Open Ocean Aquaculture
Congressional research reportAug 9, 2010
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Open Ocean Aquaculture
name redacted
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
name redacted
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
August 9, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
RL32694
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Open Ocean Aquaculture
Summary
Open ocean aquaculture is broadly defined as the rearing of marine organisms in exposed areas
beyond significant coastal influence. Open ocean aquaculture employs less control over
organisms and the surrounding environment than do inshore and land-based aquaculture, which
are often undertaken in enclosures, such as ponds. When aquaculture operations are located
beyond coastal state jurisdiction, within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ; generally 3 to
200 nautical miles from shore), they are regulated primarily by federal agencies. Thus far, only a
few aquaculture research facilities have operated in the U.S. EEZ. To date, all commercial
aquaculture facilities have been sited in nearshore waters under state or territorial jurisdiction.
Development of commercial aquaculture facilities in federal waters is hampered by an unclear
regulatory process for the EEZ, and technical uncertainties related to working in offshore areas.
Regulatory uncertainty has been identified by the Administration as the major barrier to
developing open ocean aquaculture. Uncertainties often translate into barriers to commercial
investment. Potential environmental and economic impacts and associated controversy have also
likely contributed to slowing expansion.
Proponents of open ocean aquaculture believe it is the beginning of the “blue revolution”—a
period of broad advances in culture methods and associated increases in production. Critics raise
concerns about environmental protection and potential impacts on existing commercial fisheries.
Potential outcomes are difficult to characterize because of the diverse nature of potential
operations and the lack of aquaculture experience in open ocean areas.
On January 28, 2009, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council voted to approve a plan
to issue aquaculture permits and regulate aquaculture in federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico. On
September 3, 2009, the plan took effect because the Secretary of Commerce declined to oppose it
within the required statutory period. Environmentalists and some fishing industry representatives
have opposed the plan because of concerns related to environmental protection and potential
negative effects on wild fish populations. Many who oppose the plan support a precautionary
approach and development of national aquaculture standards. On September 8, 2009, H.R. 3534,
the Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources Act of 2009, was introduced. Section 704
of the bill would have rescinded the authority of the Secretary of Commerce to develop or
approve fishery management plans to permit or regulate offshore aquaculture. On July 30, 2010,
H.R. 3534 was passed by the House, but the section related to offshore aquaculture was removed
from the bill. H.R. 4363, the National Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2009, introduced
on December 16, 2009, would establish a regulatory system for offshore aquaculture in the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone. S. 3417, the Research in Aquaculture Opportunity and Responsibility
Act of 2010, introduced on May 25, 2010, would prohibit offshore aquaculture until three years
after the submission of a report on the impacts of offshore aquaculture.
This report discusses four general areas: (1) operational and business-related challenges; (2)
potential economic impacts; (3) potential environmental impacts; and (4) the legal and regulatory
environment. Significant questions remain about whether an appropriate mechanism exists for
any federal agency to provide an open ocean aquaculture lease with the necessary property rights
to begin construction and operation. Policy makers and regulators will be challenged to weigh the
needs of a developing industry against potential environmental and social impacts.
Congressional Research Service
Open Ocean Aquaculture
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................1
Background ................................................................................................................................2
Challenges of Open Ocean Aquaculture ......................................................................................3
Biological, Operational, and Business Concerns ....................................................................3
Species and Technology ..................................................................................................3
Financing........................................................................................................................4
Economic Potential .........................................................................................................5
Shoreside Infrastructure ..................................................................................................6
Development and Partnerships ........................................................................................6
Social and Economic Impacts................................................................................................6
Trade Related Issues .......................................................................................................6
Interactions with Commercial Fisheries...........................................................................7
Potential Community Effects...........................................................................................8
Other Effects................................................................................................................. 10
Environmental Impacts ....................................................................................................... 10
Legal and Regulatory Environment ..................................................................................... 13
Marine Aquaculture Task Force................................................................................................. 15
Federal Action........................................................................................................................... 16
Legislative Efforts............................................................................................................... 16
Agency and Fishery Management Council Actions.............................................................. 18
NOAA Aquaculture Plan ............................................................................................... 18
Council Actions ............................................................................................................ 19
Use of Oil Platforms ..................................................................................................... 19
Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 20
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 21
Congressional Research Service
Open Ocean Aquaculture
Introduction
Open ocean aquaculture is broadly defined as the rearing of marine organisms in exposed areas
beyond significant coastal influence. Open ocean aquaculture operations would be located at a
considerable distance from shore and subject to relatively harsh environmental conditions
resulting from wind and wave action. Open ocean aquaculture employs less control over
organisms and the surrounding environment than do inshore and land-based aquaculture, which
are often undertaken in enclosures such as ponds.
Development of offshore aquaculture has become a controversial topic for aquaculturalists,
environmentalists, recreational fishermen, and commercial fishermen. Many environmentalists
and fishermen have asserted that poorly regulated aquaculture development could degrade the
environment and have negative affects on wild fish populations. Proponents of open ocean
aquaculture believe it is the beginning of the “blue revolution”—a period of broad advances in
culture methods and associated increases in production. Potential outcomes are difficult to
characterize because of the diverse nature of potential operations and the lack of aquaculture
experience in open ocean areas. However, most agree that industry regulation is needed for
orderly development of aquaculture while minimizing its effects on the environment.
During the 110th Congress, the National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2007 was introduced as
H.R. 2010 in the House and as S. 1609 in the Senate, both by request of the Administration. Both
bills focused on developing a framework to regulate aquaculture in the Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ), generally 3 to 200 miles from the coastline. 1 A hearing concerning H.R. 2010 was held
before the House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and
Oceans, but no further action was taken on either of these bills.
On January 28, 2009, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council voted to approve a plan
to issue aquaculture permits and regulate aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico. On September 3,
2009, the plan took effect because the Secretary of Commerce declined to oppose it within the
required statutory period. Environmentalists and some fishing industry representatives have
opposed the plan because of concerns related to environmental protection and potential negative
effects on wild fish populations. Many who oppose the plan support a precautionary approach and
development of national aquaculture standards. On September 8, 2009, H.R. 3534, the
Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources Act of 2009, was introduced. Section 704 of
the bill would have rescinded the authority of the Secretary of Commerce, the Administrator of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or Regional Fishery Management
Councils to develop or approve fishery management plans to permit or regulate offshore
aquaculture. On July 30, 2010, H.R. 3534 was passed by the House, but the section related to
offshore aquaculture was removed from the bill. On December 16, 2009, H.R. 4363, the National
Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2009, was introduced. The bill would establish a
regulatory system for offshore aquaculture in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. On May 25,
2010, S. 3417, the Research in Aquaculture Opportunity and Responsibility Act of 2010 was
1
H.R. 2010 and S. 1609, the National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2007, define “offshore aquaculture” as all activities,
including operation of offshore aquaculture facilities, involved in the propagation and rearing, or attempted propagation
and rearing, of marine species in the United States Exclusive Economic Zone. Open ocean aquaculture is a more
general term for operations in exposed ocean areas beyond significant coastal influence and may include areas in state
waters within 3 miles of the shoreline and beyond the 200-nautical mile EEZ.
Congressional Research Service
1
Open Ocean Aquaculture
introduced. It would prohibit offshore aquaculture until three years after the submission of a
report on the impacts of offshore aquaculture.
Background
Several terms for open ocean aquaculture are used interchangeably, including offshore
aquaculture and offshore fish farming.2 Open ocean aquaculture facilities generally consist of
systems (e.g., cages, net-pens, longline arrays) that can be free-floating, secured to a structure,
moored to the ocean bottom, or towed by a vessel. Currently operating commercial aquaculture
farms in nearshore waters and estuaries use a variety of methods including ponds with earthen
dikes, cages and net-pens moored to the ocean bottom, enhancement and seeding of the bottom,
and suspended lines. There has been some experimentation in offshore shellfish culture on the
seabed and from suspended ropes and longlines.
Internationally, research and commercial open ocean aquaculture facilities are in operation or
under development in Australia, Chile, China, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, and Norway.3
Currently, four commercial open ocean facilities are operating in U.S. state/territorial waters.
Cates International, Inc., cultivates moi (Pacific threadfin) near Hawaii, and Snapperfarms, Inc.,
cultivates cobia (ling) near Puerto Rico. In September 2005, Kona Blue Water Farms of Hawaii
celebrated its first harvest of kahala reared in deepwater pens in state waters. In 2007, A. E. Lang
Fisheries began cultivating blue mussels off the coast of New Hampshire in collaboration with the
University of New Hampshire’s Atlantic Marine Aquaculture Center. Although these are open
ocean operations, all four are currently sited in waters under state or territorial jurisdiction. Thus
far, only a few aquaculture research facilities have operated farther offshore in the U.S. EEZ.
Should such operations be located beyond coastal state jurisdiction within the EEZ, they would
be regulated primarily by federal agencies. 4
Development of commercial aquaculture facilities in federal waters is hampered by an unclear
regulatory process in the EEZ and technical uncertainties related to working in offshore areas.
Regulatory uncertainty has been identified by the Administration as the major barrier to
developing offshore aquaculture in the United States.5 Uncertainty is one of the main barriers to
commercial investment in many new industries. Potential environmental and economic impacts
and associated controversy have also likely contributed to slowing potential expansion.
Proponents of open ocean aquaculture position it as the beginning of the “blue revolution”—
broad advances in culture methods and application with resulting increases in marine aquaculture
2
Marine aquaculture and mariculture are broader terms, also referring to the land-based culture of marine organisms
as well as their culture in nearshore, coastal, and exposed environments.
3
For more information on international efforts, see Biliana Cicin-Sain et al., “Chapter 6: Lessons from the International
Arena,” Development of a Policy Framework for Offshore Marine Aquaculture in the 3-200 Mile U.S. Ocean Zone
(Newark, DE: Univ. of Delaware, Center for the Study of Marine Policy, 2001), available at http://darc.cms.udel.edu/
SGEEZ/SGEEZ1final.pdf.
4
Federal agencies also have regulatory authority over certain aspects of aquaculture development in nearshore waters
under state/territorial jurisdiction.
5
Written statement of Dr. William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Hearing on Offshore
Aquaculture, before the U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, National Ocean Policy
Study (April 6, 2006).
Congressional Research Service
2
Open Ocean Aquaculture
production. They tout open ocean aquaculture as an option for meeting consumer demand for
marine products, providing new employment opportunities, decreasing the U.S. trade deficit in
seafood products, and developing a new economically viable industry. It is also asserted by
proponents that development of open ocean sites would have the advantages of avoiding inshore
user conflicts and reducing environmental impacts.
Opponents raise a number of concerns related to environmental protection and potential impacts
on existing commercial fisheries. They point to inshore aquaculture where mangrove forests have
been replaced by shrimp ponds, and to waste from salmon culture that has harmed the seabed
environment. Their environmental concerns include pollution from unused feed, fish wastes, and
treatments (e.g., antibiotics); entanglement of marine wildlife in aquaculture gear; introduction of
nonnative species; and escape of organisms that might affect the genetic makeup of wild species.
They say that open ocean aquaculture could also have direct and indirect effects on commercial
fisheries, such as degradation of wild fish habitat, preemption of commercial fishing grounds, and
market competition between wild and cultured fish products.
The future of aquaculture in the EEZ is still an open question. A complex and unpredictable mix
of technological, biological, and economic elements will likely determine the profitability of open
ocean aquaculture. However, the future will also likely depend on the tradeoffs between benefits
associated with aquaculture production and costs of potential environmental and social impacts.
Challenges of Open Ocean Aquaculture
A broad array of questions is associated with the viability and impacts of open ocean aquaculture
initiation and expansion. These concerns are further complicated by factors such as evolving
production technology, uncertain economic costs and benefits, and environmental and social
impacts. Generalizations are also difficult to make because of the variety of candidate species,
associated technologies, and potential scales of operation.
Major categories of concerns related to open ocean aquaculture development include (1)
biological, operational, and business concerns related to development of a new industry; (2)
potential social and economic impacts; (3) potential environmental impacts; and (4) the legal and
regulatory environment. 6
Biological, Operational, and Business Concerns
Species and Technology
Current species and culture techniques—including species selection, egg/larval production, and
nutritional/dietary requirements—are somewhat limited. Development of open ocean aquaculture
6
Detailed discussions of many of the issues discussed in this section are available in Development of a Policy
Framework for Offshore Marine Aquaculture in the 3-200 Mile U.S. Ocean Zone (2001) by the University of
Delaware’s Center for the Study of Marine Policy, at http://darc.cms.udel.edu/sgeez/sgeez1final.pdf; and
Recommendations for an Operational Framework for Offshore Aquaculture in U.S. Federal Waters (October 2005) by
the University of Delaware’s Gerard J. Mangone Center for Marine Policy, at http://darc.cms.udel.edu/sgeez/
sgeez2final.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
3
Open Ocean Aquaculture
probably will need further research, and new culture techniques may be required for rearing
species not presently grown.
Many economically important species are currently being studied at various universities and
research institutes for possible culture, including amberjack, black sea bass, blue mussels, cobia,
cod, corvina, flounder, haddock, halibut, mahimahi, mutton snapper, red drum, striped bass, tuna,
and yellowtail snapper. Other research topics being investigated include hatchery culture
technologies; automated feeder design; culture of new species; disease identification and control;
cages and husbandry technology for rough water environments; identification of alternative food
sources; nutrition requirements; definition of carrying capacity of offshore waters; appropriate
mooring systems; drifting and self-powered cages; federal regulatory structure; and
environmental monitoring technology.
Since open water aquaculture is a relatively new industry, many potential operators are
inexperienced with the technical requirements for open ocean facilities. Historically, development
has been limited by technology that requires water depths of 100-150 feet; this narrow band of
acceptable depth exists from ¼ mile to about 50 miles offshore, depending on location. Open
ocean aquaculture facilities, moored or floating miles off the coast in a high-energy environment,
experience numerous environmental conditions that differ from nearshore aquaculture operations,
including exposure to wind and wave action from all directions, short and steep wave patterns,
strong currents, seasonal anoxic (oxygen-lacking) conditions, and other severe ocean conditions
that can prevent operators from being able to access their cages for days to weeks.7
Systems have been developed to overcome these obstacles, including cage designs that do not
deform under strong current and wave loads, submersible cages, and single-point moorings.
Cage-mounted autonomous feeding systems have been developed that can operate both at the
surface and submerged. Others have developed closed containment systems for open ocean use to
address environmental concerns. Universities and private-sector research interests are developing
automated buoys that can monitor the condition of stock and feed fish on a regular basis for
weeks at a time. Other research groups are working on automated, floating cages that would
travel with the currents and be tracked by satellite.8 These ship-like structures could float on
favorable oceanic currents or be held in the same location with low-energy thrusters.
Financing
Estimating profitability and securing financing is difficult for new open ocean aquaculture
companies because of an uncertain regulatory environment, the risk associated with operating in
exposed open ocean locations, the risk of catastrophic events (e.g., severe storms), limited
operational experience, and high capital start-up costs. Proponents of open ocean aquaculture
development assert that, without some form of long-term (at least 25 years) permitting or leasing
of the water surface, water column, and seabed, open ocean aquaculture will have significant
problems in securing capital from traditional funding sources and in obtaining suitable insurance
7
For example, a pilot study cage in the Gulf of Mexico was torn from its mooring in December 2000 and was found off
the coast of Louisiana after a long search.
8
Critics question whether floating, unmanned, remote-control cages could ever be permitted, due to the major
navigational hazard they could present.
Congressional Research Service
4
Open Ocean Aquaculture
on the capital investment and stock. 9 Such leasing may be problematic unless property rights
beyond the territorial sea are clarified.
The availability of insurance on stock and equipment is relevant to, and can facilitate obtaining,
front-end capital for open ocean aquaculture. The insurance sector has more than 30 years of
experience in managing and insuring risks to conventional aquaculture stock and equipment for a
variety of situations and conditions. Although the insurance industry is unlikely to view pilot
projects favorably, many say that the earlier the insurance industry is brought into developing
open ocean aquaculture, the earlier insurers are likely to be comfortable with the risks that must
be insured.
Proponents of open ocean aquaculture suggest that, if profits are to be made, sufficient investment
capital must be available as soon as property rights, permitting, and environmental concerns are
resolved. More pessimistic critics suggest that open ocean aquaculture is unlikely ever to have an
adequate economic return on investment, and that investment should rather be focused on
improving nearshore or shore-based aquaculture. Eventually, the level of capital investment in
open ocean aquaculture will likely depend on whether its rate of return is competitive with
investment alternatives.
Economic Potential
The economic potential of U.S. aquaculture will likely depend on both operational costs and
product prices. Costs will largely depend on several factors, including U.S. regulation, the
technology adopted, and national and international economic conditions. Economic conditions
will determine labor, energy, capital, and other input costs. Prices of U.S. aquaculture products
will likely depend on world demand and the prices of competing products. Competing products
include similar imported cultured products, similar wild species, and other agricultural product
substitutes such as chicken, pork, and beef.
The level of government support in other countries is often greater than that provided in the
United States. Some say that government assistance could promote the initial development of a
U.S. open ocean aquaculture industry, but global market forces would likely determine whether it
matures or withers.
The United States has been, for the most part, a technological innovator, and the use of marine
resources to farm new species with high market value could give the United States a competitive
edge. On the other hand, operating costs and environmental standards in other countries are often
lower. In addition to capital costs, the location of aquaculture facilities further from shore will
necessitate higher costs for fuel, security, and/or surveillance.
Land-based aquaculture products are also likely to compete with offshore aquaculture. Most
aquaculture production in the United States originates in freshwater ponds and raceways, such as
catfish in the southern United States and trout farms in Idaho and North Carolina. Advances in
9
Some nations (e.g., Canada) lease nearshore areas with implied automatic renewal of tenure as long as the lessee
meets current licensing requirements. Alternatives on leasing for short time periods include issuing research permits or
vesting tenure in a federal or state agency initially to streamline the process and allow greater control over eventual
ownership.
Congressional Research Service
5
Open Ocean Aquaculture
more intensive culture techniques such as closed systems10 are another means to increase
production with minimal environmental impacts. Cobia, a candidate species for offshore
aquaculture, is currently being cultured in land-based tanks 300 miles from the ocean in
freshwater by regulating its physiology.11 Initial reports documenting production are optimistic,
but the commercial viability of this particular type of aquaculture is unknown.
Shoreside Infrastructure
Supportive shoreside infrastructure, including hatcheries and nurseries, does not exist and would
need to be developed. Support industries have the potential to provide employment and other
economic benefits to coastal communities. If open ocean aquaculture becomes viable, these
businesses should also grow. However, the relatively high value of shoreline property could be an
impediment to finding appropriate sites, especially waterfront sites in coastal areas.
Development and Partnerships
Fostering industry/academic partnerships may benefit open ocean aquaculture development.12
Some suggest that, for development to occur, open ocean aquaculture should be considered “big
science” along the lines of atomic/nuclear physics research and the Human Genome Project. In
this light, the developing open ocean aquaculture industry may benefit by seeking and promoting
partnerships with multinational industrial, agricultural, and pharmaceutical corporations.13
Proponents argue that this is the most likely way for open ocean aquaculture to obtain the ocean
engineering, marine technology, and floating platform infrastructure at the necessary scale of
production. The developing industry will also need to refine biological methods related to
commercial-scale hatchery and grow-out facilities. They also state that, without domestic
financial support, aquaculture innovation will likely come from other countries already providing
greater investment in technology development.
Social and Economic Impacts
Trade Related Issues
In 2008, the United States imported approximately 5.2 billion pounds of edible seafood worth a
record $14.2 billion.14 After accounting for exports valued at $4.3 billion, there was a trade deficit
of approximately $9.9 billion in edible seafood products. The two largest components of U.S.
seafood imports are shrimp and salmon. Shrimp accounted for $4.1 billion and salmon accounted
10
11
In closed aquaculture systems water is cleaned with biological filters and re-circulated.
Virginia Farm Raises Marine Fish 300 Miles From Nearest Ocean, PR Newswire Association (April 4, 2007).
12
Critics caution that funding open ocean aquaculture development through universities has the potential to slow
commercial development if academic solutions are insufficiently pragmatic for commercial applications.
13
Potential partners include oil and gas companies with related support industries, defense contractors developing large
floating structure technology and platforms, and ocean engineering companies laying submarine cable and developing
affiliated technology for telecommunications corporations. Others may include corporations exploring wind and/or
wave-energy generation, ocean thermal energy conversion and related deep ocean water upwelling systems, carbon
sequestration and mitigation, and ocean fertilization.
14
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries of the United States, 2008, Current Fishery
Statistics No. 2008 (Washington, DC: July 2009), p. 48.
Congressional Research Service
6
Open Ocean Aquaculture
for $1.6 billion of total U.S. imports.15 In contrast to the increasing level of seafood imports and
the growing proportion of imports produced through aquaculture, the value of annual U.S.
aquaculture production of edible fish appears to have leveled off at approximately $672 million in
2005.16
Proponents claim that development of open ocean aquaculture would narrow the U.S. deficit in
seafood trade. However, many economists would counter that the seafood trade deficit is not a
sufficient reason to advocate for development of a new industry. According to economic theory,
countries gain from free trade when they specialize in products that they are best at producing.17
If other countries have an absolute or comparative advantage in aquaculture, the United States
would likely benefit from specializing in other industries. Others assert that in reality, most trade
is not strictly free as economic theory might assume. It is also often difficult to determine how
technological development and future economic conditions will affect comparative advantages of
different nations or regions.
Although shrimp and salmon account for a large portion of the seafood trade deficit, they appear
to be poor candidates for open ocean aquaculture. Most shrimp aquaculture is carried out in ponds
in tropical coastal areas. Salmon aquaculture operations generally use net-pens in protected areas
such as fjords or bays. It is questionable whether open ocean aquaculture can be competitive with
established inshore aquaculture of these species. One of the current offshore aquaculture
operators foresees future investment focusing on new species in tropical and subtropical
regions.18
If many of the proposed species for open ocean aquaculture are carnivores, it is likely that the
demand for fishmeal produced from low-value wild fish will increase. If domestic supplies are
insufficient, imports of fishmeal could increase the U.S. trade deficit. However, these imports
may be beneficial to the overall national economy, if the domestic aquaculture industry is
economically viable.
Interactions with Commercial Fisheries
Some Members of Congress, especially those from coastal areas with strong fishing communities,
are interested in better understanding the social and economic effects of open ocean aquaculture
development. If open ocean aquaculture supplied a significant level of production at lower cost, it
could supplement commercial fishery production and provide greater quantities of products at
lower prices. Lower prices would benefit U.S. consumers, who would likely increase
consumption.
However, aquaculture production could supplant commercial fishery production. The lower prices
(and revenues to fishermen) for commercial landings could result in the failure of least efficient
businesses, loss of commercial fishery-related employment, and disruption of fishing
15
Ibid., p. 48.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, “Census of Aquaculture (2005),” 2002 Census of
Agriculture, Volume 3, Special Studies Part 2, (Washington, DC: October 2006), p. 1.
17
A basic discussion of absolute and comparative advantage can be found at http://internationalecon.com/v1.0/ch40/
40c000.html.
18
Written statement of John R. Cates, President of Cates International, Hearing On Offshore Aquaculture, before the
U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, National Ocean Policy Study (April 6, 2006).
16
Congressional Research Service
7
Open Ocean Aquaculture
communities. However, the degree of displacement would depend on the similarity of products,
the scale of aquaculture production, and the characteristics of associated markets for seafood
products.
Imports of shrimp and salmon have resulted in lower prices and greater consumption. Over the
last 30 years, domestic shrimp production from the wild fishery has remained relatively constant
while imports of aquaculture shrimp have increased. In 2007, over 90% of all shrimp consumed
in the United States were imported.19 Prices and associated vessel revenues have also decreased
resulting in fewer active commercial fishing vessels in the Gulf of Mexico fishery.20
During the last two decades, the salmon industry has also experienced major changes related to
aquaculture. Farmed fish production has significantly increased total salmon supply and been
responsible for much of the observed decline in prices.21 Because of lower prices, the value of
Alaskan wild salmon landings decreased from approximately $800 million per year in the late
1980s to approximately $300 million per year for the period from 2000 to 2004.22 The income of
many Alaska fishermen also declined, as well as permit and boat values. From 2000 to 2004
about two-thirds of U.S. salmon consumption was farmed and one-third was from capture
fisheries targeting wild stocks.23
Although the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fisheries and Alaska salmon fisheries have been harmed by
lower prices, these commercial fisheries were not replaced by aquaculture. The precise levels of
impacts are difficult to quantify because of differences in product form, relationships among
products, and the general complexity of these seafood markets. In some cases, competition could
provide incentives to improve the quality of the wild product, wild fishery management
institutions, and marketing. Greater efficiency in the wild fishery and consumer benefits related to
greater supplies and lower prices from aquaculture production would be likely to provide net
benefits to the national economy, say proponents.
Whether the United States permits or denies open ocean aquaculture development, some of the
socioeconomic impacts of open ocean aquaculture production (e.g., changes in prices and
markets) are likely to result from foreign production. To improve understanding of gains and
losses to specific sectors and local and national economies, concerned parties suggest that social
and economic impact assessments should be part of aquaculture development plans from the
onset.
Potential Community Effects
Proponents of open ocean aquaculture assert that socioeconomic benefits will result from the
development of this industry. For example, they view open ocean aquaculture as an additional
means to support the domestic seafood industry, which in many regions has decreasing levels of
19
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries of the United States, 2008, Current Fishery
Statistics No. 2008 (Washington, DC: July 2009).
20
Linda Breazeale, Fuel Costs, Low Prices Reduce Shrimp Boats, Mississippi State University Crop Report (July 30,
2004).
21
Gunnar Knapp, Cathy A. Roheim, and James L. Anderson, The Great Salmon Run: Competition Between Wild and
Farmed Salmon, TRAFFIC North America, (Washington DC: Jan. 2007). Hereafter referred to as Great Salmon Run.
22
Great Salmon Run.
23
Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
8
Open Ocean Aquaculture
employment. With appropriate research support, open ocean aquaculture might provide
opportunities for commercial fishermen who no longer pursue harvests in managed capture
fisheries. Advocates of open ocean aquaculture assert that people with commercial fishing skills
will be needed to tend offshore aquaculture operations. Employment also would be required for
much more than tending to offshore farms—support roles are required in land-based hatcheries to
provide sufficient numbers of fingerlings; feed mills are necessary to provide feed for the fish;
manufacturing is essential to fabricate the cages and other culture materials; maintenance,
logistics, and transportation are critical; and finally, all the fish raised in offshore farms would
need to be harvested, processed, and sold, thereby potentially increasing the use of presently
underutilized fish processing plants along much of the coast.24 In general, aquaculture advocates
believe that open ocean aquaculture could help to preserve working waterfronts that have suffered
from commercial fishing declines and increasing industry regulation.
Individuals familiar with the experiences of coastal aquaculture, however, have raised questions
about the sustainability of offshore fish farming and its impact on local communities. They assert
that, in many cases, shrimp and salmon have been produced at the expense of local communities
and the environment.25 Based on the history of salmon farming, some have questioned the claims
of aquaculture as a jobs creator, especially since it seems likely to become a highly automated
industry. Critics of aquaculture also argue that the potentially higher cost of tending fish far from
shore means these facilities are likely to be automated, and local employment benefits may be
minimal.26 Additionally, little evidence has been provided for the economic benefits of open
ocean aquaculture beyond the general acknowledgment that marine aquaculture has proven
profitable elsewhere, especially in inshore areas with relatively little environmental regulation
and/or enforcement (e.g., Chile). Some commercial fishery advocates counter that unemployment
in the seafood industry/wild fisheries is also partly the result of the development of aquaculture,
especially salmon farming. For example, in Alaska many fishermen stopped fishing and salmon
processing plants closed resulting in job losses and declining tax bases for communities. 27
24
The Gulf of Mexico Offshore Aquaculture Consortium estimated that, for a 12-cage offshore production system,
eight individuals would be required to tend a sophisticated, automated offshore facility. However, they forecast that
such an operation would produce an additional annual regional economic output reaching more than $9 million and
provide additional employment for at least 262 persons, when all shoreside support was included. Although some
suggest that, for every dollar of fish landed from fishing, there is a multiplier of as much as 5-7 in the shoreside
economy (with the implication that this relationship would be roughly equivalent for aquaculture), others argue that
these extreme multipliers may be suspect since the multiplier for the entire U.S. economy is around 2—meaning that a
new dollar entering the economy manages to generate an additional dollar’s worth of goods and services before the
demand “leaks out” (i.e., gets spent on imports). See http://www.choicesmagazine.org/2003-2/2003-2-06.htm.
25
Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries, Dept. of Aquaculture, Key Figures from Norwegian Aquaculture Industry, 2000
(Bergen, Norway: 2001), 15 p.; Neal Gilbertson, “The Global Salmon Industry,” Alaska Economic Trends, v. 23, no. 10
(October 2003): pp. 3-11; Rosamond L. Naylor et al., “Salmon Aquaculture in the Pacific Northwest: A Global
Industry with Local Impacts,” Environment, v. 45, no. 8 (October 2003): pp. 18-39.
26
Many are researching ways to increase automation, especially with feeding and harvesting, such that few workers
may be needed. At the extreme, all the work may be able to be done from a computer in a shoreside office with a
satellite-controlled robotic system attached to the offshore cages. Also, the history of salmon farming indicates that, as
the industry becomes more efficient, production per unit labor increases and employment decreases, especially
compared to commercial fishing.
27
Great Salmon Run.
Congressional Research Service
9
Open Ocean Aquaculture
Other Effects
Open ocean aquaculture development also has the potential to interfere with maritime
transportation and commercial fisheries, with potential conflicts over access and transit rights.28
Because of this potential for conflict, a process would need to be developed to identify the more
suitable areas in federal waters for open ocean aquaculture development and/or to mediate
disputes. Also, safety issues with offshore facilities may need to be addressed.
Environmental Impacts
Proponents of open ocean aquaculture suggest that open ocean finfish aquaculture systems may
produce fewer and less severe environmental impacts than those caused by nearshore aquaculture
systems. This may be in part because dissolved and particulate waste products and excess feed
may be assimilated and recycled more efficiently in the open ocean environment. However, the
scope of any effects may vary greatly, depending on the culture technique, location, size/scale,
and species raised.29 The present lack of knowledge—owing to limited experience, lack of
research funding, and few studies focusing specifically on open ocean aquaculture—limits
understanding of potential environmental concerns. Open ocean aquaculture pens would be open
to the surrounding environment. Some critics of open ocean aquaculture cite concerns with the
escape of fish, water pollution from uneaten feed and waste products (including drugs, chemicals,
and other inputs), use of antibiotics and other animal drugs, alteration of benthic30 habitat by
settling wastes, and the spread of waterborne disease from cultured to wild fish. 31 Because of
these concerns, critics of open ocean aquaculture hope that regulation of this emerging industry
will be stringent.
Proponents hold that open ocean waters are normally nutrient-deficient, and nutrients released
from open ocean aquaculture operations may increase wild production in adjacent areas. Waste
settling from large operations could alter benthic habitat. However, research indicates that, in
some areas, currents keep water around fish cages well circulated, dissipating waste products
quickly, resulting in minimal impact of open ocean aquaculture facilities on water quality. Critics
question whether the experience with experimental facilities is relevant to future commercial
operations, which will need to operate at a larger scale to be profitable. A possible solution might
be to combine finfish operations with seaweed or bivalve aquaculture to consume the excess
nutrients. This approach is being tested by the University of New Hampshire at its open ocean
aquaculture research project, but may be more appropriate for nearshore operations where waste
diffusion is slower and nutrient concentrations are higher. 32
28
Submerged technologies for open ocean aquaculture may reduce or eliminate some of these concerns.
An extended discussion of most of the issues summarized in this section can be found in Guidelines for Ecological
Risk Assessment of Marine Fish Aquaculture (December 2005) by the National Marine Fisheries Service, available at
http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/6450_01302006_155445_NashFAOFinalTM71.pdf.
30
The term benthic refers to anything associated with or occurring on the bottom of a body of water.
31
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Open Ocean Aquaculture, at http://www.environmentalobservatory.org/
library.cfm?RefID=37057.
32
Critics of this approach point out that, because of the practical limits of seaweed growth rates and filtering rates of
bivalves, such a nutrient recycling system might have to be 50 or more times the size of the finfish operation to handle
the anticipated nutrient loads.
29
Congressional Research Service
10
Open Ocean Aquaculture
Another concern is whether the use of pharmaceuticals, antibiotics, growth-enhancing chemicals,
other animal drugs, and antifouling agents used on gear and enclosures will adversely affect open
water environments. Chemicals used in fish foods are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, and veterinarian oversight might encourage proper application and minimize
environmental impact. Drugs such as antibiotics, some of which were developed and approved
for use in a contained or controlled environment, are often introduced to cultured fish in their
feed. Unconsumed feed and fish waste products can pass through the containment system and be
consumed by wild organisms. The use of some of these products may be declining, as efficacious
vaccines eliminate the need for antibiotics and other drugs. Proponents of open ocean aquaculture
suggest that, because of the more pristine and better oxygenated water conditions offshore, the
use of antibiotics has not been necessary in any of the offshore areas being tested in the United
States.33
Most fish currently proposed for open ocean aquaculture are carnivorous and require feeds
containing fishmeal and fish oil, which are obtained from wild stocks. Fishmeal and oil are
produced from species such as anchovies and menhaden that are not usually used for direct
human consumption. These species have a low per unit value, but large volumes can be caught
and reduced (dried) to fishmeal, usually because they occur in large schools. Ecologically forage
species serve as prey for many wild carnivorous fish species such as striped bass and for sea
birds.
Although the ratio is falling, generally one to two pounds of wild fish are typically required to
produce one pound of farmed fish. Environmentalists question whether aquaculture production
could exacerbate pressures and cause overfishing of the ocean fish stocks harvested to produce
fishmeal.34 Others also assert it is wasteful to use fish for animal feeds instead of consuming them
directly.35 Yet, markets for direct consumption of most species harvested in industrial fisheries do
not exist. Proponents of aquaculture counter that wild fish stocks can be well managed and
commercial harvest for fishmeal would occur with or without demand from open ocean
aquaculture.36 They insist that, “Fish meal is a standard ingredient in livestock feed, and farmed
fish are far more effective at converting it to edible protein than their terrestrial counterparts.”37 In
addition, a feed conversion rate of two pounds feed to one pound of farmed product is favorable
compared to conversion rates for wild species.38 Use of a less desirable commodity to produce a
more highly valued product is the basis of most livestock and aquaculture operations.
33
Personal communication from Dr. James P. McVey, Aquaculture Program Director, National Sea Grant College
Program, NOAA, September 2005.
34
Rosamond L. Naylor et al., “Effect of Aquaculture on World Fish Supplies,” Nature, v. 405 (June 29, 2000): 10171024. Others, however, point out that industrial fisheries may be mismanaged regardless of the demand for fishmeal
use in aquaculture.
35
“Save Our Oceans, Eat Like a Pig,” The Tyee (June 12, 2007), available at http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/04/17/
EatLikePigs/.
36
Clifford A. Goudey, “Letters: Aquaculture in Offshore Zones,” Science, v. 314 (December 22, 2006): p. 1875.
37
Cliff Goudey, Letters to the Editor, U.S. Aquaculture Vital in Global Market, The Boston Globe (March 26, 2007), p.
A8.
38
Actual feed conversion rates can range widely, with wild production often considered to be around 10 pounds of feed
per pound of growth. At one extreme, a feed conversion rate of 20 pounds of feed per pound of farmed tuna is reported
(Sergi Tudela, “Tuna Farming: Grab, Cage, Fatten, Sell,” Samudra, no. 32 (July 2002): 9-17). At the other extreme,
feed conversion rates approaching 1.2 pounds of feed per pound of farmed Atlantic salmon have been reported (British
Columbia Environmental Assessment Office at http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/epic/output/documents/p20/
1051572085662_da81e53841c84e47b5ea9ab15075741a.pdf).
Congressional Research Service
11
Open Ocean Aquaculture
The prices of fishmeal and fish oil are likely to increase if large quantities are required for open
ocean aquaculture. In 2006, the price of fishmeal nearly doubled because of lower anchovy
catches in Peru and the growing demand for fishmeal from China.39 Concerns with price are
likely to encourage researchers and aquaculturalists to improve feeding techniques to reduce
waste, modify feed formulations, utilize alternatives such as waste from fish-processing plants,
and experiment with herbivorous fish. Plant protein sources, such as canola, algae, or soybean
meal, are being used to partially replace fishmeal, with significantly positive results emerging,
especially where soybean meal is supplemented with certain essential amino acids. In some
operations, the feed may contain as little as 30% fishmeal. An obstacle to increasing the amount
of plant material that can be substituted for fishmeal appears to be the presence of anti-nutritional
factors in the plant-derived materials.40 The choice of species and feeds will likely depend on
profitability, and since many high-value candidate fish or shellfish species are carnivorous, the
demand for fishmeal and fish oil is likely to increase in the foreseeable future.
Another concern involves the spread of fish-borne disease from aquaculture to wild populations.
For example, problems with the transfer of sea lice from salmon farms to wild salmon have been
reported.41 Disease may also spread from wild populations to farmed fish. A 2003 outbreak of
infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus in British Columbia farmed salmon was confirmed to be a
virus that had been circulating in wild fish for many years.
Genetic anomalies could occur if wild fish are exposed to or interbreed with hatchery-raised fish.
This issue might arise if genetically modified or non-native fish escape from aquaculture facilities
and interbreed with wild fish. 42 The potential interbreeding problem can be greatly reduced if
only sterile fish are farmed; fairly simple technology exists to accomplish such sterilization.
Critics speculate that, since selectively bred and genetically modified fish may grow faster and
larger than native fish, they could displace native fish in the short term (both through competitive
displacement and interbreeding), but might not be able to survive in the wild for the long term. 43
This is especially a concern of states (e.g., California, Maine, Maryland, and Washington) where
genetically modified fish are banned within state waters but could be grown in offshore federal
waters.
A related concern is the introduction of exotic species into non-native waters, such as Atlantic
salmon in British Columbia. Exotic fish may escape from open ocean facilities that may be
particularly vulnerable to storms, although recent hurricanes and tropical storms in Hawaii,
Puerto Rico, and the Bahamas have caused no reported damage or loss of fish in submerged cage39
Farming Fish No Longer Relies on Fish Meal Prices, The Fish Site (February 20, 2007), available at
http://www.thefishsite.com/fishnews/3690/farming-fish-no-longer-relies-only-on-fish-meal-feeds.
40
G. Francis, H. P. S. Makkar, and K. Becker, “Antinutritional Factors Present in Plant-Derived Alternate Fish Feed
Ingredients and Their Effects in Fish,” Aquaculture, v. 199, no. 3-4 (2001): 197-227.
41
Alexandra Morton et al., “Sea Lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) Infection Rates on Juvenile Pink (Oncorhynchus
gorbuscha) and Chum (Oncorhynchus keta) Salmon in the Nearshore Marine Environment of British Columbia,
Canada,” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v. 61 (2004): 147-157.
42
Rebecca J. Goldburg, Matthew S. Elliott, and Rosamond L. Naylor, Marine Aquaculture in the United States:
Environmental Impacts and Policy Options, Pew Oceans Commission (Arlington, VA: July 2001), pp. 6-9. See
http://www.pewtrusts.org/pdf/env_pew_oceans_aquaculture.pdf.
43
The Trojan gene hypothesis; William M. Muir and Richard D. Howard, “Possible Ecological Risks of Transgenic
Organism Release When Transgenes Affect Mating Success: Sexual Selection and the Trojan Gene Hypothesis,”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, v. 96, no. 24 (November 23, 1999): 1385313856.
Congressional Research Service
12
Open Ocean Aquaculture
culture operations. The escape of Atlantic salmon has been documented in the Pacific Northwest
and escapees have been recaptured in Alaskan commercial fisheries.44 Escapes are also common
in the Atlantic where 40% of the Atlantic salmon caught in the North Atlantic are of farmed
origin. 45 The experience with salmon farming indicates that escaped fish could be a problem,
either through interbreeding with closely related native species (genetic interactions) or through
competitive displacement of native species. Although management techniques at net pen sites are
improving and modified cage designs better prevent escapes, closed containment systems may be
the only way to fully address this problem.
Some are concerned that offshore and underwater facilities may harm or disturb marine mammals
and other wildlife. To address these concerns, current cage designs avoid the use of small
diameter or loose lines or loosely hung netting to prevent the entanglement of sea turtles and
marine mammals in net-pens and associated gear. Since net-pens would be under tension, the
possibility that a turtle flipper or whale fluke would get tangled in lines or nets is unlikely.
However, experience has shown that dolphins and other marine mammals do get entangled in fish
farms.46 In addition, some types of shellfish farms may use ropes/longlines for settling and growout that could be problematic. Sound devices at farms to keep animals away could harass or harm
marine mammals. Open ocean facilities could potentially affect some endangered species, such as
North Atlantic right whales as they migrate, or alter essential habitat for feeding, breeding, and
nursing. Also, there could be renewed interest in killing “nuisance” animals, as has been the case
with salmon farmers killing seals and sea lions. There could be problems with other predatory
animals, such as sharks, as well.
Legal and Regulatory Environment
Using offshore waters for a private activity such as aquaculture is likely to be controversial.
Traditionally, nearshore waters and their resources under state jurisdiction are considered to be
held and managed “in the public trust.” Open ocean aquaculture may be perceived by some as de
facto privatization of the ocean, which has historically been considered a common property
resource. 47 Precedents in leasing offshore areas for developing oil and gas resources may be
relevant to these concerns. However, significant questions remain concerning whether an
appropriate mechanism exists for any federal agency to provide an open ocean aquaculture permit
or lease applicant with the necessary property rights to begin construction and operation. Siting
and site tenure in federal waters are important issues for development and private investment—
without assurances and protection of exclusive rights, there is little incentive for financial
investment.
44
Marine Aquaculture Task Force, Sustainable Marine Aquaculture: Fulfilling the Promise: Managing the Risk
(Woods Hole, MA: January 2007), p. 45.
45
Rosamond L. Naylor, Susan L. Williams, and Donald M. Strong, “Aquaculture—A Gateway for Exotic Species,”
Science, v. 294 (November 23, 2001) p. 1656.
46
See C. M. Kemper et al., “Aquaculture and Marine Mammals: Coexistence or Conflict?,” Marine Mammals and
Humans: Towards a Sustainable Balance, N. Gales, M. Hindell, and R. Kirkwood, eds. (CSIRO Publishing: 2003).
However, bycatch also occurs in many harvest fisheries, where its extent may be greater and its control may be more
difficult than at stationary aquaculture facilities.
47
The government regularly grants exclusive use of public resources when there are public benefits, establishing a
precedent for ocean leasing for commercial aquaculture to increase domestic fish supply. For a more detailed
discussion of these issues, see CRS Report RL32658, Wind Energy: Offshore Permitting, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
13
Open Ocean Aquaculture
The legal and regulatory framework for open ocean aquaculture will, in large part, determine
whether private industry succeeds in establishing commercial operations. Legal and regulatory
challenges may be particularly time-consuming and costly, although some suggest that moving
aquaculture away from the coast, and out of the view of the majority of coastal residents, could
alleviate some public concerns. The complexities of multi-agency permitting are not clearly
understood by all interested parties, leading to uncertainty for the open ocean aquaculture
industry and making it difficult to plan and finance operations. Current permitting requires
approval by at least three federal agencies that have jurisdiction over various aspects of
aquaculture—the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).48 The review required under each
of these agencies’ responsibilities can delay a permit or deny it if the expected effects are too
great. These agencies would likely be involved in future decisions to provide permits or leases to
open ocean aquaculture operators.
For aquaculture projects in offshore federal waters, the lead federal permitting agency must
assure consistency with approved programs in adjacent states under the Coastal Zone
Management Act (16 U.S.C. §§1451, et seq.). In addition, state waters would be traversed both to
operate open ocean aquaculture sites and to bring harvested fish ashore for processing. States
with approved Coastal Zone Management plans may veto federal permits for activities that are
inconsistent with the state’s federally approved plan. This oversight ensures that operations in
federal waters will neither harm the state’s interests nor be inconsistent with state policies.
EPA regulates the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States from finfish aquaculture
facilities under the Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. §§1251, et seq.). Under the CWA’s
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, such facilities are regulated under the category
“concentrated aquatic animal production facilities.”49 For aquaculture facilities located in offshore
federal waters, §403(c) of the CWA requires an additional review to prevent unreasonable
degradation of the marine environment. Discharges that cause unreasonable degradation are
prohibited, and are evaluated according to ocean discharge criteria established by EPA.
Because of navigation concerns, the Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over permanent or
temporary “devices” used to explore, develop, or produce resources on or around the seabed in
federally controlled waters (33 C.F.R. Part 322). The Coast Guard, in the Department of
Homeland Security, regulates vessel traffic and dictates safety measures (lights and signals) for
aquaculture structures to ensure safe vessel passage under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33
U.S.C. §407). In addition, the Department of Defense may become involved, reviewing proposals
that might interfere with naval operations.
NOAA has defined marine aquaculture as fishing, under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. §§1801, et seq.).50 NMFS has assumed the
lead in promoting open ocean aquaculture development and has supported this developing
industry.51 Under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, several regional fishery
48
NMFS (also popularly called “NOAA Fisheries”) is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) in the U.S. Dept. of Commerce.
49
40 C.F.R. Part 451; see 69 Federal Register 51891-51930 (August 23, 2004).
50
Jay S. Johnson and Margaret F. Hayes, Regulation of Aquaculture in the EEZ, Memorandum, Office of the General
Counsel, NOAA (Washington, DC: February 7, 1993), 5 pp.
51
Based on a legal opinion by NOAA General Counsel, landings or possession of fish in the EEZ from a commercial
marine aquaculture operation producing species managed under fishery management plans (FMPs) constitutes
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
14
Open Ocean Aquaculture
management councils have exercised regulatory oversight over open ocean aquaculture. The New
England and Gulf of Mexico Councils have been particularly active in this respect. The New
England Council has established evaluation criteria for open ocean aquaculture proposals that
encourage the use of best management practices aimed at reducing environmental and fishery
impacts. For the last several years, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC)
has been developing a generic offshore aquaculture fishery management plan (FMP) to regulate
aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico EEZ. On January 28, 2009, the FMP was approved by the
GMFMC, and on September 3, 2009, the plan took effect.
In some cases, NMFS has authorized open ocean aquaculture operations in federal waters for
scientific purposes through an exempted fishing permit. Exempted fisheries permits are of limited
duration, and are not intended to apply to commercial aquaculture. The Magnuson-Stevens Act
also requires the federal permitting agency for any aquaculture facility to consult with NMFS for
potential impacts to essential fish habitat (EFH). EFH is designated for all marine species for
which there is a federal fishery management plan (FMP). NMFS also has responsibilities under
the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. §§1361, et seq.) and the Endangered Species Act
(16 U.S.C. §§1531, et seq.) to review proposals for projects that might affect marine mammals or
threatened and endangered species. NMFS marine mammal regulations include aquaculture
activities in the definition of commercial fishing operations.52 These reviews could impede or
prevent open ocean aquaculture development in some areas.
Establishing separate ocean areas or zones for specific activities has received greater attention as
ocean uses have increased in the EEZ. Appropriate uses for areas or zones would depend on the
compatibility of proposed activities with the biological and physical characteristics of the area as
well as with other activities. Some have suggested that as an initial step, areas could be identified
specifically for aquaculture development. A public process could identify areas with the greatest
aquaculture potential, the least environmental sensitivity to potential impacts from aquaculture,
and the most community support. Some planning efforts have considered defining the extent and
location of aquaculture activities before permitting is initiated.53 This could be especially
important during early stages of development to allay fears that aquaculture might directly
interfere with commercial or recreational fishing. Pre-approved areas could also streamline the
aquaculture permitting process if social and environmental factors were already fully studied and
documented by environmental assessments or environmental impacts statements.
Marine Aquaculture Task Force
In 2005, the Pew Charitable Trusts and Lenfest Foundation requested the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution to convene a task force to examine the potential risks and benefits of
open ocean aquaculture. The nine-member panel developed a set of national policy
(...continued)
“fishing” as defined in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Therefore, to allow commercial aquaculture production in the EEZ,
FMPs must be amended to allow for regulation of the activity by NMFS. Otherwise a federal exempted fishing permit
is required to conduct scientific activity such as marine aquaculture in the EEZ (50 C.F.R. §600.745).
52
50 C.F.R. § 229.2
53
Colin Nash, Appendix I: Draft NOAA Aquaculture Matrix Operational Standards for Marine Aquaculture, Gulf of
Mexico Fishery Management Council (Tampa Bay, FL: 2006).
Congressional Research Service
15
Open Ocean Aquaculture
recommendations to guide future development of the industry.54 The panel concentrated on
potential environmental impacts with recommendations related to:
•
escapes resulting in introduction of nonnative species;
•
disease and parasite spillover into natural ecosystems;
•
aquacultural waste resulting in water pollution; and
•
market-based incentives to reward environmental protection.
The panel also provided a general governance framework to address environmental impacts that
would provide clear federal leadership and standards to protect the marine environment. The
framework would assign NOAA a lead role in planning aquaculture in federal marine waters,
with emphasis on related activities such as evaluating environmental risks, consulting with
regional and state bodies, and developing environmental standards.
Federal Action
Legislative Efforts
During the 110th Congress, the National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2007 was introduced as
H.R. 2010 in the House and as S. 1609 in the Senate, both by request of the Administration. Both
bills focused on the need for a framework to regulate aquaculture in federal waters of the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), generally 3 to 200 miles from the coastline.55 A hearing
concerning H.R. 2010 was held before the House Committee on Natural Resources,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans, but no further action was taken on either of
these bills.
On September 8, 2009, H.R. 3534, the Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources Act of
2009, was introduced. Section 704 of the bill would have rescinded the authority of the Secretary
of Commerce, the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or
Regional Fishery Management Councils to develop or approve fishery management plans to
permit or regulate offshore aquaculture. The bill also would have invalidated permits issued for
conducting offshore aquaculture under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act. It appears that the goal of this legislation was to prevent offshore aquaculture
development until comprehensive legislation could be passed. On July 30, 2010, H.R. 3534 was
passed by the House, but the section related to offshore aquaculture was removed from the bill.
On December 16, 2009, H.R. 4363, the National Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2009
was introduced. Key provisions of the legislation include:
54
A copy of the 128-page Task Force report is available at http://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/mcarlowicz/2007/1/
Sustainable_Marine_Aquaculture_final_1_02_07_17244.pdf.
55
H.R. 2010 and S. 1609, the National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2007, define “offshore aquaculture” as all
activities, including operation of offshore aquaculture facilities, involved in the propagation and rearing, or attempted
propagation and rearing, of marine species in the United States Exclusive Economic Zone. Open ocean aquaculture is a
more general term for operations in exposed ocean areas beyond significant coastal influence and may include areas in
state waters within 3 miles of the shoreline and beyond the 200-nautical mile EEZ.
Congressional Research Service
16
Open Ocean Aquaculture
•
establishing a regulatory process for offshore aquaculture in the United States
EEZ;
•
requiring coordinated regional programmatic environmental impact statements;
and
•
authorizing funds for research to develop environmentally sound management.
H.R. 4363 would prohibit the siting of offshore aquaculture facilities on or attached to any
portion of an oil or gas platform, including one that is no longer in service. Some have raised
concerns that this provision could hurt Gulf of Mexico aquaculture and have a potentially
negative impact on the economy. 56
On May 25, 2010, S. 3417, the Research in Aquaculture Opportunity and Responsibility Act of
2010 was introduced. The bill would prohibit offshore aquaculture until three years after the
submission of a report to Congress on the impacts of offshore aquaculture. This legislation would
also require a report on land-based recirculating aquaculture systems.
Most environmental and commercial fishing interests have been skeptical of or opposed to plans
for offshore aquaculture development, and most also opposed aquaculture legislation, largely
because they believed it contained weak environmental provisions.57 Conservation-related
concerns include the use of wild species for fishmeal, fish escapement, threat of disease and
parasites, impacts on marine wildlife, and ecosystem impacts.58 Commercial fishing interests also
voiced concerns related to potential impacts on markets and coastal communities.59 In most cases,
neither group has been opposed to all development, but both have showed concern regarding how
aquaculture expansion will proceed. A precautionary approach has been advocated by most
commercial fishing and environmental interests.
Current aquaculturalists and related industries have been supportive of offshore aquaculture
legislation. They have voiced a general belief that offshore aquaculture can be established in a
manner that minimizes potential environmental and commercial fishing impacts while providing
a valuable source of seafood. Aquaculture industry representatives expressed concern that the 10year site permit and five-year permit renewals were too short because of the need for a longer
investment time frame. Another common concern involved the need for public investment to
support and promote aquaculture development.60
56
Ben Raines, “Bill Banning the Use of Offshore Platforms for Fish Farms Could Affect Gulf Aquaculture,” PressRegister, December 31, 2009.
57
P. N. Spotts, “Fish Farms in the Ocean? Group Pushes Congress to Pass Tough Rules,” The Christian Science
Monitor (January 10, 2007).
58
Ibid.
59
Written statement of Mark Vinsel, Hearing on Offshore Aquaculture, before the U.S. Senate, Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, National Ocean Policy Study (April 6, 2006).
60
Written statements of Sebastian Belle and John R. Cates, Hearing on Offshore Aquaculture, before the U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, National Ocean Policy Study (April 6, 2006).
Congressional Research Service
17
Open Ocean Aquaculture
Agency and Fishery Management Council Actions
NOAA Aquaculture Plan
In October 2007, NOAA released a 10-Year Plan for its aquaculture program.61 The plan provides
a blueprint of likely NOAA involvement in marine aquaculture over the next decade, including
program goals and strategies, outcomes, budget and staffing requirements, potential benefits of
aquaculture, and associated challenges. The plan was prepared at the request of the agency’s
Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee (MAFAC), which advises the Secretary of Commerce on
living marine resource matters that are the responsibility of the Department of Commerce.
According to the plan, NOAA will:
•
establish a comprehensive regulatory program for marine aquaculture;
•
develop commercial marine aquaculture and enhance wild stocks;
•
improve public understanding of marine aquaculture; and
•
increase collaboration and cooperation with international partners.
The plan cites a forecast that projects increases in annual domestic aquaculture production of
edible seafood from current levels of 468,000 metric tons to approximately 1.51 million metric
tons by 2025, with over 90% attributable to anadromous species62 and marine aquaculture
production.63 The projection of future production depends on changes in the current institutional
framework that governs marine aquaculture. According to NOAA, challenges to achieving these
production levels include:
•
a complicated, inefficient, and uncertain federal regulatory process to permit
marine aquaculture facilities;
•
the need for additional research on environmental implications and ecosystem
carrying capacity of marine aquaculture;
•
the lack of an adequate research, development, and technical infrastructure;
•
the need to improve communication and foster understanding of the
environmental, economic, and social implications of marine aquaculture;
•
the lack of access to coastal sites for marine aquaculture facilities because of
competing high-value uses for housing and tourism; and
•
rapid international growth of worldwide aquaculture with supply, demand, and
price implications for U.S. consumers and seafood producers.64
All six program challenges are directly related to open ocean aquaculture. Since inshore marine
aquaculture production has been stagnant over the last decade, a large proportion of future
61
NOAA’s program planning and support includes both inshore and offshore ocean aquaculture.
Anadromous species such as salmon, shad, and sturgeon reproduce in rivers (inland waters) and spend their adult life
in the sea.
63
C. E. Nash, “Achieving policy objectives to increase the value of the seafood industry in the United States: the
technical feasibility and associated constraints,” Food Policy, v. 29 (2004): 621-641.
64
For a copy of the plan see http://aquaculture.noaa.gov/.
62
Congressional Research Service
18
Open Ocean Aquaculture
production increases, if they occur, would be likely to result from open ocean aquaculture
production.
Council Actions
On January 28, 2009, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) approved a
fishery management plan to regulate offshore marine aquaculture. On September 3, 2009, the
plan took effect because the Secretary of Commerce declined to oppose it within the required
statutory period. The purpose of the aquaculture amendment is to develop a regional permitting
process for regulating and promoting environmentally sound and economically sustainable
aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico EEZ.65 The GMFMC initiated development of the amendment
because several firms have proposed development of aquaculture in the region.
The GMFMC held a series of public hearings to solicit comments on the draft plan. The majority
of comments cited environmental concerns such as the escape of farmed fish, water pollution
from concentrated fish-feeding operations, and the spread of disease.66 Some who supported
offshore aquaculture claim that, “as long as you site the farms properly and manage them
properly, there is no detrimental environmental impact.”67 Others supported the plan because they
are concerned with the growth of seafood imports, believing that domestic production would
provide a more stable and wholesome supply of fish.
Some worry that regional management of open ocean aquaculture under the Magnuson-Stevens
Act may add another layer of bureaucracy, especially if several regional fishery management
councils develop their own, possibly contradictory, open ocean aquaculture management
policies.68 Currently commercial aquaculture is less likely to occur in other offshore federal
waters because other regional fishery management councils have not prepared aquaculture FMPs
or generic aquaculture amendments to the appropriate FMPs for species that could be cultured. In
addition, it is unclear what regulatory authority NMFS and the regional councils might have over
species, such as mussels, that are not managed under a federal FMP.
Also on September 3, 2009, NOAA announced that it is developing a comprehensive national
policy for marine aquaculture. According to NOAA, the policy will provide a framework for
addressing aquaculture activity in federal waters and a context for regulating offshore aquaculture
in the Gulf of Mexico under the GMFMC FMP. The policy will also include development of
federal standards for permitting aquaculture facilities and strategies to generate scientific
information needed for permitting decisions.
Use of Oil Platforms
In addition to environmental issues, the potential use of decommissioned oil platforms for
aquaculture is another issue of interest, especially in the Gulf of Mexico region. As thousands of
65
Ibid.
Debra Kahn, Aquaculture Plan for Gulf of Mexico Needs More Review—Fishing, Enviro Groups (December 13,
2007). See http://www.eenews.net/Landletter/2007/12/13/archive/10?terms=aquaculture.
67
Ibid.
68
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Fishery Management Plan for Regulating Aquaculture in the Gulf of
Mexico (Tampa, FL: January 2009).
66
Congressional Research Service
19
Open Ocean Aquaculture
oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico near the end of their productive lives, oil and gas operators
are required to plug all wells, sever all structures below the mud line, and physically remove the
structures from the lease. Instead of removing structures, the Rigs-to-Reefs program allows
operators to convert obsolete platforms into artificial reefs to enhance recreational and
commercial fisheries. Some interests are considering alternative uses as energy generation
platforms and aquaculture support facilities. They speculate that these structures could be used as
staging areas for aquaculture operations by providing a base to attach net enclosures, house
workers, and store tools, feed, and other aquaculture infrastructure needs. However, if aquaculture
businesses were to fail, many have expressed concern that responsibility for platform removal and
liability for accidents and lease abandonment are clearly defined. They contend that if platforms
are reassigned to aquaculture operators, end-of-lease obligations and issues related to bonding
would need to be satisfied.
The Mineral Management Service (MMS) announced the record of decision for establishing an
alternative energy and alternative use (AEAU) program on the outer continental shelf (OCS).69
This decision sets up a program for issuing leases, easements, and rights-of-way for alternative
uses of offshore oil and gas production platforms.70 It also provides MMS with the option of
authorizing individual projects on a case-by-case basis. Offshore aquaculture is identified as one
of the activities that could be authorized to use existing OCS facilities.
Discussion
Proponents of aquaculture development questioned what might have happened if Alaska—with
its processing plants, distribution system, infrastructure, excellent water quality, and extensive
coastline—had decided to embrace rather than prohibit intensive salmon aquaculture. 71 These
proponents suggest that, if Alaska had decided differently, Alaska might still “own” the world
salmon market and enjoy a major source of employment and economic development, rather than
having to watch wild Alaskan salmon compete with aggressive salmon aquaculture development
by Chile, Norway, and others. The Alaska case is cited to illustrate that regardless of whether the
United States permits or denies open ocean aquaculture development, some of the potential
socioeconomic impacts of open ocean aquaculture production on wild fisheries (e.g., changes in
prices and markets) are likely to result from greater production, whether domestic or foreign.
However, environmentalists and commercial fishermen might view the absence of salmon
aquaculture in Alaska differently. Potential environmental and social problems may have been
avoided by concentrating on traditional wild fisheries. Wild salmon populations have been
maintained at high levels and much of the Alaska coastline is pristine. Although competition from
aquaculture salmon imports may have hurt Alaska salmon fisheries, improvements in marketing
and product quality have kept many market segments competitive.
The future of aquaculture in the U.S. EEZ is still an open question. Setting a regulatory
framework might be necessary but not necessarily sufficient to spur development of an open
69
73 Federal Register 1894-1895 (January 10, 2008).
70
Mineral Management Service, OCS Alternative Energy and Alternate Use Final Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS), Washington, DC, October 2007, http://ocsenergy.anl.gov/documents/fpeis/index.cfm.
71
Alaska allows salmon aquaculture in cooperative hatcheries that raise and release salmon smolts (young salmon) to
the wild to supplement harvest.
Congressional Research Service
20
Open Ocean Aquaculture
ocean aquaculture industry. Aquaculture in other countries may have advantages related to lower
costs and superior sites. Although it might be argued that a highly regulated U.S. industry is
unlikely to be competitive with aquaculture in other countries, minimal regulation does not
guarantee that the U.S. aquaculture industry will succeed. A complex and unpredictable mix of
technological, biological, and economic factors will also determine the future profitability of open
ocean aquaculture. Although government may play a role in funding research and pilot projects,
large-scale production will likely depend on private initiatives and innovation.
Environmental effects of aquaculture in coastal and inland areas have been documented,
especially in other parts of the world, and potential environmental concerns related to
development of aquaculture in open ocean areas will need to be addressed. One of the main
challenges for policy makers is to balance the need to provide flexibility for the aquaculture
industry with public concerns related to environmental and social impacts.
Author Contact Information
(name redacted)
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Congressional Research Service
(name redacted)
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
21
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.