November 2021
On November 15, 2021, the Fisheries Committee held a hearing on bycatch and its significant adverse effects on Alaskans and Alaska’s fishery resources. Unfortunately, the presentations were very general and did not present both sides of the issue, and certainly did not reflect the concerns of ordinary Alaskans who suffer as a result of excessive bycatch.
Anchorage Daily News
November 23, 2021
A grilling on fish that is taken as bycatch didn’t satisfy the appetites of a bipartisan group of Alaska legislators at a special hearing on Nov. 15 by the House Fisheries Committee.
After five years of work and delay, final action to reduce Bering Sea halibut bycatch is scheduled for December 2021.
The Council’s comment period on Abundance-Based Management of Bering Sea halibut bycatch caps is now open and will be open through November 30th. You have three options for commenting: 1) sign onto this letter 2) submit your own comments; 3) sign up to testify to the Council via their virtual platform (likely December 9th or 10th); 4) sign onto this letter, submit your own comments, AND sign up to testify!
If you are submitting your own comments or preparing to testify, please read the letter that is linked above for background information, then include in your comments:
1) The heading : AGENDA ITEM C-2
2) your name, where you live, and your connection to the halibut fishery
3) your request that the Council correct the analysis (or Environmental Impact Statement) for this action to include the impacts of bycatch on the Gulf of Alaska halibut fisheries and communities
4) your strong support for Alternative 4—the only alternative that comes close to restoring equity in the halibut fishery.
5) anything else you want to add from the letter or your own experience/knowledge/concern about bycatch and the need to reduce it.
You can submit your comments here
To listen/testify to the Advisory Panel and the Council, join the adobe connect link starting December 2nd (AP) and December 9th (Council) and sign up to testify under Agenda Item C-2.
NOTE: The list for public testimony closes once testimony begins; be sure to sign up BEFORE public testimony starts!
REMEMBER- what happens in the Bering Sea has an immediate and a long term effect on halibut stocks in the Gulf of Alaska! Please do not expect someone else to take care of the halibut resource and your fishery! Sign the letter and write your own comments TODAY.
SEE BELOW FOR TEXT OF SIGN ON LETTER:
November 30, 2021
Simon Kinneen, Chairman
North Pacific Fishery Management Council
Anchorage, Alaska
Submitted electronically
Regarding: C2 – Halibut Abundance-Based Management
Dear Mr. Kinneen and members of the Council:
We, the undersigned Alaskans, strongly support meaningful reduction in halibut bycatch, and for the upcoming Council meeting, that means we strongly support Alternative 4 – the only of the four abundance-based management (ABM) of halibut bycatch alternatives before the Council that would provide any meaningful reduction to halibut bycatch and therefore any meaningful benefit for Alaska’s halibut fisheries.
Never before have Alaskans from all regions and sectors come together in this way to support Council action to protect our fisheries and communities.
BACKGROUND
Alaska is famous for its bountiful fisheries resources, including salmon, halibut, crab, sablefish, and herring. It is also well-known for its sustainable stewardship of fisheries resources. For more than half a century, with inevitable fluctuations, the resources off our shores have been successfully managed, and have provided food and livelihoods for our people and communities.
However, one of the most iconic and valuable of our resources – Pacific halibut – is facing a crisis that threatens the way of life for commercial and sport halibut fishermen, and the economic driver for halibut-dependent communities throughout coastal Alaska.
The Bering Sea (BS) halibut fishery has been crippled by the devastating direct effects of bycatch by large factory trawlers that come north from Seattle to fish for various groundfish species, which are processed at sea and primarily exported to Asia. Bycatch and discard of halibut during those BS groundfish fisheries also affects the availability of halibut to all users throughout the species’ range.
Halibut stocks have declined substantially over the past 30 years. As halibut stocks declined, bycatch mortality consumed a larger and larger share of the available halibut. Bycatch mortality – dead halibut – is “taken off the top” by the managers at the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), and the commercial and sport (“directed”) halibut fisheries get whatever is left.
This is unfair to Alaska and Alaskans.
Bycatch limits must be reduced for Alaska-based commercial and sport fisheries to survive. The future of halibut IFQ holders, sport charter operations, and communities hangs in the balance.
HERE ARE THE FACTS:
Every Alaskan pays the price for bycatch.
Since 2015, trawlers have killed and discarded more than 3.1 million halibut in the Pribilof Island area of the Bering Sea (Area 4CDE). This is eight times more halibut than the Pribilof Island halibut fishery landed, based on mean weight. At an average price of $5.10 per pound, this amounts to $56 million in ex-vessel revenue lost by local halibut fishermen and fishing communities in the Pribilof Island area alone.
For 2021, the IPHC projects that bycatch will account for 63% of all halibut removals in Area 4CDE, based on the 3-year average of bycatch mortality. The directed fishery landings will receive only 35%.
If bycatch users take their current full limit, bycatch would account for 97.5% of halibut removals in Area 4CDE. The directed fishery would receive just 1.7%. This means bycatch users would receive more than 5 million pounds of halibut, leaving only 90,000 pounds for the halibut fishermen.
There is a net migration of halibut from the Bering Sea to the Gulf of Alaska, hence halibut bycatch directly affects all who depend on halibut in the Gulf as well as the Bering Sea.
The recent average annual catch limit for the entire Southeast Alaska commercial halibut fishery is LESS than the annual Bering Sea halibut bycatch.
In Southcentral ports like Homer and Kodiak, commercial and sport harvest of halibut has declined by more than 50% since 2010 to conserve the halibut resource, while halibut bycatch limits have stayed the same.
Sport charter operations in all areas of Alaska have reduced allowable halibut size, or lost one or more charter days per week, with each lost day representing thousands in lost revenue to that small business alone, along with associated tax income to the community, and related local expenditures by the businesses and their clients.
Each time an Alaska business or community loses income as a response to halibut stock changes, those businesses and communities financially subsidize the trawl fleets, whose halibut bycatch is guaranteed. This subsidy is inequitable, unsustainable and is not supported by Alaska’s fishermen, fishing businesses and communities.
Bycatch savings through implementation of an ABM program may provide meaningful differences in annual allocation to the sport sector.
ACTION NEEDED
NPFMC is currently considering an ABM system for the Amendment 80 sector (bottom trawlers) that would tie bycatch limits to halibut abundance, with final action on Halibut ABM at its December meeting. ABM means that as the halibut resource rises or falls, the limits on bycatch by the bottom trawl sector would rise or fall, as the catch limits do for the directed halibut fisheries.
We strongly support Alternative 4 – the only alternative being considered that would provide any meaningful benefit to the directed fishery.
Alternatives 2 and 3 do relatively little to reduce the bottom trawlers’ bycatch limits at low levels of halibut abundance, and offer insignificant improvement from the status quo.
Meaningful ABM creates badly needed conservation incentives. These incentives are lost entirely under the current non-constraining PSC limits because groundfish trawlers feel no effects from low abundance — and have no incentive to reduce halibut bycatch or take steps to conserve the halibut resource — because the impacts of low abundance are borne entirely by halibut commercial and sport fishermen.
We ask — and expect — the State of Alaska to use its leadership position at the NPFMC to select Alternative 4.
Alaskans believe in wise resource management and protecting the fisheries that Alaskans rely on. We ask that the State of Alaska take a leadership position in advancing these principles and selecting Alternative 4.
Sincerely,
[Alaska Stakeholders]
NOVEMBER 16, 2021
Click here to watch a recording of Rep. Huffman’s remarks. A full recording of the hearing can be found here.
“America is truly a leader in sustainable fisheries management, but the MSA hasn’t been reauthorized in over a decade. And while it’s an important law that has stood the test of time, it needs some updates, particularly concerning the impacts of climate change,” said Rep. Huffman. “Through our uniquely inclusive, transparent process, Rep. Case and I were able to create an MSA reauthorization bill that meets the challenges of the climate crisis and puts the focus back on the needs of fishing communities. From the listening sessions to taking comments, we have genuinely heard from stakeholders all over the board, I’m excited that we were able to take the bill one step further today with this hearing.”
“After a series of stakeholder listening sessions since the fall of 2019, including one in my home state of Hawai‘i, I am pleased that our Subcommittee took this important step forward to improve the management of our oceans and fisheries, which are under accelerating stress.” said Rep Case. “It is more critical now than ever that any extractive practices focus on sustaining and conserving our entire marine ecosystem. The Magnuson-Stevens Act has been and will continue to be our main tool for establishing and administering sound fishing practices and we have to be sure it works now and into the next generations.”
In an effort to include as many opinions and viewpoints as possible, Reps. Huffman and Case held eight listening sessions and covered seven management regions on their nationwide fisheries listening tour. They heard from 80 different experts and stakeholders, in addition to public comments from dozens of members of the public in person and online.
During the hearing, committee members heard testimony from industry experts and stakeholders.
“HR4690 makes several important changes to improve equity in the fishery management process overall, and for Tribes in particular […] In addition, HR4690 makes important changes to provide more balance in the Council system by requiring broader representation and more balanced appointments. These are essential changes to a broken system, and we support them wholeheartedly,” Ms. Mary Peltola, Executive Director, Kuskokwim River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission stated in her written testimony. “We are heartened by the forward-thinking solutions presented in the Sustaining America’s Fisheries for the Future Act which will give us the tools we need to restore abundant oceans and continue practicing our way of life.”
“The Fisheries for the Future Act continues this progress by offering comprehensive updates to address current challenges, strengthen sustainable management approaches, and prepare our fisheries for the impacts of climate change,” Ms. Meredith Moore, Director - Fish Conservation Program, Ocean Conservancy stated in her written testimony. “The proposed changes to the MSA contained in the Sustaining America’s Fisheries for the Future Act would provide a path to address the impacts of climate change on our fisheries and prepare for the changes ahead in the near and long term. These changes to the law are needed because every part of the conservation and management of fisheries—the research and survey process, stock assessments, management decisions and fishing practices—will be affected by climate change”
What Supporters are Saying
“With the Sustaining America’s Fisheries for the Future Act, Chairman Jared Huffman and Rep. Ed Case have given Congress a good starting point for ensuring that our fisheries management system continues to support American livelihoods and coastal economies and is ready to meet the challenges of the future – including for the first time addressing the effects of climate change on U.S. ocean fisheries by incorporating climate science and adaptation strategies into management decisions. The Marine Fish Conservation Network thanks the House Subcommittee for taking action today to move the Sustaining America’s Fisheries for the Future Act forward, and we thank Chairman Huffman in particular for his leadership in listening to stakeholders around the country and addressing many of their needs, hopes, and concerns in this bill,” said Robert Vandermark, Executive Director of Marine Fish Conservation Network.
“By investing in science that supports ecosystem-based fishery management and giving managers the tools they need to act with precaution in the face of climate change, the Huffman-Case bill would help preserve the integrity of our ocean ecosystems and sustain fishing opportunities for future generations,” said Wild Oceans President Rob Kramer. “Sustaining America’s Fisheries for the Future Act of 2021 recognizes that oceans are warming, fish are moving, and managers do not have the adequate tools to address the consequences. Provisions in the Act maintain the conservation gains of past reauthorizations while building more resilient fisheries that support healthy ecosystems and fishing communities in the face of climate change.”
“Climate change is challenging fisheries management as it has never before been challenged. Rep. Huffman’s Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization bill is an important step toward evolving our fisheries management system to respond quickly to change, buffer stocks against sudden shifts in abundance or distribution, and build resilience into ecosystems by expanding habitat protection. We look forward to working with Rep. Huffman and the Alaska delegation to address climate change in ways that keep our fisheries and our fishing communities healthy in the years ahead,” said Linda Behnken, Executive Director of Alaska Longline Fishermen’s Association.
“Congressman Huffman's bill is a good first step toward addressing climate change, creating more resilient fisheries, and ensuring long-term sustainability of fish populations and our national fishing traditions,” said Kevin Scribner, Founder of Forever Wild Seafood.
“Our ocean and its vast resources are put in the hands of our government for all people and need to be well managed to conserve fish populations, protect other wildlife, sustain fishing communities, and protect our children’s inheritance. Public opinion is clear that Americans from across our country – both coastal and in the heartland – care deeply about the ocean and its life. The Ocean Project looks forward to working closely with Chairman Huffman and other leaders on both sides of the aisle to ensure that our nation leads the world with strong, science-based fisheries conservation policies,” said The Ocean Project Director Bill Mott.
Additional Resources
Text of the bill can be found here.
A one-pager of the bill can be found here.
A section by section of the bill can be found here.
Residents of upper Yukon River villages in Alaska who were banned from fishing in the summer of 2021 due to weak runs of keta and Chinook salmon are getting another gift of wild Alaska salmon, thanks to the efforts of a Stanford University senior of Alaska Native heritage
Political science major Sam Schimmel, who is of Kenaitze Indian and St. Lawrence Island Siberian Yupik Eskimo descent, worked with the Alaska Sustainable Fisheries Trust in Sitka, Alaska, to get 2,000 pounds of filleted Bristol Bay sockeyes to the Tanana Chiefs Conference in Fairbanks this past week for distribution to villages in need.
Fishing communities from the mouth of the Yukon to the Canadian border were banned from commercial and subsistence fishing this past summer because of weak salmon runs. Schimmel had helped coordinate efforts earlier in the year, with the Alaska Sustainable Fisheries Trust, to distribute 3,300 pounds of Bristol Bay sockeye fillets to needy families in the Anchorage area.
Schimmel was also a speaker at the start of United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, Scotland, urging attendees to get more involved in helping others. After his talk, he said he was soon approached by the CEO of the World Wildlife Fund, who asked how he could help.
His own concern, Schimmel said, came as the COVID-19 pandemic spread to Alaska in early 2020, when he realized that core needs of rural residents were not being met, including traditional foods like salmon.
“To address food insecurity, cultural insecurity and to combat poor mental outcome, higher rates of alcoholism and depression, that’s what brought this program together,” he explained.
The Alaska Sustainable Fisheries Trust, an affiliate of the Alaska Longline Fishermen’s Association in Sitka, has a similar concern about providing wild Alaska seafood for those in need.
The trust donates fish in Sitka each week for those in need. “We could see there was a real need, especially with the pandemic. Since their effort began in the summer of 2020, the trust has donated some 630,000 meals, program manager Natalie Sattler said.
More information about Operation Fish Drop is online at https://indigenousstrengths.com/operation-fish-drop and about the Alaska Sustainable Fisheries Trust at https://thealaskatrust.org.
Register for a free 2-day virtual conference on “Achieving 30x30 for Our Coasts, Oceans, and Communities”, November 9th and 10th, 2021, 9:00 am – 1:30 pm PST. This conference will explore the 30×30 movement to protect 30% of coasts and oceans by 2030, reversing the negative impacts of biodiversity decline and climate change.
To register for the conference and to see the full agenda, please visit the conference WEBSITE.
The conference will be translated live in Spanish.
Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator
Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS
P.O. Box 21668
Juneau, AK 99802-1668
Submitted via http://www.regulations.gov
NOAA-NMFS-2021-0074
Dear Mr. Merrill:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for a proposed amendment to the BSAI Groundfish FMP that would implement abundance-based management for halibut prohibited species catch (PSC) limits.1 I submit the following comments on behalf of The Boat Company and Alaska Longline Fishermen’s Association (ALFA). The Boat Company and ALFA both promote conservation while operating in and advocating for Southeast Alaska’s coastal fishing communities that significantly depend on access to the halibut resource for commercial fishing, sport fishing and subsistence.
ALFA is a commercial fishing organization that represents and advocates for community-based, small commercial fishing businesses. ALFA represents commercial fishing vessel owners, deckhands, and business members from nearly every community in southeast Alaska who participate in, or otherwise support and benefit from the commercial fishing economy.2 ALFA’s members have also historically participated in Bering Sea fisheries, including residents of Bering Sea communities. ALFA has received national and statewide recognition for its work to rebuild fish stocks, address food security in Alaska and beyond, improve fishery monitoring and to protect fish habitat and ensure the socio-economic viability of coastal communities.
The Boat Company operates multi-day conservation and wilderness tours in Southeast Alaska aboard its two larger vessels, the 145’ M/V Liseron and the 157’ M/V Mist Cove. Visitors on these vessels participate in a variety of activities as part of their visit that include environmental education, kayaking, hiking, beachcombing as well as sport fishing from smaller vessels. For many clients, the opportunity to fish for halibut is a highlight of their Alaska experience.
Submitted via Aqua.RegPlan@noaa.gov.
September 17, 2021
Kristine Cherry
Chair, Regulatory Efficiency Task Force
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration 1315 East-West Highway, Room
14461
Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282
Re: Comments on A Strategic Plan to Enhance Regulatory Efficiency in Aquaculture, 86 FR 48973
Dear Ms. Cherry:
Please accept the following comments on behalf of the groups listed below regarding the National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on Environment’s Subcommittee on Aquaculture’s Regulatory Efficiency Task Force’s “A Strategic Plan to Enhance Regulatory Efficiency in Aquaculture” (“Report”).
Industrial ocean fish farming – also known as marine finfish or offshore aquaculture – is the mass cultivation of finned fish in marine waters, in net pens, pods, cages and other confinements. These are essentially floating feedlots in our ocean, which can have devastating environmental and socio-economic impacts. Other forms of aquaculture can also be destructive to habitat and water quality when poorly sited and scaled. We have been closely tracking – and are entirely opposed to – the current Administration’s dedication of significant resources and ongoing push to quickly and recklessly develop and expand potentially destructive and unnecessary forms of the aquaculture industry in the United States.
The Report reinforces our deep concerns with the government’s promotion of marine aquaculture in all its forms, without sufficient regard for the wide-ranging environmental, public health, and socio-economic impacts.
Because we are entirely opposed to open water marine finfish aquaculture, we urge you to cease all plans for expansion of this industry in United States’ waters, as enough money and resources have been frivolously expended on such endeavors for many years, even in the face of massive public opposition.
Before delving into comments regarding the details of the Report, further below, the following are general concerns about the task force’s stated focus and purpose.
We are concerned by the title of the document. Enhancing “regulatory efficiency” essentially means reducing transparency, and shortcutting adequate notice, comment, and review of policies related to aquaculture. This is troubling; the United States does not yet have a regular permitting plan for marine aquaculture, as it has been widely opposed and unpopular, and thus it has not been advanced through Congressional legislation nor agency regulations. Also, federal agencies lack specific authority to permit marine aquaculture. To be focused on “streamlining” permitting and approval processes for development and expansion of marine aquaculture is incredibly premature and irresponsible.
Another notable issue is the lack of discussion regarding matters such as climate change, and impacts especially for Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) communities. There is no acknowledgment of how offshore marine aquaculture may harm or disrupt cultural and historic practices related to natural resources and wildlife, nor any discussion about how streamlining various processes might further skew the balance of power in food production away from rural, coastal, and indigenous communities, and toward corporatization.
Following are comments specific to matters in the Report:
I. The Report ignores the range of risks and impacts of offshore aquaculture in the United States.
The Report makes clear that the federal government’s current focus is on efficiency and streamlining for aquaculture industry participants, and vastly expanding the aquaculture industry in the United States without much consideration of other industries that could be negatively impacted. Indeed, the relevant stated charge of the task force was to “identify Federal agency and partner opportunities for 1) improving efficiencies in aquaculture permitting and authorization programs using existing Federal authorities...[and] 3) refining and disseminating tools for aquaculture regulatory management.”1 The task force’s very first goal and objective clearly expresses how the overarching goal is the expansion of aquaculture. Goal 1 is to “Improve Efficiencies in Aquaculture Permitting and Authorization Programs,” while Objective 1.1 is “Expand the range of aquaculture activities authorized under general permits and through programmatic consultations.”2 The task force is putting the cart before the horse, at significant risk to public health, the environment, and the economy, particularly for coastal and fishing communities.
What must come first – well before any policy streamlining – is an acknowledgement and thorough review of the socio-economic, public health, and environmental concerns associated with marine aquaculture generally, and open water marine finfish aquaculture more specifically. Yet, the Report ignores these important issues. Failure to include these critical aspects as part of building a national offshore aquaculture program renders the Report meaningless and essentially a promotional piece for marine aquaculture.
Globally, many countries with marine finfish aquaculture programs have suffered extensive
1 Report at i.
2 Id. at 5.
environmental, socio-economic, and public health problems associated with the industry. As detailed below, these impacts are varied and widespread, and often do not come to light until years after the damage has been done. The task force should heed the lessons learned in other
countries and commit to researching and preventing these types of harms prior to any commercial permitting of marine finfish aquaculture facilities in the United States, or discussion of streamlining for permitting and policies.
Marine finfish aquaculture routinely results in a massive number of farmed fish escapes that adversely affect wild fish stocks. In January 2020, 73,600 salmon escaped from a net pen during a storm in Mowi, Scotland, marking the third major escape in the area since October 2019.3 A series of storms in Norway resulted in approximately four million escaped fish in a single year.4 A November 2020 fire in Tasmania, Australia resulted in the escape of 50,000 salmon and an accident nine days later during a net-clearing operation caused the escape of another 130,000 fish.5 In a notorious August 2017 incident, an industrial net pen operation maintained by Cooke Aquaculture Pacific, LLC in Washington state failed and allowed for what was originally reported as 160,000, but later found to be approximately 300,000, farmed Atlantic salmon to escape into Puget Sound. Long after the escape, many of these non-native, farmed fish continued to thrive and swim free – some were even documented as far north as Vancouver Island, west of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and south of Tacoma, traveling at least 100 miles from the farm. Escaped fish increase competition with wild fish for food, habitat, spawning areas and mates.6 Moreover, reliance on the sterility of farmed fish to prevent interbreeding is never 100% guaranteed; therefore, the “long-term consequences of continued farmed [fish] escapes and subsequent interbreeding . . . include a loss of genetic diversity.”7 Finally, escaped farmed fish might spread a multitude of parasites and diseases to wild stocks, which could prove fatal when transmitted.8
On the topic of parasites and diseases, we have significant concerns over the pervasive use of
3 Escape calls high energy salmon sites into question, The Fish Site (Jan. 20, 2020),
https://thefishsite.com/articles/mowi-reports-mass-salmon-escape-from-colonsay.
4 O.H. Diserud, et al., Escaped farmed Atlantic salmon in Norwegian rivers during 1989-2013, 76 ICES Journal of Marine Science 1140 (2019), https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/76/4/1140/5289588. 5 Cliff White, Huon reports AUD 128 million loss, addresses JBS takeover bid, SeafoodSource, Aug. 27, 2021, https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/business-finance/huon-reports-aud-128-million-annual-loss-addresses jbs-takeover-bid
6 Lynda V. Mapes, Seattle Times, Despite agency assurances, tribes catch more escaped Atlantic salmon in Skagit River (Dec. 1, 2017), available at https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/despite-agency assurances-tribes-catch-more-escaped-atlantic-salmon-in-skagit-river/.
7 Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador Region, Stock Assessment of Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Salmon (2016), available at http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/40619655.pdf (“Genetic analysis of juvenile Atlantic Salmon from southern Newfoundland revealed that hybridization between wild and farmed salmon was extensive throughout Fortune Bay and Bay d’Espoir (17 of 18 locations), with one-third of all juvenile salmon sampled being of hybrid ancestry.”); see also Mark Quinn, CBC News, DFO study confirms 'widespread' mating of farmed, wild salmon in N.L. (Sept. 21, 2016),
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/farmed-salmon-mating-with-wild-in-nl-dfo-study 1.3770864.
8 Jillian Fry, PhD MPH, David Love, PhD MSPH, & Gabriel Innes, VMD, Johns Hopkins University, Center for a Livable Future, “Ecosystem and Public Health Risks from Nearshore and Offshore Finfish Aquaculture” at 6-7 (2017), https://clf.jhsph.edu/publications/ecosystem-and-public-health-risks-nearshore-and-offshore-finfish aquaculture.
pharmaceuticals and other chemicals for prevention and treatment of outbreaks in marine finfish aquaculture facilities. The use of these chemicals creates environmental and public health concerns. It is known that large concentrated populations of animals are more susceptible to pests and diseases due to confined spaces and increased stress. In response, the agriculture and aquaculture sectors administer a range of chemicals – and in the open ocean, residues of these drugs are discharged and absorbed into the marine ecosystem. For example, the marine finfish aquaculture industry often treats sea lice with Emamectin benzoate (marketed as SLICE®), which has caused “widespread damage to wildlife,” including “substantial, wide-scale reductions” in crabs, lobsters and other crustaceans.9 In Nova Scotia, an 11-year-long study found that lobster catches plummeted closer to marine finfish aquaculture facilities.10 In addition, the use of antibiotics in marine finfish aquaculture facilities is contributing to the public health crisis of antibiotic resistance. In farmed fish, there may still be antibiotic and other chemical residues by the time they reach consumers, and they can also leach into the ocean, contaminating nearby water and marine life. In fact, up to 75% of antibiotics used by the industrial ocean fish farming industry are directly absorbed into the surrounding environment.11
Another serious concern is the direct discharge of untreated toxins, including excess food, waste, antibiotics, and antifoulants associated with industrial ocean fish farms. Releasing such excess nutrients can degrade water quality around the farm and threaten surrounding plants and animals. Dilution is not the solution to pollution – it all goes somewhere. Massively developing and expanding an industry with direct discharges into our marine waters is creating a new form of marine pollution with certain serious future consequences.
These factory farms can also physically impact the seafloor, and change marine ecology by attracting and harming predators and other species that congregate around fish cages. These predators – such as birds, seals, and sharks – can easily become entangled in lines and pens,
stressed by acoustic deterrents, and more easily captured and killed. For example, an industrial ocean fish farm caused the death of an endangered monk seal in Hawaii, which was found entangled in the net.12 Also, in August 2018, Cooke Aquaculture entangled an endangered Humpback whale in large gillnets, which were cast to recapture escaped farmed fish from a Canada facility.13 These are merely two of many unfortunate entanglements.
Large populations of farmed fish will require an incredible amount of fish feed, which carries its own environmental, public health, and human rights risks.14 Most industrially farmed finfish,
9 Rob Edwards, The Sunday Herald, Scottish government accused of colluding with drug giant over pesticides scandal, (June 2, 2017),
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15326945.Scottish_government_accused_of_colluding_with_drug_giant_over pesticides_scandal/.
10 I. Milewski, et al., (2018), Sea Cage aquaculture impacts market and berried lobster catches, Mar Ecol Prog Ser 598: 85-97, available at https://www.int-res.com/articles/meps2018/598/m598p085.pdf. 11 United Nations, “Frontiers 2017: Emerging Issues of Environmental Concern” at 15 (2017), https://www.unep.org/resources/frontiers-2017-emerging-issues-environmental-concern. 12 Caleb Jones, USA Today, Rare Monk Seal Dies in Fish Farm off Hawaii (Mar. 17 2017), available at https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/03/17/rare-monk-seal-dies-fish-farm-off-hawaii/99295396/. 13 Terri Coles, CBC News, Humpback whale freed from net meant for escaped farm salmon in Hermitage Bay (Aug. 14, 2018), https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/whale-caught-gill-net-cooke-aquaculture 1.4784732.
14 See generally, Changing Markets Foundation, Until the Seas Run Dry (2019), available at
like salmon, are carnivorous and require protein in their feed. This often consists of lower trophic level “forage fish,” some of which are at risk of collapse. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that one-fifth of the combined world-capture of wild marine fish is processed into fish meal/fish oil (FMFO), the majority of which is used to feed farmed fish.15 Aquaculture facilities are also relying more on genetically engineered non-marine ingredients such as corn and soy, as substitute protein sources, which do not naturally exist in a fish’s diet. Use of these ingredients can lead to increased, widespread environmental degradation, more demand on natural resources, and a less nutritious fish for consumers. Moreover, the fish-feed industry is a global contributor to human trafficking and slavery.16 There are very few requirements for the industry to include traceability of ingredients or sourcing methods in fish feed, allowing these serious problems to continue.
Finally, permitting commercial, marine finfish aquaculture in the United States could bring formidable economic harm to our coastal communities, food producers (on land and at sea), and other marine-reliant industries. Members of the wild-capture fishing industry have collectively voiced their trepidations over attempting to coexist with the marine finfish aquaculture industry, stating that “this emerging industrial practice is incompatible with the sustainable commercial fishing practices embraced by our nation for generations and contravenes our vision for environmentally sound management of our oceans.”17 These massive facilities could also close off and essentially privatize large swaths of the ocean that are currently available for numerous other commercial purposes, including fishing, tourism, and shipping. Given what we know about economies of scale, and the business models of modern agriculture and terrestrial food production, we can only expect a similar trend at sea: that is, the marine finfish aquaculture industry could easily push out responsible, smaller-scale seafood producers and others. This dynamic equates to an alarming imbalance of power, and allows corporations to dominate business structures, production methods, and management policies within the industry. Giving corporations disproportionate influence over food production also severely limits consumer choices.18 Additionally, this means we are essentially swapping one industry for others – without a meaningful increase in jobs or boost to the economy – just a shift from smaller scale and independent to industrialized and corporate. This also often equates to shifting power away from people who have experienced historic discrimination,
http://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/REPORT-WEB-UNTILL-THE-SEAS-DRY.pdf (concluding that using wild fish to feed farmed fish “raises concerns of overfishing, poor animal welfare and disruption of aquatic food webs; it also undermines food security in developing countries, as less fish is available for direct human consumption”).
15 Global Banking & Finance Review, Aquaculture's Profitability is at
Stake, https://www.globalbankingandfinance.com/aquacultures-future-profitability-is-at-stake/. 16 Tickler, David ,et al. (2018) Modern slavery and the race to fish, Nature Communications 9: 4643, available at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07118-9.
17 Open letter to Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, Dec. 4, 2018, re: Opposition to marine finfish aquaculture in U.S. waters, available at http://foe.org/DecFishFarmingSignOnLetter/. 18 See generally, Undercurrent News, World’s 100 Largest Seafood Companies
(Oct. 7, 2016), https://www.undercurrentnews.com/report/undercurrent-news-worlds-100-largest-seafood companies-2016/; Tom Seaman, Undercurrent News, World’s top 20 salmon farmers: Mitsubishi moves into second place behind Marine Harvest (June 29, 2016),
https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2016/06/29/worlds-top-20-salmon-farmers-mitsubishi-moves-into-second place-behind-marine-harvest/; Aslak Berge, Undercurrent News, These are the world’s 20 largest salmon producers (July 30, 2017), http://salmonbusiness.com/these-are-the-worlds-20-largest-salmon-producers/.
including indigenous Tribes.
II. There are significant legal and conflict-of-interest concerns with streamlining regulations and permitting of marine aquaculture.
There is a significant conflict-of-interest risk within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which is the self-proclaimed lead federal agency on policy formulation and regulation of domestic aquaculture. However, in addition to its regulatory efforts, NOAA also has prioritized the explicit goal of promoting and expanding marine aquaculture production in the United States. For 2019, NOAA Fisheries stated:
A high priority objective in the Department of Commerce strategic plan is “increasing marine aquaculture production.” Supplementing U.S. wild-caught fisheries, a healthy marine aquaculture industry has the potential to greatly increase our overall U.S. seafood production and reduce the seafood trade deficit. In 2019, we will give our full support to growing a healthy U.S. marine aquaculture industry. Our first step will be to address the bureaucratic hurdles an applicant faces in the federal permitting process.19
The Report confirms our concerns that the Administration is charging full-steam ahead with promoting this potentially disastrous industry without exercising due diligence to fully understand the risks and impacts of permitting commercial facilities in United States’ waters. In fact, the dearth of environmental, public health, and other socio-economic concerns mentioned in the Report seems to confirm that the Administration is already displaying harmful outcomes from a conflict of interest - a work plan that sacrifices even basic regulation, enforcement, and transparency, to achieve rapid and easy industry growth and profitability. Such swift development of marine aquaculture will be achieved at the expense of our ocean ecosystems, coastal and fishing economies, and public health.
As noted above, the first objective of this Report, “[e]xpand the range of aquaculture activities authorized under general permits and through programmatic consultations,” clearly shows that the overarching goal of this report is to encourage unfettered offshore aquaculture expansion, with no regard to the environmental, health, or socioeconomic impacts.
The legality of using general permits for such efforts has been, and is currently being, challenged on various fronts. In fact, earlier this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling revoking a Clean Water Act general permit used to authorize the vast majority of commercial shellfish aquaculture in Washington state.20 The District Court had found the Nationwide Permit unlawful, including for failing to adequately evaluate cumulative
19 NOAA Fisheries, Priorities and Annual Guidance 2019 at 1, available at
https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam-migration/noaa-priorities-2019-final-march-2019.pdf. 20 Center for Food Safety, Court of Appeals Backs Environmentalists: Federal Greenlight of Industrial Shellfish Aquaculture Unlawful, Feb. 11, 2021, https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/6264/court-of-appeals backs-environmentalists-federal-greenlight-of-industrial-shellfish-aquaculture-unlawful.
impacts to the environment from the tens of thousands of acres of aquaculture. Using general permits for open water marine aquaculture is especially problematic, as each space - each environment - is unique. Even areas off of the same states, for example Florida, can be dramatically different from north to south – with varying species, currents, temperatures and more – all significant for siting of facilities. General permits are an unacceptable means of streamlining development too, because it allows for less notice, comment and thoughtful process from multiple agencies and stakeholders for these facilities. Given the potential for extensive and possibly permanent damage resulting from offshore marine aquaculture, general permits should not be used.
Finally, offshore aquaculture is not a resilience strategy for climate change, rather the practice could be extremely detrimental to people and the planet in light of a changing climate. Beginning in 1980, climate change has contributed to an increase in risk of hurricanes and other tropical cyclones.21 Intensity of storms is also increasing, as was clearly demonstrated by Hurricane Ida that hit the United States Gulf Coast on August 29, 2021 at 150 mph, and then proceeded up to the northeast where it also caused considerable damage, flooding and deaths. These storms can impact different areas over a wide geographic range. Real concerns remain on how offshore aquaculture facilities will secure equipment under the force of a major, or series of major, storms. Global climate models consistently project a significant increase in sea surface temperatures, which would drive an increase in destructive tropical storms with high-intensity winds, extreme rainfall, and high storm surge, all of which could impact aquaculture operations. The increasing frequency of extreme precipitation events is also compounding coastal flooding risk, when storm surge and heavy rainfall occur together.22 As climate change continues, the intensity of tropical storms is projected to continually increase, making hurricanes and other storms more and more destructive.
Climate change also exacerbates the possibility of disease spread. Fish are vulnerable to changes in their aquatic habitat, especially, in the case of net pens, where they cannot move away.23 Climate change increases the risk of pathogen prevalence and/or virulence and host susceptibility (immunosuppression) and transmission.24 Planning to streamline permitting for marine aquaculture is a wasteful use of resources at this time, as offshore aquaculture facilities, and the fish they contain will be highly vulnerable to a changing climate.
III. If it moves forward, the task force must devote significant resources to researching the potential socio-economic, public health, and
environmental problems associated with industrial offshore aquaculture and transparency.
21 Hiroyuki Murakami, et al., Detected climatic change in global distribution of tropical cyclones, PNAS (May 4, 2020), https://www.pnas.org/content/117/20/10706.
22 See generally Tom Knutson, Global Warming and Hurricanes: An Overview of Current Research Results, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, last revised Aug. 9, 2021, https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming and-hurricanes/.
23 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Impacts of Climate Change on Fisheries and Aquaculture, at 526 (2018), http://www.fao.org/policy-support/tools-and-publications/resources details/en/c/1152846/.
24 Id.
To promote only sustainable and responsible aquaculture development and production in the United States, the task force must devote sufficient resources to studying and understanding the risks and impacts of the industry for the environment, society, and the economy. This includes both thorough and separate review of all forms of aquaculture. Not all aquaculture is the same, and finfish facilities, in particular, pose very different threats and consequences than others.
However, the Report focuses on a utopian view of streamlined aquaculture, including, but not limited to, improving efficiencies (rather than traceability, health, or quality) for drug approvals, biologics, and feed ingredients; developing surveillance strategies and emergency response plans for “priority” pathogens (rather than natural prevention or mitigation of all pathogens); the movement, import, and export of aquaculture product; and improving efficiency of siting, permitting, and authorizing of operations in at least two marine areas.
In fact, the only section of the Report dedicated to the risks we highlight is “Objective 1.4: Improve aquaculture-specific outreach on the NPDES program and continue to provide information on the water quality risks associated with aquatic animal production” and the only other mention of these risks is a passing mention of the need for science-based tools to “to site and manage aquaculture facilities, identify strategies to minimize, and avoid negative impacts to protected species and habitats, reduce the risk of invasive species introductions, minimize use conflicts, and evaluate risks associated with disease and genetic risk interactions between farmed and wild populations.”25
Thus, it is very clear that the task force, and federal agencies involved, are prematurely pushing forward with streamlined permitting of an industry about which very little is being studied. The process also raises questions about the task force interplay with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements.
Additionally, if the task force moves forward, ongoing transparency is required. This means noticing meetings, encouraging and soliciting public input, and allowing for a meaningful comment period with any future plans. Failing to disclose and notice any work of the task force in the name of efficiency is problematic, as marine aquaculture affects public resources, meant to be used and managed for the benefit of the public, not just special interests.
We are alarmed that the Report lacks meaningful discussion of, or planning for, the risks and impacts discussed above. We urge the task force to prioritize and incorporate such information.
As we discussed in our previous comments on the Draft Outline for a Workplan for a Federal Aquaculture Regulatory Task Force (FARTF) dated November 8, 2019, we again strongly recommend placing a hold on the task force actions, and any related activity, to improve regulatory efficiency and predictability, until the following action items are implemented:
25 Report, at 26.
Goal 1. Comprehensively analyze the risks and impacts of commercial aquaculture in the United States.
Objective 1.1: Conduct socioeconomic research to discover the impacts that aquaculture would have on marine-reliant industries, coastal economies, and land-based crop production Objective 1.2: Compile and analyze the range of environmental harms of commercial-scale aquaculture (shellfish, finfish and plants)
Objective 1.3: Research environmental and public health impacts of veterinary drugs and other chemicals used in aquaculture
Objective 1.4: Implement proper mitigation and alleviation strategies, including consideration of alternatives to marine aquaculture, like recirculating systems on land, and elimination of marine finfish aquaculture production from the national strategic plan.
We also urge the task force to require that all research carried out pursuant to its work be entirely independent, to ensure that there is no conflict of interest or bias in the analysis and conclusions.
We look forward to engaging further in this process at every available opportunity. Sincerely,
Recirculating Farms
Marianne Cufone, Executive Director
mcufone@recirculatingfarms.org
North American Marine Alliance
Rosanna Marie Neil, Policy Counsel
rosanna@namanet.org
Alaska Longline Fishermen’s Association
Linda Behnken, Executive Director
alfafishak@gmail.com
Alliance of Communities for Sustainable Fisheries
Alan Alward, Co-Chair
netflea@charter.net
Center for Biological Diversity
Jaclyn Lopez, Florida Director
jlopez@biologicaldiversity.org
Center for Food Safety
Meredith Stevenson, Associate Attorney
mstevenson@centerforfoodsafety.org
9
Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara
Tim Mulcahy, Fisherman
fvcalogera@yahoo.com
Duna Fisheries, LLC
Amanda Grondin, Owner/Operator
ajgrondin@gmail.com
Food & Water Watch
Zach Corrigan , Sr. Staff Attorney
zcorrigan@fwwatch.org
Friends of the Earth
Hallie Templeton, Legal Director & Senior Campaigner htempleton@foe.org
F/V Arminta
Greg Friedrichs, Commercial Fisherman
dunafish@me.com
Greenhorns
Severine Fleming, Director
severine@greenhorns.org
Healthy Gulf
Raleigh Hoke, Campaign Director
raleigh@healthygulf.org
Mangrove Action Project
Alfredo Quarto, Program & Policy Director/Co-Founder mangroveap@olympus.net
Morro Bay Commercial Fishermen’s Organization Tom Hafer, President
somethingsfishy@charter.net
Oceanic Preservation Society
Courtney Vail, Campaigns Director
courtney@opsociety.org
Olympic Environmental Council
Darlene Schanfald, Secretary
darlenes@olympus.net
10
Pride of Bristol Bay
Stephen Kurian, Owner
steve@prideofbristolbay.com
SalmonState
Elizabeth Herendeen, Marketplace Manager
elizabeth@salmonstate.org
San Diego Fishermen’s Working Group
Pete Halmay, President
peterhalmay@gmail.com
Seaweed Commons
Severine Fleming, Director
severine@greenhorns.org
Slow Food USA
Ed Yowell, Chair, Food and Farming Policy Steering Committee eayowell@outlook.com
Suncoast Waterkeeper
Justin Bloom, Founder and Board Vice-Chair
bloomesq1@gmail.com
Western Fishboat Owners Association
Tim Mulcahy, Fisherman
fvcalogera@yahoo.com
Wild for Salmon
Steve Kurian, Owner
steve@wildforsalmon.com
Wild Salmon Nation
Johnny Fishmonger, Executive Director
wildsalmonnation@gmail.com
USDA - Office of Communication
WASHINGTON, Sept. 9, 2021 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) today announced it will soon publish Requests for Applications (RFAs) for new grant programs - the Pandemic Response and Safety (PRS) Grant program and the Seafood Processors Pandemic Response and Safety Block Grant program - to support agricultural stakeholders who haven’t yet received substantial federal financial assistance in responding to the COVID-19 crisis. These grant programs will provide assistance to small businesses in certain commodity areas, including small scale specialty crop producers and processors, shellfish, aquaculture and other select producers, meat and other processors, distributors, farmers markets, seafood facilities and processing vessels. Today USDA released grant forecasts for these new programs to help potential applicants determine their eligibility and to prepare to apply for funding. Approximately $650 million in funding is available for the PRS grants and $50 million is available for SPRS. All of these new programs are funded by the Pandemic Assistance provided in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021.
“As the economy continues to gain strength after the Biden Administration’s historic vaccination and economic relief efforts, USDA is working with agricultural and food businesses to ensure they have the resources and tools to thrive in 2021 and beyond,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. “The funding associated with USDA Pandemic Assistance is meant to serve as a bridge from disruptions associated with the pandemic to longer-term investments to help build back a better food system. Financial relief to these essential producers, distributors, processors and other small agricultural businesses is a critical to get our food system back on track.”
For the PRS grants, eligible entities are detailed in the Pandemic Response and Safety Grant Program forecast, USDA-AMS-TM-PRS-G-21-0011. Eligible entities should visit the PRS grant portal at usda-prs.grantsolutions.gov for complete information on the program, including how to obtain a free of charge DUNS Number from Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) BEFORE applying for this program. On September 23, USDA will issue another announcement indicating that entities may submit their applications through the grant portal; entities will need their DUNS number to submit an application.
For the Seafood PRS grants, USDA will allocate block grant funding to U.S. states and territories based on a formula that considers economic activity as demonstrated through commercial fisheries landings. Eligible entities are state agencies as detailed in the Seafood Processors Pandemic Response and Safety Block Grant Program forecast, USDA-AMS-TM-SPRS-G-21-0012. The state agency will then provide funds to seafood processing facilities and processing vessels. Seafood processors and processing vessels should apply directly through their State agency; seafood processors and processing vessels should not apply through PRS and should instead contact their state agency for financial assistance once USDA awards funds to states. A listing of state contacts will be made available on the USDA website. Tribal government owned eligible entities may apply directly to USDA, details of which will be developed through tribal consultation in conjunction with Office of Tribal Relations.
Updated information regarding the PRS and Seafood PRS programs will be available on the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) website: www.ams.usda.gov.
Any grant application submitted after the due date will not be considered unless the applicant provides documentation of an extenuating circumstance that prevented their timely submission of the grant application. Read more in AMS Late and Non-Responsive Application Policy (PDF, 431 KB).
USDA touches the lives of all Americans each day in so many positive ways. In the Biden-Harris Administration, USDA is transforming America’s food system with a greater focus on more resilient local and regional food production, fairer markets for all producers, ensuring access to safe, healthy and nutritious food in all communities, building new markets and streams of income for farmers and producers using climate smart food and forestry practices, making historic investments in infrastructure and clean energy capabilities in rural America, and committing to equity across the Department by removing systemic barriers and building a workforce more representative of America. To learn more, visit www.usda.gov.
Press Release
August 18, 2021
On August 9th, 2021, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) recertified the North Pacific fixed gear sablefish fishery as sustainable according to the MSC’s rigorous guidelines, and extended that certification to the Northern Southeast Inside’s sablefish fishery for the first time.
"This recertification rightly acknowledges the hard work of Alaska fixed gear fishermen and fishery managers to maintain healthy fisheries in balance with marine ecosystems," said Bob Alverson, Director of Fishing Vessel Owners Association (FVOA). The client for MSC halibut and sablefish is “Eat on the Wild Side” a non-profit of the FVOA and Deep Sea Fishermen’s Union (DSFU). “MSC certification requires continued improvement in best fishing and management practices and our sablefish fisheries met all identified criteria."
The Marine Stewardship Council uses its ecolabel and fishery certification program to contribute to the health of the world's oceans by recognizing and rewarding sustainable fishing practices, influencing the choices people make when buying seafood, and working to transform the seafood market to a sustainable basis. The MSC first certified the North Pacific fixed gear sablefish fisheries on April 18, 2006.
"The addition of the NSEI sablefish fishery to the MSC certification makes solid sense both ecologically and from a marketing perspective," said Linda Behnken of the Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association (ALFA). "Sablefish are highly migratory, with significant mixing between open ocean and 'inside' stocks. The only difference is that one stock is carefully managed under the federal system and one even more conservatively by the State of Alaska-both merit the MSC label and the label's marketing benefits."
Seafood Producers Cooperative (SPC), a processing and marketing cooperative located in Sitka Alaska, requested FVOA and ALFA work with the MSC to expand sablefish certification to include the Northern Southeast Inside fishery. SPC provided essential information required during the certification review, facilitating the successful outcome of the process.
"This was a strong team effort by FVOA, DSFU, ALFA and SPC to secure appropriate MSC marketing benefits for our fixed gear members and the fleet generally," said Jeff Reynolds, General Manager of SPC. "The domestic demand for sablefish, which is an exceptional deep water fish, is growing and customers deserve to know that the fixed gear fishery is sustainably managed throughout Alaska. The MSC label provides that level of confidence both in the US and overseas."
For more information contact: Bob Alverson, FVOA, roberta@fvoa.org, (206) 283-7735
Linda Behnken, ALFA, alfafishak@gmail.com, 907-738-3615
Becky Martello, SPC, BMartello@spcsales.com, 907-738-2605
Jim Johnson, DSFU, jj.deepseafishermensunion@gmail.com,
(206) 783-2922
