This series represents a secondary level of scientifiic publishing. It employs thorough internal

scientific review and technical and copy editing, but not necessarily external scientific review.

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Ronald H. Brown, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

D. James Baker, Administrator

National Marine Fisheries Service

Rolland A. Schmitten, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

Northeast Region

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Woods Hole, Massachusetts

January 1996

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-109

Proceedings of the Symposium

on the Potential for Development

of Aquaculture in Massachusetts

15-17 February 1995

Chatham/Edgartown/Dartmouth, Massachusetts

Carlos A. Castro1 and Scott J. Soares2, Compilers and Editors

1National Marine Fisheries Service, Gloucester, MA 01930 2Southeastern Regional Planning & Economic Development District, Taunton, MA 02780
NOTE ON SPECIES NAMES

The NMFS Northeast Region’s policy on the use of species names in all technical communications is to follow the

American Fisheries Society’s (AFS) lists of scientific and common names for fishes (Robins et al. 1991)a, mollusks

(Turgeon et al. 1988)b, and decapod crustaceans (Williams et al. 1989)c, and to follow the American Society of

Mammalogists’ list of scientific and common names for marine mammals (Wilson and Reeder 1993)d. This policy

applies to all issues of the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE series.

a

Robins, C.R. (chair); Bailey, R.M.; Bond, C.E.; Brooker, J.R.; Lachner, E.A.; Lea, R.N.; Scott, W.B. 1991. Common and scientific

names of fishes from the United States and Canada. 5th ed. Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 20; 183 p.

b

Turgeon, D.D. (chair); Bogan, A.E.; Coan, E.V.; Emerson, W.K.; Lyons, W.G.; Pratt, W.L.; Roper, C.F.E.; Scheltema, A.; Thompson,

F.G.; Williams, J.D. 1988. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: mollusks. Amer.

Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 16; 277 p.

c

Williams, A.B. (chair); Abele, L.G.; Felder, D.L.; Hobbs, H.H., Jr.; Manning, R.B.; McLaughlin, P.A.; Pérez Farfante, I. 1989.

Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: decapod crustaceans. Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec.

Publ. 17; 77 p.

d

Wilson, D.E.; Reeder, D.M. 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Washington, DC: Smithsonian

Institution Press; 1206 p.
Page iii

Contents

List of Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................................ iv

List of Scientific Names by Species and Hybrids................................................................................................................ iv

Preface ................................................................................................................................................................................. v

Welcome and Opening Remarks ...........................................................................................................................................1

Carlos A. Castro

Aquaculture: A Worldwide Growth Response to Declining Fisheries Stocks ......................................................................2

Michael A. Rice

Northeast Aquacultural Industry: Situation and Outlook .....................................................................................................5

Michael J. Bush, James L. Anderson, and Priscilla M. Brooks

Shellfish Aquaculture on Martha's Vineyard ........................................................................................................................8

Richard C. Karney

Status of Shellfish Aquaculture in Southeastern Massachusetts ...................................................................................... 10

Richard A. Kraus

Potential for Blue Mussel Aquaculture in Massachusetts ................................................................................................. 11

Link Murray

Potential for Finfish Culture in Massachusetts ................................................................................................................... 12

Joshua N. Goldman

Finfish Culture in Massachusetts: A Researcher's Perspective .......................................................................................... 14

David A. Bengtson

Disease Control and Environmental Impacts of Marine Aquaculture ................................................................................. 15

Sharon A. MacLean

User Conflicts -- Can Aquaculture Exist while Guaranteeing Public Rights? ...................................................................... 19

Susan Snow-Cotter

The Revolving Loan Fund: Its Applicability to Aquacultural Projects ............................................................................... 20

Maria G. Gooch

The Northeast Fisheries Assistance Program and Fishing Industry Grants ....................................................................... 21

Dana L. Morse

Aquacultural Policy: Formulation and Implementation ....................................................................................................... 23

Harlyn O. Halvorson

Tables

Table 1. Findings and recommendations of the Policy Center for Marine Biosciences and Technology

for federal involvement to assist the U.S. aquacultural industry ..................................................................... 24

Table 2. Problems and proposed solutions for reducing impediments to sea scallop aquaculture

in Massachusetts ............................................................................................................................................ 26

Figures

Figure 1. Percent composition of aquacultural production in the northeastern United States during 1992 .....................5
Page iv

Acronyms

AFS = American Fisheries Society

ARC = Aquacultural Research Corporation

CCEDC = Cape Cod Economic Development Council

FAC = Fishing Family Assistance Corporation

FAO = (U.N.) Food and Agriculture Organization

FDA = U.S. Food and Drug Administration

FIG = Fishing Industry Grant Program

MCZM = Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office

MDEP = Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

MVSG = Martha's Vineyard Shellfish Group, Inc.

NMFS = (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service

OTA = (U.S. Congress) Office of Technology Assessment

PTD = public trust doctrine

SBA = U.S. Small Business Administration

SEED = South Eastern Economic Development Corporation

SRPEDD = Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development

District

UMD/CMST = University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth's

Center for Marine Science and Technology

USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDC = U.S. Department of Commerce

WHOI/SGP = Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution's Sea Grant Program

Scientific Names of Species and Hybrids

Atlantic cod = Gadus morhua

Atlantic halibut = Hippoglossus hippoglossus

Atlantic salmon = Salmo salar

Bay scallop = Argopecten irradians

Black basses = Micropterus spp.

Blue mussel = Mytilus edulis

Channel catfish = Ictalurus punctatus

Crappies = Pomoxis spp.

Eastern oyster = Crassotrea virginica

Haddock = Melanogrammus aeglefinus

Northern quahog = Mercenaria mercenaria

Palmetto bass = female Morone saxatilus x male M. chrysops

Rainbow trout = Oncorhynchus mykiss

Sea scallop = Placopecten magellanicus

Softshell = Mya arenaria

Striped bass = Morone saxatilus

Summer flounder = Paralichthys dentatus

Tautog = Tautoga onitis

Tilapias = Orechromis spp. and Tilapia spp.

White bass = M. chrysops

Yellow perch = Perca flavescens
Page v

PREFACE

The impact of the current fisheries crisis on the fishing industry of coastal New England has inspired numerous

recommendations to alleviate the resulting economic stress. Among these recommendations are: 1) retraining of those

displaced from the industry, 2) greater exploitation of underutilized species, 3) a government-sponsored fishing vessel

buyback program, and 4) development of various forms of aquaculture. It has become apparent that there will be no one

solution for the industry's dilemma. Accordingly, although it is not a panacea, aquaculture is one alternative that provides

limited employment and a source of high-quality protein.

The primary reasons for organizing these symposia were the needs to educate and inform municipal officials about

aquaculture, to encourage development of the emerging aquacultural industry, and to provide a forum for discussion of

major constraints affecting the industry. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Southeastern [Massachusetts] Regional Planning and Economic Development Council (SRPEDD) jointly organized three regional symposia. Over

350 invitations went to state and federal government agencies and to coastal communities throughout southeastern Massachusetts. Because development of Massachusetts' aquacultural industry suffers from a lack of startup capital, the South

Eastern Economic Development Corporation sent an additional 300 invitations to lending institutions throughout the commonwealth. Response to the more than 600 invitations was extraordinary. Over 300 people attended the symposia held in

Chatham, Edgartown, and Dartmouth on February 15, 16, and 17, 1995, respectively.

This report summarizes the presentations at these symposia. Crucial to success was involvement of the Woods

Hole Oceanographic Institution's Sea Grant Program (WHOI/SGP), Martha's Vineyard Shellfish Group, Inc. (MVSG), Cape

Cod Economic Development Council (CCEDC), Resource Conservation and Development Council, Center for Marine Science and Technology of the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth (UMD/CMST), Cape Cod Commission, Martha's

Vineyard Commission, and Policy Center for Marine Biosciences and Technology. The symposia were sponsored by NMFS,

SRPEDD, WHOI/SGP, CCEDC, MVSG, and UMD/CMST. Special thanks go to Dr. Jean Fraser, Mr. Richard Karney, Dr. Dale

Leavitt, and Mr. Dana Morse for their invaluable assistance in organizing these symposia.

Scott J. Soares

Southeastern Regional Planning

and Economic Development District

Taunton, Massachusetts 02780
Page 1

WELCOME AND OPENING REMARKS

Carlos A. Castro

Northeast Regional Operations Office

National Marine Fisheries Service

Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930

I welcome all participants to this symposium on “The

Potential for Development of Aquaculture in Massachusetts.” This event is the result of a cooperative effort by many

agencies and organizations that share an interest in development of aquaculture. I gratefully acknowledge the sponsorship of the participating agencies, and particularly recognize

the important financial contributions of SRPEDD, CCEDC,

WHOI/SGP, and MVSG. Their contributions were fundamental in organizing these symposia. We have set up three similar

meetings in order to reach all coastal communities of southeastern Massachusetts: today this one, tomorrow on

Martha’s Vineyard, and Friday at the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth.

These symposia were designed to inform, educate, and

address the managerial issues that concern not only local

decisionmakers, but the state and federal government, as

well. We hope that the information and discussions generated in this forum will help local municipalities and the state

to shape their policies on aquaculture. We also certainly hope

to create enough interest to stimulate the private sector to

make more capital investments. In attendance today are

selectmen from most Cape Cod towns, official representatives of conservation commissions, shellfish advisory groups,

and state and federal governments, and individual members

of the community.

While, throughout most of New England, state government plays a prominent role in the regulatory process, Massachusetts has given local municipalities authority over state

waters. This results in a heterogeneity of public laws. These

laws generally require applicants to establish local residency

before applying for an aquacultural permit.

In the Northeast, the near collapse of groundfish stocks,

and the subsequent decline of traditional commercial fisheries, make aquaculture an attractive alternative for many

dislocated fishermen. Cape Cod and the Islands seem to be

on the brink of an aquacultural revolution. In recent months,

the federal government has directed grants to the fishing

industry to facilitate development of innovative aquacultural

methods. Many people might be skeptical about aquaculture

becoming an economically viable activity for this region.

Nonetheless, in the last few months, local municipalities have

been overwhelmed by applications for aquacultural permits.

The aquacultural industry is assuming an entirely new dimension as new and alternate methods are introduced. At the

same time, state government is rapidly developing the legislative framework needed to meet the new challenges of the

emerging industry.

NMFS promotes marine aquaculture as one of the objectives of the NMFS 1995 Action Plan and as one of the

objectives of the Northeast Fisheries Assistance Program. It

is important to note that NMFS does not promote aquaculture

as the solution to the groundfish fisheries crisis in the

Northeast, but rather as an alternative for coastal communities and fishermen interested in exploring a different economic avenue that may help to relieve some pressure on

traditional groundfish fisheries. Last year, NMFS distributed

over $2 million through the Fishing Industry Grant Program

to fund aquacultural projects in the Northeast. This year, $4.5

million will be available for the second round of the program.

We anticipate that a significant portion will be directed

toward development of marine aquaculture as a new business

opportunity.

Although it has one of the longest coastlines in the

world, the United States lags most other coastal nations in

production of seafood through marine aquaculture. The

United States has a tremendous opportunity to develop a

high-quality, technologically advanced, aquaculture-based

seafood industry capable of satisfying our domestic market.

Recent studies show that American consumers strongly

prefer seafood that is cultivated under controlled conditions.

It is essential for decisionmakers to learn from other nations’

experiences in developing aquacultural industries. Chile,

Japan, Norway, and Thailand represent a few of the countries

with extraordinary successes in recent years.

During 1993, the United States imported over $5.8 billion

worth of seafood products, making seafood trade one of the

largest commodities contributing to the trade deficit. According to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO

Inland Water Resources and Aquaculture Service 1992), the

United States contributes only about 2% of the total world

aquacultural production. In the Northeast, Massachusetts

lags behind Connecticut, Maine, and Pennsylvania in aquacultural production. According to Bush and Anderson (1993),

Connecticut, with estimated sales of $62 million, has the

largest aquacultural production in the Northeast. Maine is

second largest in aquacultural production with $43 million.

Massachusetts modestly contributes only $8 million to the

regional economy through aquacultural production.

On Cape Cod, where shellfish farming is the main type of

aquaculture, most of the obstacles blocking the development

of shellfish aquaculture arise from user-conflict issues and

exacting managerial regulations. There are no easy solutions

to these problems. However, we should remember that in

order to have our communities accept aquaculture for eco-
Page 2

nomic development, there must be a common interest in

having it. All users and practitioners need to feel involved.

Presently, several towns are developing harbor management

plans that include aquacultural zones. Local municipalities

should coordinate their efforts with state officials, local

experts, and economic development officials to elaborate

comprehensive plans. I hope that this symposium helps

those involved in the regulatory process by providing tools

and ideas to deal better with these new challenges.

REFERENCES CITED

Bush, M.J.; Anderson, J.L. 1993. Northeast region aquaculture industry situation and outlook report. Univ. R.I.

Dep. Resour. Econ. Publ. 2917; 60 p. Available from:

University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI.

FAO Inland Water Resources and Aquaculture Service. 1992.

Review of the state of the world fisheries resources. Part 2.

Inland fisheries and aquaculture. FAO Fish. Circ. 710.

AQUACULTURE: A WORLDWIDE GROWTH RESPONSE

TO DECLINING FISHERIES STOCKS

Michael A. Rice

Department of Fisheries, Animal and Veterinary Science

University of Rhode Island

Kingston, Rhode Island 02881

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, farming or husbandry of aquatic organisms,

known as aquaculture, has experienced tremendous growth

over the last decade. According to the most recently published figures of the FAO, total world aquacultural production in 1992 was in excess of (U.S.) $32.5 billion, almost double

the 1986 figure of $16.6 billion (FAO 1994). Growth of

aquaculture has been most explosive in Asia where aquatically derived protein is a major portion of many people’s diet.

Total value of Asian aquacultural products tripled between

1984 and 1992 from $7 billion to about $21 billion. Significant

growth in aquaculture occurred in South America and Europe

as well (FAO 1994).

Sadly, in the United States, the rate of growth in aquaculture has been much lower. Between 1986 and 1992, the value

of aquacultural products in the United States grew from $471

million to $630 million (FAO 1994), this gain coming mainly

from production of channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) in

Mississippi. This state produces about 80% of the national

catfish supply (USDA Economic Research Service 1994).

The United States has paid dearly for its lack of interest

in fostering aquacultural enterprises in the face of longpredicted declines in natural fishery stocks. During 1983-93,

imports of fishery products into the United States grew from

$3.6 billion to $5.8 billion (USDA Economic Research Service

1994), with about 40% of these totals representing importation of aquacultured shrimps or prawns. According to the

U.S. Department of Commerce and other sources, importation

of seafood products is the third leading contributor to the

trade deficit, next to petroleum and illegal drugs.

As alarming as the figures are, they should be of most

urgent concern in southeastern New England where the

economy has relied heavily upon fisheries and seafood since

colonial times. For example, the history of New Bedford as a

whaling and fishing center is well known throughout the

country. As fisheries collapse, secondary industries, such as

fish processing houses and fishing gear suppliers and manufacturers that depend on the supply of fisheries products, will

falter unless there are suitable alternatives such as aquaculture. As of 1992, total value of aquacultural products in

southeastern New England (Massachusetts and Rhode Island) was $8.2 million (Bush and Anderson 1993). This is an

astoundingly poor performance for a region with such a

proud maritime tradition. But, the existing aquacultural

industry cites several “hidden” factors that have hampered

development. Governmental attention to changing or modifying inappropriate or excessive regulations, and to promptly

resolving multiple-use conflicts, can go a long way toward

fostering aquacultural entrepreneurship.

AQUACULTURAL SOURCES

OF LOCALLY CONSUMED SEAFOOD

In many ways, it is instructive to examine some of the

sources of seafood products in our local supermarkets. Many

products that are plentiful, in reliable supply, and of reasonable price to the consumer are often of aquacultural origin.

Channel Catfish

The channel catfish aquacultural industry of the southern United States is often touted as an economic success

story. As stated earlier, this industry makes up a major

fraction of the entire aquacultural production in this country.

Market development was key to success. Catfish is readily

available in supermarkets here in the Northeast where catfish

was largely unknown up to a few years ago.
Page 3

The industry originally came about as a secondary

means of income for many farmers who had marginal agricultural land. Catfish are generally produced by allowing brooder

catfish to spawn in shallow open ponds, then collecting the

egg masses and incubating them in indoor hatcheries. Ponds

for catfish production generally run from 2 to 10 acres, and a

typical farm may have 20-100 or more acres of ponds. Typical

pond production of catfish is 25,000-40,000 lb/acre.

Conditions for success in the catfish industry of the

southern states rests upon a very workable partnership

among industry, state regulatory agencies, state universities,

and federal agencies. Once aquaculture became established

and track records known, financial institutions were willing to

develop financing packages, and secondary industries, such

as feed manufacturing, flourished. Auburn University and

Mississippi State University have notable academic and

extension programs based upon catfish farming. Additionally, the Southern Regional Aquaculture Center of the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) is very active in funding

industry-requested research projects.

Atlantic Salmon

Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), a popular fish very commonly found in the fish sections of supermarkets, is often

reasonably priced for consumers. Here in the United States,

Atlantic salmon are farmed in coastal, floating, fish pens in the

states of Maine and Washington (Bettencourt and Anderson

1990).

Domestic production of salmon is dwarfed by production in a number of other countries, including Norway,

Scotland, Canada, and Japan. As a result of this massive

overseas production, much of the salmon sold in the United

States is from foreign sources (Peterson 1994). In the last 2

or 3 yr, Atlantic salmon produced in the fiords of southern

Chile have reached U.S. markets, and their production should

grow considerably due to fairly low costs.

Tilapia

Orechromis spp. fishes, which are closely related to the

well-known Tilapia spp., are commonly aquacultured freshwater fishes. (Orechromis spp. are hereafter referred to as just

“tilapia.”) They are becoming a popular item in many seafood

markets in this country. Fresh tilapia have a firm flesh and

delicate “non-fishy” flavor that is agreeable to the average

North American palate.

Tilapia are mouth-brooding fish, native to Africa. Developing eggs and larvae are incubated by the female parent as

a natural defense against predation. Tilapia are grown in

many developing nations because they are extremely hardy,

easy to breed, and amenable to low-capital culture systems.

Being a tropical species, they require a fairly warm environment. They become heavily stressed and die if water temperatures dip much below 15°C (59°F).

In this country, tilapia are mostly cultured indoors in

recirculation systems. There are some pond-cultured tilapia

in the desert Southwest, particularly in California and Arizona.

Shrimp

Aquacultured shrimp (family Penaeidae) is a very common product in supermarkets and seafood stores. Prior to

about 1983, most shrimp on world markets were caught by

shrimp trawl fleets. Although there was a considerable

industry of shrimp aquaculture in many tropical Asian countries, the industry was limited by availability of juvenile

shrimp. These juveniles were caught by small-scale fishermen. Development of commercial shrimp hatcheries in the

early 1980s radically changed the face of the shrimp aquacultural industry. The industry in many countries expanded

and intensified, with farms often producing 5-6 times more

shrimp per unit of pond area than was previously possible.

Worldwide, the shrimp aquacultural industry experienced

tremendous growth during the middle to late 1980s. Major

shrimp-producing countries include Ecuador, Taiwan, Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia, and People’s Republic of China.

Rapid and largely unregulated growth of the shrimp

aquacultural industry has created a host of environmental

and social problems (Pollnac and Weeks 1992). It is instructive to review them. Key problems include destruction of

wetland habitats for pond construction, displacement of

fishermen dependent upon community-held resources, and

lack of sustainability. Production in the 1990s is declining due

to overstocking, stressed stock, and disease (Aiken 1990).

For aquaculture to be a sustainable form of economic development, aquaculturists need to be mindful of the socioeconomic and environmental implications of their work. They

should not simply follow the pattern set by an overseas

shrimp aquacultural operation.

Bivalve Mollusks

Aquaculturing of filter-feeding bivalve mollusks such as

oysters, clams, and scallops is often an environmentally

sound practice (Newkirk 1992; Rice 1992). Southeastern New

England has a long history of shellfishing and shellfish

culture. Indeed, the Rhode Island Oyster Act of 1844 was

essentially the state’s first aquacultural law. It allowed

aquacultural leases in Narragansett Bay (Nixon 1993). On

Cape Cod, there is currently a small industry devoted to

culture of the northern quahog (Mercenaria mercenaria).

There are also some small-scale productions of eastern

oysters (Crassostrea virginica) and bay scallops (Argopecten

irradians) in southeastern Massachusetts and in Rhode

Island.
Page 4

Although there are a number of excellent examples of

successful bivalve culture operations around the world, two

of note may provide lessons for southeastern New England.

First is the recent development of a multimillion dollar eastern

oyster industry in nearby Connecticut. In the late 1980s,

Connecticut gave high priority to aquacultural development.

One part of their effort streamlined the aquaculture-permitting process. They created a new Division of Aquaculture

under their Department of Agriculture, and placed most

aquaculture permitting in this new division. The Division of

Aquaculture, in one of its first acts, invested $1 million in

fossil oyster shells to provide setting materials for native

oysters. The investment paid off. A small, oyster seed fishery

grew and began to supply commercial leaseholders. Value of

Connecticut’s aquacultured oyster products by 1992 exceeded $60 million (Bush and Anderson 1993). The Connecticut oyster aquacultural industry is now the single largest

segment of the entire New England aquacultural industry.

This is largely due to implementation of appropriate governmental structures and strategic seed money (Volk 1994).

Another notable bivalve aquacultural success story is

the rapid development of a bay scallop aquacultural industry

in China. The Chinese in 1982 introduced 27 New England bay

scallops as brood stock for one of their hatcheries (Yarish and

Huang 1992). They now culture the scallops in coastal waters

using simple “longline” systems and lantern nets. Their state

and private hatcheries produce scallop seed and supply their

coastal farms. China, by 1992, reported its bay scallop

production exceeded 120,000 metric tons (265 million lb),

much of which it exported to the United States as frozen

scallop meats. We, in Southern New England, clearly have the

potential to culture our own bay scallops.

CONCLUSIONS

We could follow many models from around the world for

development of an economically and environmentally sustainable aquacultural industry. Additionally, we can learn

much by studying the problems that other countries encounter in developing their industry. Our key to success in

aquaculture is a workable partnership between governmental

regulatory authorities, the educational community, and members of the industry. Talent exists in each of these sectors,

but cooperation is the key to successful development.

REFERENCES CITED

Aiken, D. 1990. Shrimp farming in Ecuador: whither the

future? World Aquacult. 21(4):26-30.

Bettencourt, S.U.; Anderson, J.L. 1990. Pen-reared salmonid

industry in the northeastern United States. U.S. Dep.

Agr. Northeast Reg. Aquacult. Cent. Publ. NRAC-100;

159 p. Available from: Northeast Regional Aquaculture

Center, Dartmouth, MA.

Bush, M.J.; Anderson, J.L. 1993. Northeast region aquaculture industry situation and outlook report. Univ. R.I.

Dep. Resour. Econ. Publ. 2917; 60 p. Available from:

University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI.

FAO. 1994. Aquaculture production 1986-1992. 6th rev. FAO

Fish. Circ. 815; 216 p.

Newkirk, G. 1992. Development of small-scale bivalve culture:

the IRDC experience in developing countries. In: Pollnac,

R.B.; Weeks, P., eds. Coastal aquaculture in developing

countries: problems and perspectives. Kingston, RI:

University of Rhode Island International Center for

Marine Resource Development; p. 162-173.

Nixon, D.W. 1993. A legal history of shellfish regulation in

Rhode Island. In: Rice, M.A.; Grossman-Garber, D., eds.

Proceedings of the Second Rhode Island Shellfish Industry Conference. Narragansett, RI: University of

Rhode Island Sea Grant; p. 19-22.

Peterson, M. 1994. United States international trade law and

practice: is it consistent with GATT? The U.S.-Norwegian salmon war. MS Thesis. Kingston, RI: University

of Rhode Island; 135 p.

Pollnac, R.B.; Weeks, P., editors. 1992. Coastal aquaculture

in developing countries: problems and perspectives.

Kingston, RI: University of Rhode Island International

Center for Marine Resource Development; 184 p.

Rice, M.A. 1992. Bivalve aquaculture in warm tropical and

subtropical waters with reference to sanitary water quality, monitoring and post-harvest disinfection. Trop. Sci.

32:179-201.

USDA Economic Research Service. 1994. Aquaculture:

situation and outlook report. U.S. Dep. Agr. Econ. Res.

Serv. AQS-13 (October 1994); 47 p.

Volk, J.H. 1994. Strategies for successful aquaculture development: the Connecticut experience. (Abstr.) J. Shellfish

Res. 13:323.

Yarish, C.; Huang, X. 1992. Integrated kelp and bay scallop

culture in China. (Abstr.) In: Abstracts of the 12th

Annual Milford Shellfish Biology Seminar. Available

from: National Marine Fisheries Service, Milford, CT.
Page 5

NORTHEAST AQUACULTURE INDUSTRY:

SITUATION AND OUTLOOK

Michael J. Bush and James L. Anderson

Department of Resource Economics

University of Rhode Island

Kingston, Rhode Island 02881

Priscilla M. Brooks

Conservation Law Foundation

Boston, Massachusetts 02110

Figure 1. Percent composition of aquacultural production in the northeastern United States during 1992. Total farmgate revenue was an

estimated $146,409,000. (Refer to text for discussion of species constituting the various categories.)

INTRODUCTION

Total 1992 farmgate value of aquacultural products in the

Northeast was estimated at $146,409,000. (“Northeast” refers

to Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, New Jersey,

Pennsylvania, Maryland, and West Virginia.) This estimate

was based on farmgate prices quoted by those producers

interviewed. Based on the strength of its eastern oyster

industry, Connecticut had estimated 1992 farmgate sales of

$61.7 million, making it the largest aquacultural producing

state in the region. The pen-reared salmonid industry propelled Maine’s 1992 farmgate sales to $42.9 million, establishing it as the second-largest aquacultural producing state in

the region.

Figure 1 breaks down this total by major species category. Eastern oyster production represented the single

largest segment of the regional aquacultural industry, accounting for approximately 42% of the total farmgate value.

The net-pen culture of Atlantic salmon and sea-run (i.e.,

steelhead) rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) was the

second largest segment, contributing roughly 29% to the

estimated regional value. Northern quahog production was

next, followed by freshwater trout production. Two general

groups, called “other finfish” and “other,” represented a

combination of several smaller categories. The category

“other finfish” includes tilapia, catfishes, ornamental fishes,

baitfishes, black basses (Micropterus spp.), sunfishes, crappies (Pomoxis spp.), and yellow perch (Perca flavescens).

The category “other” includes small amounts of other

Oyster

42%

Other**

 2%

Other

Finfish*

5%

Salmon/

Steelhead

29%

Trout

9%

Hybrid

Striped

Bass

2%

Northern

Quahog

11%

*Other Finfish = Tilapia, Catfish, Ornamental, Baitfish, Black Bass, Sunfish, Crappie, Perch

**Other = Other Shellfish, Aquatic Plants, Crayfish
Page 6

shellfishes, aquatic plants, and crayfishes. Farmgate sales of

“hybrid striped bass” represented approximately 2% of the

regional value. [See “Managing Editor’s Note” at end of this

section.]

SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS

Based on survey results, the following are preliminary

estimates of private aquacultural production and value, future opportunities and current problems facing the aquacultural industry, and priority research directions based on the

aquacultural industry’s needs in the Northeast.

Eastern Oyster

The eastern oyster industry, with estimated 1992 farmgate

sales of $63.4 million, represents the largest segment of the

regional aquacultural industry. Approximately 88% of regionally cultured oyster production is harvested from Connecticut waters. Although many oyster producers indicate

that it is very difficult to estimate future production levels due

to uncertainties associated with disease, weather, growth

rates, and predation, producers did expect, on average, to see

some growth in regional harvests over the next 5 yr. Based

on an average of survey responses, producers also expect

demand for oysters to slightly outpace the increase in production, leading to slight increases in real farmgate prices.

Oyster growers cite the current regulatory environment,

disease, and the unavailability of financial capital as the top

three constraints to industry growth.

Pen-Reared Atlantic Salmon and SeaRun Rainbow Trout

The Maine-based, pen-reared salmonid industry expected limited growth for the 1993 season. However, producers do expect to see substantial production increases over the

next 5 yr. Salmon growers expect to see increases in demand

for salmon products; however, most producers feel that

growth in demand will not keep pace with production increases, leading to stable or slightly declining farmgate

prices. Financial capital unavailability, predation, and the

current regulatory environment were cited as the most constraining factors on growth of the salmon industry.

Northern Quahog

Regional northern quahog production generated an

estimated farmgate value of $15.6 million in 1992. This

segment of the industry is centered in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York. Survey responses

indicated that producers expect to see a steady growth in

production over the next 5 yr. As with oyster producers,

quahog growers expressed difficulty in accurately forecasting their production levels from year to year due to environmental factors which are beyond their control. Producers also

expect to see moderate increases in demand and fairly stable

farmgate prices. The top three constraints to growth of the

quahog industry, as indicated by growers, are predation,

unavailability of financial capital, and the current regulatory

environment.

Freshwater Trout

The 1992 regional production of freshwater trout was

valued at approximately $12.9 million. Although Pennsylvania accounts for 72% of the volume, making it the dominant

producing state, each of the 12 regional states had some

commercial trout production. Fifty-seven percent of production is sold for either private stocking or fee fishing. A few

large producers dominate the food-fish sector. Although

growers, on average, expect production to increase slightly

over the next 5 yr, most major producers feel that lack of water

resources suitable for large-scale trout production will limit

growth. Much of the increase in production will depend on

achieving greater stocking densities through use of improved technology for aeration and recirculation. Producers

expect demand, especially in the area of private stocking, to

remain strong, thereby providing a boost to farmgate prices.

Trout producers cite predation, the current regulatory environment, and unavailability of financial capital as the most

constraining factors to trout industry growth.

Hybrid Striped Bass

The 1992 regional production of hybrid striped bass was

valued at $2.3 million. Maryland and Massachusetts represent the principal producing states; however, active producers also were identified in Pennsylvania, Delaware, West

Virginia, and New Jersey. Water recirculating systems were

used for about 40% of the 1992 production volume. Their use

was expected to increase, affecting roughly 56% of the 1993

volume. Based on producer responses, compared to 1992, the

1993 production of hybrid striped bass was expected to

increase by 144% to 2.3 million lb. Producers, on average,

expect growth in demand to lag behind production increases,

resulting in stable or slightly declining farmgate prices.

Growers cited unavailability of financial capital, the regulatory environment, and marketing as the most constraining

factors to the hybrid striped bass industry.
Page 7

Tilapia

Tilapia production in the Northeast remains fairly low,

with an estimated farmgate value of $563,000. However,

significant growth is projected by several growers in both

Maryland and Massachusetts over the next 2 yr. Recirculating systems were used by 100% of the regional tilapia

producers identified. Producers also expect to see significant

growth in demand for tilapia, leading to some strengthening

in farmgate prices. Primary constraints to the tilapia industry,

according to producers, include unavailability of financial

capital, lack of information on genetic stocks, and the regulatory environment.

Other Finfish

The category of “other finfish” includes ornamental

fishes, baitfishes, black basses, sunfishes, and catfishes.

Regional production from this group was valued at approximately $6.8 million.

Ornamental fish production is dominated by two major

producers, both using open-pond culture techniques. Ornamental fish producers expect production to be fairly stable

over the next 5 yr, with demand and farmgate prices stable or

slightly increasing. Growers indicated that the current regulatory environment and bird depredation were the most

constraining factors to growth of the ornamental fish industry.

Relatively small amounts of catfishes are produced for

private stocking and fee fishing markets throughout the

region. The only significant regional catfish production for

the human consumption market takes place in Maryland.

Producers expect to see fairly substantial increases in both

production and demand resulting in stable farmgate prices.

Although producer rankings of industry constraints were

fairly mixed, predation, financial capital, and the regulatory

environment received the highest average scores.

With a few exceptions, the baitfish industry is characterized by a large number of small, extensive operations. One

operator indicated that he was experimenting with closed

systems. Regional production of baitfishes is expected to see

only limited growth due to the large volume of relatively

inexpensive product which is imported from the southern

United States.

Culturists who are also active in the baitfish and catfish

sectors produce much of the black basses, sunfishes, crappies, and yellow perch. Major industry constraints, as

indicated by this group of producers, are predation, lack of

financial capital, and the current regulatory climate.

Other Aquacultural Products

The farmgate value for the aquatic plant and crustacean

category was estimated at $2.2 million.

Aquatic plant production consists of ornamental plants,

porphyria, and other forms of algae. Production of aquatic

plants was identified in Maryland and Maine.

Crayfish production for the human consumption market

is centered in Maryland, with additional production coming

from Delaware. There are several growers in New York and

Pennsylvania that produce crayfish for the baitfish market.

MANAGING EDITOR’S NOTE: The U.S. Food and Drug

Administration (FDA), in order to assure the American

public of truth-in-labeling in interstate seafood commerce,

requires specific labeling of all aquacultural products. The

FDA requested and received from the American Fisheries

Society (AFS) a list of common names for all hybridized

fishes used as seafood. That list (Robins et al. 1991, p. 108)

also distinguishes hybrids depending on which parental

species is the maternal partner. (In most cases, the maternal

partner is the one with the larger eggs, since it is easy for a

smaller sperm to enter a larger egg than vice versa.)

In this instance, “hybrid striped bass” refers to a

hybridization of the striped bass (Morone saxatilus) and the

white bass (M. chrysops). Assuming that the maternal

partner is the larger striped bass, then the AFS’s name -- and

the FDA’s approved labeling -- for this aquacultural product is “palmetto bass.” Throughout this report, it is assumed

that “hybrid striped bass” refers to “palmetto bass.”

REFERENCES CITED

Robins, C.R.; Bailey, R.M.; Bond, C.E.; Brooker, J.R.; Lachner,

E.A.; Lea, R.N.; Scott, W.B. 1991. Common and scientific

names of fishes from the United States and Canada. 5th

ed. Am. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 20; 183. p.
Page 8

SHELLFISH AQUACULTURE ON MARTHA’S VINEYARD

Richard C. Karney

Martha’s Vineyard Shellfish Group, Inc.

Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts 02557

is local consumption of the cheaper cultured Chinese product.

In Chile, the same Japanese lantern net technology has

been employed in a highly successful private venture. In

operation less than a decade, this venture employs over 600

people, annually produces over 100 tons of scallop product,

and has just been listed on the British stock exchange.

Clearly, the third world is beating us at this part of the

aquacultural game.

LOCAL OPERATIONS

However, within our region, especially on Cape Cod,

some significant private aquaculture has developed. Karl

Rask, who has championed the development of the private

aquacultural industry on the cape, informs me that presently

there are 111 operations, mostly 2- and 3-acre farms (the

largest is 33 acres), producing a farmgate value of about $4

million. Northern quahogs are the number-one product, with

eastern oysters a close second. There is a little production

of softshells (Mya arenaria), blue mussels, and bay scallops.

Vineyard waters are still essentially devoted to the wild

fishery. However, we have been leaders in the development

and application of aquacultural technology to the public

management of our wild fisheries. For the past 18 yr, the

Martha’s Vineyard Shellfish Group, in cooperation with local

town shellfish departments, has publicly cultured economically important, local species including northern quahogs,

bay scallops, and eastern oysters.

Our public stock enhancement program includes the

operation of a solar-assisted shellfish hatchery. The hatchery produced over 15 million seed shellfish last year. Hatchery production includes axenic culture of microscopic phytoplankton needed to feed developing shellfish. Small phytoplankton cultures are worked up into larger 18-l and 250-l

cultures in the greenhouse at the hatchery. Once adequate

algal food stocks are produced, broodstock shellfish are

brought into the hatchery and spawned. When ripe, the

quahogs, scallops, and oysters are treated to repeated thermal stimuli in the laboratory, mimicking changes in water

temperature that elicit spawning in the natural environment.

The great fecundity of shellfish (we average over a million

eggs per female) makes these species excellent candidates for

aquaculture. With adequate care and protection, the culturist

can easily produce millions of shellfish. In the big picture of

providing protein for a growing global human population,

bivalves also score highly. Bivalves are herbivores, low on

the food chain, and efficient producers of protein.

INTRODUCTION

First, I should like to thank Carlos and Scott for scheduling this meeting. The timing is perfect to kick off our

“Martha’s Vineyard Private Aquaculture Initiative,” an aquacultural training program funded under the NMFS Fishing

Industry Grants Program. The 11 fishermen selected to

participate in the training program are in the audience this

morning.

I have been in the aquacultural business for over 20 yr

and I feel comfortable using the term “explosive” to describe

development in the industry over the past couple of years.

Increased consumption of seafood in light of its dietary

health benefits, combined with a decline in natural stocks, has

resulted in price increases attractive to aquacultural development. Of the seafood readily available in local fish markets and

supermarkets, much is now farmed. This includes Atlantic

salmon, channel catfish, trout, prawns, and shrimp. The

bivalve mollusks [northern quahogs, eastern oysters, bay

scallops, and blue mussels (Mytilus edulis)] increasingly are

advertised as “cultured.” If anything that grows in water is

not yet in commercial culture, it at least is being considered

for aquaculture, and methods are being developed for its

culture. The list runs the gamut from abalone, alligator, and

baitfishes, through crayfishes, geoducks, lobsters, mahi

mahi, pearl oysters, and ornamental seahorses, to seaweeds,

sponges, scallops, and sturgeons.

INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT

Currently, aquaculture is labor intensive, which has

favored its development in the third world. The Chinese have

been especially successful adapting scallop culture techniques developed by the Japanese. These techniques include spat collectors, pearl nets, and lantern nets, and have

been used to culture scallop species imported from the

eastern coast of the United States. Starting with 26 broodstock

bay scallop, the Chinese now control the major portion of the

world’s production of “our” bay scallop! Right here in

Edgartown, Massachusetts, a recognized center of the bay

scallop fishery, the local A&P supermarket features “Chinese

bay scallops” for $3.99/lb retail. The fishermen here receive

$7-8/lb for shucked meats of the same species of scallop, and

suffer from the competition of the cheap foreign import. I have

heard that a “good buck” can be made buying the Chinese

product at $3.99 and mixing it with the local catch! But, I am

sure that has been just wishful thinking. Clearly, the local

product is fresher and superior, but the fact remains that there
Page 9

Fertilized eggs are counted, then cultured in filtered,

heated seawater for the duration of the 2-3 wk swimming larval

cycle. During this period, larvae are fed cultured phytoplankton daily. Every other day, culture tanks are drained, cleaned,

and refilled with heated, filtered seawater. Shellfish larvae are

sieved, culled, and suspended in the tanks. At the end of the

larval cycle, shellfish absorb their swimming organs, develop

a foot, and become a miniature version of the adult. After this

metamorphosis, they are called juveniles. Juveniles are

moved to flowing water systems. Our hatchery is located on

a rich estuary with dense natural phytoplankton blooms. The

plankton-rich water is pumped over the filter-feeding shellfish, so there is little need for additional feeding with costly

cultured phytoplankton.

In the hatchery, quahog juveniles are grown on

downweller sieves, and, eventually, in upweller silos. We

have succeeded in moving seed as small as 1 mm to floating

sandbox nursery trays that are suspended in the natural

environment. As most predation on small quahogs is from

nonswimming crabs, the survival rate is high in the floating

nursery trays. The trays are largely inaccessible to the

crawling crabs. From June, field culture continues until

October when the quahog seed is 1⁄2-3⁄4 inch in length. The

seed then are broadcast in the natural public shellfish beds.

Very young juvenile scallops are similarly grown on

downweller sieves in the hatchery. Larger scallop seed is

grown to between 2 and 5 mm in raceways before being moved

to floating field nursery cages. After about 2 mo under ideal

conditions of temperature and low density, seed scallops

attain a size of about 1⁄2 inch, and are broadcast into historically productive areas of the saltwater ponds.

Oyster larvae cement themselves to a substrate during

metamorphosis. They are cultured using a method known as

“remote setting.” Large hatcheries in the Pacific Northwest

developed this method. At the end of the swimming stage,

oyster larvae develop a distinctive “eyespot.” These “eyed”

larvae are screened from culture vessels, wrapped in damp

paper towels, and refrigerated overnight. They are then

released over bags of oyster shell in tanks of aerated seawater

at a site near the growout pond. Within a couple of days, the

oyster larvae cement themselves to the shell, and the shellbags

are hung from a raft in the saltwater pond. After about a

month, the shellbags are emptied and the shell with attached

oyster seed is planted on the pond bottom.

Breeding of genetic shell tags into hatchery stock helps

to track survival and determine success of the stock enhancement program. After about a dozen years of serious hatchery

production and seeding, some town shellfish constables

report that 10-20% of the quahog harvest has brown “notata”

shell markings. About 80% of our hatchery quahog production is tagged with the “notata” markings. This genetic trait

was rare in the local population and harvest before the

seeding program. Likewise, shell color variation can be used

to mark bay scallops genetically. The Martha’s Vineyard

Shellfish Group pioneered the use of shell coloration to tag

the bay scallop. In 1979, we produced an “F2

” generation with

95% displaying distinctive orange shells. But when we found

that the brightly colored, orange shells increased bird predation, we changed our tag to a striped pattern. Although still

distinctive, the striped pattern may provide the shells some

camouflage, thus protecting them from predators.

Predator control is a major factor in our ability to succeed.

Local shellfish constables have established trapping programs for crabs and starfish. The Town of Edgartown

initiated a bounty system and paid fishermen for predators

they removed. No matter how successful our public aquacultural program has been, our limitations in manpower and

funds prevent us from realizing the maximum yield possible

from the island’s waters. Private aquacultural ventures, on

the other hand, can do better. Indeed, private culture in

Wellfleet, Massachusetts, using only 3% of the total bottom

dedicated to shellfish aquaculture, out-produced the wild

harvest from the remaining 97%.

It is the policy of the “Martha’s Vineyard Private Aquaculture Initiative” to encourage private aquaculture on the

Vineyard. Encouragement consists of a program of education, training, and cooperative extension-like individual assistance. The Vineyard’s long history as a public fishery will

be a constraint to private development. By contrast, it is

interesting to note that much of the development on Cape Cod

is in Wellfleet areas with a long history of private oyster

leases. On the Vineyard, interest in aquaculture has heightened within the last year, as evidenced by an increase in the

number of applications for shellfish culture leases. Much of

the interest is from the fishing community which not that long

ago considered aquaculture a threat to the public fishing

areas and to marketplace competition. With their natural

stocks declining and fishing areas closing, these same fishermen now see aquaculture as their next source of income.

Another constraint to the Vineyard’s private aquacultural

ventures is our high standard of living, accompanied by high

labor cost and outrageously expensive waterfront property.

Furthermore, our predominantly tourist economy also competes for use of our waters. Its concerns for aesthetics and

for providing recreation pose additional obstacles to local

development of aquaculture. On the positive side, the

island’s popularity and bustling local restaurants can make

any local aquacultural product a marketer’s dream.

Nantucket Island faces similar constraints and opportunities in developing aquaculture. We are encouraged by their

innovative, “private-public,” cooperative program. Fishermen are employed in a private venture in public waters. The

town provides them with seed and public bottom on which to

culture seed. In return, they give the town half of their

production. The town uses its half to seed public beds in

order to enhance its stock. The Nantucket program may very

well serve as a model for the Vineyard. Public stock enhancement efforts here lack the manpower to maximize the size and

survival of publicly cultured seed. At the same time, many

eager local aquaculturists cannot produce due to a lack of

available aquacultural areas. Public-private cooperation

could benefit all concerned.
Page 10

STATUS OF SHELLFISH AQUACULTURE

IN SOUTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETTS

Richard A. Kraus

Aquacultual Research Corporation

Dennis, Massachusetts 02638

Although eastern oysters, to a degree, are cultured in

southeastern Massachusetts, the overwhelming energy devoted to marine aquaculture in Massachusetts and elsewhere

on the East Coast is to the culture of northern quahogs, also

called littlenecks or hard clams.

BACKGROUND

Two quotes from the eminent treatise on the Massachusetts quahog industry, written in 1910 by Dr. David Belding,

a biologist with the Massachusetts Department of Fisheries

and Game, lend some perspective to the present discussion:

To the popular demand for the LittleNeck, can be

attributed the rapid development of the quahog industry during the last ten years. This development has

furnished employment for hundreds of men, and has

given the quahog an important value as a seafood.

What it will lead to is easily seen. The maximum

production was passed a few years ago, constant overfishing caused by excessive demand is destroying the

natural supply, and there will, in a few years, be

practically no commercial fishery, unless measures are

undertaken to increase the natural supply. Quahog

farming offers the best solution at the present time, and

gives the promise of permanent success.

In the warm waters of coastal States in the south,

where the quahog develops more rapidly, there are

large areas which as yet have not suffered from the

effects of overfishing, as has been the case with the

northern beds in New England and New York, but it will

be only a short time before the history of ruthless

spoilation will be repeated, as already quahogs from

the south are being shipped to the New England markets.

Although total destruction of the northern quahog

industry was given respite by a couple of world wars, a

depression, and the eventual implementation of more stringent management regulations, Dr. Belding showed remarkable foresight. However, his anticipation and expectation

regarding quahog farming were far in advance of the technology required to produce the quahog seed needed to farm

quahogs.

The basic technology underlying controlled culture of

marine shellfish was finally worked out at NMFS’s Milford

(Connecticut) Laboratory during the mid-1950s. From this

work at Milford, the Aquacultural Research Corporation

(ARC) and other companies along the East Coast were formed

in an attempt to put this technology to commercial use.

Although many companies succeeded in culturing the quahog, ARC was the first to achieve real commercial success.

During the late 1970s and early 1980s, ARC achieved the

levels of reliability and quantity needed for widespread

quahog aquaculture.

PRESENT STATUS OF THE INDUSTRY

Since its commercial beginnings during the early 1980s,

farming of quahogs on Cape Cod and in southeastern Massachusetts has developed from experimental plants into

businesses that now form most or all of the incomes for more

than 80 individuals and families. In the space of 8 yr, harvests

of cultured littlenecks have increased from less then one

million in 1986 to more than an estimated 14 million for 1994.

The present quahog aquacultural industry is centered in

Wellfleet where it began. Lesser segments of industry are in

the Towns of Provincetown, Orleans, Yarmouth, Barnstable,

Mashpee, Bourne, and Wareham. Other ventures still in the

startup phase are beginning or planned for Martha’s Vineyard, Brewster, Harwich, Westport, and possibly Chatham.

In general, most of the industry continues to take place on

intertidal flats on the north side of the cape, but increasingly,

work is being done to utilize shallow-water sites on the south

side of the cape.

Although increasingly successful, local quahog aquaculture is not a mature industry. In many respects, it is still a

startup venture undergoing growing pains. One major problem is the inadequacy of the planted stocks that survive the

vagaries of nature. At any particular site, it is often not

enough to survive a few years in order to make a success of

a quahog aquacultural venture. Many natural cycles of

particularly severe weather occur infrequently and may not

yet have been experienced, and therefore may not have been

adequately guarded against. Natural biological cycles can

result in sets of plants or animals that have the potential to

smother and kill small quahogs rapidly. Examples are massive

sets of potentially smothering macroalgae, such as codium,

or large sets of animals, such as mussels, setting on protective

netting. Many more subtle problems may not be recognized

by a grower until the crop has been damaged. One of the

hardest lessons for most aquaculturists to appreciate is that

they must not lose a significant portion of a crop. Owing to

the lengthy startup time needed to develop a harvestable

crop, and the large initial investment in seed, gear, and labor,

significant losses of stock can often be financially fatal to the

typically undercapitalized aquaculturist.
Page 11

When dealing with town regulating authorities, there

may be conflicts with local shellfishermen, recreational

groups, or environmental groups. Even though the industry

is nearly 10-yr old and has proven to be totally beneficial and

positive, we shellfish leaseholders, in general, and not just

ARC, often encounter friction with other users of nearshore

areas. I would like to address these problems, in particular,

as they are the management issues that will most affect future

growth of the industry in Massachusetts.

The industry involves the use of public “lease areas,” a

practice new to most towns, excepting Wellfleet which has a

tradition of shellfish leases dating back hundreds of years.

Often, local authorities are at a loss as to how to deal with

applications for shellfish culture lease areas. They harbor

many misconceptions in this regard. A general misconception is that leaseholders and/or towns need to be protected

from large outside entities that somehow may take over the

business from locals. This will never happen. Given the

nature of the business, especially the fact that leased areas

are often remote and totally unsecured, local control of leases

by persons knowledgeable with that particular area will

always be necessary. There is no evidence that leased areas

will be overtaken by large corporations, either here or elsewhere. On the contrary, help from outside sources often can

enable a new leaseholder to succeed by the use of joint

efforts. Leasing of suitable sea bottom should be viewed as

a highly desirable business development project within the

towns.

Another misconception is that the success of shellfish

aquaculture will be detrimental to the wild shellfishery. This

has not proven true. If anything, local success of shellfish

aquaculture has resulted in better prices for the wild shellfishery product. It has opened new markets, thereby increasing

demand for both the cultured and the wild product. In any

event, culture of littlenecks is not just a local phenomenon.

Culture practices like those employed in Massachusetts are

now widespread along the entire East Coast. Given the nature

of the shellfish business, local wild shellfishermen are now in

head-to-head competition with aquacultural products from

New Jersey, Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Florida,

whether they know it or not. This competition for markets will

only increase in the future. The only way to retain some

control over the local market price is to increase local production.

There has been speculation that, somehow, shellfish

aquaculture might degrade the environment, either by physically harming the sea bottom or somehow harming the biological diversity of local ecosystems. I have as much experience as anyone in observing the long-term effects of shellfish aquaculture. For many of the same reasons as anyone

else who cares about our environment and ecosystems, and

because the natural environment gives me my livelihood, I am

more objective about it than one might suppose. If we

culturists should harm the overall balance of natural systems,

we would tend to put ourselves out of business, for we

depend upon these systems to nurture and grow our shellfish.

Shellfish aquaculture strictly benefits the marine environment. Over time, one sees that culture activities actually

function in similar ways to those artificial oceanic reefs. The

nets and cages actually promote all manner of life in and

around them by providing temporary shelters for all kinds of

juvenile marine plants and animals. All of our marine waters

once held much higher levels of shellfish before man began

to harvest them. Shellfish are filter feeders and remove both

plankton and particulate matter from the water column. In

doing so, they remove nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous from the marine system. No doubt, this benefits the

modern marine environment which must deal with elevated

loadings of nutrients as a result of man’s activities upon the

land and waters.

POTENTIAL FOR BLUE MUSSEL AQUACULTURE

IN MASSACHUSETTS

Link Murray

Blue Gold Mussels, Inc.

New Bedford, Massachusetts 02740

Within 50 yr, New Bedford will be the center of a blue

mussel industry with annual revenues in excess of $200

million. Regardless of favorable or unfavorable government

policies, the fundamental strengths of this region for mussel

farming will combine with employment needed to create a

vibrant mussel industry. New Bedford has a strong infrastructure for the processing, transportation, and marketing of

seafood. The waters between Long Island and Boston can

support many farms.

Mussel aquaculture is a billion-dollar industry in Europe,

and also thrives in Asia. Our industry will resemble the

European mussel industry, except that our mussel farming

efforts will be more highly mechanized, and the industry in

America will be oriented more towards processed mussel

products. To present a view of our future, we take a look at

the European industry.

Vigo in Galicia, Spain, is a large fishing and industrial port

like New Bedford and Gloucester. The mussel industry of

Vigo and neighboring cities annually generates perhaps $400

million. From the hills surrounding the harbor, it appears that

the bays are filled with moored ships. These are in fact musselgrowing rafts. The entire Galician mussel industry is based
Page 12

on the very simple method of growing mussels on ropes

suspended in the water. Machinery used on the rafts is very

simple, as are some of the harvest ships. These farms support

many gigantic factories, each larger than any New Bedford

plant, and each with hundreds of employees. Vigo prides

itself on being “the world capital of mussel farming.”

Farther north, in a delightful example of European enthusiasm, there is another “world capital of mussel farming,” this

one being Charron in northern France. Visitors to Mont St.

Michel will remember the extensive sand flats covered with

each tide. This region of France supports another prosperous

mussel industry. This industry is based on the technique of

growing mussels on pilings placed in the flats. While the tide

is out, trucks or tractors work the farms. When the tide is in,

boats harvest and work the beds. We in New England can

appreciate this method by observing how mussels grow on

our dock pilings.

Not to be outdone, the Dutch city of Yerseke is another

“capital of mussel farming.” This industry is as large as that

in Spain, and is based on the technique of “bottom farming.”

Small mussels are transplanted to privately leased areas.

They are cultivated so that the meats are full and tender. The

area yields abundant crops. There is an active auction for the

harvest of each farming vessel. Of the 10 or so large mussel

factories, interestingly, only one or two are still locally owned.

Multinational corporations have purchased the rest. The

harvest vessels are highly automated, as are the factories.

The North American industry is growing rapidly. The

Canadian industry is strongly encouraged by government

assistance and by the innovative work of many farmers in the

Atlantic provinces. Focus has been on producing a uniform

grade of fresh mussels which sell at fairly high prices, reflecting high labor inputs at the farm level. Focus of the Southern

New England industry will be on producing higher tonnages

cheaply from the farm, and utilizing factory labor to produce

ready-to-eat products.

Mussel farming is simpler than most other types of

aquaculture, which explains why mussels are so abundantly

grown throughout the world. Mussels are pre-adapted to be

successful in crowded conditions. Other species must be

artificially fed and carefully managed to permit growth in

dense concentrations. Mussels, however, grow naturally

and rapidly in dense concentrations. In fact, that is their

strategy for surviving predation and other challenges of their

natural environment. Farming mussels has been likened,

hypothetically, to farming of dandelions or crabgrass.

The seafood industry is following the path already taken

by poultry. If one went to dinner several hundred years ago

at a manor, one might be offered a wide range of birds:

blackbirds in pies, partridges, sparrows, hens, ducks, geese,

etc. These birds were all readily available. As human demand

for birds increased, their availability became limited to the few

species that were farmed. Similarly, people now eat many

different varieties of fish, reflecting the diversity of species

available. In the future, people will eat the few major species

that are easily farmed, such as shrimp, salmon, and mussels.

This pattern is already becoming evident. Regions like New

Bedford that are blessed with productive waters, capable

people, and the requisite infrastructure will eventually produce seafood tonnages dwarfing the catches we are now

trying to recover. In the future, when it finally realizes its peak

processing capacity, New Bedford will become a major industrial center of mussel aquaculture.

POTENTIAL FOR FINFISH CULTURE

IN MASSACHUSETTS

Joshua N. Goldman

AquaFuture, Inc.

Turners Falls, Massachusetts 01376

The following discussion is an attempt to provide a brief

review of the status of the worldwide aquacultural industry,

to review constraints to industry growth, and to describe how

new controlled-environment aquacultural technology can

assist in managing those constraints. Finally, a perspective

on the potential for future growth of the Massachusetts

aquacultural industry is presented.

AQUACULTURAL INDUSTRY CONTEXT

The decline of many traditional fisheries has been widely

documented and has resulted in great hardship for many

communities in Massachusetts and throughout the region.

Worldwide catch has fallen consecutively for 4 yr, and many

experts now believe that the maximum sustainable yield was

reached a decade ago. The silver lining which surrounds this

dark cloud is the opportunity to hasten development of

aquaculture. Aquaculture should be viewed as a complementary partner to traditional capture fisheries as part of a longterm strategy to meet growing consumer demand through

sustainable fisheries management.

It is surprising to many of us in the United States that

virtually all growth in worldwide fishery production over the

past decade has occurred as the result of aquaculture. A

recent World Bank report indicates that global aquacultural
Page 13

production nearly doubled in the 9 yr between 1984 and 1993.

During this period, fish farming increased from 12 to 22% of

the value of the global fish harvest. Worldwide annual

aquacultural farmgate value is now estimated to exceed $30

billion. The World Bank report concludes that this dramatic

growth “signals the potential for aquaculture to capture half

the value of the global fish harvest by 2010.”

However, many aquacultural industry observers have

speculated about the attainability of this growth and the

potential for significant environmental damage. Additionally, given the U.S. protective environmental tradition, it is

unclear to what extent the United States will be successful in

increasing its share beyond the current 4%. Further development of the aquacultural industry is constrained by three

principal factors: 1) environmental restrictions on use of land

and water resources;

2) chronic production risks such as pollution, uncontrolled

transmission of disease, algal blooms, and storm damage; and

3) market limitations related to high production costs, intermittent availability, variable quality, and lack of product

diversity.

Development and recent commercialization of controlledenvironment production systems are a landmark for the

aquacultural industry. These systems have the potential to

address successfully the environmental, social, and economic constraints to further development of the industry

within New England. In addition, controlled-environment

production has been shown to have a positive impact on

growth rate, feed conversion, and mortality compared to

traditional methods of production.

AQUAFUTURE, INC.

AquaFuture is an internationally recognized leader in

development and commercialization of intensive recirculation systems. The company’s development of recirculation

technology began in 1982 at Hampshire College (Amherst,

Massachusetts) with research on enhanced nitrification.

AquaFuture was incorporated in 1987 and began by building

a pilot plant for small-scale commercial production of tilapia

and hybrid striped bass, integrated with hydroponic herbs

and specialty greens. The company has been active in

building on its core technology with research on fish genetics, nutrition, fish health, and production management information systems.

AquaFuture’s patented water treatment technology

brings a high degree of control to the fish farming process,

dramatically reducing water consumption and feed requirements while significantly increasing growth rates. In 1992,

AquaFuture completed a major expansion of its facilities.

These facilities, in a single 1-acre building, today produce 1

million lb (450 metric tons) of fish per year. The company’s

management believes that this plant is unequaled anywhere

in the aquacultural industry.

Faster growth, ability to thrive under intensive culture,

efficient food conversion, and high fillet yield are among the

desirable characteristics of a culturable species. Hybrid

striped bass are relatively easy to produce as juveniles under

extensive (pond) conditions, a factor which has facilitated the

development of the farmed hybrid striped bass industry. The

hybrid striped bass is produced by crossing the striped bass

with its freshwater cousin, the white bass. The hybrid grows

faster than either parent species, and thrives better under

intensive culture.

AquaFuture has recently embarked on a new project to

begin demonstration-scale commercial production of summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus). The company is

currently completing the permitting for the first vertically

integrated facility in the United States dedicated to commercial production of this species. The facility will incorporate

hatchery, growout, and processing functions. Summer flounder are a high-value marine fish for which recently imposed

fishing quotas have severely limited supply and increased

prices. Sales of summer flounder from the Quonset Point

aquacultural project will be principally exported to Japan for

sushi.

AquaFuture’s project has received a $654,000 grant from

NMFS to provide partial funding for the project. The project

is designed with three principal objectives: 1) establish an

entirely new industry in the region with significant potential

for growth, export sales, and job creation (i.e., targeting 200

new jobs in 5 yr); 2) retrain displaced commercial fishermen

in a sustainable method of fisheries production; and 3)

develop a standardized regulatory roadmap for siting and

permitting, easing future entry of fishermen and others into

aquaculture.

OUTLOOK FOR MASSACHUSETTS

Because of the relatively high production cost of most

aquacultural products versus those of traditional harvest,

local aquaculture is not likely to be a significant source of raw

materials for the state’s processing sector in the near future.

However, the emerging finfish aquacultural industry in Massachusetts has the potential to create significant numbers of

meaningful jobs in coastal communities around the state, to

generate significant export revenues, and to become an

important new environmentally sustainable industry. Massachusetts aquaculture can benefit from linkages with the

existing and undersupplied processing sector in developing

new products, as well as with the emerging biotechnological

industry. Production must adapt to a series of niche businesses, each targeting high-value domestic and export market opportunities.

Success in aquaculture depends on suitable siting (water quality and quantity, reasonably priced electricity, etc.),

operator skill, an acceptable permitting process, and access

to appropriately structured (i.e., patient) capital. Investment

capital remains a major limitation; the state may need to play

a more active role in providing financial assistance for development of this important and highly promising industry.
Page 14

FINFISH CULTURE IN MASSACHUSETTS:

A RESEARCHER’S PERSPECTIVE

David A. Bengtson

Department of Biological Sciences

University of Rhode Island

Kingston, Rhode Island 02881

INTRODUCTION

As one considers fish culture in Massachusetts, the first

impulse is to divide the topic by environment: freshwater

versus saltwater, and -- within the marine environment -- the

warmer waters south of Cape Cod versus the colder waters

north of the cape. The fact that the cape serves as a boundary

between two biogeographic provinces is both good news

and bad news. The good news is that there is a wider variety

of marine species that can be cultured in waters of two

provinces (i.e., both warmwater and coldwater species). The

bad news is that culturing species in waters near the limits of

their ranges means that the waters may not be optimal for

growing fish during some months of the year (i.e., too hot in

summer for some, too cold in winter for others).

The culturist, therefore, needs to consider whether culture of particular species in Massachusetts’ open waters

makes sense from the standpoint of growth of the product (let

alone regulatory problems). What are the major species that

we need to consider? North of the cape, Atlantic cod (Gadus

morhua), haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), Atlantic

salmon, and Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus)

are actual or potential marine fish candidates. South of the

cape, summer flounder and tautog (Tautoga onitis) are still

just potential candidates at this point. In the freshwater

environment, trout, hybrid striped bass, and tilapia are presently grown in Massachusetts.

ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

As natural stocks of commercially important species

decline, tremendous pressure will build to culture many of

those species and to employ out-of-work fishermen in such

culture. Several “reality checks” must be put into place in

dealing with that pressure.

The first reality check is economics. Fish culture in

Massachusetts will be (and is) expensive. Costs of land,

labor, and regulatory issues are higher than they are “down

south.” By “down south,” I mean the Delmarva peninsula, the

Carolinas, and beyond to Latin America. The farther south

one goes, the lower the costs for fish production. The

Massachusetts fish culturist who produces a filleted product

for the retail market may very well find that the market price

for that species is actually determined by the supply from

lower-cost southern producers. For example, it is by now well

known that the price of Atlantic salmon in the United States

is primarily determined by production in Chile. In order to be

safe, the culturist should try to produce a product whose price

cannot be determined by Latin American competitors. One

product that foreign growers cannot economically export to

the United States is live fish for the Asian market, so production for that market ought to be high on the list for examination

by anyone wishing to enter the Massachusetts finfish culture

industry.

The second “reality check” regards the number of jobs

created in an aquacultural venture, and, more specifically,

how many of those jobs might be filled by unemployed

fishermen. I am aware of a few companies in which about oneto-two-dozen people can produce approximately 1 million lb

of fish per year. While many of those jobs might be performed

by former fishermen, several require specific training or skills

not likely to be possessed by fishermen.

TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Technical issues in finfish culture fall into two basic

areas: biological and engineering. Biological issues may be

subdivided into hatchery-phase aspects and growout aspects. In the hatchery phase, broodstock fish must be

managed in such a way that eggs can be obtained as often as

possible, preferably throughout the year. If the goal of the

operation is to bring a consistent product to market throughout the year, then a consistent supply of eggs should be

going into the production pipeline. For commercially important marine fish species, rearing of larvae into juveniles is

often the “bottleneck” because of high mortality associated

with that stage (even in natural oceanic populations). Growth

of sea bass, sea bream, cod, turbot, and halibut industries in

Europe required solution of many problems (e.g., food, nutritional requirements, swim bladder inflation, etc.) in the hatchery phase. Once the fish move to the growout phase (including a “nursery” phase for hatchery-to-growout transition),

focus of problems usually shifts to nutrition, disease, and

system operation (including effluent management). Growout

phase is the most expensive and risky. Feed costs usually

account for about one-half of production costs, and the

growout period usually takes more than 1 yr.

Engineering issues can also be subdivided; in this case,

into those associated with coastal net-pen facilities and those

associated with land-based, flow-through or recirculation

facilities. Net-pen facilities require mechanical engineering
Page 15

expertise, so that pens can withstand physical stresses of an

ocean environment. Recirculation facilities require chemical

or process engineering expertise, so that proper water chemistry can be maintained through the production tanks and

biological filters.

For reasons mentioned above, especially water temperature and regulatory problems in the coastal environment, I

believe that the soundest strategy for finfish culture in

Massachusetts is development of land-based recirculation

systems. The high-tech, high-(fish)-density, aquacultural

system developed at AquaFuture, Inc., in Turners Falls is a

model for aquaculture’s success. According to the owners,

they can produce as much hybrid striped bass in a 45,000-ft2

facility as is produced in 400 acres of farm ponds “down

south.” If New England aquaculturists are to succeed, they

need to develop appropriate technologies (including development of new hybrids or genetically improved species) for a high

land cost, high labor cost, difficult regulatory environment.

Beginning in 1990, the Universities of Rhode Island and

Massachusetts collaborated to demonstrate that summer

flounder exhibited potential for commercial aquaculture in a

land-based recirculation system. This high-value species

can be induced to spawn throughout the year with hormonal

injections, larvae can be raised using techniques similar to

those for turbot in Europe, and fish can grow to about 10

inches within the first year of life and to market size within 2

yr. Although research on this species continues, a Northeast

Fishing Industry Grant has assured that a commercial-scale

demonstration project will begin this year and will likely create

a new industry, since interest from the private sector is high.

CONCLUSIONS

U.S. agriculture owes its success in large part to government-conducted and government-funded research, followed

up with technology transfer to the private sector via a strong

cooperative extension service. In New England, we are

currently in the research phase and entering the technology

transfer phase. NMFS is to be lauded for its support of

research in culture of commercially important species. The

USDA and states must now ensure that the New England

cooperative extension network is adequate to the task of

serving the fastest-growing, food-producing sector of the

U.S. economy -- aquaculture.

INTRODUCTION

The culture of finfishes and shellfishes in U.S. marine and

estuarine waters has grown rapidly in the past two decades.

Recent declines in major commercial fish stocks have spawned

interest in further expanding coastal and offshore aquacultural operations. Culture, maintenance, and movement of

finfishes and shellfishes by humans have a history of thousands of years, but only in recent decades has there been

much intensive culture of marine species. Intensive marine

culture operations now are common in several areas of the

world, providing an opportunity to examine the successes

and failures of intensive aquacultural development.

The following discussion draws on experience and research conducted primarily in Scandinavia, Britain, Asia, and

North America, as a basis for discussing real and potential

impacts of marine aquaculture. This is not a comprehensive

review of the voluminous literature on environmental impacts

of aquaculture, but, rather, an introduction for local

decisionmakers to key issues surrounding aquacultural development of coastal areas.

DISEASE AND ITS CONTROL IN

AQUACULTURE

Diseases occur in wild as well as in cultured animals, and

can be divided into two basic groups: 1) infectious diseases

caused by viruses, bacteria, or parasites; and 2) noninfectious diseases caused by toxic substances, improper nutrition, poor water quality, physical damage, or genetics.

Infectious diseases are of major concern in aquaculture

because of their effects on production and of their potential

impact on wild populations. Outbreaks of disease in finfish

culture facilities and shellfish hatcheries typically are caused

by opportunistic pathogens that are widely distributed in

nature, but have both a low prevalence and low intensity of

infections in wild populations. Stress of confinement decreases resistance, and high density of culture situations

facilitates transmission of infectious agents; both contribute

to onset and progression of disease.

Absolute prevention of disease in aquaculture is possible technically, but rarely achieved in practice, particularly

DISEASE CONTROL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

OF MARINE AQUACULTURE

Sharon A. MacLean

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

National Marine Fisheries Service

Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882
Page 16

in high-density, commercial culture systems. Recent development of specific, pathogen-free shrimp broodstock, for

example, may be substantially ahead of the ability of shrimp

farmers to keep their facilities free of all pathogens. Vaccines

are an important means of preventing disease, and recent

advances in vaccine development have greatly decreased

prevalence of bacterial disease in finfish culture.

Since stress of culturing marine organisms at high stocking densities contributes substantially to onset of disease,

control of disease becomes important to success of production. Some progress has been made in development of

specific disease-resistant strains of cultured species, and in

studies on the effect of proper nutrition on disease resistance.

For the most part, however, control of disease in aquaculture

relies upon good husbandry and drug treatment. Husbandry

is the only method of control for adult mollusks (Bower et al.

1994). Drug treatment has been the subject of much attention

as a potential source of drug residues in food products and

the environment. Drug treatment will be discussed later.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF MARINE

AQUACULTURE

There is much published information on effects of aquaculture on the environment. What is presented here is an

introduction to some of the concerns surrounding development of aquaculture. It becomes evident when reviewing the

literature that intensive culture of finfishes or shellfishes in

shallow or poorly flushed coastal areas is a “recipe” for

problems.

Physical Impacts

Construction of aquacultural facilities, as with industrial

development of other types, can have consequences for the

physical environment. In Southeast Asia, construction of

shrimp ponds has destroyed thousands of acres of mangrove

habitat. U.S. federal and state regulations, however, limit

potential adverse effects of coastal and wetlands development, including development for aquaculture.

Changes in the environment may be less obvious when

effects are below the water surface. Alteration of water flow

has been reported in Europe and Asia where highly intensive

culture of mollusks is done on racks or poles. Under these

conditions, vertical arrays of mollusks act as a wall, altering

natural flows of water. Modifying water flow affects deposition and movement of sediments such that wastes accumulate beneath the racks more rapidly than if the “walls” did not

exist; erosional areas develop where previously there were

none (Pillay 1992). Adequate spacing of structures vertically

arranged in the water column minimizes such effects.

Physical placement of marine culture facilities may conflict with other users of the marine environment, such as

commercial and recreational fishermen, boaters, and those

seeking aesthetics of the undisturbed beauty of nature.

Impacts from Solid Wastes

In ponds and systems with inadequate flushing, extensive waste accumulates beneath cultured finfishes and

shellfishes raised off bottom, and leads to significant physical, chemical, and biological changes to the environment.

Solid wastes, consisting of excrement and unconsumed food,

alter granularity of sediment, resulting in a fine silty consistency that is less likely to disperse than larger-grained material. This alteration of bottom habitat leads to changes in

natural bottom-dwelling organisms. A decrease in diversity

and abundance of benthic species has been reported beneath

intensive finfish cultures, particularly at sites accumulating

more than 20 cm of waste (Weston 1989; Kupka-Hansen et al.

1991). But in well-flushed, less-intensive culture situations,

there appears to be a biostimulation of bottom-dwelling

species (Churchill, pers. comm.1).

Microbial decomposition of organic-rich waste consumes oxygen. If waste accumulation is extensive, the

demand for oxygen will be extremely high and can lead to

anoxia and to generation of hydrogen sulfide and methane

gases. Local anoxia has been reported in Japan in shallow

bays where there is intensive mussel and oyster culturing

(Nose 1985), and low oxygen levels have been reported

beneath intensive net-pen culture of salmonids in Europe

(Kupka-Hansen et al. 1991). These conditions are reversible,

and crop rotation, bottom harrowing, and leaving areas fallow

are some practices utilized to mitigate them.

Turbidity is a measure of solid material suspended in

water. Turbidity of local waters may be increased when water

is discharged during harvest of pond-raised shrimps and

finfishes. Minor changes in harvest practices, such as

allowing a waiting period after harvest before discharging

water, can greatly reduce the input of sediment-laden water

into neighboring waterways.

Impacts from Chemicals

Numerous chemicals have been used in aquaculture to

deal with pests, predators, fouling organisms, parasites, and

diseases. A chemical used might be considerable in amount,

depending on type and intensity of culture, and the extent of

impact of the chemical is associated with how it is used (e.g.,

antibiotics or vitamins as feed additives, antifouling agents

in constructional materials, or chemicals broadcast through

the water).

Antibiotics are used in finfish and shrimp culture. This

has raised considerable concern regarding their persistence

in the environment, the development of antibiotic-resistant

strains of wild bacteria, and the presence of residues of

antibiotics in the cultured food product. Most research has

been directed at salmonid net-pen culture where extensive

use of antibiotics has resulted in accumulation of drugs in

sediments in the vicinity of culture sites. However, studies

have shown that after 30 days, oxytetracycline (the most

commonly used drug) is bound to sediment in an inactive
Page 17

state (Samuelson et al. 1994). Antibiotic-resistant strains of

bacteria have been isolated from sediments near fish culture

facilities, but resistance may be as short-lived as 9 days

(Austin 1985). With recent development of effective inexpensive vaccines, use of antibiotics in fish culture has declined

precipitously, and soon should become a nonissue. Norway

has experienced a 73% reduction in use of antibiotics in

salmonid culture, and salmon farmers in the United States

have had similar experiences. The FDA regulates use of drugs

in animals cultured for human consumption. Antibiotics

accumulate in tissues of treated animals, and thus may pose

a risk to human health. Therefore, FDA requires a period of

nontreatment before marketing to allow drugs to dissipate

from tissues.

Several chemicals have been approved by the FDA for

use in aquaculture to treat external fungal and parasitic

infestations. Some of them, like hydrogen peroxide and garlic,

are household items. In Europe, treatment of salmonids with

organophosphate chemicals to control sea lice infestations

showed negative effects on nontarget organisms within 25 m

(80 ft) of the net-pens (Egidius and Moster 1987). Use of local,

cleaner wrasse fishes and a natural insecticide extracted from

a flower are being investigated as alternative control methods. Furthermore, management practices such as maximizing

distance between sites, avoiding overlap of generations on

farms, and allowing regular fallow periods help alleviate the

problem.

Chemicals used as antifouling agents to treat equipment

and constructional materials can have substantial effects on

cultured or wild marine organisms. Tributyltin, used in

antifouling paint, has been implicated as the cause of major

reproductive failures and deformities in mollusks in Europe

and the United States. As a consequence, its use has been

greatly restricted in many countries. Copper-based antifouling agents are used commonly and have shown limited local

effects.

Water Quality Impacts

Additions of nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus, to the environment are a concern because of the

potential for these elements to trigger algal blooms. Intensive

culture of finfishes and shrimps can contribute substantial

amounts of nitrogen to the environment through addition of

uneaten feed (only 20% of nitrogen in feed enters the fish) and

metabolic waste in the form of ammonia. Algal blooms,

however, are more relevant to lake systems rather than to

open well-flushed environments where dilution occurs.

Blooms of toxic algae are another issue, as they may

affect marine organisms as well as pose a human health risk.

Correlations between toxic algal blooms and aquaculture

were reported from Japan where mollusks were intensively

cultured in poorly flushed embayments (Nose 1985). Such

blooms have not been reported in association with finfish

farms.

Impacts on Wild Stocks

Threats to wild stocks by aquaculture include disease

transferred from cultured to wild stocks, genetic interactions

and dilution of the wild gene pool, and competition or

predation by escapees. Despite even the best efforts to

prevent them, escapes from culture systems still result from

accidents and natural disasters. Hatchery-reared or cultured

organisms tend toward limited genetic variability and may

introduce “weak” genes into the wild gene pool through

interbreeding. This is a growing issue as more riverine salmon

populations become classified as endangered. Hundreds of

thousands of cultured salmonids have escaped from netpens in Norway over the past decade and no genetic impact

has been reported as yet. Reducing the potential for genetic

impact could include increasing the number of broodstock to

keep genetic variability high, using only sterile finfish in

culture, or rearing local finfishes.

Serious problems in aquaculture arise when finfishes or

shellfishes and their associated pathogens are introduced to

an area inhabited by previously unexposed, susceptible wild

populations. This has been the case with transfer of marine

mollusks and crustaceans, nationally and internationally,

which resulted in wide dissemination of several serious

pathogens of oysters and shrimps (Farley 1992; Lightner et

al. 1992). The possibility of transferring pathogens from

cultured finfishes to wild finfishes has been studied in Britain,

and research showed low prevalence of the pathogen studied

and no sign of disease in wild stocks (Phillips et al. 1985).

However, a recent study in Norway suggests that escapes of

infected finfishes, along with transfer and natural movement

of finfishes, have contributed to the spread of disease into

wild stocks (Johnsen and Jensen 1994). More commonly,

though, the impact of disease is on cultured species. Guidelines to minimize disease-based and parasitic interactions

between cultured and wild stocks have been established on

regional, national, and international levels, and include steps

to reduce introduction of diseases when fish are moved to

new areas. The only U.S. program requiring disease inspection of imported finfishes deals with freshwater salmonids.

Although many states have agreements on interstate movement of finfishes and shellfishes, no federal disease inspection is required for interstate movement of marine organisms.

Environmental Benefits

Most often, discussions about environmental effects of

aquaculture are negative, although beneficial effects exist

aside from seafood production and economic gain. Mollusk

culture makes several positive contributions to the environment. Shell rubble collecting beneath mollusk culture structures helps to stabilize bottom sediments, serves as a surface

for spat settlement, and may provide shelter for small invertebrates.
Page 18

Mollusks, being filter feeders, filter the water of phytoplankton, thus counteracting algal growth. This phenomenon has been exploited in polycultural systems in Israel and

other countries, where nutrient-rich wastewater from finfish

culture tanks is used to grow algae on which oysters feed.

Cultured macroalgae (i.e., large algae such as kelp) and other

aquatic plants remove nutrients from the environment, thereby

limiting the potential for algal blooms resulting from

overenrichment by nitrogen and phosphorus.

Open-water mollusk culture also may enhance natural

sets by broadcasting spawn into open water, causing settlements to occur outside the culture site. Finfish culture

decreases fishing pressure on wild stocks, and, as mentioned

earlier, may increase biodiversity in benthic communities

beneath some net-pen systems. Wild finfishes and large

crustaceans tend towards densities that are higher around

cages than in surrounding areas.

CONCLUSIONS

At present, environmental impacts from marine aquaculture in the United States are few and tend to be localized,

although the potential for greater impacts exists. Many

potential threats to the environment can be avoided or

REFERENCES CITED

Austin, B. 1985. Antibiotic pollution from fish farms: effects

on aquatic microflora. Microbiol. Sci. 2:113-117.

Bower, S.M.; McGladdery, S.E.; Price, I.M. 1994. Synopsis

of infectious diseases and parasites of commercially

exploited shellfish. Ann. Rev. Fish Dis. 4:1-199.

Egidius, E.; Moster, B. 1987. Effect of Neguvon and Nuvan

treatment on crab (Cancer pagurus, C. maenas), lobster

(Homarus gammarus) and blue mussel (Mytilus edulis).

Aquaculture 60:165-168.

Farley, C.A. 1992. Mass mortalities and infectious lethal

diseases in bivalve mollusks and associations with

geographic transfers of populations. In: Rosenfield, A.;

Mann, R., eds. Dispersal of living organisms into aquatic

ecosystems. College Park, MD: Maryland Sea Grant; p.

139-154.

Johnsen, B.O.; Jensen, A.J. 1994. The spread of furunculosis

in salmonids in Norwegian rivers. J. Fish Biol. 45:47-57.

Kupka-Hansen, P.; Pittman, K.; Ervik, A. 1991. Organic waste

from marine fish farms -- effects on the seabed. In:

Makinen, T., ed. Marine aquaculture and environment,

Nord 1991; vol. 22; p. 105-120. Available from: Nordic

Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Lightner, D.V.; Redman, R.M.; Bell, T.A.; Thurman, R.B. 1992.

Geographic dispersion of the viruses IHHN, MBV, and

HPV as a consequence of transfers and introductions of

penaeid shrimp to new regions for aquaculture purposes. In: Rosenfield, A.; Mann, R., eds. Dispersal of

living organisms into aquatic ecosystems. College Park,

MD: Maryland Sea Grant; p. 155-173.

Nose, T. 1985. Recent advances in aquaculture in Japan.

Geojournal 10:261-276.

Phillips, M.J.; Beveridge, M.C.M.; Ross L.G. 1985. The

environmental impact of salmonid cage culture in inland

fisheries: present status and future trends. J. Fish Biol.

27:123-137.

Pillay, T.V.R. 1992. Aquaculture and the environment. New

York, NY: Halsted Press.

Samuelson, O.B.; Lunestad, B.T.; Ervik, A.; Fjelde, S. 1994.

Stability of antibacterial agents in an artificial marine

aquaculture sediment studied under laboratory conditions. Aquaculture 126:283-290.

Weston, D.P. 1989. Effects of aquaculture on indigenous

biota. J. World Aquacult. Soc. 20:79A.

minimized by thoughtful planning of locations for culture

sites, and of culture-carrying capacity of local environments.

Some recently developed environmental models are based on

the method, species, and biomass of a culture, as well as

hydrographical and water quality conditions of proposed

culture sites. These models may be useful to planners in

considering areas for intensive aquacultural development.

ENDNOTE

1. L. Churchill; Maine Department of Marine Resources,

West Boothbay Habor, ME; 1995.
Page 19

USER CONFLICTS -- CAN AQUACULTURE EXIST

WHILE GUARANTEEING PUBLIC RIGHTS?

Susan Snow-Cotter

Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office

Boston, Massachusetts 02202

policy to determine how best to strike a balance among

various interests involved in leasing of trusted lands for

aquacultural use. The state recognizes that it must temper

promotion of aquaculture, a desirable economic endeavor,

with various public and private concerns and rights, including environmental protection.

USER CONFLICTS AND SITING ISSUES

User conflicts are one of the major obstacles to development of aquaculture in Massachusetts. These conflicts may

vary somewhat from site to site, and from one type of

aquaculture to another, but they are common worldwide. The

conflicts change somewhat depending on the relative location within the Exclusive Economic Zone, whether it is intertidal or subtidal. In the intertidal area of Massachusetts, most

aquaculture today is bottom culture, and, therefore, user

conflicts are minimized in some ways. Conflicts are largely

aesthetic, and are most apparent at extreme low tide when

culture facilities are visible and leaseholders are tending their

shellfish. Off-road-vehicle access to leaseholds is another

conflict, particularly when access runs over private property,

whether upland or tideland. Conflicts with intertidal leaseholders also occur if they involve a loss or restriction of

recreational activity.

User conflicts change somewhat as aquacultural activities move offshore to subtidal, state-owned, nearshore waters. Culturing techniques here are more exclusive in nature,

generally either water-column culture or pen culture. These

types of culture are usually incompatible with other uses of

the same site, and user conflicts are more direct. Some

conflicts included here are associated with navigation, recreation, fishing gear, and endangered species. When aquaculture is sited in federal waters (i.e., waters beyond the 3-mi

limit), conflicts involve navigation (even submarine routes!),

commercial shipping, and commercial fisheries. Because the

ocean is a limited public resource, there is a need to balance

conflicting uses and to reach a consensus on an acceptable

mix. Good public policy demands that conflicts involving use

of public lands and properties be resolved considering the

rights of all interested parties.

Conflicting uses and aquacultural siting issues are not,

of course, unique to Massachusetts. Many areas of the world

have dealt with these issues. Massachusetts is in a good

position to adapt lessons learned elsewhere. Some of these

lessons are:

BACKGROUND

Public rights which need to be protected when aquaculture is contemplated are known as the public trust doctrine

(PTD). The PTD is a common-law concept which has been

upheld in varying forms by courts across the country. The

PTD gives states title to land under navigable waters and

tidally affected land. These lands are held in trust for the

public. To protect access for all, the trust restricts, but does

not generally prohibit, exclusive use of trust property. Any

exclusive use (including aquaculture) of trust lands typically

requires a lease from the state. The process of leasing trust

lands varies from state to state, as does the cost of leasing.

In Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Department of

Environmental Protection (MDEP) is “landlord” for submerged trust lands under regulatory authority of Chapter 91.

To date, MDEP has not taken jurisdiction over most aquacultural projects because they are considered temporary moored

facilities, and are not generally an exclusive use. A few

aquacultural projects have received 10A permits (under

Chapter 91) which are issued free by the harbormaster on a

year-by-year basis. The 10A permit is only valid for moored

facilities. MDEP regulations do not directly address aquaculture, although they may soon be re-evaluating this issue in

light of the recent surge in interest in marine aquaculture.

Under the present administration of Chapter 91, the only way

that an aquaculturist could obtain an exclusive long-term

license to an area is to apply for a Chapter 91 license which

entails a detailed application, environmental review, and

assessment of a license fee. In exchange, the applicant

obtains a 30-yr (renewable) license. No aquacultural proponent has applied for a Chapter 91 license to date.

Other states use different systems to handle their submerged lands under the PTD. Some have no leasing structure,

relying on taxes from aquaculture (or any other use of trust

lands) to meet their obligations under the doctrine. Others

have moderate leasing fees to cover attendant costs of

environmental monitoring and administration. States like

Washington with high leasing fees appraise their submerged

lands as a percentage of the value of the adjacent upland. On

this basis, they realize a substantial revenue which they use

for public education, facilities for public access, removal of

derelict shoreline structures, restoration of wild shellfish

beds, and marine recreation. Consequently, everyone can

see benefits flowing directly from private use of trusted lands,

and, therefore, everyone is more likely to accept development

of aquaculture. Massachusetts is now assessing its current
Page 20

1. Planning -- Rather than evaluating a potential aquacultural site only after it appears in a proposal, towns,

counties, and states should proactively plan such sites

using the “harbor planning” process to map them.

2. Structure/Gear Design -- Design the orientation, distance from shore, color, and amount of vertical structures

so as to reduce aesthetic conflicts. Use mobile gear, cage

culture, or marina culture to reduce exclusive use of an

area, and provide flexibility for the culturist to move gear

in response to seasonal fisheries, water quality, etc.

Placing gear entirely underwater and tending it with

remotely operated vehicles are options being considered by a prospective culturist in Chatham. This approach will avoid aesthetic conflicts.

3. Determination of Priority Uses -- The State of Washington has a policy that clearly gives preference to aquaculture when there is competition for use of state waters.

The policy also says that the state’s interest in aquaculture outweighs any local interest.

4. Education -- Aquaculture is a new industry in Massachusetts, and most of the citizenry do not understand it. Lack

of public knowledge about it and its impacts has resulted

in sometimes unnecessary controversy over siting and

leasing. Public education of waterfront owners, municipal and state decisionmakers, and school children will go

far in familiarizing people with realities of aquaculture.

Better understanding should bring greater public acceptance. Use of citizen advisory groups to facilitate siting

is an approach that has proven successful at the local

level in Nova Scotia. They found that meetings between

prospective culturists and community representatives

often smoothly resolved otherwise contentious siting

issues.

The bottom line for much of the aquacultural siting issue

is the realization of priorities for use of limited space. In areas

such as Asia and South America, where large-scale aquaculture has been successful, people are voracious seafood

consumers who recognize the vital need to allocate space for

food production. Recreational use of waters is not a high

priority. Another important consideration is the level of

government control over decisionmaking. These countries

generally have centralized governments with limited municipal-level decisionmaking. In Massachusetts, of course, the

situation is just the opposite where aquaculture is concerned.

We have strong democratic traditions and do not favor large

exclusive uses of our public waters.

MASSACHUSETTS AQUACULTURAL

INITIATIVE

The Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office

(MCZM) has drafted the document, “Marine Aquaculture

White Paper,” now available for public review. It characterizes the marine aquacultural industry in Massachusetts, and

identifies some problems.

The MCZM has formed three working groups, “Environmental Review,” “Regulatory Reform,” and “Economic Development,” to develop state strategies that encourage marine aquaculture while protecting the environment and the

rights of public and private property. The MCZM expects

that by late spring 1995 it will finalize these strategies, drafting

them into another document, “Aquaculture Strategic Plan,”

for the state.

THE REVOLVING LOAN FUND:

ITS APPLICABILITY TO AQUACULTURAL PROJECTS

Maria G. Gooch

South Eastern Economic Development Corporation

Taunton, Massachusetts 02780

The South Eastern Economic Development Corporation

(SEED) was established in 1982 as a “Chapter 180” nonprofit

corporation to help finance small businesses. Although small

businesses create most new jobs in this country, they have

a difficult time obtaining financing. This is especially true for

small businesses with little collateral and an operating history

shorter than 3 yr.

SEED’s first step was to obtain a certification from the

U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) to package loans

under the “SBA 504 Program.” SEED also packages “SBA

7A” guaranteed loans on behalf of local banks and small

business clients. In addition to the SBA programs which

might be of assistance to some of you, SEED also runs three

“Revolving Loan Fund Programs,” a “Micro Loan Program,”

and an “Enterprise Fund Program.”

The “Fisheries Adjustment Revolving Loan Fund” was

established last year when the U.S. Economic Development

Administration made a $500,000 grant that passed to SEED

through the Massachusetts Executive Office of Economic

Affairs. Purpose of the grant was to alleviate economic distress

relating to loss of fishery jobs. SEED covers all of southeastern

Massachusetts with this fund, including the Counties of Bristol,

Plymouth, Barnstable, Dukes, and Nantucket, but not the City

of New Bedford which runs its own program.

The major goal of this fund is to create long-term job

opportunities for workers displaced from the fishing indus-
Page 21

try. Under this fund, SEED provides loans up to $100,000 that

can be used as the downpayment on a larger project. The

SEED portion of the project is generally 30% or less, although

in cases where there is a financing gap, SEED’s portion can

be larger. The interest rate is generally below prime and fixed

for the term. SEED’s last loan rates were 8.5% fixed. The loan

term is generally 5 yr, although SEED can defer principal

payments, amortize over longer periods, or establish seasonal schedules as needed. Loan funds may be used for

business real estate, boat construction or repair, equipment

and furnishings, or working capital. Aquacultural businesses, lobstermen, and shellfishermen received some of the

loans under this fund. SEED can accommodate special needs

of the aquacultural industry by making repayment terms very

flexible during the first year, and by allowing the client to

repay the loan from other sources of income. SEED approves

loans on a monthly basis, but can approve small loans more

quickly in an emergency.

THE NORTHEAST FISHERIES ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

AND FISHING INDUSTRY GRANTS

Dana L. Morse

Northeast Regional Operations Office

National Marine Fisheries Service

Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930

BACKGROUND

In March 1994, Ronald Brown, Secretary of the U.S.

Department of Commerce, announced the federal appropriation of $30 million to aid the struggling fishing industry in the

Northeast. Eighteen million dollars went to the Economic

Development Administration for technical assistance purposes and for low-interest loans, and $12 million went to

NMFS. Breakdown of the NMFS allocation was as follows:

1) $9 million for the Fishing Industry Grant (FIG) Program, 2)

$1 million for fishing vessel obligation guarantees, 3) $1

million for administrative costs, and 4) $1 million for development of six fishing family assistance centers (FACs).

FISHING FAMILY ASSISTANCE

CENTERS

The FACs are located in Portland and Rockland, Maine,

in Gloucester, Chatham, and New Bedford, Massachusetts,

and in Narragansett, Rhode Island. The Rockland and

Narragansett offices are mobile and cover large areas. Due to

newness of the program and the rapidly changing nature of

the industry, duties of the staff are still evolving. Generally,

staff have identified tractable problems and have developed

remedial programs. For example, to overcome the unfamiliarity with grant proposal writing, all assistance centers have

held well-attended, well-received workshops and seminars.

The FACs’ services to fishermen and their families at

present are largely extensional and educational. These

services include: 1) general information; 2) referral to various

agencies for loans, education, food and heating assistance,

funding for new business startup, etc.; 3) guidance in development of grant proposals; 4) relief and retraining programs

conducted with other local entities such as industry cooperatives and Sea Grant offices; and 5) media communication to

disseminate information regarding government and other

programs.

The FACs utilize existing resources to define, advertise,

and implement certain programs and policies, and act as real,

face-to-face extensions of the federal government. By offering personal counseling and service, they put the human

element back in the relationship between the government and

the fishing industry. Recently, there has been a considerable

amount of interest, media attention, and criticism surrounding the grants program. Identifying criticisms and offering

constructive advice have also been an important FAC activity.

FISHING INDUSTRY GRANT PROGRAM

The FIG Program was delivered under two solicitations,

each for $4.5 million. Unlike loans, grants need not be

refunded. Typical of other grant programs, this one involves

the review of proposals, awarding of funds, project evaluation, and reporting.

There have been many ideas about what the grants

program was supposed to achieve, and many misconceptions. Most importantly, the program does not offer instant

gratification. There have been requests to draft a program

similar to Canada’s. In response to closure of its cod fisheries,

Canada pays its fishermen, in effect, unemployment compensation. The FIG Program does not provide such immediate

financial assistance. It is, however, a means to stimulate ideas

for new business opportunities, new processing technology,

and fishery development. These ideas should increase

diversity of the industry, and help to retain and create jobs.
Page 22

Today, diversity is an especially important issue in New

Bedford. New Bedford has been a “traditional” port, fishing

for traditional species, using traditional methods, and selling

well-established products in traditional markets. Now, not

only is domestic supply obviously changing, but so is the

marketplace. Diversity, therefore, is vital to the future of the

New Bedford seafood industry. Perceived benefits, in light

of the need for diversity, of the FIG Program include: 1)

stimulating new businesses and/or processes which would

translate to jobs; 2) providing an opportunity to examine

propositions which are risky and otherwise might not be tried;

3) stimulating ideas; 4) fostering productive exchanges between science and industry; and 5) familiarizing applicants

with development of business plans, a necessary first step in

capital formation for companies of any size. Perceived

drawbacks include: 1) not providing instant gratification; 2)

requiring grant writing, a complicated process foreign to

many in the fishing industry; 3) requiring facility with language that is greater than normal for fishermen, compounding

the strangeness of the proposal process for them; and 4)

requiring reporting, another task that can present writing

problems similar to those of the grant proposal.

While FAC staff cannot change the nature of the program, such as the time it takes to process applications, they

can help to overcome difficulties encountered concerning

writing of proposals and reports. They commonly spend time

privately discussing proposals with applicants, performing

general reviews of various documents, presenting workshops on proposal development, answering questions, and

providing referral to qualified, professional grant writers.

HOW AQUACULTURE FARED

IN “ROUND ONE” GRANTS

Twenty-eight projects were funded in the first round of

FIG. The nine projects that concerned aquaculture received

over $2 million of the funds available, individually ranging

from $40,000 to over $650,000.

It is noteworthy that FIG aquacultural projects are still

subject to any permits that are required by town, state, or

federal agencies. Simply receiving funding does not preclude

the need for all appropriate permits. However, since the

permitting process is lengthy, use of a “NMFS Experimental

Permit” has been suggested. Further, since these permits

have limited duration, if towns were to employ an experimental

permit as a substitute for “normal” town permits, there would

be an opportunity to make detailed assessments of projects

at very limited risk. As projects progressed, towns would

become better equipped to make educated decisions about

any future work, and could develop equitable iterative solutions to problems as encountered.

CONCLUSIONS

The Northeast fishing industry is in great need of alternatives to traditional activities. Current fishing regulations

promote attrition of individuals from industry, rather than an

“all-or-nothing” effect. Part-time ventures, such as tending

an intertidal lease site, could provide some needed employment, with possible transition to full-time nonfishing employment. The FIG Program provides funding for risky ventures

in a tight economy.

Exchange and examination of ideas are the most important aspects in the relationship between the aquacultural

industry and the grants program. It is imperative that ideas

flourish in order for the fishing industry and the region’s

economy to survive. This fisheries crisis is inherently one of

extreme and rapid change. The Fishing Industry Grant

Program provides one door of opportunity to an industry that

genuinely requires alternatives.
Page 23

AQUACULTURAL POLICY:

FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION

Harlyn O. Halvorson

Policy Center for Marine Biosciences and Technology

University of Massachusetts

Dartmouth, Massachusetts 02747

INTRODUCTION

The Policy Center for Marine Biosciences and Technology was established in 1992 to address a broad range of

problems and opportunities raised by recent developments

in marine biosciences. It is concerned that the United States

insufficiently applies many recent developments that offer

potential economic and social benefit. It is a center “without

walls,” providing a forum for everyone concerned with

marine issues. Its work entails: 1) defining relevant issues;

2) identifying gaps in scientific knowledge; 3) targeting

audiences in need of specific information and producing

informational packages aimed at their needs; and 4) recommending legislative action to appropriate local, state, and

federal policymakers.

The Policy Center stresses effective communication,

and provides a credible forum for deriving sound public

policy in the growing area of marine regulations. Its offices

are at the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, the

Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, and the

Kennedy School of Government in Cambridge. These institutions are dedicated to both science and public service. By

having offices there, the Policy Center has access, free of

typical institutional constraints, to a variety of individual

talents and organizational strengths. The Policy Center

involves scientists, government institutions, environmental experts, and public interest groups as active partners in

shaping public policy.

In summer 1993, at the Marine Biological Laboratory,

the Policy Center held its first conference, “Aquaculture and

the Marine Environment: the Shaping of Public Policy.” The

purpose was to explore public perceptions about marine

aquaculture, assemble relevant facts surrounding these

perceptions, and examine resulting impacts. The topic was

of interest and concern to the public, and could produce

scientific information to assist public policymakers. A

number of organizations interested in marine aquaculture

sponsored the conference. Participants represented government, academia, industry, research institutes, and public

interest organizations. Recommendations that emerged

from that conference are relevant to this symposium.

AQUACULTURE’S ROLE IN THE

ECONOMICS OF COASTAL

COMMUNITIES

Consensus of the conferees was that marine aquaculturists should promise coastal communities no more than

what might be accomplished at their current stage of development. However, coastal communities should factor aquaculture into their economic development planning, and bring their

needs to the attention of federal and state decisionmakers.

For crafting legislation to provide or create opportunities

for economically viable aquaculture, communities need to

know about their aquacultural options and how to obtain the

mix of sizes and types of aquaculture that will be socioeconomically compatible. Conferees made the following recommendations:

1. State and federal governments should include aquaculture in economic development planning. State aquacultural coordinators might identify existing mechanisms,

such as coastal zone management plans or planning

councils, to help local governments integrate aquaculture with economic development.

2. The federal government should mandate, by statute, the

Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture’s recommendation

that participating departments and agencies of the federal

government give priority to, and rapidly develop, national aquacultural strategies that the U.S. Congress can

assemble into law.

3. Governments should convince lease site applicants of

the necessity to address the public trust issue. Applicants should be able to justify clearly and forthrightly

why a community should allow them to use public resources for commercial purposes. Governments should

assist applicants by compiling descriptions of successful

aquacultural projects and ways in which the projects

benefitted their communities.

4. The Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture should determine how aquacultural marine industrial parks could be

started. Such parks would foster aquacultural innovation

and new businesses. They might receive blanket permits,

eliminating the need for new permit applications for every

new lease site. The central purpose of such parks would

be to reduce startup costs.

STRATEGIES FOR SHAPING PUBLIC

POLICY

Strategies to shape public policy in support of marine

aquacultural development should be based on a clear understanding of: 1) which key individuals, interest groups, and
Page 24

agencies should receive information and recommendations;

2) kinds of information most appropriate for intended audiences; 3) and the most effective means of communicating

relevant information and recommendations to intended recipients. In recommending local, state, regional, and national

fostering of marine aquaculture, policy planners should

include guidelines for, and examples of, successful planning

and development, including marine aquacultural industrial

parks.

Governments, industries, and universities, in partnership, should be the pre-eminent planners of marine aquacultural development in coastal states. Coordinators should

work closely with their state coastal zone management offices

and local communities, encouraging them to include aquaculture in their plans. States should designate a leading

agency for aquacultural development. Aquacultural planning should be strongly linked to long-term environmental

and economic planning.

Federal Government

The federal government should designate a lead agency

that works with the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture. This

agency should clarify and publish the role of all federal

agencies dealing with marine aquaculture.

The federal government should review and modify existing regulations and procedures so that they include aquaculture. Most existing regulations and procedures for protecting the environment preceded the emergence of aquaculture.

The federal government should create a governmentindustry-university roundtable on aquaculture. This

roundtable would advise the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture and the leading aquacultural agency on all matters of

mutual interest, including research and product development.

Both houses of the U.S. Congress will probably introduce bills governing aquaculture this year. Therefore, it is

important that congressional committees be well informed

beforehand. The Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture asked

the congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)

to make a study of domestic aquaculture. Members of the

Policy Center have been involved in a number of OTA’s study

reports which are currently under review.

The OTA also asked the Policy Center to investigate

successes and failures in domestic aquaculture in order to

develop options for federal involvement. In its report, “Factors Contributing to Success and Failure in the U.S. Aquaculture Industry,” the Policy Center identified the findings and

recommendations listed in Table 1.

Local Government

Local government should be more aware of potential

benefits of marine aquaculture, and of the case studies of

successes and failures in aquaculture. The case studies will

Table 1. Findings and recommendations of the Policy Center for

Marine Biosciences and Technology for federal involvement

to help the U.S. aquacultural industry

Factors Limiting Producer Success

1. Outdated and cumbersome regulations

2. Inadequate marketing efforts

3. Disease and lack of approved drugs

4. Lack of capital (i.e., grants, loans, and subsidies)

Desirable Goals for Improvement

1. Firm state and federal support

2. Friendly regulatory environment

3. One-stop permitting

4. Well-defined, consistent public policy

5. More capital for development

6. More research on culture methods and biology

Priority Policy Options for Federal Actions

1. Revise environmental regulations to accommodate

aquaculture

2. Streamline permitting process

3. Facilitate siting of aquacultural operations

4. Provide capital for aquacultural operations

5. Expedite review and approval of drugs for disease

treatment

6. Educate public about real benefits and risks of

aquaculture

Recommendations for Government Assistance

1. Provide general support and information

2. Provide funding for research

3. Develop consistent regulations

4. Provide more capital

5. Streamline permitting process

6. Promote public acceptance and marketing assistance

7. Work for pollution abatement

8. Treat aquaculture like agriculture

9. Educate regulators about aquaculture

help them to understand the governing regulatory, economic,

environmental, and social factors.

Local government should devise a “one-stop” permitting process managed by a facilitator with practical experience, and should study the feasibility of marine parks as initial

sites for aquaculture. They should issue one-time permits for

the site, rather than subsequently issue permits to every

individual entrepreneur.
Page 25

Scientific Community

The scientific community should encourage and assist

scientists to engage in research and technology -- from basic

to applied -- relevant to aquaculture. It should also perform

additional research in a variety of fields, including population

genetics, hybrid fish behavior, and ecosystem dynamics.

AQUACULTURE IN MASSACHUSETTS

That Massachusetts needs to address issues about

aquaculture has never been more evident. The local and

national press have reported the crisis in our fisheries, the

need to create new jobs, the promise of aquaculture, and the

state’s unique resources in marine biology.

For a sharper focus, the Policy Center made a case study

on the use of sea scallops (Placopecten magellanicus) for

aquaculture in Massachusetts. The study identified opportunities for, and critical deterrents to, development of aquaculture. It addressed regulatory problems, and prepared

educational materials for regulators, practitioners, and the

general public. Those problems and prosed solutions are

summarized in Table 2.

This is an exciting period for Massachusetts. Both

federal and state governments are re-examining the role of

aquaculture. They are greatly interested in activities that can

harm the sensitive marine environment, such as waste treatment, and in policy issues involving environmental protection and economic development. They need a clarification of

issues; they need to know about critical gaps in scientific

knowledge; and they need to find out what kinds of regulations are appropriate. They also need a consensus among

environmentalists, scientists, coastal industries, and coastal

community officials concerning the issues. Of critical importance is the communication between the industry, the public,

and local, state, and federal officials whose decisions affect

aquaculture. The public is best served when policy is based

on sound, scientific information and a broad consensus.
Page 26

Table 2. Problems and proposed solutions for reducing impediments to sea scallop aquaculture in Massachusetts

Problem Proposed Solutions

Create aquacultural category, develop process for state and federal

interagency coordination, and devise coordinated government

strategy for development of oceans

Take regional approach to federal policy

Study approaches in other countries

Address and change role of regional fishery management councils

over aquaculture, and allow states to coordinate aquacultural zones

and management outside of councils

Regulate scallop aquaculture through agriculture and farm bureau,

not NOAA

Create “permitting flow chart” for potential scallop farmers

Create special state and federal zones, and manage management

plans for aquacultural experiments

Close some scallop beds and reserve them for aquacultural use

Provide more start-up capital; broadcast examples of successes,

especially of fishermen switching to aquaculture

Federal government should identify and monitor sites in federal

waters

Develop policy between federal and state legislative support for

siting

Develop extension service for aquaculture (e.g., in Massachusetts

Department of Food and Agriculture)

Create and distribute education materials

Consider other species, such as small clams that may be more

appropriate due to growth rate

Use existing recombinant DNA techniques to mitigate genetic escape

from cultured stocks

Develop cogeneration of products and waste material

Develop consistency in regulation of gear (e.g., cages accepted for

lobsters but not for scallops)

Require structural adequacy of aquacultural gear

Develop clear means of evaluating proposals for new aquacultural

effort, with criteria for scoring

Develop comanagement between aquaculture and fishing

Develop better tracking technology to avoid conflicts with lobstering

Separate boat time for aquacultural work from restrictions on boat

time for harvesting/fishing

Unclear regulatory jurisdiction

Need more research and development in all aspects of cultivating

and harvesting

Shortage of capital for entrepreneurs

Very few identified aquacultural sites

Education needs for entrepreneurs, regulators, and investors

Biological barriers to growing scallops

Wastes from shells and processing

Gear regulations do not make sense

Little support for new aquacultural opportunities

Conflict between fishing and aquaculture
Recent issues in this series:

92. Report of the Meeting of the ad hoc Committee on Large Marine Ecosystems, 22-23 March 1991, UNESCO

Headquarters, Paris, France. By Kenneth Sherman and Thomas L. Laughlin, eds. October 1992. iii + 19 p. + 1 erratum,

1 fig., 4 app. NTIS Access. No. PB93-215747.

93. Large Marine Ecosystems Monitoring Workshop Report: 13-14 July 1991, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. By

Kenneth Sherman and Thomas L. Laughlin, eds. October 1992. iii + 22 p., 2 tables, 2 app. NTIS Access. No. PB93-234284.

94. Summary of the Symposium on the Northeast U.S. Shelf Ecosystem: Stress, Mitigation, and Sustainabilty -- 12-15

August 1991, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, Rhode Island. By Kenneth Sherman, N. Jaworski, and T.

Smayda, eds. October 1992. v + 30 p., 3 app. NTIS Access. No. PB94-103439.

95. Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United States for 1992. By Conservation and Utilization Division,

Northeast Fisheries Science Center. October 1992. iv + 133 p., 60 figs., 67 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB93-144103.

96. An Indexed Bibliography of Northeast Fisheries Science Center Publications and Reports for 1989. By Jon A. Gibson.

November 1992. iii + 20 p. NTIS Access. No. PB93-213601.

97. Water-column Thermal Structure in the Middle Atlantic Bight and Gulf of Maine during 1978-92. By Robert L.

Benway, Kevin P. Thomas, and Jack W. Jossi. March 1993. viii + 154 p., 147 figs., 2 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB93-223147.

98. Marine Invertebrate Cell Culture: Breaking the Barriers -- Proceedings of an International Workshop, 16 June 1991,

Anaheim, California. By Aaron Rosenfield, ed. March 1993. vi + 25 p., 2 tables, 3 app. NTIS Access. No. PB93-213593.

99. Sole Ownership of Living Marine Resources. By Steven F. Edwards, Allen J. Bejda, and R. Anne Richards. May 1993.

vii + 21 p., 6 figs., 1 table. NTIS Access. No. PB94-146651.

100. Emerging Theoretical Basis for Monitoring the Changing States (Health) of Large Marine Ecosystems -- Summary

Report of Two Workshops: 23 April 1992, National Marine Fisheries Service, Narragansett, Rhode Island, and 11-

12 July 1992, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. By Kenneth Sherman, ed. September 1993. iii + 27 p., 1 fig., 9 tables,

5 app. NTIS Access. No. PB94-157476.

101. Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United States for 1993. By Conservation and Utilization Division,

Northeast Fisheries Science Center. October 1993. iv + 140 p., 62 figs., 70 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB94-142361.

102. Indexed Bibliography of Northeast Fisheries Science Center Publications and Reports for 1990-91. By Jon A. Gibson.

May 1994. iii + 40 p. NTIS Access. No. PB95-200838.

103. Marine Mammal Studies Supported by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center during 1980-89. By Gordon T. Waring,

Janeen M. Quintal, and Tim D. Smith. May 1994. iv + 27 p., 5 tables, 4 app. NTIS Access. No. PB95-108213.

104. Quantitative Effects of Pollution on Marine and Anadromous Fish Populations. By Carl J. Sindermann. June 1994. iii

+ 22 p., 12 figs. NTIS Access. No. PB95-138467.

105. Review of American Lobster (Homarus americanus) Habitat Requirements and Responses to Contaminant Exposures. By Renee Mercaldo-Allen and Catherine A. Kuropat. July 1994. v + 52 p., 29 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB96-115555.

106. Selected Living Resources, Habitat Conditions, and Human Perturbations of the Gulf of Maine: Environmental and

Ecological Considerations for Fishery Management. By Richard W. Langton, John B. Pearce, and Jon A. Gibson, eds.

August 1994. iv + 70 p., 2 figs., 6 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB95-270906.

107. Invertebrate Neoplasia: Initiation and Promotion Mechanisms -- Proceedings of an International Workshop, 23 June

1992, Washington, D.C. By A. Rosenfield, F.G. Kern, and B.J. Keller, comps. & eds. September 1994. v + 31 p., 8 figs.,

3 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB96-164801.

108. Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United States for 1994. By Conservation and Utilization Division,

Northeast Fisheries Science Center. January 1995. iv + 140 p., 71 figs., 75 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB95-263414.
Publishing in NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE

scientific manuscripts. NEFSC publication and report series

rely more on the CBE Style Manual, fifth edition.

For in-text citations, use the name-date system. A special

effort should be made to ensure that the list of cited works

contains all necessary bibliographic information. For abbreviating serial titles in such lists, use the most recent edition of the

Serial Sources for the BIOSIS Previews Database (Philadelphia, PA: Biosciences Information Service). Personal communications must include date of contact and full name and mailing

address of source.

For spelling of scientific and common names of fishes,

mollusks, and decapod crustaceans from the United States and

Canada, use Special Publications No. 20 (fishes), 16 (mollusks), and 17 (decapod crustaceans) of the American Fisheries

Society (Bethesda, MD). For spelling in general, use the most

recent edition of Webster’s Third New International Dictionary

of the English Language Unabridged (Springfield, MA: G. & C.

Merriam).

Typing text, tables, and figure captions: Text, including tables and figure captions, must be converted to WordPerfect

4.2, 5.0, or 5.1. In general, keep text simple (e.g., don’t switch

fonts, don’t use hard returns within paragraphs, don’t indent

except to begin paragraphs). Especially, don’t use WordPerfect

graphics for embedding tables and figures in text. If the

automatic footnoting function is used, also save a list of

footnotes as a separate WordPerfect file. When the final draft

is ready for review, save the text, tables, figure captions, table

titles, footnotes, and front matter as separate document files.

Tables should be prepared using all tabs or all spaces

between columnar data, but not a combination of the two.

Figures must be original (even if oversized) and on paper; they

cannot be photocopies (e.g., Xerox) unless that is all that is

available, nor be on disk. Except under extraordinary circumstances, color will not be used in illustrations.

Manuscript Submission

Authors must submit one paper copy of the double-spaced

manuscript, one magnetic copy on a diskette, and original

figures (if applicable). NEFSC authors must include a completely signed-off “NEFSC Manuscript Submission Form.”

Non-NEFSC authors who are not federal employees will be

required to sign a “Release of Copyright” form.

Send all materials and address all correspondence to:

Jon A. Gibson, Technical Editor

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

166 Water Street

Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026 USA

(508) 548-5123x228

Manuscript Qualification

This series represents a secondary level of scientific

publishing in the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

It employs thorough internal scientific review and technical and

copy editing, but not necessarily external scientific review.

Manuscripts that may warrant a primary level of scientific

publishing should be initially submitted to one of NMFS’s

primary series (i.e., Fishery Bulletin, NOAA Technical Report

NMFS, or Marine Fisheries Review). See the outside back cover

of this document for a fuller description of Northeast Fisheries

Science Center (NEFSC) publication series.

Identical, or fundamentally identical, manuscripts should

not be concurrently submitted to this and any other publication

series. Manuscripts which have been rejected by any primary

series strictly because of geographic or temporal limitations

may be submitted to this series.

Manuscripts by NEFSC authors will be published in this

series upon approval by the NEFSC Science & Research

Director. Manuscripts by non-NEFSC authors may be published in this series if: (1) the manuscript serves the NEFSC’s

mission; (2) the manuscript meets the Science & Research

Director’s approval; and (3) the author arranges for the printing

and binding funds to be transferred to the NEFSC’s Research

Communications Unit account from another federal account.

For all manuscripts submitted by non-NEFSC authors and

published in this series, the NEFSC will disavow all responsibility for the manuscripts’ contents; authors must accept such

responsibility.

The ethics of scientific research and scientific publishing

are a serious matter. All manuscripts submitted to this series

are expected to adhere -- at a minimum -- to the ethical

guidelines contained in Chapter 1 (“Ethical Conduct in Authorship and Publication”) of the CBE Style Manual, fifth edition

(Chicago, IL: Council of Biology Editors). Copies of the manual

are available at virtually all scientific libraries.

Manuscript Preparation

Organization: Manuscripts must have an abstract, table

of contents, and -- if applicable -- lists of tables, figures, and

acronyms. As much as possible, use traditional scientific

manuscript organization for sections: “Introduction,” “Study

Area,” “Methods & Materials,” “Results,” “Discussion” and/or

“Conclusions,” “Acknowledgments,” and “References Cited.”

Style: All NEFSC publication and report series are

obligated to conform to the style contained in the most recent

edition of the United States Government Printing Office Style

Manual. That style manual is silent on many aspects of

NORTHEAST FISHERIES SCIENCE CENTER

Michael P. Sissenwine, Science & Research Director

Mary G. Laird, Program Support Staff Chief

Teri L. Frady, Research Communications Unit Chief

Jon A. Gibson, Technical Editor
Research Communications Unit

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

166 Water St.

Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026

To obtain a copy of a technical memorandum or a reference document, or to subscribe to an information

report, write: Research Communications Unit, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water St., Woods

Hole, MA 02543-1026. An annual list of NEFSC publications and reports is available upon request at the

above address. Any use of trade names in any NEFSC publication or report does not imply endorsement.

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE--This irregular series includes: data reports of long-term or large area

studies; synthesis reports for major resources or habitats; annual reports of assessment or monitoring programs;

documentary reports of oceanographic conditions or phenomena; manuals describing field and lab techniques; literature

surveys of major resource or habitat topics; findings of task forces or working groups; and summary reports of scientific

or technical workshops. Issues receive thorough internal scientific review and technical editing. Limited free copies are

available from authors or the NEFSC. Issues are also available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285

Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161.

THIRD CLASS MAIL

Information Reports--These reports are issued in several series, including: Research Highlights, News Release,

Fishermen's Report, and The Shark Tagger. Content is timely, special-purpose data and/or information. Level of scientific

review and technical editing varies by series. All series available through free subscription except for The Shark Tagger

which is available only to participants in the NMFS Cooperative Shark Tagging Program.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document--This irregular series includes: data reports on field and

lab observations or experiments; progress reports on continuing experiments, monitoring, and assessments; and

background papers for scientific or technical workshops. Issues receive minimal internal scientific review and no

technical editing. No subscriptions. Free distribution of single copies.

Publications and Reports

of the

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) seeks to "achieve a continued optimum utilization of living marine

resources for the benefit of the Nation." As the research arm of the NMFS's Northeast Region, the Northeast Fisheries

Science Center (NEFSC) supports the NMFS mission by "planning, developing, and managing multidisciplinary

programs of basic and applied research to: (1) better understand the living marine resources (including marine

mammals) of the Northwest Atlantic, and the environmental quality essential for their existence and continued

productivity; and (2) describe and provide to management, industry, and the public, options for the utilization and

conservation of living marine resources and maintenance of environmental quality which are consistent with national

and regional goals and needs, and with international commitments." To assist itself in providing data, information,

and advice to its constituents, the NEFSC issues publications and reports in three categories: