Marine Aquaculture, Marine Mammals,

and

Marine Turtles Interactions Workshop

Held in Silver Spring, Maryland

12-13 January, 1999

Edited by:

Katie Moore and Donna Wieting

in collaboration with the Workshop Participants

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

Office of Protected Resources

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-16

November 1999
Marine Aquaculture, Marine Mammals,

and

Marine Turtles Interactions Workshop

Held in Silver Spring, Maryland

12-13 January, 1999

Edited by:

Katie Moore and Donna Wieting

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

Office of Protected Resources

1315 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

U.S. Department of Commerce

Leon Mineta, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

D. James Baker, Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere

National Marine Fisheries Service

Penelope D. Dalton, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPRNovember 1999
Suggested Citation:

Moore, Katie and Donna Wieting. Marine

Aquaculture, Marine Mammals, and Marine Turtles

Interaction Workshop 12-13 January 1999, Silver

Spring, Maryland. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech.

Memo. NMFS-OPR-16, 60 p.

This technical memorandum series is used for documentation and timely

communication of preliminary results, interim reports, or similar specialpurpose information. Although the memoranda are not subject to

complete formal review, editorial control, or detailed editing, they are

expected to reflect sound professional work. The views and conclusions

expressed by the authors are not necessarily those of the National

Marine Fisheries Service. In addition, the mention of trade names or

commercial firms is for information only and does not imply endorsement
Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their deep appreciation to Kate Colborn for organizing the

meeting and the Office of Protected Resources for sponsoring the meeting. The authors would also

like to thank the workshop participants for their attendance, suggestions, and lengthy discussion on

the issues.
Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................1

1.0 Introduction...................................................................................................................8

2.0 Workshop Purpose.........................................................................................................9

3.0 Workshop Proceedings ................................................................................................11

3.1 Welcome by NMFS .........................................................................................11

3.2 Welcome by NOAA ........................................................................................12

3.2.1 Question and Answer Session ............................................................13

3.3 Workshop Structure ........................................................................................14

3.4 Introduction of Workshop Attendees .............................................................15

3.5 Discussion: Aquaculture Risk Management and Marine Mammals in

the Pacific Northwest .......................................................................................15

3.5.1 Overview of Aquaculture Production in the U.S. and Pacific

Northwest..............................................................................................15

3.5.2 Risks to the Industry from Marine Mammals......................................16

3.5.2.1 Risks to Shellfish Farming......................................................16

3.5.2.2 Risks to Enhanced or Culture-Based Fisheries ......................16

3.5.2.3 Risks to Net-Pen Fish Farms ..................................................17

3.5.2.4 Risks to People in Aquaculture and Coastal Industries............18

3.5.3 Managing and Controlling the Risks .................................................18

3.5.3.1 Management Actions to Reduce Market-Related Risks ........18

3.5.3.2 Management Actions to Reduce Operational Risks ..............18

3.5.3.3 Management Actions to Reduce Technological Risks ..........19

3.5.4 Summary .............................................................................................19

3.5.5 Question and Answer Session .............................................................19

3.6 Presentation: Ocean Spar Net Design .............................................................20

3.6.1 Net Durability ....................................................................................20

3.6.2 Marine Mammal Interactions .............................................................20

3.7 Discussion: ESA Section 7 Reviews ...............................................................21

3.7.1 Sea Scallop Project I...........................................................................22

3.7.2 Sea Scallop Project II ........................................................................23

3.7.3 University of New Hampshire’s Mussels Project ..............................24

3.7.4 Flounder Culture Project ...................................................................25

3.7.5 American-Norwegian Fish Farms .....................................................26

3.7.6 Northeast Region Recommendations for Section 7 Reviews..............28

3.7.7 Question and Answer Session .............................................................28

3.8 Discussion: Acoustic Deterrence ..................................................................29

3.8.1 Auditory Anatomy of Marine Mammals ...........................................29

3.8.2 Acoustic Pain ......................................................................................31

3.8.3 Habituation to Sound .........................................................................32

3.8.4 Questions And Answer Session .........................................................33
4.0 Working Group Proceedings .........................................................................................33

4.1 Siting ................................................................................................................34

4.2 Pinniped Predation ...........................................................................................37

4.3 Entanglement ...................................................................................................40

4.4 Standards and Guidelines .................................................................................41

4.5 Research ...........................................................................................................45

4.6 Habitat Issues ...................................................................................................46

5.0 Whole Group Discussion ...............................................................................................47

5.1 Offshore Siting .................................................................................................47

5.1.1 Geographic Information Systems .........................................................47

5.1.2 General Siting Issues for Offshore Aquaculture ..................................48

5.1.3 Offshore Site Considerations ...............................................................49

5.2 Policy Making ...................................................................................................49

5.3 Administrative Structure Changes ....................................................................49

5.4 Key Principles ...................................................................................................50

6.0 Recommendations.........................................................................................................50

6.1 Group Research Recommendations..................................................................51

6.2 Non-research Recommendations .....................................................................52

7.0 Closing Comments ......................................................................................................53

8.0 Future Action ...............................................................................................................53

Appendix 1: Workshop Agenda ...............................................................................................54

Appendix 2: Workshop Participants ........................................................................................55

Appendix 3: Discussion Topics for Break-Out Group Discussions..........................................58

Appendix 4: Background Documents Supplied to Participants...............................................59

Appendix 5: Letter to Workshop Attendees..............................................................................64
1

Pinnipeds: Marine mammals of the Order Carnivora, Sub-Order Pinnipedia include fur seals,

sea lions, walrus, and true seals.

1

Executive Summary

ISSUE BACKGROUND

Aquaculture is a growing industry with the United States production

having increased roughly 5-10% each year over the past decade. Fish

are now farmed in every U.S. state and territory, and marine

aquaculture is expected to grow significantly over the next ten years.

Interactions between marine aquaculture facilities and marine mammals

and turtles can have significant negative impacts. There are

documented cases of interactions between nearshore aquaculture

operations and pinnipeds1 on both the United States east and west

coasts. These interactions include injury and mortality to marine

mammals from entanglement as well as economic losses to the

aquaculture industry due to damaged gear. Interactions can also occur

offshore. For instance, offshore aquaculture facilities in New

Zealand have documented marine mammal entanglements. Marine turtles

are also at risk of entanglement from offshore aquaculture operations.

After hatching, some species migrate offshore and become associated

with Sargassum rafts and other flotsam. Aquaculture components, such

as net pens, may “collect” these rafts or interfere with their natural

passive movements, and thereby may entangle, capture, or disrupt

migratory movements of post-hatching or pelagic-state marine turtles.

As marine aquaculture operations expand in the nearshore and offshore

marine environment, it is likely that interactions with marine mammals

and marine turtles will increase.

Within the Department of Commerce (DOC), the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has taken a leadership role to

support and promote the development of environmentally sound

aquaculture. Many recent efforts have focused on this topic:

• The DOC Aquaculture Task Force chaired by NOAA, has developed an

aquaculture policy which defines DOC’s aquaculture mission and

specifies objectives for the year 2025, which include: an

increase in the value of domestic aquaculture production from the

present $800 million to $5 billion; an increase in jobs in the

aquaculture sector from the present estimate of 180,000 to

600,000 jobs; and a goal of 100% domestic compliance with a Code

of Conduct for Responsible Aquaculture (to be developed).
2

• In February 1998, NOAA released its own aquaculture policy which

outlines aquaculture priorities for the National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research

(OAR), and the National Ocean Service (NOS). These priorities 

include research, development, technology transfer, financial

assistance to businesses, environmental safeguards including

regulatory and permit procedures, and coordination among private,

state, and federal partners.

• Objective 4 of NOAA’s Build Sustainable Fisheries Strategic Plan

is to promote the development of robust and environmentally sound

aquaculture by 2002.

• NOAA identified aquaculture as a priority for Fiscal Year (FY)

1999 and FY 2000 budget initiatives, with specific research and

implementation goals.

• At the National Ocean Conference held in Monterey, California in

May 1998, the President committed an additional $3 million per

year for the following three years to support the expansion of

marine aquaculture.

The marine aquaculture industry has been associated with incidental

“takes” of marine mammals and marine turtles. Incidental takes as

specified under section 10 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) refers

to such taking which is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the

carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Incidental takes are

regulated under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as well as

provisions within the ESA. The NOAA’s NMFS is one of a multitude of

affected federal government entities involved in regulatory issues

surrounding the interaction of marine aquaculture and marine mammals

and turtles. NMFS and its Office of Protected Resources (OPR) is

responsible for implementation of the MMPA and for the conservation

and management of most marine species under the ESA. For this reason,

the OPR conduced this workshop to identify ways to avoid or minimize

interactions between aquaculture operations and marine

mammals/turtles.

WORKSHOP BACKGROUND

The workshop sponsored by OPR was held on January 12-13, 1999 to

discuss the interaction of marine mammals, marine turtles, and marine

aquaculture. The workshop was attended by various governmental,

industry, scientific, and environmental representatives totaling

approximately 40 participants, several observers, and a facilitator.
2

Exclusive Economic Zone: Adjacent to state waters, which extend three miles out from the

coast, the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone includes water from three to 200 nautical miles from

shore. The state waters of Texas, Puerto Rico, and the west coast of Florida extend nine miles

from sh ore.

3

As marine aquaculture operations expand, it is likely that

interactions with marine mammals and turtles will increase, with

potential adverse affects to marine mammals and turtles and

aquaculture operations. The purpose of this workshop was:

To bring together regional NMFS experts in marine mammals,

marine turtles, and marine aquaculture operations to develop

recommendations on specific guidelines and standards for

aquaculture siting and operation to minimize adverse impacts

to marine protected species from nearshore and offshore

aquaculture operations.

The intent was to solicit individual suggestions, not consensus or

group decisions. Through discussions and interactions between members

of the government, the marine aquaculture industry, academia, and

environmental organizations it was hoped that NMFS would gain valuable

insight regarding many of the most critical interactions between

aquaculture and marine mammals and turtles.

The guidelines and standards discussed in this workshop were geared

towards identifying:

(a) Areas to be avoided in siting aquaculture facilities in coastal

and offshore areas;

(b) Best practices to build and operate aquaculture facilities in

order to avoid or minimize predation by pinnipeds;

(c) Best practices to build and operate offshore facilities to avoid

interactions with marine mammals (particularly cetaceans) and

turtles; And 

(d) Research needs.

The guidelines and standards are intended:

(a) To guide NMFS representatives in the review of aquaculture

permits;

(b) To provide siting and operational guidelines for NMFS’ Code of

Conduct for Responsible Fisheries; And

(c) To help NMFS accomplish the goals of its strategic plan. The

plan calls for NMFS to accomplish several actions within the next

five years. The actions include reducing the time and cost of

permitting environmentally sound marine aquaculture, providing

financial assistance for environmentally sound marine aquaculture

ventures, identifying areas in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone2

suitable for environmentally sound marine aquaculture, and
4

developing and implementing environmentally sound marine

aquaculture technologies and practices.

WORKSHOP FORMAT

The workshop was held on January 12 and 13, 1999 at the NMFS office in

Silver Spring, Maryland on 1315 East-West Highway. It was organized

by Kate Colborn and chaired by Donna Wieting, both of OPR. 

The purpose of this workshop was to bring together regional NMFS

experts in marine mammals, marine turtles, and marine aquaculture

operations to develop recommendations on specific guidelines and

standards for aquaculture siting and operation to minimize adverse

affects to marine protected species from nearshore and offshore

aquaculture operations. In addition, a number of non-NMFS

representatives were invited to present information and guide the

development of recommendations. 

The participants represented various regions of the United States

including the Northeast, Southeast, Northwest, and Gulf of Mexico. In

an effort to facilitate discussion, NMFS contracted Ms. Mary Skelton

Roberts of the Keystone Center to lead the discussion. Participants

were given an agenda, discussion topics, as well as background

materials before convening the workshop. 

Participants were divided into working groups that discussed various

issues associated with marine mammal, marine turtle, and marine

aquaculture interactions. Each subgroup participated in lengthy

discussions on key issues. The workshop participants convened several

times over the course of the workshop to share subgroup

recommendations.

ISSUES DISCUSSED

The workshop participants were given an information booklet containing

background documents for the discussions. The discussions revolved

around several pre-arranged topics including the following:

Siting

Should areas be identified where marine aquaculture should be

avoided and/or encouraged?

How should those areas be identified? General criteria? 

Mapping? Other?

Pinniped Predation

Is pinniped predation a problem in all types of marine

aquaculture? In all regions?
5

If not, what determines whether or not pinniped predation is a

problem?

What deterrents are currently used? Are they successful? To

what degree?

How can deterrents be improved?

What new methods are needed?

Entanglement

Is entanglement a concern in nearshore aquaculture operations?

If so, what is being done to avoid or minimize it?

What additional methods should be applied?

• Is entanglement a concern in offshore aquaculture operations?

If so, what should be done to avoid or minimize it?

Standards and Guidelines

What are the existing standards and guidelines that affect

aquaculture interactions with marine mammals and turtles?

Are these standards and guidelines sufficient?

What gaps exist in the current standard and guidelines to deal

with marine mammal and turtle concerns?

Where should we focus our efforts to address these gaps?

Should standards be mandatory at this time? 

Or voluntary?

Research

What are the key research needs to address policy issues and

questions related to marine mammals and turtle interactions with

marine aquaculture operations over the next 20 years?

Which are priorities?

WORKSHOP OUTPUTS

NMFS had several anticipated outputs from the discussions. The

anticipated outputs included

guidelines to minimize or avoid adverse effects to marine mammals and

turtles:

from nearshore aquaculture operations, and 

from proposed offshore aquaculture operations.

FINAL GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS

The workshop participants generated approximately twenty

recommendations for future action. The recommendations were not

formally prioritized or agreed to by consensus.

The recommendations include the following (not in any particular

order):
3

Acoustic Ha rassmen t Device (AHD ) : A sound -gene ra ting device which , because of some

combination of intensity, frequency, or other characteristic(s), is aversive to marine mammals and

keeps or drives them away from an area or structure (Acoustic Deterrence of Harmful Marine

Mammal-Fishe ry Interaction s Wo rkshop . NOAA Tech. M emo. NMFS-O PR-10, D ecem ber 1996.)

6

Technology-Associated Efforts

Evaluate the adverse effects of Acoustic Harassment Devices3 on

target and non-target species. 

Encourage the aquaculture industry to investigate new net

technologies. (e.g., sponsor joint projects instead of solely

governmental projects.) 

Research non-lethal, non-technical deterrence methods. . 

Develop new deterrent technologies and strategies. 

Conduct an economic review of new net technologies (e.g., a

viability analysis). Optimize the effectiveness of AHDs through

research on particular species.

Policy Analysis

Research other nations’ approaches to the marine mammal/marine

turtle and aquaculture interaction issue.

Quantify and characterize the economic losses to the aquaculture

industry from pinniped predation. 

Compare agricultural predator deterrent policies and approaches

and determine their applicability to marine aquaculture. 

Perform a risk analysis of the effect of aquaculture compared to

other activities in the marine environment on marine mammals and

marine turtles. 

Habitat Issues

Examine at what point the physical occupation of a habitat or the

use of resources in an area by aquaculture site(s) has become a

problem for marine mammals and marine turtles. 

Evaluate aquaculture site baseline habitat condition changes

before and after aquaculture siting (e.g., monitoring ambient

noise levels). 

Behavioral Studies

Document and characterize marine mammal and marine turtle

interactions with aquaculture sites (e.g., effects of lighting on

turtles, how marine mammals become entangled in aquaculture gear,

etc.).

Further characterize marine mammal/marine turtle behavior and

ecology around aquaculture sites.
7

Identify characteristics of rogue animals, particularly looking

at pinnipeds as predators.

Undertake further research on the distribution of protected

species.

Review and assemble baseline environmental management data. 

Agencies would use the data to create narrative guidance with the

assistance of a Geographic Information System to guide applicants

in aquaculture siting applications. 

Aquaculture Facility Standard Operation Practices

Develop changes to aquaculture facility standard operating

practices in an effort to reduce marine mammal and marine turtle

interactions. (e.g., rotating site locations). 

Develop a tagging method for aquaculture gear for identification

purposes in case of gear loss. Research existing approaches that

are currently used in other fisheries. 

Information Management

Archive literature related to marine mammal and turtle

interactions with aquaculture operations.

Explore the use of the NOAA Library to archive and store

literature.

Consider insurance as a tracking mechanism for implementing and

enforcing guidelines or standards.
8

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Aquaculture is a growing industry with the United States production

having increased roughly 5-10% each year over the past decade. Fish

are now farmed in every U.S. state and territory, and marine

aquaculture is expected to grow significantly over the next ten years.

Interactions between marine aquaculture facilities and marine mammals

and turtles can have significant negative impacts. There are

documented cases of interactions between nearshore aquaculture

operations and pinnipeds on both the east and west coasts of the

United States. These interactions include injury and mortality to

marine mammals from entanglement as well as economic losses to the

aquaculture industry due to damaged gear. Interactions can also occur

offshore. For instance, offshore aquaculture facilities in New

Zealand have documented marine mammal entanglements. Marine turtles

are also at risk of entanglement from offshore aquaculture operations. 

After hatching, some species migrate offshore and become associated

with Sargassum rafts and other flotsam. Aquaculture components, such

as net pens, may “collect” these rafts or interfere with the rafts’

natural passive movements, and thereby may entangle, capture, or

disrupt migratory movements of post-hatching or pelagic-state marine

turtles. As marine aquaculture operations expand in the nearshore and

offshore marine environment, it is likely that interactions with

marine mammals and marine turtles will increase.

Within the Department of Commerce (DOC), the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has taken a leadership role to

support and promote the development of environmentally sound

aquaculture. Many recent efforts have focused on this topic:

• The DOC Aquaculture Task Force chaired by NOAA, has developed an

aquaculture policy which defines DOC’s aquaculture mission and

specifies objectives for the year 2025, which include: an

increase in the value of domestic aquaculture production from the

present 800 million dollars to 5 billion dollars; an increase in

jobs in the aquaculture sector from the present estimate of

180,000 to 600,000 jobs; and a goal of 100% domestic compliance

with a Code of Conduct for Responsible Aquaculture (in

development).

• In February 1998, NOAA released its own aquaculture policy which

outlines aquaculture priorities for the National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research

(OAR), and the National Ocean Service (NOS). These priorities 

include research, development, technology transfer, financial

assistance to businesses, environmental safeguards including
4

Cetacean: Marine mammals of the Order Cetacea which includes baleen whales, dolphins,

porpoises, and toothed whales.

9

regulatory and permit procedures, and coordination among private,

state, and federal partners.

• Objective 4 of NOAA’s Build Sustainable Fisheries Strategic Plan

is to promote the development of robust and environmentally sound

aquaculture by 2002.

• NOAA identified aquaculture as a priority for Fiscal Year (FY)

1999 and FY 2000 budget initiatives, with specific research and

implementation goals.

• At the National Ocean Conference held in Monterey, California in

May 1998, the President committed an additional 3 million dollars

per year for the following three years to support the expansion

of marine aquaculture.

2.0 WORKSHOP PURPOSE

Ongoing problems associated with nearshore aquaculture operations and

protected species, including predation by pinnipeds, have been

documented. As nearshore marine aquaculture operations expand, it is

likely that interactions with marine mammals and turtles will

increase. There are also growing concerns about the potential for

cetacean4 entanglement with proposed offshore aquaculture operations. 

Therefore, NOAA is interested in resolving conflicts regarding

aquaculture siting/operation and protected resources.

We recognized that there are other concerns than those addressed in

this workshop. Other issues of concern, such as genetic impacts to

wild stocks and water pollution, are concurrently being addressed in

other fora. This workshop was designed specifically to discuss the

impacts of aquaculture operations on marine mammals and marine

turtles.

 In an effort to discuss marine mammal, turtle, and aquaculture

interactions, NMFS’ Office of Protected Resources (OPR) sponsored a

two day workshop with the following purpose: 

To bring together regional experts in marine mammals, marine

turtles, and marine aquaculture operations. The experts were

asked to develop recommendations on specific guidelines and

standards for aquaculture siting and operation to minimize
5

Gulf of Maine Task Force: Section 120 of the MMPA as Amended mandates the

establishment of a pinniped-fishery interaction task force to advise the Secretary of the DOC on the

interaction of pinnipe ds with a quacu lture resou rces in the Gulf of M aine.

6

Exclusive Economic Zone: Adjacent to state waters, which typically extend three miles out

from the coast, the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone includes water from three to 200 nautical miles

from sh ore.

10

adverse impacts to marine protected species from nearshore and

offshore aquaculture operations.

Currently, the standards and guidelines used to address protected

species’ issues, to permit aquaculture, or to regulate aquaculture

operations vary considerably among regions, states, and among federal

agencies. Regional efforts have been made to deal with these

concerns, such as through the Gulf of Maine Task Force5. However,

those efforts have either been limited in scope or fairly general in

nature. For instance, in the Northeast Region (NER), the state of

Maine and federal agencies developed guidelines for a streamlined

aquaculture permitting and monitoring process. However, the specific

guidelines and standards did not address siting and operating

aquaculture facilities to minimize the impacts to marine protected

resources, nor did the effort expand beyond its regional approach.

The guidelines and standards discussed in this workshop were geared

towards identifying:

(a) Areas to be avoided in siting aquaculture facilities in coastal

and offshore areas;

(b) Best practices to build and operate aquaculture facilities in

order to avoid or minimize predation by pinnipeds;

(c) Best practices to build and operate offshore facilities to avoid

interactions with marine mammals (particularly cetaceans) and

turtles; And 

(d) Research needs.

The guidelines and standards will be useful:

(a) For NMFS representatives who review aquaculture permits;

(b) To guide NMFS’ Implementation Plan for the Code of Conduct for

Responsible Fisheries; and

(c) To accomplish the goals of the NMFS strategic plan. The plan

calls for NMFS to accomplish several actions within the next five

years. The actions include reducing the time and cost of

permitting environmentally sound marine aquaculture, providing

financial assistance for environmentally sound marine aquaculture

ventures, identifying areas in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone6
7

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service also shares the authority to implement the ESA

and MMPA. NMFS has responsibility for cetaceans and most pinniped species. FWS has

responsibility over manatees, polar bears, sea otters, and walrus.

11

suitable for environmentally sound marine aquaculture, and

developing and implementing environmentally sound marine

aquaculture technologies and practices.

3.0 WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS

The workshop was held on January 12 and 13, 1999 at the NMFS office in

Silver Spring, Maryland on 1315 East-West Highway. It was organized

by Kate Colborn and chaired by Donna Wieting, both of NOAA, NMFS, OPR. 

The purpose of this workshop was to bring together regional NMFS

experts in marine mammals, marine turtles, and marine aquaculture

operations to develop recommendations on specific guidelines and

standards for aquaculture siting and operation to minimize adverse

affects to marine protected species from nearshore and offshore

aquaculture operations. In addition, a number of non-NMFS

representatives were invited to present information and guide the

development of recommendations. Through discussions and interactions

between members of the government, the marine aquaculture industry,

academia, and environmental organizations, NMFS gained valuable

insight regarding many of the most critical interactions between

aquaculture and marine mammals and turtles. There were approximately

forty participants, several observers, and a facilitator (Appendix 1).

The participants represented various geographic regions including the

Northeast, Southeast, Northwest, and Gulf of Mexico. NMFS contracted

The Keystone Center, a neutral, nonprofit, public policy and education

organization, to facilitate the workshop. Participants were mailed an

agenda, discussion topics, as well as background materials prior to

the workshop (Appendices 2,3, and 4).

3.1 WELCOME BY NMFS

The two day workshop began with a brief welcome by Donna Wieting of

the OPR’s Marine Mammal Conservation Division. Ms. Wieting discussed

OPR’s responsibility to implement the Marine Mammal Protection Act

(MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for marine species7. She

emphasized that OPR’s goals focus on finding ways to minimize adverse

impacts to marine mammals and to marine turtles while minimizing

economic impacts to the aquaculture industry. Ms. Wieting briefly

described the workshop agenda (Appendix 1).
12

3.2 WELCOME BY NOAA

Donna Wieting introduced Sally Yozell, Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Oceans and Atmosphere of NOAA. Ms. Yozell opened her discussion by

noting that NOAA is interested in promoting environmentally sound

aquaculture such that both the aquaculture industry and resource

management policies can move forward in a positive way. She

emphasized that aquaculture is a priority for NOAA and the DOC.

She offered some background information on aquaculture:

The industry is exploding with a 5-10% growth rate.

Marine aquaculture comprises approximately 50% of the worldwide

aquaculture.

The demand for fish and its associated price is increasing.

Ms. Yozell continued by acknowledging that aquaculture is an industry

that not only produces food, but it also produces jobs. Considering

NOAA’s location within the Department of Commerce, she emphasized the

DOC’s dual role of promoting industry and the protection of the

environment. Ms. Yozell recognized that the workshop participants are

experts in their fields, and she reiterated that NOAA respects their

ideas and acknowledges the need for their guidance. She hoped that

this workshop would be the beginning of many ongoing discussions

regarding the promotion of environmentally sound aquaculture.

Ms. Yozell further discussed how NOAA is uniquely positioned to

address aquaculture issues because the agency is directly involved

with the laws and policies affecting the aquaculture industry. Some

of these laws include, but are not limited to the MMPA, the National

Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA), the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA),

the ESA, and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management

Act (MSFCMA). 

She noted that at the same time, NOAA falls within the DOC, which is

concerned with business. Therefore, the DOC is interested in

promoting aquaculture but through an environmentally sound approach.

NOAA’s goals for this meeting include discussion on how to address the

issue of aquaculture through grants, standards, and regulations. At

the same time, the DOC must develop and adhere to a Code of Conduct

dealing with promoting aquaculture in an environmentally sound manner.

She acknowledged that the international community is also becoming

more involved in the aquaculture issue. 1998 was the International

Year of the Ocean. At the 1998 Oceans Conference, the Presidential

Aquaculture Initiative was unveiled, bringing about increased funding

for aquaculture issues. This workshop will help provide input on how

to spend some of the federal funding, and this workshop will also
13

assist in determining some of the future resource and management needs

surrounding environmentally sound aquaculture.

Ms. Yozell finished by highlighting that NOAA is committed to working

with the private industry, academics, and other affected sectors to

move the aquaculture industry forward in a positive manner. Affected

stakeholders need to interact on aquaculture issues because

aquaculture will be the industry of the future. NOAA is confident

that the U.S. can be a leader in effective resource management. 

3.2.1 QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

Workshop participants raised several questions to Ms. Yozell after the

Welcome.

Participant Question: How do you see our international

relationships and how we can work with other countries? Other

countries are now looking at models to see how aquaculture can

fit into coastal environmental models, specifically addressing

trophic interactions. Other countries have also been looking

into fishery enhancement tools. It would be advantageous for the

U.S. to sponsor an international workshop to meet with other

nations and their industries to hear about what they are doing.

Yozell Response: This would be a great idea. The U.S. is way

behind the curve as a nation in terms of management. We can

learn from other countries’ actions, and we are now ready to make

it a priority. The Code of Conduct is the first step to get this

together, then we can move out and meet with international

partners. We’ll discuss this possibility at the Department

level.

Participant Question: Our national charge is to “Be Greener.” 

Do you have any insight as to how we do this?

Yozell Response: There are many fears surrounding the aquaculture

industry including, but not limited to disease, escapement,

interactions with marine mammals and marine turtles, and

pollution. These need to be addressed, and the President

stressed that we need to do a better job to make sure aquaculture

is environmentally safe. It has the potential to be a “green

industry.”

Participant Comment: NOAA has a lot of work to do as well as a

lot of resources and skills to offer in the future.
14

Yozell Comment: The Agency must be smarter and think more

creatively. The Agency can’t have its fears stop the development

of the aquaculture industry.

Participant Comment: Will there be an opportunity to use remote

sensing in future initiatives?

Yozell Comment: This is a perfect opportunity for different Line

Offices within NOAA to coordinate.

3.3 WORKSHOP STRUCTURE

Donna Wieting of NMFS OPR led the information exchange. The workshop

is aimed to address one particular issue: marine mammals, marine

turtles, and aquaculture interactions. Other workshops will have to

address other aquaculture-related issues. Issues that come out in

discussion, but fall outside of this workshop’s purpose, will be

flagged but not addressed here.

The goal of the workshop was to develop recommendations for guidelines

to minimize adverse interactions between marine mammals, marine

turtles, and aquaculture. These included:

Defining ways to minimize impacts (NOAA, DOC policies);

Facilitating permitting;

Helping to guide states so that the federal and state

governments have consistent approaches;

Identifying research priorities; And

Defining the attributes associated with environmentally

sound aquaculture.

Regional representatives were tasked with helping to develop

consistent approaches for reviewing applications and permitting. NOAA

appreciates the perspective that non-NMFS participants can offer,

specifically in offering realistic, reasonable approaches to

management. Workshop observers have been asked to focus on NMFS’

role, but the observers are encouraged to provide insight into any

issue.

The expected workshop outcome was a set of recommendations with

specific guidelines. NOAA did not envision regulations coming from

this workshop, but NOAA welcomes suggestions on how to formalize and

implement these guidelines.
15

3.4 INTRODUCTION OF WORKSHOP ATTENDEES

Each of the attendees introduced themselves, their geographic region

and the professional sector that they represented (Appendix 2). Mary

Skelton Roberts of the Keystone Center introduced her role as the

workshop facilitator. She provided ground rules for discussion and

emphasized that consensus was not required in the workshop

discussions.

3.5 DISCUSSION: AQUACULTURE RISK MANAGEMENT AND MARINE MAMMALS IN

THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST

Bob Iwamoto of NMFS’ Northwest Fisheries Science Center opened the

session. His presentation was in three parts. First, he offered a

brief overview of aquaculture production in the U.S. and the Pacific

Northwest. Next, he discussed the risks facing four sectors of the

industry involving interactions with marine mammals. He followed with

proposals for managing and controlling those risks. He finished his

presentation with six brief conclusions.

3.5.1 OVERVIEW OF AQUACULTURE PRODUCTION IN THE U.S. AND PACIFIC

NORTHWEST

The benefits associated with aquaculture technologies include:

Seafood for human consumption, through aquatic farming and

enhancement of indigenous fisheries, particularly Pacific salmon;

And

A range of marketable non-food products, such as: tropical fish

for the aquarium trade, medicines, and drugs, jewel and craft

materials, and organisms for research.

Farmed production (terrestrial and marine) of fish and shellfish in

the United States has been approximately 350,00-400,00 metric

tons/year for the last 10 years. The total value of the industry is

approximately 736-800 million dollars, split between the freshwater

and saltwater environments. Freshwater aquaculture constitutes about

65% of the total production, with associated freshwater species

including catfish, crayfish, and rainbow trout. The remaining 35% of

production is farmed in the coastal or saltwater environment, with

species raised including mollusks (70% of production), crustaceans

(15-20%), and salmon (10%).

The industry also accounts for approximately 16-30% of the U.S. salmon

harvest through enhancement of native stocks. In the Pacific

Northwest, enhancement contributes about 2-3 million salmon to the

commercial and recreational fisheries and supports repopulation of

ESA-listed stocks from hatcheries.
16

3.5.2 RISKS TO THE INDUSTRY FROM MARINE MAMMALS

The Pacific Northwest aquaculture industry is at risk from

interactions with marine mammals in two areas: market risks (value of

the product) and production risks (operations, technological,

financial, and social). The value of the coastal aquaculture industry

in the United States that is exposed to risk is approximately 350

million dollars. Of this total, about 200 million dollars is in

shellfish beds (2-3 year grow-out), 130 million dollars is in net-pen

complexes (excluding hatcheries), and 20 million dollars is in coastal

ponds (excluding hatcheries).

The value of cultured fish in the commercial fisheries is between 60

and 115 million dollars. In the recreational fisheries, it was about

22 dollars per fish based on 1992 data, but the value is probably much

more now.

In the Pacific Northwest, the risks are to four primary parts of the

industry including: 

1) Shellfish farming;

2) Enhanced or culture-based fisheries for Pacific salmon and

steelhead trout; 

3) Net-pen farming of Atlantic and Pacific salmon and rainbow trout;

And

4) Humans working in the industry.

3.5.2.1 RISKS TO SHELLFISH FARMING

Some of the risks to shellfish aquaculture include:

Contamination of mollusks from fecal coliform bacteria from

harbor seals; And

Lost production due to predators, such as otters feeding on clam

beds and mollusk rafts.

Harbor seals have been responsible for contaminating two oyster beds

in Washington State. The harbor seal population has increased 10-fold

in British Columbia since 1970, and the numbers are back to their

historic level of 135,000. In California, Oregon, and Washington

coastal areas, the increase has been about 7.7% annually, and the

numbers are now about 76,000. The growing seal population has

resulted in an increase of feces, nutrients, bacteria, and possible

pathogens into coastal areas.

3.5.2.2 RISKS TO ENHANCED OR CULTURE-BASED FISHERIES

Some of the risks to enhanced fisheries include:
17

Lost production due to mortalities. Otters, seals, and sea lions

are predators of out-migrating juvenile salmon. Seals and sea

lions prey upon returning adults, and

Loss of fish to the gene pool. Many fish, including ESA-listed

species, are consumed directly or irrecoverably wounded by

predators at aggregation points. Thus, the fish cannot reproduce

and contribute to the species’ gene pool. The impact on the

species’ gene pool may potentially cause population gene shifts.

The harbor seal population in Puget Sound and throughout Washington

has varied inversely with the catch-per-unit-effort of four marine

fish species. As the seal population has increased, the numbers of

walleye pollock, Pacific cod, Pacific hake, and lingcod have

decreased. Other fish populations have remained constant (rockfish

species) or increased (dogfish) in the face of the growing seal

population. Some factors which may protect rockfish or dogfish from

pinniped predation may include the species’ physical protection (spiny

fins) or behavioral reactions to predation.

In addition to fatal interactions, many individual salmon and

steelhead experience scarring and wounding. At the entry locks into

Lake Washington, approximately 30-50% of winter steelhead are scarred

or wounded. The wounds may lead to increased susceptibility to

disease or to predation, thus further contributing to the risks

involved with enhanced or culture-based fisheries.

3.5.2.3 RISKS TO NET-PEN FISH FARMS

Some of the risks to net-pen farming include:

Lost production from predation, escapement by sea lions, seals

killing fish in net-pens, or pinnipeds tearing holes in nets; And

Lower product quality through reduced value or reduced fish

weight. Predators attack and harass fish through the pen walls,

thus stressing, scarring, and wounding the fish. 

Pinniped populations have impacted aquaculture species to an extent

approaching that of human fisheries’ impact on wild fish populations.

The California sea lion population has been increasing, and in

California the annual pup count approaches 40,000. Sea lion males are

very efficient predators of fish in net-pens. Recent data estimate

that the total biomass consumed by pinnipeds in the Pacific Northwest

is about half the commercial marine fisheries’ catch of California,

Oregon, and Washington, combined. The 1995 population of sea lions

was estimated to consume a minimum of about 147,000 metric tons of

fish prey, and harbor seals about 70,000 metric tons. In comparison,

the combined commercial harvest of fish in the three states during

1995 was 460,000 metric tons. 
8

Depu ration: The cleansing or freeing of impu rities.

18

3.5.2.4 RISKS TO PEOPLE IN AQUACULTURE AND COASTAL INDUSTRIES

Some of the risks to the human resources working in aquaculture,

fishing, or other coastal, water-borne industries include:

Increasing aggression from sea lions; And

Damage to property.

In aquaculture, increasing incidents of aggression by sea lions are

being reported by divers maintaining cage-complexes on farms. The

same is true for workers in fishing, recreational boating and diving,

and other water-related work.

3.5.3 MANAGING AND CONTROLLING THE RISKS

The speakers discussed the management and control of risks from

aquaculture interactions with marine mammals. Several factors are

involved and specifically address market-related risks (loss of

quality and value) and production risks (operations and technological

problems).

3.5.3.1 MANAGEMENT ACTIONS TO REDUCE MARKET-RELATED RISKS

To address market related risks, options include:

Increasing the monitoring of shellfish beds for natural

contaminants such as bacteria;

Wet storage, relaying, or depuration8 of all shellfish products

after harvest; And 

Engineering improvements in net-pens to limit harassment and

wounding. For instance, improvement could include the use of

high tensioned net-pens, more effective predator nets, and

effective acoustic deterrent devices.

3.5.3.2 MANAGEMENT ACTIONS TO REDUCE OPERATIONAL RISKS

To address operational risks, options include:

Relocating net-pen complexes to offshore sites away from

rookeries and haul-outs;

Engineering net-pen improvements to protect net-pen complexes and

aggregation sites; 

Eliminating rogue animals;

Relocating or reducing populations of predators within the

vicinity of aquaculture operations; And 

Reintroducing pinniped harvest programs. 
19

3.5.3.3 MANAGEMENT ACTIONS TO REDUCE TECHNOLOGICAL RISKS

And, finally to address technological risks:

Develop a marine mammal behavior information base vis-à-vis human

interventions in the marine environment; And

Develop adequate technology to deter marine mammals from overpopulating specific sites.

3.5.4 SUMMARY

In conclusion:

Marine mammal populations in the Pacific Northwest are growing

rapidly.

Their impact on aquaculture (and fisheries) production is

significant and negative.

The resultant financial losses to the economy are high, up to 10%

of production value.

There is evidence of ecological losses of ESA-listed species.

The privately owned aquaculture industry is finding its own

solutions.

The publicly owned enhancement sector is not being helped. And,

A rational strategy is required to manage and control the risks,

formulated by the relevant agencies working with the private

sector.

3.5.5 QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

Participant Comment: What about the risk to marine mammals as

opposed to the risk to the aquaculture industry from marine

mammal and aquaculture interactions? Is elimination of marine

mammals “greener?” The charge to the group is not to reduce

risks to the industry but rather to reduce risks to the animals.

Iwamoto Response: The purpose of the presentation was to provide

some balance to the issue of marine mammal and aquaculture

interactions. In the Pacific Northwest, the aquaculture

industry does not impose much of a risk to marine mammal

populations. It is not a question of being “greener”, but a

statement of reality.

Participant Question: What are the losses to the aquaculture

industry?

Iwamoto Response: The presentation was based on actual data from

fish farms and on fish losses recorded for insurance purposes. 

Insurance policies require a continuous estimation of stock on
20

hand for each enclosure. The NMFS Northwest Region also

estimates numbers.

Participant Comment: The group is drifting toward a polarity. 

The group needs to look at the issue as an ecological problem

rather than the fact that marine mammals and aquaculture must coexist. We need to look at the relationship and determine how

they can both move forward. A major portion of fish predated

upon are not salmon and are not commercial fish species. We

should be cautious about looking at commercial takes versus

marine mammal takes of fish species. This information is only a

comparison at one point in time and not a description of how

numbers got to that level in the long-term. For example,

commercial takes have been aggressive for years.

Participant Comment (Regarding the issue of “greening”): We

ought not to decide how to get “green.” We should be neutral

and look at good science.

Participant Comment: I agree that a balance is needed. We want

to promote aquaculture, but we must do it in an environmentally

sound way.

3.6 PRESENTATION: OCEAN SPAR NET DESIGN

Conrad Mahnken, a NMFS Fisheries Biologist, led the discussion. He

discussed the Ocean Spar system which is currently being used in the

Puget sound area. Due to the advanced net technology, the net system

appears to endure marine mammal attacks and minimize marine mammal

entanglement.

3.6.1 NET DURABILITY

The Ocean Spar system utilizes taut net systems designed for the open

ocean. The system also utilizes an anchor tensioned system instead of

traditional gravity net systems, and the net cage sits above the sea

floor. The net durability has been tested, and the net appears durable

for offshore aquaculture systems. The system was tested during

various weather conditions, withstanding tidal currents up to two

knots. The system also demonstrated its durability through its

successful suspension in sea water for two years. In addition to the

durability of the nets, they are easily maintained through cleaning

with hydraulic brushes.

3.6.2 MARINE MAMMAL INTERACTIONS
9

Acoustic ha rassmen t device (AHD ) : A sound -gene ra ting device which , because of some

combination of intensity, frequency, or other characteristic(s), is aversive to marine mammals and

keeps or drives them away from an area or structure (Acoustic Deterrence of Harmful Marine

Mammal-Fishe ry Interaction s Wo rkshop . NOAA Tech. M emo. NMFS-O PR-10, D ecem ber 1996.)

10Section 7 consultations under the Endangered Species Act: Each Federal agency must

consult with th e Fish and W ildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Se rvice, or both to

ensure that federal actions authorized, funded, or carried out are not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of

designa ted critical ha bitat (ESA Section 7 Cons ultation H andbo ok, Ma rch 1998).

21

Mahnken displayed a video of the Ocean Spar system in use. The video

showed harbor seals near the anchor-tensioned net. The net appeared

as a fixed rhomboid shape, and its tautness was comparable to a

trampoline’s. The net’s small mesh size and dark color is considered

to act as a visual barrier to marine species. It is also a readily

visible system to pinnipeds and probably to other echolocating

predators. Therefore, the marine predators treat the net as a solid

structure.

The net is also effective in minimizing marine mammal predation on

enclosed fish populations as seen in field tests with California sea

lions. The video displayed harbor seals near the net. Compared to

California sea lions, seals are relatively tame animals. The net is

difficult for pinnipeds to chew through because of the tightness of

the lines. Thus, the fish and predators were kept apart. In normal

gravity nets, pockets form in the netting when the netting closes

together on itself. However, unlike traditional aquaculture pens, the

Ocean Spar design remains taut. Overall, the taut-net system design

deters pinnipeds from trapping fish, eviscerating the fish, and

pulling the fish through the netting.

New cage systems which can reduce predation and entanglement of marine

mammals and turtles are available to the aquaculture industry. In

addition to the benefits previously described, the cage systems can

also negate the need for acoustic harassment devices (AHDs)9. However,

one drawback of the Ocean Spar design involves cost, because the cost

of the Ocean Spar system is four-times the cost of traditional gravity

nets.

3.7 DISCUSSION: ESA SECTION 7 REVIEWS 

Laurie Allen, marine mammal program coordinator with the NMFS NER

discussed Section 7 consultations regarding aquaculture projects as

mandated by the ESA10 of 1973 as amended. The permits are typically

required from NMFS, the state, and/or the Army Corps of Engineers

(ACE). The ESA is triggered for aquaculture permits when endangered
11Potential biological removal level (PBR): Defined in the MMPA Amendments of 1994 as

“ the maximum numbe r of animals, no t including na tural mo r talities , tha t may be removed from a

marin e mamm al sto ck w hile allo wing that s tock to rea ch o r main tain its optim um s usta inable

population.”

22

or threatened species are present in the project action area. 

Specifically, large whales and sea turtles are ESA-listed species in

the Northeast which may be affected by aquaculture gear.

Section 7 of the ESA mandates a consultation process with Federal

agencies regarding activities that may potentially impact listed

species. The consultation is an impact review which stipulates

conservation measures to ensure that potential impacts are minimized

and that the project is not likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of any listed species. In addition to consultations on

applications for nearshore operations, offshore aquaculture operations

also require Section 7 consultations.

Some of the nearshore aquaculture operations may affect pinniped and

non-endangered finfish as well, but these are not considered under the

Section 7 consultation. Marine mammals are addressed under Section 118

of the MMPA which requires NMFS to publish in the Federal Register a

list of the U.S. commercial fisheries including aquaculture

operations, based on the frequency and magnitude of marine mammal

interactions. The fisheries are divided among three categories

defined by the amount of marine mammal bycatch as compared to the

marine mammal stocks’ potential biological removal level (PBR)11. The

Northeast Atlantic marine aquaculture fisheries are listed as Category

III fisheries under the MMPA, indicating that there is a “remote

likelihood of or no known incidental mortality or serious injury of

marine mammals.”

3.7.1 SEA SCALLOP PROJECT I

The NER Office was approached by the ACE with a permit application

regarding a Sea Scallop Project for Cape Cod Bay. Cape Cod Bay is

also considered critical feeding and nursery habitat for North

Atlantic right whales, an endangered species. The original proposal

had high right whale entanglement potential because the gear would

occupy a significant amount of the water column. Based on the

configuration of the gear, the amount of gear, and its location in
12Biological Opinion (BO): As a component of the consultation process mandated by Section

7 of the Endangered Species Act, federal actions that are likely to adversely affect listed species or

designated critical habitat undergo evaluations including a “biological opinion.” A biological opinion

is defined as "the document that states the opinion of the Services as to whether or not the

Federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the

destruc tion or adv erse mo dification or c ritical habitat" (5 0 Code of Fede ral Regula tions 402 .02).

13Jeopardy Finding: If an activity is likely to “jeopardize” the continued existence of an ESAlisted species or its critical habitat, then a “jeopardy” finding is made. The determination is based

on a “careful analysis of the best available scientific and commercial data” (ESA Section 7

Consu ltation Handboo k, Marc h 1998 ).

14Fishing gear lines tha t are perpendicular to the wate r’s surface have been associated with

whale entanglements. Whales can get the rope wrapped around their appendages or baleen. Such

entanglement can be a minor injury, or it could develop into a life-threatening condition (NMFS

stranding and en tanglem ent data , unpub lished).

23

critical habitat, the first biological opinion (B.O.)12 concluded that

the project would result in jeopardy13 to the north Atlantic right

whale and result in adverse modification of right whale critical

habitat. Not only would the scallop gear result in a high risk of

marine mammal entanglement, but it would also prevent the North

Atlantic right whale from accessing a large portion of its critical

habitat. Other indirect effects on habitat included the potential for

physical disruption and depletion of plankton aggregations, an

important right whale food source.

In response to the first B.O., the proposal was dramatically modified.

The modified proposal was reduced in scope and the new design removed

as many vertical line

components from the design as possible, reducing them to a few corner

and lane marker buoys14. A new B.O. was written based on the revised

design. The second B.O. still highlighted the potential impacts to

right whale critical habitat due to the siting of the aquaculture

facility and these concerns will continue to be addressed by continued

site monitoring. Entanglement potential was almost completely

eliminated by the new project design. 

The NER Office worked with the ACE to develop baseline criteria that

would have to be met to avoid the need for formal consultations on

scallop aquaculture projects under the ESA. The criteria generated

were fairly limiting, including the requirements to site in depths

less than 20 feet of water, to prohibit vertical line components, to

site within one nautical mile of shore, and to require marine mammal

observation.

3.7.2 SEA SCALLOP PROJECT II
15Mussel socks: Mesh tubes suspended vertically in the water column from a line attached

to a float. M ussel so cks contain mussels in s uspen ded tub es.

24

The second sea scallop project that came under the NER’s review

incorporated the earlier recommendations regarding the Sea Scallop

Project I. Sea Scallop Project II was designed to lessen the

potential for marine mammal and turtle impacts. Specifically, this

project cultured scallops through utilization of bottom lanes to

minimize vertical components. Due to earlier collaboration with the

ACE on sea scallop aquaculture permitting, the Sea Scallop Project II

required limited review by NMFS. 

3.7.3 UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE’S MUSSELS PROJECT

Another case study involving an ESA Section 7 consultation involved

the University of New Hampshire’s Mussels Project (Figure 1). The

project is an experimental offshore aquaculture system located five

miles due east of Rye, NH. The system utilizes large diameter cables

with dynamic tension. Mussel socks15 are not considered to pose much

of an entanglement risk with regard to marine mammals or marine

turtles. In addition, this system is a small scale project which

could lessen potential entanglement concerns.

Figure 1: Submerged Longline with Mussel Socks

Unive rsi

ty of New

Hampshire
25

Allen suggested that a logical progression in aquaculture advancement

will involve expanding these existing small-scale pilot-like projects

into large-scale commercial projects. She noted that questions would

likely emerge concerning engineering requirements and how many systems

can be sited in a particular geographical area without having indirect

habitat impact or direct impacts on protected species.

3.7.4 FLOUNDER CULTURE PROJECT

The NER has conducted an ESA Section 7 consultation on a proposed

Flounder Culture Project in Long Island Sound (Figures 2,3). The

geographic location of the proposed project included important

developmental habitat for Kemp’s ridley sea turtles. Therefore, the

NER was concerned that the Flounder Culture Project would impact the

important juvenile turtle habitat. Other protected species issues

involved entanglement concerns and the Project’s proposed proximity to

seal haul-outs. In contrast to the sea scallop projects, the flounder

culture project siting area is not heavily used by large whales.

Figure 2: Submersible Net Cage for the Growout of Summer Flounder

Aerial View

Ocean Spar T echnologies
26

Figure 3: Growout Facility for the Production of Summer Flounder

3.7.5 AMERICAN-NORWEGIAN FISH FARMS

Another project in the NER involves proposed American-Norwegian Fish

Farms. The Project was initially proposed in the 1980s with both

inshore and offshore components inside Sandy Bay, MA and offshore

Gloucester, MA. The project changed design specifications many times

during the multiple-year review. The latest design allows the

structure to swing with the currents (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Pen String Diagram

Ocean Spar T echnologies
27

Several agencies in addition to NMFS had significant concerns about

this project throughout its years of review. The ACE had concerns

about the stability of the mooring construction and the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) and NMFS’ Office of Habitat Conservation

voiced water quality concerns associated with the inshore portion of

the proposal. Subsequently, the inshore part of the proposal was

dropped.

In 1998 the Project still lacked permit approval from the ACE. 

However, this was not based on protected species concerns which had

been resolved, but rather on the continued concern for the structure’s

engineering. Allen noted that to facilitate future coordination

between the applicant and the agencies, it is essential to provide

guidance as early as possible to the aquaculture applicants.

Am erican No rw egian Fish Farm Inc.
16National Environmental Policy Act: The Act requires Agencies to analyze the potential

effects of proposed Federal national which may significantly affect historical, cultural, or natural

aspects of the environment. Agencies must provide detailed statements on the environmental

impacts of proposed actions.

28

3.7.6 NER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SECTION 7 REVIEWS

The NER has developed several suggestions for addressing permitting

difficulties:

Develop extensive protected resources guidance for use by

permitting agencies. The EPA’s guidance concerning water quality

issues pertaining to aquaculture could be used as a potential

template;

Develop categories of actions associated with aquaculture

projects that individually or cumulatively have a significant

effect on the human environment and for which an environmental

assessment or environmental impact statement under the National

Environmental Policy Act16 would be required.;

Group area-by-area specifications (e.g., critical habitats, Long

Island Sound, Gulf of Maine-offshore, etc.);

Group by aquaculture type (e.g., longline mussel projects

inshore, longline mussel projects offshore, finfish cages

inshore, finfish cages offshore, etc.); And,

Document information needs and set forth a methodical approach to

answer them under a set time line.

3.7.7 QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

Allen Comment: NMFS NER is most concerned with entanglement in

gear lines as opposed to aquaculture nets. NMFS NER is not as

worried about animals getting entangled in net pens themselves,

but rather is concerned about the amount of lines which are small

in diameter, slack, or floating.

We should look at other nations’ experiences, especially New

Zealand and Australia’s experiences, involving aquaculture gear

and marine mammal/turtle interactions. Once information is

generated, Allen agrees that there is a need to discuss these

findings within the United States.

Environmental impacts associated with aquaculture gear is

primarily assessed through reviews of traditional commercial gear

types due to the gears’ similarities. Impacts resulting from

traditional gear types are then hypothesized to exemplify the

types of impacts that can result from use of aquaculture gear. 

Much of the more recent aquaculture designs use lines and cables
17Acoustic de terrent device (AD D): A sound-producing or sound-reflecting device used to

make marine mammals aware of, or to repel them from an area or structure (e.g., a net, pen, or

trap. ) Both pass ive ref lecto rs an d sound gen erato rs are included within the defin ition (A cou stic

Deterrence of Harmful Marine Mammal-Fishery Interactions Workshop. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSOPR-10, December 1996.).

29

that are substantial and tensioned, thus reducing entanglement

concerns. Additional review of the specific effects of

aquaculture gear on marine mammals and marine turtles should

occur.

3.8 DISCUSSION: ACOUSTIC DETERRENCE

Roger Gentry of the NMFS OPR lead the discussion. Acoustic deterrent

devices (ADDs)17 and AHDs are currently used to deter marine mammals

from fishing gear. Acoustic devices, especially AHDs, are not

particularly effective at providing deterrence. There is the

potential to make the devices more effective, but in order to do so,

it is vital to tailor them to the auditory anatomy and “psychology of

hearing” of specific marine mammal species. Animals perceive some

sounds to be more important than others, and as a result the animals

react to certain sounds more strongly. For example, a sound imitating

a predator or competitor may be more effective as a deterrent rather

than just an amplified sound which does not imitate other species.

Further research is necessary to fully explore this idea.

3.8.1 Auditory Anatomy of Marine Mammals

Mr. Gentry presented a brief discussion on the anatomy of marine

mammal auditory ability. Pinnipeds have ears that are similar to

humans. Air flows down an air-filled auditory channel creating a

vibration. The vibration crosses a chain of bones and enters the

round window, thus making the fluid in the cochlea vibrate. The

cochlea is a transduction mechanism containing the critical element,

hair cells, and nerves. Movement of the hair cells sends nerve

impulses to the brain.

The auditory anatomy of marine mammals is susceptible to damage.

Specifically, the hair cells within the cochlea can be easily

damaged. Once the cochlea is damaged, hair cells will not regrow. In

addition to permanent hair cell loss, hair cells can become fatigued

as well. If the hair cells are fatigued often enough, permanent

hearing loss may ensue. Therefore, when using AHDs, it is critical to

avoid injuring or destroying hair cells (Figure 5).
30

Figure 5: Illustration of the Cochlea

Kryter, K.D. The Handbook of the Hearing and the Effects of Noise.

Academic Press, San Diego. p. 19

Pinnipeds have protective mechanisms in their ears. A muscle

associated with the stapes bone contracts when the animal is exposed

to loud sounds. This assists in preventing the sound from reaching

the hair cells. AHDs should function to trigger the stapes response

rather than to cause pain or risk drum rupture. The rupture can

result in permanent hearing loss. How the ear functions is different

from what animals hear. What an animal hears varies among species. 

For example, echolocating marine mammals are adapted to high

frequencies, and long distance communicators are adapted to low

frequencies. It takes different acoustic energy for animals to hear

at these different frequencies. The middle range is the best

(requires the least amount of sound energy to hear). Given this

information, AHDs should target the best hearing frequencies which can

be determined by looking at the auditory curve for a particular

species. Figure 6 shows a typical behavioral audiogram for pinnipeds.
31

Figure 6: Audiogram

There are some options for tailoring AHD signals for a particular

species and a desired auditory response without focusing on sheer

sound level:

Change the rise time. For example, change how long it takes the

sound to go from 0 amplitude to its maximum amplitude;

Change the duration of the signal;

Change the duty cycle, repetition rate (per minute/second/hour);

or

Alter the “texture” of the sound by modifying the sound’s

amplitude and frequency structure.

3.8.2 Acoustic Pain

A loud noise is usually considered to be associated with pain. It is

generally believed that pain induction will deter animals from

approaching aquaculture sites, and that if a little pain does a little

good, a lot of pain will do better. On that basis, users are tempted

to increase the sound source level as the main means of deterrence.

However, hearing mechanisms and pain mechanisms are separate, and

permanent hearing loss can occur without any pain to the animals.

Thus, there is a widespread misperception of how an animal reacts to

a sound. AHD technologies should explore the kinds and

characteristics of sounds that are the most noxious to marine mammals

and not focus on the production of pain as the goal of acoustic

harassment. Research should include understanding various sound

W.J. Richarson, C.R. Grene, Fr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine Mammals and

Noise. Academic Press, Sand Diego. P. 215.
18Startle response: A startle response is a complex reaction to a sound. The reaction

may include typical behavior consisting of freezing, looking around to gain information,

involuntar y flinching, or running. T he reaction may also include phy siological responses such

as changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and adrenaline production.

32

features that may influence the noxiousness of the sound to animals;

such as:

Sound predictability;

Lack of control over the sound source;

How sound interferes with important animal processes;

What the sound means to an animal (e.g., sound of a competitor or

predator) and;

Sounds which appear to be nearby and closing.

There has been some creativity utilized in AHD manufacturing. For

instance, some AHD’s mimic predator sounds. At this point, AHD

manufacturers have only tried to mimic the sounds of killer whales.

Some interests have surrounded the “startle response.”18 Startle

response refers to the theory that acoustic signals will startle an

animal. However, it is likely that seals do not have a physiological

“startle response,” so this may be a pointless approach.

3.8.3 Habituation to Sound

Habituation refers to the waning of response to a stimulus. It is a

complex process beginning at the cellular level and eventually leading

to a higher brain response. Habituation is extremely difficult to

overcome, so avoiding it at the outset is preferable. It should also

be noted that a continual threat that is never followed by an aversive

stimulus will quickly cause the device’s deterrence value to decline.

Acoustics have to be used relative to the environment. Noise is a

form of pollution, and not much is known about its effects. 

Aquaculturists should site pens so as to have the smallest ecological

impact on the environment. In addition to siting issues,

aquaculturists should use noise sparingly.

An acoustic deterrence workshop was held in Seattle, Washington in

1996 to discuss the issue of ADDs, specifically looking at the

problems of acoustics. The workshop developed recommendations,

specifically:

Anti-predator defenses should use the minimum amount of sound

needed to be effective;
33

Don’t try to increase the level of sound to overcome recalcitrant

animals. Current devices on the market are at the NMFS-allowed

maximum sound level;

Use sound to protect only contained marine areas, not the open

ocean;

Don’t rely on the production of pain to deter animals; And

Use directional sound rather than an omnidirectional source.

3.8.4 Questions and Answer Session

Participant Question: Is it true that sound is a weak

deterrence mechanism for all animals interacting with aquaculture

facilities? Or is it just a weak deterrence mechanism for seals?

Gentry Response: It is true for all animals.

Participant Question: Can you talk more about sound’s effect on

the displacement of cetaceans?

Gentry Response: Harbor porpoise is the species of concern. 

Harbor porpoise have high frequency hearing, are sensitive to

sound and are attuned to listening to faint echos. There has

been one study showing physical displacement of animals by AHDs,

and another showing that animals do not respond to AHDs. This

suggests that the harbor porpoise issue should be watched.

Participant Comment: Harbor porpoise in Maine have been seen

swimming among aquaculture pens.

Gentry Response: This may be due to the harbor porpoises having

hearing damage or because AHDs are pointed downward so porpoises

are not affected too much by the sound.

4.0 WORKING GROUP PROCEEDINGS

After the presentations, the facilitator and participants established

ground rules and proceeded to discuss the process for generating group

recommendations. The meeting was not organized as a consensuscentered process for recommendation-building. Instead, the organizers

wanted to promote the sharing and discussion of ideas without

requiring consensus. 

Participants were divided into pre-arranged working groups to discuss

issues. Each subgroup was organized so as to represent a wide array

of interests.
34

Each subgroup had a designated chair to lead the discussion and to

assist in facilitation. Donna Wieting abstained from participating in

any one group. She participated as an observer and roamed among the

working groups. The workshop facilitator also floated between the

various work groups to facilitate discussion.

Working Group 1: 

Subgroup Chair: Laurie Allen

Note taker: Suzanne Bolton

Subgroup Participants: Kenneth Baldwin, Carolyn Brown (later

replaced by Bonnie Ponwith), Linda Chaves,

Paul Comar, Roger Gentry, Joe McGonigle,

Jim McVey, Ben Mieremet, Donna Wieting, and

Dean Wilkinson

Working Group 2: 

Subgroup Chair: David Bernhardt:

Note taker: Katie Moore 

Subgroup Participants: Jim Gilbert, Bob Hukki, David Kaiser, Ed

Rhodes, Gordon Waring, Neng Yu, and Sharon

Young

Working Group 3: 

Subgroup Chair: Jon Lewis

Note taker: Kate Colborn

Subgroup Participants: Therese Conant, Pat Fitzgerald, Deirdre

Kimball, Anne Liu, Rich Langan, Dot

Leonard, and Tom McIlwain

Each working group was given a list of discussion topics for break-out

sessions (Appendix 3). In addition to the established discussion

list, participants informally added the topic of “habitat concerns” to

the discussion list. The recommendations generated by the subgroups

are group recommendations and may not necessarily reflect each

individual’s opinion expressed during the discussions.

Discussion questions are italicized followed by the working group’s

response.

4.1 SITING

Should areas be identified where marine aquaculture should be avoided

and/or encouraged?

Group 1: Yes. There should be areas identified for marine

aquaculture use. Siting is less important than determining

what can be done to accommodate competing interests.
35

Group 2: Yes.

Group 3: Yes.

How should those areas be identified? General criteria? Mapping?

Other?

Group 1: Accompanying these designated areas, general information

should be provided regarding the justification for

identifying these areas. This information should be

provided in a Geographic Information System (GIS) context.

Decision-makers need to identify areas of concern, but

decision-makers should not definitively exclude areas to

aquaculture use.

Group 2: An information system is needed. Narrative information is

helpful in the information system. Maps must have

narratives so as to better insure that they will not be

misused. The group does not advocate the use of an

information system to act as an exclusionary tool. The

information system should be a tool for policy-makers to

identify geographical areas with particular attributes that

affect marine mammals and the aquaculture industry.

Specific information layers for the GIS have yet to be

determined.

Group 3: Identification tools could include zoning, general

guidelines, GIS, or case-by case guidelines. In addition to

identifying areas that should be avoided and/or encouraged,

decision-makers should provide permit applicants with sitespecific siting issues. Communication of this information

could be via a letter or permit application packet.

Whichever site-identification tool is used, the following

types of information should be incorporated:

Areas designated as having environmental concerns.

(Specific criteria to describe these areas of

environmental concern were not elaborated upon);

Interactions with fishing gear;

Rookeries;

Haul-outs;

Critical habitat;

Migratory pathways;

Feeding areas; and

Protected resources sighting information.
36

The working group had some specific concerns regarding a GIS

system in particular. The concerns revolved around the

issues of:

Resolution. There are spatial and temporal

difficulties to overcome in order to improve

resolution;

Danger that GIS is taken as “law.” The data

uncertainties will need to be identified, and the data

will need to be ground-truthed to ensure its accuracy;

Database integration;

Expenses involved in obtaining and compiling the

information (both to NMFS and to aquaculture

applicants);

Difficulties involved in maintaining and updating

information;

Difficulties involved in developing information at the

local and regional levels. Information collected at

the national level may not have sufficient resolution;

Inability for GIS to recognize all of the issues which

can be a problem to a particular site. Issues come

out of the woodwork (through public comment periods,

public contact with local agencies, etc.); And

Danger that resource managers may lose contact with

the public. GIS use does not promote communication

and personal contact with the public.

FURTHER DISCUSSION

Group 3 continued to discuss siting issues, and they

provided additional comments outside of those questions

presented by the workshop organizers. The group noted that

NMFS should not get involved in siting criteria at this

time. However, NMFS should get involved administratively

through developing a widely distributed, in-house resource

list. The resource list would ideally provide information

on NMFS staff involved with aquaculture issues as well as

staff contact information. In addition to the in-house

resource list, NMFS should develop a guide of legal mandates

associated with aquaculture-related issues. Ideally this

resource list could be used both internally within NMFS and

externally by the general public. In addition to the legal

mandate guide, NMFS should create a list of concerns

regarding potential aquaculture interactions with marine

mammals and marine turtles. The synopsis should include

areas of general concern without being species-specific, and

the synopsis could then be available to both NMFS and to the

public.
19Pen Patriary Finfish: Fish that ar e grow n in aquaculture net-pens.

37

Finally, the group strongly recommended the development of

an aquaculture coordinator function in each of NMFS’

regions. The function would primarily act as an aquaculture

advocate or facilitator (aquaculture supporter). The

aquaculture coordinator function could also address issues

other than aquaculture. However, these particular duties

have not yet been determined. Alongside the coordinator

role, a “security assessment team” could assist with

aquaculture issues through visiting and inspecting sites

that are proposed for aquaculture use. The coordinator and

the security assessment team could offer guidance and

suggestions to aquaculture permit applicants.

4.2 PINNIPED PREDATION

Is pinniped predation a problem in all types of marine aquaculture?

In all regions?

Group 1: Pinniped predation is an economic problem for finfish

aquaculturists in northern latitudes.

Group 2: No, pinniped predation is not a problem in all types of

marine aquaculture. For instance, pinniped predation is not

an issue with shellfish aquaculture operations. There is

only a pinniped predation problem associated with net-pen

patriary finfish19. Also, pinniped predation is not

necessarily a year-long issue. For instance, in the

Northeast pinniped predation is a seasonal problem.

Group 3: No. Pinniped predation is not so much of a problem in the

Northeast where farms are growing. Pinniped predation is a

problem in the Northwest where it has a large economic

impact.

If not, what determines whether or not pinniped predation is a

“problem”?

Group 1: Not addressed.

Group 2: Dead, damaged, or lost fish are considered problems. 

Group 3: Pinniped predation is a problem if the level of loss is not

acceptable to the aquaculture industry.

What deterrents are currently used? Are they successful? To what

degree?
20Propane canons: Aerial deterrent measures used to scare birds from aquaculture

facilities.

21Seal bombs: Deterrent measures similar to firecrackers, designed to explode in the air

over a seal' s head. The explosion is intended to scare the animal through utilizing a small

shock wave.

38

Group 1: Not addressed.

Group 2: Current deterrents include predator nets. They are 100%

successful in some situations. Other deterrents include

using acoustic deterrents and Norwegian seal chasers.

Group 3: The group discussed several deterrent measures that are

considered effective at least for the time being. Current

deterrent methods include:

Tensioned netting;

On-site dogs;

Propane cannons20 (mainly for bird scares);

Seal bombs21; and

Shooting, to scare.

How can deterrents be improved?

Group 1: A joint partnership of academia, industry, government, and

environmental/conservation groups should participate in

monitoring to determine the effectiveness of aquaculture

gear in deterring marine mammal and marine turtle

interactions. The partnership should look into the idea of

rotational studies with monitoring aspects. The rotational

studies would involve moving the aquaculture gear to

different geographical locations to monitor site-specific

impacts of the facility. Monitoring should end when known

effects are determined.

With regard to the policy issues, decision-makers should

research land predator problems. Decision-makers should

research what deterrent efforts have occurred on land and

determine what methods and policies are transferable to

marine environments. The group also noted that non-lethal

deterrence methods should continue to be the recommended

form of deterrence instead of a lethal deterrence approach.

Group 2: More effective management could itself be a deterrent. In

addition, deterring rogue animals may necessitate the lethal

take of individual predators who are not deterred by current

methods.
39

Group 3: The industry and decision-makers should not forgo behavioral

modification methods.

What new methods are needed?

Group 1: Acoustics should be further pursued based on the

characteristics of the workshop’s acoustic presentation. 

This is specifically with regard to sound perception issues. 

In addition, new technologies such as taut net systems

should be reviewed alongside an economic review determining

its impact to the industry. Further emphasis should be

placed on net technology and should include improving the

technology costs.

Group 2: Further emphasis should be placed on appropriate mesh size,

small mesh predator barriers, heavy twine, and high tension

mesh. The group also recommended reading a report regarding

cetacean deterrence efforts in New Zealand. New methods

needed include acoustic harassment, removal, and lethal

take.

Group 3: The aquaculture industry could benefit from technology that

furthers the obstruction of pinnipeds while at the same time

ensuring the containment of fish. The research and

development is fairly good at this point, and current net

designs can stop predation as well as help prevent

escapement.

Further work can be done with the net development industry. 

Efforts could include lowering gear costs and improving

technology. The net development industry could also explore

other net designs (e.g., cage design for non-salmon

species).

In addition to advances in net technology, acoustics could

be re-designed using sound perception principles as

discussed in the acoustics presentation. Further

examination of terrestrial predator deterrence experiences

and behavior modification techniques would be useful. In

addition, it is necessary to ensure that the deterrence

technology industry isn’t discouraged such that innovative

research is stifled. Decision-makers should support ongoing

technological research.

In order to make the transition to new technologies

smoother, financial assistance to the aquaculture industry

is required. Technology transitions would likely cost the

industry millions of dollars. However, given budget
40

constraints, government-subsidized financial assistance

would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis. In

determining how to allocate federal assistance, it may also

be necessary to determine which geographical regions have

the most severe financial problems.

Further Remarks:

Group 1: Fishers want to be treated as farmers, yet the two

industries differ. The aquaculture industry relies on a

public rather than a privately-owned resource. Thus, there

is a question as to whether or not fishers should receive

financial assistance. An overriding question involves,

“should aquaculture be treated distinctly from commercial

fisheries?” This question deserves further attention in

future discussions.

4.3 ENTANGLEMENT

Is entanglement a concern in nearshore aquaculture operations?

Group 1: Yes, entanglement is a concern in nearshore aquaculture

operations. However, there have not been problems

specifically documented for cetaceans, but there are limited

problems with other predators being caught in predator nets. 

Group 2: Yes. At this point, it is a concern. However, it is not a

big problem.

Group 3: Pinniped entanglements have occurred in predator nets, but

there have been no cases of cetacean entanglement. Group

members discussed the need for acknowledging that marine

turtles have the possibility of becoming entangled.

If so, what is being done to avoid or minimize it?

Group 1: Not addressed.

Group 2: Entanglement issues are relatively controllable at this

point with current technologies that focus on increased line

size, tautness, and minimized mesh size.

Group 3: The group discussed several gear types that would pose less

of an entanglement risk. However, the group neither

indicated if the gear is currently being used nor indicated

the name of the gear type that should be used. Group

members also offered the observation that most of the

aquaculture growth is occurring nearshore, therefore

limiting the potential for marine mammal and marine turtle

entanglement.
41

What additional methods should be applied?

Group 1: The aquaculture industry should continue the use of taut,

thick lines to reduce entanglement.

Group 2: Gear guidelines to minimize entanglement should be utilized. 

Some gear guidelines include maintaining higher line

tension, increasing twine size, increasing line size,

decreasing mesh size, and increasing gear marking. It would

also be helpful to identify geographical areas of high risk

to marine mammal and marine turtle entanglement.

Group 3: The response to this question is answered jointly in the

response concerning offshore aquaculture operation methods

(below).

Is entanglement a concern in offshore aquaculture operations?

Group 1: There is not a seal entanglement problem in offshore

aquaculture operations. However, there may be aquaculture

interactions with cetaceans and sea turtles.

Group 2: Not addressed.

Group 3: Not addressed.

If so, what should be done to avoid or minimize it?

Group 1: Proper siting, effectively engineered gear, and effective

deterrent technology would avoid or minimize entanglement

issues with offshore aquaculture operations.

Group 2: Not addressed.

Group 3: In order to address entanglement concerns for both nearshore

and offshore aquaculture operations, there needs to be

additional assessment, collection of data, and monitoring in

terms of entanglement. Reporting should be voluntary in

nature. In addition, more research needs to be done to look

at fishing gear characteristics and to make comparisons with

aquaculture gear. The research would assist in determining 

what aspects of the gear promote marine mammal and marine

turtle encounters/entanglement.

4.4 STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES

What are the existing standards and guidelines that affect aquaculture

interactions with marine mammals and turtles?

Group 1: Not addressed.
42

Group 2: Near and offshore standards and guidelines include:

MMPA: “take” prohibitions, small take authorizations,

or incidental harassment authorizations;

ESA: Section 7 consultation;

US ACE permit;

NMFS offshore permit;

Oceans and Coastal Resource Management sanctuary

permit; And

Coastal Zone Management Act: States review actions to

ensure consistency with state coastal zone management

plans.

Group 3: No standards or guidelines exist which address aquaculture

and marine mammal/marine turtle interactions. However,

there is coordination occurring at the agency level.

DOC/NOAA: Steering Committee on Aquaculture. Each DOC

Bureau is represented on the DOC Aquaculture Task

Force;

ESA;

MMPA;

US ACE; And

Executive Committee on the Joint Sub-Committee on

Aquaculture (Representatives include DOC, Department

of the Interior, and the USDA. NMFS and the Office of

Oceanic and Atmospheric Research have votes on that

committee).

These opportunities occur at a fairly high bureaucratic

level, and they are still filtering down to the

regional/operational level.

Are these standards and guidelines sufficient?

Group 1: No. NMFS’ efforts are not sufficient at this point.

Group 2: No.

Group 3: No. Current regulations are too stringent and/or inflexible

to deal with aquaculture issues.

What gaps exist in the current standards and guidelines to deal with

marine mammal and turtle concerns?

Group 1: The group recommended several aspects of the current

standards and guidelines dealing with marine mammal and

turtle concerns that could benefit from further review. 

These aspects include:

Approaching resource management proactively;

Focusing on the broad national picture;
43

Development of consistency and stability;

Creation of regulations that reduce unknowns for

decision-makers and the industry;

Establishment of a framework management plan; and the

Establishment of aquaculture development zones.

Group 2: The group discussed the issue of disbursing government

funding to the aquaculture industry in an equitable manner.

Group 3: The guidelines do not address marine mammal and turtle

concerns with respect to aquaculture interactions.

Where should we focus our efforts to address these gaps?

Group 1: Further collaboration with other DOC efforts should be

pursued. The group also recommended increased public

outreach.

Group 2: Regulators should consider the following when reviewing

applications:

Does the aquaculture facility use the minimal level of

effective harassment? (This would be difficult to

address at this time, because current research does

not fully explain animal pain thresholds.) Should the

device avoid causing pain? Should the device avoid

permanent damage to the animal?

Does the aquaculture facility minimize takes from

acoustic harassment?

Does the aquaculture facility use non-acoustic

solutions when available?

Regulators should also consider the following points when

considering permit applications. The action items on the list aim

to minimize marine mammal/turtle and aquaculture interactions:

Create siting information through the use of a GIS;

Provide siting information to aquaculture permit

applicants;

Do not create a unilateral prohibition for siting

aquaculture. Any closed zones must be based on data;

Minimize takes from acoustic harassment devices;

Use non-acoustic deterrence as the primary response to

pinniped predation;

Avoid using acoustic devices in open waters;

Use best available technology to minimize predation

and entanglement;

Give specifics on what techniques, gear, and siting

protocols do and do not work;
44

Provide narratives about specific potential

aquaculture siting areas;

Provide a list of environmental protection

requirements associated with specific areas;

Promote further discussion regarding legal lethal

removals after having exhausted non-lethal options. 

The aquaculture industry is interested in furthering

this discussion. Further discussion must ensue due to

current legal limitations and potential public

disapproval;

Avoid considering the proximity of seal haul-out sites

as a useful factor in the GIS information database;

Research information distribution gaps;

Research the carrying capacity for an area;

Consider cumulative and existing impacts;

Incorporate principles to minimize entanglement

through gear engineering; And

Ensure timely incorporation and distribution of new

information by NMFS and the industry.

There are current gaps that may be hindering the above-mentioned

list of actions for regulators. Some of the current gaps in the

administrative structure include the lack of:

Structure to develop and distribute information;

Funding to help the industry;

Guidelines and standards for acoustic devices;

Guidelines and standards for technological gear;

Determination of siting information necessary to

create an information database;

Analysis of siting information;

Trust between the aquaculture industry and policy

makers;

Public involvement in the process and guideline

creation; And

Information exchange between the aquaculture industry

and the policy makers about marine mammal/turtle

interactions. Some of the missing information

includes the amount of interaction, method of

deterrence, and influence of marine mammals/turtles on

the aquaculture facilities.

Group 3: The aquaculture industry needs to lobby for financial

changes. At the same time, NOAA needs to alter its budget

to reflect its commitment to aquaculture. NMFS should work

to coordinate aquaculture efforts more efficiently and

effectively both within and outside of the Agency.
22Tak ing: Under the MMPA, “taking” is specifically defined as harassing, hunting,

capturing, killing, or the attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill.

45

Should standards be mandatory at this time? Or voluntary?

Group 1: The group would prefer the use of standards rather than

guidelines given the lack of resources available to enforce

guidelines.

Group 2: The group discussed the idea of mandatory regulations,

however they acknowledged that mandatory standards would

create a burden on both decision-makers and the industry.

Group 3: Not addressed.

4.5 RESEARCH

What are the key research needs to address policy issues and questions

related to marine mammals and turtle interactions with marine

aquaculture operations over the next 20 years?

Which are priorities?

Group 1: The group listed several research needs including:

Rotational studies involving aquaculture sites that

rotate across several geographical areas to determine

site-specific impacts of the facilities;

Behavioral studies regarding feeding cycles;

Acoustic studies;

Economic reviews of terrestrial resource management

efforts (e.g., Department of Agriculture policies);

Gear development;

Precautionary resource management policy approach

development; And

Marine mammal and marine mammal takings22 feasibility.

Group 2: The group developed a lengthy list of research topics. The

topics were then subdivided into topics of high priority and

those of lower priority. Priority was defined based on the

ability to accomplish those topics in the very near future.

High Priority:

Determine rogue animal characteristics;

Quantify and characterize the loss of money to the

aquaculture industry due to marine mammal and marine

turtle interactions;

Study the animal behavior and ecology around

aquaculture sites; And
46

Monitor changes to the habitat baseline including both

pre- and post- aquaculture facility.

Low Priority

Develop new deterrent technology;

Evaluate the effectiveness of acoustic devices and

their impacts on marine mammals, specifically,

Optimize the effectiveness of acoustic devices,

Target specific species through acoustic devices;

Research migratory birds’ interaction with

aquaculture;

Determine how to include public involvement in the

policy process;

Identify areas that should be completely closed to

aquaculture;

Research international trade treaties and issues;

Research the potential for aquaculture insurance

information to be used as an information source

providing the government with information pertaining

to the use of deterrent devices by aquaculture

facilities. This could potentially assist in

monitoring and determining what types of deterrent

devices are being used; And

Research the distribution of protected species.

4.6 HABITAT ISSUES

Group 1: There needs to be more research to discover what is going on

with nutrient modeling. Research should be pursued through

a trial partnership with non-governmental entities to

monitor impacts. There needs to be specific research on

determining at what point the removal of habitat caused by

the physical occupation of a space by aquaculture facilities

may eliminate native animals’ use of the area. The research

would likely involve the challenging task of determining the

carrying capacity of specific areas.

Another habitat issue that needs more research involves

water quality. There needs to be a study to determine the

effects of filter feeders on water quality and water

clarity. Scientists need to determine if filter feeders can

clean up a localized area of water significantly.

Group 2: These factors must be taken into consideration when

evaluating the potential habitat impacts associated with

aquaculture facilities:

• Physical exclusion through habitat change;
47

• Cumulative impacts;

• Degradation;

• Quantification of benthic habitat community change

(positive or negative) beneath aquaculture pens;

• Marine mammal and marine turtle attraction; And

• Acoustic exclusion.

In order to address the above-mentioned habitat

considerations, decision- makers need to develop policies

concerning:

Habitat degradation,

Physical exclusion,

Acoustic exclusion, and

Marine mammal and marine turtle attraction.

Group 3: Not addressed.

5.0 WHOLE GROUP DISCUSSION

5.1 OFFSHORE SITING

Definition of Offshore vs. Nearshore Aquaculture sites: The Group

felt the need to clearly define and differentiate offshore versus

nearshore habitats in reference to guidelines and standards. 

Discussion revolved around some of the characteristics that could be

used to define offshore versus nearshore including:

Physical characteristics (e.g., wave height, wave action, etc.);

Amount of exposure (e.g., exposed site versus a sheltered site.

The definition should reflect physical criteria);

Jurisdictional authority issues (e.g., states have jurisdiction

to the 3 mile limit. It might be advantageous to use this

state/federal jurisdictional limit as the nearshore/offshore

limit.); and

Marine species’ location. It would be difficult to decide what

species occur offshore versus nearshore. However, there may not

be clear boundaries for the species.

5.1.1 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Many states have fine-resolution GIS systems. Decision-makers should

apply those systems to use for the management of aquaculture issues.

There were some concerns by group members concerning spatial and

temporal resolution of GIS information, and some members questioned

whether or not the GIS databases would provide data that was

applicable to aquaculture decisions. In order to address that

concern, group members emphasized that the GIS would need to be sitespecific, rather than a global siting document. Other considerations
23Phocids: Marine mammals of the Order Carnivora, Sub-Order Pinnipedia, Family

Phocidae are typically r eferred to as true seals or earless seals. Examples include harbor seals.

They differ from ottariids by having internal testes and lacking mobile hind flippers.

24Ottariids: Marine mammals of the Order Carnivora, Sub-Order Pinnipedia, Family

Otariidae are typically r eferred to as eared seals. Examples include fur seals and sea lions.

They also differ from phocids by having m obile hind flippers.

48

involved maintenance issues such as upkeep and data processing. Some

group members emphasized that a GIS system has the potential to

minimize personal contact between the permitting agency with the

permit applicants and sites.

Workshop participants suggested using the best available information

in a narrative approach that identifies factors such as marine mammal

and marine turtle migration patterns, habitats, density, etc. The

information should also acknowledge the level of risk associated with

a particular area and methods for minimizing the risk.

5.1.2 GENERAL SITING ISSUES FOR OFFSHORE AQUACULTURE

Recommendations include investigating the concern of siting offshore

aquaculture in other “use” areas such as non-fishing areas. This

research would assist in reducing user conflicts by recommending

siting in low-conflict areas. Group members displayed a general

reluctance to exclude geographic areas from aquaculture production,

and they recommend that any exclusionary areas would need to be based

on data.

A lengthy discussion involved offshore aquaculture siting issues and

pinniped haul-out sites. Some members recommended not to make

permitting or siting decisions on the basis of proximity to haul-out

sites. Other workshop participants argued that the discussion should

be more species-based. Proximity to haul-out sites should not be a

factor for phocids23. However, it might be a consideration for

ottariids24. Further discussion ensued regarding the differences

between seals and sea lion behavior.

In order to minimize interactions with commercial fisheries, decisionmakers should delineate areas as soon as feasible to minimize overlap

and conflict between offshore aquaculture operations and traditional

fisheries. Commercial fisheries should be involved in discussing gear

conflicts and solutions alongside other affected sectors.
49

5.1.3 OFFSHORE SITE CONSIDERATIONS

Workshop participants noted that there are some necessary

considerations associated with offshore sites. Participants noted

that site monitoring and visitation is a consideration. Monitoring and

visitation to the aquaculture structure may not occur as often as the

monitoring of nearshore sites. Therefore, monitoring and visitation

frequency should be taken into account during further policy and

permitting discussions.

5.2 POLICY MAKING

Policy makers should keep the information flow cross-directional

between nations involved in aquaculture. Several group members

suggested looking at other nations’ experiences to augment the United

States’ understanding of aquaculture and protected species

interactions with the industry. 

An emphasis should be placed on encouraging innovation. Policy makers

can indirectly encourage innovation through working closely with the

emerging technology and policies that may be associated with the

industry.

5.3 ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE CHANGES

The Federal government should create a Regional Aquaculture

Coordinator (RAC) position in each NMFS region. The positions would

focus on GIS, facility siting, and inter-agency coordination. In

order to adequately equip this position with adequate skills and

funding, the position should be a full time senior policy specialist

with its own budget. Due to governmental budget limitations, the

establishment of several FTEs with their own budgets would likely

necessitate a lengthy period of time. In order to facilitate the

formation of these positions, workshop participants recommended

developing policy recommendations for NOAA and the Department of

Commerce regarding the necessity of these positions.

RAC roles would include:

Updating the information resource base;

Ensuring that the information is available to the industry; And,

Helping aquaculture permit applicants work through the permitting

process.

The group had varying sentiments regarding the position that the

Regional Aquaculture Coordinators should take. Some opinions

included:
50

The RAC should advocate for the industry’s development. Workshop

participants debated the definition of “advocacy,” and the group

failed to come to a consensus regarding the definition;

The RAC should support the aquaculture industry. However, the

RAC would not support industry development which would lead to

the detriment of the environment.

The RAC should inform applicants about the permitting process; 

And,

The RAC should facilitate aquaculture permitting.

5.4 KEY PRINCIPLES

The group discussed the benefits of having a national discussion on

the issue of marine mammal and marine turtle interactions with

aquaculture facilities. However, participants also recognize that

interaction issues differ across the various geographical regions. In

order to create a proactive policy, there must be a consistent

approach within NMFS across the various regions. A well-developed

management policy for approaching interaction concerns is necessary to

ensure that aquaculture develops in an environmentally-sound manner.

In order to create the management policy, research is a necessary

component. Decision-makers should encourage new ideas and creativity

through facilitating the flow of information between aquaculturists,

technologists, and decision-makers.

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

The Keystone Center encouraged the group to prioritize the

recommendations generated. Each group member was given the

opportunity to vote, and voting was done openly. In an effort to keep

some confidentially in the voting process, participants’ votes were

not recorded in the workshop minutes. Participants were given seven

votes to use across twenty recommendations. The participants’ votes

were given two types of voting weights: top priority votes and second

priority votes. The suggested voting criteria included determining

if the recommendation displayed the following attributes:

Urgency in terms of temporal importance;

Potential for obtainable results;

Outcome of goals is possible;

Cost-effectiveness;

Implementation ease;

Logical order (short-term versus long-term activities and

results);

Ability of the recommendation to provide new information; And

Ability to leverage dollars to undertake the recommendation.
51

Several voting process attributes are noteworthy. Relative weights

between the first and second priority votes were not discussed. In

addition, some workshop participants had to leave the meeting due to

other obligations, therefore the participants in attendance had

changed since the beginning of the workshop. It should be noted that

the aquaculture industry, conservation community, and the Northwest

region were considered to be under-represented during the voting

process. Therefore, there should be limited emphasis placed on the

recommendations’ prioritization.

6.1 GROUP RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations include the following (not in any particular

order):

Technology-Associated Efforts

Evaluate the adverse effects of AHDs on target and non-target

species. Received 12 votes total. 6 top priority votes and 6

second priority votes.

Encourage the aquaculture industry to investigate new net

technologies. (e.g., sponsor joint projects instead of solely

governmental projects.) Received 12 votes total. 8 top priority

votes and 4 second priority votes. 

Research non-lethal, non-technical deterrence methods. Received

0 votes. 

Develop new deterrent technologies and strategies. Received 13

votes total. 7 top priority votes and 6 second priority votes.

Conduct an economic review of new net technologies (e.g., a

viability analysis). No vote was taken.

Optimize the effectiveness of AHDs through research on particular

species.

Received 1 vote total. 1 top priority vote.

Policy Analysis

Research other nations’ approaches to the marine mammal/marine

turtle and aquaculture interaction issue. There is an

inconsistency in international environmental standards,

specifically related to international treaties. Received 9 votes

total. 8 top priority votes and 1 second priority vote. 

Quantify and characterize the economic losses to the aquaculture

industry from pinniped predation. Received 6 votes total. 3 top

priority votes and 3 second priority votes.

Compare agricultural predator deterrent policies and approaches

and determine their applicability to marine aquaculture. 

Received 1 vote total. 1 Second priority vote.

Perform a risk analysis of the effect of aquaculture compared to

other activities in the marine environment on marine mammals and
52

marine turtles. Perform a risk analysis of all threats and

concerns to marine mammals and turtles. Received 4 votes total.

4 second priority votes.

Habitat Issues

Examine at what point the physical occupation of a habitat or the

use of resources in an area by aquaculture site(s) has become a

problem for marine mammals and marine turtles. Received 9 votes

total. 6 top priority votes and 3 second priority votes.

Evaluate aquaculture site baseline habitat condition changes

before and after aquaculture siting (e.g., monitoring ambient

noise levels). Received 12 votes total. 4 top priority votes

and 8 second priority votes.

Behavioral Studies

Document and characterize marine mammal and marine turtle

interactions with aquaculture sites (e.g., effects of lighting on

turtles, how marine mammals become entangled in aquaculture gear,

etc.). Received 10 votes total. 7 top priority votes and 3

second priority votes.

Further characterize marine mammal/marine turtle behavior and

ecology around aquaculture sites. Received 9 votes total. 6 top

priority votes and 3 second priority votes.

Identify characteristics of rogue animals particularly looking at

pinnipeds as predators. Received 5 votes total. 3 top priority

votes and 2 second priority votes.

Undertake further research on the distribution of protected

species. Received 3 votes total. 1 top priority vote. 2 second

priority votes.

Review and assemble baseline environmental management data. 

Agencies would use the data to create narrative guidance with the

assistance of a Geographic Information System to guide applicants

in aquaculture siting applications. Received 4 votes total. 1

top priority vote and 3 second priority votes

Aquaculture Facility Standard Operation Practices

Develop changes to aquaculture facility standard operating

practices in an effort to reduce marine mammal and marine turtle

interactions. (e.g., rotating site locations).

Received 7 votes total. 6 top priority votes and 1 second

priority vote.

Develop a tagging method for aquaculture gear for identification

purposes in case of gear loss. Research existing approaches that

are currently used in other fisheries.

Received 5 votes total. 5 second priority votes.

6.2 NON-RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS
53

In addition to the research recommendations, the group offered several

suggestions that did not require research. The group members did not

prioritize the non-research recommendations as they prioritized the

research recommendations.

Information Management

Archive literature related to marine mammal and turtle

interactions with aquaculture operations.

Explore the use of the NOAA Library to archive and store

literature.

Consider insurance as a tracking mechanism for implementing and

enforcing guidelines or standards.

7.0 CLOSING COMMENTS

At the end of the two day workshop, the subgroups met to discuss their

recommendations. Donna Wieting reemphasized the goals of the

workshop. NMFS aimed to solicit comments, recommendations, and/or

strategies; however, the group was not tasked with striving for

consensus. Therefore, no individual’s ideas would be dismissed.

Participants did take the opportunity to discuss the viability of some

of the recommendations, and the facilitator encouraged the discussion.

8.0 FUTURE ACTION

The Office of Protected Resources will share these recommendations

with other offices within the DOC as well as within other governmental

entities. The Office also hopes to spur further discussion and

thoughts from the workshop participants and the sectors that they

represent regarding issues that need further discussion. The workshop

results will be available for future workshops and discussions within

and outside of NMFS, NOAA, and the DOC. The recommendations will be

particularly important in the development of the DOC Code of Conduct

for Responsible Aquaculture. The Office of Protected Resources will

send the recommendations to NMFS and NOAA leadership for future

action.
54

Appendix 1: Workshop Agenda

Tuesday, January 12, 1999 Silver Spring NOAA Complex, Building

3, Room TBA

8:00 Welcome and Introductions.

8:45 Overview of Agenda. General Questions.

Donna Wieting, NMFS Office of Protected Resources

9:15 Presentations and Questions.

“Review of aquaculture (including hatchery-released

salmonids) interactions with marine mammals in the

Pacific Northwest”: NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science

Center

“Aquaculture in the Northeast”: NMFS Northeast Region

10:15 Break.

10:30 Presentations and Questions Continued.

“Net design and construction”

“Acoustics”

11:30 Set-up of Break-Out Group Sessions. Charge to Break-Out

Groups.

12:00 Lunch on your own.

1:00 - 5:00 Break-Out Group Sessions.

Three small break-out groups will run simultaneously. Each

group will discuss the major themes identified below and be

asked to provide recommendations and strategies for

addressing the challenges identified.

Wednesday, January 13, 1999 Silver Spring NOAA Complex, Building

3

8:00 - 12:00 Break-Out Group Sessions Continued.

The three small groups will continue discussions and prepare

synthesis for afternoon large group discussion.

12:00 Lunch on your own.

1:00 - 4:00 Large Group Discussion - Room TBA

Summary of break-out group discussions. Each small group

will provide a synthesis of key points and individual

recommendations discussed in their small group. Upon

completion of the overview, all participants will be invited

to comment and/or provide additional individual

recommendations for each of the topics discussed.

4:00 - 5:00 Overview. Discussion of next steps.

Note: NMFS is soliciting individual comments, recommendations and/or

strategies, not group consensus or group recommendations.
55

APPENDIX 2: WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS 

NMFS Regional Representatives

Laurie Allen

National Marine Fisheries

Service Northeast Region

One Blackburn Dr.

Gloucester, MA 01930-2298

David Bernhart

National Marine Fisheries Service

Southeast Region

9721 Executive Center Drive,

North, KOGER2

St. Petersburg, FL 33702-2439

Bob Iwamoto

National Marine Fisheries

Service Northwest Fisheries

Science Center

2725 Montlake Blvd. East

Seattle, WA 98112-2097

Dierdre Kimball

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Northeast Region

One Blackburn Dr.

Gloucester, MA 01930-2298

Conrad Mahnken

National Marine Fisheries

Service Northwest Fisheries

Science Center

P.O. Box 130

Manchester, WA 98353-0130

Tom McIlwain

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Southeast Fisheries Science

Center

3209 Frederic St.

Pascagoula, MS 39567-4112

Gordon Waring

National Marine Fisheries

Service

Northeast Fisheries Science

Center

166 Water St., L312C

Woods Hole, MA 02453-1026

NMFS Headquarters/NOAA Representatives

Tom Bigford/Neng Yu

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Office of Habitat Conservation

1315 East-West Highway, SSMC3

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Carolyn Brown/Bonnie Ponwith

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Office of Science and Technology

1315 East-West Highway, SSMC3

Silver Spring, MD 20910
56

Linda Chaves

National Marine Fisheries Service

Office for Industry and Trade

1315 East-West Highway, Rm.12454

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Kate Colborn

National Marine Fisheries Service

Office of Protected Resources

Marine Mammal Division

1315 East-West Highway, Rm. 13756

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Paul Comar

National Ocean Service

219 Ft. Johnson Road

Charleston, SC 29412-9110

Therese Conant

National Marine Fisheries Service

Office of Protected Resources

Endangered Species Division

1315 East-West Highway, Room

13631

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Roger Gentry

National Marine Fisheries Service

Office of Protected Resources

Marine Mammal Division

1315 East-West Highway, Rm. 13602

Silver Spring, MD 20910

David Kaiser

National Ocean Service

Ocean and Coastal Resource

Management

1305 East-West Highway, Rm. 11130

Silver Spring, MD 20910-3281

Dot Leonard

National Marine Fisheries Service

Office of Habitat Conservation

1315 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Anne Liu

National Marine Fisheries Service

General Counsel

1315 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Paul Perra

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Office for Intergovernmental and

Recreational Fisheries

8484 Georgia Ave.

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Ed Rhodes

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Office of Sustainable Fisheries

1315 East-West Highway, Rm. 13360

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Donna Wieting

National Marine Fisheries Service

Office of Protected Resources

Marine Mammal Division

1315 East-West Highway, Rm. 13727

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Dean Wilkinson

National Marine Fisheries Service

Office of Protected Resources

Marine Mammal Division

1315 East-West Highway, Rm. 13727

Silver Spring, MD 20910

NMFS/NOAA Observers
57

Suzanne Bolton, Ph.D.

National Marine Fisheries Service

Office of Science and Technology

1315 East West Highway, Rm. 

14348

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Peter Hill

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Office of Legislative Affairs

1315 East-West Highway, 14530

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Jim McVey

Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric

Research, Sea Grant

1315 East-West Highway, Rm. 11838

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Ben Mieremet

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

Office of Sustainable Development

14th and Constitution, NW

HCHB, Rm. 5222

Washington, D.C. 20230-0001

Katie Moore

National Marine Fisheries Service

Office of Protected Resources

Marine Mammal Division

1315 East-West Highway, Rm. 13756

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Scott Smullen

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Office of Public Affairs

1315 East-West Highway, 14407

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Non-NMFS Representatives

Kenneth Baldwin

Ocean Engineering

Room 127

University of New Hampshire

Durham, NH 03824

Patrick Fitzgerald 

Connors Brothers Aquaculture

PO Box 263

Estes Head Road

Eastport, ME 04631

James Gilbert

Department of Wildlife Ecology

University of Maine

Orono, ME 04469-2866

Bob Hukki

Atlantic Salmon of Maine LLC

PO Box 89

66 Western Avenue

Fairfield, ME 04937

Richard Langan

University of New Hampshire

Durham, NH 03824

Jon Lewis

Maine Department of Marine

Resources

P.O. Box 8

West Boothbay Harbor, ME 04575

Joseph McGonigle

Maine Aquaculture Association

141 North Main St., Suite 202

Brewer, ME 04412

Sharon Young

Humane Society

22 Washburn

Bourne, MA 02532
58

Appendix 3: Discussion Topics for Break-Out Group

Sessions

Siting

• Should areas be identified where marine aquaculture should be

avoided and/or encouraged?

• How should those areas be identified? General criteria? 

Mapping? Other?

Pinniped Predation

• Is pinniped predation a problem in all types of marine

aquaculture? In all regions?

• If not, what determines whether or not pinniped predation is a

problem?

• What deterrents are currently used? Are they successful? To

what degree?

• How can deterrents be improved?

• What new methods are needed?

Entanglement

• Is entanglement a concern in nearshore aquaculture operations?

• If so, what is being done to avoid or minimize it?

• What additional methods should be applied?

• Is entanglement a concern in offshore aquaculture operations?

• If so, what should be done to avoid or minimize it?

Standards and Guidelines

• What are the existing standards and guidelines that affect

aquaculture interactions with marine mammals and turtles?

• Are these standards and guidelines sufficient?

• What gaps exist in the current standard and guidelines to deal

with marine mammal and turtle concerns?

• Where should we focus our efforts to address these gaps?

• Should standards be mandatory at this time? Or voluntary?

Research

• What are the key research needs to address policy issues and

questions related to marine mammals and turtle interactions with

marine aquaculture operations over the next 20 years?

• Which are priorities?

Anticipated Workshop Outputs

Recommendations for guidelines to minimize or avoid adverse

affects to marine mammals and turtles:

• at current level and future levels of nearshore

aquaculture operations

• from proposed offshore aquaculture operations
59

Appendix 4: Background Documents Supplied to

Participants

Policies

Department of Commerce Aquaculture Policy, Final draft version.

November 10, 1998.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Aquaculture

Policy. February 13, 1998.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries

Strategic Plan. May 1997. pp. 16-17.

Regulatory Framework

Hopkins, D.D., R.J. Goldburg, and A. Marston. 1997. An environmental

critique of government regulations and policies for open ocean

aquaculture. Ocean and Coastal Law Journal, 2:235-260.

Entanglement

Kemper, C. and S. Gibbs. 1997. A study of life history parameters of

dolphins and seals entangled in tuna farms near Port Lincoln, and

comparisons with information from other South Australian dolphin

carcasses: A summary. Report to Environment Australia, Australian

Nature Conservation Agency, 2 pp.

Pinniped Predation

Arnold, H. 1992. Experimental predator control measures on marine

salmon farms in Shetland. A report for Greenpeace UK. Submission to

the Planning and Coordinating Committee of the Marine Mammal Action

Plan, United Nations Environment Program, pp. I, 6-25.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1997. Impacts of

California Sea Lions and Pacific Harbor Seals on salmonids and on the

coastal ecosystems of Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S.

Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-28, pp.

56-57.
60

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1997. Report to Congress

on the interaction between pinnipeds and salmon aquaculture resources

in the Gulf of Maine: Including recommendations on measures to

mitigate the interaction. U.S. Department of Commerce, pp.1-5.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996. Report of the Gulf

of Maine Aquaculture-Pinniped Interaction Task Force. U.S. Department

of Commerce, pp. 19-25 (Section 5), 27-41 (Section 6), 53-60 (Section

9).

Pemberton, D. and P.D. Shaughnessy. 1993. Interactions between seals

and marine fish-farms in Tasmania, and management of the problem.

Aquatic conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 3:149-158.

Smith, R.J. 1994. Literature survey on measures to control seal

predation around aquaculture installations. Paper prepared for the

Third Meeting of the Scientific Advisory Committee, Marine Mammal

Action Plan, United Nations Environment Program, August 1994,

Crowborough, U.K, 23 pp.

Acoustics

Olesiuk, P.F., L.M. Nichol, P.J. Sowden, and J.K.B. Ford. 1995.

Effect of sounds generated by an acoustic deterrent device on the

abundance and distribution of harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in

Retreat Passage, British Columbia. Department of Fisheries and

Oceans, Pacific Biological Station, 47 pp.

Reeves, R.R., R.J. Hofman, G.K. Silber, and D. Wilkinson. 1996.

Acoustic deterrence of harmful marine mammal-fishery interactions:

Proceedings of a workshop held in Seattle, Washington, 20-22 March

1996. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSOPR-10, pp. 27-32, 50-53.
61

Appendix 4: Background Documents Supplied to

Participants

AQUACULTURE AND THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 

PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONSWhite Paper by the NMFS Office of Protected Resources

INTRODUCTION The value of U.S. aquaculture production has grown by

roughly 5-10% each year over the past decade (Goldburg and Triplett

1997). With the continued decline in domestic and world fisheries

catches and increases in the demand for seafood, marine aquaculture

production is expected to steadily increase. Increased marine

aquaculture production may create significant economic benefits for

the U.S., however, if care is not taken those benefits could be offset

by significant environmental costs. This paper outlines the range of

environmental effects associated with marine aquaculture and proposes

solutions to minimize or avoid problems to ensure that aquaculture

develops in an environmentally sound manner.

SUMMARY of Environmental Impacts Associated with Marine Aquaculture

Impacts on marine mammals and marine turtles

• Entanglement Protected resources may become entangled in the

lines, nets, cages, cables and anchors that comprise the

structure of an aquaculture facility. 

• Behavior Changes Improperly sited, an aquaculture facility may

obstruct marine mammal and marine turtle access to habitats of

critical importance to their survival, such as haul-out sites,

breeding grounds, and nesting beaches. 

• Predation and Acoustic harassment devices Marine mammal predation

can stress, injure, and kill fish, as well as damage nets and

cages, which may lead to the escapement of farmed fish. Acoustic

harassment devices have been used by aquaculturists for a number

of years to combat pinniped predation with short-term results,

but little long-term effectiveness. The impacts of these devices

on target and non-target species are not fully understood. 

Biological Pollution - Non-indigenous Species and Disease

• Nonindigenous Species Nonindigenous species can prey on or

compete with native species, including protected salmonids, 

alter the habitat of native species, introduce pathogens and
62

parasites and can have long-term genetic impacts. Some experts

believe that aquaculture has the potential to be the largest

source of introductions of non-native fishes into North American

waters.

• Disease Movement of pathogens and parasites has been a major

problem both for the aquaculture industry and for wild

populations. A number of diseases and parasites have been

introduced to the US through aquaculture. 

• Competition with Wild Fishery Stocks Aquaculture can compete with

natural stocks and can quicken the demise of fishery resources

rather than fostering their recovery. In addition, fishmeal is

produced from the capture of wild fish stocks. With increases in

aquaculture production, the demand for wild fishstocks to provide

cultured fish feed will increase, putting additional pressure on

wild stocks. 

Habitat alterations and water pollution

• Nutrient overenrichment, eutrophication and toxic algal blooms.

Aquaculture systems can produce large amounts of pollution which

impact water quality and habitats. Nutrient overenrichment can

lead to toxic algal blooms which affect both cultured and wild

fish.

• Physical alteration The construction of aquaculture facilities

can directly impact marine wildlife by reducing habitat

productivity, diminishing water flow and decrease bottom habitat

quality.

• Toxins Aquaculture operations also introduce harsh and toxic

chemicals to their surrounding waters. Large percentages of these

chemicals are lost to the environment.

Human Interactions Aquaculture is being pursued in areas where it did

not exist and has become a significant competitor for space in the

coastal zone. Aquaculture can conflict with competing uses such as

commercial and recreational fisheries, tourism and boating, and

commercial vessel traffic.

Special Issue: Enhancement Aquaculture is sometimes touted as a means

to recover protected species through enhancement. There are a number

of risks associated with artificial propagation, including erosion of

genetic variability and increased competition and displacement There

are a number of risks associated with artificial propagation,

including erosion of genetic variability and increased competition and
63

displacement However, the goal of the ESA is to recover species in

their natural habitat and the NMFS/FWS policy on controlled

propagation highlights that controlled propagation be used only when

necessary. .

SOLUTIONS

Siting The appropriate siting of aquaculture facilities can mitigate

or prevent many environmental problems. Currently, siting criteria

cannot be based on the ability of marine systems to assimilate the

impacts of aquaculture because that information is not available.

Therefore research is an essential aspect of any solution.

Design/Operation/Husbandry

The keywords here are reduce, reuse and recycle. Closed,

recirculating systems can mitigate or prevent many environmental

problems. However, opponents cite their high cost as a significant

drawback, particularly in the open ocean. Other design options are

available to reduce the environmental impacts of facilities, although

closed systems are preferred.

Reducing Marine Mammal Predation Controlling access to nets, pens,

and cages is key to curtailing marine mammal predation on aquaculture

resources. Net tensioning and external weighting systems which render

nets, pens, and cages less pliable appear to significantly reduce

pinniped predation (Arnold 1992). Development of alternative,

nonlethal methods of deterring marine mammals is a high priority.

Reducing the Introduction of Nonindigenous Species A number of

solutions are available to minimize the possibility of nonindigenous

species introductions into coastal and marine waters from aquaculture

facilities:

• discourage farming of non-native species

• promote designs and facilities that are more secure - cages and

netpens are the least secure, closed systems are the most secure

• develop sterile organisms - this is not completely reliable yet

• follow existing procedures such as the ICES Code of Conduct and

the ANS Task force risk assessment protocol

Enhancement Artificial propagation of threatened and endangered

species through aquaculture should only be considered under the ESA

when it is called for in a recovery plan and if it meets the criteria

established under the joint FWS/NMFS policy.
64

Appendix 5: Letter to Workshop Attendees

December 15, 1998

Dear Workshop Attendee,

Welcome to the NOAA Marine Aquaculture, Marine Mammals and Marine

Turtles Workshop, January 12-13, 1999, hosted by the National Marine

Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) Office of Protected Resources. Thank you

for your interest in this workshop. In this briefing packet, you will

find a list of invited participants and observers, a draft workshop

agenda, a number of background references, discussion topics, and

lodging information for those of you coming from outside the

Washington, D.C. area. Please take some time to review the packet.

As marine aquaculture operations expand, it is likely that

interactions with marine mammals and turtles will increase, with

potential adverse affects to marine mammals and turtles and

aquaculture operations. The purpose of this workshop is to bring

together regional NMFS experts in marine mammals, marine turtles, and

marine aquaculture operations to develop recommendations on specific

guidelines and standards for aquaculture siting and operation to

minimize adverse affects to marine protected species from nearshore

and offshore aquaculture operations. In addition, a number of nonNMFS representatives have been invited to present information and

guide the development of recommendations. The intent is to solicit

individual suggestions, not consensus or group decisions. Through

discussions and interactions between members of the government, the

marine aquaculture industry, academia, and environmental organizations

it is hoped that NMFS will gain valuable insight regarding many of the

most critical interactions between aquaculture and marine mammals and

turtles.

Thank you for your interest in the development of guidelines and your

willingness to attend this workshop. We look forward to working with

you all in January. If you have any questions or comments about this

packet or the workshop, please contact Kate Colborn at 301-713-2322 or

Kate.Colborn@noaa.gov.

Sincerely,

Hilda Diaz-Soltero

Director, Office of Protected

 Resources