Blog

Below is a comment provided by the Coalition for U.S. Seafood Production (CUSP) regarding the Proposed Aquaculture Plan for Federal Water of the Gulf of Mexico. To read more about the Plan and to post a comment, please click here.

A diverse group of seafood industry stakeholders representing the full value chain banded together in 2013 to form the Coalition of U.S. Seafood Production (CUSP).  CUSP is made up of aquaculture and feed producers, retail and restaurant customers, researchers, technology and feed suppliers, public aquariums and other not-for-profit organizations. The U.S. has enormous potential to expand domestic seafood production through aquaculture. This growth will create jobs from working water fronts to the agricultural heartland; make safe, nutritious, sustainable domestic seafood available to U.S. consumers; complement wild catch rebuilding efforts with farmed seafood and reduce the trade deficit while strengthening national food security. 

After considerable discussion and review CUSP would like to offer the following comments on the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council Aquaculture FMP. Although the current version is an improvement over previous versions the proposal still has a number of serious flaws that should be changed during the rule making process.  

1. The current draft (pages 11, 12) requires an applicant have a valid federal ACOE and EPA NPDES permits PRIOR to the issuance of a Gulf of Mexico Aquaculture permit. ACOE and EPA typically require permit applicants to demonstrate “proof of Tenure or ownership” as part of their application. In both cases the agencies look for an aquaculture lease or permit for a specific location as the Proof of Tenure. This two way requirement for acquisition of the other agencies permits PRIOR to granting of any of the agencies permits creates a catch 22 for both the agencies and the applicant. Furthermore the situation creates a barrier to investment because no investors are going to capitalize a project without all the permits.

Solution: The RA should be directed to negotiate a MOU between NOAA, ACOE and EPA establishing that ACOE and EPA will accept a completed application for a Gulf of Mexico Aquaculture Permit as proof of tenure for their permit application process. Additionally the aquaculture FMP should include language that explicitly indicates that completed applications for an ACOE and EPA NPDES permits shall be taken as prima fascia evidence of a good faith effort to acquire these permits and should allow the Gulf of Mexico aquaculture permit application to move forward. Finally the rule should make clear that all other permits should be acquired prior to deployment, rather than prior to issuance of the NOAA permit.

2. The current draft (page 12) requires that an applicant agrees to “immediately remove all components of the aquaculture facility” if an “OIE reportable pathogen or pathogen identified as reportable pathogens in the National Aquatic Animal Health Plan ….is found at the facility”.  CUSP agrees that the RA must have the tools to respond to the occurrence of a reportable pathogen at a facility.  The requirement to immediately remove ALL components of a facility is extreme and would be only one of many options a resource manager, animal health professional and/or farmer might use to respond to a disease situation. Part (L) also states that the detection of any of these pathogen constitutes a permit condition violation. This means that if a pathogen from the wild infects a farm through no fault of the farmer and even if said farmer has followed all the required best management practices, rules and regulations the farmer has committed a permit violation. It is one thing to require a farmer to comply with the aquatic animal health recommendations of animal health professionals and regulators it is extreme to mandate up front what those actions shall be and force a farmer to a priori admit a permit violation that could be subject to fines and criminal conviction.  This section should be rewritten.

Solution: Suggested language:  “(L). Documentation certifying that the applicant agrees to work with the appropriate animal health regulatory authorities to develop and implement a response plan in the event of the detection of a reportable pathogen defined as such by the OIE and/or National Aquatic Animal Health Plan.  The response plan may include a number of different animal health management methods including but not necessarily limited to, increased surveillance, selected cage depopulation, full facility depopulation, fallowing of the facility and facility disinfection and cleaning. The detection of a reportable pathogen does not in and of itself constitute a permit violation when the farmer has implemented all required best management practices and complied with all permit and regulatory requirements.”

3. The current draft contains (Page 13-14) a requirement that all broodstock and any juveniles they produce for the farm are from the Gulf of Mexico AND the “same population or sub-population of fish where the aquaculture facility is located”.  The FMP contains no definition of a population or sub-population. Nor does it indicate how a farmer proves compliance? The draft language is imprecise and unclear. This section needs to be rewritten.

Solution: suggested language: “(N) Certification by the applicant that all broodstock used to provide juveniles to the aquaculture facility were originally harvested from U.S. waters of the Gulf and that each individual broodstock was marked or tagged at the hatchery to allow for identification of those individuals used in spawning. Records of specifically where those broodstock were collected must be maintained as long as the decedents of those broodstock are being used at the permitted aquaculture facility.”

4. The current draft indicates (Page 19) that the duration of permits issued will initially be for 10 years with subsequent 5 years renewals. This permit period is too short and CUSP questions why there should be any requirement to renew a permit at all if a permittee has operated responsibly with no major violations. Furthermore the current draft is silent on whether a permit is still valid if it has expired but a renewal application has been filed.

Many aquaculture production cycles are three years or longer. A 10 year permit allows relatively few production cycles in which to develop the new techniques required for offshore production. Offshore farms will require large capital investments. Permit holders must have adequate time to develop new techniques and pay off their large capital investment. The permit period should be increased. Without this certainty of tenure, farmers will be unable to raise the necessary levels of capital to develop offshore farms

Solution: If permits are for a limited period and renewal required then permits should be for a minimum of 25 years. Renewal should be for the same period, NOT a shorter one. The renewal clause (Page 21. (vi)) should contain an explicit statement stating that as long as the current permit holder is not in violation of any permit conditions, and has filed a completed renewal application in a timely fashion the permit shall be considered valid and in effect during the time it takes  the RA or permitting agency to process the renewal application.  

5. The current draft (page 43) limits the production of a single entity to 12.8 million pounds whole weight per year. This is a relatively small farm by modern standards and is problematic if you are developing an offshore farm in the EEZ where the scale of the farm has to be large enough to justify the higher investment necessary. This limit should be significantly increased.

Solution: Raise the limit on production by a single entity to 20 million pounds per year.