Aquaculture
National Offshore Aquaculture Act
The National Aquaculture Act of 1980 states "it is the national policy to
encourage the development of aquaculture in the United States." The NAA
provides the impetus for subsequent federal actions.
(Photo courtesy MND) |
The currently proposed National Offshore
Aquaculture Act has been many years in the making. In 1995, the federal
Office of Technology Assessment recognized offshore aquaculture as a
potentially viable way of raising fish. The first workshop took place and
Sea Grant Programs, funded by NOAA, began undertaking preliminary research
exploring the technical and economic feasibility of the concept.
In 1999, the Department of Commerce began drafting the National Offshore
Aquaculture Act and called for a "five fold increase in the value of
domestic aquaculture production by the year 2025."
Since then, the legislation has been further developed. A draft was
circulated last year for comment by federal agencies and the Office of
Management and Budget until it was finally transmitted to Congress.
(See The National Offshore Aquaculture Act (S. 1195) PDF Format)
The National Offshore Aquaculture Act Defined:
- Authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue offshore aquaculture
permits and to establish environmental requirements where existing
requirements under current law are inadequate.
- Exempts permitted offshore aquaculture from legal definitions of fishing
that restrict size, season and harvest methods.
- Authorizes the establishment of a research and development program in
support of offshore aquaculture.
- Requires the Secretary of Commerce to work with other Federal agencies to
develop and implement a streamlined and coordinated permitting process for
aquaculture in the Exclusive Economic Zone (3-200 miles offshore).
- Authorizes to be appropriated "such sums as may be necessary" to carry
out this Act.
- Provides for enforcement of the Act.
Offshore Aquaculture Risks
Deterioration of wild fish stocks - From 1996 to 1999, more than 600,000
non-native Atlantic salmon escaped from salmon farms into Washington waters.
These non-native, invasive fish compete for food and spawning territory with
local wild fish and carry potentially epidemic parasites and pathogens.
Pollution - Fish farm sewage is untreated and non-sterile and the cost to
fish farmers for this use of our public waters is zero. It is calculated
that fish farms in Puget Sound's Rich Passage produce more than 5,180,000
pounds of feces annually.
Economic Impacts - Developing a finfish farming industry in one area of the
country directly competes with healthy, commercially viable, wild stock
fisheries in another, threatening the economic and social well-being of
Alaska's coastal communities.
Privatizing public spaces - While the federal government has limited rights
to lease the seabed, under present law, the federal government cannot lease
federal waters. Allowing such commercial agreements not only sets a
dangerous precedent, but also begs the question does the US actually "own"
any portion of the ocean?
Alaskan Leaders Speak Out Against Offshore Aquaculture
Senator Lisa Murkowski introduced the Natural Stock Conservation Act in
April 2005 in an effort to prevent any offshore aquaculture permitting until
further research is conducted. Congressman Don Young objects most strongly
to the permitting power that would be bestowed on the Secretary of Commerce.
In 2004, Governor Murkowski called for ""a five-year moratorium on all
leasing, permitting, or development of ocean pen-reared shell and finfish."
Finally, the Alaska State legislature passed a joint resolution opposing
open ocean aquaculture in federal waters for finfish and predatory
shellfish.
Next Steps
ACE has asked Senator Lisa Murkowski to formally request the Legislative
Environmental Impact Statement mandated by NEPA requirements (see letter
below). It is clear that more research on the long term environmental
impacts of offshore is critical before NOAA begins issuing permits for
offshore aquaculture. The National Marine Fisheries Service repeatedly fails
to completely answer impact questions from the scientific and conservation
communities. Until such queries can be addressed it is imperative that the
S.1195 not be elevated to the status of law.
(thanks to AMC for assistance in compilation of this info)
|
