Analyzing the New NOAA Aquaculture Policy The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), under the

auspices of its parent agency, the United States Department of Commerce, recently issued a new policy statement describing its vision of the future of sustainable aquaculture in marine waters. The policys central theme involves the importance of promoting responsible aquaculture operations that will provide a sustainable source of food, in addition to the job growth that will result from the industrys expansion. The policy highlights the importance of continuing

research to provide objective, science-based standards for decision-making regarding the locations and output of farming operations, citing the need for the ongoing technological developments necessary to make aquaculture beneficial to both the economy and the environment. Moreover, the policy points out that efficient regulation of aquaculture will require cooperation between federal agencies and all levels of government, from local to international.i The new policy on aquaculture represents our governments latest attempt to give our nascent marine aquaculture industry a much-needed shot in the arm. It is estimated that within the next 20 to 30 years, most seafood eaten by Americans will not be caught by fishermen, but instead will be raised on a farm.ii What should concern American seafood consumers is that, unless our policies governing marine aquaculture change, the overwhelming majority of that seafood will be raised in a fish farm in a foreign country, possibly one with environmental and health regulations less exacting than our own.iii Due to the steadily declining production of ocean fisheries, countries around the world have turned to aquaculture to keep up with the protein needs of their ever-increasing populations. The United States, however, has not, largely due to opposition from the fishing

industry and environmental groups. As a result, while aquaculture produces over half of the worlds seafood, the last decade has seen a steady decline in U.S. aquaculture production, which accounts for barely 10 percent of our total seafood production.iv Americans consume roughly five billion pounds of seafood a year, over 80 percent of which is imported. Of that, about half is farmed, mainly consisting of salmon and shrimp.v This leads to an annual seafood trade deficit of over $9 billion (and growing), which is a major blow to our economy. Not surprisingly, Congress has for years tried to reverse this trend by introducing legislation designed to spur the development of the marine aquaculture industry. Congress passed the National Aquaculture Act in 1980 to promote the growth of aquaculture, simultaneously creating the Joint Subcommittee on Agriculture, an interagency entity tasked with providing coordination and seeking ways to reduce regulatory constraints on the development of aquaculture.vi In spite of these actions, concerns involving various localities and associated regulatory burdens have limited the growth of marine aquaculture within the 3mile jurisdictions of several states, and regulatory uncertainty has discouraged investment beyond that in the federal waters of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), located between the 3-mile state zone and 200 miles offshore. Considering that the United States has the largest EEZ of any country in the world, consisting of 4.5 million square miles, or about 1.5 times the landmass of the contiguous 48 states, opening these federal waters to aquaculture development could produce significant economic benefits. The Department of Commerce, which has a stated goal of increasing the value of the U.S. aquaculture industry from the current tally of approximately $1 billion per year to $5 billion by 2025vii, has, under the leadership of the NOAA, produced a new set of aquaculture policies it hopes will provide the framework for achieving its goal.

The new NOAA policy seeks to guide the development of offshore aquaculture in such a way as to provide maximum economic benefit while minimizing the negative consequences of aquaculture. According to the policy, the NOAAs overarching aim is to [e]ncourage and foster sustainable aquaculture development that provides domestic jobs, products, and services and that is in harmony with healthy, productive, and resilient marine ecosystems [and] compatible with other uses of the marine environment.viii The policy seeks to ensure that agency aquaculture decisions protect wild species and ecosystems, including the protecting of sensitive marine areas.ix In a nod to the environmental science community that has thus far played a significant role in stymying the expansion of marine aquaculture, the NOAA pledges to advance scientific knowledge concerning sustainable aquaculture in cooperation with academic and federal partners, to [m]ake timely and unbiased aquaculture management decisions based upon the best scientific information available, and to work internationally to learn from aquaculture best practices around the world and encourage the adoption of science-based sustainable practices and systems.x Other aims delineated by the NOAA policy include the intent to [s]upport aquaculture innovation and investments that benefit the Nations coastal ecosystems, communities, seafood consumers, industry, and economy, and also to advance public understanding of sustainable aquaculture practices. Finally, the NOAA pledges to work in coordination with other federal entities in addressing aquaculture-related issues, in addition to integrating federal, regional, state, local, and tribal priorities along with commercial priorities into marine aquaculture siting and management.xi The NOAA policy signals a serious commitment toward guiding the responsible pursuit

of growth in the United States offshore aquaculture industry, but in order to have any real effect, policy must be accompanied by legislation that brings its ideals to fruition. Getting this kind of legislation through both houses of Congress and signed into law has been the stumbling block that has hindered the development of offshore aquaculture over the last decade, although the current meeting of Congress will revisit the issue in the form of the National Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2011 (NSOAA). The bill, which was introduced in the House of Representatives in June 2011 by Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) as a companion piece to the new NOAA policy, is a virtual carbon copy of the National Sustainable Aquaculture Act of 2009, which was introduced by Capps in 2009 but died in committee under fire from environmental and fishing concerns. The NSOAA provides the framework to allow the NOAA to implement its policies related to the expansion of offshore aquaculture operations. Under the NSOAA, the NOAA is responsible for conducting preliminary regional environmental impact studies prior to the issuance of permits for aquaculture operations, after which permits are potentially issued and farming operations subjected to regulation. Other provisions of the NSOAA describe the duties of the NOAA in administering a research program devoted to development of sustainable offshore aquaculture practices, coupled with public outreach and education efforts and training of employees directly involved in farming operations. The NSOAA, in an effort to bring some of its strongest critics into the fold, also assigns to the NOAA the duty to organize through each regional office a network of regional experts, in coordination with relevant organizations such as the National Sea Grant College program and other academic institutions, to provide technical expertise on aquaculture.xii The NSOAA was referred in July to the House Committee on Natural Resources and

from there to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs, where it awaits further action. Whether it will die on the vine in the manner of its earlier iterations remains to be seen. But the fact that many of its key provisions have not changed since its previous incarnation in 2009 failed to make it past the committee level does not bode well for its survival. In reference to earlier versions of the proposed legislation, one leading scholar in the field of aquaculture pointed out the essential flaw in the NSSOA, as seen by its critics: Decisions on permit applications would not require a lengthy inventory process to assess the state of marine resources at each site. The proposed legislation requires NOAA to consider environmental, resource, and other impacts of proposed offshore facilities before issuing permits; however, there is no requirement that NOAA actually identify and address those impacts before the permits and leases are granted. Similarly, the bill does not require that, during the permitting process, NOAA weigh the risks to the marine environment against the commercial benefits of aquaculture development.xiii

One can hardly blame critics for demanding more preventative measures in legislation purporting to protect the ocean environment for future generations. The rapid permitting process, however, is even more concerning when viewed in the light of a more fundamental problem: there is an inherent conflict of interest that arises when an agency seeks to both regulate and promote the growth of an industry, as the NOAA seeks to undertake with the aquaculture industry. To see an example of the kind of problems that can occur under this type of arrangement, one need only look to the United States Department of Agriculture, which has

faced criticism regarding to its relationship with the meat industry. In response to 2008s largest meat recall in U.S. history, U.S. Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro said the agencys twin mandates of promoting the nations agriculture and monitoring it for safety had become blurred, adding that, [f]ood safety ought to be of a high enough priority in this nation that we have a single agency that deals with it and not an agency that is responsible for promoting a product, selling a product and then as an afterthought dealing with how our food supply is safe.xiv A repeat of that kind of systemic failure in an expanded aquaculture industry is a grave concern of critics of the NOAAs arrangement with the aquaculture industry. A closer look at the nature of an expanded U.S. aquaculture industry and the potential environmental risks associated with it highlights some areas in which the NSOAA provides measures designed to minimize the negative effects of aquaculture. Worldwide, offshore

aquaculture utilizes a variety of infrastructure designs, but in the United States, submersible cages are the choice for offshore production of finfish. The cages are fixed to the ocean floor but can by raised or lowered in the water column, and they are connected to buoys that contain a feeding mechanism and equipment room. Each cage may contain hundreds of thousands of fish, and is equipped with robotics to provide monitoring and inspection as well as cleaning and maintenance. Submersible cages are able to largely avoid rough water at the surface and enjoy reduced interference with navigation, both significant design advantages. But they require sturdier design than near-shore installations, and they come with higher labor costs and are more difficult to access relative to near-shore systems. xv No matter the level of care taken to utilize secure, escape-proof cages, it is nearly inevitable that some fish manage to escape from their cage, whether due to violent storms or sharks ripping through containment nets.xvi As such, aquaculture has been responsible for

significant intentional and unintentional introduction of nonnative species, as escaped farmed fish interbreed with local stocks, diluting their genetic integrity.xvii Even if no fish escape, fertilized eggs produced by the farmed fish can freely flow out of the enclosure and into the surrounding ecosystem. The effects of those events on native species could be significant, whether or not the farmed fish are within their native range.xviii The NSOAA does limit offshore aquaculture to those species of a genotype native to the region, as recommended by aquaculture scientists. But, as mentioned, this does not necessarily preclude negative impacts on local stocks. Aquaculture operations generate a variety of organic and inorganic wastes, but organic waste such as feces, uneaten food, and carcasses of dead fish comprise the bulk of the discharge.xix The argument that the ocean can effectively dilute effluent discharges is weakened by the likelihood that aquaculture will follow the pattern of land-based, large-scale livestock production and cluster around processing facilities and transportation infrastructure, as opposed to being more evenly distributed through the EEZ.xx Fortunately, aquaculture effluent discharge is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Water Act. Under the Act, concentrated aquatic feeding operations are direct dischargers and require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit if they annually produce more than roughly 20,000 pounds of cold water fish or 100,000 pounds of warm water fish. Under the NSOAA, the NOAA pledges to work closely with the EPA to see that aquaculture effluent discharges are contained within the mandated limits. Offshore aquaculture presents a significant risk of disease and parasite transmission from the farmed fish into the ecosystem where they reside.xxi Although the relatively new field of marine aquaculture has not been studied nearly as extensively as land-based livestock

production, it can reasonably be expected that the same mechanisms for disease amplification and transmission exist, particularly when the open nature of many aquaculture systems is considered.xxii The NSOAA does provide for partial restrictions on many uses of antibiotics, pesticides, and other chemical treatments, but also provides that such substances may be used under certain conditions, subject to the discretion of the NOAA. xxiii This somewhat hazy

standard increases the likelihood that such substances could negatively impact the health of the surrounding ecosystems in unpredictable ways.xxiv One of the most glaring ecological risks of offshore aquaculture is its use of wild fish as feed for farming operations, due to the fact that most high-market-value species farmed in the open ocean, such as salmon and cod, are carnivorous.xxv The feed they consume consists of fishmeal and oil obtained from fisheries directed at small prey fish, and these fisheries are typically either fully exploited or overfished worldwide. xxvi Accordingly, the NSOAA seeks to maximize the use of alternative feeds that are not derived from wild fish, as well as prohibiting the use of fish products that are not sourced from populations with ecosystem-based management measures in place or where the population biomass is not at or above the level of maximum sustainable yield.xxvii The NOAA policy on aquaculture, as potentially implemented in the form of the NSOAA, incorporates many principles advocated by prominent members of the marine and environmental science communities for the purpose of protecting the ocean environment from the negative consequences of offshore aquaculture operations. But the main weakness of the NSOAA is an important one: its process of evaluating potential sites and issuing the applicable permits does not apply the due diligence necessary to ensure that the marine environment is adequately protected from the potential threats posed by open-ocean aquaculture operations. The

focus needs to be on avoiding risk through preventative measures in the permitting stage, rather than curative measures in response to crises that could have been avoided with more prudent deliberation in the planning and permitting stage.xxviii

ENDNOTES
i

New federal aquaculture policies: more intent than content, Climatide, February 10, 2011, http://climatide.wgbh.org/2011/02/new-federal-aquaculture-policies-more-intent-than-content. Where Will We Get Our Seafood? Unlike the rest of the world, the U.S. has not embraced aquaculture, Oceanus, September 21, 2011, http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=115149.
iii ii

Id. Id.

iv

Aquaculture: Getting it Right from the Start, Ocean Conservancy, http://www.oceanconservancy.org/news-room/aquaculture.

vi

Rosamond L. Naylor, Environmental safeguards for open-ocean aquaculture: expanding aquaculture into federal waters should not be promoted without enforceable national guidelines for the protection of marine ecosystems and fisheries, Issues in Science and Technology, March 22, 2006.
vii

NOAA 10-Year Plan For Marine Aquaculture, October 2007.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Aquaculture Policy, June 2011, http://aquaculture.noaa.gov/us/aq_policies.html.
ix

viii

Id. Id. Id.

xi

H.R. 2373: National Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2011, http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-2373.

xiii

xii

Naylor.

Conflict of interest at USDA? Representative DeLauro thinks so, proposes stripping USDA of safety oversight, Food Democracy, February 21, 2008, http://fooddemocracy.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/conflict-of-interest-at-usda-representativedelauro-thinks-so-proposes-stripping-usda-of-safety-oversight.
xv

xiv

Naylor. Id.

xvi

Sustainable Marine Aquaculture: Fulfilling the Promise; Managing the Risks, Marine Aquaculture Task Force, http://www.pewenvironment.org/campaigns/marine-aquaculture-taskforce/id/8589942935, at 5.
xviii

xvii

Naylor.

xix

Sustainable Marine Aquaculture at 6. Naylor. Id. Sustainable Marine Aquaculture at 5. H.R. 2373. Naylor. Id. Sustainable Marine Aquaculture at 6. H.R. 2373. Sustainable Marine Aquaculture at 5.

xx

xxi

xxii

xxiii

xxiv

xxv

xxvi

xxvii

xxviii

10