshore aquaculture. NOAA would like to work with the
Committee to address the amendments and concerns about the bill. We
want to help clarify language regarding environmental requirements,
including the need to provide for public comment and to consider risks
and impacts, including cumulative impacts. Our goal is to work with you
and our stakeholders to create an opportunity for aquaculture in
Federal waters so we can ensure that the industry develops in a
predictable, environmentally compatible, and sustainable manner in
conjunction with our wild harvest. We also want to ensure other top
priorities, including the protection of the marine environment, the
rights of other users of marine resources, and human health and safety.
Of the many challenges faced, regulatory uncertainty is widely
acknowledged as the major barrier to the development of offshore
aquaculture in the United States. S. 1195 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 to make sound
investment decisions and obtain financing. Those concerned about the
impacts of offshore aquaculture need to know the industry will be held
to strict environmental standards.
Enactment of S. 1195 would authorize the Department of Commerce to
directly regulate aquaculture in Federal waters, and to establish a
coordinated permitting process among Federal agencies. We envision a
one-stop regulatory shop, coordinated by NOAA, and integrated into
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 committed to do as part of the
U.S. Ocean Action Plan.
S. 1195 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 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 require that development proceeds in an
environmentally responsible manner that protects wild stocks
and the quality of offshore ecosystems and is compatible with
other uses;
Establish a research and development program in support of
offshore aquaculture; and
Provide for enforcement of the Act, its implementing
regulations, and the terms and conditions of any permits issued
under 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. The
implementation of the offshore aquaculture bill will complement NOAA's
management and research responsibilities over wild fisheries and
resolve some of the challenges the agency has faced trying to manage
existing 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 Regional Fishery Management Councils will evolve as part of the
rulemaking process. A well-defined consultation process for the
Councils will be integral 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. Councils may also 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 managed
areas offshore.
Aquaculture is an Important Opportunity for U.S. Coastal Communities
By enacting legislation to allow the development of an offshore
aquaculture industry 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 service aquaculture operations. Similarly, seafood industry
infrastructure could process and distribute both cultured 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.
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 (e.g., 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. And,
of course, the public will eat seafood and benefit from its health
attributes.
The successes of aquaculture-related businesses to date have
demonstrated direct economic benefits from an increase in domestic
aquaculture production, including offshore. More and more communities
are recognizing that aquaculture presents a sustainable alternative for
areas hit hard by job losses, natural disasters, or other challenges.
As interest grows, these communities are beginning to integrate
aquaculture into their economies. For example, NOAA research and
technology on the culture of oysters, mussels, clams, hybrid striped
bass, offshore shrimp, abalone, moi, cobia, salmon, and crayfish has
helped build annual aquaculture production in the United States to an
industry worth over $150 million a year. One highlight is the Hawaiian
Islands, where Sea Grant estimates the number of aquaculture
enterprises is up to 126 farms valued at $25.2 million supporting
approximately 630 jobs.
Preliminary NOAA economic assessments indicate that the development
and expansion of offshore aquaculture in the United States Federal
waters could also significantly contribute to job creation. Preliminary
production estimates indicate that domestic aquaculture production of
all species could increase to 1 million tons per year by 2025. The
additional production could include 760,000 tons from finfish
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.
Aquaculture and Commercial and Recreational Marine Fisheries
NOAA is currently studying the economics of offshore 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 report, which will be
available in late 2006, is the next step toward anticipating and then
designing a strategy to address the socioeconomic questions associated
with aquaculture production.
Although NOAA is certain benefits will result from the bill, the
agency must consider its potential impacts as well, 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 affected.
Aquaculture products, whether imported or domestic, compete with
wild-caught fisheries. And this competition will exist with or without
domestic aquaculture. We live in a global market and demand for seafood
products is growing. The United States cannot meet that demand through
wild-caught fishing activities alone. Seafood imports and other forms
of protein, such as beef and chicken, already provide significant
competition. Over 70 percent of the seafood Americans consume annually
is imported, and 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.
Recreational and commercial fishing will also benefit from
hatcheries and stock enhancement techniques developed for offshore
aquaculture. Currently, U.S. hatcheries grow finfish and shellfish to
enhance recreational and commercial fishing stocks with great success.
For example, recreational fishermen in Southern California and the
Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute are cooperating on a white seabass
restocking program. This excellent program 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 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 market outlets. But we
also need to supply that vast middle market that demands a year-round
supply of affordable, healthy, and safe seafood. We can do this through
domestic aquaculture.
Preparing for Offshore Aquaculture in the United States
The socioeconomic issues and environmental impacts associated with
aquaculture are not new. NOAA and other Federal agency partners have
been working to address them for the past 30 years by funding cutting-
edge research and technology development. In addition to this work,
NOAA has been preparing for offshore aquaculture for the past 10 years.
NOAA is currently:
Designing environmental risk management guidelines for
aquaculture, as highlighted in a recently published NOAA
technical memo (Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment of
Offshore Fish Aquaculture [NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-
NWFSC-71]);
Analyzing the economics of offshore aquaculture;
Outlining regulatory steps to be taken if legislation is
passed;
Consulting with communities and businesses; and
Examining aquaculture's role in ecosystem management with an
international group of experts.
With leadership and foresight provided by NOAA through the National
Marine Aquaculture Initiative's competitive grants program, the United
States has invested over $10 million in offshore aquaculture research.
The resulting technology is in use in commercial applications in
Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and New Hampshire. All of these operations involve
some combination of U.S. investors, including coastal fishermen,
university scientists, and local processing, hatchery, feed, and
equipment supply companies.
Environmental Standards
Also central to the National Offshore Aquaculture Act is the
authority to establish rigorous environmental standards. For example,
S. 1195 authorizes regulations or permit conditions to avoid, minimize,
or mitigate unacceptable impacts. The bill also authorizes emergency
actions to address unanticipated impacts in a timely manner. S. 1195
does not override or preempt existing laws to protect the offshore
environment, wild stocks, endangered species, marine mammals, and
habitat.
Thirty years of improvements to marine finfish aquaculture
practices in the United States and abroad have shown that many problems
can be prevented by continuous technological innovation, best
management practices, careful species selection, and proper site
selection.
Today's aquaculture cages, pens, and anchoring systems are more
durable and have dramatically reduced the number of escaped fish. We
expect these types of technological innovations will continue to
develop.
Best Management Practices
Best management practices have also been developed and refined over
time to ensure that aquaculture operations minimize risk and operate
safely and securely. 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; and
Comprehensive sanitary and bio-security 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.
Species Selection
Another key environmental safeguard is species selection, which is
one of the most effective techniques available to reduce the impact of
escapes. NOAA and other agencies have over 30 years of experience in
stock enhancement research and programs to support commercial and
recreational fisheries. The knowledge gained from these programs will
allow managers to design safeguards for conserving wild stocks.
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. The open ocean
operations in Hawaii raise Pacific threadfin and yellowtail, both
native to the islands. With careful broodstock management, selective
breeding protocols and technologies, and good management practices to
prevent escapes, the culture of indigenous species should present few,
if any, risks to wild stocks. Scientific protocols for considering and
testing the use of non-native species are also well-established.
Aquaculture operations in coastal waters in the United States have
never raised genetically modified fish--another concern often raised in
the context of non-native species. The knowledge NOAA and other
agencies have gained from existing stock enhancement programs for
commercial and recreational fishing--which include deliberate releases
of finfish, oysters, and crabs for replenishment--will allow managers
to design appropriate safeguards for conserving wild stocks.
Aquatic Animal Health
Comprehensive aquatic animal health programs that include health
experts administering vaccines and monitoring aquatic species are also
well-established. These programs 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 cultured 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 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 offshore aquaculture industry has largely replaced
antibiotics with vaccinations administered before fish are stocked into
cages.
Site Selection
NOAA continues to advocate 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 species. Applicants and NOAA will seek to
provide the maximum benefit with the smallest ecological footprint.
Alternatives to Fishmeal and Fish Oil Developing Quickly
Another area of aquaculture where advancements are being made is in
developing alternatives to fishmeal and fish oil for feeds. From a
purely economic perspective, 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.
Overall, the reliance on fishmeal and fish oil for aquaculture has
been significantly reduced based on research advances using plant-based
alternatives to fishmeal and fish oil. NOAA plays a vital role in that
research. For example, scientists at NOAA's Northwest Fisheries Science
Center, along with scientists from other agencies and industry, are
developing alternative feed ingredients for cultured species, including
finfish. 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
fishmeal, those ingredients will be substituted for fishmeal 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 fishmeal 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 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
fish oil. The agencies, research institutions, and others will continue
to work with grain and feed companies and with feed researchers to find
suitable alternatives for fishmeal and fish oil.
Seafood and Human Health
A vexing issue related to seafood, both wild and cultured, is the
misinformation related to the health and safety of seafood products.
NOAA's mission includes a focus on human health and safety, and NOAA
seeks to maintain a positive connection between human health and
seafood. Misinformation about the safety of our seafood supply includes
published research that has been shown to be inadequate, flawed, or
biased. This research continues to be cited, especially by critics of
aquaculture. NOAA will take every opportunity to address seafood safety
based on the latest, fact-based information from leading scientists,
nutritionists, and medical and healthcare professionals.
Peer-reviewed studies, including those presented at the
international Seafood & Health Conference co-sponsored by NOAA 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. It is clear, based on the
facts, that 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 other major illnesses.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman and Members of the 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 U.S. Exclusive
Economic Zone is 3.4 million square miles and NOAA is confident there
are 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.
Offshore aquaculture has great potential to make a significant
contribution to our seafood supply and the economy, but this potential
will be realized in the United States 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. I appreciate the opportunity to present the
National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2005 to you today, and I will be
happy to answer any questions.
Senator Sununu. Thank you, Mr. Keeney.
Mr. Eichenberg.
STATEMENT OF TIM EICHENBERG, DIRECTOR,
PACIFIC REGIONAL OFFICE, THE OCEAN CONSERVANCY
Mr. Eichenberg. Good morning Mr. Chairman, Senator Boxer.
My name is Tim Eichenberg, and I am the Director of the Pacific
Regional Office of The Ocean Conservancy. Thank you for
inviting me to testify before your Committee today.
I commend you for carefully considering an issue of great
importance for the future of the oceans. Some may view offshore
aquaculture as the solution to the U.S. seafood deficit and
declining ocean fisheries. But two recent national ocean
commissions and numerous studies have noted that, unless
carefully and sustainably managed, marine finfish aquaculture
can exacerbate, not redress declining fisheries and ocean
health.
I first examined this issue in the early 1990s for the
Marine Law Institute at the University of Maine School of Law,
just as the salmon farming industry was taking off in Maine. In
Maine I first saw salmon infested with sea lice, and realized
the promise of aquaculture was accompanied by certain risks and
impacts.
More recently, I worked on two studies by the Center for
Marine Policy at the University of Delaware that examined the
lack of a coherent policy framework for offshore marine
aquaculture in the EEZ, and developed a set of very detailed
recommendations fashioned by stakeholders for a sustainable and
precautionary program for planning, siting, zoning, leasing,
permitting, monitoring, mitigating, and enforcing offshore
aquaculture operations.
And just last month, I completed work on legislation in
California that was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger on May
26, sponsored by the Ocean Conservancy and California Senator
Joe Simitian, that provides comprehensive standards for leasing
state waters for marine finfish aquaculture. The bill was
supported by more than 30 business, academic, conservation, and
fishing organizations, and I'm submitting a copy of this
legislation for the record.
These experiences have led me to conclude that our oceans
are public trust that require the sustainable and precautionary
management of commercial fish farming operations to address the
potentially serious risks to marine ecosystems, consumer
health, fisheries and fishing communities described to this
Committee at its April 6th hearing by Dr. Goldberg and in
numerous scientific studies cited in our written testimony.
Briefly these risks fall into the following categories:
Competition with and genetic alteration of wild fish stocks;
the spread of disease pathogens and parasites; the use of
antibiotics, pesticides, parasiticides, hormones and other
chemicals; the degradation of water quality and benthic habitat
from fish wastes; harmful interactions with marine mammals and
other wildlife near fish pens; the adverse ecosystem impacts
and the loss of ocean protein from the consumption of about 12
percent of the world's catch and 40 percent of the world's fish
meal supply used for fish feed; and high levels of toxic
chemicals found in some farmed salmon and in wild fish near
fish pens.
After carefully reviewing the bill before your Committee
(S. 1195), I regretfully conclude that it does not meet the
high standards needed to protect the public trust, or address
these potentially serious impacts, nor has NOAA answered key
questions on how this legislation will prevent offshore fish
farming from exacerbating the serious problems that already
face the oceans. We're submitting a copy of these questions for
the record.
Congress can be very specific when it wants to be and
deferring to NOAA regulations to address these concerns is not
sufficient. Congress is abdicating its public trust
responsibilities over the EEZ if it does not provide specific
standards to ensure that any regulations promulgated
meaningfully address a number of critical issues, many of which
were addressed by Mr. Keeney in his testimony.
I'd like to list some of the standards in the California
bill and suggest they be incorporated into this Federal bill:
All leases and permits for offshore aquaculture should be
issued through a transparent process to resolve conflicting
uses, provide a fair return to the public and generate
sufficient funds to pay for administering the program;
environmental analyses under NEPA should be conducted both at a
programmatic or legislative level, as well as the project level
to address planning and siting issues and individual and
cumulative impacts; non-native and genetically modified species
should not be farmed in ocean waters and strict broodstock
controls on farmed native species should be required; sites
should not be leased that conflict with fishing and other
public trust uses, or are located within special ocean areas
such as marine sanctuaries, marine protected areas or essential
fish habitat; pollution should be prevented to the maximum
extent possible through discharge limits, husbandry, siting,
density controls and species integration; alternatives to drugs
and chemicals should be required whenever available and
permitted only if minimized to the maximum extent possible to
provide both safe and healthy seafood through these kinds of
controls; alternatives to feeds produced from wild caught fish
should be required whenever available and only sustainably
harvested ingredients should be utilized; baseline assessments
should be conducted prior to issuing permits and all sites
should be monitored regularly; lessees must be held responsible
for damages to the marine environment and for restoring sites
to pre-leased conditions; fish should be removed, leases
terminated and the facilities closed if operations pose a
danger to the marine environment; and all facilities and
operations must be designed to prevent the escape of farmed
fish, all escapes should be reported immediately, and all fish
should be tagged or marked so farms are accountable for
escapes.
Legislation that contains standards such as these, recently
enacted in the bipartisan bill in California, can guide the
development of a sustainable offshore aquaculture industry and
the promulgation of comprehensive regulations to protect the
marine environment, resolve conflicts with ocean uses and
prevent further decline in fisheries and ocean health. I urge
the Committee to consider such an approach.
Thank you again for the opportunity to address the
Committee and I welcome any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Eichenberg follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tim Eichenberg, Director, Pacific Regional
Office, The Ocean Conservancy
Introduction
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name
is Tim Eichenberg, and I am the Director of the Pacific Regional Office
of The Ocean Conservancy. Thank you for inviting me to testify before
your Subcommittee.
The Ocean Conservancy strives to be the world's foremost advocate
for the oceans. Through science-based advocacy, research, and public
education, we inform, inspire, and empower people to speak and act for
the oceans. The Ocean Conservancy is the largest and oldest nonprofit
conservation organization dedicated solely to protecting the marine
environment. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., The Ocean Conservancy
has offices throughout the United States, including New England, the
Southeastern Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico, the Pacific, and the
Caribbean.
I congratulate you for carefully examining an issue of great
importance for the future of our oceans. Some may view offshore
aquaculture as the solution to the U.S. seafood deficit and declining
ocean fisheries. But two recent national ocean commissions and numerous
scientific studies have noted that, unless carefully and sustainably
managed, marine finfish aquaculture can exacerbate--not solve--
declining ocean health.\1\
I first examined this issue in the early 1990s for the Marine Law
Institute at the University of Maine School of Law, just as the salmon
farming industry was taking off in Maine.\2\ At that time the industry
was viewed with great promise for its potential to revive sagging local
economies hit hard by decades of overfishing, a vision that has been
only partially realized, due in part to stiff competition from
inexpensive imports. Maine is where I first encountered farmed salmon
teeming with sea lice, and realized that the industry's potential is
tempered by risks that need to be addressed.
More recently, I worked on two studies by the Center for Marine
Policy at the University of Delaware that examined the lack of a
coherent policy framework for offshore marine aquaculture in the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), and developed a set of very detailed
recommendations fashioned by stakeholders for a sustainable and
precautionary program for planning, siting, zoning, leasing,
permitting, monitoring, mitigating, and enforcing offshore aquaculture
operations.\3\
And just last month, I completed work on legislation in California
signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on May 26th, sponsored by The
Ocean Conservancy and California Senator Joe Simitian, that provides
comprehensive standards for leasing state waters for marine finfish
aquaculture (SB 201, The Sustainable Oceans Act).\4\ The bill was
supported by more than 30 business, fishing, academic and conservation
organizations.\5\
The following testimony discusses the risks associated with marine
finfish aquaculture; describes the California bill, which the
Subcommittee should consider in developing an appropriate Federal
regulatory regime; comments on the Administration's proposal,
introduced by Senators Ted Stevens and Daniel Inouye as S. 1195, which
unfortunately in my view is still insufficient to safeguard our ocean
resources; and suggests ways to better protect our oceans from the
potential adverse effects of marine finfish aquaculture.
Risks Associated with Marine Finfish Aquaculture
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 management practices, the capacity of
the receiving water body, and the choice of species to be raised in a
particular area.
Fish Escapement: Perhaps the single greatest ecological and
economic threat associated with the growth of offshore aquaculture is
the potential to introduce invasive species to the surrounding
ecosystem and nearby coastal communities. Millions of farmed fish
escape from fish farms because of storms, human error, and predators.
According to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and many
other authorities, escapes result in harmful interactions with native
fish, including competition with wild stock for food, habitat and
mates; transfer of potentially deadly diseases and parasites to wild
stocks; and genetic modification of wild stocks through inter-
breeding.\6\ Farmed fish are vastly different and can weaken the
genetic makeup of wild populations.\7\
Threat of Disease and Pollution: Offshore aquaculture also presents
numerous additional biological threats to ocean ecosystems. Fish farms,
like animal feed lots, produce enormous pollution. The excreta from an
average floating cage farm can produce nutrients and fecal matter equal
to a city of 20,000-65,000,\8\ and the potential wastes for a $5
billion U.S. industry--called for by NOAA--would discharge annually the
nitrogen equivalent of the untreated sewage of 17 million people.\9\
Depending upon pollutant composition and the cumulative effects of
similar cages in a particular area, discharges may cause harmful
effects on the surrounding environment. Fish farms can change the
chemical and biological structure of the sediment under net pens, and
in severe cases cause ``dead zones.'' \10\
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. Disease, pathogens, and parasites multiply
rapidly in crowded pens and can spread to wild fish stocks. Farmed
species, depending upon species and diet, can even present increased
public health risks to the people who consume them. Concentrations of
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), toxaphene, and dieldrine have been
found to be significantly greater in farmed salmon species than in wild
species.\11\
Fish farms also use a wide variety of antibiotics, pesticides,
parasiticides, hormones, anesthetics and other chemicals that enter the
marine environment.\12\ Wild fish near fish farms accumulate higher
amounts of mercury,\13\ and drugs can select for resistant bacteria,
sometimes even in wild fish consumed by humans.\14\
Harmful Ecosystem and Marine Wildlife Effects: Seals, sea lions and
other marine wildlife prey on farmed fish and are targets for predator
controls and, in some cases, are shot. Acoustic deterrents such as seal
bombs and intense underwater loud speakers cause disorientation, pain
or hearing loss, and alter the behavior of marine species.\15\
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.
The use of fish meal to feed farmed carnivorous fish produces a net
loss of fish protein, reduces wild fish populations, and can change the
distribution and reproductive success of other species throughout the
marine ecosystem. It can take from 2-5 pounds of wild fish to produce
one pound of some farmed fish species.\16\ Farmed fish are fed 12
percent of the world's catch, and consume about 40 percent of the
world's fishmeal supply (20 billion pounds of fish).\17\
California's ``Sustainable Oceans Act''
Our oceans are a public trust, and any commercial farming of them
must be done sustainably and with precaution. Unfortunately, current
regulations and mitigation strategies at the Federal level are
inadequate to guide the aquaculture industry or manage its risks.
Regulatory agencies with overlapping and conflicting authority have
caused significant confusion regarding environmental requirements,
siting considerations, leasing procedures and jurisdictional
responsibility.\18\
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. Moreover,
it is imperative that any management regime address specifically and
comprehensively the potentially serious risks of offshore aquaculture
to marine ecosystems, consumer health and safety, fisheries, and
fishing communities.
It was with this in mind that The Ocean Conservancy sponsored the
``Sustainable Oceans Act,'' recently passed by the California
legislature, and signed by Governor Schwarzenegger on May 26. I am
submitting a copy of this legislation for the record. Sponsors of this
new law worked with stakeholders and government agency officials for
more than a year to develop the most comprehensive standards in the
Nation for marine finfish aquaculture. We believe the standards
developed for the State of California could serve as a good model for
any legislation to manage offshore aquaculture within waters under
Federal jurisdiction.
The Sustainable Oceans Act establishes a process for leasing state
marine areas for offshore finfish aquaculture, and does so in a way
that aims to protect marine life, water quality, and consumers.
The Act requires finfish farmers to obtain a lease from the
California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) in order to conduct
marine finfish aquaculture. It also requires that a programmatic
environmental impact report (PEIR) for commercial aquaculture
operations be prepared to provide a framework for managing aquaculture
in an environmentally sustainable manner throughout the State. In
addition to identifying coastal locations best suited for finfish
farming, the PEIR must consider: the effects on human health and the
marine environment from the chemical and biological products used in
fish farming; the effects of fish farming on mammals, birds and
sensitive habitats; the effects of the use of fish meal; and the threat
of escaped fish on the environment. In addition to the PEIR, the
California Environmental Quality Act also requires that a separate
environmental analysis be conducted for each lease to determine if an
individual environmental impact report (EIR) must also be prepared.\19\
Under the Act, the Fish and Game Commission may lease marine areas
for aquaculture only after consultation with affected stakeholders
through a fair and transparent public process that includes notice and
comment. In addition, the Commission may only issue leases that meet a
comprehensive list of standards, all of which are designed and are
essential to minimize harmful effects on human health and the marine
environment. These standards include, but are not limited to, the
following:
1. Leases may only be adopted by the Fish and Game Commission
for commercial finfish aquaculture if the site has been
considered appropriate in a programmatic EIR.
2. Leases cannot interfere with fishing or other public trust
uses, disrupt or harm wildlife and habitats, or otherwise harm
the marine environment.
3. Operations must minimize the use of fish oil and fish meal,
due to their adverse affects on ocean ecosystems, and
alternatives must be used where possible.
4. Finfish farmers must establish ``best management practices''
that include regular monitoring and reporting, and site
inspections. The state Fish and Game Commission can remove fish
stocks, close facilities, or terminate a lease if the
operations are not in compliance with best management practices
or are damaging the marine environment.
5. Lessees must conduct baseline assessments of the site prior
to undertaking operations, and must monitor the habitat during
operation.
6. The numbers of finfish raised and their density within the
site must remain limited to what can be safely raised without
harming the marine environment.
7. Lessees must minimize the use of chemicals and drugs, and
may only use drugs, therapeutic substances and antibiotics as
approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for marine
finfish aquaculture.
8. The Commission must require in a lease that all farmed fish
are marked, tagged or otherwise identified as belonging to the
operator of the operation.
9. Facilities must be designed to prevent the escape of farmed
fish into the wild, and to withstand severe weather and
accidents.
10. Aquaculture operators must prevent discharges of pollutants
to the maximum extent possible, and must meet all the water
quality requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board
and the applicable regional water quality control board.
11. Lessees must restore an area to its original condition upon
termination of the lease, and are responsible for any damages
caused by their operations.
The standards and requirements established by the Sustainable
Oceans Act represent an innovative yet common-sense approach toward
minimizing the risks posed by this emerging industry. California has
long led the way in protecting the oceans, and once again has set an
example that Congress can follow to protect our Federal marine areas.
S. 1195: The National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2005
In light of the foundation laid by the Sustainable Oceans Act, and
after carefully reviewing the bill before your Subcommittee, I
regretfully conclude that it does not meet the high standards needed to
address the impacts of offshore aquaculture for a number of reasons
briefly summarized below. Nor has NOAA addressed key questions on how
the legislation will prevent offshore fish farming from exacerbating
the serious problems that face the oceans. We are submitting a copy of
these questions for the record.\20\
Findings: As currently drafted, the findings of Congressional
policy in section 2 generally promote the development of aquaculture
with little acknowledgement of its risks or effects on other ocean
uses. While the findings acknowledge ``wild stocks'' and ``marine
ecosystems,'' we recommend the findings be expanded to ensure the
policy reflects a more balanced perspective on the development of a new
ocean use and its potential risks to other ocean uses and the marine
environment.
Definitions: Section 3 defines ``demonstration'' to include both
pilot scale-testing of aquaculture science and technologies, or farm-
scale research. This definition is too vague to give sufficient
guidance. ``Pilot scale,'' ``science,'' ``technologies,'' and ``farm-
scale research'' are subjective terms not defined further in the bill.
We recommend that you clarify these terms to ensure that demonstration
projects are conducted in an ecologically protective manner.
Offshore Aquaculture Permits: Section 4 should be amended to
provide a stronger 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. EEZ available to
persons to develop and operate offshore aquaculture facilities.
However, it leaves too much agency discretion to the particular
procedures that will be followed in granting permits, including timing
of regulatory processes, and the necessary criteria for permitting
aquaculture operations.
The bill requires the Secretary to specify the size and location of
an offshore aquaculture facility in individual site permits, and
requires consultation with other Federal agencies to ensure that a
specific offshore aquaculture facility is compatible with other uses of
the EEZ. The bill lacks, however, a mechanism to determine, in advance
of individual siting decisions, where offshore aquaculture is, and is
not, generally appropriate within the EEZ. Similar to the PEIR in the
California bill, Federal legislation should include a process that
would clearly articulate criteria and a process for NOAA to follow in
establishing zones appropriate for development of offshore aquaculture
operations and areas that are inappropriate such as marine sanctuaries,
marine protected areas, and essential fish habitat.
The bill should also include language prohibiting the issuance of
any aquaculture permits under this section until the agency has
promulgated comprehensive regulations to guide its decision-making,
including a process for including the public in the permitting process.
The timely establishment of clear, consistent, and enforceable
regulations is critical for both the public and industry.
Section 4 should also ensure that permitting fees are adequate to
pay for the costs of administering the program, and that lease or
royalty payments adequately compensate for the use of public resources
consistent with the government's public trust responsibilities and
other Federal laws (such as oil and gas extraction).
Finally, section 4 should prohibit the use of non-native and
transgenic species in marine aquaculture operations. States like
California have already implemented such prohibitions in legislation to
protect state waters.
Environmental 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,
While 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, paragraph
(d)(6) requires only that the Secretary ``periodically review'' the
criteria for issuance of site and operating permits. Given the unique
risks posed by the burgeoning aquaculture industry, we recommend that
the bill include standards for siting and operating permits that are
precautionary, comprehensive, clear, and legally binding, based on
NOAA's own ``2002 Code of Conduct for Responsible Aquaculture,'' the
standards for siting, cultured species, pollution control, monitoring
and leasing in California's Sustainable Oceans Act listed above, and on
the principles set forth in The Ocean Conservancy's November 1, 2005,
letter to Senators Stevens and Inouye, submitted for the record.
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. This work should be carried
out in close coordination with other relevant agencies. The bill should
direct NMFS to develop and publish such research in time to help guide
development and promulgation of regulations under section 4 of the
bill.
Administration: 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 the National Marine Fisheries Service has promulgated
those regulations.
Additionally, we recommend amendments to subsection 4(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'' (paragraph 4(d)(1)) and the requirement to
obtain ``concurrence'' (paragraph 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 5(f), subsection 5(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.
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 bill 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.
Enforcement: Section 10 of the bill should further clarify the
circumstances and use of available enforcement authority and
incorporate a citizen suit provision, similar to those utilized in
other Federal statutes regulating biological pollution. In addition, we
believe section 11 should be amended to include a liability in rem
provision, and that section 13 should include language ensuring that
forfeited resources made available for sale do not endanger public
health.
Conclusion
Thank you again for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee.
The Ocean Conservancy looks forward to working with you to develop an
effective and efficient management regime that safeguards the
environment and protects the public trust.
ENDNOTES
\1\ Pew Oceans Commission, America's Living Oceans (2003); U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century
(2004).
\2\ Tim Eichenberg, Legal Methods for Promoting Local Salmon
Farming in Down East Maine, and An Assessment of the Regulatory
Framework for Finfish Aquaculture in Marine Waters, Marine Law
Institute (1992); Improving the Legal Framework for Marine Aquaculture:
The Role of Water Quality Laws and the Public Trust Doctrine, 2
Territorial Sea Journal 339 (1992); Growing Pains in Maine's Salmon
Aquaculture Industry, 6:1 National Coastal Resources Institute News
(1991).
\3\ An Operational Framework for Offshore Marine Aquaculture in
U.S. Federal Waters, The Mangone Center for Marine Policy, University
of Delaware (October 2005); Development of a Policy Framework for
Offshore Aquaculture in the 3-200 Mile U.S. Ocean Zone, Center for the
Study of Marine Policy, University of Delaware (2001).
\4\ S. 201, Chapter 36, Statutes of 2006. An act to amend Sections
15400, 5405, 15406, 15406.5, and 15409 of, and to add Sections 54.5 and
15008 to, the Fish and Game Code, and to amend Section 30411 of the
Public Resources Code, relating to aquaculture.
\5\ S. 201 was supported by The Ocean Conservancy (sponsor),
Bluewater Network, California Coastkeeper Alliance, California Coastal
Protection Network, California League of Conservation Voters, CalTrout,
Coastside Fishing Club, Center for Food Safety, Defenders of Wildlife,
Environment California, Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo,
Environmental Defense, Environmental Defense Center, Environmental
Entrepreneurs, Institute of Marine Sciences--US Santa Cruz, Monterey
Bay Aquarium--Center for the Future of the Oceans, Natural Resources
Defense Council, Oceana, O'Neil Sea Odyssey, Orange County Coastkeeper,
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Planning and
Conservation League, Santa Barbara Channelkeeper, San Diego Baykeeper,
San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper, Santa Monica Baykeeper, Save Our Shores,
Seaflow, Sierra Club California, The Nature Conservancy, University of
California Marine Council.
\6\ NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-71, Guidelines for
Ecological Risk Assessment of Marine Aquaculture (December 2005);
Goldburg, R., Elliott and Naylor, Marine Aquaculture in the United
States: Environmental Impacts and Policy Options, Pew Oceans Commission
(2001).
\7\ Hindar, K., Interactions of cultured and wild species (draft).
Marine aquaculture and the environment: a meeting for stakeholders in
the Northeast, University of Massachusetts, Boston. 11-13. January
2001; McGinnity et al., Genetic impact of escape farmed Atlantic salmon
on native populations: use of DNA profiling to assess freshwater
performance of wild farmed and hybrid progeny in a natural river
environment, ICES Journal of Marine Science, 54:998-1008 (1997);
Naylor, R and Burke, Aquaculture and ocean resources: Raising tigers of
the sea, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30: 185-213
(2005).
\8\ Hardy, R.W., Fish, feeds and nutrition in the new millennium,
Aquaculture Magazine, 26(1):85-89; See also, 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.
\9\ Goldburg, R and Naylor, Transformed seascapes, fishing, and
fish farming, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3:21-28 (2005).
\10\ Beveridge, M.C.M, Cage Aquaculture, 2d ed. Fishing News Books,
Edinburgh, Scotland, 346 (1996); EAO, British Columbia Environmental
Assessment Office, The Salmon Aquaculture Review Final Report, April 8,
2001, http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/project/aquacult/salmon/report/toc.htm;
Folke C., Kautsky and Troell, The costs of eutrophication from salmon
farming: Implications for management, Journal of Environmental
Management, 40: 173-182 (1994).
\11\ See Hites, et. al, Global Assessment of Organic Contaminants
in Farmed Salmon, 203 Science at 226.
\12\ Naylor, R. et al, Effect of Aquaculture on World Fish
Supplies, Nature, 405:1017-1024 (2002).
\13\ deBruyn, A. et al., Ecosystemic Effects of Salmon Farming
Increase Mercury Contamination in Wild Fish, Environment Science and
Technology, 40(11): 3489-3493 (2006).
\14\ Evrik, A. et al, Impact of administering antibacterial agents
on wild fish and blue mussels in the vicinity of fish farms, Diseases
of Aquatic Organisms, 18:45-51 (1994); Krosek, M, Lewis and Volpe,
Transmission dynamics of parasitic sea lice from farm to wild salmon,
Proc. Royal Society B., 272:689-696 (2005).
\15\ Hastings M.C., et al, Effects of low-frequency underwater
sound on hair cells of the inner ear and lateral line of the teleost
fish, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99(3):1759-1766
(1996); Natural Resources Defense Council, Sounding the Depths:
Supertankers, Sonar and the Rise of Undersea Noise (1999); Naylor, R.
et al., supra note 11.
\16\ Goldburg and Naylor, supra note 9; Naylor, R, et al., Id.;
Naylor and Burke, supra note 7.
\17\ Tacon, A.G.J. and Forster, Global trends and challenges to
aquaculture and aquafeed development in the new millennium,
International Aquafeed-Director and Buyers Guide, 2001:4-25 (2000)
\18\ See, An Operational Framework, supra note 3.
\19\ California Public Resources Code Sec. Sec. 2100-21177.
\20\ Letter to Susan Bunsick, NOAA Fisheries, from Anne Mosness, Go
Wild Campaign, August 25, 2005.
______
Bill Number: S. 201
february 10, 2005
An act to amend Sections 15400, 15405, 15406, 15406.5, and 15409
of, and to add Sections 54.5 and 15008 to, the Fish and Game Code, and
to amend Section 30411 of the Public Resources Code, relating to
aquaculture.
Legislative Counsel's Digest
S. 201, Simitian Marine finfish aquaculture: leases.
(1) Existing law authorizes the Fish and Game Commission to lease
state water bottoms to any person for aquaculture, and authorizes the
commission to adopt regulations governing the terms of the leases.
Existing law prohibits state water bottoms from being leased, unless
the commission determines that the lease is in the public interest.
This bill would prohibit a person from engaging in marine finfish
aquaculture, as defined, in state waters without a lease from the
commission. The bill would require leases and regulations adopted by
the commission for marine finfish aquaculture to meet certain
standards. The bill would establish maximum initial and renewal terms
for those leases.
(2) Existing law requires the restoration of an aquaculture lease
site upon the termination of the lease.
The bill would require the commission to require financial
assurances of each lessee to ensure that restoration is performed, and
would make marine finfish aquaculture lessees responsible for damage
caused by their operations, as determined by the commission.
(3) The California Coastal Act requires the Department of Fish and
Game, in consultation with the Aquaculture Development Committee, to
prepare programmatic environmental impact reports for existing and
potential commercial aquaculture operations in both coastal and inland
areas of the state if certain conditions are met.
This bill would delete that requirement from the act, and, instead,
modify provisions relating to aquaculture to include that requirement.
The bill would further require that if a final programmatic
environmental impact report is prepared pursuant to that requirement
for coastal marine finfish aquaculture projects approved by the
commission, the report provide a framework for managing marine finfish
aquaculture in a sustainable manner that adequately considers specified
environmental factors.
(4) The provisions of the bill would be known as the Sustainable
Oceans Act.
(5) Because this bill creates a new crime, it would impose a state-
mandated local program.
(6) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.
The People of the State of California Do Enact as Follows
SECTION 1. This bill shall be known, and may be cited, as the
Sustainable Oceans Act.
SEC. 2. Section 54.5 is added to the Fish and Game Code, to read:
54.5. ``Marine finfish aquaculture'' means the propagation,
cultivation, or maintenance of finfish species in the waters of the
Pacific Ocean that are regulated by this state.
SEC. 3. Section 15008 is added to the Fish and Game Code, to read:
15008. (a) The department shall, in consultation with the
Aquaculture Development Committee, prepare programmatic environmental
impact reports for existing and potential commercial aquaculture
operations in both coastal and inland areas of the state if both of the
following conditions are met:
(1) Funds are appropriated to the department for this purpose.
(2) Matching funds are provided by the aquaculture industry. For
the purpose of this section, ``matching funds'' include, but are not
limited to, any funds expended by the aquaculture industry before
January 1, 2006, for the preparation of a programmatic environmental
impact report.
(b) If the final programmatic environmental impact report is
prepared pursuant to subdivision (a) for coastal marine finfish
aquaculture projects and approved by the commission under the
California Environmental Quality Act set forth in Division 13
(commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code, the
report shall provide a framework for managing marine finfish
aquaculture in an environmentally sustainable manner that, at a
minimum, adequately considers all of the following factors:
(1) Appropriate areas for siting marine finfish aquaculture
operations to avoid adverse impacts, and minimize any unavoidable
impacts, on user groups, public trust values, and the marine
environment.
(2) The effects on sensitive ocean and coastal habitats.
(3) The effects on marine ecosystems, commercial and recreational
fishing, and other important ocean uses.
(4) The effects on other plant and animal species, especially
species protected or recovering under state and Federal law.
(5) The effects of the use of chemical and biological products and
pollutants and nutrient wastes on human health and the marine
environment.
(6) The effects of interactions with marine mammals and birds.
(7) The cumulative effects of a number of similar finfish
aquaculture projects on the ability of the marine environment to
support ecologically significant flora and fauna.
(8) The effects of feed, fish meal, and fish oil on marine
ecosystems.
(9) The effects of escaped fish on wild fish stocks and the marine
environment.
(10) The design of facilities and farming practices so as to avoid
adverse environmental impacts, and to minimize any unavoidable impacts.
SEC. 4. Section 15400 of the Fish and Game Code is amended to read:
15400. (a) Except as prohibited by Section 15007, the commission
may lease state water bottoms or the water column to any person for
aquaculture, including, but not limited to, marine finfish aquaculture.
Upon appropriation of funds for that purpose, or if funds are otherwise
available, the commission shall adopt regulations governing the terms
of the leases, after consulting with affected stakeholders in a public
process. No state leases shall be issued, unless the commission
determines that the lease is in the public interest in a public hearing
conducted in a fair and transparent manner, with notice and comment, in
accordance with commission procedures. Leases issued, and regulations
adopted, pursuant to this section shall not be construed to be fishery
management plans.
(b) A person shall not engage in marine finfish aquaculture in
ocean waters within the jurisdiction of the state without a lease from
the commission. Leases and regulations adopted by the commission for
marine finfish aquaculture shall meet, but are not limited to, all of
the following standards:
(1) The lease site is considered appropriate for marine finfish
aquaculture in the programmatic environmental impact report if prepared
and approved by the commission pursuant to Section 15008.
(2) A lease shall not unreasonably interfere with fishing or other
uses or public trust values, unreasonably disrupt wildlife and marine
habitats, or unreasonably harm the ability of the marine environment to
support ecologically significant flora and fauna. A lease shall not
have significant adverse cumulative impacts.
(3) To reduce adverse effects on global ocean ecosystems, the use
of fish meal and fish oil shall be minimized. Where feasible,
alternatives to fish meal and fish oil, or fish meal and fish oil made
from seafood harvesting byproducts, shall be utilized, taking into
account factors that include, but need not be limited to, the
nutritional needs of the fish being raised and the availability of
alternative ingredients.
(4) Lessees shall establish best management practices, approved by
the commission, for each lease site. Approved best management practices
shall include a regular monitoring, reporting, and site inspection
program that requires at least annual monitoring of lease sites to
ensure that the operations are in compliance with best management
practices related to fish disease, escapement, and environmental
stewardship, and that operations are meeting the requirements of this
section. The commission may remove fish stocks, close facilities, or
terminate the lease if it finds that the lessee is not in compliance
with best management practices, that the lessee's activities have
damaged or are damaging the marine environment, or that the lessee is
not in compliance with this section. The commission shall take
immediate remedial action to avoid or eliminate significant damage, or
the threat of significant damage, to the marine environment.
(5) Before issuance of the lease, the lessee shall provide baseline
benthic habitat and community assessments of the proposed lease site to
the applicable regional water quality control board or the State Water
Resources Control Board, and shall monitor the benthic habitat and
community during the operation of the lease in a manner determined by
the regional board or the State Water Resources Control Board. The
regional board and the State Water Resources Control Board may
establish and impose reasonable permit fees to pay for the costs of
administering and conducting the assessment and monitoring program.
(6) Finfish numbers and density shall be limited to what can be
safely raised while protecting the marine environment, as specified by
the terms of the lease, subject to review and amendment by the
commission.
(7) The use of all drugs, chemicals, and antibiotics, and amounts
used and applied, shall be minimized. All drugs, therapeutic
substances, and antibiotics shall be used and applied only as approved
by the United States Food and Drug Administration for marine finfish
aquaculture. The lessee shall report that use and application to the
commission on a regular schedule, as determined by the commission, but
no less than annually, that shall be included in the terms of the
lease. The commission shall review those reports on a regular basis and
at least annually.
(8) The commission shall require all farmed fish to be marked,
tagged, or otherwise identified as belonging to the lessee in a manner
determined appropriate by the commission, unless the commission
determines that identifying farmed fish is unnecessary for protecting
wild fish stocks, the marine environment, or other ocean uses.
(9) All facilities and operations shall be designed to prevent the
escape of farmed fish into the marine environment and to withstand
severe weather conditions and marine accidents. The lessee shall
maintain records on all escapes in a manner determined by the
commission. In the event of more than de minimis escapement, the number
of escaped fish and the circumstances surrounding the incident shall be
reported immediately to the commission, and the lessee shall be
responsible for damages to the marine environment caused by those
escaped fish, as determined by the commission.
(10) The lessee shall, at a minimum, meet all applicable
requirements imposed by the State Water Resources Control Board and the
regional water quality control boards, and shall prevent discharges to
the maximum extent possible. Monitoring and testing of water quality
shall be required on a regular basis as deemed appropriate by the State
Water Resources Control Board or the regional water quality control
boards. All inspection and monitoring reports and other records, and
all data on the discharge of chemical and biological pollutants shall
be kept on file and available for public review.
(c) If a restoration or enhancement plan is submitted to, and
approved by, the commission, and that plan, among other things,
provides for monitoring and protecting the benthic habitat, the
prevention of pollution, and the prevention of adverse impacts on wild
fish stocks from disease, parasites, and genetic alterations,
subdivision (b) shall not apply to any of the following:
(1) Artificial propagation, rearing, and stocking projects for the
purpose of recovery, restoration, or enhancement of native fish stocks
carried out under either of the following:
(A) A scientific collecting or research permit issued by the
department.
(B) The California Ocean Resources Enhancement and Hatchery
Program, as set forth in Article 8 (commencing with Section 6590) of
Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 6, for the enhancement of white sea
bass.
(2) Nonprofit hatcheries and nonprofit artificial propagation
projects operated by, or on behalf of, licensed commercial or sport
fishermen and fisherwomen for the purpose of recovery, restoration, or
enhancement of California's native marine fish populations, pursuant to
Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 6900) of Part 1 of Division 6.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand
the application of any other state law or regulation pertaining to
marine finfish aquaculture conducted within the ocean waters under the
jurisdiction of this state.
SEC. 5. Section 15405 of the Fish and Game Code is amended to read:
15405. (a) Except as specified in subdivision (b), no initial term
of a state water bottom lease shall exceed 25 years.
(b) The initial term of a state water bottom lease for marine
finfish aquaculture shall not exceed 10 years.
SEC. 6. Section 15406 of the Fish and Game Code is amended to read:
15406. (a) Each state water bottom lease shall specify a period
prior to expiration when renewal of the lease may be requested by the
lessee. If during this period the lessee is still actively engaged in
aquaculture, as determined by the commission, the lessee shall have a
prior right to renew the lease on terms agreed upon between the
commission and the lessee. If terms are not agreed upon, the commission
shall advertise for bids on the lease. If a request for renewal is not
made by the lessee, the commission shall advertise for bids on the
lease. The commission shall consider bids only from aquaculturists
registered pursuant to Section 15101.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), with respect to any lease of
state water bottoms in effect on January 1, 1983, the lessee shall have
a prior right to renew the lease. If the lessee does not renew the
lease, the commission shall advertise for bids on the lease. The
commission shall consider bids only from aquaculturists registered
pursuant to Section 15101.
(c) Except as specified in subdivision (d), a lease may be renewed
for additional periods not to exceed 25 years each.
(d) A lease for marine finfish aquaculture may be renewed for
additional periods not to exceed 5 years each.
SEC. 7. Section 15406.5 of the Fish and Game Code is amended to
read:
15406.5. (a) Except as specified in subdivision (b), the commission
shall award water bottom leases to the highest responsible bidder, if
the bid meets or exceeds the minimum annual rent established by the
commission, which shall not be less than two dollars ($2) per acre, for
all species cultivated, unless the acreage applied for is 10 acres or
less, in which case the minimum acceptable rent shall be ten dollars
($10) per acre. The annual rent for any lease in effect on January 1,
1983, for the cultivation of oysters shall be one dollar ($1) per acre
until the expiration thereof. The commission may reject any or all bids
for the lease of state water bottoms if it deems the rejection to be in
the public interest.
(b) Fees for marine finfish aquaculture leases shall, at a minimum,
be sufficient to pay for the costs of administering the marine finfish
leasing program, and for monitoring and enforcing the terms of the
leases.
SEC. 8. Section 15409 of the Fish and Game Code is amended to read:
15409. (a) Upon termination of a lease, for any reason, all
structures shall be removed at the lessee's expense from the leasehold,
and the area shall be restored to its original condition. If the lessee
fails to remove the structures, the state may remove them and the
lessee shall pay the removal costs incurred.
(b) The commission shall require financial assurances of each
marine finfish aquaculture lessee to ensure that restoration is
performed to the satisfaction of the commission. Financial assurances
may take the form of surety bonds executed by an admitted surety
insurer, irrevocable letters of credit, trust funds, or other forms of
financial assurances specified by the commission, as it determines are
available and adequate to ensure the lease site is restored pursuant to
this section.
(c) Marine finfish aquaculture lessees shall be responsible for any
damages caused by their operations, as determined by the commission,
including, but not limited to, reimbursement for any costs for natural
resource damage assessment.
(d) Nothing in this section limits the state in pursuing additional
remedies authorized by law.
SEC. 9. Section 30411 of the Public Resources Code is amended to
read:
30411. (a) The Department of Fish and Game and the Fish and Game
Commission are the principal state agencies responsible for the
establishment and control of wildlife and fishery management programs
and the commission shall not establish or impose any controls with
respect thereto that duplicate or exceed regulatory controls
established by these agencies pursuant to specific statutory
requirements or authorization.
(b) The Department of Fish and Game, in consultation with the
commission and the Department of Boating and Waterways, may study
degraded wetlands and identify those which can most feasibly be
restored in conjunction with development of a boating facility as
provided in subdivision (a) of Section 30233. Any study conducted under
this subdivision shall include consideration of all of the following:
(1) Whether the wetland is so severely degraded and its natural
processes so substantially impaired that it is not capable of
recovering and maintaining a high level of biological productivity
without major restoration activities.
(2) Whether a substantial portion of the degraded wetland, but in
no event less than 75 percent, can be restored and maintained as a
highly productive wetland in conjunction with a boating facilities
project.
(3) Whether restoration of the wetland's natural values, including
its biological productivity and wildlife habitat features, can most
feasibly be achieved and maintained in conjunction with a boating
facility or whether there are other feasible ways to achieve these
values.
(c) The Legislature finds and declares that salt water or brackish
water aquaculture is a coastal-dependent use which should be encouraged
to augment food supplies and to further the policies set forth in
Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 825) of Division 1. The Department
of Fish and Game may identify coastal sites it determines to be
appropriate for aquaculture facilities. If the department identifies
these sites, it shall transmit information identifying the sites to the
commission and the relevant local government agency. The commission,
and where appropriate, local governments, shall, consistent with the
coastal planning requirements of this division, provide for as many
coastal sites identified by the Department of Fish and Game for any
uses that are consistent with the policies of Chapter 3 (commencing
with Section 30200) of this division.
(d) Any agency of the state owning or managing land in the coastal
zone for public purposes shall be an active participant in the
selection of suitable sites for aquaculture facilities and shall make
the land available for use in aquaculture when feasible and consistent
with other policies of this division and other provisions of law.
SEC. 10. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the
only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district
will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction,
eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or
infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code,
or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of
Article XIII B of the California Constitution.
______
Go Wild Campaign
Bellingham, WA, August 25, 2005
Ms. Susan Bunsick,
Policy Analyst,
NOAA Aquaculture Program/National Marine Fisheries Service.
Dear Ms. Bunsick,
This letter constitutes a formal request for NOAA to:
1. Immediately prepare the required LEIS on S. 1195, National
Aquaculture Act of 2005.
2. Enlist the Science Advisory Board and other knowledgeable
scientists, and finance appropriate research to fully analyze
the issues surrounding open ocean fish farming; and,
3. Provide written response to the questions outlined in this
letter.
At NOAA's Science Advisory Board meeting in Seattle, August 8 and
9, 2005, many questions were raised following your presentation about
``NOAA's Role in Open Ocean Aquaculture: Legislation and Research''.
The ``National Aquaculture Act of 2005'' (S. 1195), developed in
secrecy and introduced on June 7, vastly changes management and
utilization of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, 3-200 miles offshore.
Many citizens, elected officials and members of the scientific
community are losing confidence in NOAA's stewardship of our ocean
commons, while the agency is aggressively promoting private, even
foreign owned fish farms in our waters.
You stated several times that NOAA recognizes the importance of
science, yet it is apparent that substantial scientific assessment of
impacts and risks of open ocean aquaculture (OOA) have not been
conducted.
NOAA has thus far declined to prepare a legislative environmental
impact statement (LEIS) which is required by the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) prior to Congress voting on legislation that
significantly affects the quality of the human environment. Several
Members of Congress, including two from Washington State where the
recent SAB meeting was held, have requested that NOAA prepare the LEIS.
On NOAA's Science Advisory Board website, their stated mission is
to ensure NOAA's science programs ``are of the highest quality and
provide optimal support to resource management, and environmental
assessment and prediction'' and they can assist ``NOAA in maintaining a
complete and accurate understanding of scientific issues critical to
the agency's missions.''
To that end, the following are some of the analysis that must be
conducted:
1. A detailed economic impact study of effects of aquaculture
of all economically valuable marine species on existing fishing
dependent businesses and employment (i.e. commercial,
recreational, tribal), under several assumed levels of offshore
commercial aquaculture and given existing and predicted net pen
and alternative containment technologies.
2. A detailed analysis of the full range of economic and
environmental impacts that could result from the escape of
various levels of farmed native or exotic species and
genetically modified fish into the open ocean and nearshore
environments. This analysis should consider several different
scenarios based on various production models, quantities, and
methodologies utilizing current and predicted net pen and
alternative containment technologies.
3. An analysis of the potential impact to the environment and
human health from potential fish diseases, bacteria, viruses,
and parasites resulting from offshore aquaculture, under
several assumed levels of offshore commercial aquaculture and
given existing and predicted net pen and alternative
containment technologies.
4. An analysis of the impacts on human health from consuming
offshore farmed fish, including an analysis of the impacts of:
(a) antibiotics, (b) other cleaning and algal growth
prohibiting chemicals, and, (c) mercury and hydrocarbons in
facilities located on or adjacent to offshore oil and gas
facilities, under several assumed levels of offshore commercial
aquaculture and given existing and predicted use of these
chemicals in marine aquaculture.
5. A detailed analysis of the impacts on water quality and the
environment resulting from the use of various cage materials
under several assumed levels of offshore commercial aquaculture
and various proximities for aquaculture facilities, given
existing and predicted net pen and alternative containment
technologies. Such analysis should describe in detail how the
farms will meet the terms of relevant state and Federal
fisheries and environmental law (e.g. Clean Water Act, ESA,
MMPA).
6. An analysis detailing the potential impact of dredging,
drilling, and other sediment and bottom habitat disturbances
from aquaculture, including potential harms to seagrass, coral
die-off, survival rates and displacement of ocean wildlife, as
well as impacts from resuspension of any persistent,
bioaccumulative toxicants already in the sediments, given
existing and predicted net pen and alternative containment
technologies.
7. An identification of the areas of the ocean where
aquaculture could compete with other uses that are of
significant social or economic value to the public or nation
including: (a) fishing grounds and routes to those fishing
grounds, (b) vessel traffic lanes, (c) military sites and areas
of concern regarding national security, (d) national marine
sanctuaries, marine reserves and other marine protected areas,
(e) areas used for public recreational purposes, like boating,
diving, and recreational fishing, and (f) other multiple use
areas.
8. An analysis of the likely impacts from the use of fish feed
in offshore aquaculture--including an analysis of any changes
in pelagic fish populations and resulting impact on various
predator fish species and endangered seabirds and mammals, and
the economic impact to fishing communities--under several
assumed levels of offshore commercial aquaculture and given
existing and predicted feed technologies and rates.
9. An analysis of the expected increase/decrease in the net
amount of marine protein available for human consumption under
various types of offshore aquaculture utilizing various species
of fish and shellfish.
10. A detailed analysis of the amount of fossil fuel and other
energy resources used for ocean production of fish and the
resulting impact on the economy under several assumed levels of
offshore commercial aquaculture.
11. The ``Code of Conduct for Responsible Aquaculture
Development in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone'', prepared by
the National Marine Fisheries Service in 2002 states, ``The
Code adheres to the spirit and intent of the FAO Code of
Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF) to which the United
States is a signatory and strong supporter, and does not in any
way contradict its principles''.
Several articles of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible
Fisheries are significant:
``States should apply the precautionary approach widely to
conservation, management and exploitation of living aquatic resources
in order to protect them and preserve the aquatic environment. The
absence of adequate scientific information should not be used as a
reason for postponing or failing to take conservation and management
measures.'' (Article 7.5.1) ``States should ensure that the livelihoods
of local communities, and their access to fishing grounds, are not
negatively affected by aquaculture developments.'' (Article 9.1.4)
``States should protect transboundary aquatic ecosystems'' (Article
9.2.1). ``States should conserve genetic diversity and maintain
integrity of aquatic communities and ecosystems by appropriate
management. In particular, efforts should be undertaken to minimize the
harmful effects of introducing nonnative species or genetically altered
stocks . . . States should, whenever possible, promote steps to
minimize adverse genetic, disease and other effects of escaped farmed
fish on wild stocks'' (Article 9.3.1). ``States should regulate the use
of chemical inputs in aquaculture which are hazardous to human health
and the environment'' (Article 9.4.5). ``States should require that the
disposal of wastes such as offal, sludge, dead or diseased fish, excess
veterinary drugs and other hazardous chemical inputs does not
constitute a hazard to human health and the environment'' (Article
9.4.6).
Please respond with detailed descriptions of how NOAA, in the face
of expansive aquaculture development, intends to comply with the
precautionary approach and uphold the principals of the FAO Code of
Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.
Thank you for responding to these questions and concerns. This
letter will be available to Members of Congress, NOAA's Science
Advisory Board, as well as other interested parties. NOAA's timely
response is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Anne Mosness.
cc: Dr. Leonard J. Pietrafesa; Dr. Michael Uhart; The NOAA
Science Advisory Board; Members of Congress; Coastal Governors
and State Legislators; and Fishing, consumer advocacy and
conservation organizations.
______
The Ocean Conservancy
Washington DC, November 1, 2005
Hon. Ted Stevens,
Chairman,
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
Co-Chairman,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Stevens and Inouye:
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.
Sincerely,
Catherine Hazlewood,
Legislative Program Manager.
Tim Eichenberg,
Pacific Regional Director.
cc: Members of the Senate Commerce Committee; Members of the
House Resources Committee; and Members of the House Oceans
Caucus.
______
Comments of The Ocean Conservancy on S. 1195: The National Offshore
Aquaculture Act of 2005
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.
Senator Sununu. Thank you.
Dr. MacMillan.
STATEMENT OF JOHN R. ``RANDY'' MacMillan, Ph.D., PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL AQUACULTURE ASSOCIATION
Dr. MacMillan. Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is Randy
MacMillan. I'm the President of the National Aquaculture
Association. My testimony will focus on the importance of
ensuring the Senate Bill 1195 strikes a reasonable
environmental protection balance if the goal of Congress is to
create an open ocean aquaculture program.
I want to emphasize three principal issues. Number one, for
any aquaculture program to succeed it must be profitable for
business.
Number two, current U.S. environmental protection fishery
management and public health and safety programs already ensure
domestic ocean aquaculture practices will be ecologically
sustainable, and number three, Senate bill 1195 should resolve
the fundamental legal issues of authority of the states and
Federal waters and resolve limits on the lease periods.
Development of specific operating standards should be left to
the transparency of rulemaking which should be based on
objective scientific research findings.
Today foreign imports have created a seafood deficit of
$8.3 billion and 40 to 50 percent of those imports are farm-
raised seafood. Well documented human health benefits of farm-
raised seafood consumption taste and price drive seafood
consumption in the United States. The significant driver for
increased consumption of imported farm-raised seafood is their
comparatively low priced, low production costs. These lower
costs occur because of low labor costs and far less stringent
and environmental expectations. This threatens the economic
viability of our existing domestic aquaculture sectors.
Senate Bill 1195 contemplates development of aquaculture in
Federal open ocean waters. If that is indeed the objective of
congress, then you must guard against a bill that is overly
prescriptive and anti-competitive or burdensome. The legal
system created must provide a reasonable expectation of
commercial viability. Legislation that leads to uncertainty,
excessive operating costs, litigation over broadly defined
legislative standards, short permit periods or potential
revocation of permits by states will not justify investment.
Investment risks will have to fall within acceptable ranges if
we're to produce marine aquaculture products in U.S. waters.
In 2004, the U.S. EPA completed 4 years of investigations
into the primary methods of aquaculture production, including
coastal marine net pen operations and developed new effluent
guidelines for incorporation in Federal discharge permits. The
Clean Water Act and its regulations also include ocean
discharge standards that supplement the recently adopted
aquaculture effluent regulations and provide an adaptive
process to ensure protection of ocean water quality. The ocean
discharge criteria require assessment of location, design,
proposed stock species and receiving water characteristics to
establish appropriate safeguards. Because current protective
Federal scientifically based requirements exist, we should
guard against efforts to create redundant new requirements, or
use political motivations to mandate revision of current
standards. Congress should simply confirm that aquaculture in
Federal waters must comply with the requirements of the Federal
Clean Water Act.
There is much discussion of the use of fish meal and fish
oil in feeds for cattle, swine, poultry and fish. The debate
centers on whether the harvest of pelagic fishes used to make
fish meal and fish oil is ecologically sustainable.
The domestic aquaculture use of fish meal and fish oil even
with potential open ocean aquaculture scenarios is and will
only have a minor share of the global market. Other countries,
notably China, are far greater users and even now are
contracting for future production volume from the major global
producers of fish meal and fish oil.
Legislation dictating minimized use of these products will
only penalize American farmers. I urge you not to submit to
calls for silver bullet solutions regarding management of fish
feed, stocks. Comprehensive domestic and international
fisheries management programs should address this issue.
Management of this resource cannot be effectively conducted by
simply restricting the potential use of fish feed at offshore
U.S. production sites.
The pending legislation should not attempt to set new
policy for drug use in marine aquaculture. A rigorous program
of Federal regulations is already well-established under
authority of the U.S. FDA. Policy statements that mandate
minimized use of such materials are not science-based and
provide no additional measure of protection to human health or
the environment and for the record, there are no approved
hormones for use in domestic food fish aquaculture.
Efforts to develop a domestic offshore aquaculture program
are not occurring in a vacuum. Several well-established Federal
regulatory program standards can be used to protect water
quality, animal health and natural resources in this context.
The offshore legislation should rely on such established
standards and the integration of the new offshore program
details such existing standards through the rulemaking process.
This approach could provide a better coordinated and efficient
program that is more likely lead to actual investment and
production in U.S. marine aquaculture.
Thank you again for the opportunity for me to present my
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Dr. MacMillan follows:]
Prepared Statement of John R. ``Randy'' MacMillan, Ph.D., President,
National Aquaculture Association
Introduction
I am honored to testify today about the opportunities Senate Bill
1195 could create to improve availability of wholesome, competitively
priced seafood for U.S. consumers while creating jobs for people living
in coastal fishing communities. My name is John R. MacMillan. I am the
President of the National Aquaculture Association, the NAA. The NAA is
a U.S. trade association primarily representing producers of domestic
fish and shellfish aquaculture. Our members produce a variety of food
fish, recreational fishing stock and baitfish, aquarium ornamental fish
and shellfish. The NAA mission is to foster development of
environmentally sustainable aquaculture in the United States. To do
this, we strive to partner with various Federal agencies to develop
policies and regulations that are protective of the environment and
public health, practical and cost-effective, and based on credible
scientific information. The focus of my testimony is environmental
issues. Several issues regarding offshore aquaculture were also
presented in written comments previously submitted to the Subcommittee
by the NAA. The NAA supports S. 1195 because it creates opportunity for
further, environmentally sustainable U.S. aquaculture development.
In addition to serving as President of the NAA, I am the Vice
President of Research and Environmental Affairs for Clear Springs Foods
in south-central Idaho. In this capacity, I serve as an officer of the
company addressing various research, natural resource and quality
assurance issues. I also serve as the chairman of the Idaho Board of
Environmental Quality. Prior to my current position, I was an Associate
Professor of Veterinary and Aquatic Animal Medicine at the Mississippi
State University College of Veterinary Medicine. I have authored or co-
authored over 75 scientific publications dealing with cellular
senescence, aquatic animal diseases and their treatments, environmental
stewardship and aquatic animal production practices. I have a Ph.D. in
fishery biology and was a Senior Research Fellow in the School of
Medicine at the University of Washington in Seattle. In 2005, I
received the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner's
Special Citation and recently (2006) was selected by the United Nations
FAO/WHO/OIE as a world expert on antibiotics and antimicrobial
resistance issues to participate in an expert consultation.
My testimony will focus on the importance of ensuring that Federal
legislation strikes a reasonable environmental protection balance if
the goal of Congress is to successfully create an open ocean
aquaculture program. My conclusion will be to encourage Congress to
support offshore aquaculture development in the Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ) by ensuring S. 1195 is not overly burdensome or prescriptive.
I will make three primary points as follows:
1. For any aquaculture program to succeed, whether in the EEZ
or anyplace else, it must be profitable for businesses.
2. Current U.S. environmental protection, fishery management
and public safety programs provide the means to ensure domestic
aquaculture practices are ecologically sustainable.
3. S. 1195 should resolve the fundamental legal issues of
authority of the states in Federal waters, and limits on the
lease periods. Development of specific operating standards
should be left to the transparency of rulemaking which should
be based on objective scientific research findings.
Globalization, Domestic Aquaculture and Economics
Consumer demand for seafood in the United States continues to rise
at an increasing rate. In 2005, U.S. per capita consumption of seafood
had increased to 16.6 lbs, an increase of 11 percent from 5 years ago.
This increased consumption is due to widespread consumer recognition of
the health benefits of seafood consumption and because seafood
represents good value to U.S. consumers. At this time, foreign imports
overwhelmingly dominate the U.S. seafood market. In 2005, our seafood
deficit reached $8.3 billion.
Increasingly, this seafood is coming from aquaculture. The United
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that in 2002,
35.2 percent of the world's 145.9 million metric tons of fisheries
landings came from aquaculture. Imports of various farm raised fishes
such as salmon, shrimp and tilapia have increased 20 to 200 percent
over the past 5 years. Worldwide, the aquaculture sector has grown an
average of 9 percent per year since 1970 compared with only a 1.2
percent growth of capture fisheries and 2.8 percent for terrestrial
farmed meat production over the same period. Besides the well-
documented health benefits of seafood consumption, including
consumption of farm raised species, consumers purchase seafood because
of taste and because of price competitiveness. The significant increase
in consumption of imported seafood over time is attributed to their
competitive consumer prices. Imported products are often of lower cost
because of significant production advantages due to reduced labor costs
and reduced environmental stringency, and other reduced regulatory
obligations compared to those in the U.S.
In the U.S., seafood aquaculture production of freshwater finfish
is currently dominated by channel catfish, rainbow trout, salmon,
hybrid striped bass and tilapia. However, cost competitive domestic
production of these products is being severely challenged by
international competition. In fact, there is already a significant
reduction of production in some domestic freshwater species sectors
because of the tremendous volume of imported seafood. Marine products
captured in U.S. waters, even when combined with domestic farm raised
freshwater species, cannot be expected to satisfy the U.S. seafood
market demand. Marine aquaculture production could be an important
component of domestic efforts to meet consumer demand, but only if the
offshore legislation creates a commercially viable legal framework.
If the objective of Congress is to indeed create opportunity to
produce food fish and other products in U.S. Federal waters, then your
success should not be defined by passage of Senate Bill 1195. Success
can only be measured by your success in attracting private investment
in the creation of U.S. marine aquaculture facilities and the
production of products for domestic and potentially for export markets.
The legal system created must provide a reasonable expectation of
commercial viability. In part, such viability will be dependent on the
legal standards and operating requirements ultimately established.
Legislation that leads to uncertainty, excessive operating costs,
litigation over broadly-defined legislative standards, short permit
periods or potential revocation by states will not justify investment.
Investment risks will have to fall within acceptable ranges if we are
to produce marine aquaculture products in U.S. waters. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The NAA submitted written comments to the Subcommittee dated
April 19, 2006. In part, we opined that a viable commercial program
would require long term renewable leases (25+ years), must avoid
unpredictable state veto authorities and extraterritorial application
of the CZMA, and should modify the role of the regional fishery
management councils.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Sustainability
Protection of Water Quality
In one respect, the development of offshore aquaculture in the
United States enjoys what could be a demonstrable benefit over several
other potential international development locations. In the US, we have
legally enforceable environmental standards that have been developed
through transparent, rulemaking procedures under the Federal Clean
Water Act. Existing standards offer a measure of predictability in
designing offshore operations. To attract investors, we should
emphasize this predictability as an advantage. Frankly, this may be the
best we can make of this issue because other countries are reportedly
attracting investors and facility operators with public financing, less
stringent regulatory standards and expedited permit application review
procedures. We also should guard against efforts to create redundant
new requirements, or mandate revision of current standards; as such
steps will undermine any existing advantages. Congress should simply
confirm that aquaculture in Federal waters must comply with the
requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act.
Maintaining good water quality is a first priority for all
successful aquaculturists. Without good water quality, animal husbandry
challenges are dramatically increased and these increase fish
production costs. There is no reason to believe this will not be the
case in offshore production facilities as well. Current information
indicates that marine locations offer favorable characteristics because
of their assimilative capacity (waters beneath prospective sites are up
to 500 feet deep) and the retention of good water quality. But offshore
aquaculture facilities are unlikely to be built simply to take
advantage of these characteristics.
In aquaculture facilities, the effluent constituents represent lost
investment dollars and product. This is in contrast to constituents of
wastewater effluent discharges in other types of industries where the
discharge represents non-usable production waste. The principle wastes
of concern from aquaculture operations are excess feed and fish
excretions. Excess feed is money wasted by producers; so great care is
exercised to ensure over-feeding does not occur. Recent technological
advancements provide encouragement that feed wastage can be readily
prevented. Fish excretions are necessary elements of biomass production
by fish. In the husbandry of many farmed fish species, feed to flesh
conversions of nearly 1:1 have been achieved. It is reasonable to
anticipate similar feed to fish flesh efficiencies in marine waters.
Practices that limit waste discharge from freshwater and marine
aquaculture facilities have been the subject of considerable scientific
research. This research ultimately resulted in development of cost-
effective and environmentally protective fish farming practices. The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has a great deal of
information regarding this topic. As you have heard in other testimony,
feed management is a focus of marine aquaculture research, and includes
development of technologies for video monitoring, and evaluation of
environmental impacts of excess feed use.
We should avoid creating new, potentially conflicting legislative
standards for issues already addressed through detailed rulemaking
under well-developed programs, such as existing standards created under
the Clean Water Act. In 2004, the U.S. EPA completed 4 years of
investigations into the primary methods of aquaculture production
(including coastal marine net pen operations), and developed discharge
permit regulations. The U.S. EPA regulations created enforceable permit
standards for aquaculture operations. Aquaculture facilities are
required to meet these standards as elements of permits issued under
the Clean Water Act. The U.S. EPA relied heavily upon scientifically
credible information collected from throughout the World to craft these
standards.
In addition, the Clean Water Act and its regulations include ocean
discharge standards that supplement the recently-adopted aquaculture
effluent regulations, and provide an adaptive process to ensure
protection of ocean water quality. The ocean discharge criteria require
an assessment of discharge impacts to biological community resources
including human health risks. The U.S. EPA's review of a proposed ocean
discharge project considers the effects on the receiving water
ecosystems, and specifically ensures that there is no ``unreasonable
degradation'' of the marine environment. The operating conditions
necessary 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 establish appropriate safeguards.
Existing Federal regulations require an evaluation of ten criteria to
determine whether an unreasonable degradation of the marine environment
will occur. 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.
Legislation that creates new performance standards using non-
scientific superlative language such as ``maximum extent possible''
will only lead to debate, not greater protection. Such mandates also
create a greater risk that investors and producers will not undertake
projects given this level of new uncertainty, and the costs of
protracted debates through the rulemaking or judicial review processes
that would have to interpret such legislation.
A valid regulatory permit program is already 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.
Restrictions on Fish Feed
The potential for development of U.S. offshore aquaculture would be
greatly hampered if American fish farmers must also shoulder the burden
of international policy disputes. There is much discussion of the use
of fish meal and fish oil in aquaculture circles. The debate centers on
whether the harvest of pelagic fishes used to make fish meal and fish
oil is ecologically sustainable. Fish meal and fish oil is the most
expensive component of feed. Typically, feed is the single greatest
operating cost for aquaculture facilities. Farmers go to great lengths
to ensure that feed is not wasted.
Legislative mandates regarding the use of such feeds will not
address the issue of whether fish meal resources are properly managed
on a national or international basis. Domestically, regulations
concerning the management of fish stocks used to produce fish meal and
oil is where such protective efforts should be directed. Mandates to
minimize U.S. farm use of these products are unlikely to have any
measurable effects.
Fish meal and fish oil are used in feeds for fish, cattle, swine
and poultry. But the domestic aquaculture use of fish meal and fish oil
is only a minor share of the global market. Other countries, notably
China, are far greater users, and even now are contracting for future
production volumes from the major global producers of fish meal and
fish oil. Legislation dictating minimized use of these products will
only penalize American farmers. Ironically, American farmers are more
likely to efficiently use these products by application of technology.
In addition, by burdening the fledgling U.S. offshore industry with
feed restrictions, we inhibit the potential for developing alternative
feed formulas that may be available with greater operating experience
in U.S. waters.
Recent scientific reports present a compelling argument that
pelagic fishes harvested for fish meal and fish oil production are
ecologically and socioeconomically sustainable. Various national and
international government agencies manage pelagic fish stock through
total allowable catch limits. These international agencies include the
Instituto del Mar del Peru (IMARPE), Institute of Fisheries Research
(IFOP) in Chile, and the International Council for the Exploration of
the Sea (ICES) in Europe. The fish meal industry itself supports
government-led stock management and supports the FAO's Code of Conduct
for Responsible Fisheries. Data from the FAO over the past 20 years
indicate landings of industrial or feed fish have remained fairly
stable at around 20 to 25 million tons per year since 1984. While total
catch has remained stable, the portion of total fish meal used in
aquaculture feeds has increased. Competition for fish meal and fish oil
amongst various consumers has increased fish meal and fish oil costs,
thereby making production of carnivorous fishes more expensive.
Consequently, research priorities have shifted to discovering
alternatives to fish meal and fish oil use while maintaining proper
animal nutrition and ensuring the positive nutritional benefits of
seafood consumption by people is maintained (e.g. omega 3 fatty acid
composition).
I urge you not to submit to calls for ``silver bullet'' solutions
regarding proper management of fish feed stocks. Comprehensive domestic
and international fisheries management programs should address this
issue. Management of this resource cannot be effectively conducted by
simply restricting the potential use of fish feed at offshore U.S.
production sites.
The Regulation of Antibiotics and Other Drugs
The pending legislation should not attempt to set new policy for
drug and antibiotic use in marine aquaculture. A program of Federal
regulation is already well established under authority of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA). Policy statements that mandate minimized
use of such materials are not science-based, and provide no additional
measure of protection to human health or the environment.
Opponents of aquaculture often allege rampant misuse of antibiotics
by producers. Such opponents speculate that antibiotic misuse will be a
standard practice if we create a domestic marine aquaculture system.
Aquaculture opponents never discuss the various Federal programs
designed to ensure that public health and environmental safety are
maintained when the few available antibiotics are used. Critics also
fail to recognize the scientifically rigorous FDA drug approval process
for drugs and antibiotics used in agriculture, including aquaculture.
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. The use of
hormones as growth promoters is of questionable merit and none are
approved for such use in aquaculture in the U.S. New drugs are strictly
regulated, and must pass rigorous evaluation for their potential
environmental impacts under the FDA-Center for Veterinary Medicine
Investigational New Animal Drug (INAD) approval process. Existing laws
set public health and environmental standards for management of drug
use and quality assurance requirements that would apply in marine
aquaculture.
Conclusion
Efforts to develop an offshore aquaculture program are not
occurring in a vacuum. Several well-established Federal regulatory
program standards can be used to protect water quality, animal health
and natural resources in this context. The offshore legislation should
rely on such established standards, and the integration of the new
offshore program details with such existing standards through the
rulemaking process. This approach could provide a better coordinated
and efficient program that is more likely to lead to actual investment
and production in U.S. marine aquaculture.
Thank you again for the opportunity to present my testimony. I
would be pleased to answer any questions regarding these issues.
Senator Sununu. Thank you, Dr. MacMillan.
Ms. Cufone.
STATEMENT OF MARIANNE CUFONE, ESQ.,
MANAGING PARTNER, ENVIRONMENT MATTERS
Ms. Cufone. My name is Marianne Cufone. I am an
environmental attorney and advocate in Tampa, Florida. I work
with a wide variety of groups and individuals on fishery
issues, including open ocean aquaculture. It is very unusual to
find an issue where various user groups can come together and
speak with almost one voice and offshore aquaculture is one.
I am honored to be here today on behalf of not just one
particular organization, but rather many in the Gulf of
Mexico--groups like Center for Food Safety, the Gulf
Restoration Network, the Institute for Fisheries Resources, the
Southeastern Fisheries Association and the Southern Shrimp
Alliance. These are fishing conservation consumer organizations
all concerned about potential negative impacts associated with
open ocean aquaculture.
There are currently many concerns about commercial
development of offshore aquaculture in the United States. Two
of the primary ones are pollution, both of wild fish
populations and the environment and user conflicts. Pollution
of wild fish populations is the intermixing of aquacultured
fish with wild fish. Offshore aquaculture of finfish utilizes
cages or net pens to contain fish, and some fish will escape
from these structures into the open ocean due to severe
weather, predators tearing at netting, failed equipment, human
error and more. Because these fish are captive and bred for
profit, they are often different from wild fish. They can be
exotic species mutated in captivity for unknown reasons,
inbred, genetically modified to create faster growing and
larger fish or continually selectively bred to achieve similar
results. Some fish behaviors are learned from communal
interactions, so even unaltered captive fish can have different
behaviors than wild fish.
Escape of these fish that are different from wild fish can
change the ecosystem and natural fish populations permanently.
There are ways to help assure minimal intermixing. Requiring
best available technology for cages and pens and preventing use
of non-native and genetically modified organisms are important.
We also should evaluate the scientific merit of requiring
only first generation fish or hyper-domesticated fish in open
water facilities.
Pollution of the environment occurs when substances come
out of aquaculture facilities into the 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 sea grass, even far from facilities,
carried by currents. Debris and other wastes can contaminate
water and can cause safety hazards for boaters, fishermen and
divers, and of course harm wildlife.
A stringent program to guard against releases and quickly
alleviate any damage is critical. We also need to establish
strict environmental requirements with detailed pollution
prevention and mitigation plans as conditions of operation
before any permits issue and then condition annual permit
renewal on environmental performance.
Also regular removal of bio-fouling and mortalities,
preventing use of antibiotics or other chemicals, requiring
efficient feed usage, and minimal habitat disturbances are
important.
Various user conflicts are expected between offshore
aquaculture and other ocean uses. Likely conflicts involve
known fishing grounds and routes to those fishing grounds,
other vessel traffic lanes, military sites, sites of national
security, marine reserves, sanctuaries and otherwise protected
or vulnerable sites. Essentially, S. 1195 as is will re-
allocate public resources for private gain without protecting
existing uses. This is troubling.
Rather than creating buffer zones just around the
aquaculture facilities, we should create buffer zones around
areas of current significant competing economic use or public
value, and also ban the use of such areas for open ocean
aquaculture.
The composition of aquacultured fish feed creates a
conflict issue. Cultured species are also often directly fed
wild caught species or products that contain wild species. This
is an inefficient use of available protein. Lower level species
are critical to the ecosystem, serving as prey for marine
mammals, birds and fish. Use of wild fish in creating feed for
captive fish creates a very real food shortage problem for wild
fisheries and other marine wildlife.
Additionally, use of wild fish to feed captive ones may
increase fishing pressure on wild fish populations as demand
and prices rise for aquacultured fish. Some limitations on use
of wild caught species as food for captive species should be
established. Also, requiring best available technology will
ensure that adequate food supply for natural wildlife remains.
There are serious issues nationwide, but particularly in
the Gulf of Mexico, because there is dependence on ocean and
coastal areas for food, recreation, financial stability through
tourism, recreational, commercial fishing and so many other
things. Additionally, the severe hurricanes for the past 2
years make the Gulf of Mexico very vulnerable to any further
alterations.
Use of oil rigs as sites for aquaculture facilities is a
very real concern for us. During recent hurricanes, oil rigs
were destroyed, some carried miles to shore. Had aquaculture
existed on these rigs, there would have been massive fish
escapes and likely other severe problems.
In sum, it seems that we're rushing into development of
offshore aquaculture in the United States without really
considering the consequences. If we want commercial development
of offshore aquaculture to benefit the United States, these
matters that I have mentioned and many others first must be
fully addressed. Expanded commercial development of offshore
aquaculture may be a benefit in the future, but it should not
proceed until after the implementation of stringent guidelines.
This isn't only about economics and increased food, it's also
about a net benefit to the United States and so we do need to
look at these very serious issues first to ensure we don't hurt
other existing assets.
I very much appreciate the opportunity to be here today,
and I look forward to working with you and others on these very
important matters.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cufone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Marianne Cufone, Esq., Managing Partner,
Environment Matters
Introduction
Good morning. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to testify today
about the very important issues associated with offshore aquaculture.
My name is Marianne Cufone. I am an environmental attorney and advocate
in Tampa, Florida. I work with a wide variety of groups and individuals
on fisheries issues, including open ocean aquaculture. I am the Vice
Chair of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Advisory Panel
on Offshore Aquaculture, a member of the Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services Task Force on open water aquaculture
and I have been helping to coordinate a broad-based regional coalition
to collaboratively engage on marine aquaculture matters.
Through years of environmental advocacy, I have seen very few
issues that most users groups can come together and speak on with
almost one voice. Open water aquaculture is one such anomaly. \1\ I am
honored to be here today on behalf of not just one particular
organization, but rather many in the Gulf of Mexico region, including
the Center for Food Safety, \2\ the Gulf Restoration Network, \3\ the
Institute for Fisheries Resources, \4\ the Southeastern Fisheries
Association, \5\ and the Southern Shrimp Alliance, \6\ to highlight a
few of the coalition members. These are conservation, fishing and
consumer organizations . . . all concerned by potential negative
impacts associated with open ocean aquaculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Attached, please see the letter dated May 24, 2005, regarding
offshore aquaculture. This letter had a wide range of signatories, many
of which are from or work in the Gulf of Mexico region.
\2\ The Center for Food Safety (CFS) is a non-profit public
interest and environmental advocacy membership organization established
in 1997 by its sister organization, International Center for Technology
Assessment, for the purpose of challenging harmful food production
technologies and promoting sustainable alternatives. CFS has offices in
Washington, DC and San Francisco, CA and engages in work throughout the
United States.
\3\ The Gulf Restoration Network (GRN) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit
alliance of over fifty groups and individuals committed to uniting and
empowering people to protect and restore the resources of the Gulf of
Mexico region. GRN has members in all five Gulf of Mexico States.
\4\ The Institute for Fisheries Resources (IFR) is a 501(c)(3) non-
profit organization dedicated to the protection and restoration of fish
resources and the human economies that depend on them. By establishing
alliances among fishing men and women, government agencies, and
concerned citizens, IFR unites resource stakeholders, protects fish
populations, and restores aquatic habitats.
\5\ Southeastern Fisheries Association (SFA) is a 501(c)(6) not-
for-profit fisheries trade association founded in Florida in 1952. SFA
represents seafood dealers that handle eighty-five percent of the pink
shrimp landed in the state and the majority of spiny lobster, stone
crab, grouper and oysters in the state of Florida. SFA has members in
all segments and sectors of the fishing industry, including importers,
exporters and aquaculturists.
\6\ Southern Shrimp Alliance (SSA) is a non-profit network of
members of the shrimp industry in eight states. SSA serves as the
national voice for the shrimp fishermen and processors in Alabama,
Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina, and Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are currently many concerns about commercial development of
offshore aquaculture in United States waters, far more than I can cover
in a few minutes or pages. I will therefore concentrate on the issues I
and those I work with find most pressing regarding S. 1195. The first
is pollution: both of wild fish populations and the environment. The
second is user conflicts.
Pollution
Pollution of wild fish populations occurs when there is intermixing
of aquacultured fish with wild fish. Offshore aquaculture of finfish
currently utilizes a cage or pen to contain the fish. Even well
engineered and strategically placed cages and pens will have some
escape of fish from these containers into the open ocean from various
complications like severe weather, predators tearing at netting, failed
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. The captive fish 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 continued 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 intentionally genetically modified
to create faster growing and larger fish or might be continually
selectively bred to achieve similar results. Escape of fish that are
different from wild fish could change the ecosystem and natural fish
populations permanently.
There are ways to help assure minimal escapement and intermixing of
wild fish with different captive fish: requiring use of best available
technology for cages and pens and preventing use of non-native species
and genetically modified organisms are important standards.
Additionally, other methods of minimizing intermixing in the event of
an escape should be reviewed and evaluated, for example the scientific
merit of requiring only use of first generation fish or alternatively
hyper-domestication of animals in open water facilities.
Pollution of the environment occurs when there are substances
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
other wastes can contaminate our water and cause safety hazards for
boaters, fishermen and divers and of course, harm wildlife.
Because there are numerous pollution concerns associated with open
water aquaculture, a stringent program to first guard against releases
and then quickly alleviate any damage is most critical. Establishing
strict environmental requirements with detailed pollution prevention
and mitigation plans as conditions of operation before any permits
issue and then conditioning annual permit renewal on environmental
performance could promote more careful processes and rapid recovery
time. Some specific measures include: regular removal of biofouling and
mortalities, preventing use of antibiotics or other chemicals,
requiring efficient feed usage, careful placement of anchors, cable and
other structure, current mapping, and disease control.
User Conflicts
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 known fishing
grounds and routes to those fishing grounds, other vessel traffic
lanes, military sites and areas of concern regarding national security,
marine reserves, sanctuaries and otherwise protected or vulnerable
areas and areas of significant multiple use, for example where there
are boating, diving, water sports and swimming. Essentially S. 1195
will re-allocate public resources for private gains without protecting
existing uses.
Rather than establishing buffer zones only around aquaculture
facilities, buffer zones should be created around areas of current
significant competing economic use or public value, especially
including known fishing grounds and routes to those fishing grounds,
vessel traffic lanes, military sites and areas of concern regarding
national security, marine reserves, sanctuaries and otherwise protected
or fragile areas. Additionally, the use of areas of significant
multiple use and/or public value for open water aquaculture should be
completely prevented.
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, in the form of
fish meal or fish oil. This is an inefficient use of the available
natural protein resources. The resulting net loss of fish protein means
that offshore fish farming is not a good alternative to wild capture
fishing, though often touted as being such, and may actually increase
fishing pressure on wild fish populations as demand and prices rise for
fish meal and fish oil to feed captive fish.
Lower trophic level species like krill, squid, and other small 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 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 and availability of prey species. Wild fish
populations and other threatened and endangered species can only
recover and thrive 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 and other marine life.
Some limitations on use of wild caught species in as food for
captive species should be established. There is ongoing research into
alternative food sources for captive fish and best available technology
should be required to ensure adequate food supply for natural wildlife.
Regional Matters
These are all serious issues nationwide, but particularly in the
Gulf of Mexico, many people are very concerned about expanded
development of offshore aquaculture. Historically, we are coastal
people known for our commercial and recreational fisheries including
shrimp, crab, lobster snapper, grouper and many more. Tourism, based on
our environment, is a key economic factor and so many of us live around
the Gulf of Mexico to enjoy the benefits of a coastal lifestyle:
relaxing on white sand beaches, swimming in clear blue waters, boating
and countless water sports. Also, the severe hurricanes of the past 2
years make us very vulnerable to any further alterations in our marine
world.
One matter in particular that became very troubling to many Gulf
residents after assessing damage from the catastrophic storms is the
use of oil rigs as sites for aquaculture facilities. During the
hurricanes, oil rigs were destroyed, some even being carried miles to
shore. Had offshore aquaculture existed on these rigs at the time of
the storms, there would have been massive releases of captive fish,
feed and other pollutants directly into Gulf of Mexico waters.
Oil rigs are erected for a purposes and when that purpose is
completed, they should be removed as originally contemplated, not
transitioned into other uses that might cause serious long term
negative consequences. There are open water net pens and cages better
designed to withstand storm activity and other disturbances far better
suited for use in open ocean aquaculture than oil rig structures
initially created for something entirely different. In general,
recycling and re-use of materials is something I strongly support, but
the consequences potentially far outweigh the benefit in this
particular instance. Oil rigs, active or decommissioned, should not be
substituted for best available technology in open water aquaculture.
Our region has been taking steps to protect unique local resources
because S. 1195 in its current form does not sufficiently do so. The
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council is developing an amendment to
the fishery management plans for the Gulf of Mexico to manage offshore
aquaculture while they still have a meaningful regulatory role. Under
S. 1195, regional Councils would be ambiguously demoted to a consulting
or perhaps consenting entity, though they are in the best position to
understand local needs. Currently, these draft Council regulations
contain provisions to deal with many of the concerns I previously
mentioned associated with offshore aquaculture.
Similarly, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services developed open water aquaculture best management practices
through a cooperative task force of various interest representatives.
These guidelines also address many of the potential threats to our
environment and the people that rely on it associated with open water
aquaculture.
These documents could be used as guidance for specific matters to
include in S. 1195, which currently does not provide adequate
protections.
Conclusion
It seems we are rushing into development of offshore aquaculture in
United States waters without really considering the consequences.
S. 1195 in current form does not adequately protect our valuable
marine resources and the many individuals and communities that rely on
them, though we have better means to do so.
Expanded commercial development of offshore aquaculture in United
States waters may be a benefit in the future, but it should not proceed
until after the development of stringent guidelines. S. 1195 does not
yet provide these.
Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to working
with you and others on these important matters.
Attachment
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.
Senator Sununu. Thank you Ms. Cufone. I hope you don't mind
if I use the net benefit pun in the future. I have additional
hearings on this.
[Laughter.]
Senator Sununu. Mr. Bedford.
STATEMENT OF DAVID BEDFORD, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ALASKA
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
Mr. Bedford. Good morning Chairman Sununu and Members of
the Committee. For the record, my name is David Bedford. I
serve as Deputy Commissioner as the Alaska Department of Fish
and Game and I focus my portfolio on fisheries issues. I also
serve as the Commissioner for the State of Alaska on the
Pacific Salmon Commission, the body responsible for developing
conservation and harvest sharing agreements for Pacific salmon
under a treaty between the United States and Canada.
I have been asked to speak today about the importance of
coordinating Federal regulation of offshore aquaculture with
state regulatory programs, and I thank you for the opportunity
to present these remarks.
I would start by noting a few of Alaska's general
recommendations for management of offshore aquaculture that are
derived from our experience with management of marine
fisheries. We believe that the legislation authorizing offshore
aquaculture should first allow states to determine what kind of
aquaculture activity would take place in the Federal waters off
their coastlines. Local control is from our perspective and in
our experience key to long-term conservation of resources and
public acceptance of any development that takes place.
Second, we should include an initial 5-year moratorium on
new aquaculture operations to ensure that we develop an
adequate scientific foundation and socio-economic analyses to
have a good grasp of what the implications of our actions would
be.
Third, we believe that the Regional Fishery Management
Councils should be given jurisdiction over aquaculture
operations. The Regional Counsils are an effective means to
provide for public participation and for scientific review.
Fourth, we believe that legislation should prohibit farming
of specific species, particularly salmon, halibut, and black
cod. The economic and biological implications of farming these
species are profound.
As you consider legislation that would authorize the
development of aquaculture off the coast of the United States,
I would note a couple of important facts: First, there is no
natural division between state waters and Federal waters that
the proposed legislation would regulate. While we can draw
jurisdictional boundaries, in the natural world there are no
such distinctions, and many species of fish spend important
stages of development in near shore waters then move to
offshore waters for later stages of development. Some species
pass between state and Federal waters innumerable times in the
course of their lives.
Second, the states have been in the business of regulating
marine fishery resources for some time. Consequently,
management of new aquaculture development off our coast should
be consistent with existing state policies and practices.
Alaskan fishery management is grounded on obligations set
in the State Constitution that require management of fish and
wildlife to provide for sustained yield. Alaska has developed a
number of strategies in resource management which enable the
state to provide for sustained yield. First in our management,
the resource comes first and second and third and always. To
ensure long-term use, sustained yield management must begin by
setting conservation objectives and controlling any kind of
human use to ensure these objectives are met.
Second, management must be based on science. Fishery
resources in our management program are studied to determine
long-term conservation requirements. State management includes
strict policies to preserve genetic integrity, control the
spread of disease, control transport of fish products and live
fish, and prevent introduction of non-native species.
Third, where possible, management is adaptive and uses
current information. In instances where we do not have a good
source of current information, we're very conservative in the
way that we manage.
Fourth, harvest allocation and science-based resource
management are distinct processes. We have separate agencies
for handling those two.
And finally, the public has a meaningful role in allocation
and management decisions. Meaningful public involvement in
resource management engenders support for conservation and
helps in planning that increases efficient use. There have been
a number of lessons learned from Alaska's experience that would
be helpful to a nascent aquaculture industry. First to assure
long-term conservation of marine resources, management should
be local. It should not be an exercise of a distant national
regulatory agency.
Second, development should be based on sound science which
can specify the impacts of proposed development on the local
environment, on the resources and on human communities.
Third, decisionmaking that provides for the economic well-
being of the industry should be separated from the scientific
evaluation of impacts of those developments.
And finally, the public should be involved in the
regulatory process. Where people have a meaningful role
agencies will be motivated to manage effectively, cautiously
and in a conservative fashion.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I welcome
any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bedford follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Bedford, Deputy Commissioner,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. For the
record, my name is David Bedford. I serve as Deputy Commissioner of the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game focusing on fishery issues. I also
serve as the Commissioner for the State of Alaska on the Pacific Salmon
Commission, the body responsible for developing conservation and
harvest sharing agreements for Pacific salmon under a treaty between
the United States and Canada. I am appearing on behalf of Fish and Game
Commissioner McKie Campbell. He appreciates your invitation but is
participating in a meeting of the North Pacific Fisheries Management
Council, on which he serves as a voting member.
The Committee has asked that I focus my testimony on Alaska's
effective fishery management and conservation of its marine fishery
resources. Alaska developed sustained yield management of its fishery
resources as a matter of necessity. Alaska's people depend on our
fisheries for their livelihood, recreation and as a source of
nutrition. Alaskans take advantage of our fishery resources in
subsistence, commercial, sport and personal use fisheries. Over half of
the total harvest of fish in the United States is taken from the waters
off Alaska. Our fisheries support half of the jobs in Alaska fully or
in part. With a total economic output of more than 4.6 billion dollars
per year, Alaska's seafood industry is one its largest private sector
employers, and is the largest employer in a number of fishery-dependent
coastal communities.
Given the interests of Alaska and other states in marine resources
and fisheries it is vital that any effort to develop off shore
aquaculture coordinate with and utilize the expertise of state
management programs.
Alaska Fisheries Management
Alaskan fishery management is grounded on obligations set in the
state constitution requiring management of fish and wildlife to provide
for sustained yield and reserving fish and wildlife for the common use
of the people. Thus, the constitution sets the standard for
conservation of the resource with the objective of allowing for human
use of that resource in perpetuity. We provide a healthy resource for
fishing families while ensuring environmental protections. Alaska has
developed a number of strategies employed in resource management which
enable the state to achieve these ends:
The resource comes first. To assure long-term use and
sustained yield, management must begin by setting conservation
objectives and controlling harvest to ensure that these
objectives are met. Unique amongst state constitutions,
Alaska's actually requires sustainable management of its
renewable natural resources.
Management is based on science. Fishery resources are
studied to determine life history; long-term conservation
requirements are determined and harvests are permitted only on
the resource that is surplus. Long-term conservation management
includes strict policies to preserve genetic integrity, control
spread of disease, control transport of fish, and prevent
introduction of non-native species.
Where possible, management is adaptive and uses current
information. Alaskan managers monitor the fishery and respond
with fishery openings and closures or other modifications as
new information becomes available. If there is no source of
current information, the harvest is set at conservative levels.
Harvest allocation and resource management are distinct. The
managers responsible for monitoring the fishery resource and
making decisions on when and where the public can harvest must
make objective decisions based on science and dictated by
resource status. Decisions on allocating the available harvest
among various uses should be, and are, made by another body,
the Alaska Board of Fisheries.
The public has a meaningful role in allocation and
management decisions. Alaskans have a stake in, and
responsibility for, the conservation of their resources. The
resource allocation process conducted by the Alaska Board of
Fisheries is open to the public with the issues debated and
decisions made in public session. In addition, the Department
of Fish and Game has established 82 local advisory committees
comprised of resource users to help develop strategies to
implement fishery management plans. Meaningful public
involvement in resource management engenders support for
resource conservation and helps in the development of harvest
plans that increase efficient use.
Offshore aquaculture would be a new industry. To assure effective
development of the industry it should be coordinated with existing
resource uses and management programs. There are a number of the
lessons learned by Alaska that would be helpful to a nascent
aquaculture industry.
To assure long-term conservation of marine resources,
management should be local, not an exercise by a distant
national regulatory agency.
Development should be based on sound science which can
specify the impact of proposed development on the local
environment, resources, and human communities.
Decision making that provides for the economic well-being of
the industry should be separated from the scientific evaluation
of the impact of any development.
The public should be involved in the regulatory process.
Where people have a meaningful role agencies will be motivated
to manage effectively.
The Effects of Fish Farming
Alaska has some experience with marine finfish aquaculture both
from the introduction of an invasive species into Alaskan waters with
the escape of Atlantic salmon from marine aquaculture facilities in
British Columbia and from the effect on world salmon markets caused by
the growth of the salmon farming industry. These experiences lead us to
sound a cautionary note regarding the development of offshore
aquaculture in the United States.
Finfish farming is illegal in Alaska, and has been since statehood.
Fish farms, whether in Alaskan waters, in the Exclusive Economic Zone
or in Canada, pose a potential threat to the health of Alaska's
fisheries, our economy and our way of life.
Fish farms in British Columbia and the Pacific Northwest cultivate
Atlantic salmon, a species not native to the North Pacific. For a
variety of reasons, some of these fish escape the farms and mingle with
wild salmon populations. Despite the efforts of fish farmers, there is
no technology that can prevent these escapes. Since 1994, Atlantic
salmon have been found in Alaska's waters, including freshwater systems
such as the Copper and Situk rivers.
Farmed Atlantic salmon, when released into Alaska's fresh and
marine waters, are an invasive species. These invasions raise serious
ecological and economic concerns. The Atlantic salmon can compete with
our abundant salmon stocks and threaten them with disease.
We are also concerned about ensuring the genetic diversity and
viability of our wild salmon stocks. In hatchery operations and in all
management decisions, we have strict guidelines:
Live salmonids, including gametes, will not be imported from
sources outside the state;
Stocks will not be transported between major geographic
areas;
Stocks cannot be introduced to sites where significant
negative interaction or impact on wild stocks will occur; and
Genetic diversity is stressed with a single wild donor stock
contributing to more than three hatchery stocks.
Invasive species can introduce new disease organisms, including
pathogens that are new to Alaska, and might be resistant to
antibiotics. They can promote the spread of existing pathogens, such as
sea lice. We also have concerns that new species could be cultured,
with the potential for introducing new pathogens.
The growth and development of the global salmon industry caused a
severe decline in the value of Alaska salmon over the last fifteen
years. The value of the Alaskan salmon harvest averaged $500 million at
first point of sale from 1990--1995, but fell below $200 million in
2001 and 2002. Increased production of farmed salmon was the primary
reason for the collapse.
Although farmed salmon are treated with heavy doses of antibiotics
and artificial coloring agents, farmed salmon raised in Chile compete
directly in market places around the world with wild Alaska salmon.
Farmed salmon have provided a cheaper alternative to wild Alaska
salmon, and as a result, has depressed salmon prices around the globe.
This is not surprising given the low cost of labor and minimal
environmental standards for the Chilean salmon farming industry.
In the face of off shore competition, Alaskan fishermen and the
State of Alaska have been working diligently to promote the benefits of
eating wild Alaskan salmon, focusing on industry restructuring to
improve product quality, and new product development. Our promotional
efforts are yielding impressive results.
We pride ourselves on the high quality of our wild seafood, and
Governor Frank Murkowski has been leading a concerted effort in recent
years to establish ``Wild Alaska Salmon'' as a successful brand. This
is a key component of the state's efforts to counter the painful effect
that fish farming elsewhere in the world has had on the domestic salmon
production in the last fifteen years.
Should offshore aquaculture develop there are concerns that it
could be less stringently regulated than the Alaska standards would
call for. It has the potential to detrimentally impact Alaska wild
stocks and their markets, and may undermine the state regulatory
program if state input is not included.
Recommendations
Therefore, Alaska urges that any offshore aquaculture legislation
include several components:
Governors and state management agencies should determine
what types of aquaculture activities, if any, occur in the
waters off their states' coastlines.
A five-year moratorium on new aquaculture operations to
ensure that adequate scientific and socio-economic analyses of
the impacts of aquaculture can be done: Some structured studies
have been conducted on the scientific and socio-economic
impacts of aquaculture, in addition to the multitudes of
anecdotal evidence that have been compiled in recent years. The
State believes that a comprehensive study should be undertaken
to understand how aquaculture would affect the ecology of
American waters as well as the socio-economic impacts it would
have on coastal communities. A moratorium on new operations
should be enforced for at least five years while this study is
being conducted and results evaluated.
Regional Fishery Management Councils must have jurisdiction
over aquaculture operations: Success in managing the Federal
fisheries off of Alaska's coasts can, in large measure, be
attributed to the strong role of the North Pacific Fisheries
Management Council (NPFMC). The NPFMC, like its counterparts
around the country, has developed expertise and the necessary
judgment for dealing with issues of biological, economic, and
social importance to the region's fisheries. The current draft
of aquaculture legislation leaves it to the Secretary to
determine whether aquaculture will interfere with other
fisheries and only recommends consultation between the
Secretary and relevant Federal agencies before permitting an
aquaculture facility. The amendment proposed by Senator Inouye
requiring consultation between the Secretary and the regional
fishery management councils on environmental regulations is a
good beginning; however, the State would prefer more council
oversight and decision-making over all parts of offshore
aquaculture management.
Statutory prohibitions of aquaculture for certain species:
Prohibitions on farming of certain species, particularly
salmon, halibut, and black cod, would prevent the tainting of
the wild Alaska branding image and impacts to the consequent
recent increases in commodity value. Moreover, the introduction
of mass-produced, farmed fish has already severely impacted
economies of rural Alaska communities. Species-specific
prohibitions on aquaculture would allow these communities to
survive and maintain traditional lifestyles.
As the Federal Government works to develop aquaculture as a
competing interest to wild fisheries, it should develop
programs to maintain the economic vitality of wild capture
fisheries. Fish farming around the world has caused a
significant downfall in the value of Alaska's salmon. To
mitigate impacts on the other Alaska fisheries, worth an
estimated $700 to $800 million harvest value, programs should
be set in place that focus on market and product
diversification for wild capture fisheries, with an emphasis on
highlighting the important characteristics of wild seafood.
These types of programs may provide improvement to harvesting
and processing infrastructure, quality improvement investments,
value-added equipment, and marketing funds. Programs could also
be put in place that limit the growth of farm fish production
to a scale that does not flood the market with product in a
manner that leads to excessive downward prices in both the
aquaculture and wild capture fishery industries.
Senator Sununu. Thank you very much. We are going to begin
the discussion with Senator Boxer.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for this
hearing and for your focus on this very important issue which
is so key in my state. I want to say that all of the witnesses
have been very clear and personally I think we're getting a
good road map here toward some resolution.
At the last hearing on offshore aquaculture, we learned
from the witnesses about some of the challenges and potential
problems of expanding aquaculture. We heard from Dr. Goldberg
who testified how demand for fish feed and oil for offshore
aquaculture can contribute to over fishing which is a big
issue. He also talked about how offshore aquaculture could
cause significant harm to marine ecosystems and fisheries
whether it is from water pollution or escape farm fish, disease
or the use of antibiotics.
We learned how high levels of PCBs in farm fish could
threaten human health, and I think those people who try to
brush all of this to the side are absolutely not being real
because these things aren't made up. They are provable, and we
know that, so the question is how do we solve these problems?
What do we do so that we can achieve everything we all want to
achieve?
And I am very proud to say and Mr. Eichenberg discussed
this and alluded to this that my home state of California, on
this and so many environmental issues, is leading the way and 2
weeks ago our governor signed the sustainable oceans act, a law
that creates strong standards and protection for aquaculture
off of our coast and it took a long time. It brought everybody
together. It is kind of like what Ms. Cufone said in her
statement which this is an issue that you can really get some
consensus on. You don't have to take a strong side of us
against them. It can bring everybody to the table, and I am
very pleased that happened and I am glad that Mr. Eichenberg
put the law into the record and I am going to give my copy to
my chairman to take a look at.
Specifically, the law sets out standards to ensure that
aquaculture lease conditions minimize marine aquaculture's
potential environmental and socio-economic problems. For
example, it requires that the use of all drugs, chemicals and
antibiotics be minimized. It limits the use of fish meal and
fish oil. The law also requires public hearings on potential
leases before the State Fish and Game Commission can grant the
lease. This ensures the community and public input is taken
into account before any new projects are approved, so it's
not--it doesn't go as far as Alaska's recommendation here for a
moratorium, it actually says we can look at applications, but
we need to make sure they are solid. Again, we brought together
in California the environmental groups, the fishing groups, and
I believe we laid out a very strong, sound and sensible
approach. It's a bipartisan bill. I believe it should serve as
a model for this Committee, and quite obviously, if we come up
with something less than this and we don't have an exemption
for those states that want to do more, I think we're going to
run into trouble quite frankly, Mr. Chairman. You know, I don't
mind setting a floor, but not a ceiling. I don't think that is
our job. I don't think that we should tell the states you can't
be any more concerned, or you don't know how to do this any
better.
So I know states like California and Alaska are very strong
about the way we feel and I think other states may come forward
as well. However, we may yet come up with something that is so
solid and strong based on something like the California bill
that we can get tremendous accolades rather than start a whole
big argument. Now unfortunately, I don't think the
Administration bill does it and so I would ask Mr. Eichenberg
in my time here, do you feel it is important that we write at
least a strong Federal law as California has and what would the
practical effect be if we had a Federal law that was weaker on
farm--fish farm pollution in Federal waters four miles offshore
than in California state waters three miles out? What would
happen if we had that kind and perhaps others could answer
that?
Mr. Eichenberg. Thank you, Senator Boxer. Yes, I think
adopting a law such as the one adopted in California is
feasible. As you said, it was done through a stakeholder
process. We had everybody at the table talking about these
specific standards. The standards are not prescriptive. But
they do provide general guidance for the development of
regulations, and give some instruction to the Department of
Fish and Game and the Fish and Game Commission which will be
adopting the regulations, to do the things that you mentioned--
minimize pollution, prevent escapes and so forth.
Right now, the Federal bill has nothing. It just basically
turns all this over to the agency that developed the
regulations. And if the Federal Government adopts a regime
without strict environmental controls to ensure that these
impacts don't occur, then the efforts of the states like the
states of California and Alaska will be undermined. You will
have weak Federal legislation that allows projects just beyond
the three-mile limit. Fish swim in the ocean for long distances
as you know, and there is nothing to prevent either the
pollution or the fish from entering state waters and
undermining the best efforts of states to protect their own
waters from these kinds of impacts.
Senator Boxer. Does anybody else want to answer that
question? It is my only question.
Mr. Keeney. Senator Boxer, as far as the Administration is
concerned and NOAA that we are frankly very pleased that
California has recognized there is a need for a program and is
helping to meet the growing demand for safe seafood and healthy
seafood.
We think the California legislation is a good start and
many of the requirements in that bill are being considered by
NOAA in its deliberations. NOAA has a program where we
anticipate over the next 2 to 3 years, we will work closely
with other fellow partners, including the Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Corps
of Engineers, as well as industry, states, fishing management
counsels, the public, NGOs in developing and drafting permanent
requirements through the Federal Register process, and we
disagree with very little of what I have heard today. It is
right on point. We are very supportive. This is not new to
NOAA. We have been involved in aquaculture for over 30 years
and we are very interested in meeting the concerns expressed
today.
Senator Boxer. Well, that is very encouraging.
Senator Sununu. Dr. MacMillan.
Dr. MacMillan. Thank you Mr. Chairman, Senator Boxer. With
all due respect, we do take issue with a number of things that
you said, Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. It is all right. It won't be the first time
anyone has had issues.
Dr. MacMillan. We don't agree with your statement about the
questionable health of farm-raised products. We think there is
ample scientific evidence that farm-raised fishes are just as
nutritious and wholesome as wild caught fish and in many cases
better. The wonderful thing about aquaculture is there is
opportunity to control the environment and what farm-raised
species eat. With regard to statements about the fishmeal
industry or the industrial feed, you referenced Dr. Goldberg's
statements from a previous hearing. Much of what she has
promoted is not supported by the scientific evidence, by the
data collected by the UN's FAO, the Food and Agriculture
Organization. That data indicates that pelagic fish harvests,
used to make fish meal, is sustainable and has been so for the
past 20 years or so.
During times of El Nino the harvest of the pelagic fishes
that constitute the bulk of the fishmeal industry does drop
off, but there are management agencies, Federal management
agency programs, not only in the United States, but elsewhere
that monitor the population of pelagic fishes and work to
ensure that that fishery is sustainable.
The economic situation is such that the California bill is
a dead end for aquaculture. There will be no offshore
aquaculture off the coast of California. Business is not going
to invest in offshore aquaculture if a state can remove the
aquaculture operation at will, without due process. The
language in the California bill is very, what I would call,
mushy. There is no definition to many of the items identified.
An industry or business would have to be crazy to attempt to
develop an offshore aquaculture program off the coast of
California.
We do support the state's rights to opt out of offshore
aquaculture but before a business has invested in an offshore
operation.
Senator Boxer. I just need to respond, Mr. Chairman, since
we are engaging here. I just want to say to you I quoted a
scientist who you didn't agree with. I didn't quote a----
Dr. MacMillan. OK, I am sorry.
Senator Boxer. OK, number one, so since you took issue with
her, let me just read you one sentence each from two
publications--one of the publications is Science. The people
who wrote this article I'll give you their last names--Hites,
Foran, Carpenter, Hamilton, Knuth, Schwager, and I'll just read
you. ``We show that concentrations of these contaminants are
significantly higher in farmed salmon than in wild.'' And they
are talking about a whole group of contaminants.
In another publication, Environmental Health Perspectives,
May 2005, this one written by Foran, Carpenter, Hamilton,
Knuth, Schwager, so it's the same. It is one name different.
They say, ``health risks (based on quantitative cancer risk
assessment) associated with consumption of farmed salmon
contaminated with PCBs, toxaphene and dieldrin were higher than
risks associated with exposure to the same contaminants in wild
salmon.'' So, I would ask that these publications be placed in
the record, not in their entirety, but just those paragraphs if
I might, Mr. Chairman?
[The previously referred to information follows:]
Science, January 9, 2004, Vol. 303. no. 5655, pp. 226-229
Global Assessment of Organic Contaminants in Farmed Salmon
by Ronald A. Hites, \1\ Jeffery A. Foran, \2\ David O. Carpenter, \3\
M. Coreen Hamilton, \4\ Barbara A. Knuth, \5\ and Steven J. Schwager
\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University,
Bloomington, IN 47405, USA.
\2\ Citizens for a Better Environment, Milwaukee, WI 53202, USA.
\3\ Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany,
Rensselaer, NY 12144, USA.
\4\ AXYS Analytical Services, Post Office Box 2219, 2045 Mills
Road, Sidney, British Columbia, Canada V8L 3S8.
\5\ Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
14853, USA.
\6\ Department of Biological Statistics and Computational Biology,
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract
The annual global production of farmed salmon has increased by a
factor of 40 during the past two decades. Salmon from farms in northern
Europe, North America, and Chile are now available widely year-round at
relatively low prices. Salmon farms have been criticized for their
ecological effects, but the potential human health risks of farmed
salmon consumption have not been examined rigorously. Having analyzed
over 2 metric tons of farmed and wild salmon from around the world for
organochlorine contaminants, we show that concentrations of these
contaminants are significantly higher in farmed salmon than in wild.
European-raised salmon have significantly greater contaminant loads
than those raised in North and South America, indicating the need for
further investigation into the sources of contamination. Risk analysis
indicates that consumption of farmed Atlantic salmon may pose health
risks that detract from the beneficial effects of fish consumption.
Environmental Health Perspectives, May 2005; 113(5): 552-556.
Risk-Based Consumption Advice for Farmed Atlantic and Wild Pacific
Salmon Contaminated with Dioxins and Dioxin-like Compounds
by Jeffery A. Foran, David O. Carpenter, M. Coreen Hamilton, Barbara A.
Knuth, and Steven J. Schwager
Abstract
We reported recently that several organic contaminants occurred at
elevated concentrations in farmed Atlantic salmon compared with
concentrations of the same contaminants in wild Pacific salmon [Hites
et al. Science 303:226-229 (2004)]. We also found that polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), toxaphene, dieldrin, dioxins, and polybrominated
diphenyl ethers occurred at higher concentrations in European farm-
raised salmon than in farmed salmon from North and South America.
Health risks (based on a quantitative cancer risk assessment)
associated with consumption of farmed salmon contaminated with PCBs,
toxaphene, and dieldrin were higher than risks associated with exposure
to the same contaminants in wild salmon. Here we present information on
cancer and noncancer health risks of exposure to dioxins in farmed and
wild salmon. The analysis is based on a tolerable intake level for
dioxin-like compounds established by the World Health Organization and
on risk estimates for human exposure to dioxins developed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Consumption of farmed salmon at
relatively low frequencies results in elevated exposure to dioxins and
dioxin-like compounds with commensurate elevation in estimates of
health risk.
Senator Boxer. And to say that I know you represent the
industry sir, but it doesn't help us when you take such a
position that you say there are zero problems or something.
There is a problem with everything in life. It can't be that
there are no problems, so why not just come here and address
the ones that we know exist. Let's fix them. So I am just glad
that NOAA, here contradicted you sir in looking at the
California law and I am excited about that. I want to see your
industry move forward, but I want to see it move forward in a
way that is responsible.
Dr. MacMillan. Mr. Chairman, Senator Boxer, if I could
respond to that. I didn't say there were no problems. There
certainly are some issues out there that need to be dealt with,
but what we are promoting is the use of good scientifically
credible data in our statements. The reports that you are
identifying, one in Science and I don't know recall where the
other one was from, those are disputed studies and the
significance is highly disputed.
A Harvard study just recently published indicates that--as
Mr. Keeney stated, farm-raised seafood and wild catch seafood
is extremely healthy for you and that the benefits outweigh the
risks by a lot.
I know in California the issue of mercury is an issue. The
FDA and EPA are dealing with the issue and whether mercury is a
hazard or not, remains to be seen at the concentrations that
occur in some marine fishes. We are here to promote good sound
science and the references Senator Boxer provides, while there
is some science, whether it is sufficient for the agency or for
FDA to change their position on the health benefits of seafood
is questionable. Thank you.
Senator Sununu. Thank you. Mr. Keeney, let me go back to
you and reference your testimony where you described the S.
1195 as a starting point and I think that is something that is
generally recognized. This is the first introduction of
legislation intended to establish a Federal regulatory
structure for offshore aquaculture. It is the first significant
step since the passage of the general act back in 1980. You
described it as a starting point. I am curious to know if there
are any specific points raised today, or specific issues that
you've looked at over the last few months that you would
consider important to add to the legislation as it moves
forward. Is there anything you want to bring to the visibility
of the Subcommittee that you think is essential to consider
adding to the bill in its current form?
Mr. Keeney. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that NOAA
will make itself available to work with the Committee and
Committee staff to address any concerns with regard to specific
language and leave it at that. I think that--as I said already
today, many of the issues already raised today are also
concerns of ours. We think they can all be addressed. We think
there are tremendous opportunities in the--economic
opportunities, food value opportunities to the American public
and opportunities for competing with foreign interests who are
clearly moving ahead with their production. In fact, Secretary
Gutierrez--I was reminded this morning has publicly stated; his
concern is that we are missing out on a big economic
opportunity here. We are leaving on the table the future demand
for offshore--for aquaculture products to other countries by
not pursuing our own domestic operations.
Thank you.
Senator Sununu. Thank you and I think that is a point that
is worth repeating. You know the question isn't whether
aquaculture is going to take place around the world, or whether
farm-raised fish products are going to be consumed in the
United States. They are. They are now. They will be in the
future and the percentages will only grow, so I think it is
really a question of whether we are going to establish some
kind of regulatory regime that allows it to be done in a
sustainable way in the United States' EEZ.
Mr. Eichenberg, you talked about--you used the phrase and I
think it is used very commonly, ``best management practices.''
I don't know if that you reference that was used as a specific
part of the California legislation, but that strikes me as a
very general statement. I am curious to know what that means to
you in a legal sense, and how is it determined and how is such
a standard enforced?
Mr. Eichenberg. Thank you, Senator. In the California
legislation, we refer to best management practices in a
specific context. It can mean different things to different
people just like sustainable development.
Senator Sununu. That is what makes it a potentially
dangerous phrase.
Mr. Eichenberg. Exactly, and we had a long discussion about
this with the aquaculture industry and the Fish and Game
Department in California.
Incidentally, the California Aquaculture Association which
is a member of Mr. MacMillan's association, removed their
objections to our bill after working with us extensively on
this, so they did not believe it would be as Mr. MacMillan
says, legislation that would kill aquaculture development in
California. But best management practices in the context that
we were using it in California is a subjective term meant to be
developed through regulations by the Department of Fish and
Game. It is not something that we wanted to prescribe in the
legislation itself.
Senator Sununu. So to be clear, the final regulations
associated with the inshore state water aquaculture in
California haven't been determined yet?
Mr. Eichenberg. That is correct, but we did provide
guidance to tell the agency that is developing those
regulations what the California legislature wanted to see in
those regulations, and specifically, prescribes some things
like minimizing pollution and utilizing alternatives to fish
meal for example.
Senator Sununu. But what does that mean? Does minimize mean
zero?
Mr. Eichenberg. No, it doesn't mean zero because we
discussed this and we realize that it is impossible to have
zero pollution in these kinds of situations. So at least the
legislature gave some direction that it was their intent to
minimize it as much as possible and that is really all you can
do.
Senator Sununu. So hypothetically, the Department of Fish
and Game in now promulgating final regulations has at least the
power to determine what a standard could be that meets the
minimized pollution reference.
Mr. Eichenberg. Exactly.
Senator Sununu. Is that correct?
Mr. Eichenberg. Yes. There is one other point that I would
like to make about best management practices if I could and
that is that we recognize that there may be different
management practices for different kinds of offshore
aquaculture operations, but the Fish and Game wanted to have
the aquaculturist come back and explain to them how they are
going to do things like minimize pollution, prevent escapes and
those kinds of things and then the Fish and Game Department
would approve those based on the standards that were provided
in the legislation. So they had some guidance on approving
that, but the practices would be developed with the assistance
of the industry itself as it deals with that particular
development. Then it would be looked at through the lens of the
guidelines and standards in the legislation.
Senator Sununu. I appreciate that clarification and it
certainly sounds like there has been an effort to drive a
consensus process in California, but the devil is always in the
details and I think there is an important discussion that needs
to take place here as to what standards Congress establishes
and specifies and what standards we leave to regulators like
NOAA to establish. But I am very concerned about that kind of
language and intent has a lot to do with it and I certainly
think that the intent of those in California is the right one,
but to call for best management practices, best available
technology, that would seem to take us down the road of
mandating certain technologies and I think that is less
effective and can be counterproductive when compared to simply
mandating and legislating performance standards. A performance
standard for water quality. A performance standard for
contaminants in the food we eat. A performance standard for a
number of releases that is acceptable. You set that standard.
You set it in a clear, definable way and then monitor
performance, of course, and continue to monitor those
participating in the industry or meeting the standard. And as a
result, technology and management practices will continue to
evolve and improve and as they evolve and improve, we might see
opportunities to further strengthen those standards. Whereas if
you just regulate the practices, if you tell someone here is
the kind of nets you have to use, here is the kind of filters
you have to use, then you almost condemn yourself to today's
performance standards--no better, no worse--and that might be
undesirable.
I just make that general statement because I would much
rather have Congress step forward and say here is what we deem
to be an acceptable water-quality standard and if we find out
later we got that wrong, then we can clearly and efficiently
and effectively take steps to make it right. Whereas if we get
into the game of regulating exactly how someone should operate,
what technology they should use, what management practices they
should use, we run the risk of stifling innovation and new
product development in an area where those issues and those
questions are very important because there is still a lot of
development going on here.
I would like to turn it over now to Chairman Stevens who
has joined us and was indicated earlier, has come from a state
with a great fishing history. Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
The Chairman. [presiding] A great fishing future, Mr.
Chairman. I am sorry to say I was in another meeting. Dave, I
am pleased you would take the time to come all the way down
here to appear before our Committee. I have summaries of all of
your statements given to me by our staff last evening, but I am
still worried about one thing. I believe that a state should
have the right to determine what happens in terms of the areas
off its shores, and I am really worried about the problem of
not having the right to veto a Federal plan to develop beyond
the state's three mile jurisdiction if an operation of a
hatchery or some sort of fish farm or whatever it might be
would pose a threat to the survival of the wild species that
that state has.
You know, we have half the coastline in the United States
and I think my colleagues get tired of me telling them that,
but it makes a great difference to us what happens in the
Federal waters offshore of Alaska. Have you taken a position
with regard to the state veto?
Mr. MacMillan. Mr. Chairman, we have. We believe a state
should have the opportunity to opt out of an offshore
aquaculture program. Where we have difficulty is if an investor
starts the process and maybe even builds a facility, installs
it, and starts operating it and the state decides for whatever
reason that it is a no go, why then would a business want to
make that initial investment? There is no probable certainty of
success.
The Chairman. That is why we have the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
We have control out there yet we have a management plan which
involves both the state and the Federal Government operated by
a regional council. Now I don't believe anything should take
place in the area of that council without the council's
approval. If a state goes to that council and says, ``we do not
want this kind of species off our shores,'' the council ought
to have the right to say you can't do it. Where do you end up
on that?
Dr. MacMillan. Well, we think that species selection is an
important issue and one that NOAA should have authority to deal
with when they determine what species should be allowed to be
farmed at offshore aquaculture locations.
The Chairman. I am involved in this battle right now. It is
on the Coast Guard bill, and you may know about it. It involves
a wind farm proposed in Nantucket Sound Bay and there is a
process underway that says that Department of Interior will
decide whether or not that wind farm can be located in Federal
waters off that state. Now if you take the same circumstance
and apply it to the Cook Inlet, you will have an enormous
portion of Cook Inlet and land on both sides that is primarily
owned by the Federal Government. Matter of fact, managed by the
Department of Interior and along comes someone from Britain or
Holland who wants to build a wind farm in the Cook Inlet.
Today, under the law, what would happen is he goes to the
Department of Interior and the Department of Interior says,
``fine, you've got a good plan.'' He goes to the Energy
Department and says, ``we would like to have that additional
energy'' and what happens? The State has no say about what goes
on in Federal waters under the current legislation.
Now, I am saying in terms of Nantucket Sound, the Coast
Guard ought to make a determination as to safety of navigation
at both air and sea and determine impacts on communications,
and the state ought to have some say about where the facility
is sited. I am not saying you can't put it off there, but it
ought to be sited where it will not do any harm to the economy
of the area or to the creatures of the sea.
Now you put that into this concept of and say someone goes
out there and builds it, in my opinion, they have no right to
build in the 200-mile limit without regional council's
agreement, and if that is not clear, we will make it clear.
What do you say to that?
Dr. MacMillan. Mr. Chairman, I think it is a good idea to
make things very, very clear to potential investors. They need
to no up-front what the state or Federal rules are so they can
make informed decisions. That is the key for the National
Aquaculture Association. We want certainty to whatever the
legislation is, and in the rules or regulations that are
developed by NOAA. If a business doesn't have confidence
environmental rules will be relatively constant and
consistently applied, which would be a problem as Senator
Sununu mentioned, if definitions are rather nebulous, then the
investment risk gets escalated. Considering that, offshore
aquaculture is going to be very expensive compared to fresh
water aquaculture. You are talking about major dollars perhaps
millions of dollars of investment, of risk, then mushy
definitions and regulations only increase the risk. That is why
we have concerns about a state deciding once the investment has
been made, to pull the plug.
Senator Sununu. I think that clarification here is that Dr.
MacMillan, what you are talking about is the situation where a
state chooses to participate and a facility is licensed whether
or not that license duly issued because the state did not opt
out, can then be revoked after the fact.
Dr. MacMillan. That is correct.
Senator Sununu. And we talked about this licensing issue
and there is an important question--is a 10-year license
enough? Should it be a 20-year or 30-year because you do want
to create some certainty and in the same way, if a state
chooses to participate and a facility is licensed, then the
Federal standards should apply to that case? If a state chooses
not to participate, the license can't be issued and clearly
those concerns do not come into effect, but I think the concern
would be the retroactive elimination of a license that was
issued when a state chose to participate.
The Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I don't disagree with that, but
I hope the panel--we have about 3 minutes until we have to vote
and we won't be coming back, but the concept I see is that
there is not going to be any money invested in any offshore
aquaculture until there is an application and it's reviewed by
the state and by the Federal Government or regional council
for--whatever the area decides. I think the regional council
ought to make some decisions about what the process is. Very
clearly, the dollars aren't going to be spent until it is
determined that the state does approve and if the state doesn't
approve then I don't think the Federal Government or the
regional council ought to allow that process to go forward.
Mr. Keeney.
Mr. Keeney. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Stevens, the Administration
agrees that offshore aquaculture should only develop in areas
where it is welcomed and we would like to work with the
Committee staff to develop the language to provide for
appropriate mechanisms where this can take place, as well as
mechanisms that can revert an opt-out decision.
Now when we are talking about space, there are 3.4 million
square miles in the exclusive economic zone. When we are
looking at the demands for aquaculture over the next 20 years,
we think that there may be demands for as much as lets say a
million metric tons which would take up no more space than the
Pentagon and its parking lot.
So there is plenty of space out there. Siting is a critical
issue.
The Chairman. Poison in the parking lot is still poison so
let's keep that straight. Dave, we have aquaculture now in
Prince William Sound right? That was approved by the state
before it was put in there right?
Mr. Bedford. That is correct, Senator.
The Chairman. And that is our state law. What is wrong with
that? No investment without prior approval as to the siting and
process.
Mr. Keeney. I have no problem with that.
Dr. MacMillan. I agree.
The Chairman. Anyone else? Ms. Cufone?
Ms. Cufone. I think that is exactly right.
The Chairman. Mr. Eichenberg?
Mr. Eichenberg. I agree as well, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. That is essential. Dave, do you have
something to say? We really have to go and vote.
Mr. Bedford. Senator, just one moment if I could. One of
the things that we recognize in managing dynamic natural
systems in the State of Alaska when dealing with these kinds of
resources, is that we can do the best planning that we can and
get the best information that we can but in our own aquaculture
permitting process, we recognize that things may change and we
may find things out tomorrow that we don't know today. So
whereas we would all like certainty, Mother Nature doesn't
provide us with much of it. Thank you.
The Chairman. I will never forget the salmon pens in Puget
Sound. I am sure you remember them. A big storm came up and
they were all spread around and I am not sure we ever really
knew the final result of that, but very clearly they were not a
species that was indigenous to that area as I understood it. So
that is the fear we have, I have and I think our wild fish--I
think that most people back there don't know how far we've gone
in utilizing even annual hatcheries, the system to enhance a
particular population. I do believe that we should have this
Committee come up some time and go look at some of those things
we've done and understand them, because I think there are some
places in the country that could enhance their population and
when I was in the State legislature we put up $40,000. We took
fingerlings from Alaska silver salmon to the Great Lakes as the
population now as salmon in the Great Lakes came from little
initiative from a new state.
Senator Sununu. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
insights, for your participation. We do have a vote on the
floor, so I want to thank the panelists and New Hampshire may
only have 13 miles of coastline, but we are very proud of it
and we certainly value the rights of our people, our
legislature in the state to participate actively in the
questions of ocean management. I think we've put together a
good record so far on this issue. I think there is also a lot
of consensus on this issue about the importance of having some
regulatory framework, the importance of clarity and consistency
in that regulatory framework, the economic value and the
recognition that this already an industry that is global in its
scope, that it affects our consumers and that has great
economic value, so I think it would be an opportunity lost if
we delayed unnecessarily in the creating process, moving
forward in the process to address the issue.
Thank you to our panelists and to Members of the
Subcommittee.
Senator Stevens. Let me just add this. There are 2.5
million acres of Federal waters in just the Cook Inlet. Beyond
state jurisdiction there is 2.5 million acres there and I think
that is the area where people are looking at to think about
aquaculture in our state. It is going to be a long time before
that happens.
Senator Sununu. Thank you, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:12 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Jim Ayers, Vice President, Oceana
Chairman Stevens, we appreciate all that you do to protect
America's oceans, and we agree with you that we can have healthy
biodiverse ocean ecosystems with vibrant and productive fisheries. To
that end we hope to work with you on the National Offshore Aquaculture
Act (S. 1195). It is our understanding that your intent is to protect
States from being negatively impacted by the expansion of aquaculture
into Federal waters by providing a State Opt-Out Amendment (S. Amdt.
769) provision. In order for that provision to be effective, states
will need protection authorities that prevent other states and Federal
authorities from ``polluting'' their waters with aquaculture spills, in
particular escapements. We request you allow us to work with you by
developing language in the State Opt-Out Amendment with the goal of
protecting the environmental interests of states such as Alaska.
Offshore fin-fish aquaculture will likely affect areas far away
from where fish are being raised because the ocean lacks natural
barriers and fish regularly traverse great distances. For example,
farmed Atlantic salmon have been found in the Bering Sea, thousands of
miles away from the closest salmon aquaculture facilities. \1\
Potential impacts to Alaska's environment from offshore aquaculture
along the U.S. west coast include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Brodeur, R. D., and M. S Busby. 1998. Occurrence of an Atlantic
Salmon Salmo salar in the Bering Sea. Alaska Fishery Research Bulletin
5:64-66.
1. Disease Transmission--A few escaped farmed fish carrying a
novel or exotic pathogen could cause severe mortality in wild
fish populations. \2\ The high densities of fish in aquaculture
operations lead to disease outbreaks and a higher prevalence of
disease overall. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Naylor, R., K. Hindar, I. A. Fleming, R. Goldburg, S. Williams,
J. Volpe, F. Whoriskey, J. Eagle, D. Kelso, and M. Mangel. 2005.
Fugitive salmon: assessing the risks of escaped fish from net-pen
aquaculture. Bioscience 55:427437.
\3\ Jones, S. R., A. H. MacKinnon, D. B. Gorman. 1999. Virulence
and pathogenicity of infectious salmon anemia virus isolated from
farmed salmon in Atlantic Canada. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health
11:400-405.
2. Invasive Species--Approximately 40 percent of documented
marine species introductions are the result of aquaculture
operations. \4\ In the Pacific Ocean, Atlantic salmon have
already been found breeding in both British Columbia, \5\ and
South America. \6\ Increased salmon aquaculture will result in
an increased risk of Atlantic salmon becoming established in
Alaska streams. Recent development of other Atlantic
aquaculture species, such as Atlantic cod and Atlantic halibut,
could be devastating to Alaska's fisheries if aquaculture of
these species is allowed in Pacific waters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ [FAO] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
1998. FAO Yearbook: Fishery Statistics, vol. 86, no. 2. Rome: FAO.
\5\ Volpe, J., B. Glickman, B. Anholt. 2001. Reproduction of
Atlantic salmon in a controlled stream channel on Vancouver Island,
British Columbia. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
130:489-494.
\6\ Soto, D., F. Jara, C. Moreno. 2001. Escaped salmon in the inner
sea, southern Chile: facing ecological and social conflicts. Ecological
Applications 11:1750-1762.
3. Genetic Pollution--Aquaculture of native species can
decrease the fitness of wild populations when interbreeding
occurs, \7\ a risk that is magnified when transgenics are
considered. \2\ An expansion of farming Pacific salmon species
increases the likelihood of an adverse impact to Alaska salmon
stocks. Development of other native aquaculture species in the
Pacific, such as sablefish (black cod), may pose an even
greater risk of genetic pollution to Alaska's fisheries. Unlike
salmon, most other species of fish are likely capable of
reproducing inside net pens and have eggs and larvae much
smaller than the mesh of a net pen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ McGinnity, P., P. Prodohl, A. Ferguson, R. Hynes, N.O.
Maoileidigh, N. Baker, D. Cotter, B. O'Hea, D. Cooke, G. Rogan, J.
Taggart, and T. Cross. Fitness reduction and potential extinction of
wild populations of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, as a result of
interactions with escaped farm salmon. Proc. R. Soc. B. 270:2443-2450.
4. Competition for Resources--Escaped fish can compete with
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
wild stocks for resources such as food, habitat and mates. \2\
Given these problems, we strongly encourage you to strengthen the
State Opt-Out Amendment to better protect the fisheries and other
biological resources important to coastal states. We suggest making the
following changes to S. Amdt. 769 that will allow Alaska and other
coastal states to object to offshore aquaculture that may harm their
biological resources:
Change subsection (b) to (c) and insert new subsection (b)
as follows--
(b) PROTECTION OF STATE RESOURCES. Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, if the Secretary receives notice in
writing from the chief executive officer of a coastal State
that implementation of this Act may harm or may put at risk of
harm a biological resource of that state when this Act is
applied to areas that are outside the State's seaward portion
of the Exclusive Economic Zone, then--
(1) the provisions of sections 4 shall not apply to such
areas that are outside the State's seaward portion of the
Exclusive Economic Zone more than 30 days after the date on
which the Secretary receives the notice;
(2) no permit issued under this Act shall be valid in that
portion of the Exclusive Economic Zone more than 30 days after
the date on which the Secretary receives the notice; and
Insert new definition (d)(3)
(3) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE.--the term ``biological resource''
means a living component of the ecosystem.
This language was drafted with the intent to mirror the scope of
the language in S. Amdt.769. If changes are made to the amendment, for
example making the opt-out species or type of aquaculture specific, we
would be happy to work with you to make similar changes in the scope of
the language we are proposing.
While we focus on the State Opt-Out Amendment here, we are also
concerned with S. 1195 in general. Both the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission highlighted the real and
significant problems that marine finfish aquaculture poses to our
marine resources and ecosystems. S. 1195 would expand aquaculture
offshore before we know what the consequences of this expansion will be
and without ensuring protection and likely bringing harm to our ocean
resources. Before addressing S. 1195 further, we strongly encourage you
to make sure the economic impacts, threats to wild fish stocks, effects
on water quality and ocean habitats, access and transportation
concerns, and human health risks of offshore aquaculture are
scientifically examined, as called for in the Natural Stock
Conservation Act of 2005 (S. 796). These studies would allow us to look
before we leap offshore with aquaculture, and make sure that proper
standards are put in place that will ensure our marine resources are
not harmed.
We appreciate your efforts to protect Alaska's and other coastal
states' biological resources and urge you to strengthen the State Opt-
Out Amendment to ensure states can choose a healthy biodiverse ocean
ecosystem with vibrant and productive fisheries. Please contact me if
you have any questions or would like to discuss further.
______
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 June 8th
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 very productive discussions at the
hearing about necessary safeguards to protect the environment and local
fishing communities. We also hope to highlight some of the issues that
have yet to be examined by this Subcommittee. 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 how these problems can best be addressed.
As we discussed in our previous comments, 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 largescale
industrial farming of carnivorous finfish has in other countries.
We were pleased that two witnesses at the June 8th hearing, Mr. Tim
Eichenberg from The Ocean Conservancy, and Mr. David Bedford of the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, discussed the safeguards that their
states have implemented in order to protect the environment and local
fishing communities from the possible negative impacts of offshore
aquaculture. As Mr. Eichenberg pointed out, if Federal law were to
entail fewer safeguards than provided by state law, these state
protections would be severely undermined. Neither fish farm's pollution
nor its economic effects will likely adhere to state and national
political boundaries.
One of the very important safeguards of both Alaska and
California's policies on marine aquaculture is a required comprehensive
analysis of the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of marine
aquaculture. Alaska's position states that a five-year moratorium
should be in place for all new aquaculture operations so that a
comprehensive study can be undertaken to understand how aquaculture
would affect the ecology of American waters as well as the
socioeconomic impacts on coastal communities.
Likewise, California's new Sustainable Oceans Act requires the
Department of Fish and Game to issue a programmatic environmental
impact statement that analyzes:
appropriate areas for siting of marine finfish aquaculture
operations to avoid adverse impacts and minimize any
unavoidable impacts;
the effects on sensitive ocean and coastal habitats;
the effects on marine ecosystems, commercial and
recreational fishing, and other important ocean uses;
the effects on other plant and animal species, especially
protected species;
the effects of the use of chemical and biological products
and pollutants and nutrient wastes on human health and the
marine environment;
the effects of interactions with marine mammals and birds;
the cumulative effects of a number of similar finfish
aquaculture projects on the ability of the marine environment
to support ecologically significant flora and fauna;
the effects of feed, fish meal, and fish oil on marine
ecosystems;
the effects of escaped fish on wild fish stocks and the
marine environment; and
the design of facilities and farming practices so as to
avoid adverse environmental impacts, and to minimize any
unavoidable impacts.
Another witness, Ms. Marianne Cufone from Environment Matters,
discussed how the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and the
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services are also
considering steps to protect unique local resources because S. 1195 in
its current form does not sufficiently do so. As she attested and as
was confirmed in Mr. Tim Keeney of NOAA's testimony, under S. 1195
regional councils would be demoted to a consulting or consenting role
on offshore aquaculture. States would have little to no role
whatsoever. Ms. Cufone's testimony further discussed how various user
conflicts are expected between offshore aquaculture and other ocean
uses, such as those regarding known fishing grounds and routes to those
fishing grounds, other vessel traffic lanes, military sites, marine
reserves, sanctuaries, and other protected or vulnerable areas. Ms.
Cufone called for buffer zones around these areas. To have such buffer
zones would require NOAA to perform comprehensive mapping and analysis.
Whether it is the analysis needed to establish buffer zones, or the
analysis prescribed in California and Alaska's state policy, it is
clear that comprehensive analyses should be required before commercial
aquaculture is allowed in Federal waters. A deliberative and
precautionary approach is consistent with the Pew Oceans Commission
recommendation that there be a moratorium on offshore fish farming
until environmental concerns are addressed. At this time, there has
been very little study of the likely environmental and socioeconomic
impacts of offshore aquaculture in Federal waters. Our recent report,
Seas of Doubt, details the lack of published research on the
environmental impacts of four marine aquaculture projects currently
operating in U.S. waters and highlights the significant discrepancies
in what research does exist. Additionally, the report notes the
insufficiency of these four projects as viable economic demonstrations
for a full-scale industry given their limited capacities and the lack
of true freemarket conditions surrounding their current operations.
Unfortunately, instead of providing a comprehensive analysis of the
likely environmental and socioeconomic impacts of offshore aquaculture
and manner in which it plans to address these impacts, NOAA continues
to promote S. 1195, which allows for the fast-track permitting of fish
farming in Federal waters with little analysis and few safeguards
necessary to protect marine ecosystems, including marine fisheries. It
is amazing to us that NOAA officials can in one breath talk about the
agency's 30 years of experience in dealing with some of aquaculture's
potential negative impacts, and in the next, fail to detail, with any
specificity, how the agency plans to address these issues.
While we were pleased that Mr. Keeney testified that the
administration would be willing to work with the Senate to alter S.
1195, much more is needed than simply the ``clarifying language,'' that
he offered the Subcommittee. As a primary step, NOAA should provide the
following information and make it subject to public scrutiny and
further legislative hearings:
NOAA has not provided 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.
NOAA has not detailed the agency's plans, if any, to
minimize the discharge of wastes and chemicals and cumulative
impacts from offshore fish farms into the ocean environment.
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.
NOAA has not provided much detail about the agency's plans,
if any, to engage in planning, zoning, or the development of
siting criteria for offshore aquaculture. NOAA officials have
not discussed whether NOAA plans to assess and maintain
environmental carrying capacities of each region where offshore
aquaculture is planned.
NOAA has not discussed 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.
NOAA has not discussed 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 Mr. Keeney and Dr. Hogarth's testimony indicated that
NOAA believes that offshore aquaculture could benefit coastal
communities, they have yet to provide a detailed analysis of
the likely impacts of offshore aquaculture on commercial fish
prices and employment.
NOAA has failed to adequately detail how it plans to
adequately fund its new offshore aquaculture program. In his
April 6th testimony, Dr. Hogarth testified that establishing an
offshore aquaculture program would cost approximately $3
million per year and that the continuing costs of running the
program would be about $7 million per year. He could not answer
the question, however, of how NOAA would secure these funds.
Just this year, NOAA requested a 65 percent decrease in funding
for its Marine Aquaculture Program--a decrease from $4.5
million it received in appropriations in FY 2006 to $1.6
million requested for FY 2007.
NOAA has failed 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.
This information will only help the Senate in assessing S. 1195 or
any other offshore aquaculture permitting bill. 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 the United States
Offshore Aquaculture Community
Dear Committee Members,
We, the undersigned, represent a group of U.S.-based small
businesses, academic institutions, and market interests who wish to
tender support for the passage of the National Offshore Aquaculture Act
(S. 1195). The passage of this Act is a critical step toward securing
an economically viable and environmentally sound domestic source of
healthy seafood for American consumers.
In contrast to those who oppose S. 1195, we do not believe its
passage will result in the rapid, unfettered, and environmentally
harmful development of aquaculture in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ). Our beliefs rest on direct experience and peer-reviewed
scientific research. Ongoing commercial, demonstration, and research
projects in the U.S. have proven that, with current technology, we can
safely farm a number of species in open ocean waters of up to 200 feet
in depth. The water and sediment quality monitoring programs under
which these projects operate demonstrate that the environmental impacts
of offshore finfish culture operations are typically negligible when
sited and managed appropriately. This is well documented in technical
reports that are regularly submitted to the state and Federal
environmental agencies, and are a matter of public record.
The accomplishments of these projects and others in the U.S.
indicate that, given the proper regulatory environment, the U.S. is
well positioned to meet and overcome the challenges of establishing
commercially viable farming operations in distant and deep offshore
waters. For that to occur, however, S. 1195 must pass into law.
How that law defines compliance with environmental standards is of
paramount importance to all stakeholders. We believe that effective
environmental regulation is based on performance. The a-priori adoption
of prescribed technologies and management practices that do not assure
minimal environmental impact is neither sustainable nor cost-effective.
As with any emerging industry, offshore aquaculture is continually
evolving. Technical and methods-based innovations that result in
greater production efficiency and enhanced environmental performance
must not be precluded because they do not fit a preordained and
untested set of regulations. A regulatory structure that forces
companies to adopt specific technologies and practices rather than
setting strict environmental impact goals will stifle innovation and
hamper a sustainable approach to offshore aquaculture.
Current state and Federal regulations already insure environmental
protection for operations in state waters. The most compelling need
addressed by S. 1195 is the creation of a Federal permitting process in
the EEZ. The absence of a formal process and lead agency make it
virtually impossible for a small business, and in some cases, research
projects to obtain permits in waters under Federal jurisdiction. With
NOAA to coordinate existing regulatory processes with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other
agencies, we can build a regulatory system that protects the
environment and provides appropriate and attainable environmental
standards for industry.
We believe that NOAA is well suited to the task of coordinating and
managing such an industry. NOAA has been actively involved in the field
of offshore aquaculture for decades, and it continues to play a pivotal
role in related research and development. Site visits by NOAA personnel
to key U.S. projects, NOAA's review of production records and
environmental reports, and its engagement in an ongoing, constructive
dialogue with stakeholders has provided the Administration with a solid
understanding of the scientific, technological, environmental,
economic, and social aspects of this emerging industry.
We also believe that for S. 1195 to move forward, open and sincere
dialogue among stakeholders is necessary. Unfortunately, opposition to
offshore aquaculture is often based on false, dated, incomplete, or
out-of-context information. Opponents routinely use conjecture and
speculation--rather than sound science--to misinform media and inflame
public fear. U.S. companies and university researchers welcome a
constructive dialogue on environmental issues, however, many opposition
groups resist meaningful discussion. Rarely has a conversation between
members of these groups and the principals of aquaculture projects had
a fruitful outcome. Instead, statements made by company affiliates and
university researchers in the aquaculture field have been grossly
misquoted in advocacy-based ``reports'' and, ultimately, the media. In
their sweeping condemnation of all of our efforts, they also malign the
ability of U.S. companies to lead this industry toward a sustainable,
environmentally sound and healthful future. They would seem to prefer
that we remain forever reliant on seafood imported from elsewhere.
We ask that in your deliberations, you please consider the source
of the information presented to your Committee, and make your decisions
based on information backed by credible science. You have a tremendous
amount of influence on the future of offshore aquaculture in this
country. Please consider the facts, not the misconceptions when
evaluating S. 1195.
Sincerely,
Businesses
Brian O'Hanlon, President/Founder, Snapperfarm, Inc.
Neil Anthony Sims, President/Co-Founder, Kona Blue, Inc.
John ``Randy'' Cates, President/Founder, Cates
International, Inc.
Stephen Page, CEO/Founder, Ocean Farm Technologies Inc.
Gary F. Loverich, Chairman/Founder, OceanSpar LLC.
Joe Hendrix, Seafish Mariculture.
Dr. J.E. Jack Rensel, Rensel Associates Aquatic Sciences.
Jose A. Rivera, Biologist/Contractor, Boqueron, Puerto
Rico.
Christopher Duffy, Great Bay Aquaculture, LLC.
George Nardi, Great Bay Aquaculture, LLC.
Universities and Research Organizations
Dr. Richard Langan, Director, Open Ocean Aquaculture
Program, University of New Hampshire.
Clifford Goudey, Center for Fisheries Engineering Research,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Dr. Daniel D. Benetti, Rosenstiel School of Marine and
Atmospheric Science, University of Miami.
Dr. Sandra Shumway, Department of Marine Science,
University of Connecticut.
Dr. Barry Costa-Pierce, Director, Rhode Island Sea Grant
College Program, University of Rhode Island.
Dr. La Don Swan, Director, Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant
Consortium.
Dr. Robert R. Stickney, Department of Oceanography, Texas
A&M University.
Dr. Dale Kiefer, Department of Biological Sciences,
University of Southern California.
Dr. Albert Tacon, Aquaculture Coordinator, University of
Hawaii.
Dr. Kevin D. Hopkins, Professor, College of Agriculture,
Forestry & Natural Resource Management, University of Hawaii at
Hilo.
Dr. Bruce S. Anderson, President, Oceanic Institute,
Waimanalo, Hawaii.
Glen Rice, Ocean Engineering, University of New Hampshire.
Michael Chambers, Ocean Engineering, University of New
Hampshire.
Scott Lindell, Marine Resources Center, Marine Biological
Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA.
Bruno Sardenberg, Rosenstiel School of Marine and
Atmospheric Science, Marine Affairs and Policy, University of
Miami.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John E. Sununu to
Timothy R.E. Keeney
Question 1. Senator Boxer referred to an article in the magazine
Science outlining concerns with the levels of toxins in farmed salmon.
Did this study find any toxin levels beyond acceptable limits from the
Food and Drug Administration, the World Health Organization, or the
Environmental Protection Agency?
Answer. The study Senator Boxer referred to at the June 8, 2006,
subcommittee hearing on offshore aquaculture is titled ``Global
Assessment of Organic Contaminants in Farmed Salmon'' (Hites et al.,
2004. Science 303:226-229). In that study, the authors compared the
levels of organic contaminants in wild Pacific salmon, primarily from
Alaska, with cultured Atlantic salmon from Europe, North America, and
Chile. They found the levels of organic contaminants to be
significantly higher in cultured salmon than in wild Alaskan salmon.
However, the actual amounts of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) found
in the skin-on cultured salmon used in the study ranged from .02 to .05
parts per million (20-50 parts per billion), which is within acceptable
limits of PCB contaminants in seafood set by the Food and Drug
Administration, the World Health Organization, and guidance issued by
the Environmental Protection Agency.
Specifically, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has established
a tolerance of 2 parts per million (ppm) for PCBs for fish and
shellfish (edible portion). The levels of PCBs in farmed Atlantic
salmon in the Hites study ranged from about .02 to .05 ppm, well below
the FDA allowable amount (US FDA, 21 C.F.R. 109.30).
The World Health Organization (WHO), in collaboration with the Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), has
considered dioxins and dioxin-like compounds such as PCBs on several
occasions. Most recently, in June 2001 the Joint FAO/WHO Expert
Committee on Food Additives examined new evidence on the toxicity of
these chemicals and established a Provisional Tolerable Monthly Intake
(PTMI) of 70 picograms of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs. Based on the
mean contamination levels reported in the Hites study, eating one or
two portions per week of cultured salmon would result in a monthly
intake below the PTMI levels set by the FAO/WHO committee. (World
Health Organization. PCBs and Dioxins in Salmon; Organochloride
Contamination of Salmon; January 20, 2004.)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the
discharge of organic contaminants, including PCBs, into the environment
and sets acceptable amounts in drinking water. The EPA gives guidance
on consumption of seafood products that contain contaminants such as
PCBs. The EPA does not give guidance on consumption of terrestrial
animals that contain PCBs. The time period EPA uses in assessing health
risk for humans is the entire life span of the consumer. For pollutants
with carcinogenic properties, EPA currently assumes there is no
threshold below which the risk is zero. The limits for carcinogens set
by the EPA are based on the assumption that consumption over a human's
lifetime, at the monthly rate provided, would yield a lifetime cancer
risk no greater than an acceptable risk of 1 in 100,000. In making its
recommendations, EPA assumes the adult is 70 kilograms in weight and
the serving portion of fish is 8 ounces. For fish tissue concentrations
of >0.023-0.047 ppm for PCBs, wet weight (roughly the range of values
from the Hites study for cultured salmon), EPA's risk-based consumption
limit is not more than four meals per month for ``non-cancer health
endpoints'' and one meal per month for ``cancer health endpoints.'' (US
EPA, Guidance for assessing chemical contaminant data for use in fish
advisories. Vol. 2: Risk assessment and fish consumption limits, third
edition. See Table 4-24 for Monthly Fish Consumption Limits, PCBs). In
other words, EPA's risk-based consumption limit of eating no more than
one portion of fish per month with more than .05 ppm PCB (on a
continuing monthly basis) is based on the assumption that consumption
over a lifetime would yield a lifetime cancer risk no greater than an
acceptable risk of 1 in 100,000.
In the Hites study, the authors examined levels of contaminants in
many species of Pacific salmon that are primarily plankton eaters.
Because these salmon (chum, pink, and sockeye) consume little or no
contaminated baitfish, the level of organic contaminants in these fish
would be relatively low. In comparison, Chinook salmon (which are fish
eaters) residing their entire lives in Puget Sound, Washington, have
levels of contaminants equal to or higher than cultured Atlantic
salmon. (O'Neill et al., 1998. Spatial trends in the concentrated PCBs
in Chinook and Coho salmon in Puget Sound and factors affecting PCB
accumulation: Results from the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program.
Puget Sound Research 312-328).
Organic contaminants in the environment, such as PCBs, are
associated with industrial development. PCBs are found in chickens,
eggs, and dairy products at levels comparable to those found in some
salmon. For example, the FDA allowable levels of PCBs in some common
food products are as follows: 1.5 ppm for milk, 3 ppm for poultry, 2
ppm for fish, and 0.3 ppm for chicken eggs. PCBs are found in a variety
of marine fishes, including baitfish such as anchovies, herring, and
sardines. Because baitfish are used to make fish meal--a component in
feeds for poultry, swine, and fish--organic contaminants in baitfish
can be transferred up the food chain to any farmed animal or their
products. Because Alaska has experienced little industrial development,
there are relatively low levels of organic contaminants in its waters
and, subsequently, in the baitfish.
Question 2. We've heard calls for a moratorium, in order to allow
full scale demonstration projects before proceeding to commercial
operations. How many permits would you envision NOAA granting in the
first few years of this program?
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 the National
Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2005. 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
and drive the demand for offshore permits.
Question 3. How would Fisheries Management Councils be involved in
the decision of whether or not to approve an offshore aquaculture
application?
Answer. NOAA has a longstanding working relationship with the
Regional Fishery Management Councils established under the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The National Offshore
Aquaculture Act of 2005 requires NOAA to consult with the Councils in
developing and implementing the regulatory regime for offshore
aquaculture. NOAA would consult with the Councils when drafting
implementing regulations, establishing environmental and other
requirements (especially as they relate to interactions with wild
stocks managed by the Councils), and reviewing 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.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Timothy R.E. Keeney
Hawaii and California Aquaculture Legislation
Question 1. In 1999, the Hawaii Legislature amended existing law
and allowed the long term leasing of State marine waters for commercial
aquaculture. This action opened up the opportunity for farming the
ocean using modern surface and submerged cage culture technologies and
economically important local species. California just passed
comprehensive legislation for permitting and regulating aquaculture in
state waters. Both laws have environmental regulations regarding issues
of concern for each state.
How will environmental safeguards in existing state legislation,
such as in Hawaii and California, be respected in Federal regulations?
Answer. Environmental safeguards in existing state legislation,
such as in Hawaii and California, provide a good starting point for the
development of Federal regulations. NOAA will be looking closely at
these existing standards, and encouraging the full participation of
coastal states in the rulemaking process, as we implement the National
Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2005. In addition, current law already
requires that offshore aquaculture operations obtain a state
consistency certification under the Coastal Zone Management Act and a
state water quality certification under the Clean Water Act.
NOAA has already begun to compile information on environmental
safeguards, not only in U.S. coastal states but also in other countries
with more established marine aquaculture industries. We are finding
general agreement across a range of jurisdictions on the major issues
that need to be addressed, and there is great similarity among the
standards that have been developed.
Question 2. In what ways are the Hawaii and California aquaculture
laws and programs similar? In what ways are they different?
Answer. In Hawaii, more than 100 aquafarms are in operation. More
than 50 aquatic plant and animal species are being raised for research
or commercial production in Hawaii, including shellfish (marine shrimp,
freshwater prawns, and abalone); finfish (Pacific threadfin/moi,
tilapia, catfish, carp, flounder, sturgeon, amberjack, snappers, mahi-
mahi, and grouper); algae (seaweeds and microalgae); and other products
such as broodstock shrimp, oyster and clam seed, pearl oysters, and
various freshwater and marine aquarium fish and invertebrates. Current
open ocean marine aquaculture leases include two commercial cage
culture operations that produce Pacific threadfin and greater
amberjack.
Regarding regulation, the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural
Resources (DLNR) issues and administers aquaculture leases. The state's
Department of Agriculture, through its Aquaculture Development Program
(ADP), serves as liaison with potential lessees and provides technical
support to aquaculture businesses.
In Hawaii, the stated goal is to increase aquaculture production by
providing a variety of support services to help businesses get started.
And once a business is established, the state continues to provide
support services and offer technical assistance. For example, the ADP
provides business counseling, planning and coordination, informational
services, marketing, animal health management, and research and
extension services. The business counseling services include
preparation and review of business plans; advice on Federal, state, and
local permit requirements, and on sources of financing and suitable
sites; and technical assistance to improve farm operational efficiency
and profitability. The ADP also provides a wide variety of current
information to aquaculture businesses, including species identification
and culture technologies, product and service markets, regulations, and
the cost of doing business in Hawaii. The ADP employs an aquaculture
veterinary medical officer and technical staff. The program also
provides health certification services to aquatic livestock exporters
and serves as a technical resource to state officials in charge of
aquatic species importation permitting. The ADP also encourages short-
term applied research. California does not have a program similar to
the Hawaii ADP.
Aquaculture is found in almost every county in California. But
unlike Hawaii, the majority of aquaculture production consists of pond
culture of freshwater fish. Coastal marine aquaculture activities in
California include farming of oysters, abalone, mussels, clams, and
scallops. Unlike Hawaii, there are no open ocean operations in state
waters. As far as aquaculture in Federal waters in California is
concerned, Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute is in the permitting
process to operate an aquaculture facility at the Grace oil platform.
Regarding regulatory programs, California's aquaculture industry
operates under the jurisdiction of a number of state agencies. The
primary agencies are the California Departments of Fish & Game (CDFG)
and the California Department of Health Services (CDHS). CDFG is the
lead agency, and CDHS has regulatory authority over all health and
sanitation aspects of the shellfish industry, including growing waters,
harvesting, processing, and shipping of products.
The chart below compares the approaches to regulation in California
and Hawaii.
Comparison of Approaches to Aquaculture
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California Hawaii
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Environmental --Environmental
Assessments assessment if funds assessment under
are appropriated to rules of Chapter 343
the department and of the code.
matching funds from --Cannot lease in
aquaculture industry.. marine life
conservation
district, shoreline
fisheries management
area, or natural area
reserve program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to Lease --Basic benthic habitat Must submit
and community environmental
assessment by lessee assessment or
to Control Board.. environmental impact
--Lessee must establish statement.
best management
practices approved by
Commission..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Escapes --All farmed fish must --Escapes that are not
be marked or tagged.. identifiable may
--Site designed to become common
prevent escapes and property.
lessee responsible for --Lessee may be
damages.. responsible for
retrieving escapes if
demanded by Board.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collected Funds Remaining funds go to Revenues deposited in
Fish and Game Fund.. special land
development fund for
aquaculture industry
after portion
deposited in public
land trust.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lease Periods Lease for a period of Term specified in
10 years--renewable lease issued by Board
every 5 years at of Land and Natural
discretion of Resources (first
Commission.. commercial lease was
for 15 years).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fees Collected Fees sufficient to pay Annual rent set by
for administering the Board.
program and
enforcement..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State vs. Federal Permitting
Question 3. Any legislation should address how the permitting
process will include states and other stakeholders in the development
of permitting and siting criteria. Enhanced coordination is needed to
provide consistency and to adequately manage potential impacts that
cross jurisdictional lines, such as the spread of disease. Significant
state participation and input to guidelines to ensure they are
complementary at both state and Federal levels is important. Without
such Federal-state coordination, states have placed limitations on
aquaculture facilities in their waters. Alaska, for example, has a
constitutional provision banning finfish aquaculture, and several
states prohibit the cultivation of genetically-modified species. Can
minimum national standards avoid ``bad actors,'' who undermine
environmentally sensitive operations?
Answer. NOAA agrees that minimum national standards are needed to
ensure that offshore aquaculture develops in an environmentally
responsible and sustainable manner, and these standards need to be
legally enforceable. The National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2005
provides the authority to (1) establish these standards, (2) include
appropriate terms and conditions on offshore aquaculture site and
operating permits requiring permit holders to comply with these
standards, (3) monitor operations, (4) enforce the terms and conditions
of offshore aquaculture permits, and (5) penalize permit holders who
violate the terms and conditions of their permits. Under the National
Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2005, permit holders who violate the terms
and conditions of their permits may be fined or imprisoned, their
property may be seized, and their permits may be suspended or revoked.
The Act further provides that permit holders must post a bond or other
form of financial guarantee as added insurance against ``bad actors.''
In addition, since the Act does not preempt existing laws and
regulations, ``bad actors'' should expect the full force of applicable
criminal and civil remedies beyond those in the Act--for example, those
under applicable fish and wildlife statutes.
Question 4. What role should states play in helping set these
minimum standards?
Answer. NOAA will encourage the full participation of coastal
states in the rulemaking process to implement the National Offshore
Aquaculture Act of 2005. In particular, NOAA will look to the states to
share their experience and insights on the rationale for the standards
they have adopted, as well as their experience in implementing state
legislation and enforcing environmental standards. Information from the
states about what does and does not work in terms of their regulatory
approach will be valuable to NOAA in establishing and enforcing
national standards.
Question 5. How can we avoid inconsistency with state standards,
including forum shopping for areas with weaker standards?
Answer. Current law already provides mechanisms for ensuring
consistency with state standards. The Clean Water Act requires state
certification that an offshore aquaculture operation meets water
quality standards, and the Coastal Zone Management Act requires state
certification that issuance of an offshore aquaculture permit is
consistent with state coastal management plans.
NOAA's rulemaking process to establish environmental requirements
will draw heavily on state experience in regulating coastal marine
aquaculture operations. Based on the information NOAA has already
compiled on environmental safeguards in U.S. coastal states, there is
general agreement across a range of jurisdictions on the major issues
that need to be addressed, and there is tremendous similarity among the
standards that have been developed. This is also true with respect to
environmental safeguards in other countries with established
aquaculture industries. So it is reasonable to expect that Federal
standards developed under the National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2005
will be consistent with existing state standards and will not provide
incentives for forum shopping. NOAA expects aquaculture businesses to
choose sites for new marine aquaculture operations based primarily on
the suitability of the site for the specific species and systems in
which they want to invest. For example, businesses are likely to
consider site characteristics such as water depth, bottom type,
salinity levels, currents, proximity to land-based support facilities
and markets, and potential conflicts with other uses.
Question 6. As recommended by the Ocean Commission, aquaculture
legislation should specify how the permitting regime will contribute to
Federal coordination of existing regimes, including facilities
established under the Deepwater Ports Act, as well as offshore
alternative energy facilities and offshore oil and gas drilling
permitted under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
An offshore management regime should provide for effective
coordination of all ocean activities such as offshore aquaculture and
alternative energy development. How should aquaculture programs
coordinate with other agencies of jurisdiction to prioritize
activities, minimize conflicts, protect resources, and ensure that uses
are compatible?
Answer. The National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2005 specifically
provides for the establishment of a coordinated permit process that
will include other agencies with jurisdiction over activities that
occur in Federal waters of the Exclusive Economic Zone. The bill
includes specific provisions detailing the role of the Department of
the Interior with respect to offshore aquaculture facilities located on
or near facilities permitted under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act.
With respect to interagency coordination, NOAA is already an active
participant in existing institutional structures, including the
Committee on Ocean Policy and the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture,
that provide good communication channels for working with Federal
agency partners to develop the coordinated permit process called for
under the National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2005. In addition, NOAA
is already working with the Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and other agencies of
jurisdiction to address aquaculture permitting issues under current
law.
Some issues will need to be addressed through internal NOAA
processes, as NOAA has major stewardship and management
responsibilities under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act,
Coastal Zone Management Act, and other statutes. NOAA is already
working to improve coordination between the aquaculture program and
other NOAA programs that have primary responsibility for implementing
these statutes.
Question 7. Will any agency be empowered to reject a proposed
facility based on safety or environmental standards? Please explain.
Answer. The National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2005 specifically
requires Department of the Interior (DOI) concurrence on permits for
offshore aquaculture facilities located on or near facilities permitted
by DOI under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The bill includes
specific provisions detailing DOI's continuing role with respect to
maintenance and safety on existing facilities such as oil and gas
platforms.
Because the bill does not supersede any existing statutes, offshore
aquaculture facilities and operations will need to comply with all
existing requirements and standards. Therefore, even though there is no
explicit concurrence requirement for other Federal agencies such as the
Environmental Protection Agency or the Army Corps of Engineers, an
offshore aquaculture facility will not be able to operate without the
proper permits from these other agencies--e.g., a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permit from EPA and a Section 10 permit
from the Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to the Rivers and Harbors
Act. Other requirements, such as Coast Guard rules governing marking of
a site, would also apply.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Tim Eichenberg and Marianne Cufone, Esq.
Hawaii and California Aquaculture Legislation
Question 1. In 1999, the Hawaii Legislature amended existing law
and allowed the long term leasing of State marine waters for commercial
aquaculture. This action opened up the opportunity for farming the
ocean using modern surface and submerged cage culture technologies and
economically important local species. California just passed
comprehensive legislation for permitting and regulating aquaculture in
state waters. Both laws have environmental regulations regarding issues
of concern for each state.
How will environmental safeguards in existing state legislation,
such as in Hawaii and California, be respected in Federal regulations?
Answer. S. 1195 currently contains no safeguards to ensure that
Federal regulations protect state environmental standards, such as
those adopted in California and Hawaii, and likely soon to be finalized
in Florida. In fact, as currently proposed, nothing in S. 1195 would
prevent fish farms located in the EEZ--just beyond state waters--from
seriously undermining efforts in state waters to protect water quality,
prevent the spread of disease, pathogens and parasites, or protect the
genetic makeup of wild fish stocks from escaped farmed fish.
Senators Stevens and Inouye have proposed an amendment that would
allow states to prevent the approval of Federal aquaculture projects
under S. 1195 in the EEZ adjacent to state ocean waters. This ``opt-
out'' provision could prevent impacts on some state marine fisheries
and wildlife from fish farms in nearby Federal waters. However, it will
not prevent impacts on states that do not elect to opt-out, or prevent
impacts on states near states that do not elect to opt-out. \1\ Some
provision for authorizing these nearby states to object to Federal
aquaculture projects also needs to be included in S. 1195. It is also
uncertain if it will prevent impacts from aquaculture operations
authorized under other Federal laws in the EEZ (such as if the Minerals
Management Service were to assume such authority either under the 2005
amendments to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act or under new
authority provided by the Deep Oceans Energy Resources Act, H.R. 4761,
which the House passed on June 29, 2006). For this reason the proposed
opt-out amendment, even if approved, is no substitute for minimum
national standards to ensure that Federal aquaculture operations are
conducted sustainably, and do not undermine state environmental
safeguards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For example, it was recently reported by the Alaska Department
of Fish and Game that a salmon caught in Cook Inlet was farmed Atlantic
salmon even though farming salmon is banned in Alaska. Kohl. ``Testing
proves fish was farmed.'' Peninsula Clarion, July 16, 2006. According
to the report, about one of every 100 Atlantic salmon raised on farms
in British Columbia and Washington escapes.
Question 2. In what ways are the Hawaii and California aquaculture
laws and programs similar? In what ways are they different?
Answer. Both Hawaii and California prohibit the farming of non-
native species. California Fish and Game Code Section 15007 also
prohibits marine fish farms from raising salmon and genetically-
modified species. Requiring native fish species and the use of wild
broodstock can help minimize the genetic consequences of escaped farmed
fish. However, additional standards are needed to address potentially
significant impacts of farming native fish species on the marine
environment.
Both Hawaii and California utilize an aquaculture leasing system
which allows environmental requirements to be imposed on the lease
itself rather than just the operating permit. Possible termination of a
lease may provide a stronger incentive for compliance than suspending
an operating permit.
Hawaii's approach is derived from land-use zoning policy, and
submerged lands are broadly zoned for ``resource uses.'' Typically land
use decisions respond to applications for permits instead of
proactively assessing and designating areas for aquaculture. As a
result, some operations in Hawaii have been permitted in relatively
shallow water, and published research shows this is having significant
impacts on the benthos in the vicinity of the cages. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Lee, Han W. et al. ``Temporal changes in the polychaete
infaunal community surrounding a Hawaiian mariculture operation.''
Marine Ecology Progress Series, Vol. 307, pp. 175-185, January 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
California has taken a different and more proactive approach. The
Sustainable Oceans Act (SB 201) provides for the preparation of a
programmatic environmental impact report (PEIR) to consider, among
other things, appropriate areas for siting marine fish farms to avoid
adverse impacts. Lease sites must be considered appropriate for fish
farms in the PEIR before aquaculture leases can be issued. This will
help to avoid siting marine finfish aquaculture operations in areas
that are inappropriate because they may be too shallow, conflict with
fishing and other uses, are located in sensitive habitats such as
marine protected areas, or would impact essential fish habitat or
spawning grounds.
S. 201 also contains a number of other provisions for farming
native fish species that should be considered as starting point for
Federal standards:
Sites can not be leased that conflict with fishing and other
public trust uses, disrupt or harm wildlife and habitats, or
otherwise harm the marine environment.
Pollution must be prevented to the maximum extent possible.
Alternatives to drugs and chemicals must be required
whenever available, and permitted only if minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
Alternatives to feeds produced from wild-caught fisheries
are required where available, and only sustainably harvested
ingredients can be utilized.
Baseline assessments must be conducted prior to issuing
permits, and all sites must be monitored regularly.
Lessees are held responsible for damages to the marine
environment, and for restoring sites to pre-leased condition.
Fish must be removed, leases terminated, and facilities
closed if operations pose a danger to the marine environment.
All facilities and operations must be designed to prevent
the escape of farmed fish, escapes must be reported
immediately, and fish must be tagged or marked.
Any Federal offshore aquaculture program should also consider the
socio-economic effects of farmed species on fishing communities.
State vs. Federal Permitting
Question 3. Any legislation should address how the permitting
process will include states and other stakeholders in the development
of permitting and siting criteria. Enhanced coordination is needed to
provide consistency and to adequately manage potential impacts that
cross jurisdictional lines, such as the spread of disease. Significant
state participation and input to guidelines to ensure they are
complementary at both state and Federal levels is important. Without
such Federal-state coordination, states have placed limitations on
aquaculture facilities in their waters. Alaska, for example, has a
constitutional provision banning finfish aquaculture, and several
states prohibit the cultivation of genetically-modified species.
Can minimum national standards avoid ``bad actors'' who undermine
environmentally sensitive operations?
Answer. Yes. For example, minimum national standards under the
Clean Water Act have improved water quality nationwide. Strong national
aquaculture standards can do the same.
However, EPA's current effluent guidelines for aquaculture are weak
and ignore key issues such as escapes, and impacts from non-native and
genetically modified species. EPA guidelines do not establish
enforceable numeric limits on pollutants discharged from offshore
aquaculture operations such as total suspended solids, fecal coliform,
nitrates, phosphates, biological oxygen demand, metals, drugs or
pesticides; nor do they require water quality monitoring or testing for
toxic substances. Instead the guidelines rely on operational BMPs to
minimize feed and chemical inputs. 69 Fed. Reg. 51891-51930 (August 23,
2004). Moreover, ocean discharge standards under the Clean Water Act
require certain ocean resources to be ``considered,'' but do not
contain qualitative standards for determining whether a discharge
causes ``unreasonable degradation'' of the marine environment; nor has
EPA established water quality standards for the EEZ under which
degradation can be judged. 40 CFR Sec. 125.122. Thus, minimum national
standards could, but do not currently, provide adequate protection for
the marine environment against ``bad actors. Nor does S. 1195 currently
ensure that adequate minimum standards will be adopted.
For S. 1195 to establish a national policy for sustainable marine
aquaculture, the bill must direct NOAA to implement specific national
standards enumerated in the bill to ensure there are no gaps in Federal
environmental protection, such as from escapes. Congress should adopt
very specific measures for NOAA to ensure that marine ecosystems are
not harmed by offshore aquaculture, and that cumulative and secondary
impacts are adequately considered in evaluating Federal proposals.
Question 4. What role should states play in helping set these
minimum standards?
Answer. Clearly aquaculture activities in Federal waters can impact
state assets, and therefore states should play a key role in setting
Federal environmental standards. However, existing mechanisms do not
provide an adequate role for states. Under the Coastal Zone Management
Act (CZMA) Federal consistency requirements, state's with approved
coastal management programs may object to Federal and federally
permitted activities, such as Federal aquaculture leases and permits.
However, some states will be unable to object to Federal aquaculture
permits because they lack enforceable state aquaculture policies, and
state objections can be overridden by the Secretary of Commerce under
Section 307(c)(1) and (3) of the CZMA. Under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act, Federal licenses and permits must be consistent with state
water quality standards. However, section 401 certifications may not be
applicable to permits or licenses issued in the EEZ. Therefore, the
CZMA and Clean Water Act do not ensure an adequate role for the states,
and additional provisions are needed in S. 1195 for state input,
including the proposed ``opt-out'' amendment, to ensure that
aquaculture operations in Federal waters do not undermine state
environmental safeguards and meet stringent minimum environmental
standards.
Moreover, states are already participating on regional fisheries
management councils. These bodies should be integrally involved with
development of environmental standards and approval of siting permits
to ensure that aquaculture operations do not conflict with fishing
operations, essential fish habitat and other fishery management
concerns.
Question 5. How can we avoid inconsistency with state standards,
including forum shopping for areas with weaker standards?
Answer. Strong national standards for aquaculture activities in the
EEZ should provide a floor--but not a ceiling--for standards in
adjacent state waters to ensure that state standards meet minimum
environmental requirements, and that state standards are essentially
consistent with one another. States should be permitted to adopt
regulatory programs that exceed but are not weaker than these Federal
standards. This will prevent forum shopping for states with weak
environmental standards, and ensure that the Nation's ocean waters are
adequately and consistently protected.
Conflicting Uses
Question 6. As recommended by the Ocean Commission, aquaculture
legislation should specify how the permitting regime will contribute to
Federal coordination of existing regimes, including facilities
established under the Deepwater Ports Act, as well as offshore
alternative energy facilities and offshore oil and gas drilling
permitted under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
An offshore management regime should provide for effective
coordination of all ocean activities such as offshore aquaculture and
alternative energy development. How should aquaculture programs
coordinate with other agencies of jurisdiction to prioritize
activities, minimize conflicts, protect resources, and ensure that uses
are compatible?
Answer. Congress should ensure that NOAA prepares a legislative or
programmatic EIS and a comprehensive offshore aquaculture plan for the
Federal aquaculture program to provide adequate public participation
and determine how other Federal agency reviews and permits should be
coordinated with offshore aquaculture leasing program under S. 1195.
Interagency reviews and permits for individual aquaculture permits and
leases can also be coordinated through the National Environmental
Policy Act review process. A legislative EIS would also greatly assist
the Committee comprehensively evaluate the likely individual and
cumulative environmental and socio-economic effects, possible
alternatives and mitigation measures, and any unavoidable consequences
of offshore aquaculture. A legislative or programmatic EIS can also
help develop other measures such as planning, zoning, siting criteria
and environmental carrying capacity as recommended in a recent Sea
Grant study by the University of Delaware. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Cicin-Sain, et al. ``Recommendations for an Operational
Framework for Offshore Aquaculture in U.S. Federal Waters.'' Mangone
Center for Marine Policy, University of Delaware, October 2005.
Question 7. Will any agency be empowered to reject a proposed
facility based on safety or environmental standards? Please explain.
Answer. As the lead agency for offshore aquaculture, NOAA should be
given a clear mandate--not just authority--to protect the marine
environment and minimize adverse environmental effects from offshore
aquaculture activities. To be meaningful, this authority must include
the ability to deny permits. Moreover, other Federal agencies with
permitting authority over offshore aquaculture projects also have the
authority to reject proposed facilities that do not meet standards
related to their jurisdictional authority even if NOAA is designated as
the lead agency for offshore aquaculture leases. Thus, for example, EPA
and the Corps have the authority to deny a project that has adverse
water quality or navigational impacts. The Sea Grant study by the
University of Delaware cited earlier also noted that these are
important checks and balances for offshore aquaculture. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. John E. Sununu to
Tim Eichenberg
Question. The Omega-3 acids in fish oil are largely responsible for
the superior nutritional value of seafood. Have you determined the
minimum amount of fish meal and oil necessary in order to preserve
these nutritional benefits?
Answer. Scottish research suggests that if salmon are fed a
vegetable based diet for most of their grow-out period, followed by a
``finishing diet'' containing fish meal and oil, fish flesh is high in
omega 3 fatty acids. It is therefore possible to drastically reduce
levels of fisheries products in fish diets, and still obtain fish high
in omega 3 fatty acids. \1\ In the future, fish high in omega 3 fatty
acids may be obtained with little or no use of fish meal and oil in
feeds, since feeds with high levels of omega 3 fatty acids from marine
algae are now in research and development in the U.S. and abroad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Bell, et al. Replacement of Dietary Oil with Increasing Levels
of Linseed Oil: Modification of Flesh Fatty Acid Composition in
Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) Using a Fish Oil Finishing Diet. Lipids
39, 1-10 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Higgs, head of the fish nutrition program at the DFO/UBC
Centre for Aquaculture and Environmental Research in West Vancouver,
Canada, presented a study at the Society for Experimental Biology
Annual Meeting in Canterbury, England in 2006, in which farm-raised
salmon were fed diets high in vegetable oil. The study found that up to
75 percent of the dietary fat in farm-raised salmon can come from
canola oil without fish suffering any negative health effects or
significant loss in omega-3 fatty acids. The seven-month feeding trial
on more than 7,000 spring Chinook salmon investigated four different
diets, with the canola oil diet providing optimal results.
Some farmed fish contain high levels of contaminants including PCBs
and dioxins from fishmeal and oil derived from wild marine fish such as
anchovies. \2\ The Canadian and Scottish research cited above shows
that levels of contaminants in farmed fish can be reduced without
sacrificing omega-3s by using substitutes to fishmeal. Fishmeal
substitutes can also help address concerns about the ecosystem impacts
of using wild fish stocks for fish meal which, if current trends
continue, could use the total global fish catch for fish feed by 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Hites, R.A. et al. Global Assessment of Organic Contaminants in
Farmed Salmon. Science 303, 226-229 (2004). Foran, J. et al.
Quantitative Analysis of the Benefits and Risks of Consuming Farmed and
Wild Salmon. Journal of Nutrition 135 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John E. Sununu to
David Bedford
Question 1. Alaska has had great success with its salmon
hatcheries. Do you think this success can provide lessons for raising
other species with a less complex life cycle?
Answer. Alaska's ocean ranching program for salmon differs
significantly from fish or shellfish farming because it is designed to
improve survival of salmon in the natural environment rather than put
the fish under positive control throughout development. Our hatchery
program involves human intervention only at the earlier life stages
with the intent of improving survival of immature salmon at time in
which immature salmon have the highest levels of natural mortality. For
the great majority of their development Alaska hatchery salmon share
the same natural environment that the wild stocks use.
Hatchery production in Alaska supplements natural production. The
hatchery salmon are not completely segregated from the wild stock
because they share the marine environment in significant life stages.
Furthermore some hatchery fish may stray into streams that are habitat
for wild stocks. To minimize potential impact on wild stocks our
hatchery regulatory program implements strict genetic and pathology
policies and tracks the transport of brood stock and harvested product.
Similar policies for aquaculture would seem prudent.
Ocean ranching of salmon, complex as it may be, is in significant
respects an easy case. Salmon have been subject to intense scientific
scrutiny for over a century. Salmon hatcheries have been in operation
for a similar period. Perhaps most pertinent salmon spend important
parts of their development in fresh water and are consequently
relatively easy to observe. Aquaculture of species for which the level
of knowledge is insufficient to fully assess the potential impact of
cultivation should be preceded by comprehensive research.
Question 2. Do you see any potential for hatchery programs to
enhance other wild fish populations while also providing stock for
aquaculture?
Answer. Alaska's salmon hatchery program produces additional salmon
for harvest in the common property fisheries. We are exploring the
potential for enhancing the productivity of some marine populations.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game is in the early phases of
developing strategies for ocean ranching of king crab. This would
follow the basic pattern of salmon hatchery production involving
holding juveniles for a period of time to control sources of natural
mortality then releasing them into the natural environment to mature
and finally be harvested in the fisheries. At present we are permitting
research that looks at the potential for and effects of hatchery
production of juveniles. There are significant genetic, pathology and
wild stock interaction issues yet to be addressed.
We are also permitting an experimental project that would plant a
species of clams and study the potential for using this approach to
increase local populations of the species that would be available for
harvest.
In both instances we take a precautionary approach. We enjoyed some
advantages with salmon enhancement. Salmon have been the subject of
intense scientific scrutiny for over a century. Furthermore we benefit
in our study of salmon as compared to marine species because the salmon
reproduce in fresh water and are consequently more susceptible to
observation at crucial life stages. In addition, we were able to look
at the experiences of other states with salmon production and
incorporate the lessons of these programs in the development of our
own. With other marine species we do not enjoy theses same advantages
and hence will be cautious.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
David Bedford
Question 1. Any legislation should address how the permitting
process will include states and other stakeholders in the development
of permitting and siting criteria. Enhanced coordination is needed to
provide consistency and to adequately manage potential impacts that
cross jurisdictional lines, such as the spread of disease. Significant
state participation and input to guidelines to ensure they are
complementary at both state and Federal levels is important. Without
such Federal-state coordination, states have placed limitations on
aquaculture facilities in their waters. Alaska, for example, has a
constitutional statutory provisions banning finfish aquaculture, and
several states prohibit the cultivation of genetically-modified
species.
Can minimum national standards avoid ``bad actors,'' who undermine
environmentally sensitive operations?
Answer. The aquaculture program should be implemented through the
regional council system created by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management act. The Council process provides for
effective scientific review by scientific and technical committees and
thorough public review in the council process and the advisory panels.
Magnuson-Stevens incorporates national standards for fishery
conservation and management. These provide important policy guidance to
the councils and also allow sufficient flexibility to enable the
councils to develop management plans that are appropriate for the
specific region, fisheries and resources at issue. National standards
for implementing off-shore aquaculture would be useful and important
guidelines for decisionmaking. The kind of rigorous review undertaken
by the regional councils would be the first step in preventing abuse by
reviewing applications and developing permit conditions and oversight.
Question 2. What role should states play in helping set these
minimum standards?
Answer. The minimum standards for implementing the national
standards and other provisions in statute should be developed by the
regional councils and would be expected reflect the policy perspectives
of the states represented on each council. States nominate the majority
of the members on the councils and participate substantially on the
scientific and technical committees. The advisory panels would provide
opportunity for additional review by members of the public and interest
groups.
Question 3. How can we avoid inconsistency with state standards,
including forum shopping for areas with weaker standards?
Answer. By working through the existing regional councils, state
participation is ensured and consequently the states could ensure that
their standards were reflected in the decisions of the council. It
would likely be necessary to expand the scientific and technical
committees to add expertise specific to aquaculture. It might also be
useful to empanel additional advisory panels that focus on aquaculture
and include some interests not presently engaged in the council
process.
We might expect councils in different regions of the country to
develop different approaches to aquaculture. Operating under the
national standards we should expect effective but not uniform
application of the law. It would fall within a council's authority to
implement national standards in a more rigorous fashion than that
adopted in another region. This could well create an environment more
conducive to aquaculture development on some regions however this would
be consistent with the national standards and reflect the policy
choices of the states in that region.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John E. Sununu to
John R. ``Randy'', MacMillan, Ph.D.
Question 1. Many of the critics of offshore aquaculture point to
the early problems of near-shore aquaculture operations in the U.S. How
has your industry learned from the challenges it faced with escapes and
disease?
Answer. The loss of animals from any aquaculture operation whether
off-shore or on-shore is a concern economically for the owner and
potentially of concern ecologically. Economic concern arises because of
lost product for market. Depending upon how close to harvest the loss
occurs, financial loses can be significant. Potential ecologic damage
arises because non-indigenous species may have potential to displace
native species or otherwise change an ecosystem. Development of
predictive science to enable wise decisions in this regard is ongoing.
Because of escapement concerns producers in near shore operations have
successfully sought ways to minimize potential for escape. In addition
to changes in cage (net pent) material to better withstand efforts of
piscivors (e.g. seals and otters), producers utilize predator exclusion
devices and double cage the rearing environment. Improved facility
siting has also further minimized escapes caused by marine mammal
destruction of cages and has concomitantly significantly reduced
environmental impacts. Some recent theories offered for escape events
indicate intentional tampering with aquaculture stocks and equipment by
those who oppose the industry may have occurred. Such occurrence
presents significant adverse financial impacts on aquaculture
operations. One tool to deter such tampering may be amendment of the
pending aquaculture legislation to include criminal penalties and civil
liability for damages resulting from tampering with offshore
aquaculture facilities.
Claims of more disease in wild species as a consequence of near-
shore aquaculture operations is disputed by various Federal and fish
health management experts (e.g. LaPatra, S. 2003. The lack of
scientific evidence to support the development of effluent limitations
guidelines for aquatic animal pathogens. Aquaculture 226: 191-199). It
is well established principle that fish disease occurs as a consequence
of interaction between host, environment and pathogen. Due to careful
management by fish farmers, and Federal and state regulatory
authorities, introduction of new pathogens by aquaculturists is very
rare and unintentional. In open water aquaculture as envisioned in an
off-shore aquaculture operation, pathogens are more likely to occur as
a consequence of wild fish carrying pathogens and exposing farmed fish.
Pathogen amplification on a fish farm can theoretically occur but its
impact on wild fish has never been scientifically demonstrated. Much of
the rhetoric concerning near shore aquaculture operations and fish
disease has focused on sea lice. NOAA fisheries experts report (NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-71) that ``contrary to some
circumstantial reports, there is no basis for expecting an increase in
wild fish infections in the immediate vicinity of any source of lice
larvae, including those hatched from lice at fish farms.'' Existing
Federal and state regulatory programs already ensure introduction of
exotic fish pathogens is unlikely. (The LaPatra article is appended for
inclusion in the record).
Question 2. How has the aquaculture industry used alternative feeds
to reduce its reliance on fish meal and fish oil?
Answer. The use of fish meal and fish oil is not inherently
detrimental to marine ecosystems and ecologic sustainability as long as
the fisheries supplying the fish meal and oil are properly managed. The
species most used for reduction fish meal and oils are the small
shoaling pelagic fish (anchovy and menhaden) harvested from surface
waters feeding at the lowest trophic level above or near to nutrient-
rich oceanic upwellings (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-71).
These populations are volatile and are dependent on ocean productivity
which depends on seasonal movement of some deep ocean currently. While
the fish meal and oils are well-suited for human consumption, they are
used globally by terrestrial animal and poultry industries as well as
for aquaculture. Because of the economic and social importance of the
pelagic industrial fisheries, their population dynamics are routinely
monitored and assessed by fisheries managers and scientists worldwide.
Fisheries managers predict each year the strength of the target
population and manage to ensure sustainability of the population.
While the pelagic fisheries are regarded as sustainable, the
resource is nevertheless limited. Global capture has remained stable
over the past 20 years but demand for fishmeal and oil has increased.
Increasing demand has caused substantial price increase which has
encouraged a search for alternative protein and oil sources. Fish
processing wastes (trimmings) are increasingly used in fish meal as are
direct protein substitutions (e.g. terrestrial animal, poultry,
trimmings). Most importantly there is research to substitute grains and
oilseed meals for fish meal as sources of protein and energy (NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-71). The challenge is to find suitable
fish meal substitutes for carnivorous animals such that their
physiologic homeostasis is maintained, and cost-effective feeds that
maximize growth rate and reduce or eliminate feed wastage occurs.
Question 3. Senator Boxer referred to an article in the magazine
Science outlining concerns with the levels of toxins in farmed salmon.
Did this study find any toxin levels beyond acceptable limits from the
Food and Drug Administration, the World Health Organization, or the
Environmental Protection Agency?
Answer. The study Senator Boxer referred to did not find any
contaminant levels beyond acceptable limits established by the Food and
Drug Administration, the World Health Organization, or the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. A recent (July 11, 2006) National
Academy of Science review of EPA's 2003 dioxin risk assessment
concludes that EPA overstates dioxin cancer risks further calling into
question the Science article referred to by Senator Boxer.
Question 4. What new information has been gathered in recent years
to counter the claims of this article?
Answer. The most recent germane scientific analysis was conducted
by scientists and physicians at the Harvard School of Public Health,
Harvard University. These researchers developed a clear, scientifically
sound argument that consumption of wild and farm raised fish, including
salmon, is essential for good health (Teutsch SM and Cohen JT. Health
trade-offs from polices to alter fish consumption. Am J Prev Med 2005;
29: 324; Cohen JT, Belinger DC, Connor WE., et al. A quantitative risk-
benefit analysis of changes in population fish consumption. Am J Prev
Med 2005; 29: 325-334; Konig A, Bouzan C, Cohen JT et al. A
quantitative analysis of fish consumption and coronary heart disease
mortality. Am J Prev Med 2005; 29: 335-346; Bouzan C, Cohen JT, Connor
WE, et al. A quantitative analysis of fish consumption and stroke risk.
Am J Prev Med 2005; 29: 347-352; Cohne JT, Bellinger DC, Shaywitz BA. A
quantitative analysis of prenatal methyl mercury exposure and cognitive
development. Am J Prev Med 2005; 29: 353-365; and Cohen JT, Bellinger
DC, Connor WE, Shaywitz BA. A quantitative analysis of prenatal intake
of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and cognitive development. Am J Prev
Med 2005; 29: 366-374).
Willet (Willet WC. 2005. Fish: Balancing Health Risk and Benefits.
Am. J. Preventive Medicine 29 (4): 320-321), in introducing the above
studies, suggests the Science article (Hites RA., Foran J.A., Carpenter
D.O., Hamilton MC, Knuth BA, and Schwager SJ. 2004. Global assessment
of organic contaminants in farmed salmon. Science 303: 226-229) was
``particularly troublesome, perhaps even irresponsible, because the
implied health consequences (sic. of farmed salmon consumption) were
based on hypothetical calculations and very small lifetime risks.''
Willet also states the Hites et al publication ``likely caused
substantial numbers of premature deaths'' because of the reduction in
fish consumption that occurred as a consequence. The conclusion of
course is that wild and farmed raised seafood consumption is an
important component of a healthy diet and lifestyle, for all ages. (The
2005 Willet article is appended for inclusion in the record).
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
John R. ``Randy'', MacMillan, Ph.D.
Question 1. Any legislation should address how the permitting
process will include states and other stakeholders in the development
of permitting and siting criteria. Enhanced coordination is needed to
provide consistency and to adequately manage potential impacts that
cross jurisdictional lines, such as the spread of disease. Significant
state participation and input to guidelines to ensure they are
complementary at both state and Federal levels is important. Without
such Federal-state coordination, states have placed limitations on
aquaculture facilities in their waters. Alaska, for example, has a
constitutional provision banning finfish aquaculture, and several
states prohibit the cultivation of genetically-modified species.
Can minimum national standards avoid ``bad actors,'' who undermine
environmentally sensitive operations?
Answer. There is no distinction likely between the effectiveness of
national or state standards when it comes to the prevention of
prohibited actions by individuals who may be characterized as ``bad
actors.'' By definition, such persons have no regard for operating
standards regardless of the source of authority, or for the legitimate
goals of laws established to protect sensitive environmental resources.
Question 2. What role should states play in helping set these
minimum standards?
Answer. The responsibility for creation of Federal aquaculture
standards established by legislation or regulation lies with the
Congress and Federal agencies, respectively. Some potential
environmental impacts of aquaculture in Federal waters are analogous to
the ``trans-boundary pollution'' aspects of matters regulated by the
Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act in terms of the state-Federal
boundary and state-state boundary issues. In such cases, state
standards must be taken into consideration. In addition, just as is the
case in these well-established programs, States may choose to take part
in creation of Federal standards by participating in the rulemaking
that will be conducted to create the Federal aquaculture program.
Participation of the states in the rulemaking process provides them
with appropriate input in the development of Federal standards and also
provides the Federal agencies with the benefit of state experiences in
oversight of state aquaculture programs.
Question 3. How can we avoid inconsistency with state standards,
including forum shopping for areas with weaker standards?
Answer. Neither Congress nor Federal agency rule-makers should be
tasked with the burden of forging a coherent Federal program into an
amalgam of differing state standards. The Federal program should be
developed to meet the legislative objectives established by a
Congressional vision of national goals.
There is no compelling reason why Federal standards must be made
``consistent'' with existing (or future) state standards. Indeed, from
the perspective of the states, some state legislators may find the
Federal program attractive, and use it as a model for aquaculture in
state waters. Other states may determine that distinctions are needed
to meet the unique local circumstances of their state's natural
environment or the demands of their constituents. In either such
instances, there should be no negative inference attached to an
aquaculturist choosing a location in a particular state simply because
the standards differ from other states or the Federal program.
In examples of other Federal environmental legislation, the states
have been free to choose to apply more stringent standards not
inconsistent with Federal programs. States also have sometimes been the
``laboratories'' in which differing experimental approaches have been
pursued, and successful approaches later adopted elsewhere. Similar
flexibility would appear to be a reasonable and useful option in the
context of state aquaculture programs.
However, it would be wholly inconsistent with the prerogative
afforded Federal legislators, if those crafting the national program
were thought to be bound by state standards when it comes to the
regulation of Federal waters. This is especially true if we were simply
to follow the path of those who engaged in a ``race to legislate'' at
the state level and thereby presumed to set the terms of Federal
legislation. The worst case scenario would be for Congress to feel
compelled to follow the legislative example of a state where
substantial influences actually opposed development of a viable marine
finfish aquaculture industry in either their state waters or nearby
Federal waters, and as a result created hollow legislation intended to
suit such purposes.
Question 4. As recommended by the Ocean Commission, aquaculture
legislation should specify how the permitting regime will contribute to
Federal coordination of existing regimes, including facilities
established under the Deepwater Ports Act, as well as offshore
alternative energy facilities and offshore oil and gas drilling
permitted under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
Answer. An offshore management regime should provide for effective
coordination of all ocean activities such as offshore aquaculture and
alternative energy development. How should aquaculture programs
coordinate with other agencies of jurisdiction to prioritize
activities, minimize conflicts, protect resources, and ensure that uses
are compatible?
Answer. There are steps that could be taken by Federal authorities
immediately to efficiently coordinate the development of a commercial
aquaculture industry in Federal waters once Federal legislation is
passed.
Creation of an Information Data base
Readily available, accurate information would be of considerable
assistance to sound and efficient decision-making by both project
proponents and regulators. The agency charged with oversight of the
Federal offshore aquaculture program should create a data base of
information relevant to the proper siting of aquaculture operations and
avoidance of ocean-user conflicts and conflicts with other agency
programs. This information should include: existing offshore uses (oil
and gas leases, mineral leases and similar federally-established
private rights and the operational restrictions relevant to proposed
aquaculture activities), navigational constraints (shipping lanes,
anchorages, security-sensitive areas, etc.), sensitive resource areas
(marine protected areas and preserves, designated historic landmarks,
marine mammal migration routes, etc.), and similar potential conflict
factors that can be established in advance of designing a proposed
aquaculture project. This information should be Internet-based and
available without charge. Last, it is important to keep in mind that
while this information would facilitate efficient application
proceedings, the creation of such a data base should not be a condition
precedent to acceptance of permit applications for aquaculture
projects.
Pre-designated Aquaculture Sites
Ongoing development of new aquaculture operations would benefit
from creation of an inventory of available facility sites. The Federal
agency charged with aquaculture responsibility should initiate a site
selection process for various types of aquaculture operations (finfish,
shellfish, other species) in different regions of the country. By
conducting the various review and approval procedures required to pre-
approve such sites, Federal authorities would create a powerful tool to
support development of U.S. production capabilities. In addition, the
review process may offer a useful example of the approval process that
developers with self-selected sites could anticipate following in
approval of their projects.
Coordination is Appropriate; Consolidation is not Necessary
A number of Federal programs already exist for approval and
management of marine structures, dredging, extraction of minerals, oil
and gas, navigation and other varied offshore uses. Several different
Federal agencies have jurisdiction for different activities. All
Federal agencies engaged in management of offshore activities have
procedures for review and approval of offshore activities, including
solicitation of public comment and comment from sister Federal
agencies. A similar approach is anticipated for review and approval of
proposed aquaculture projects.
While coordination between agencies certainly is appropriate,
offshore aquaculture should not have to wait for creation of a
universal, ``Ocean'' agency before projects are approved. There has
been some discussion of creating an overarching body to manage all uses
of the Federal oceans. We have no way of knowing whether such an
approach would be taken, or whether it would be advisable. But
aquaculture should not be delayed in order to determine if new
``ocean'' agency will be created. Federal authorities certainly should
be capable of appropriately reviewing proposed offshore aquaculture
projects through a notice and comment application review process
similar to the process used for so many other federally-approved
activities.
Question 5. Will any agency be empowered to reject a proposed
facility based on safety or environmental standards? Please explain.
Answer. The criteria for approval of offshore aquaculture
facilities will be established by regulations. The agency with approval
authority would be empowered to reject a proposed facility if the
application failed to meet any applicable standards, presumably
including safety or environmental standards established by new rules or
existing applicable rules (such as the absence of any required
discharge permit under the Clean Water Act). Sister agencies would
advise the permit authority of any conflicts the proposed facility
created with their rules or policies during the application review
process. The permit authority would then determine if the other agency
rule were controlling. In some instances, differences between standards
of different agencies may need to be resolved at the Secretary-level.
______
Science Direct--Aquaculture 226 (2003)
The lack of scientific evidence to support the development of effluent
limitations guidelines for aquatic animal pathogens
by Scott E. LaPatra
Abstract
The biological significance of aquatic animal pathogens in
effluents is unknown. In general, most of these pathogens existed in
aquatic populations either prior to or in the absence of aquaculture.
Huge gaps exist in our knowledge regarding pathogen distribution in the
environment, the environmental fate of pathogens and host
susceptibility in aquatic ecosystems. There are no reliable,
standardized or validated methods for testing effluents for aquatic
animal pathogens. There are internationally accepted analytical methods
available to qualify and/or quantify aquatic animal pathogens in
tissues. These methods are used in regulatory control programs to limit
the introduction of important fish pathogens into new regions. Federal,
state, and tribal pathogen control programs have existed for many
years. The goal of these programs is to prevent the introduction of
significant fish pathogens into the United States, specific states,
regions or facilities. These regulatory control programs have been
successful at limiting the introduction of important fish pathogens.
Additionally, there are health management strategies to minimize the
occurrence and impact of disease if it does occur, including the use of
vaccines. However, there are currently no consistently used practices
to control the discharge of aquatic animal pathogens in effluents of
commercial or public aquaculture facilities if pathogens do occur. The
most cost-effective way to effectively limit the impact of significant
aquatic animal pathogens is to prevent their introduction into
facilities. D 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In 1989, the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a lawsuit
against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for lack of
enforcement of the Clean Water Act. The lawsuit resulted in a
settlement and Consent Decree on January 31, 1992. The Consent Decree
provided EPA to develop effluent limitation guidelines for certain
specified industries and laid out a timetable for initiating guidelines
for additional industries. EPA originally designated the Industrial
Container Cleaning industry as a category for rulemaking. However, in
late 1999, EPA asked the court to substitute aquaculture for the
Industrial Container Cleaning industry. The reasons given by EPA for
this action include the following: (1) the only relevant EPA guidance
on aquaculture was over 20 years old, (2) the aquaculture industry has
changed significantly in terms of the types of species raised and the
industrial processes employed, and (3) aquaculture point sources appear
to discharge nutrients which states regularly identify as one of the
most common causes of water quality impairment in this country. EPA has
also indicated that in addition to developing effluent limitation
guidelines for nutrients, they would also consider effluent limitation
guidelines for aquatic animal pathogens.
Huge gaps exist in our knowledge regarding pathogen distribution in
the environment, the environmental fate of pathogens and host
susceptibility in aquatic ecosystems. There are many misperceptions
held by the public and scientific community regarding the spread of
infectious agents from cultured aquatic animals to wild aquatic
animals. While it is true that human activities have affected aquatic
animal health through direct changes in habitat and ecosystems, these
changes do not necessarily mean that the aquatic animal pathogens were,
or are, actively introduced through these actions. While intensive
culture may magnify the effects of these pathogens within cultured
populations, it does not create or establish the association of the
agent and the aquatic species. The assumption that aquacultural
activities create and spread disease in the aquatic ecosystem is
misleading and an erroneous inference. Infectious disease agents are an
integral part of the existence of all animals, including both cultured
and wild aquatic animal populations. In general, most of these
pathogens existed in aquatic populations either prior to or in the
absence of aquaculture. However, studies to examine the prevalence and
the impacts of infection or disease on free-ranging fish populations
have been limited. Detection of infected fish and the potential impacts
of disease in a free-ranging population are both difficult and
expensive. Issues associated with sampling free-ranging populations and
the possible removal of infected fish by predators are complex. In
contrast to free-ranging populations, artificial propagation of aquatic
animals presents a captive population and an intensively monitored
population. Captivity coupled with the routine monitoring of the health
and performance of fish in aquaculture systems facilitates the
identification of pathogens that have evolved with their hosts in
natural environments.
One of the primary concerns of any aquaculture program is the
potential introduction and transmission of pathogens in both cultured
and native populations. Exposure to infectious disease agents is a
continual process during the life span of any organism. However,
exposure to an infectious microorganism does not necessarily result in
infection or manifestation of clinical disease. The latter depends on
the interaction of several factors including (1) the health and
immunological status of the host, (2) the dose and virulence or
contagiousness of the pathogen, and (3) the environmental conditions
that affect the host and pathogen interaction. Although clinical
disease is easily qualified and quantified, subclinical disease is more
difficult to characterize and may only be detected with the assistance
of diagnostic tests or aids. However, it must be emphasized that the
presence or detection of any infectious agent does not imply the
presence of disease. Simply put, infection--defined as invasion of a
host by a pathogenic agent--is a more common event. In contrast,
disease is defined as the condition that results in morbidity and,
possibly, mortality in the individual host or population as a
consequence of infection.
Significant gaps in our knowledge exist due in part to the lack of
reliable, standardized or validated methods for testing effluents for
aquatic animal pathogens. This is further compounded by the lack of
information on pathogen amplification when an aquatic animal host, at
various life stages and under different environmental conditions,
becomes infected or diseased. Additionally, many characteristics of
aquatic animal pathogens are poorly described yet are required in any
risk assessment. These include information on the ability of the
pathogen to multiply and remain viable in water, the survival time
outside the host, and the number of infectious units required to cause
infection and pathogenicity.
2. Literature Review
Several reviews have been written recently that have examined the
interactions between hatchery and wild salmonids and the possible
spread of disease. Flagg et al. (2000) of the National Marine Fisheries
Service wrote a white paper entitled ``Ecological and behavioral
impacts of artificial production strategies on the abundance of wild
salmon populations'', which included a reference list of 175 citations
pertinent to the subject. In this document, the authors suggest that
with the exception of the unintentional introduction of ``exotic''
pathogen(s) in an aquatic ecosystem, most if not all pathogenic
microorganisms existed in wild aquatic animal populations before the
establishment of aquaculture facilities. While cultured populations can
be considered reservoirs of infectious agents because of intensive
culture practices, there is little evidence to suggest that disease
transmission to wild stocks is routine. Therefore, it is extremely
difficult to determine the incidence of disease transmission from
cultured to wild aquatic animals, as well as the impacts such
transmission would have on wild stocks. To specifically determine
whether a particular pathogen found in wild fish originated from a
cultured fish requires the ability to distinguish different strains of
a pathogen at the genetic level. While such epidemiological tracking
can be done on all classes of infectious pathogens using a variety of
molecular methods, these techniques have not been applied to many
aquatic animals. However, a recent article by Anderson et al. (2000)
illustrated the usefulness of these molecular methods in understanding
how fish viruses evolve and are transmitted in aquatic ecosystems. The
goal of this study was to characterize infectious hematopoietic
necrosis virus (IHNV) genetic heterogeneity and viral traffic over time
at a study site in the Deschutes River watershed in Oregon, USA, with
an emphasis on the epidemiology of IHNV types causing epidemics in wild
kokanee Oncorhynchus nerka between 1991 and 1995. The study site
included kokanee spawning grounds in the Metolius River and Lake Billy
Chinook downstream, in which the IHNV epidemics occurred in 2- and 3-
year-old kokanee, and the Round Butte Fish Hatchery at the outflow of
the lake. Virus isolates collected from this area between 1975 and 1995
were characterized on a genetic basis by ribonuclease protection
fingerprint analyses of the virus nucleocapsid, glycoprotein, and
nonvirion genes. Analysis of the genetic differences between the IHNV
isolates suggested that both virus evolution and occurrence of new IHNV
strains contributed to the genetic diversity that was observed. The
results indicated that the 1991-1995 epidemics in wild kokanee from
Lake Billy Chinook were due to a unique IHNV type that was first
detected in spawning wild adult kokanee in 1988 and that this virus
type was transmitted from the wild kokanee to hatchery fish downstream
in 1991. This work shows that aquatic animal virus trafficking can be
much more complex than was previously recognized and that pathogens are
natural components of wild fish populations that can impact cultured
fish.
In 1997, a symposium was held entitled ``Pathogens and diseases of
fish in aquatic ecosystems: implications in fisheries management''
(Moffitt et al., 1998). The science of fish health has evolved
primarily for captive populations and the recent attention to whirling
disease in the United States provided an example of the need for a
scientific approach to assess the risk of pathogens on free-ranging
fish populations. One report by Reno (1998) introduced the concept that
infectious diseases have been observed in both human and animal
populations for millennia. However, unlike diseases of higher animals,
the dispersal of disease in fish populations rarely has been studied
quantitatively, but the principles that govern the spread of diseases
of human and other mammals, should with modification, be applicable to
the study of infectious diseases in fish. Among the factors shown to be
important in other systems are the contagiousness of the pathogen,
duration of infection, host population density, and development of
immunity.
Foott et al. (2000) investigated the dispersal of a pathogen in
fish populations. Coleman National Fish Hatchery in northern
California, USA has a long history of IHN virus dating back to the
1940s and asymptomatic IHNV carrier chinook salmon O. tshawytscha
adults and IHN epizootics in juvenile fish are commonly detected. When
epizootics are detected in the hatchery, juvenile fish are released
into the Sacramento River. This practice has raised concerns over
potential impacts to the ``natural'' or wild chinook salmon juveniles.
Hatchery smolts that were released after an IHN epizootic was detected
and captured down river had a prevalence of infection ranging from 9
percent to 12 percent over a 2-week period. However, viral infection
was not detected in more than 500 natural chinook salmon juveniles that
were tested. Uninfected, natural chinook salmon juveniles were also
cohabitated with different ratios of infected hatchery chinook salmon
(1:1, 1:10, 1:20) in the laboratory for either 5 min or 24 h in a flow
through circular tank. Gill, liver, and kidney tissue from the natural
fish were assayed for virus at 4-6-day post-exposure. No virus was
detected in any natural fish from any exposure group. The authors
concluded that the data indicated a low ecological risk to natural
chinook salmon stocks from the release of IHNV infected hatchery
chinook salmon smolts. This study illustrates the complexities of
understanding pathogen transmission and dissemination of disease in
fish populations but suggests that neither effluents or infected
hatchery fish posed a risk to the natural populations in this
particular system.
Kent et al. (1998) surveyed wild fishes captured around marine net-
pen salmon farms and from open waters near British Columbia, Canada for
certain salmonid pathogens. The results substantiated the recent
observations of others that some pathogens thought to be restricted to
salmonids have a broader host range, and it expanded the list of
pathogens important to salmon farming for which wild marine fishes may
act as reservoirs. There has been speculation that certain pathogens
may have been introduced into free-ranging populations through the
stocking of cultured animals. However, as this study illustrated, there
is very little credible scientific information regarding the presence
or distribution of pathogens in the wild that currently exist or may
have existed prior to stocking.
A national Wild Fish Health Survey has been initiated by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. A survey of this type has helped to identify
where certain pathogens are known to exist and will assist in
identifying the geographic range of other pathogens. Additionally, this
will allow for comparisons from state to state or watershed to
watershed that may help identify why a pathogen in one area has
negative impacts on certain fish stocks but not in others. Most
importantly, this information will provide a scientific basis for
management decisions regarding stocking and fish transport activities,
which has been lacking for many years. The real challenge will be to
determine how to use this information in establishing new regulation
and control programs or modifying existing ones.
The need for this type of survey is further supported by the work
of Noakes et al. (2000). They concluded that the evidence to date with
respect to the prevalence of pathogens as well as the frequency and
pattern of disease outbreaks both now and in the past indicate that
salmon aquaculture is not having a significant incremental impact on
wild and hatchery Pacific salmon. However, it is clear that a more
comprehensive review of disease issues including ongoing monitoring of
wild, enhanced, and farmed salmon is required to resolve the concerns
raised.
Stephen and Iwama (2000) suggest that in assessing the risks of the
transmission of pathogens, the characteristics of the pathogen must be
considered including its ability to multiply and remain viable in
water, survival time outside the host, and the number of infectious
units required to cause infections and pathogenicity. Host factors also
must be considered such as susceptibility to infection, exposure to
pathogens, age, health status, pre-existing conditions and culture and
ecosystem conditions. Environmental considerations also must be
included such as the effects of climate, hydrography and water quality.
This is an extremely complex analysis that is further compounded by the
lack of credible scientific information on many of these factors that
vary significantly depending on the pathogen, the aquatic animal host
and the type of natural ecosystem or artificial culture environment in
which they reside.
In an attempt to develop the scientific information required to
assess the risk(s) of the transmission of a pathogen, LaPatra et al.
(2001) examined the survival of an aquatic animal virus under different
environmental conditions, using IHN virus as an example. Three IHNV
isolates, which exhibited antigenic differences, were diluted either in
fresh water collected from a spring, after this water had passed
through a fish farm, or in river water from the river, which received
water from the fish farm. Each treatment was incubated at 15 jC in a
water bath and samples were removed at hourly and daily intervals.
Virus suspended in spring water survived longer than virus incubated in
water obtained from a fish farm or the river. Virus suspended in river
water exhibited a 99 percent reduction in virus concentration in 24 h.
More recent studies have shown a 99.99 percent reduction in virus
concentrations after 30 h in river water at 15 jC. Subsequent exposure
of small (mean weight, 0.5 g), susceptible rainbow trout to the virus--
seeded river water after 30 h failed to induce any clinical disease
(unpublished results).
A preliminary study was also conducted to determine the genetic
similarity of IHNV isolates from the state of Idaho, USA, to isolates
from other areas of North America where IHNV is endemic. It has been
hypothesized that rainbow trout aquaculture facilities on the Snake
River in southern Idaho may have been the source of and/or enhanced the
emergence of IHNV in salmon and trout downstream in the Columbia River
basin. This was suggested by the temporal correlation between the
emergence of IHNV in rainbow trout in southern Idaho between 1977 and
1980 and the increased incidence of IHNV in juvenile and adult
salmonids in the lower Columbia River basin in the early 1980s
(Groberg, 1983). Isolates were analyzed using the ribonuclease
protection assay (RPA) and by nucleotide sequencing of reverse
transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) products of specific
isolates. By RPA, a high level of genetic heterogeneity was found in
Idaho compared to isolates from the other locations. A phylogenetic
analysis indicated that the isolates from Idaho could be grouped
separately from all other IHNV isolates from across the Pacific
Northwest, USA, and Canada. The results suggested that the IHNV
lineages from southern Idaho may be phylogenetically distinct. These
studies illustrated the complexity of evaluating virus survival and
trafficking and the importance of developing this type of information
for use in risk assessment (LaPatra et al., 2001).
McAllister and Bebak (1997) monitored effluents from three fish
hatcheries known to contain fish infected with infectious pancreatic
necrosis virus (IPNV) for discharge and downstream distribution of
IPNV. They found no virus upstream of the hatcheries or in the hatchery
spring water supplies. However, virus could be detected 19.3 km (the
furthest distance tested) below the hatchery discharge. Virus
concentrations detected downstream were affected by stream dilution
parameters. A total of 106 resident fish downstream of the hatcheries
were sampled and no IPNV was detected in 61 nonsalmonid fishes.
However, IPNV was detected in 3 of 11 brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis
but not in 30 brown trout Salmo trutta or 4 rainbow trout which
illustrates the differences in species susceptibility to infection. Of
the three positive brook trout, two were adults and believed to be
hatchery escapees. The third, a fingerling brook trout, captured about
5 miles downstream was believed to be the consequence of instream
infection, however, no clinical signs were found in any of the positive
fish. Although the sample size was limited, the results suggested that
the prevalence of IPNV in stream fish captured below the hatcheries was
very low. Based on the IPNV prevalence, it appeared that chronic, low-
level exposure to IPNV (10-100 plaque forming units/l) in stream water
did not pose a significant risk to resident salmonid and non-salmonid
fish. Research by other workers supports the hypothesis that low-level
virus exposure may not pose a significant risk to fish under natural
conditions (Yamamoto, 1975; Yamamoto and Kilistoff, 1979). Even though
the stream fish were exposed continuously to IPNV in these studies,
infection might not have occurred because the virus concentration in
the water was to low or because natural defense mechanisms of the fish
effectively controlled low level virus exposure.
Following the outbreak of infectious salmon anemia (ISA) at salmon
farms in Scotland, UK, a survey was conducted by Raynard et al. (2001)
to determine the extent of infection in wild fish. Isolations of ISA
virus (ISAV) were made from five sea trout Salmo trutta within areas
where ISA affected salmon farms were located, however, there were no
clinical signs. Evidence for ISAV in other sea trout was provided by
ISAV RT-PCR diagnostic tests. Results from these tests revealed
evidence for ISAV presence in salmon parr, adult salmon and juvenile
brown trout S. trutta in rivers distant from the salmon farms, but
again there were no clinical signs. This suggested that at the time of
the survey (1998-1999) ISAV may have already been widely distributed in
wild fish.
These types of studies are complex because of difficulties in
reproducing aquatic animal pathogen ``life cycles'', determination if
the agent is in fact infectious, and quantitatively assessing risk of
pathogen presence and/or the presence of asymptomatically infected
fish. This is further compounded by the lack of information on pathogen
amplification when an aquatic animal host, at various life stages and
under different environmental conditions, becomes infected and exhibits
asymptomatic, subclinical or clinical manifestation of the disease.
Additionally, previously mentioned characteristics of the pathogen that
are poorly described and must be considered in any risk assessment
include the ability to multiply and remain viable in water, the
survival time outside the host, and the number of infectious units
required to cause infection and pathogenicity. Currently, the
biological significance of aquatic animal pathogens in effluents is
unknown.
3. Conclusions
State, Federal, and tribal pathogen control programs have existed
for a long time. Their goal is to prevent the introduction of
significant fish pathogens into the US, specific states, regions or
facilities. Pathogens are regulated that meet criteria such as (1)
serious pathogens exotic to an area, (2) pathogens known to cause
serious problems, (3) pathogens which are highly infectious and easily
transmitted, and/or (4) pathogens which regional watershed compacts
have agreed are of concern in that region. Additionally, pathogen
inspections are required before fish are brought onto an aquaculture
facility and routine disease inspections may be required of fish on the
facility. State resource management agencies and/or state agriculture
departments oversee these programs in public and private aquaculture
operations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also has an importation
inspection program (Title 50) to prevent the introduction of foreign
animal pathogens and the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture--Animal Plant Health Inspection Service may
also be involved under certain circumstances. These regulatory control
programs have been successful at limiting the introduction of important
fish pathogens. Regulatory control programs are also being revised and/
or established to prevent the introduction of important shellfish
pathogens.
There are no reliable, standardized or validated methods for
testing effluents for aquatic animal pathogens. There are
internationally accepted analytical methods available to qualify and/or
quantify aquatic animal pathogens in tissues (Thoesen, 1994; Office
International Des Epizooties (OEI), 2001). These methods are used in
the regulatory control programs that have been successful at limiting
the introduction of important fish pathogens into new regions. There
are currently no consistently used practices to control the discharge
of aquatic animal pathogens in effluents of commercial or public
aquaculture facilities if pathogens do occur. The most cost-effective
way to effectively limit potentially significant aquatic animal
pathogens is to prevent their introduction into facilities.
The biological significance of aquatic animal pathogens in
effluents is unknown. In general, most of these pathogens existed in
aquatic populations either prior to or in the absence of aquaculture.
There exist huge gaps in our knowledge regarding pathogen distribution
in the environment, the environmental fate of pathogens and host
susceptibility in aquatic ecosystems. The gaps in the available
scientific information must be filled before any effluent guidelines
can be established.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Randy MacMillan, Andy Morton, Rich
Schneider (All from Clear Springs Foods), Charlie Smith (Rangen),
Marilyn Blair (USFWS Idaho Fish Health Center) and Gary Jensen (USDA
CREES) for their review of the manuscript.
References
Anderson, E.D., Engelking, H.M., Emmenegger, E.J., Kurath, G., 2000.
Molecular epidemiology reveals emergence of a virulent
infectious hematopoietic necrosis (IHN) virus strain in
wild salmon and its transmission to hatchery fish. Journal
of Aquatic Animal Health 12, 85-99.
Flagg, T.A., Berejikian, B.A., Colt, J.E., Dickhoff, W.W., Harrell,
L.W., Maynard, D.J., Nash, C.E., Strom, M.S., Iwamoto,
R.N., Mahnken, C.V.W., 2000. Ecological and behavioral
impacts of artificial production strategies on the
abundance of wild salmon populations. U.S. Dept. Commerce,
NOAATech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-41. 92 pp.
Foott, S., Harmon, R., Nichols, K., Free, D., True, K., 2000. Release
of IHNV infected chinook smolts from Coleman NFH: risk
assessment of the disease impacts on natural chinook.
Proceedings of the 41st Annual Western Fish Disease
Workshop. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Olympia, WA, p. 7.
Groberg, W.J., 1983. The status of viral fish diseases in the Columbia
River basin. In: Leong, J.C., Barilla, T.Y. (Eds.),
Proceedings: Viral Diseases in the Columbia River Basin.
Special publication. Bonneville Power Administration,
Portland, OR, pp. 159-167.
Kent, M.L., Traxler, G.S., Kieser, D., Richard, J., Dawe, S.C., Shaw,
R.W., Prosperi-porta, G., Ketcheson, J., Evelyn, T.P.T.,
1998. Survey of salmonid pathogen in ocean-caught fishes in
British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health
10, 211-219.
LaPatra, S., Troyer, R., Shewmaker, W., Jones, G., Kurath, G., 2001.
Understanding aquatic animal virus survival and trafficking
and its role in risk assessment. In: Rogers, C. (Ed.),
Proceedings of the Office International des Epizooties
(OIE) International Conference on Risk Analysis in Aquatic
Animal Health. OIE, Paris, pp. 251-258.
McAllister, P.E., Bebak, J., 1997. Infectious pancreatic necrosis virus
in the environment: relationship to effluent from
aquaculture facilities. Journal of Fish Diseases 20, 201-
207.
Moffitt, C.M., Stewart, B.C., LaPatra, S.E., Brunson, R.D.,
Bartholomew, J.L., Peterson, J.E., Amos, K.H., 1998.
Pathogens and diseases of fish in aquatic ecosystems:
implications for fisheries management. Journal of Aquatic
Animal Health 10, 95-100.
Noakes, D.J., Beamish, R.J., Kent, M.L., 2000. On the decline of
Pacific salmon and speculative links to salmon farming in
British Columbia. Aquaculture 183, 363-386.
Office International Des Epizooties (OIE), 2001. Diagnostic Manual for
Aquatic Animal Diseases. OIE, Paris. 237 pp.
Raynard, R.S., Murray, A.G., Gregory, A., 2001. Infectious salmon
anemia virus in wild fish from Scotland. Diseases of
Aquatic Organisms 46, 93-100.
Reno, P.W., 1998. Factors involved in the dissemination of disease in
fish populations. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health 10, 160-
171.
Stephen, C., Iwama, G., 2000. Salmon aquaculture review fish health
discussion paper. British Columbia Environmental Assessment
Office, Nanaimo, Canada. 39 pp.
Thoesen, J.C. (Ed.), 1994. Suggested procedures for the detection and
identification of certain finfish and shellfish pathogens,
4th ed., version 1. Fish Health Section, American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, MD. 198 S.E. LaPatra / Aquaculture 226
(2003) 191-199
Yamamoto, T., 1975. Frequency of detection and survival of infectious
pancreatic necrosis virus in a carrier population of brook
trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in a lake. Journal of the
Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32, 568-570.
Yamamoto, T., Kilistoff, J., 1979. Infectious pancreatic necrosis
virus: quantification of carriers in lake populations
during a 6-year period. Journal of the Fisheries Research
Board of Canada 36, 562-567.
______
American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2005; 29(4)
Fish: Balancing Health Risks and Benefits
by Walter C. Willett, M.D., DrPH
In this issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine,
Teutsch, Cohen, and their colleagues \1\- \6\ present a
detailed analysis of possible health effects from policies to alter
fish consumption, which have both potential harms and benefits. As they
clearly document, the results would have overall benefits under
optimistic scenarios in which women who may become pregnant replace
fish high in mercury with low-mercury fish, or in which there is an
increase in low-mercury fish in the general population. However, the
overall consequences could be adverse if fish consumption is reduced in
the general population, which has apparently occurred. This analysis
supports current guidelines that focus on changes in the type of fish
eaten by women in the reproductive age, but also highlights concerns
that educational messages and the implementation of policies must be
carefully crafted to avoid unintended consequences.
The recent decreases in fish consumption have probably been
influenced by not only fears about mercury, but also by a widely
publicized report in a prominent journal \7\ that farmed salmon
contains measurable amounts of organochloride compounds. That
publication was particularly troublesome, perhaps even irresponsible,
because the implied health consequences were based on hypothetical
calculations and very small (lifetime risks of 1:10,000). In contrast,
the benefits of eating salmon are based on human data at the doses
actually consumed and, as pointed out by Cohen et al. \2\ in the
present analysis, are likely to be at least 100-fold greater than the
estimates of harm, which may not exist at all. Because the report on
organochloride consumption almost certainly contributed to a reduction
in fish consumption, that publication likely caused substantial numbers
of premature deaths. Although the monitoring of contaminant levels in
foods is an important function, reports of findings in places where
widespread publicity is likely should be accompanied by at least a
qualitative balancing of likely risks and benefits of changing
consumption of the foods being considered. A more detailed analysis
such as that by Cohen et al. \2\ would be even better.
The nutritional, environmental, and policy issues surrounding
consumption of fish and omega-3 fatty acids extend well beyond the
scope of the analysis conducted by Cohen et al. \6\ Catches of wild
fish are presently near maximum, and perhaps even greater than
sustainable, so further increases in fish consumption will need to be
mainly from aquaculture. This method of production has many potential
environmental impacts, but is worthy of careful development because
conversion of feed to protein is far more efficient for fish than for
land animals (because fish are cold blooded and float, no energy is
needed to maintain body temperature and little is needed for movement).
However, on a global basis, even large increases in aquaculture are
unlikely to meet the needs for omega-3 fatty acids, because for a large
part of the world's population, including Russia and much of Eastern
Europe, per capita fish intake is extremely low. Thus, for much of the
world, omega-3 fatty acids will need to be obtained from other sources.
Fortunately, plant sources are many (as the 18-carbon fatty acid,
alphalinoleic acid), including soybean and canola oils. However, in the
United States and many other countries, the partial hydrogenation of
these oils destroys the omega-3 fatty acids so that intake of these
essential fatty acids is very low. In such regions, the most rapid way
to increase consumption of omega-3 fatty acids is to stop the partial
hydrogenation of these oils, which would also virtually eliminate the
consumption of trans-fatty acids. Whether alpha-linoleic acid, through
endogenous conversion to EPA and DHA, can provide all the health
benefits of fish oil is a research topic of great importance. This has
potential implications for the analyses of Cohen et al.,
\1\- \6\ because the background intake of alpha-linoleic
acid is likely to be increasing in the United States due to reductions
in partial hydrogenation of soybean oil, the benefits of fish intake
may decrease. As our food supply is dynamic and human nutrition is
complex, risk-benefit analyses cannot be static.
Fish consumption is but one example in human nutrition where
potential competing risks and benefits exist; dairy products provide
another. The recent U.S. dietary guidelines \8\ recommend that all
persons increase consumption of milk, or equivalent dairy products, to
three glasses per day. The recommendation, if implemented, would lead
to radical changes in individual diets; for example, average
consumption by adult men is presently less than one serving per day. It
would also result in a doubling of milk production in the United
States, which would have major economic and environmental consequences.
The recommendation was not based on evidence that there would be an
improvement in human health if everyone consumed three glasses of milk
per day, but rather on the mandate by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture that the guidelines should meet the dietary reference
intakes (DRIs) for calcium, potassium, and other nutrients from food
sources alone. The DRIs in turn are also not usually based on health
outcomes, but rather on a single metabolic criterion, such as the
short-term maximal calcium retention test. The health consequences of
high consumption of dairy products are complex and not fully
understood. For example, although some intake of calcium is essential,
high milk consumption has consistently not been associated with lower
risk of fractures in large prospective studies, whereas increased risks
of advanced or fatal prostate cancer have been observed in many
studies. Moreover, large amounts of saturated fat would be introduced
into the food supply if dairy consumption were doubled, even though the
recommendation is to consume low-fat dairy products.
Interestingly, detailed economic analyses are required for
government regulatory actions, but comparable analyses of health risks
and benefits are not, even for the dietary guidelines, which have huge
policy implications for government food programs. The field of
nutrition would benefit from further work like that of Cohen et al.
\1\- \6\
ENDNOTES
\1\ Teutsch SM, Cohen JT. Health trade-offs from policies to alter
fish consumption. Am J Prev Med 2005;29:324.
\2\ Cohen JT, Bellinger DC, Connor WE, et al. A quantitative risk-
benefit analysis of changes in population fish consumption. Am J Prev
Med 2005;29:325-34.
\3\ Konig A, Bouzan C, Cohen JT, et al. A quantitative analysis of
fish consumption and coronary heart disease mortality. Am J Prev Med
2005;29:335-46.
\4\ Bouzan C, Cohen JT, Connor WE, et al. A quantitative analysis
of fish consumption and stroke risk. Am J Prev Med 2005;29:347-52.
\5\ Cohen JT, Bellinger DC, Shaywitz BA. A quantitative analysis of
prenatal methyl mercury exposure and cognitive development. Am J Prev
Med 2005;29:353-65.
\6\ Cohen JT, Bellinger DC, Connor WE, Shaywitz BA. A quantitative
analysis of prenatal intake of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and
cognitive development. Am J Prev Med 2005;29:366 -74.
\7\ Hites RA, Foran JA, Carpenter DO, Hamilton MC, Knuth BA,
Schwager SJ. Global assessment of organic contaminants in farmed
salmon. Science 2004;303:226 -9.
\8\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department
of Agriculture. Dietary guidelines for Americans. 6th ed. Washington
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2005.
______
Information Retained in Committee Files
``Fatty acid composition of wild and farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo
salar) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)'' by Carole Blanchet,
Michel Lucas, Pierre Julien, Richard Morin, Suzanne Gingras and Eric
Dewailly, Lipids, Vol. 40, no. 5 (2005).
``Review of Global Assessment of Organic Contaminants in Farmed
Salmon'' by Charles R. Santerre, Ph.D., Science Express, January 8,
2004 and Science, January 9, 2004
``Farmed Salmon: Caught in a Numbers Game'' by Dr. Charles
Santerre, Ph.D., Food Technology, February 2004.
``EFSA Study of Farmed and Wild Fish'' (press release and
background note) by European Food Safety Authority, July 5, 2005.
Salmon Study in Science magazine-Fact Sheet by Food Standards
Agency, January 9, 2004.
FSA Response to Salmon Study Published in Science Magazine-Fact
Sheet by Food Standards Agency, January 8, 2004.
Food Safety and PCBs Found in Fish-Fact Sheet by Health Canada,
January 12, 2004.