NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE The Rationale For a New Initiative in Marine Aquaculture Contents FOREWORD 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8 RECOMMENDATIONS 11 Recommendations for Immediate and Short-Term Actions 11 Recommended Activities for the Longer Term 14 THE RATIONALE FOR A NEW INITIATIVE IN MARINE AQUACULTURE 17 Introduction 17 The Rationale for Marine Aquaculture within NMFS 18 Background 18 Aquaculture - A Technology Familiar to the Government 19 The Climate for Aquaculture Development in DOC 19 NMFS and National Aquaculture Development 20 The Role of NMFS in Overcoming the Constraints to National Development 21 Improving the Business Environment 22 Create the Right Legal Framework for Marine Aquaculture 22 Create the Right Administrative Framework for Marine Aquaculture 22 Increase Available Capital for Development 23 Unify the National Seafood Business 24 Construct a Level Playing Field for Fair Trade 24 Increase Management and Research Outreach 24 Protecting the Natural Environment 25 APPENDIX I. FISH AND SHELLFISH IN COMMERCE 27 Domestic Consumption of Seafood 27 The Imbalance in Seafood Trade 28 APPENDIX II. THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF AQUACULTURE IN THE UNITED STATES 29 The Production of Food by Aquatic Farming 29 Fisheries Enhancement for Food Production and Conservation 30 Other Economy-Wide Impacts 31 APPENDIX III. THE HISTORY OF AQUACULTURE IN NMFS 32 Early Marine Hatcheries 32 Pacific Coast Salmonid Hatcheries 32 Current Activities 33 APPENDIX IV. GOVERNMENT AQUACULTURE POLICY AND THE ROLE OF NMFS 34 Statutory Authorities 34 Policy and Planning Initiatives 34 Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture 35 Department of Commerce 35 NOAA 37 NMFS 37 The Fishery Management Councils 37 The Regional Fisheries Commissions 38 The States 38 APPENDIX V. RESOURCES OF THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 39 Fisheries Financial Programs 39 Grant Programs 39 Seafood Inspection Program 40 Trade 40 Small Business Innovative Research 40 NMFS Facilities and Staff Expertise 41 The Regional Offices 41 Northwest Fisheries Science Center 41 Northeast Fisheries Science Center 42 Southeast Fisheries Science Center 43 Alaska Fisheries Science Center 43 Southwest Fisheries Science Center 44 International Cooperation 44 APPENDIX VI. CONSTRAINTS TO NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 45 National Leadership 45 The Bureaucratic Process 46 Capital Resources 46 The Polarization of Domestic Seafood Producers 47 International and Interstate Trade 47 The Environment 48 Physical Impact on Habitat 48 Chemical Impact on Habitat 49 Biological Impact on Habitat 50 APPENDIX VII. INVESTMENTS IN AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 51 Contribution to the Capital Needs of Development 51 NMFS Long-Term Debt Financing 52 NMFS Equity Information 53 NMFS Research, Development, and Initial Commercial Application Funding 55 Other Financial Services 56 Bilateral Assistance 56 Foreword Initiatives in marine aquaculture are not new to the federal government. Our Nation and the Sea, the final report of the (Stratton) Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources published in 1969 had a profound influence on both current and contemplated marine activities. One such future activity studied by the Commission was marine aquaculture, popularly known at that time as 'farming the sea.' In addition to the birth of NOAA, the Stratton Commission Report was responsible for an immediate explosion of interest in the sea and its ecosystems. Excluding all federal and state facilities, the number of marine laboratories in the country increased from 50 in 1963 to 118 by 1973, and soon after almost every one of them was managing at least one project in marine aquaculture. The new Associate Director of NOAA quickly recognized that this intensive national effort in marine aquaculture was extraordinarily diverse and uncoordinated1, and he immediately commissioned a study to identify national priorities for its more orderly advancement. A principal recommendation of the study2, published in 1973 as the NOAA Aquaculture Survey, was that, "NOAA should recover full initiative in the establishment of aquaculture goals and policies, and should assume leadership in the required coordination among diffuse federal, state, and agency programs." It also recommended that the national program be directed from the executive level. A position of Aquaculture Program Coordinator was therefore established in the NMFS Office of the Director, and the post was filled within a year. The first Coordinator was given the immediate responsibility of preparing the NOAA Aquaculture Plan, an annual budget for federal aquaculture, and organizing an interagency committee for coordination. The NOAA Aquaculture Plan was published in 1977. The Plan recognized goals and objectives for NOAA, and laid out a planning system. It also outlined the management and control of the NOAA Aquaculture Program through the continuity of the Coordinator, the interagency committee, and several advisory committees, all of which included members from industry. A parallel commitment to aquaculture was also made by NOAA in its National Plan for Marine Fisheries, published in 1976. One of its primary recommendations3 to meet projected consumer demands for seafood was, "Encourage the development of public and private aquaculture for selected species of fish and shellfish." NOAA also commissioned the National Research Council (NRC) to undertake a study on the Constraints and Opportunities of Aquaculture in the United States. The NRC report, published in 1978, noted that, "aquaculture in the United States lacked coherent support and direction from the federal government. Poor coordination, lack of leadership, and inadequate financial support have traditionally characterized programs relating to aquaculture." The report also recommended designating a national lead agency for aquaculture, but acknowledged that it was still deliberating this important issue when the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977, which designated the Department of Agriculture as the lead, became law. Consequently, specific recommendations for its client were merely: (i) Issuing guidelines to states for developing coastal zone management plans that recognize the potential of aquaculture; (ii) Participating in aquaculture activities of the Sea Grant program, which focus on long-term research and development requirements for aquaculture, rather than the short-term three-year problem-solving program currently supported. The NRC produced another report in 1979 on the Role of the Department of Agriculture in Aquaculture. Although the investigative panel was directed to take into account the ongoing programs and legal responsibilities of NOAA, it was also charged to consider primarily the major finfish currently produced in inland waters. In this document, recommendations for NOAA were confined only to aspects of marketing by NMFS. In 1980, the National Aquaculture Act became law. This Act created the Joint Sub-Committee for Aquaculture (JSA) to coordinate policy initiatives across all federal agencies, and identified the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior as the Executive Committee, with Agriculture serving as chair. The combination of these strategic events at the end of the 1970s effectively reduced the role of NOAA in national aquaculture development. For some administrators these legal and administrative frameworks were shortsighted because, as noted by the Stratton Commission, the greatest but long-term potential for future seafood security was in the coastal zone and offshore marine environments. But for other leaders, the diminished responsibility was more suited4. Aquaculture Revisited Despite its historic and significant impact on global technologies (see Appendix III), the aquaculture research program within NMFS throughout the 1980s suffered immeasurable harm as both human resources and facilities were focused in other directions. However, at the beginning of the 1990s, faced with imminent expiration of the appropriations authority of the 1980 National Aquaculture Act, interest in aquaculture by NOAA was once more renewed. In 1990, the Assistant Administrator5 of NMFS requested an issue paper on Aquaculture Policy for the Agency. The report recommended, "NMFS supports and encourages the development of aquaculture practices which have minimal adverse effects on the Nation's marine species and their environment." Four problem areas were identified (public health, economics, the environment, and fisheries management), strategies were selected and justified, and actions for forward development were recommended. In 1991, NMFS produced its Strategic Fisheries Plan and listed as its eighth goal, "to reduce impediments to U.S. aquaculture," with objectives to: (i) Determine the potential for aquaculture to enhance recovery of protected species; (ii) To re-evaluate the NMFS role in aquaculture. The NMFS Task Force, appointed for the latter, produced its report entitled The Role of the National Marine Fisheries Service in Marine Aquaculture in 1994. Its conclusions and recommendations for actions were carefully prioritized, and it reviewed the options for the agency if no actions were taken. It concluded that there were many consequences and risks for NMFS, from the loss of jurisdiction of estuary and nearshore areas, to the loss of lead responsibility for offshore marine aquaculture. More specifically it stated: "(a) Loss of jurisdiction of estuary and nearshore areas could result from industry pressure to develop private aquaculture in these areas, and pressure associated with seafood safety issues of fish and shellfish raised in nearshore waters. Most safety issues with farmed fish and shellfish involve bacterial pathogens originating from farm runoff and untreated sewage. If another agency is given authority for seafood safety it could assume responsibility for nearby development and factors which affect water quality, thus obtaining de facto authority over nearshore areas. (b) Offshore aquaculture will require leasing sections of water column over the continental shelf. In the absence of NMFS, the Minerals Management Service of the Department of Interior would become the lead federal agency dealing with this issue. This would open the way for the Department of Interior to conduct other activities associated with marine aquaculture. (c) Other possible risks include the loss of the aquaculture industry, which is an NMFS constituency; the possible loss of biodiversity in marine areas, and possible loss of control over listings under the Endangered Species Act. A final risk to NMFS is the loss of the means to create natural resource-based jobs connected with marine fisheries enhancement and marine aquaculture." The reality of these risks was made clear in a report carried out in 1992 by the National Research Council called Marine Aquaculture - opportunities for growth. The report recognized the leadership role of the USDA and recommended offices and staff for marine aquaculture at a high level within that agency. It also identified a number of specific but smaller roles for NMFS6 and the National Sea Grant Program. However, without specifying any responsible authority, the report requested Congressional action to "create a legal framework for federal waters to foster appropriate development, to anticipate potential conflicts over proposed uses, to assess potential environmental impacts of marine aquaculture, to develop appropriate mitigation measures for unavoidable impacts, and to assign fair public and private rents and returns on such operations." Similarly, in 1993, in a report by the Congressional Research Service on Aquaculture and the Federal Role, the roles of NMFS were reduced to research and development in marine, estuarine, and anadromous species, and its inspection and financial services. But the report did note that, "although NMFS aquaculture and mariculture efforts declined in the last decade, they are developing new initiatives and are expected to expand their aquaculture program again." In the field of marine aquaculture, NMFS management has vacillated in its focus. But individual laboratories and staff scientists have maintained a low-level program through extramural funds and correlated studies coordinated with other agency directives to maintain a leading presence in the national and international arenas. Congress has funded the aquaculture program of the USDA more consistently than that of NMFS or other agencies, predominantly because 70% of national production was catfish in inland waters of Southern agricultural states. Throughout the 1990s, the USDA directed some of its funding to marine species through its Marine Shrimp Farming Program. This year it announced the design and construction of a $25 million National Coldwater Marine Aquaculture Center in Orono, Maine. This document presents the case for a reinvigorated initiative by NMFS in marine aquaculture. The goal is to prepare and equip the agency with the science and technology of this emerging field, which portends to become an integral part of marine resource management in the 21st century. An Executive Summary briefly summarizes the entire initiative and concludes with Recommendations for immediate/short-term and longer-term actions. This is followed by the articulation of the overall Rationale for a new initiative by the agency, and it is supported by more specific information contained in seven Appendices. These concern: (I) Fish and Shellfish in Commerce; (II) Economic Benefits of Aquaculture in the United States; (III) History of Aquaculture in NMFS; (IV) Government Aquaculture Policy and the Role of NMFS; (V) Resources of NMFS; (VI) Constraints to National Development; (VII) Investments in Aquaculture Development by the Federal Government. This document is also quantified and qualified in footnotes. 1 In 1971 there were 120 marine aquaculture programs dispersed through NMFS, the Office of Sea Grant, the Economic Development Administration, the Office of Economic Opportunity, and the Agency for International Development. 2 The study was carried out by the Mardela Corporation of San Francisco and involved 12 national workshops. 3 More specifically the plan said (i) The federal government should conduct or sponsor research development, and other programs to provide a sound basis for public and private aquaculture; and (ii) States should establish laws and policies to encourage private aquaculture, maintain suitable environments, and operate hatcheries for stocking waters with selected species. 4 "NMFS aquaculture efforts will be directed to managing common property resources and endangered species, not for food production." Directive from W.G. Gordon, Assistant Administrator NMFS, to all regional and center directors, 16 November, 1983. 5 William W. Fox was the Assistant Administrator, and the report was prepared by the Office of Research and Environmental Information with additional assistance. 6 The NRC report recommended that NMFS be charged with leadership in the management and assessment of stock-enhanced marine fisheries, including (i) evaluating the effectiveness of existing and future programs, (ii) supporting development technologies for producing stocks for enhancement and related aquaculture, and releasing marine stocks, (iii) assessing the impact of various nearshore and offshore practices on the marine environment, and (iv) administering the introduction and transfer of nonindigenous marine species. Executive Summary Stewardship The NOAA Fisheries Service is dedicated to protecting and preserving the nation's living marine resources. This is no mean task. The responsibility for stewardship stretches the length of 96,000 miles of coastline and covers 3.4 million square miles of open waters. The consequences impact millions of metric tons of fisheries resources, together with thousands of jobs and a traditional way of life in many coastal and remote communities. The Fisheries Conservation and Management Act calls for the sustainability of these living resources and provides for their conservation and management hand-in-hand with their utilization for national benefit. Within the purview of the Act, environmentally responsible aquaculture is included firmly as one such use but one which complements and balances the agency's other mandates, including those related to protected species, water and sediment quality, and biodiversity. The benefits of marine aquaculture7 in the United States are many. Some are obvious, such as increased food production, more jobs, and earnings from goods and services. Others are more subtle and complement many of NOAA's goals for fisheries sustainability, species recovery, and habitat conservation. For example, the alternative of cultured products can reduce fishing pressure on some overfished stocks, and cultured individuals could supplement species recovery and habitat restoration efforts. Collectively, all research on life cycles, behavior, and maintenance in captivity can provide the necessary scientific understanding for better stewardship. Aquaculture, and all its technologies, is therefore, a potentially valuable tool for marine resource management. Marine aquaculture in particular has been identified as a way of reinvigorating the fisheries industry. The nation's marine fisheries resources are finite and the global harvest has remained static for more than a decade8. Some stocks are below strength, and others are listed for protection. Aquaculture is already being widely used to enhance certain fisheries9 and directly produce high-value seafood commodities10. It is, in fact, the fastest growing food producing sector in the world11, providing about 30% of global supplies of fish and shellfish for human consumption. A renewed initiative in marine aquaculture within the agency's mandate for stewardship of the nation's marine resources is therefore both opportune and timely. Service The small size of the U.S. marine aquaculture industry is not commensurate with its potential, given that the country has an abundance of natural and intellectual resources ideally suited to aquaculture production. The draft National Aquaculture Development Plan (NADP) notes that the United States is a relatively minor producer in terms of world aquaculture production, and many sectors of the aquaculture industry are challenged to compete successfully in the global marketplace. Other nations, including China, Japan, Thailand, the Philippines, and Norway, have made aquaculture a national priority with substantial public investments in research and development12. Consequently, cultivated seafood from foreign nations is capturing a growing share of the U.S. seafood market. There is growing concern from stakeholders that competitiveness of the U.S. aquaculture industry is adversely affected by the current federal regulatory framework and lack of support for programs, which are provided to other sectors of agriculture and commerce. This is not the first time that NMFS has had the opportunity to step up and support a new fisheries industry. In 1976, the agency started cooperation with stakeholders to develop offshore fishing for the 'underutilized' species within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The economic benefits were large and made a significant contribution to national prosperity. Twenty-five years later, marine aquaculture now stands on a similar threshold, and exploitation of its benefits and future growth again requires government leadership and NMFS involvement with a range of services. NMFS is legally and logically placed to underpin the development of national aquaculture, specifically marine aquaculture. NMFS is well-positioned within the context of the agency's strategic plan to solidify relationships with stakeholders in providing assistance associated with the needs of the marine aquaculture industry, among which are fair trade practices, capital investment programs, information, research, and relevant training. The industry is also looking to the agency for sensible regulation and surveillance, and cooperation in monitoring. The foundation for many of these essential government services are already in place in the agency, or are being financed through the agency. Some of the regional offices have been dealing with the complex legal and regulatory issues to guide the development of sustainable aquaculture operations in the EEZ, and to encourage private investment with economic assistance. This is groundbreaking work. Science and Technology Within its authority, NMFS has the twin mandates of management and conservation of marine fisheries resources, both of which depend on the latest research in science and technologies to achieve their goals. Because the levels of aquaculture science and technology are still mostly inadequate for environmentally secure and economically successful activities offshore, considerable research and development in partnership with the industry is still required. NMFS has a regional infrastructure in place and is already supporting development with pioneering science and technology in its network of fisheries science centers, laboratories, and field stations. It also has the human capacity: experienced scientists, many of whom are world leaders in the aquaculture field. Working in partnership with other federal and state agencies, NMFS scientists have an established record of achievement that few other countries can match. In addition, many habitat and protected resources scientists are included in the NMFS regional and headquarters infrastructure. Many of these specialists have worked with the aquaculture industry and permitting agencies to develop sound culture practices. ***** While global production has grown at an annual rate of 10%, the growth of aquaculture in the United States has been only 1% - and mostly in the freshwater environment. This can be changed by refocusing on the potential of the marine environment. A new, well-directed initiative by NMFS will ensure that an aquaculture industry in coastal and offshore federal waters can be sustainable and environmentally compatible; that the natural marine resources are protected and rebuilt with purpose, and that the efforts complement the agency's work in species recovery and habitat conservation. Such leadership is timely. NMFS clearly needs further Congressional support to implement this broad-based initiative for marine aquaculture and build its foundations in stone. New legislation is needed for NOAA to redefine the legal and administrative frameworks for NMFS, in particular its role, responsibilities, partnerships, and cooperative activities, as well as its relationship to other NOAA line agencies. It is particularly needed for development in the EEZ13 so that productive and environmentally responsible aquaculture can benefit important commercial and recreational fisheries. It then needs Congressional support for the human resources required, and a budget. One yardstick might be dedicating federal funds for development of the national industry and enhancement research in an amount equal to 1% of the annual national trade deficit. Currently this would be $70 million annually. Any appropriation of funding takes time, and therefore, there is an immediate need to prepare a Congressional briefing document on aquaculture and the role of NMFS, complete with budget estimates. In summary, the new initiative for NMFS will: ? Identify the focal point within the federal government for research, management, and development of marine aquaculture. ? Initiate the Congressional processes to enact appropriate legal and administrative frameworks. ? Initiate the Congressional processes to appropriate significant funding. ? Use the necessary resources in the most sustainable and environmentally compatible way, particularly in the EEZ. ? Preserve and possibly improve coastal and marine habitats and ecosystems. ? Explore the potential of using successful species-specific culture techniques as a management strategy option on recovery of depleted natural fisheries stocks, species recovery, and habitat conservation. Success will principally?allow NMFS to lead, rather than react, to development and management of the marine aquaculture industry, and ensure consistency with NMFS mandates for stewardship of living marine resources. But it will also provide a range of economic benefits associated with industry growth together with a store of scientific and technological information relevant to the agency's responsibility for stewardship of the nation's marine resources. 7 Marine aquaculture is defined in this document as both husbandry of aquatic animals and plants, and enhancement practices. 8 World fisheries production is currently about 135 million metric tons. Capture fisheries remains between 90-100 million metric tons. Most growth throughout the last decade has been derived from aquaculture. 9 In 1998, 26% of Alaska's commercial common property harvest of salmon was produced by the state's enhancement program. 10 The annual value of U.S. aquaculture production approaches $1 billion for about 500,000 metric tons whole weight. 11 "Aquaculture, not the Internet, represents the most promising investment opportunity of the 21st Century," Peter Drucker, Economist and Nobel Laureate. 12 The European Union devotes over $400 million annually to the fisheries sector, which includes $260 million for aquaculture. Canada has just dedicated C$75 million to federal research and development. With capital loans from the Asian Development Bank, even Vietnam is financing aquaculture development and diversification. 13 NOAA has already drafted offshore aquaculture legislation but it has not been vetted to the new administration. It gives the Secretary of Commerce authority to grant long-term leases for development in the EEZ, subject to specific environmental standards. Such legislation is identified as a key need for the aquaculture industry, and vital for sustainable offshore development. Recommendations I. Recommendations for Immediate and Short-Term Actions RECOMMENDATION #1 NMFS should commit publicly to strengthen its rational development of marine aquaculture in the nation's coastal and offshore waters and immediately implement specific administrative actions, which can be done without additional legislative authority. Element 1A. NMFS should immediately fill the vacancy of Aquaculture Coordinator. NMFS should immediately fill the vacancy of Aquaculture Coordinator and, for expediency, locate the post within the Office of the Assistant Administrator (F). The responsibilities of the Aquaculture Coordinator include working and consulting with relevant NMFS staff, regulatory agencies, and stakeholders, as appropriate, to implement the agency's aquaculture program. By filling the Aquaculture Coordinator position, NMFS will provide a primary point of contact for the further development and overall implementation of the Marine Aquaculture Initiative, allow for NMFS representation on the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture (JSA), and make aquaculture publicly visible as a legitimate function of NMFS. Element 1B. Appoint a NMFS Aquaculture Council (replacing the NMFS Aquaculture Task Force) to work with the Aquaculture Coordinator on the administrative and legal frameworks for aquaculture development in the agency. The NMFS Aquaculture Council would be the agency forum for addressing specific questions relating to the type and level of NMFS involvement in aquaculture, or for establishing the basis for reviews of key issues. A primary role would be to address the conceptual orientations of aquaculture within the agency, particularly identifying where additional resources may be needed, and what organizational changes may be necessary in headquarters, the regional offices, and the science centers. For example, within NMFS, the council might evaluate the organization and management of the marine aquaculture sector, either through the relatively short-term office of an aquaculture coordinator, or through more permanent and long-term options, such as adding to the functions of an existing program office, or creating a new program or staff office. The council might also evaluate directions for aquaculture research and management priorities. Or it might evaluate the role of the regional offices and science centers with respect to points of contact and support services for stakeholders. These may include, for example, a review of aquaculture permits based on regulatory authorities, research support, and expansion of regulatory authority for aquaculture in the EEZ. Options for the regional offices to provide administrative and constituent services may include regional aquaculture coordinator positions. Meanwhile, options in the fisheries science centers may include cooperative research and development with industry that may be concentrated in a few key laboratories (such as Auke Bay, Galveston, Manchester, and Milford). The council should also address potential internal conflicts, such as integrating the agency's role in supporting aquaculture development with the regulatory function of the permit review/approval process, and interactions with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), and Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). Element 1C. Streamline and simplify the federal process for permitting in the EEZ, and create pre-permitted Aquaculture Development Zones (ADZs). As a new industry, aquaculture straddles the line between fishing and farming, cuts across significant regional differences, and is placed in a complex jurisdictional context involving the participation of local, state and federal governments. Some of these concerns will be lessened if marine aquaculture is located in the EEZ. However, the policy and regulatory framework for aquaculture is poorly defined, and most measures in place today were not developed with aquaculture in mind and are often applied in an inconsistent manner. Production from the U.S. aquaculture industry will grow when the state and federal regulatory process is simplified and streamlined. There is an immediate need to: ? Continue with the (difficult) development of a "one-stop shopping" approach to permitting, reducing the time necessary for permit approvals and facilitating the administrative process for applicants. ? Develop framework "aquaculture management plans" to serve as a template to be used throughout the United States for the siting and operating of aquaculture operations. ? Identify Aquaculture Development Zones (ADZs) in the EEZ, which, meeting certain criteria, offer expedited permit approval processes. Element 1D. Publish the Draft Code of Conduct for Aquaculture Development in the EEZ in the Federal Register as soon as possible. NMFS requires methodologies for measuring industry compliance and accountability to fulfill its dual mandate of promoting the development of marine aquaculture while maintaining environmental quality. As a steward of the coastal zones of the United States, and in the interest of promoting stewardship in the world's oceans, the agency promotes development of international codes of practice. The agency has in hand a Draft Code of Conduct for Aquaculture Development in the U.S. EEZ that was prepared in partnership with other NOAA agencies and stakeholders. This should be published as soon as possible, reflecting the input of stakeholders. The resultant opportunity for communication on, and eventual publication of, the EEZ Code of Conduct will provide an important springboard for strengthening constituent partnerships with NMFS in marine aquaculture. The agency has the expertise and intellectual resources to conduct research and help develop guidelines for sound Codes of Conduct, based on the best available science, and to improve the federal regulatory climate for sea farming without compromising environmental protection. Element 1E. Develop a budget initiative to address the scope of activities to be undertaken in support of a national NMFS aquaculture program. Sufficient funding must be made available to support all program elements at both the national and regional level. A set of budget options corresponding to the options presented in the white paper needs to be developed (in the FY04 Cycle) for management review. The preferred option would then be further developed into a budget initiative. Some advisory councils, such as the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee (MAFAC), have already proposed that a NMFS aquaculture program be funded by dedicated federal funds. Some stakeholders have suggested that the funding for development of the national industry might be an amount equal to 1% of the annual national fisheries trade deficit, which, at the current level, would be $71 million/year. This funding would be used to develop the regulatory framework and science necessary for the culture of a wide variety of species that are candidates for enhancement and /or commercial culture beyond salmon. It would also help the development of technology necessary for a robust, environmentally responsible industry. Element 1F. Encourage aquaculture industry representatives to seek membership on all NMFS/NOAA advisory groups and panels (e.g. Fishery Management Councils, MAFAC, and Marine Protected Area (MPA) advisory groups, etc.). The aquaculture industry is currently under-represented on all fisheries advisory groups and panels even though they are dependent on many of the decisions these bodies make. NMFS should support the nomination/membership of aquaculture industry representatives as vacancies occur on such advisory bodies as MAFAC and the MPA advisory group, which is being developed at this time, as well as Fishery Management Councils and their advisory committees. Element 1G. NMFS should prepare a Congressional Briefing Paper, together with a budget, on aquaculture in the United States and the roles of NOAA and NMFS. It is important that NMFS initiate the process of seeking administration support for a broad-based aquaculture initiative, and for new legislation where needed, by preparing a Congressional briefing paper. The paper should define the roles, responsibilities, partnerships, and cooperative activities of all line agencies and offices relevant to marine aquaculture development. New legislation may be needed for aquaculture development in the EEZ. NOAA has developed draft offshore legislation, but this initiative has not been vetted by the new administration. This legislation would give the Secretary of Commerce authority to grant long-term leases in the EEZ for aquaculture, and require the development of environmental standards. Such legislation has been identified as a key need by the aquaculture industry, and is necessary for responsible development. Legislative changes should also include aquaculture as an area eligible for expenditure of existing Capital Construction Funds (CCF). II. Recommended Activities for the Longer Term RECOMMENDATION #2 NMFS should enhance its capabilities to advance aquaculture technologies with a focus on production systems for new species and new practices, for rebuilding overexploited stocks and endangered marine species, and improving environmental technologies and practices. The agency has more than 100 years of achievement in aquaculture research and development, a network of scientific laboratories, field stations with basic facilities, and a cadre of staff experienced in most aspects of the field. Expansion of scientific and technical skills will not only help develop the industry directly but provide the agency with the best information for sensible regulation and oversight. Element 2A. Develop economically viable and sustainable husbandry systems for the culture of marine fish, shellfish, and seaweeds. Stewardship entails the building of sustainable fisheries, recovering protected species, and sustaining the health of the coasts. Research and development by NMFS in marine fish culture can complement other NMFS strategic goals. For example, marine farming technologies can provide employment in economically-depressed coastal communities; seafood for domestic consumption and exports, and more subtly ease the pressure on overfished stocks and areas by providing alternative products. Cultured products can also be used to rebuild depleted stocks or captive broodstocks can be used for maintaining protected species, and contribute to the health of coastal ecosystems. However, the number of species currently under investigation is small and the effort is disparate. This has to be increased. Element 2B. Improve the technology for marine stock enhancement. NMFS should develop effective enhancement strategies for aquatic species to help in the recovery of wild stock fisheries and endangered species. Aquaculture technologies can provide information on the life history, physiology, and behavior of marine species, which will expand the available information base upon which to evaluate management strategies for fish and shellfish resources in the EEZ, and throughout their range. Aquaculture, as a tool to achieve rebuilding goals, can be developed further as stocks are over exploited or diminished, or for species which are threatened or endangered. Releases of cultured animals can help rebuild wild stocks for the benefit of both commercial and recreational fisheries. Enhancement of endangered or threatened wild stocks through propagation can result in their restoration, conservation and eventual de-listing. But the technology is poorly developed. With dedicated funding, NMFS can conduct the necessary science for evaluating the unanswered potential that enhancement/aquaculture may hold as a contributing management strategy in rebuilding overfished stocks and restoring endangered species. RECOMMENDATION #3 NMFS should move to stimulate domestic production of U.S. aquaculture products in support of the DOC Aquaculture Policy. The DOC Aquaculture Policy of 1999 lists as one of its chief objectives the expansion of the U.S. aquaculture industry from its present annual production value of $1 billion to $5 billion by 2025. For marine aquaculture, this can only be achieved by expansion into the EEZ where NMFS has regulatory authority. Doubling the country's aquaculture production from 400,000 to 800,000 metric tons by 2025 will naturally increase employment and the related goods and services which support the aquaculture industry. Currently, the national aquaculture industry employs between 180,000 to 200,000 persons and exports about $500 million in goods and services for a sector with gross farm production of 380,000 to 400,000 mt. RECOMMENDATION #1 NMFS should commit publicly to strengthen its rational development of marine aquaculture in the nation's coastal and offshore waters and implement specific administrative actions which can be done without additional legislative authority. Element 1A. NMFS should immediately fill the vacancy of Aquaculture Coordinator. Element 1B. Appoint a NMFS Aquaculture Council (replacing the NMFS Aquaculture Task Force) to work with the Aquaculture Coordinator on the administrative and legal frameworks for aquaculture development in the agency. Element 1C. Streamline and simplify the federal process for permitting in the EEZ, and create pre-permitted Aquaculture Development Zones (ADZs). Element 1D. Publish the Draft Code of Conduct for Aquaculture Development in the EEZ in the Federal Register as soon as possible. Element 1E. Develop a budget initiative to address the scope of activities to be undertaken in support of a national NMFS aquaculture program. Element 1F. Encourage aquaculture industry representatives to seek membership on all NMFS/NOAA advisory groups and panels (e.g. Management Councils, MAFAC, MPA advisory groups, etc.). Element 1G. Prepare a Congressional Briefing Paper, together with a budget, on aquaculture in the U.S. and the roles of NOAA and NMFS. Element 3A. Encourage private investment. NMFS has limited financial resources to encourage a shared strategy of private/federal investment in marine aquaculture. These resources include economic assistance to growers through Fisheries Finance Program loans, the Saltonstall-Kennedy grant program, and technical assistance to the Small Business Innovation Research Program. Expansion of these programs can help lay the foundation for a marine aquaculture industry. However, with the extension of current legal and regulatory authority through new legislation, the agency may be able to use the CCF program to include aquaculture enterprises interested in investing in production operations in U.S. waters. In addition to partnering with private enterprises to locate activities in the EEZ that minimize environmental impacts, the agency can help provide needed managerial and technical information to enable stakeholders in the aquaculture industry to support a potential system of private ownership, and encourage private investment in offshore development. The need is to give clear title to ocean sites and livestock to help ensure rapid and significant gains and access to private capital at reasonable costs. For aquaculture to flourish in the coastal zone and EEZ, and to ensure long-term private investment, the farmer must be guaranteed either a long-term lease, or outright ownership of the cultured species. Element 3B. Establish a level playing field for fair trade. NMFS should actively intervene on behalf of producers in the matter of unfair trade practices at both international and interstate levels. In addition to their negative impact on the competitiveness of the U.S. industry - and on the seafood trade deficit - these practices further weaken parts of the national aquaculture industry, making them vulnerable to foreign corporations. The agency should promote actions that guard against imports with prices skewed by subsidies and other fiscal assistance, as well as imports produced under less stringent or no environmental regulations. There is also a need to identify wild-caught and cultured species to avoid issues of size limitations, possession, and to streamline and simplify interstate movement of seafood to reduce cost to the producers and distributors. RECOMMENDATION #2 NMFS should enhance its capabilities to advance aquaculture technologies with a focus on production systems for new species and new practices for rebuilding over-exploited stocks and endangered marine species, and improving environmental technologies and practices. Element 2A. Develop economically viable and sustainable husbandry systems for the culture of marine fish, shellfish, and seaweeds. Element 2B. Improve the technology for marine stock enhancement. RECOMMENDATION #3 NMFS should move to stimulate domestic production of U.S. aquaculture products in support of the DOC Aquaculture Policy. Element 3A. Encourage private investment. Element 3B. Establish a level playing field for fair trade. The Rationale for a New Initiative in Marine Aquaculture Introduction The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is dedicated to protecting and preserving the nation's living marine resources. This is no mean task. The responsibility for stewardship stretches the length of 96,000 miles of coastline and covers 3.4 million square miles of open waters. And the consequences impact an important source of food for the nation, together with thousands of jobs and a traditional way of life in many coastal and remote communities. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Public Law 94-265 calls for the sustainability of these living resources and provides for their conservation and management hand-in-hand with their utilization for national benefit. Within the purview of the Act, environmentally responsible marine aquaculture1 is included firmly as one such use. Many fisheries scientists and managers are now beginning to recognize that fisheries management and aquaculture development are complementary, and are essential joint elements of a much-needed strategy for creating sustainable fisheries for national seafood security. Nationally, they should therefore be developed in parallel and not as independent sub-sectors. Compared with development in other countries, the potential for marine aquaculture in the United States has been overlooked, and recognition and prioritization within NOAA and NMFS is well behind the prioritization of fisheries management. The need is for the re-invigoration of the role of NMFS in marine aquaculture so that the benefits can be integrated more effectively into the agency's responsibilities for stewardship of the nation's living marine resources. Moreover, the proposed approaches will more effectively assist the Department of Commerce (DOC) and NOAA in attaining their policy objectives for sustainable fisheries and responsible aquaculture. Only NMFS has the legislative responsibility and the basic resources to put the solution into practice. The Rationale for Marine Aquaculture within NMFS The benefits of marine aquaculture are many. Some are obvious economic benefits, such as increased food production, more jobs, and earnings from goods and services. But others are more subtle and complement many of NOAA's goals for sustainable fisheries. For example, the alternative of cultured products can alleviate fishing pressure on some overfished stocks. Research on life cycles, behavior, and maintenance in captivity can provide the necessary scientific understanding for better stewardship. And, ecosystems can benefit from extensive polyculture and enhancement systems. Aquaculture, and all its technologies, is therefore a potentially valuable tool for fisheries management. This is not the first time that NMFS has worked to develop a new fisheries industry. In 1976, the agency cooperated closely with stakeholders to develop offshore fishing for the 'underutilized' species. The economic benefits were large and made a significant contribution to national prosperity. There is now another opportunity for NMFS to help develop marine aquaculture. A re-invigorated role for NMFS in marine aquaculture is both opportune and timely. The harvest of wild marine resources is finite. Global capture fisheries have remained static between 90 and 100 million metric tons for more than a decade2 (Figure 1), and for some populations limits are being reached. Many stocks are below strength, and others listed for protection. Marine aquaculture is an effective technology which can integrate closely in several fisheries management strategies. It is already being used to enhance certain marine fisheries3, and it is an alternative source of high-value seafood commodities4 for domestic and international markets to alleviate the demand on wild stocks. Success will guarantee that the developing aquaculture industry in coastal and offshore federal waters is sustainable and environmentally compatible. Success will also make certain that the natural marine resources are protected and rebuilt with purpose. It is timely in that other federal agencies are preparing to fill an administrative vacuum. Background The American People are conservative consumers of seafood5 but collectively they create a powerful market. Their insatiable demand continues to have the most significant influence on fisheries commerce, both nationally and globally, and a concomitant influence on a variety of natural resources. With their enormous purchasing power6, American seafood consumers comprise a well-targeted, high-value international market. This has resulted each year in an expanding imbalance in fisheries trade (see Appendix I). The growing imbalance in seafood trade is of major concern to DOC, NOAA, and NMFS. DOC has set specific 25-year goals to offset the annual $7 billion imbalance. It places the highest priority on ending this burgeoning deficit, and calls for increased domestic production of fish and shellfish in sustainable and environmentally compatible ways. The option of aquaculture can be directly rewarding. Most of the annual increase in global production of fisheries products for the last decade has been derived by aquaculture industries. About 30% of the global supply of food fish is now farmed7. In a little more than a decade, many countries8 have built their domestic aquaculture industries with money from the pockets of the American consumer. Foreign governments have not only benefited from the valuable export earnings, but also achieved national policies for food security by using aquaculture technologies to raise products for domestic consumption. Aquaculture, particularly raising high-value marine products, is an appropriate solution for the United States. It has many economic benefits in addition to seafood production (see Appendix II), such as increased employment in coastal fishing communities, and increased earnings in goods and services. But its ability to offer consumers the increased choice of fresh, high-quality, homegrown products on a regular basis can be an effective driving force to achieve the fundamental goal of increasing seafood consumption. This is the common denominator underlying economic growth of the national fisheries sector and putting an end to the upward trend in the annual imbalance in fisheries trade. If organized and managed efficiently - with the right policies to achieve rapid results - the U.S. government can use the potential purchasing power of the American seafood consumer to support economic growth of its own aquaculture industry9, and contribute further to national food security. Aquaculture can also be indirectly rewarding, and produce many benefits which would be reflected throughout the fisheries sector. Indirect benefits include the reduction in fishing pressure on many wild stocks, and assistance in rebuilding their populations. Aquaculture - A Technology Familiar to the Government Aquaculture is familiar technology in the United States due in great part to the federal government (see Appendix III). Today, the national sector is divided into two distinct parts, both of which are economically beneficial. One produces food for human consumption, either directly through aquatic farming or indirectly through enhancement of valuable fish and shellfish stocks. The other produces a range of commercial non-food products, such as baitfish, ornamental fish, live-food organisms, leathers, jewelry, craft materials, medicines, drugs, and research animals; and non-commercial products, such as aquatic animals and plants for conservation purposes. Both parts contribute significantly to national employment and valuable goods and services in the economy. The priority of private investors in U.S. aquaculture today is profitable production of seafood for the domestic market. But perhaps future collective revenues of non-food products will surpass those of food production. The United States is now in eighth place on the list of leading producers. Annual national production by farming in 2000 reached almost 430,000 metric tons, whole weight (Figure 2), with a value of $1 billion (Figure 3), of which about one-third is for marine species10. Added to this is the harvest of many commercially and recreationally caught fish originating from culture-based stock enhancement programs, primarily for Pacific salmon species11. But together these resources cannot satisfy domestic demand as the growing import of foreign aquaculture products demonstrates. The Climate for Aquaculture Development in DOC DOC views national aquaculture as a 'cross-cutting issue,' requiring the attention of NOAA and most of its other agencies, and advocates a strong policy for its development (see Appendix IV). DOC policy is reflected in NOAA policy and the strategies proposed for its three line agencies responsible for certain aquaculture-related activities: NMFS, the National Sea Grant College Program (NSGCP), and the National Ocean Service (NOS). Therefore, within NOAA, there is a blending of activities and services across the board, and aided by the National Ocean Data Center (NODC), which hosts the NOAA/DOC Aquaculture Information Center in the NOAA Library. The National Aquaculture Act of 1980 recognized that the principal responsibility for national development lay with the private sector. Therefore, to increase overall effectiveness of federal research, transfer, and assistance programs in support of the private sector the Act created the Joint Subcommittee for Aquaculture (JSA)12. NOAA represents DOC on the JSA. In 1983, JSA published a National Aquaculture Plan, which recently (2000) has been updated. A review of all the current government policy statements and the National Aquaculture Development Plan 2000 reveals considerable authorization of aquaculture activities within the federal government but without appropriation of funds for these activities. NMFS and National Aquaculture Development With its broad mandate for stewardship of the nation's marine and coastal living resources, NOAA recommends that aquaculture development and environmental protection proceed hand-in-hand to meet public needs. The greatest potential for increased aquaculture production lies in the nation's coastal and offshore waters13, an environment which is particularly sensitive. Therefore, in addition to the technical challenges of working in this difficult arena, there are political, environmental, and socio-economic impediments which must be addressed both by a re-examination of regulatory policies, and by research. Fortunately, NOAA has the experience and expertise to address most of the key issues. The primary focus for aquaculture in DOC is NMFS and the NSGCP. Recently, NOS reviewed the regulatory framework for aquaculture as part of the Coastal Zone Management Act. The current statutory authorities give NMFS a dual role in aquaculture development. It is both a promoter through finance and research support, and a participant in the regulatory review process to ensure that development proceeds in an environmentally responsible manner. Already NMFS carries out many aquaculture policy and planning functions. It serves on task forces working on aquaculture issues within DOC and NOAA, and interacts with the regional fishery management councils, the interstate marine fisheries commissions, and individual states on aquaculture issues as they relate to shared responsibilities addressing the stewardship of living marine resources, sustainable fisheries, healthy coasts, and protected species. The extent of this involvement, which has greatly increased over the last decade, varies among and within NMFS geographical regions. NMFS has considerable resources in place on a regional basis (see Appendix V) which can carry out its responsible financial and regulatory functions, and to conduct both basic and applied research14. However, the funding for these activities has not kept pace with the mandates. NMFS cooperates in aquaculture development through state-federal and industry grant programs15, provides economic assistance to the aquaculture industry through the Fisheries Finance Assistance Program, and participates in the regulatory review of permit applications for the siting of offshore aquaculture. NMFS has established a credible history in aquaculture research on difficult issues of technology development requiring long-term attention. It helped create three successful sub-sectors16 with both domestic and international benefits. It has the scientific expertise17 to assess the appropriate role of aquaculture and its potential impacts on wild stocks, habitat quality, and protected species, making it capable of fulfilling its responsibilities for marine stewardship. In addition, it might provide the basic science needed to help establish clear policies for permitting aquaculture development in the country, thereby complementing its responsibilities as a regulatory authority. However, these activities currently occur at a low level of activity due to budget limitations. This background in aquaculture has made NMFS the focal point for international cooperation, and scientific and technological exchange. NMFS delegates serve on aquaculture subcommittees for the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Committee on Fisheries, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Council (APEC). NMFS aquaculture experts have chaired and have been active participants in the annual aquaculture meetings of the United States-Japan Cooperative Program for Natural Resources (UJNR). A more recent domestic role for NMFS in the development of national aquaculture has been outreach. To address research and development prioritites, outreach to NMFS constituents and stakeholders is accommodated to varying degrees by the five regional centers in the normal course of their programs. The response by the constituents in the aquaculture sector has been positive, but this could change quickly if these opportunities are squandered. The Role of NMFS in Overcoming the Constraints to National Development Despite the successful economic growth of the national aquaculture industry, various reviews reveal that there are many perceived and real issues of the sector which concern both the industry itself and the American public (see Appendix VI). These areas of uncertainty and risk have become major impediments to sustainable development of the national industry. Because they concern both freshwater and marine production, they cannot be addressed by NMFS alone, but by the involved government agencies working in partnership. However, NOAA and NMFS have the responsibility to promote the development of robust and environmentally sound marine aquaculture in coastal and offshore waters. According to the NOAA Fisheries Strategic Plan, in partnership with its sister agencies, NMFS will address impediments to the development of a domestic marine aquaculture industry and the necessary environmental safeguards associated with such development. Actions needed by NOAA and NMFS to overcome key constraints for marine development fall into two areas: those which will improve the American business environment, and those which will protect the natural environment. A. Improving the Business Environment (i) Create the Right Legal Framework for Marine Aquaculture Since its inception in the 1970s, the national aquaculture industry has been constrained by laws enacted to manage wild-stock fisheries or natural resources without considerations for its own activities and needs. Moreover, as a multi-purpose industry without a single identity, it has been constrained by the jurisdiction of several agencies. Consequently, excessive regulation18 has fostered a singular lack of trust in these agencies by potential entrepreneurs and investors. New legislation is required by NOAA to define the roles, responsibilities, partnerships, and cooperative activities of NMFS, and its relationship to other NOAA line agencies, for all marine aquaculture. It should also create an identifiable administrative office19. New and creative legislation, which emphasizes organizational and managerial responsibilities for aquaculture development - especially for activities in the EEZ - is needed not only to establish a productive and environmentally responsible aquaculture industry, but also to benefit the important recreational and commercial fisheries of the country. NOAA has also developed draft offshore legislation, but this initiative has not been vetted to the new administration. Such legislation would give the Secretary of Commerce authority to grant long-term leases in the EEZ for aquaculture, and require the development of environmental standards. This has been identified as a key need by the aquaculture industry, and is necessary to have offshore aquaculture development. (ii) Create the Right Administrative Framework for Marine Aquaculture Without its own legal framework, modern aquaculture has been forced by successive state and federal governments into many existing frameworks, according to their own perception. Without clear identity, the national sector has been administrated by an inter-agency committee, with each agency exercising its own functions and imposing regulations independently. The government needs the aquaculture industry to contribute to the GDP through annual increases in product sales, employment, and goods and services. In return, the aquaculture industry needs government leadership through an appropriate national infrastructure, with one agency designated as the responsible authority to ensure its efficient organization and management. If one responsible national authority is not possible, then NMFS should be the designated authority for administration of all aquaculture, not only that in the EEZ. The national aquaculture industry interfaces with the regulatory authorities largely at the state level. The lack of an administrative framework at the federal level is reflected by the states in their individual policies and regulations. The different regulatory climates of the states has been responsible for growth and development in the Southeastern region, but discouraging investment and opportunity along the coasts20. Differences are most apparent in the permitting process, which is long and costly21. Southern states, because of minimal land-use conflicts and economic benefits of aquaculture from low-lying areas, have streamlined the process for the regulations within their authority. The coastal states have not, mainly due to water-use conflicts with fishing and recreational industries. NMFS should work with the coastal states and the industry to create an efficient and transparent permitting process for marine projects, preferably a single permit, and be the designated authority to coordinate the process. The permit might be tied to conditions for best management practices developed with the help of NMFS scientists. (iii) Increase Available Capital for Development Without a consolidated federal power base, the aquaculture industry has been unable to persuade the federal government to share the burden of developing new technology, particularly in marine and coastal areas with their added burdens of complexity. Fiscal incentives have been noticeably absent from aquaculture-related legislation, and every National Aquaculture Development Plan has been approved without a budget. This is contrary to the common fisheries policies of many countries, especially the members of the European Union22, and the USDA, which supports a range of agriculture enterprises with credit and business schemes23. A few aquaculture enterprises have received research support through the USDA. Grants, after agency salaries, constitute the largest line item in the annual budget of NMFS24. Therefore, indirect support to aquaculture research and development is already an important component within a variety of NMFS programs. Accordingly, important advances in NMFS activities in relation to oversight and administration of grant programs may be achieved in two primary ways. First, a compilation of current and historical research and development accomplishments in aquaculture derived from NMFS grant programs should be cataloged as a convenient information base for the public. The NMFS Grants Council is currently taking steps to establish an electronic grants database which will help achieve this objective. However, the degree to which this database may accommodate the need (especially regarding grants awarded before 1990) is questionable in the absence of increased dedicated resources and funding support. Second, an important advance in these aquaculture grant-related programs could be achieved by identification of research and development funding priorities across the scope of applicable NMFS grant programs. Specifically, in collaboration with NMFS constituents, emphasis could be given to those priorities which strengthen bridges between agency expertise and external research capabilities to expand the national resource base in line with the goals of the NOAA Fisheries Strategic Plan. NMFS science centers can provide longer-term, systems-centered research, which is difficult or impossible to undertake with short-term grants to research organizations. A long-term focus on the development of cost-effective and environmentally responsible marine technologies can best be achieved with stable long-term funding, an investment in pilot-scale infrastructure, and dedicated scientific leadership. Therefore, particular attention should be given to complementing the longer-term research capabilities of NMFS aquaculture-related programs with shorter-term or pilot collaborations with state, university, and private researchers through grants and appropriate cooperative agreements. Finally, the potential of a national aquaculture industry will not be fulfilled without better access to capital for equity, long-term debt, research and development/application, and other commercial purposes (see Appendix VII). If NMFS is serious about fostering the development of this potential in coastal and offshore waters it cannot ignore the capital needs25. Therefore a priority for NMFS throughout the next decade should be to do more to supplement capital access for entrepreneurs of marine applications. (iv) Unify the National Seafood Business The two industries which produce domestic seafood - harvesting and farming - are currently polarized. Post-harvest processors diplomatically remain neutral. However, this lack of cooperation between producers is a national impediment to the growth of the national seafood industry26. It negatively impacts their separate industries and fuels the vacuum on the domestic market, opening it wider to foreign imports. It is evident from the growth of seafood production in many countries that successful development depends on close cooperation between fishers and farmers, nurtured by strong government leadership and appropriate development frameworks27. NMFS should provide the necessary leadership for its constituents, fishers, and fish and shellfish farmers, to recognize that they are partners, both producing seafood and competing fairly for the domestic market while keeping out foreign competition. NMFS should promote economic growth of the fisheries and aquaculture sectors by targeting domestic seafood consumption with promotional schemes on marketing products and reducing waste. (v) Construct a Level Playing Field for Fair Trade The seafood deficit is widened each year by the unfair advantage of foreign producers. Most seafood products enter the United States without duty, but national exports are frequently subjected to tariff or non-tariff barriers. The price of imported seafood has been skewed by subsidies and other fiscal incentives. At times, seafood has been dumped at less than production cost28. In addition to their impact on the seafood trade deficit, these practices further weakened parts of the national aquaculture industry, making them vulnerable to foreign corporations. Both fishermen and farmers are increasingly constrained by stringent environmental regulations, including new regulations regarding animal welfare. Compliance and monitoring add significantly to domestic seafood production costs, together with high legal fees associated with the regulatory process. Foreign producers are not regulated, and do not have to apply the same standards. Within the United States there are also constraints on interstate trade, which add to the costs for American seafood producers. These include the regulation of live fish movement between states29, which requires permits and fees, and different standards of size and harvest limitations. NMFS should actively intervene on behalf of producers in the matter of unfair trade practices at both the international and interstate level, and help instigate legislation which helps distinguish between fish as a public resource and fish as farm livestock. (vi) Increase Management and Research Outreach An increased emphasis30 on both management and research outreach is needed if NMFS is to achieve NOAA's strategic objective to promote the development of robust and environmentally sound aquaculture. With regard to management, NMFS should consult with the regional fishery management councils, interstate commissions, and individual state fishery management agencies to identify, on a species basis, the voids in data and information relative to commercial aquaculture and stock enhancement. Where appropriate, the concerns and/or management priorities should be worked or reworked into fishery management plans. Close coordination with state fishery management agencies is especially critical. Together with NMFS, these agencies collectively share inter-jurisdictional legislative responsibilities for stewardship of living marine resources throughout their range. In this vein, intensified collaboration and teamwork responding to aquaculture/fishery management strategies would emphasize NMFS mandates in sustainable fisheries, healthy coasts, and protected resources. Management-related outreach and collaboration should be aired for public and congressional comment. Support should be translated by NMFS, as appropriate, into its current programs and budget initiatives. Creation of aquaculture coordinator field positions would ensure the dedicated resources needed for this collaboration and for responding to constituent needs in the area of aquaculture and its integration with marine fishery management. Regarding research, the unique expertise of NMFS personnel in aquaculture should be acknowledged, nurtured, and communicated above present levels to colleagues in the industry, universities, and the private institutions. The short- and long-term capabilities of NMFS facilities should be defined. Partners and stakeholders should help identify priorities. An expanded role for NMFS in aquaculture research has significant potential, particularly in the areas of aquaculture systems design, rearing studies on candidate species, and longer-term life-history investigations. Where appropriate, public and congressional support must be articulated and translated into current programs and out-year budget initiatives. B. Protecting the Natural Environment The diversity of natural ecosystems has made risk to the environment the paramount constraint to aquaculture development. Because marine aquaculture is a new technology, and production is still comparatively small (Figure 4), the lack of scientific information has fueled considerable conjecture about its effects, some of which are genuine risks, some of which are only perceived problems, and some of which are deliberately false. For the most part, the industry has had to cope with all of the ramifications of the environmental constraint on its own. Only recently has NMFS come forward to review the scientific facts and analyze the risks in detail and, using the results, help sub-sectors develop their best management practices31. The physical, chemical, and biological impacts of aquaculture on the natural habitat constitute the environment risk32. Inter alia, the physical impact concerns issues such as the siting of structures and their obstructive damage; the chemical impact concerns issues such as waste nutrients and heavy metals in the sediments and water; and the biological impact concerns issues such as changes to the natural flora and fauna, genetic interactions, exotic species introduction, and disease transfer. NMFS recognizes that stewardship of the nation's living marine resources is a challenge. Maintaining the health and improving the productivity of these resources is the goal, but many species are already under stress by human intervention, either over-exploitation through harvesting, or habitat degradation by other resource-based industries. NMFS should balance its environmental mandates with the anticipated needs of industry and regulatory agencies. This is more difficult with aquaculture than harvesting. Policy, management, and research must reflect the diversity of coastal aquaculture and its potential interactions with a range of marine ecosystems. But the difficulties must be overcome. Aquaculture production can relieve some of the fishing pressure on fish stocks, and its technologies can contribute to their recovery33 through enhancement and conservation. The Fisheries Strategic Plan proposes to develop and implement environmentally sound aquaculture technologies and practices in concert with industry and other agencies. Such partnerships are already underway and should be expanded. NMFS has an established record of cooperating with industry to ensure environmental compliance, especially where listed species and marine mammals are concerned. This role should be strengthened. But fisheries managers and research scientists could do more to work with industry to develop management practices that minimize the physical, chemical, and biological impacts of aquaculture operations on the habitat, and to develop alternatives, such as the design and engineering of closed systems. In this regard, NMFS is already leading the way with the preparation of a draft Code of Conduct for Aquaculture Development in the EEZ. This should be finalized and implemented. Monitoring the environment is an important, but costly, aspect of any aquaculture operation. It also gives an advantage to foreign producers. Meaningful monitoring is long term. Therefore, it is necessary for NMFS to work with industry to identify the minimum number of key parameters and share the cost of monitoring more complex programs. NMFS has considerable experience with stock enhancement, and the techniques for assisting the recovery of populations. NMFS should continue to emphasize enhancement opportunities, but work to balance culture regimes that maximize economic benefits while minimizing ecosystem stress. NMFS has much to offer regarding the effects of culture operations on biodiversity, particularly with monitoring. Anticipating the impact on the ecosystem is an important aspect of its sustainability. This might include understanding the energetics behind the industrial fisheries as providers of animal feeds, and the interactions of aquaculture operations with marine mammals and ESA-listed species. NMFS should continue to play a proactive role in these areas, which have vital economic and ecological consequences. 1 Marine aquaculture is defined in this document as both husbandry of aquatic animals and plants, and enhancement practices. 2 World fisheries production is currently about 135 million metric tons. Capture fisheries remains between 90-100 million metric tons. Most growth throughout the last decade has been derived from aquaculture. 3 In 1998, 26% of Alaska's commercial common property harvest of salmon was produced by the state's enhancement program. 4 The annual value of U.S. aquaculture production approaches $1 billion for about 500,000 metric tons whole weight. 5 Per capita consumption is 20.9 kg of fish and shellfish based on the estimated live-weight equivalent of available edible products. This is above the global average but well behind the people of east Asia. 6 American seafood consumers spend an estimated $54.4 billion annually for fishery products. This is an increase of 25% in 5 years. 7 Global aquaculture now produces over 31 million metric tons of farm products annually, valued at some $48 billion. Capture fisheries consistently produce about 80 million metric tons of fisheries products for human consumption. 8 Salmonid production increased from 1,500 to 260,000 metric tons between 1985 and 2001 with current exports of $973 million going to Japan and the United States. The marine shrimp industry in Ecuador has tripled since 1986. After oil, farmed shrimp is one of the country's prime exports. 9 Within the last 5 years, Italy has increased domestic seafood consumption from 22 kg to 27 kg per capita mostly by available domestic aquaculture products (clams, sea bass, and sea bream). 10 2000 data published by FAO show that fish production yields 339,992 metric tons, crustaceans 10,364 metric tons, and mollusks 77,906 metric tons. Fish production is dominated by freshwater catfish and trout. Marine fish production is between 20,000-30,000 metric tons. Similarly a large proportion of the crustaceans are freshwater crawfish. 11 About 94% of all pink salmon caught in Prince William Sound (Alaska) in 1997 were artificially propagated. For all salmon harvested in common property resources throughout Alaska that year, 22% of the coho, 30% of the pink, and 65% of the chum salmon originated in hatcheries. 12 JSA provides a forum for coordinating policy initiatives across all federal agencies with an interest in aquaculture. The secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior make up the Executive Committee. Members include the chiefs of the Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, Agency for International Development, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services, Farm Credit Association, National Science Foundation, Small Business Administration, and Tennessee Valley Authority. 13 The nation has 28 coastal states and 5 island territories which yield 96,000 miles of oceanic and Great Lakes coastline. The EEZ extends over some 3.4 million square miles. By far, the largest part of the EEZ adjoins the state of Alaska and its many islands, and U.S. states and island territories in the Pacific and Caribbean. 14 NMFS has five regional fisheries science centers (Alaska, Northwest, Northeast, Southwest, Southeast) all of which have one or more satellite research laboratories and stations. The three principal stations for large-scale applied research in marine aquaculture are Manchester, WA, Milford, CT, and Galveston, TX. The different fisheries science centers carry out more fundamental research on marine aquaculture to varying degrees. 15 The Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program is most well known for supporting aquaculture-related projects, but in recent years the funding has declined. There were only 17 aquaculture-related projects in FY2000 sharing $0.6 million of the $4 million available for all projects. However, S-K funding for FY2002 is projected to be $11 million. The Northeast Fishing Industry Grants program awarded $42 million for aquaculture projects between 1994-95. The Columbia River Fisheries Development Program awarded $176 million to state governments for the protection of salmon and steelhead resources from 1970-1996. 16 The three sub-sectors are the farming of saltwater reared salmonids in net-pens in the Northwest, the revitalization of the oyster industry in the Northeast, and marine shrimp propagation in the Southeast. 17 NMFS has well over 100 staff scientists and engineers throughout its facilities working on aspects of marine aquaculture and enhancement. Many have practical experience working in aquaculture's private sector. 18 Requirements for a saltwater site in Washington include a lease for the use of aquatic lands (Department of Natural Resources), a Substantial Development Permit (local county), a Hydraulics Permit (Department of Fish and Wildlife), an NPDES permit (Department of Ecology), a navigational hazards permit (Corps of Engineers), and a SEPA review to determine if an EIS is required. The most difficult is the county permit because of the local politics. 19 The only recognition of aquaculture in the administration is the position of NMFS Aquaculture Coordinator, which is currently vacant and a replacement has not been named. 20 In a national survey, the analysis showed all 12 states in the Southern Region had very low or low stringency levels with regard to aquaculture regulations, with the exceptions of Georgia and Oklahoma, which had average levels. Of the 23 coastal states, only 5 had very low or low stringency levels; 11 states had average, high, or very high levels, and 7 did not reply, including Alaska and Washington. 21 The process for a net-pen salmon farming permit in Washington has been known to take 5 years and cost $500,000, of which two-thirds was for legal fees for successful appeals. 22 Between 1989 and the end of 1999, the EU ploughed ECU 16 thousand million of structural funds into 'zones dependent on fisheries and marine fish culture'. The funds were distributed among 13 countries, of which Greece (4.5 thousand million), Portugal (2.8) and Spain (2.6) had the most. During the same period, aquaculture production from the Union doubled from 620,000 metric tons to over 1.2 million metric tons. 23 The government has a long history of supporting a range of agriculture enterprises through the Farm Credit Administration and the Small Business Administration. Several aquaculture enterprises have received research support through the Small Business Innovative Research program. 24 Currently grants comprise about 33% of the total agency budget. 25 Currently, NMFS has two capital schemes. The Fisheries Finance Program provides long-term debt financing through loans provided that the vessels or equipment do not create new harvesting capacity. Some long-term aquaculture-related loans have been made totaling $30.5 million. The Capital Construction Fund provides fiscal incentives, again for purchasing vessels. 31 Following a scientific literature review, NMFS is working with the Washington Fish Growers Association to develop Best Management Practices for net-pen salmon farming in the Pacific Northwest. 32 Conversely, there are also environmental benefits which should be credited. Many marine aquaculture structures act as aggregating devices, and organic wastes are being utilized by other productive organisms. Hence, considerable research (particularly in Japan) is being carried out on integrated schemes with the emphasis on polyculture of inter-dependent species, rather than intensive monoculture. 26 The most damaging conflict is between Pacific salmon fishermen and Atlantic salmon farmers. Alaska bans fish farming, per se, although it depends on aquaculture technologies for producing a large part of its salmon resources. Chile, with an environment similar but far smaller than Alaska, has built up a salmon farming industry worth about $1 billion in only 15 years. The salmon farming industry in British Columbia, Canada is worth about C$400 million. 27 The Fisheries Cooperative Associations play a crucial role in Japan in successful fisheries and aquaculture development as the same families are involved in both activities. The members now have control over common property and some cooperatives have been given ownership rights to resources and demarcated rights of tenure to aquatic lands. 28 The Norwegian government subsidizes its salmon industry through a variety of regional development loans and grants, regional capital tax incentives, federal payroll taxes, and advanced depreciation on assets. Both Chile and Norway have been accused of dumping farmed Atlantic salmon. 29 Possession or sale of striped bass in many Eastern states is illegal, but farmed production of striped bass was almost 5,000 metric tons in 1999. 30 NMFS is generally observant of this need. In 2000 NMFS conducted 6 regional stakeholder meetings on the development of aquaculture in the EEZ. Their inputs were incorporated into a draft Code of Conduct. 33 For 10 years, NMFS has been working with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game to rehabilitate the ESA-listed Redfish Lake sockeye salmon through a captive broodstock program. In 2001, the returns numbered over 250 fish. Appendix I Fish and Shellfish in Commerce 1. Domestic Consumption of Seafood Each year, every American consumes 20.9 kg of fish and shellfish1, based on the estimated live weight equivalent of available edible products. This figure is well above the global average, but well behind the people of East Asia2. At the moment, it is similar to that of most European countries, but with the capital investment in aquaculture by the European Union this is likely to change. Italy increased domestic consumption from 22 kg to 27 kg in the last five years, mostly by available homegrown marine products3. American seafood consumers now spend an estimated $54.4 billion per annum for fishery products4. This is an increase of 25% in just five years. A little over two-thirds of these expenditures are at food service establishments, such as restaurants, caterers, and home-deliveries, which provide only high-end products. Apart from a small portion spent on industrial products, the rest is retail sales for home consumption, which are mostly fresh and frozen marine fish and shellfish ready processed. Supermarket chains now control the retail seafood market, having accelerated the decline of the traditional fishmonger by dominating the supply chain. Unlike the small retailer, who operated successfully around seasonal supplies from domestic fishermen, supermarket chains require large volumes of product regularly available. As long as the quality of the seafood is good, the source or supplier is not important to the brokers and buyers. This also suits the seafood consumer. Market surveys5 reveal the consumer is mostly influenced by price and convenience. The origin of the products, whether domestic or imported, or harvested or cultured, is not a deciding factor. They also reveal that consumer perception of seafood quality is based more on freshness and taste, and less on harvesting being more natural than farming, or that the catch is wild. 2. The Imbalance in Seafood Trade With their enormous purchasing power, American seafood consumers are a well-targeted, highly valued international market. Unfortunately, despite small but steady annual growth, domestic resources remain inadequate. The national supply6 of edible fishery products in 2000 was 4.6 million metric tons, but 1.8 million metric tons were imported at a cost of $10.1 billion. Although this was offset to some degree by increased exports7, the annual trade deficit in edible seafood products widened by 14.5% to a record-breaking $7.1 billion. A large part of these seafood imports are now high-value aquaculture products, such as marine shrimp, shellfish, and seawater-raised salmon, and the trend is predicted to continue8. Countries like Canada, China, Ecuador, New Zealand, Norway, Taiwan, and Thailand, and many others like them, have developed their aquaculture sectors specifically targeting the rich markets of the United States, Japan, and the European Union, the big three global markets for seafood. In some cases, aquaculture products have become among their top export commodities. Moreover, almost every one of these countries has achieved their success in less than two decades9 through focused government leadership and development policies which have attracted international investment. 1 Fisheries of the United States, 2000. U.S. Department of Commerce. 2 The global (1995-1997) average was 15.7 kg, based on live-weight equivalents. The U.S. consumption is similar to France (28.4 kg), Italy (22.0 kg), and the United Kingdom (20.1 kg) but distanced by major fishing nations such as Japan (69 kg), Norway (50.1 kg), and Spain (40.5 kg). 3 Eurofish, October 2001. 4 Fisheries of the United States, 2000. U.S. Department of Commerce. 5 See AquaVision 1998. Report from the Second Nutreco Aquaculture Business Conference, Stavangar, Norway 13-15 May, 1998. Nutreco Aquaculture, PO Box 319, Stavangar, Norway. 6 Defined as domestic landings plus imports, round weight equivalent, minus exports. 7 The United States exports almost $3 billion of seafood annually, mostly to Japan (39%), Canada (23%), and the EU (14%). 8 USDA projects imports in 2001 of farmed shrimp, with a value of about $3.5 billion; Atlantic salmon (about $770 million); tilapia (about $120 million); mussels (about $40 million), and even ornamental fish (about $45 million). From Aquaculture Outlook, 2001, LDP-AQS-14, USDA, Washington D.C. 9 Salmonid production in Chile was about 1,500 metric tons in 1985. In 2001 it is over 260,000 metric tons with an export value of $973 million (Fish Farming International 28:7) going mainly to Japan and the United States. Shrimp production in Ecuador has tripled since 1986. Appendix II The Economic Benefits of Aquaculture in the United States The aquaculture sector in the United States is divided into two distinct parts. One produces food for human consumption, either directly through aquatic farming or indirectly through enhancement of valuable fish and shellfish stocks. The other produces a range of commercial non-food products, such as baitfish, ornamental fish, live-food organisms, leathers, jewelry, craft materials, medicines, drugs, and research animals; and non-commercial products, such as aquatic animals and plants for conservation purposes. Both parts contribute significantly to national employment and valuable goods and services in the economy. The priority of private investors in U.S. aquaculture today is profitable production of seafood for the domestic market, but perhaps in the future, the collective revenues of non-food products will surpass those of food production. 1. The Production of Food by Aquatic Farming The live-weight equivalent of farm products in the United States rose to a record 478,679 metric tons in 1999 (mostly from freshwater aquaculture), after fluctuating between 350,000 and 450,000 for more than a decade1. At the same time, the annual market value of these products has almost doubled, and is rapidly approaching $1 billion2. Today, the United States is eighth among leading aquaculture producers worldwide. Ten years ago it was sixth. Global aquaculture now produces more than 31 million metric tons of farm products (fish, crustaceans, and mollusks) annually, with a value of some $48 billion. It also produces a further 8 million metric tons of highly marketable seaweeds, valued at $6 billion. In a little more than a decade, the global production of farmed products, excluding seaweeds, has risen by over 150%, with marine fish and shellfish the fastest-growing segment. In contrast, the world's capture fisheries declined by 3%. Asian countries dominate world aquaculture, with China producing 67% of the global total. But this is only 47% of the global value, as production in China is dominated by the large quantities of cheap freshwater fish, such as the carps, which provide most of the animal protein for the people. With the exception of Japan, most of the other leading countries, such as India, Thailand, and Vietnam, target production of high-value marine products3 to earn foreign exchange. Only the United States (8th) and Norway (10th) currently compete in the top 10. Within the United States, aquaculture is the fastest growing food-producing sector. Farm production, in terms of live-weight equivalent, is dominated by catfish (57%), followed at some distance by rainbow trout (6%), crawfish (4%), and tilapia (2%). These are all freshwater species. Marine species contribute 31%, led by cupped oysters (18%), hard clams (6%), and Atlantic salmon (4%). Together, all these farming technologies contribute about 12% to the total edible fish and shellfish landings in the country. Aquatic farm products are also exported. About 6,600 metric tons of Atlantic salmon, rainbow trout, tilapia, and catfish were exported in 1999, with a value of $29.3 million4. Large quantities of farmed mollusks were also exported, but the volume cannot be separated out of the national total. 2. Fisheries Enhancement for Food Production and Conservation The United States is the largest and most successful practitioner of fish enhancement in the world. Principally, this is because of a century of study with Pacific salmon by the federal government and the states of the Pacific Northwest5, and particularly favorable conditions in Alaska where artificial propagation now contributes 34% of all the salmon harvested6. With public, Tribal, and non-profit (Alaska) propagation sites7 scattered along the length of the four coastal states, fisheries enhancement contributes significantly to the domestic landings of Pacific salmon, currently 285,147 metric tons valued at $270 million (NMFS 2001), and a large coastal recreational fishery. Public and private hatcheries are also responsible for the enhancement of most of the country's inland waters with sport or game fish. There are some 215 such facilities throughout the country8, with the majority operated by federal, state, and Tribal agencies. The Fish and Wildlife Service alone operates 70 hatcheries and releases annually some 170 million fish9. Many other countries have large and dependable culture-based fisheries in their marine and coastal waters, not only for Pacific salmon but also for sports fish. For example, Japan relies on hatcheries and enhancement practices for all of its harvest of Yesso scallop10, 50% of the Kuruma prawn catch, 75% of red sea bream, and 40% of Japanese flounders. Iran uses hatcheries to sustain its sturgeon (caviar) fisheries in the Caspian Sea11. Other nations now marketing products from some of their culture-based fisheries include Norway (with cod), Australia (barramundi), Malaysia and Thailand (blood cockle), the Philippines (clams), and China (scallops, clams, and cockles, among others). In the United States, the potential of the culture-based marine fisheries (other than salmon) is still somewhere between advanced research and development and offshore pilot farms. Cooperative projects between the public and private sectors are pioneering practices for red drum (in Florida, South Carolina, and Texas), Pacific threadfin, mullet, and snapper (in Hawaii), red snapper (Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi), white seabass (California), summer flounder (North Carolina), cod (Maine), lingcod (Washington), snook (Florida), and winter flounder (New Hampshire). However, these are mostly in the research phase. Most of the world's oyster fisheries have been enhanced for centuries, first by continuously improved husbandry and more recently by artificial propagation in hatcheries and seeding. The last 50 years have seen oyster culture technology successfully applied to many other commercial species of mollusks, including clams, cockles, abalone, and mussels. Currently, the live-weight equivalent of global mollusk culture is just over 10 million metric tons annually, and represents about 70% of the world harvest. Oysters make up about 37%, clams 27%, and mussels 14.5%. Annual production of mollusks in the United States, from all sources, is currently 119,377 metric tons live weight, with a value of about $100 million. Despite increased enhancement programs throughout all of the coastal states12, mollusk production has not regained the peak of 151,000 metric tons it saw in 1975. This is due predominantly to the loss of suitable coastal habitat and disease. Enhancement and improved husbandry practices are also responsible for the freshwater crawfish industry in the Southern states. Current production of the red swamp crawfish is almost 20,000 metric tons annually, with a value of $28 million. Finally, enhancement practices are also being applied for the conservation of fish and shellfish populations. The marine fisheries resources of the United States reached maximum production levels two decades ago. Modern catch trends show a high incidence of fully exploited fish stocks, and stocks which are either overexploited, depleted, or recovering. Fisheries managers find that enhancement is an effective solution for replenishment and recovery, and may be the only option for some ESA-listed species. Perhaps the most successful project has been federal fisheries scientists' rescue and rehabilitation of the Redfish Lake sockeye salmon from the verge of extinction13. Another is the cooperative project by the United States and Mexico to save the Kemp's Ridley sea turtle. 3. Other Economy-Wide Impacts By the year 2025, the DOC's aquaculture policy14 calls for almost a six-fold increase in the value of domestic aquaculture production, a three-fold increase in employment, and a five-fold increase in the value of goods and services. In 1992, aquatic farming production in the United States was 413,531 metric tons live weight equivalent. According to Dicks et al. (1996), the industry that year generated approximately $5.6 billion in GDP and over 181,000 jobs15. Although national production has increased by some 16% since then - with intense price competition among the suppliers, including commercial harvesters and importers - the national employment profile is not likely to have changed significantly. The United States has a complex16 aquaculture sector, with a critical mass of primary producers for a large number of species. The Census of Aquaculture (USDA 1997) recorded a total of 4,028 farms17 in the United States in 1996, of which 54% were involved with food fish, 21% with crustaceans, and 13% with mollusks. The rest produced ornamental fish, baitfish, sport or game fish, or other aquatic animal products. While the average employment on a farm18 is almost exactly 4 persons, sub-sector labor profiles differ by species and technology. Employment on a typical net-pen farm producing salmon in the United States is 6-7 positions, similar to that of Canada and Norway19. Furthermore, the estimated wages of both a production and downstream employee in the salmon industry are above average for the collective agriculture sector in the United States. Dicks et al. (1996), in their study of the U.S. aquaculture sector in 1992, calculated that the value of total industry output from fish farming activities20 was slightly more than 3.5 times the value of the actual production. That is, each dollar spent to produce an aquaculture product generates an additional $2.50 of goods and services in the economy. Because of the incompleteness of the database, the authors believe these aggregate multipliers are conservative. The value of aquaculture production in 1992 was $629.5 million; in 1999 it was $833.5 million. The total income generated by the aquaculture production activities must now be close to $2.5 billion. 1 Aquaculture production: quantities, 1971-1999. Fishstat Plus, FAO of the United Nations, Rome. 2 Aquaculture production: values, 1971-1999. Fishstat Plus, FAO of the United Nations, Rome. 3 Production in Asian countries focuses on groupers, snappers, seabreams, shrimps and prawns, and many mollusks. 4 2000 Annual Report of the U.S. Seafood Industry, by H.M. Johnson & Associates, Jacksonville, OR. 5 The Columbia River Basin program is authorized and funded through the 1938 Mitchell Act, which was established to mitigate, in perpetuity, for habitat and salmon runs lost through the construction of hydro-electric projects. The 25 major hatcheries release annually over 120 million smolts and contribute between 50%-70% of all adults caught in the coastal fisheries. 6 M. McNair (Alaska salmon enhancement report 2000: annual report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, AK, 34p.) reported that 93.6% of all pink salmon caught in Prince William Sound in 1997 were artificially propagated, and that for all salmon harvested in common property resources throughout Alaska that year, 22% of the coho salmon, 30% of the pink salmon, and 65% of the chum salmon originated in hatcheries. 7 In addition to hatcheries, net-pens, acclimation sites, rearing ponds, and remote egg-incubators are all used. The State of Washington operates the largest production system, with 24 complexes (groups of hatcheries) with more than 90 rearing facilities. The State of Oregon operates 34 hatcheries and 15 other rearing facilities. 8 Census of Aquaculture 1998. USDA. 9 Each year, USFWS distributes juvenile fish and fish eggs of 18 coldwater species (mostly salmonids), 14 coolwater species (mostly walleye and northern pike), and 31 warmwater species (mostly striped bass, largemouth bass, bluegill, channel catfish, and American shad). 10 In 1970, the scallop fishery in Hokkaido was still totally depleted. Today, production is over 216,000 metric tons with a value of US$324 million (FAO Fishstat Plus 2000). 11 Iran releases about 20 million juveniles from its hatcheries annually to sustain the sturgeon fishery. In spite of uncontrolled poaching by its neighbors, and pollution from mineral exploration, the fishery provides export earnings from caviar second only to oil. 12 The use of hatchery technology is widespread in the West Coast industry, of moderate significance in the Northeast, and just becoming established in the Gulf and South Atlantic states. Hatcheries are believed to be the future of the oyster industry. J.J. Manzi, 1990, Marine farming and enhancement, NOAA/NMFS Technical Report 85, Washington D.C. 13 In 1990, fisheries scientists from the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game started a captive broodstock program for the 16 fish which returned that year. In 2001 the returns numbered over 250 fish. 14 Announced in August 1999, the policy targets aquaculture production valued at $5 billion, 600,000 jobs, and $2.5 billion in goods and services by the year 2025. Among the total of 7 objectives, it also calls for enhancement of depleted stocks and a Code of Conduct for Aquaculture in federal (EEZ) waters. 15 According to M.R. Dicks et al. (1996), production activities accounted for 8% of the income and 16,500 jobs; the upstream activities (purchases of equipment, supplies, feed, seed, fertilizer, labor, and financing) for 23% of the income and 40,500 jobs; and downstream activities (transport, storage, processing, manufacture, distribution, and sales) for 69% of the income and 125,000 jobs. 16 A complex sector is one which produces large quantities (over 10,000 metric tons) of a broad range of species, in all environments, and with a variety of technical practices. C.E. Nash, 1992, Employment and manpower in aquaculture, FAO, Rome. 17 The USDA defines a farm as a place (commercial or non-commercial) from which $1,000 of products are sold annually. It can be any location where primary production takes place, such as a hatchery, nursery, or grow-out operation. USDA, 2000, Census of aquaculture 1998, AC97-SP3, Washington D.C. 18 Using employment data from M.R. Dicks et al. (1996) and farm data from USDA (2000). 19 From NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-49, 2001, The net-pen salmon farming industry in the Pacific Northwest. 20 Shellfish farms were not included in the study. Appendix III The History of Aquaculture in NMFS 1. Early Marine Hatcheries Application of culture methods for marine fish developed in Europe and the United States during the second half of the 19th century were believed to be a way to augment and replenish natural fisheries stocks1. In 1871, Spencer Fullerton Baird, leader of the newly formed U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries, reported to Congress reasons for declining stocks and recommended fish culture as a solution. His ideas were accepted, and a research vessel2 was built for the Commission, followed by shore-based marine fish hatcheries. Although highly effective in producing and releasing newly hatched fry, the lack of evidence of increased harvests ended their efforts in the 1940s. As the enhancement approach was abandoned, the emphasis during the years after World War II shifted to aquatic farming. Federal laboratories led by the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (now NMFS) conducted pioneering research in culture, first with mollusks (at Milford, CT), and then with salmonids (at Manchester, WA and Little Port Walter, AK), and marine shrimp (at Galveston, TX). Although these pioneering efforts were major contributors to new industries worldwide, federal research for aquaculture was drastically reduced in the 1980s, leaving development to the private sector. Only declining natural stocks, and the unrealized potential for U.S. aquaculture products on global markets, re-established some low-level research by NMFS in the mid-1990s. Also, with the availability of new fish-marking techniques, there was a re-awakening of aquaculture-based stock enhancement by groups outside NMFS. Some early well-designed experiments were shown to increase stocks without displacing wild fish. 2. Pacific Coast Salmonid Hatcheries Although efforts to enhance the marine fisheries were stopped in the middle of the 20th century, this was not true for the more successful efforts with the anadromous salmonids. NMFS still funds the operation of 18 hatcheries3 in the Columbia River Basin as mandated by the Mitchell Act of 1938, and amended in 1946. The Mitchell Act was passed to mitigate, in perpetuity, habitat and salmon runs lost due to federal water-related projects within the Columbia River Basin, primarily the large main-stem hydroelectric projects. This program is the largest federally funded marine fisheries enhancement program in the United States, releasing each year between 70-75 million juvenile coho, fall chinook, spring chinook, sockeye, and winter and summer steelhead. Previously the number was 100-120 million4. The listing of a number of stocks of salmon in the Basin by NMFS under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has had a negative impact on the Pacific salmon fisheries, but fish from Mitchell Act hatcheries are still instrumental in providing fish to coastal commercial and recreational fisheries, as well as commercial, recreational, and Tribal fisheries within the Columbia River Basin. With record hatchery returns to the Basin in 2001, the result of good ocean rearing conditions, Mitchell Act fish still make significant contributions to these fisheries. Record numbers of surplus fish are being provided for Tribal use, and processed and distributed through a number of food-share programs in the Pacific Northwest. The annual allocation of funding5 is presently inadequate to meet rising production costs. This has resulted in several hatcheries taken out of production, and reduced releases at others. These NMFS pass-through funds are allocated to the 3 operational agencies based on production priorities planned in conjunction with the states and Tribes. NMFS, therefore, maintains considerable active involvement in the program, and reflects the mandates established by Federal Court decisions and implications of listings under the ESA. 3. Current Activities A considerable volume of research at NMFS (mostly funded by reimbursable contracts from BPA) continues to work with the Pacific Coast salmonid hatcheries and conservation of listed Pacific salmon stocks. The agency is now implementing reforms in the Mitchell Act hatchery program to reduce potential impacts of cultured fish on natural stocks by releasing more naturally behaving smolts. Some of the hatcheries are being totally redirected to a conservation role as funds become available . In Alaska, since depressed fisheries led to the start of Regional Aquaculture Associations for salmon enhancement, research by NMFS scientists at the Auke Bay Laboratory (Little Port Walter Station) continues to contribute to a hatchery program which now provides 30% of the annual salmon harvest in the state. In addition, the agency is carrying out a production-level aquaculture project in southeast Alaska, under the auspices of the United States/Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty, to enhance trans-boundary runs of sockeye salmon stocks. The project is operated jointly with Canada6. Within the last decade, research by NMFS scientists has focused on commercially important marine fish species, cultured both for enhancement of natural populations and directly for food. More detailed information about these marine programs and the NMFS resources for aquaculture in the regions is provided in Appendix V. 1 Hatcheries in Norway first produced and released billions of hatched codfish eggs to enhance the natural stocks, followed by the British who propagated and released codfish and then flatfish species in large numbers in the North Sea. 2 RV Fish Hawk was built for the Commission in 1880 to be a mobile hatchery for shad, striped bass, mackerel, and herring. In 1883, a federal government fish hatchery was built in Woods Hole, MA, followed by others in Gloucester, MA in 1890, and in Boothbay Harbor, ME in 1904. 3 The 18 Mitchell Act hatcheries are actually operated by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and USFWS. 4 Several billion juvenile Pacific salmonids are released annually from the 200 hatcheries and net-pen systems in Alaska, California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington for various purposes. Most are operated by state agencies, Tribal groups, the USFWS, and by regional aquaculture associations in Alaska. 5 Funding in FY 2002 for operation and maintenance of Mitchell Act hatcheries was over $12.7 million. 6 NMFS is using pass-through funding of $300,000-$400,000 annually to support the program. The U.S. portion of the project is carried out by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Appendix IV Government Aquaculture Policy And the Role of NMFS 1. Statutory Authorities The National Aquaculture Act of 1980, as amended (16 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.), proclaims that private development of a U.S. aquaculture industry is 'in the national interest' due to its potential for (i) reducing the trade deficit, (ii) augmenting commercial and recreational fisheries, and (iii) meeting future food needs. The Act established the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture (JSA) as a coordination group for federal government activities relating to aquaculture, and charged the JSA with the development of a National Aquaculture Development Plan. Amendments to the act in 1985 designated the Secretary of Agriculture as the permanent chair of the JSA. The secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior make up the Executive Committee. Authorizing legislation for NOAA aquaculture policy is listed in Table IV-1. Of particular relevance for NMFS are the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Although these laws do not explicitly address aquaculture, they provide the legal basis for NMFS to review aquaculture development from the perspective of potential impacts on wild stocks, essential fish habitat, marine mammals, and endangered species. Under these statutory authorities, NMFS has a dual role. It is both a promoter of aquaculture development and a participant in the regulatory review process to ensure that development proceeds in an environmentally responsible manner. 2. Policy and Planning Initiatives Policy and planning for implementing the National Aquaculture Act has proceeded on several levels (see Table IV-2). In addition to the JSA, there are task forces working on aquaculture issues within DOC, NOAA, and NMFS. NMFS participates in each of these initiatives. NMFS also interacts with the Regional Fishery Management Councils, the interstate marine fisheries commissions, and individual states on aquaculture issues as they relate to shared responsibilities addressing the stewardship of living marine resources, sustainable fisheries, healthy coasts, and protected species. The extent of this involvement, which has greatly increased over the last decade, varies among and within NMFS geographical regions. (i) Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture (JSA) The JSA provides a forum for coordinating policy initiatives across all federal agencies with an interest in aquaculture. The JSA has produced a draft update of its National Aquaculture Development Plan, with input from federal agencies and stakeholders, and developed a draft implementation plan specifying actions for each federal agency. The plan's vision is 'to develop a highly competitive, sustainable aquaculture industry in the United States to meet consumer demand for cultivated aquatic foods and products that are of high quality, safe, competitively priced, and nutritious and are produced in an environmentally responsible manner with maximum opportunity for profitability in all sectors of the industry.' The plan addresses 12 major issues (see Table IV-2)1. NOAA (OAR and NMFS) represents DOC on the JSA. The NMFS Aquaculture Coordinator2 has represented DOC on the Executive Committee. Other NMFS representatives3 provide leadership for the JSA task forces and working groups. (ii) Department of Commerce DOC has established an Aquaculture Task Force, supported by NOAA's Office of Sustainable Development and Intergovernmental Affairs. In addition to NOAA participants (including NMFS), the task force includes representatives from the Minority Business Development Administration (MBDA), the Economic Development Administration (EDA), the International Trade Administration (ITA), and the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). A major achievement of the task force was the drafting of a Department of Commerce Aquaculture Policy, which was approved in August 1999. The policy sets specific objectives by the year 2025 (see Table IV-2)4. The DOC Strategic Plan for 1997-2002 (September 1997) advocates the growth in a U.S. marine aquaculture industry to help restore depleted populations under its 'build sustainable fisheries' goal. In addition, the plan calls for a 'percentage reduction in the time and cost of permitting environmentally sound aquaculture ventures,' and supports NOAA research and technical assistance in aquaculture. The DOC has also developed draft legislation that would authorize leasing of areas of the EEZ for offshore aquaculture development. The currecnt Administration has not yet taken a position on this draft legislation. (iii) NOAA NOAA has established an Aquaculture Task Force, which, like the DOC Task Force, is coordinated by the Office of Sustainable Development and Intergovernmental Affairs. The task force was instrumental in developing a NOAA Aquaculture Policy, which was approved in February 1998 (see Table IV-2). NOAA has also included aquaculture in its strategic plan. The NOAA Strategic Plan: A Vision for 2005 (May 1996) calls for 'accelerating the growth of U.S. marine aquaculture.' (iv) NMFS NMFS participates in broader-based aquaculture efforts that are organized and coordinated by JSA and task forces established within DOC and NOAA. Within NMFS, a task force has also been established to coordinate efforts within the agency, but no formal NMFS aquaculture policy has been developed to date. NMFS has specific aquaculture responsibilities under the NOAA Fisheries Strategic Plan (May 1997). The plan includes an objective to 'promote the development of robust and environmentally sound aquaculture,' and articulates 5 performance measures5 through 2002 (Table IV-2). NMFS is also pursuing aquaculture initiatives under its Implementation Plan for the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, which includes marine aquaculture. The Implementation Plan reiterates the 5 performance measures in the NOAA Fisheries Strategic Plan, which states that 'the NMFS strategy will be implemented in cooperation with other U.S. agencies,' and specifically mentions the role of the JSA in planning and coordination. As part of this effort, NMFS held a series of public meetings in late 2000 to solicit input on a Code of Conduct for aquaculture in the EEZ6. (v) The Fishery Management Councils Fishery Management Council (FMC) aquaculture-related activities, in general, have been restricted to the New England and Southeast regions. The New England Council established an Aquaculture Committee during 1995 and, under contractual arrangement, completed and approved a special report on that its role in aquaculture policy and management strategy. That report concluded that aquaculture is a component of the New England fishery, of which the Council has a responsibility and a legal authority to manage. Later that year, the Council developed Amendment #6 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP), which allowed an experiment involving sea scallop research, enhancement, and aquaculture in the EEZ. In 1998, the Council also drafted an aquaculture policy in conjunction with NMFS, the fishing industry, and other resource management interests. The policy called for measures to facilitate an aquaculture permitting process in federal waters. In the Southeast, the Council's 1995 amendment to the Coral FMP established a live-rock aquaculture permit system7 for the South Atlantic EEZ. The associated federal regulations require a permit for possession of live-rock and related coral aquaculture operations in the EEZ, and prohibit octocoral harvest north of Cape Canaveral, FL. The Council issued 29 aquaculture permit transactions in FY2001. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council adopted a mariculture policy as part of its Essential Fish Habitat Amendment. The policy encourages environmentally responsible mariculture and associated guidelines pertaining to exotic species, habitat, siting, research and monitoring, water quality, and disease control. (vi) The Regional Fisheries Commissions Aquaculture issues have been identified as important components of several state-federal (inter-jurisdictional) fishery management plans8 developed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). In September 1998, the NMFS Northeast region, in cooperation with ASMFC and its member states, conducted a state-federal Atlantic coastal aquaculture workshop. The workshop developed recommendations9 on several different areas, including strategic planning, FMP integration, and aquaculture data collection. Subsequently, in September 2000, the NMFS Northeast region entered into a cooperative agreement with ASMFC to develop a 'code of conduct' and/or related guidelines in communication with the aquaculture industry and the ASMFC member states on responsible aquaculture in Atlantic coastal waters. Through a series of workshops, this effort is bringing together a wide and diverse audience from the state, federal, and private sectors to provide a needed focus on best business practices. The effort also takes into account the relevant environmental, biological, technological, economic, social, and commercial considerations. The guidelines10 being developed through this state-federal partnership approach are not binding, but are forging an essential constructive dialogue among fishery management agencies, industry interests, and public stakeholders on mutually acceptable guidelines for present and future aquaculture in waters under state jurisdiction. In recent years, the ASMFC and the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission have both conducted inventories on aquaculture activities and related laws and regulations concerning aquaculture in each of the commissions' member states. (vii) The States NMFS and state fishery management agencies uniquely have shared responsibilities for stewardship of living marine resources. And it is in this vesting of legislative authority where the potential for NMFS/state partnerships in aquaculture have tremendous potential for achieving mutual strategic management priorities. State (versus federal) governments have primary control over the conduct of most marine aquaculture because most aquaculture operations occur in coastal waters under state jurisdictional authorities. However, programs and mandates vary from state to state, and aquaculture responsibilities are often either undefined or shared between two or several state governmental agencies. The NMFS interacts with state governmental authorities as both a primary player and, at other times, a catalyst through inter-jurisdictional fishery enhancement initiatives, habitat protection, protected species concerns, and research grants. The states and federal government have established collaborative programs, for example, in restoring anadromous salmonid stocks through enhancement and aquaculture practices on both coasts, and for striped bass in Chesapeake Bay. One state-federal program involving NMFS merits particular attention. The large-scale salmon enhancement program in Alaska, which began in the 1970s, is a good example of how aquaculture technology can help improve capture fisheries. It also illustrates how NMFS can partner with states and play a significant R&D role in support of aquaculture and stewardship of living marine resources, while providing expertise and technology in both public and private sectors. 1 JSA's approach to addressing specific aquaculture issues in a coordinated manner across federal agencies is to establish a task force or working group of agency representatives, experts, and stakeholders, as appropriate, to develop solutions and recommendations. 2 The position of NMFS Aquaculture Coordinator is currently vacant and a replacement has not yet been named. 3 NMFS personnel from Industry and Trade, and SF/Pascagoula currently serve as chair and vice-chair (respectively) of the Working Group on Aquacultural Statistics and Economics, and Aquatic Animal Health Task Force. Previously, NMFS aquaculture coordinator served as vice-chair of the Aquaculture Effluents Task Force, and SEC personnel chaired the Shrimp Virus Working Group. 4 Companion policy guidelines are currently in draft form. 5 Strategies for achieving the performance measures include the study of new candidate species, simplifying permitting and regulatory processes, addressing user conflicts, providing loans through the Fisheries Finance Program, determining site requirements for aquaculture in the EEZ, and technology transfer. 6 A report based on stakeholder input was completed in July 2001, together with a draft Code of Conduct for circulation. 7 For persons taking or possessing cultured live rock in the Gulf or South Atlantic EEZ, a federal cultured live-rock permit is required for each specific harvest site. Such a permit, or copy, must be on board a vessel depositing or possessing material on a cultured live rock site, or harvesting, or possessing live rock from a cultured live rock site. 8 Plans with aquaculture interests include Atlantic sturgeon, Atlantic striped bass, and summer flounder. 9 Specific recommendations included the development of a 'framework-type' approach to address species aquaculture issues during FMP development, including both commercial production and enhancement, and the improvement of needed partnerships among state and federal fishery management agencies relative to aquaculture and associated marine resources stewardship responsibilities. 10 Draft guidelines were circulated for comment in May 2002. This will be followed with the release by NMFS Headquarters of a similar report focusing on aquaculture activities in the EEZ. Appendix V Resources of the National Marine Fisheries Service 1. Fisheries Financial Programs (i) Grant Programs Each year, NMFS administers several federal/state grant programs. These provide significant contributions to aquaculture research and development in response to industry needs and related fishery management information. The most well-known is the Saltonstall-Kennedy (S-K) Grant Program, which, in 2001, specifically solicited proposals to advance the implementation of marine aquaculture in the offshore environment by addressing technical aspects, such as systems engineering, environmental compatibility, and culture technology. However, the impact of the program has been declining because of reduced funding1, leaving high-quality aquaculture proposals unfunded. NMFS assists2 aquaculture-related research and development through the Northeast Fishing Industry Grants Program. The objectives are to help restore overfished New England groundfish and shellfish stocks through hatchery programs, and to provide new business opportunities for displaced fishermen. The Columbia River Fisheries Development Program, administered under the provisions of the Mitchell Act of 1938 and amended in 1946, issues grants3 to state governments for the protection and enhancement of the salmon and steelhead resources in the Pacific Northwest. Project activities include enhancement studies and the construction, operation, and maintenance of salmonid fish hatcheries. NMFS provides funds to the University of Southern Mississippi4 for a stock enhancement program in the Gulf of Mexico. The project, now in its fourth year, is a multifaceted initiative to develop the technology required to spawn and raise red snapper and augment wild stocks through enhancement. The Hawaii Stock Management and Fisheries Development Initiative provides funds5 from NMFS to the private Oceanic Institute in Hawaii to evaluate enhancement practices for several species of marine finfish. (ii) Seafood Inspection Program (SIP) SIP has a long and active history with all fish and shellfish products from both aquaculture and wild harvest, and destined for either the domestic markets or for export. Typically, for the domestic catfish and trout industries, this consisted of in-plant processor presence, but with the development of HACCP inspection controls for safety hazards and quality attributes in the 1990s, the procedures have changed. Many aquaculture products, such as hybrid striped bass, tilapia, clams, and oysters are handled on a lot-inspection basis, as is every batch of imported fish and shellfish. Aquaculture products comprise an increasing volume of seafood purchases by the retail supermarket chains, which require USDC inspection and certification to ensure that they meet established purchase specifications. Although the primary activity of SIP is for the safety, wholesomeness, quality, and condition of fishery products destined for human consumption, USDC inspectors at times fulfill a supporting role of assuring the health of the animals as required by the countries importing U.S. fishery products. When requested by an exporter, inspectors may officially remove any products for the detection and identification of specific pathogens at recognized health laboratories. (iii) Trade The Office of Industry and Trade (OIT) is able to work closely with the aquaculture industry on a number of trade-related issues, particularly, barriers to trade of cultured products6. It also works on cases where the potential impacts of trade would be on cultured products7. OIT also works with foreign governments to try to ensure that import restrictions do not reflect non-tariff trade barriers, which could disadvantage U.S. products, whether they are from wild capture or aquaculture. In most instances, foreign governments attempt to use non-science-based barriers, which must be refuted. Trade assistance is also provided to U.S. producers of farmed products who are negatively impacted by dumping of foreign-farmed products on the U.S. market. (iv) Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) The SBIR program is a contractual arrangement, not a grant program. It is mandated under the Small Business Development Act of 1992, and administered within NOAA by the Office of Research and Technology Applications (ORTA). The Industry and Trade Program represents NMFS on the NOAA SBIR Committee. ORTA solicits topic areas for research from DOC scientists, and organizes their ideas within a booklet distributed to small businesses. They, in turn, propose their innovative research ideas pertaining to the topics8. Phase 1 winners are selected and given $75,000 to carry out their idea, with NMFS providing reviewers and technical monitors. After 6 months, and/or the completion of Phase 1, businesses may apply for Phase 2 awards. ORTA then conducts a technical review, and a selection process allows 3 or 4 of them to continue with further research and production. The Phase 2 awards are $350,000. After 2 years, and/or the completion of Phase 2, the last phase concerns commercialization of a product. No SBIR capital is provided for this final phase. 2. NMFS Facilities and Staff Expertise NMFS resources for aquaculture are distributed widely throughout headquarters, the regional offices, and the 5 fisheries science centers together with their satellite laboratories and field stations. Because of the multi-disciplinary nature of aquaculture research, in addition to the many staff who have basic backgrounds in fisheries science, NMFS personnel have an array of different qualifications and experience. Moreover, a large number of the research staff in the science centers have worked in fish and shellfish production in the private sector. (i) The Regional Offices NMFS regional offices include programs dedicated to habitat conservation and protected resources. Nationwide, about 150 employees review applications for marine-related projects, which include aquaculture facilities, and provide technical comments and recommendations. That annual workload includes about 10,000 proposed actions in state and federal waters, of which several dozen projects relate to the aquaculture industry. NMFS's permit review mandates are granted by the Clean Water Act, Rivers and Harbors Act, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Endangered Species Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. Often, following a site visit and discussions with applicants and other agencies, NMFS's comments will document whether and to what extent the project may affect water and sediment quality, NMFS trust resources, and the associated ecosystem. If significant adverse impacts are likely, comments to permitting agencies will recommend alternative project designs or operational procedures to minimize those impacts. These important NMFS mandates have shaped the agency's habitat and protected resource programs since the 1970s. As certain aquaculture sectors expanded in the 1980s, NMFS efforts expanded to include much more detailed collaboration to simplify the permitting process. For example, the NMFS Northeast Region initiated an effort with state and feder