Page 8

Table 1. Summary of aquaculture research under Public Law 88-309

Activity (State) Period Covered Project Costs
Federal State Total
Marine Fish & Shellfish Culture
Easter oyster shell planting 1965-88 $4,024,900 $1,082,400 $5,107,300
(DE/MD/NH/NJ/VA)
Eastern oyster culture techniques 1964-81 $821,200 $395,000 $1,216,200
(DE/MD/NI/NY/VA)
Eastern oyster disease monitoring 1971-88 $519,000 $291,200 * $810,200
(MD/NJ)
Northern quahog culture techniques 1973-82 $180,600 $180,600 $361,200
WY)
Eastern oyster growth & survival studies 1968-75 $123,200 $88,300 $211,500"
(DE/NH/VA) .
Bay scallop culture techniques 1973-82 $180,600 $180,600 $361,200
WY/RD :
Winter flounder (NH) 1977-80 $69,200 $23,100 $92,300
SUBTOTAL $5,918,700 $2,241,200 $8,159,900
Environmental Monitoring
Shellfish sanitation (NY) 1970-87 $467,200 $474,500 $941,700
Eastern oyster habitat survey 1976-78 $140,200 $140,200 $280,400
(WA)
SUBTOTAL $607,400 $614,700 $1,222,100 -
Aquaculture Systems/Management Analysis
Hatchery wastewater treatment 1975-85 $275,600 $91,900 $367,500
(PA)
Rearing of rainbow trout, catfish, walleye, & fathead 1970-75 $121,400 $40,400 $161,800
minnow in vertical silos
(PA)
Deputation plants for northern quahogs 1965-69 $77,100 $25,700 $102,800
(NY)
Eastem oyster transplant &northem quahog 1973-79 $71,400 $71,400 $142,800
relay program analysis(NJ)
Hydroponics — channel catfish 1976-77 $48,300 $16,100 $64,400
@).
Production ponds — channel catfish 1973-74 $31,300 $10,400 $41,700
@)
SUBTOTAL $625,100 ._ $255,900 $881,000



spective, the articulation of a formal NMFS policy/strategy
need not be a prerequisite for demonstrating the organiza-
tional contributions to the various facets of aquaculture
research and development as defined in Chapter 5. For
example, the written consolidation of pertinent NMFS ac-
tivities, as presented in this document, serves to give visibil-
ity both internally and, if subsequently warranted, to exter-
* nal'interests (e.g., the public). From another perspective, in
view of the expanding aquaculture industry in the Northeast,
as well as current and potential future legislative mandates
(e.g., to work with USDA as a partner in the development of
U.S. aquaculture), it may be advantageous to clearly enun-
ciate the nature of agency involvement. In this regard, the
stage has already been set through aquaculture program
initiatives included in the NMFS Strategic Plan and comple-
mentary actions cited in the Northeast Region Implementa-
tion Plan (Roe 1992). °
The following subsections address the current status of
aquaculture program strategies at both the NMFS Washing-
ton Office and Northeast Region levels.

6.1 NATIONAL OVERVIEW

The NMFS Strategic, Plan recognizes aquaculture as an
area of agency program emphasis that is necessary for
NMFS to fulfill its mission. That document states that “in
some cases American aquaculture has been impeded by
concems that it might adversely affect habitat quality and
wild stocks. NMFS has scientific expertise that can help to
reduce these and other impediments to U.S. aquaculture
development, thus improving opportunities for growth.
Expansion of domestic aquaculture production has the po-
tential to narrow the gap between the demand for seafood
products and the production of wild stocks. Aquaculture
techniques are an option to aid rebuilding of some depleted
stocks, as in the case of Columbia River salmon.... There-
fore, the eighth goal of NMFS is to improve opportunities
for U.S. aquaculture.” _ .
The NMFS Strategic Plan identifies the following ob-
jectives to achieve this goal: (1) determine the effects of
aquaculture on habitat and wild populations, and how to
reduce adverse effects; (2) develop means to permit cultured
products in the marketplace without jeopardizing conserva-
tion of wild stocks; (3) determine the potential for aquacul-
ture to enhance recovery of protected species and depleted
_fisheries; and (4) re-evaluate NMFS's role in U.S. aquacul-
ture.
The NMFS Strategic Plan also includes the following
planned actions to accomplish these objectives: (1) conduct
research and provide information on the effects of aquacul-
ture on habitat, and encourage environmentally safe alterna-
tives; (2) evaluate the risks to wild stocks and their habitats
from the introduction of cultured species; (3) develop the
capability to distinguish cultured stocks from wild popula-
tions; (4) develop techniques to use aquaculture to enhance
recovery of protected or depleted living marine resources;

Page 29

and (5) develop effective coordination with the USDA and
other federal and state agencies involved in marine aquacul-
ture.

In Fiscal Year 1989, the Marine Board of the National
Research Council was contracted by NOAA (i.e., NMFS
and the NSGCP) and the USDA to-produce an assessment
of technology and opportunities for marine aquaculture in
the United States. Three working groups were established
for policy, technology transfer/education, and research/
engineering. Policy issues addressed are: (1) identifying
issues/lack of national direction/leadership; (2) coastal land
and ocean use conflicts; (3) environmental and public health

“issues; and (4) technology-related policy issues.

6.2 NORTHEAST REGIONAL OVERVIEW

In February 1991, the NER adopted’ objectives and
activities for aquaculture in the Northeast Region Imple-
‘mentation Plan, as a complementary action to Goal 8 (i.e.,
“Improve Opportunities for U.S. Aquaculture”) as specified
in the NMFS Strategic Plan. The Northeast Region Imple-
mentation Plan contained the following initiatives: (1)
establish cooperative interagency state/federal approach to
protect habitats, fisheries, and marine mammals from place-
ment of salmon pen aquaculture operations; (2) implement
joint state/federal application and permit process for siting
and monitoring of aquaculture facilities (Fiscal Years 1992-
96); (3) in conjunction with Sea Grant institutions, conduct
conservation engineering studies for minimizing conflicts
between marine mammals, i.e., seals, and maintenance of
salmon pens; (4) support grant-based research programs to
establish environmental standards for placement of aquac-
ulture pens; (5) establish bilateral U.S./Canadian standards
for importation of Atlantic salmon spawn from Europe into
Gulf of Maine aquaculture industry; (6) in conjunction with
the NMFS Office of Research and Environmental Informa-
tion, USFWS, and through participation in NASCO, de-
velop and implement national and international regulations
for importation of Atlantic salmon spawn into the northeast-
em United States and southeastern Canada aquaculture
industry (Fiscal Years 1992-93); (7) work with the NMFS
Office of Research and Environmental Information to main-
tain current standards for regional importation of disease
and predators with mussels and shellfish planned for cultur-
ing; and (8) in coordination with Sea Grant and the Chesa-
peake Basin states, conduct an international workshop on
the ecological effect of Pacific oyster introductions (Fiscal
Year 1992).

6.3 SUMMARY

Clearly, the immediate course of action for continuing
NER involvement in aquaculture is articulated within the
scope of the NMFS Strategic Plan and the Northeast Region


Guidelines were developed by the New England Salmonid
Health. Committee (a subcommittee of, and appointed by,
the New. England Atlantic Salmon Committee) to address
salmonid fish health in New England. The guidelines
affirmed that disease control is the responsibility of the
natural resource agencies managing the fishery resources.
The guidelines set forth the essential requirements for the

- prevention and control of. serious fish diseases. These
include’ the technical procedures to be used for inspecting
fish culture facilities.

The guidelines, due to their coverage of salmonid
culture issues, have widespread application to aquaculture
issues in New England. Covered topics include’ basic
obligations of fishery resource agencies, transportation of
fish, release of fish, and fish health inspection. Of special
note, Section D(5) stipulates that no live salmonid fish,
gametes, fertilized eggs, or fish products may be imported
from areas endemic for IHN virus. This guideline effec-
tively set the stage for termination of a NMFS/USFWS
memorandum of understanding involving a Connecticut
River Atlantic salmon restoration initiative (Section 2.6.2.3).

The effects of disease on aquaculture operations, as
well as the overall interactions between cultured and wild
stocks, have been largely focused on Atlantic salmon (e.g.,
Hansen er al. 1991). In 1989 and 1990, the Council of the
North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization
(NASCO), which consists of representatives of all North
Atlantic countries with Atlantic salmon interests, held spe-
cial sessions in order to consider the potential effects of
salmon aquaculture on wild stocks. At NASCO’s eighth
annual meeting in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1991, the council
adopted guidelines to minimize the potential threats to wild
stocks from disease and parasite interactions. The guide-
lines also addressed measures to minimize the possible
adverse effects from introductions and transfers, as well as
the effects of aquaculture on the environment (North Atlan-
tic Salmon Conservation Organization 1991).

One major concem facing the aquaculture industry, the
states, and the federal government are the chemicals em-
ployed in fish culture for disease treatment, and the regula-
tory status pertaining totheiruse. Accordingly, the FDA has
established a Work Group on Quality Assurance in Aquac-
ulture to address the proper use of drugs (chemicals), avoid-
ance of illegal residues in food fish, and the drug approval
process. One priority of the work group is the acquisition of
aquaculture production statistics and drug treatment data
from each state. The effort has been coordinated by: the
Fisheries Administrators Section of the American Fisheries
Society. In addition to production figures, data being
collected include disease incidence and estimates of result-
ant annual mortalities by species and life stage, and drugs
that might effectively treat the associated epizootics.

Additional aspects of disease-related issues are dis-
cussed relative to ASMFC activities (Section 3.3), eastern
oyster disease research (Section 2.3.2.5), and in the next
section -- exotic species introductions.

Page 25

5.2.4 Exotic Species

For the purposes of this discussion, the term “exotic
species” is synonymous with species which are
nonindigenous to the aquatic environment(s) of the North-
east. The definition also includes hybrids of species (e.g.,
splake, a cross between lake trout and:brook trout) previ-
ously believed as distinct from one another and animals with
manipulated (altered) chromosome complements. The in-
troduction of exotic species and frequent local transfer of
such stocks create a potential for introduction of diseases,
parasites, competitors, and injurious gerietic strains. The.
topic of exotic species introductions is controversial both
inside and outside the aquaculture industry. If safe proce-
dures for such transplants can be developed, improvements
in cultured products may result (Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission 1989). The establishment of proce-
dures has been strongly encouraged for pre-evaluation of all
exotic transfers and for quarantine systems/procedures to
prevent introduction of disease.

Executive Order 11987 on Exotic Organisms, signed by
President Carter in 1977, stipulates that:

(a) Executive agencies shall, to the extent permit-
ted by law, restrict the introduction of exotic spe-
cies into the natural ecosystems on lands and
waters which they own, lease, or hold for purposes
of administration; and, shall encourage the states,
local governments, and private citizens to prevent
the introduction of exotic species into natural eco-
systems of the United States; (b) Executive agen-
cies, to the extent they have been authorized by
statute to restrict the importation of exotic species,
shall restrict the introduction of exotic species into
any natural ecosystem of the United States; (c)
Executive agencies shall, tothe extent permitted by
law, restrict the use of federal funds, programs, or
authorities used to export native species for the
purpose of introducing such species into ecosys-
tems outside the U.S. where they do not naturally
occur.

This Order does not apply to the introduction
of exotic species or export of any native species, if
the Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of
Interior finds that such introduction or exportation
will not have an adverse effect on natural ecosys-
tems.

A task force established under the provisions of the
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control
Act is preparing a comprehensive review addressing ap-
proaches (e.g., voluntary guidelines, model state codes, and
evaluation protocols) which substantially reduce the risk of
adverse consequences associated with intentional introduc-
tion of aquaticorganisms. The task force anticipates that this
review will be incorporated in a report to be submitted to
Congress by March 1993.


Page 2

research sponsored by the USDA and the NSGCP is also
summarized to present a complementary perspective.

2.1 LEGISLATION

Three primary and two secondary legislative authori-
ties are highlighted below to reflect the involvement of the
federal government in aquaculture. Grant-in-aid legislation
for programs administered by NMFS with aquaculture
implications is summarized in Section 2.3.2.

2.1.1 National Aquaculture Act (Public
Law 96-362)

Enacted in September 1980, the NAA states that it is
national policy “to encourage the development of aquacul-
ture in the United States.” It further cites that “the principal
responsibility for the development of aquaculture inthe U.S.
must rest with the private sector.” The purpose of the NAA
was to establish a National Aquaculture Plan and encourage
aquaculture activities and programs. Although funding was
authorized, no appropriation has been made.

The National Aquaculture Development Plan was pub-
lished in 1983 by the federalwide Joint Subcommittee on
Aquaculture. Volume I describes technologies, problems,
and opportunities associated with aquaculture in the United
States and its territories. Volume II contains an in-depth
discussion of important, selected aquacultural species and
an extensive bibliography.

2.1.2 Agriculture and Food Act of 1980

Title XIV of this legislation established five regional
aquaculture centers in Hawaii, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Mississippi, and Washington. The centers, jointly adminis-
tered by USDA’s State Research Service and Extension

Service, are authorized to conduct research, extension edu-*

cation, and demonstration projects that have national or
regional applications. Their primary mission is to enhance
viable, profitable commercial aquaculture production in the
United States.

2.1.3 National Aquaculture
Improvement Act of 1985

This legislation amended the NAA and established the
USDAas the lead federal agency for coordination of federal
activities and for dissemination of aquaculture information.
The message sent by: Congress in passing the NAIA is that

aquaculture is a form of agriculture. Expectations were that
the NAIA would help create new jobs, replenish depleted
fisheries, and reduce the trade deficit in fishery products.
The NAIA also required the Secretary of Commerce to
conduct a study on competition between aquaculture prod-
ucts and capture or “wild” fisheries and to recommend
measures to ameliorate any such adverse effects. This report
was restricted to an assessment of effects by aquaculture in
the U.S. seafood market and was published in April 1988
(Section 5.2.7).

2.1.4 Magnuson Fishery Conservation
and Management Act
Amendments of 1990

Of particular relevance to aquaculture is the provision
which requires the Secretary of Commerce to submit to
Congress a report making recommendations as to the need
for the adoption of U.S. import and export restrictions on
anadromous fish and anadromous fish products; and identi-
fying, evaluating, and making recommendations regarding
any specific statutory or regulatory restrictions that may be
necessary for the adoption of such restrictions.

2.1.5 Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance
Prevention and Control Act of
1990

Section 1207 of this act requires a task force to, “in
consultation with [s]tate fish and wildlife agencies, [with]
other regional, [s]tate and local entities, [with] potentially
affected industries[,] and [with] other interested parties,
identify and evaluate approaches for reducing the risk of
adverse consequences associated with intentional introduc-
tion of aquatic organisms.”

2.2 AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES AND
INVOLVEMENT

2.2.1 United States Department of
Agriculture

The USDA is the lead federal agency for coordination
of federal activities and for dissemination of educational
materials to assist aquaculture development. Specifically,
the USDA: (1) operates regional aquaculture centers for
conduct of aquacultural research, extension, and demonstra-
tion projects; (2) provides programs such as workshops for
new fish farmers, short courses on management and fish



Page 12

rating a $1.9-million federal cost-sharing participation).
Examples of these activities are fishway construction projects

on the East Machias River in Maine, the Herring-River in_

Massachusetts, the Pawcatuck River in Rhode Island, and.
Big Elk Creek in Maryland. Transplant studies have in-
cluded the stocking of adult American shad in Maine’s
Royal River, the planting of rainbow smelt eggs in Mill
Creek and the stocking of American shad eggs and spawning.
adults in the Charles River (both in Massachusetts), as well
as stocking American shad eggs in Pennsylvania waters of
Delaware River tributaries (Brandywine Creek).

The above summary presents only a synopsis of Public
Law 89-304 contributions to aquaculture.. A more detailed
description of objectives and results is available upon re-
quest from the SFCPD.

2.3.2.5 Oyster Disease Research Program

The ODRP administered by the NEROO has incorpo-
rated total expenditures of approximately $2.2 million ($1.5-
million federal cost-sharing participation) for 1990-91, The
ODRP was established to assess research and management
issues associated with the effect of shellfish diseases on
eastern oyster resources. Projects funded in Virginia, Mary-
land, New Jersey, Delaware, and South Carolina involve
various aspects of laboratory culture and/or hatchery rearing
of eastern oysters. The results of these studies are antici-
pated tonot only clarify disease processes affecting resource
viability, but also the success of cultural procedures essen-
tial to aquaculture-related management practices, particu-
larly in the Chesapeake Bay area. Research projects include
investigations on disease diagnostic techniques (34 per-
cent); disease resistance in native and non-native oysters (29
percent); transmission dynamics of oyster pathogens (16
percent); the life cycle of oyster parasites (11 percent); and
the success of genetic manipulations in minimizing suscep-
tibility to disease (10 percent).

Funds allocated under this program, in coordination
with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR) and the NSGCP, also supported an international
oyster management workshop in Annapolis during October
1991. The workshop included an overview on the ecological
effects of Pacific oyster introductions on the East Coast
(Section 5.2.4).

2.3.3 Sea Grant Research

_ The NSGCP is a major contributor to’ advances in
aquaculture research and development in the Northeast. The
NSGCP has prépared an Aquaculture Plan through a coop-
erative effort of involved institutions and has set priorities in
line with the National Aquaculture Development Plan of
1983. On average, the NSGCP funds | 10-120 aquaculture
projects nationwide, worth about $4.0 million each year

(University Corporation for Atmospheric Research 1989).
Examples of research at academic institutions in northeast-
em states during the past six years include: (1) Connecticut
-- shellfish bag relaying systems, effects of neoplasia on
softshell survival, competition for settlement sites between
eastern oyster spat and other larval shellfish, and biology/
cultivation of Atlantic seaweeds; (2) Delaware -- develop-
ment of marine and estuarine halophytes into food and
forage crops using seawater irrigation, artificial diets for
shellfish, production of algae, chemical ecology of feeding,
reproduction, and fright behavior of oyster drills as a means
for drill control; (3) Maine/New Hampshire -- blue mussel

Settlement patterns in Maine estuarine systems, research on

infectious pancreatic necrosis, establishment of a fish health
clinic for aquaculturists at the University of Maine, assess-
ment of effects of fin rot disease on wild and hatchery-reared
Atlantic salmon survival, artificial hormonal triggers for
fish ovulation, and the effect of eel grass on blue mussel
culture; (4) Maryland -- eastern oyster seed hatcheries and
grow-out facilities, carotenoid enrichment in microalgae for
aquaculture, commercial quality of wild-captured and cul-
tured hybrid striped bass, determining the demand for aquac-
ultural products, striped bass demonstration projects in farm
ponds, finfish and shellfish genetic engineering, and catfish
cage culture; (5) Minnesota -- walleye culture and publica-
tions on industry financing regulations, fish feed, and aera-
tion equipment; (6) New Jersey -- development of record
keeping for aquaculture (clam farming), genetic factors
associated with disease resistance and growth rates in east-
em. oysters, physiological factors associated with MSX
mortality in iatchery-produced.eastern oysters, and preda-
tor control nets for aquaculture systems; (7) Rhode Island
-- determining status of Atlantic salmon aquaculture, bay
scallop spawning and rearing, closed-system salmon cul-
ture, effects of disease treatment on nitrification in closed
system aquaculture, experimental culture-research facility
for American lobster, and optimizing the growth and mar-
keting of fish in a controlled environment, (8) Virginia --
hybrid striped bass aquaculture and market potential, blue
crab habitat preferences, disease resistance in eastern oys-
ters, culture of northern quahog and softshell, hatchery pilot
study for development of “eyed” eastern oyster larvae, soft-
shelled blue crab shedding systems, preparing cultch for
Temote eastern oyster setting systems, containerized north-
em quahog relaying, and crayfish production; and (9) Wis-
consin -- provision of advisory services to prospective fish
farmers, and technical and marketing assistance in the
commercial culture of lake whitefish.

2.3.4 USDA Program

The NRAC, one of five regional aquaculture centers
established by, is headquartered at the University of Massa-
chusetts - Dartmouth (see Chapter 5). The NRAC is funded
by the USDA at an annual level of approximately $700,000.



Page 30

Implementation Plan. This document has been prepared to
give perspective to previous and current NMFS participa-
tion in aquacultural activities and development in the North-
east. It should also serve to provide the basis for assessing
the future course of NER involvement in aquaculture as
necessitated by national policy guidance and potential modi-
fications to the NMFS Strategic Plan.

7. REFERENCES CITED

American Fisheries Society. 1991. Commercial aquacul-
ture: AFS position statement. Fisheries 16(1): 18-22.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1989. A
procedural plan to control interjurisdictional transfers
and introductions of shellfish. ASMFC Fish. Manage.
Rep. No. 13; 58 p. Available from: Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, DC.

Blogoslawski, W. 1988. Ozone depuration of bivalves
containing PSP: pitfalls and possibilities. J. Shellfish
Res. 7(4): 702-705.

Davis, H. 1971. Design and development of an environ-
mental controls system for culturing oyster larvae. In:
Price, K.; Mauer, D., eds. Proceedings of the Confer-
ence on Artificial Propagation of Commercially Valu-
able Shellfish -- Oysters, October 22-23, 1969; p. 135-
150. Available from: University of Delaware, College
of Marine Studies, Newark, DE.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1990. Cultivating the
future: an aquaculture strategy for the 90s (pamphlet).
Available from: Department of Fisheries and Oceans,
Ottawa, ON.

Gates, J.; Matthiessen, G.; Griscom, C. 1974. Aquaculture
in New England. URI Mar. Tech. Rep. Ser. No. 18,77
p. Available from: University of Rhode Island, Kingston,
RL

Goldberg, R. 1980. Biological and technological studies on
the aquaculture of yearling surf clams. Part I -- aquac-
ulture production. Proc. Nat. Shellfish. Assoc. 70: 55-
60.

Hanks, J. 1987. Molluscan shellfish culture in the United
States -- a perspective. In: Shellfish culture develop-
ment and management; proceedings of a seminar; 4-9
March 1985; LaRochelle, France; p. 37-58. Avaiable
from: France Research Institute for the Exploration of
the Sea, LaRochelle, France.

Hansen, L.P.; Hastein, T.; Naevdal, G.; Saunders, R.L.;
Thorpe, J.E., editors. 1991. Interactions between
cultured and wild Atlantic salmon. Aquaculture 98
(special issue).

Haven, D.; Hargis, W.; Kendall, P. 1978. The oyster
industry of Virginia: its status, problems and promise.
VIMS Spec. Pap. Mar. Sci. No. 4; 1024 p. Available
from: Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester
Point, VA.

Hayden, A.; Choate, J. 1990. The environmental impacts of
finfish culture. In; Gulf of Maine Working Group
Aquaculture Workshopsummary; selected papers from
a workshop; 1-2 March 1990; St. Andrews, NB; 53 p.
Available from: Huntsman Marine Science Center, St.
Andrews, NB.

Hildreth, R. 1991. Managing ocean resources: United
States. Int. J. Estuarine Coastal Law 6(4): 313-363.

Longwell, A.C. 1976. Review of genetic and related studies
on commercial oysters and other pelecypod mollusks.
J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 33(4): 1100-1107.

Loosanoff, V. 1971. Development of shellfish culture
techniques. In: Price, K.; Mauer, D., eds. Proceedings
of the Conference on Artificial Propagation of Com-
mercially Valuable Shellfish -- Oysters, October 22-23,
1969; p.9-40, Available from: University of Delaware,
College of Marine Studies, Newark, DE.

MacKenzie, C. 1991. Recent developments in the improv-
ing shellfisheries of Canada’s maritime provinces (ab-
stract). In: 11th Annual Shellfish Biology Seminar;
collected abstracts from a seminar, 26-27 February
1991. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Ser-
vice, Milford, CT.

Mahnken, C.; Joyner, T. 1973. Salmon for New England
fisheries. Part III: developing a coastal fishery for
Pacific salmon. Mar. Fish. Rev. 35(10): 9-13.

Maine State Planning Office. 1990. An aquaculture devel-
opment strategy for the state of Maine: executive sum-
mary; 19 p. Available from: Maine State Planning
Office, Augusta, ME.

Meade, J. 1989. Aquaculture management. New York:
Von Nostrand Reinhold.

Nakahara, H. 1992. The marine ranching system: the
integration of biology and engineering technology. In:
Svrjcek, R., ed. Marine ranching: proceedings of the
Eighteenth U.S.-Japan Meeting on Aquaculture, Port
Ludlow, Washington, 18-19 September 1989. NOAA
Tech. Rep. NMFS 106: 115-128.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1988. Aquaculture and
capture fisheries: impacts in U.S. seafood markets; 230
p. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service,
Silver Spring, MD.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1991. Strategic plan of
the National Marine Fisheries Service: goals and objec-
tives; 21 p. Available from: National Marine Fisheries
Service, Silver Spring, MD.

National Ocean Service. 1991. The 1990 national shellfish
register of classified estuarine waters, 51 p. Available
from: National Ocean Service, Rockville, MD.

Neikirk, R.; Theberge, B. 1987. A survey and ranking of
impediments to marine aquaculture in coastal states. In:
Jarman, M.; Conner, D., eds. Conference on Gulf &
South Atlantic fisheries: law & policy; proceedings of
a conference, 18-20 March 1987; p. 147-158. Avail-
able from: Louisiana Sea Grant College Program, Ba-
ton Rouge, LA, or Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant
Consortium, Oxford, MS.



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

x: INTRODUCTION

XS
SS 7 ; aoe
This document summarizes aquaculture-related activi-

ties by the Northeast Region (NER) of the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS). It describes management re-
sponsibilities of the NER Northeast Regional Operations
Office (NEROO) in the areas of state/federal cooperative
programs, habitat conservation, trade and industry assis-
tance, and fishery resource restoration and enhancement. It
also presents an historical perspective of research with
aquaculture implications conducted at laboratories of the

volvement by other organizations and pertinent legislative
authorities are discussed to enable a consolidated perspec-
tive of the associated federal roles and mandates.

Most management and research initiatives are directed
toward resources and aquaculture operations which occur
within the jurisdictional boundaries of state governments.
Accordingly, Chapter 3 highlights Maine and Maryland as
examples of intensive aquaculture programs in the North-
east. Interstate coordination through the auspices of the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC).is
also noted to demonstrate the increasing reliance on coop-
eration not only among states, but among the state, federal,
and privatesectors, in addressing issues of interjurisdictional
importance. -

The report concludes with a discussion of regional
concerns which are relevant to the current status and future
viability of the aquaculture industry.

’

LEGISLATION

The National Aquaculture Act (NAA) in 1980 estab-
lished national policy to encourage the development of
aquaculture in the United States. The National Aquaculture
Improvement Act (NAIA) of 1985 designated the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) as the lead federal
agency for coordination of federal activities and for dissemi-
nation of aquaculture information.

Legislation with particular relevance to NMFS began
with the enactment of Public Law 87-183 in’ 1961 which
authorized the construction of a federal shellfish culture
laboratory in Milford, Connecticut. Several financial assis-
tance programs established by legislative authorities and
administered by NMFS have also been germane to aquacul-
ture research and management. These include the Saltonstall-
Kennedy Act (S-KA), the Commercial Fisheries Research
and Development Act (CFRDA), the Anadromous Fish
Conservation Act (AFCA), and the Interjurisdictional Fish-
eries Act (IFA) of 1986.

Page v

FEDERAL AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

The USDA, through the establishment of five regional
aquaculture centers, provides a focus for the conduct of
research, extension, and demonstration projects on promi-
nent issues affecting the commercial industry. The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS), through a national policy,
encourages aquaculture development that is compatible
with sound public resource stewardship.

Within the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDC),
several agencies in addition to NMFS have aquaculture-
related programs. For example, the National Sea Grant
College Program (NSGCP) in the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Office of Oceanic

NER's Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC)=xIn_z, 20d Atmospheric Research (OAR) supports research, exten-

“=~ sion, and educational projects in cooperation with Sea Grant

and Land Grant institutions in coastal and Great Lakes
states. Also, NOAA’s National Ocean Service (NOS)
evaluates changes through the Nationa] Shellfish Registry
for certification of molluscan shellfishing waters, the results
of which are relevant to commercial aquaculture interests in
New England and the Mid-Atlantic regions.

NMFS RESEARCH IN THE NORTHEAST
REGION

The. genesis of NMFS aquaculture research was prior to
Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970 at which time the
USFWS Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (BCF) was re-
named NMFS, and transferred to the USDC. The first
permanent assignment of a full-time biologist and plans to
establish a laboratory in Milford, Connecticut, occurred in
1931. At that time, a small research program. was estab-
lished to address biological problems facing the shellfish
industry. 7

The development of methods for commercial shellfish
cultivation began in 1944. During that decade, federal
biologists established procedures for conditioning eastern
oysters to ripeness, inducing spawning and fertilization,
rearing larvae, determining food requirements, and growing
newly-set spat. The status of aquaculture-related research at
Milford was bolstered by Congress in 1961 through legisla-
tion to construct an expanded research center for shellfish-
eries production. Activities at this facility havecontinuedon
a variety of subjects including natural diets, genetics, disin- _
fection techniques for shellfish hatchery water, and culture
methods for eastern oysters, bay scallops, and Atlantic
surfclams.

An aquaculture liaison was appointed for the NER at
Milford in 1984. In 1992, the NEFSC established the
position of a research coordinator/liaison scientist to devise
and coordinate the design and development of projects and
activities to implement aquaculture goals of the NMFS
Strategic Plan (National Marine Fisheries Service 1991) in
the Northeast.

Preceding page blank |


5. AQUACULTURE INDUSTRY IN
THE NORTHEAST

5.1 INDUSTRY OVERVIEW

Throughout the Northeast, the establishment of agency
forums and advocate organizations in both the state and
private sectors has clearly facilitated the evolution of aquac-
ulture as a growing and integral component of food produc-
tion. The NRAC, located at the University of Massachusetts
- North Dartmouth, was established as an industry-driven
program aimed at solving problems and promoting profit-
able aquaculture throughout the United States (Section
2.3.4). The NRAC sponsors industry workshops such as
larval mortality assessment in commercial shellfish aquac-
ulture, the domestication of striped bass, and alternative
marketing options for aquaculture products. The NRAC
also administers, under USDA sponsorship, a financial
assistance program for aquaculture research. In 1991, the
NRAC approved a $50,000 Special Projects Fund to allow
expeditious consideration and support of small, emergency,
or innovative projects which have regional application and
are important to the northeastern aquaculture industry. An
initiative to prepare a comprehensive summary of the north-
eastern aquaculture industry is currently being coordinated
with the University of Rhode Island. The objectives of this
project are to: (1) compile estimates of private aquaculture
production and value; (2) identify future opportunities and
constraints facing the industry; and (3) identify principal
research directions based on industry need. An overall
assessment of the aquaculture industry in New England has
been previously conducted by the University of Rhode
Island’s Sea Grant Program (Gates et al. 1974). Among its
findings, that report concluded that species appearing to
have the greatest potential for commercial culture were the
eastern oyster, northern quahog, bay scallop, American
lobster, and coho salmon.

The USDA hasa second regional aquaculture center in
the NMFS Northeast Region, the North Central Regional
Aquaculture Center (NCRAC) located at Michigan State
-University, whose goals are the same as previously men-
tioned for NRAC. The NCRAC’s 1990 research priorities
included genetic research, development of feeds and stress
management for walleye culture, hybrid striped bass re-
search, yellow perch nutrition, and legal constraints to
aquaculture.

In Massachusetts, a lobster hatchery on Martha's Vine-
yard operated by the Commonwealth’s Division of Marine
Fisheries has produced approximately 500,000 juvenile
lobsters for stocking each summer along the entire coast of
the state. On the premise of a 10-percent survival rate to
adult size, the program would amount to an immediate value
of $130,500 (1986) to the commercial lobster industry
(Syslo 1986). This state program has demonstrated that
lobsters can be cultured. It is, however, a matter of whether

Page 23

commercial aquaculturists can make a profit. There are two
major obstacles to overcome: cannibalism, which necessi-
tates individual compartments for each lobster; and an
affordable pelleted lobster diet.

Aquaculture cooperatives have been established in
upstate New York. Several culturists have collectively
formed Empire State Aquaculture to share information and
insight, to reduce feed costs, and to promote marketing. The
cooperative will largely target cage culture of bullhead
catfish. Aquaculture has also sustained the eastern oyster
industry in New York, increasing landings from about
340,000 pounds to about 865,000 pounds between 1985 and
1989. However, the largest New York producer recently
reported unexplained massive population mortalities in one
of its growing areas. The cause of this setback, as well as the
teasons for widespread seasonal losses of cultured juvenile
eastern oysters along the Atlantic coast, are currently being
investigated by state, federal, and university scientists.

A new program has also begun in Connecticut to
revitalize the shellfishing industry. The state legislature has
provided significant funding for reef restoration and regula-
tory program expansion. Under the provisions of this
program, the industry is allowed to relay juvenile eastern
oysters from public grounds classified as restricted to pri-
vate leases in approved waters. In addition, there are
successful aquaculture operations in production. Eastern
oyster landings have, accordingly, increased from less than
one-million pounds to two-million pounds between 1985
and 1989.

Aquaculture not only offers some “farmers” (and com-
mercial fishermen) an alternative source of income, but
increases the contribution of edible fisheries products to the
reduction of the national trade imbalance which now stands
at $4.1 billion (American Fisheries Society 1991). Aquac-
ulture, integrated inland with other on-farm production, as
well ascoastally with other commercial fishing occupations,
allows harvesters to diversify and increase total profits.
Recent assessments in Maine have indicated that commer-
cial watermen are clearly able and willing to learn the
“ropes” and technical details necessary for productive aquac-
ulture operations. The key to this success is oftentimes
predicated upon the situation that such ventures tend to be
family-oriented, involve low overhead, and utilize existing
capabilities and skills in equipment construction, gear con-
figurations, etc. Primary impediments, however, include
“start-up” or seed money for the necessary initial business
investments, attainment of required permits, and what is
often perceived to be a burdensome public bureaucracy. For
example, a recent survey (Theberge and Neikirk 1987) of
Virginia aquaculturists ranked antiquated state laws and
regulations as the most serious impediment to the industry.
In 1984, the state’s general assembly delegated authority to
the VMRC to develop fisheries regulations and to prepare
management plans. Although thisact improved the VMRC’s
ability to manage traditional fisheries, the commission, in
the absence of legislation, is not effectively empowered to


Table 1. Continued

Page 9

Activity (State) Period Covered Project Costs
Federal State” Total
Freshwater Fish & Invertebrate Culture
Channel catfish 1968-78 $130,600 $46,300 $176,900
(L/MN/WV)
Freshwater drum 1974-78 $90,400 $30,100 $120,500
(OH)
Salmonid disease 1969-74 $54,600 | $18,200 $72,800
(OH) -
Leech-baitfish 1979-82 $30,900 $30,900 $61,800
(MN)
SUBTOTAL $306,500 $125,500 $432,000
Restoration/Stocking/Fisheries Enhancement
Lake trout 1969-76 $95,000 $92,200 $187,200
TM) :
American shad/river herring 1979-81 $88,400 $88,400 $176,800
(MA) :
SUBTOTAL $183,400 $180,600 $364,000
Processing Technology
Easter oysters 1969-73 $93,200 $93,200 $186,400
(TMD)
Freshwater drum 1976-78 $65,700 $52,000 $117,700
(OH)
SUBTOTAL $158,900 $145,200 "$304,100
TOTAL $7,800,000 $3,563,100 $11,363,100

mercial shellfish grounds and to assess the commercial
productivity of eastern oyster habitat, respectively. Several
studies were directed toward evaluation of aquaculture
systems/management analysis. For example, the Pennsyl-
vania Fish Commission examined the feasibility (e.g., cost
benefit analysis, nutritional needs, and fish survival) of
rearing channel catfish, rainbow trout, and walleye in verti-
cal silo units. That state also conducted a 10-year investiga-
tion on the development of guidelines for economical com-
mercial hatchery wastewater treatment systems. New York
in the late 1960s constructed depuration plants to perform
various experiments on aspects of northern quahog, softshell,
and eastern oyster contamination. Finally, in Illinois, stud-
ies addressed the stabilization of environmental conditions

in catfish production ponds, and examined the use of hydro-
ponics as a means of preventing waste accumulation ina fish
production system.

Freshwater fish & invertebrate projects included cul-
ture of channel catfish in West Virginia and the Great Lakes
states, effects of whirling: disease on the culture of salmonids
in Ohio, and the effects of transport on freshwater drum from
capture sites to pay-to-fish lakes and commercial hatcheries.

Fishery enhancement studies included assessing the
success of lake trout survival'and stocking programs in Lake
Michigan, and transplanting American shad and alewives to
restore depleted populations in Massachusetts. Efforts to
improve processing technology for aquaculture products
were undertaken by two states, Maryland and Ohio. The


Resource-Based Products Negotiating Group. Their strat-
egy was to swap access to EEC markets for EEC access to
USS. fishery resources. When the Uruguay Round of GATT
ended in November 1990, this issue had not been resolved,
and fisheries issues were not addressed.

2.5.3 Free Trade Agreements

It has been the Administration’s goal to “level the
playing field” in foreign trade by negotiating bilateral trea-
ties with the nation’s trading partners in order to eliminate
government subsidies, tariffs, and trade barriers. Since the
USS. fishing industry enjoys very few subsidies, it is advan-
tageous to eliminate foreign subsidies.

The U.S. recently began an investigation to determine
if antidumping regulations have been violated and if
countervailing duties should be implemented against the
Norwegian salmon aquaculture industry in connection with
U.S. industry charges that Norwegian salmon were being
sold in the United States at prices below their actual cost due
to subsidies and/or to garner market share at the expense of
U.S. producers.

Trade barriers take the form of tariffs and nontariff
measures. Tariffs are set for several reasons. Some tariffs
are created simply to provide revenues to the receiving
country’s treasury; they may also be set to discourage
imports and favor the domestic industry. Examples of
nontariff barriers are quotas on imports by species or prod-
uct type, excessively stringent testing procedures, placing
commodities into “quarantine” for excessive periods, or
simply banning the import of certain items. :

2.5.4 Inspection

The Voluntary Inspection Program provides a number
of marks on inspected fish and shellfish which denote
product quality and wholesomeness. These marks or seals
assure consumers that the products have been subjected to
tests and are of good quality when packed. This fee-for-
service program is funded through user fees borne by the
industry. The inspectors are NMFS employees or cross-
licensed personnel from other state or federal agencies who
have been trained by NMFS.

Some aquaculture operations in the Northeast are or
have been recently under Type I product inspection’ in
cooperation with the Voluntary Inspection Program. Blue
Ridge Fisheries, an indoor, farm-raised catfish company in
Martinsville, Virginia, had been under full-time inspection
until a viral infection depleted the stocks and the operation
was disbanded. Another facility participating in the inspec-
tion program was Ocean Products, Inc., of Eastport, Maine.
This is the largest net-pen operation in the Northeast. Re-
cently, the facility was acquired by Conners Bros., a Cana-
dian firm. The company is considering returning to the
inspection program.

Page 15

2.6 FISHERY RESTORATION AND
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAMS

This section addresses state and federal activities which
“fall outside” the customary public perception of aquacul-
ture, but nevertheless represent critical elements in resource
management programs which correspond to Meade’s defi-
nition of the term (Chapter 5). The following discussion
summarizes fishery management initiatives involving vari-
ous aspects of “stocking programs,” i.e., release and/or
husbandry of marine organisms (and materials) for the
purpose of maintaining, enhancing, or restoring the
Northeast’s commercial and recreational fisheries resources.
Assuch, it is important to note that the public benefits which
accrue from these programs would not result without exter-
nal intervention, i.e., the directed involvement by the respec-
tive fishery resource agencies.

2.6.1 Fishery Restoration

Restoration has been defined as rebuilding a population
of a native species to a level at which the spawning popula-
tion is of sufficient numbers to ensure optimal utilization of
the suitable habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1982).
The NEROO provides policy and technical representation to
several such initiatives in the New England and Mid-
Atlantic states. Notwithstanding the obvious linkage of
these state/federal anadromous fish activities to aquacul-
ture, their progress and status relative to the restoration of
species to historical spawning and nursery areas have been
addressed in great detail under separate documents prepared
by the respective programs. For purposes of this overview,
the major restoration programs which involve NMFS repre-
sentation are summarized briefly below with sole reference
to the goals and strategies for the respective species and
watersheds.

2.6.1.1 Connecticut River Program

The program to restore Atlantic salmon and American
shad to the Connecticut River began in 1967. The restora-
tion goal is to provide and maintain a sport fishery in the
Connecticut River Basin and restore and maintain a spawn-
ing population of Atlantic salmon in selected tributaries.
Supporting these goals are four objectives: (1) from natural
reproduction, achieve an adult salmon population of 7,470
individuals entering the mouth of the Connecticut River, (2)
utilizing cultured smolt and fry releases, establish an adult
salmon population of 11,795 individuals entering the mouth
of the Connecticut River; (3) provide for a sport harvest of
4,000 salmon; and (4) maintain an effective population of
5,570 Atlantic salmon.


Page 11

Table 2, Summary of aquaculture research under Public Law 89-304
Activity (State) Period Covered Project Costs

Federal State Total

Hatchery Construction
Atlantic salmon (CT/MA) 1973-83 $86,000 $86,000 $172,000
Coho salmon (MA) 1974-75 $22,400 $22,400 $44,800
Coho/Atlantic salmon (NH/MA) 1972-81 $592,900 $592,900 $1,185,800
SUBTOTAL $701,300 $701,300 $1,402,600
Hatchery Operation & Maintenance
Coho/Atlantic salmon (NH) 1974-83 $500,600 $620,900 $1,121,500
Fish Culture

Great Lakes salmonids (MI) 1967-76 $230,200 $305,100 $535,300
Walleye (WI) 1979-87 $150,400 $150,400 $300,800
Striped bass (ME/MD) 1982-88 $31,300 $31,300 $62,600
SUBTOTAL $411,900 $486,800 $898,700
TOTAL $1,613,800 $1,809,000 $3,422,800

Table 3. Summary of fishway construction and fish stocking (anadromous fish restoration) activities under Public Law 89-304

State (Major Area) Period Covered Project Costs
Federal State Total

MA (Cape Cod; Charles & Taunton Rivers) 1967-91 $770,300 $973,500 $1,743,800
ME (St. George, E. Machias, & Royal Rivers) 1969-91 $801,100 $801,100 $1,602,200
RI (Pawcatuck & Hunts Rivers) 1967-83 $150,600 $150,600 $301,200
NJ (statewide coastal areas) 1984-89 $63,400 $63,400 $126,800
MD (Big Elk & Tuckahoe Creeks) 1989-91 $60,000 $60,000 $120,000
PA (Brandywine Creek) 1967-70 $19,700 $64,000 $83,700
TOTAL 1,865,100 $2,112,600 $3,977,700

similarly evaluated for strains of striped bass - white bass
hybrids and striped bass - white perch hybrids cultured in
cages in hatchery ponds.

The construction of fish passage facilities and trans-
plant of wild fish from one watershed to another, for pur-
poses of re-establishing depleted populations of anadro-
mous fish, are not construed as direct aquaculture initiatives
in this document. Nevertheless, these restoration activities

are related to those aquaculture objectives which involve
human intervention to enhance resource productivity and
which foster development of the Northeast’s commercial
and recreational fisheries. Under the AFCA, the NEROO
has administered fishway construction and transplant projects
in Massachusetts, Maine, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Mary-
land, and Pennsylvania (Table 3). These projects represent
total expenditures of approximately $4.0 million (incorpo-


Page 24

manage aquaculture in Virginia. Most of the respondents to
the survey specifically mentioned the prohibition against the
use of the escalator dredge as an inappropriate law which is
the single most important impediment to aquaculture devel-
opment in the commonwealth (Neikirk and Theberge 1987).

Understandably, the aquaculture industry is concerned
that any involvement by regulatory agencies will delay the
“permit process” (see Section 5.2.2) and create costly re-
strictions on the applicants. Specifically, consultants are
often required to provide pre-project baseline data and
conduct physical and chemical monitoring studies; further,
commercial culturists fear that the government will restrict
their use of antibiotics and dictate the size and location of
farms. On the other hand, the industry is also understand-
ably excited about the merits in the potential economic
profitability of providing new products for a growing de-
mand, increasing employment opportunities, and establish-
inga brood stock which perhaps could be available to fishery
resource agencies for restoring historical runs of wild stocks
(See Section 2.6.1).

The following subsections address some of these and
other industry-related concerns in further detail.

5.2 INDUSTRY ISSUES
5.2.1 Economics

Obvious potential ingredients for successful aquacul-
ture ventures are: (1) profits must exceed the “up-front”
operational costs and compete with the current value of
products from the traditional “capture” fisheries (see Sec-
tion 5.2.7); and (2) in specific regions, that industry income
can be shown to bolster the financial stature of depressed
economic areas. With regard to the former ingredient, many
aquaculture operations have been shown to be high risk
endeavors since market value occasionally may be only 2-
3 times the operational culture cost per unit of product. Also,
these costs above a threshold amount could create a strong
bias against small or individual ownerships, including com-
mercial fishermen who seek to diversify their operations.

With respect to the latter ingredient, crayfish culture on
Maryland’s lower Eastern Shore, and Atlantic salmon net-
pen operations in Maine at Swans Island and Eastport, have
demonstrated the positive contributions of aquaculture to
the respective state economies. In New Brunswick, Canada,
further economic benefits have been identified which ex-
tend to other occupational sectors such as cage manufacture,
fish processing, boat makers, cement plants, packaging
firms, and transportation. It is of interest to note that, in’
Ireland, a multiplier of “3” has been utilized to generally
categorize the “downstream economics” of aquaculture
operations.

Twostates in the Northeast have estimated it would cost
approximately $9-10 million to build a salmon/trout hatch-
ery capable of raising 500,000 smolts per-year (National
Marine Fisheries Service 1988). For pen-reared salmon, the

estimate is $0.25-1.00 million for the construction, place-
ment, and associated costs of 12 pens and a five-acre site.
Additional add-on costs may include those for feed, capital,
skilled labor, trained managers, water (inland operations),
and chemicals. The cost of leasing marine tidal or subtidal
acreage from coastal states varies from $5 to $25 per acre
annually. Leases are usually for 10 years, but can be
renewed for subsequent 10-year periods.

The availability of information for new entrepreneurs
on technology, production costs, and market conditions
improves the assessment of risks and the securing of finan-
cial support considerably. For example, economic models
for aquaculture operations have received recent attention.

‘The joint USDA-University of Maryland’s Walnut Pond

Demonstration Project disseminates information on mar-
keting, growth rates, and production of striped bass hybrids.
The profitability of aquaculture, accordingly, will depend
on successful application of technology to assure optimum
levels of environmental control, mechanization, and system
development that are specific to different aquatic environ-
ments. 7

5.2.2 Habitat

As indicated in Section 2.4, the viability of aquaculture
operations depends on the availability and maintenance of
acceptable water quality conditions. With regard to com-
mercial harvest and culture operations for mollusks and
crustaceans, recent trends in state agency classification of
approved harvest areas, as reported by the National Ocean
Service (1991), present a case of special concern. For
example, in the Mid-Atlantic region, 5.3-million acres of
estuarine waters were classified for suitability of shellfish
harvest in 1990. Only 79 percent of these areas were
approved, and the remaining 21 percent were denoted as
“harvest limited.” In the North Atlantic region, 1.1-million
acres were also classified, this region experienced the larg-
est decrease in percentage of approved estuarine shellfishing
waters nationwide from 88 percent in 1985 to 69 percent in
1990. Loss of habitat due to development and pollution
severely limits the subsequent acreage available for aquac-
ulture purposes.

The Northeast aquaculture industry has been affected
adversely by public health concerns due to toxic phyto-
plankton blooms. To address this issue, an international
conference on toxic marine phytoplankton was held during
October 28 - November 1, 1991, in Newport, Rhode Island.
Sponsored by the NRAC andother agencies, the symposium
examined toxic blooms with respect to spatial and temporal
patterns, ecology, effects on public health and aquaculture,
and possible environmental triggers.

5.2.3 Disease Control

In September 1989, New England Salmonid Health



Page 6

a New York commercial shellfish hatchery--a collaborative
effort between the hatchery and the NMFS Milford and
Oxford Laboratories, Battelle Research Institute, Virginia
Institute of Marine Science, Rutgers University, and the
USDA's Northeastern Regional Aquaculture Center
(NRAC).

In 1984, the NEFSC appointed an aquaculture liaison
for the Northeast at Milford. In 1992, the NEFSC converted
the position to that of a research coordinator/liaison scientist
to devise and coordinate the design and development of
projects and activities to implement aquaculture goals of the
NMFS Strategic Plan in the Northeast. The responsibilities
of this position include advising aquaculture facility manag-
erson the probability that particular facilities will be capable
of meeting profit, research, or other objectives. The position
develops closer ties with industry through NMFS providing
direction for sponsored cooperative research on finfish,
bivalve mollusk, and crustacean culture. Also, the position
will be involved in determining the feasibility of aquacul-
ture/recruitment replanting of overfished species, especially
the demersal marine fisheries of the Northeast. Liaison will
be developed with the aquaculture industry to evaluate the
environmental risks posed by field plantings of aquacultural
species which add to natural recruitment by the wild finfish
and shellfish stocks.

2.3.2 NMFS-administered State/Federal
and Industry Grant Programs

The involvement of the NEROO’s grant programs in
aquaculture, both past and present, is as varied as the broad
definition of aquaculture allows. Each program (i.e., AFCA,
IFA, ODRP, S-KA, and CFRDA) has supported projects
that run the gamut from those considered traditional aquac-
ulture, such as culturing channel catfish in ponds and cages,
to managerial actions, such as eastern oyster shell planting
and anadromous fisheries evaluation and enhancement ac-
tivities.

The number of closed projects pertaining to aquaculture
far exceed the number of current projects. This, however, is
more an artifact of program length (e.g., CFRDA) and
legislative purview than lack of interest in aquacultural
research. In general, AFCA and IFA projects pertain to
enhancement either through direct stocking of various spe-
cies or through hatchery support. The projects under the
CFRDA cover a wide spectrum from eastern oyster bed
restoration in a number of East Coast states to channel
catfish culture in the Great Lakes area. The focus of ODRP
Projects ranges from developing strains of disease-resistant
eastern oysters, to understanding the mechanisms of disease
transfer, to characterizing the industry. The S-KA, on the
other hand, emphasizes the potential for intensive culture of
traditional commercial fishery species and aquaculture waste
management.

2.3.2.1 Saltonstall-Kennedy Act

The S-KA (Public Law 466, 83rd Congress, as amended)
is administered by NMFS. The legislation provides that a
fund (known as the S-K fund) will be used to provide grants
for fisheries research and development projects and to
implement a national fisheries research and development
program. The Federal Register notice of the availability of
Fiscal Year 1991 S-K funds included the following funding
priorities related to research for domestication and mass
culture of regional living freshwater and marine resources:
(1) developing methods to differentiate unmanaged cultured
species from the same species of wild stock toassist fisheries
management and enforcement activities; (2) assessing the
genetic effects resulting from the interaction between cul-
tured salmon which escape from net pens and wild fish; (3)
determining the effects of net-pen operations on the marine
environment, including assessment of the effect of antibiot-
ics utilized in fish feeds on native marine fauna and sedi-
ments; (4) improving efficiency and conserving water in
closed-cycle systems; (5) improving water quality in the
effluent; (6) assessing life cycles, nutritional requirements,
growth rates, toxicity levels, and hydrographic processes
that lead to blooms of important phytoplankton species such
as Heterosigma akashiwo which cause mortality in cultured
finfish; (7) developing and implementing a comprehensive.
long-range plan for sponge aquaculture operations in the
Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of the Marshall
Islands, and Republic of Palau; and (8) aiding the develop-
ment of the northern quahog industry by addressing genet-
ics, spawning/survival/growth parameters including habitat
requirements, and food supply for larvae.

During 1990-91, NMFS has awarded four grants in the
Northeast totaling $518,000 (with anticipated obligations of
$978,200 through Fiscal Year 1993) to study diverse areas
of the aquaculture industry. The following subsections
describe these grants.

2.3.2.1.1 Domestication and Mass Culture of
Summer Flounder

Research is being conducted by the University of Mas-
sachusetts in cooperation with the University of Rhode
Island and NMFS’s Beaufort (North Carolina) and Narra-
gansett (Rhode Island) Laboratories on controlled reproduc-
tion, larval culture, nursery culture of newly metamor-
phosed flounder, and grow-out culture to harvestable size.
This work involves the collecting and conditioning of spawn-
ing stock, determining larval nutritional requirements, de-
veloping cost-effective feeds, adapting heated seawater
recycle systems to permit rapid growth, and developing
production systems for sea cage culture.

This work is being performed on the basis of successful
turbot and Japanese flounder commercial enterprises in
Europe and Japan. Adaptation and application of aquacul-
ture methods used for those species are hoped to enhance the





Grow-outs are the major type of aquaculture operation,
but there are a significant number of fingerling and shellfish
seed production operations/hatcheries as well., Most opera-
tions are small-scale, private ownerships, but some larger
operations are owned by partnerships or corporations. More
product is sold tothe wholesale market than any other outlet,
but an important volume is also marketed to retailers, other
producers, and/or directly to:consumers. Approximately
550 people are employed in the state’s production of aquac-
ulture products. Projections indicate that aquaculture in
Maryland could become a $100-$200 million industry within
a relatively short time if institutional constraints are re-
moved and adequate research and extension efforts were
supported. Crayfish- aquaculture is one example of the
rapidly expanding Maryland aquaculture industry. In 1984,
only a few operations for this species existed, whereas today
over 40 are in operation on the lower Eastern Shore, an area
that has experienced severe economic distress.

The MDNR’s Oyster Propagation Program isa promi-
nent component of aquaculture in Maryland. The total
projected revenues in Fiscal Year 1990 resulting from this
program, under which eastern oyster seed and cultch are
planted on public eastern oyster grounds to maintain the
state’s commercial eastern oyster industry, were $2.7 mil-
lion, with an annua! dockside value of about $7.0 million.
The Private Oyster Propagation Program, similarly, is an-
other important component of the MDNR’s activities, in-
volving 9,500 acres and 935 leases.

Planned aquaculture research initiatives by the MDNR
include a feasibility study of a large net-pen culture facility
in tidal waters (tentative location near the Annapolis Bay
Bridge). Also proposed is an evaluation of various culture
techniques and the success of finfish and shellfish restora-
tion programs which utilize hatchery-produced fingerlings
and seed. .

The Maryland Aquaculture Bill of 1988 designated the
University of Maryland System as the lead agency for
aquacultural research and development of educational and

extension programs which promote aquaculture as an indus-

try.. Research at the Hom Point Environmental Laboratory
and other university locations has included studies on hatch-
ery and rearing techniques, genetics and breeding, diseases
and their treatment, nutrition, law, economics, marketing,
water quality, and product. development (University of
Maryland System 1991). The university system also pro-
vides-educational resources for training aquaculturists, sci-
entists, and technical personnel for support of a viable
aquaculture industry. Finally, extension activities are tai-
lored to industry needs. Such services include disease
diagnostics, water quality testing methods, pond design
consultation, technology for remote setting of eastern oys-
ters, and advice on construction and design of net pens or
cages for finfish culture. In 1990, Baltimore Gas and
Electric agreed to license the Maryland Department of.
Agriculture to operate its Crane Aquacultural Facility for the
next 10 years. Under the terms of this private/public
cooperative agreement, the Department of Agriculture con-

Page 21

tracts with the University of Maryland's Agricultural Ex-
periment Station to operate the facility for aquacultural
research, education, and demonstration.

3.3 ATLANTIC STATES MARINE
FISHERIES COMMISSION

The ASMFC was established in 1942 to represent the
interests and needs of the marine fisheries of its member
States from Maine to Florida. The purpose of the commis-
sion, as set forth by Congress in Article I of the ASMFC
compact is “to promote the better utilization of the fisheries,
tarine, shell, and anadromous, of the Atlantic seaboard by
the development of a joint program for the promotion and
protection of such fisheries.”

A State-Federal Fisheries Management Program, setup
in the mid-1970s, was formally modified in the early 1980s
and renamed the Interstate Fisheries Management Program
(ISFMP). Since then, the ISFMP has been supported
through grants and cooperative agreements funded and
administered by the NEROO, The goal of this state/federal
program is to manage, enhance, restore, and maintain the
shared fisheries of the Atlantic coast, with principal empha-
sis on the conservation and restoration of migratory marine
and anadromous fishery resources and their habitat.

* Two recent actions under the ISFMP have direct aquac-
ulture implications. The first involves the adoption, in 1990,
of the Interstate Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the
Atlantic Sturgeon. As an outgrowth of this FMP, an Aquac-
ulture and Stocking Committee has been organized, com-
posed of state and federal (i.e., NMFS and USFWS) repre-
sentatives. In 1991, the committee made six recommenda-
tions: (1) encouragement of research and development of
Atlantic sturgeon aquaculture, taking into account proper
genetic and ecological effects; (2) collection of broodstock
and release of progeny for restoration programs should be
carried out in ways that best maintain genetic integrity of
wild stocks; (3) proper care should be taken in translocation
of Atlantic sturgeon to protect against inadvertent spread of
diseases; (4) introduction of non-native sturgeon species for
commercial aquaculture should be permitted only after
consideration of spread of diseases, genetics, and ecological
effects are addressed; (5) field programs on Atlantic stur-
geon should collect material for genetic studies; and (6)
effectiveness ‘of restoration programs should be monitored
(including collection of any possible baseline population
data for receiving waters), stocked fish should be tagged,
and research on proper tagging methods should be done.

Secondly, the Shellfish Transport Plan (Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission. 1989) advocates the training
of shellfish biologists from ASMFC member states in the
detection and diagnosis of molluscan and crustacean dis-
eases and the establishment of a forum to assess ecological
effects stemming from the introduction and/or transfer of
shellfish within ASMFC jurisdictions. The plan also calls


Page 18

it was anticipated that the Salmon for New England Program
would be accepted and expanded by the state fishery re-
source agencies.

In October 1975, the NEROO prepared a draft environ-
mental impact statement concerning the Salmon for New
England Program under the provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act. Review of the document, how-
ever, received strong opposition from private Atlantic salmon
conservation groups. Their contention was that a successful
program would, over time, divert public attention and fiscal
Tesources away from the ongoing Atlantic salmon restora-
tion initiatives in New England. Additional concerns were
expressed over disease aspects associated with the introduc-
tion of nonindigenous species, and potential competition
with Atlantic salmon over food and habitat requirements.
Although each concern was addressed and alleviated by the
NEROO in the context of safeguards and available scientific
literature, the coho salmon component of the program
received no further serious attention beyond late 1976 due to
the associated controversies.

The Atlantic salmon component of the Salmon for New
England Proposal was “revisited” in September 1979 when
the USFWS Northeast Region requested cooperation from
the NEROO in seeking technological assistance from the
NWAFC tostabilize the egg supply for state/federal Atlantic
salmon programs in New England. This assistance was
requested due to the poor return of sea-run Atlantic salmon,
a situation which severely restricted the number of eggs
available for restoration efforts in the Merrimack and Con-
necticut Rivers. The immediate goal was to provide 400,000
eggs (fertilized by sperm from Penobscot sea-run stock)
from Atlantic salmon captive brood stock maintained in
marine net pens at the NWAFC’s Aquaculture Experiment
Station.

Shortly after receipt of the 1979 request from: the
USFWS, officials of NMFS and USFWS met to discuss the
proposed initiative. Asa result of this meeting, the USFWS
prepared position paper, “An Accelerated Atlantic Salmon
Brood Stock Development Program,” for review by the
private sector. This paper stated that the USFWS and state
fishery resource agencies viewed the NMFS initiative and
its potential implementation as a major positive step in
testoring Atlantic salmon to Southern New England rivers.
The initiative, thereafter referred to as the Atlantic Salmon
Brood Stock Program, was approved and subsequently
funded between 1979 and 1982 by the NMFS Washington
Office and the NEROO ($75,000 each, annually). The
NWAFC also provided $33,000 each year of in-kind funds
to the initiative and invested nearly $150,000 for construc-
tion of facilities needed to support requirements of the brood
stock program. In addition to providing funds, the NEROO
served asa liaison among the NWAFC, participating North-
east fishery resource agencies, NMFS Washington Office,
and the private sector.

The program had two major long-term objectives: (1)
to produce five-million Atlantic salmon eggs annually for 10
years to restore runs in the Merrimack, Connecticut, and

Pawcatuck River systems -- an objective similar to one of the
two goals in the NWAFC’s 1972 Salmon for New England
proposal; and (2) to improve marine husbandry techniques
for rearing Atlantic salmon brood stock by researching the
development of nutritionally adequate brood diets for uni-
form maturation, maximum fecundity, and gamete viability,
the improvement of techniques for detection, prevention,
and control of disease, the development of techniques for
synchronous ovulation; and the development of spawning
strategies.

The associated benefits were: (1) to provide a reliable
and continuous supply of high-quality eyed eggs to maintain
astable smolt production program at New England hatcher-
ies based on genetic stocks desirable for restoration; (2) to
accelerate Atlantic salmon restoration in Southern New
England by making possible an extensive fry stocking
program; and (3) to provide a model production-scale sys-
tem for research on captive marine brood stocks.

The program represented NMFS's contribution to a
joint state/federal partnership in a proposed long-term effort
to restore Atlantic salmon to New England waters. The
restoration program had a first-step objective of providing a
sustained recreational harvest of 7,000 fish per year from the
Connecticut and Merrimack River systems. Based upon the
catch per unit effort and angler expenditure data developed
for this fishery in Maine waters, achievement of this objec-
tive could have resulted in annual expenditures by recre-
ational fishermen of $2.7 million annually (1983 dollars).

Over 9,600 juvenile and 25,000 Atlantic salmon fry
were reared at the NWAFC’s Manchester Station for East
Coast brood stock purposes as of March 1983. During this
period, 176,000 eggs were shipped to New England hatch-
eries for subsequent stocking. A goal of 3.5-million eggs
was anticipated for shipment by 1984.

In July 1984, the Northeast Regions of NMFS and
USFWS signed an “Atlantic Salmon Brood Stock Program
Disease and Certification Protocol,” which governed pro-
gram procedures to be followed beginning in 1984. At that
time, the USFWS Washington Office, however, made it
clear that the program was construed as a “variance” to that
agency’s Fish Health Protection Policy and Salmonid Fish
Health Protection Program. Accordingly, there was a strong
suggestion that the NMFS Manchester program be consid-
ered only as a short-term need, and that the activities be
phased out as soon as possible. Also in mid-1984, the
USFWS established a state/federal Atlantic Salmon Disease
Advisory Committee to prepare a policy for setting forth the
essential requirements for restricting the spread of Atlantic
salmon diseases and to contain them within their known
geographic ranges. The draft policy included a stipulation
that “no salmonid gametes, fertilized eggs, or fish from IHN
(infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus)-positive geographi-
cal areas (defined by the document as the entire western
coastal United States) shall be transferred to New England
coastal facilities. The NEROO presented a minority opinion
that, in lieu of a total prohibition of egg shipments, the
Atlantic Salmon Broodstock Program be continued, follow-



and academia is evident in addressing the management and
research aspects of aquaculture in the Northeast.
Aquaculture is often seen as separate and distinct from
the traditional commercial fisheries. The relationship be-
tween aquaculture and the capture fisheries is often assessed
from both economic and biological perspectives. A 1988
report by the USDC concluded that dockside prices received
by U.S. fishermen are lower than they would be otherwise,
in the absence of cultured products. Yet, from another
viewpoint, aquaculture is seen by others asa complementary
commercial industry with similar interests--e.g., a healthy
and unpolluted environment, conservation and productivity
of the nation’s fishery resources, and profitable seafood
marketing channels. The success of present and future
aquaculture efforts, as well as the viability of the existing
capture fisheries, is contingent upon acceptable water qual-
ity. This fact, while recognized by the resource community
as a given, will likely become even more pronounced in
public view as aquaculture issues receive continued atten-
tion. The use of endemic species is often advocated for
aquaculture to ensure that operations do not pose a threat to
the genetic integrity and health of wild stocks. Otherwise,
even stricter standards must be considered to ensure that
non-native stocks do not unintentionally escape outside the
confines of aquaculture facilities. One major concern facing
the industry, the states, and the federal government, are the
chemicals employed in fish culture for disease treatment,
and the regulatory status pertaining to their use. The U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently estab-
lished a Work Group on Quality Assurance in Aquaculture

Page vii

to address the proper use of drugs (chemicals), avoidance of
illegal residues in food fish, and the drug approval process.

Understandably, the aquaculture industry is concerned
that any involvement by public regulatory agencies may
cause costly restrictions on its operations. On the other
hand, the industry is optimistic about the merits in the
potential economic profitability of providing new products
for a growing demand, increasing employment opportuni-
ties, and establishing a brood stock which could be valuable.
to fishery resource agencies for restoring historical runs of
wild stocks.

SUMMARY

Given the recent growth of aquaculture operations in
the Northeast, it is anticipated that many ongoing aquacul-
ture ventures will expand rapidly and that new ones will
develop. This document provides an overview of aquacul-
ture research and management activities in the Northeast in
order to facilitate an assertive and proactive response to
national efforts in improving opportunities for U.S. aquac-
ulture. It also was written to enhance the NER’s ability to
respond to public inquiries and internal questions concern-
ing not only “where we've been” but also “where we're
going” relative to aquaculture-related involvements. It will
also serve as a basis for assessing the future course of NER
actions in aquaculture as necessitated by national policy
guidance and potential modifications to the NMFS Strategic
Plan.


Page vi
NMFS GRANT PROGRAMS

The involvement of the NEROO’s grant programs in
aquaculture is as varied as the broad definition of aquacul-
ture allows. In conjunction with state fishery resource
agencies, academia, the fishing industry, and other private
interests, projects have been conducted covering a range of
activities from channel catfish culture to eastern oyster shell
planting to hatchery wastewater systems. During the past 25
years, approximately $18 million have been devoted by
NMFS-administered programs to aquaculture-related re-
search. These programs include projects funded under the
CFRDA, AFCA, IFA, S-KA, and the Oyster Disease Re-
search Program (ODRP).

The CFRDA (Public Law 88-309) has been the major
contributor to aquaculture research. During the 23-year
period during which funds were apportioned under this
legislation, the NEROO administered approximately 80
aquaculture-related projects, conducted or coordinated by
state fishery resource agencies in the New England, Mid-
Atlantic, and Great Lakes regions. This represented expen-
ditures of about $11.4 million ($7.8-million federal share)
under the Public Law 88-309 program. The aquaculture
activities were divided among six primary categories: ma-
rine fish & shellfish culture (71.8 percent); environmental
monitoring (10.7 percent); aquaculture systems (7.8 per-
cent); freshwater fish & invertebrate culture (3.8 percent);
restoration/fisheries enhancement (3.2 percent); and pro-
cessing technology (2.7 percent).

OTHER REGIONAL INVOLVEMENT

Aquaculture-related activities have also included NMFS
participation and responsibilities in the areas of habitat
conservation, trade and industry services, and fishery resto-
ration programs. Notably, the NEROO, in collaboration
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the state
of Maine, have developed and agreed to a joint federal/state
permit application for aquaculture projects. The joint appli-
cation will satisfy requirements for securing USACOE,
state, and EPA’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System permits. Federal permits are required for coastal
aquaculture operations. Major regulatory concems associ-
ated with these permits include review of site selection,

* water quality, pollution, disease transmission, and introduc-
tion of non-native species.

The NMFS Office of Trade and Industry Services’
Technical Services Unit supplies technical support to the
Codex Alimentarius Commission. The Codex Committee
on Fish and Fishery Products has endorsed a recent proposal
by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization's (FAO)
Fisheries Department for reviewing a Code of Hygienic
Practice for the Products of Aquaculture. Also, the NMFS
Voluntary Inspection Program is cooperating with private

aquaculture operations in the Northeast through a fee-for-
service arrangement in the evaluation of product quality and
wholesomeness.

The NEROO provides policy and technical representa-
tion to several state/federal fishery restoration initiatives in
New England and the Mid-Atlantic. These include pro-
grams to restore Atlantic salmon to the Connecticut and
Merrimack Rivers, and American shad to the Susquehanna
and Delaware River watersheds.

In 1970, NMFS initiated an experiment at the North-
west and Alaska Fisheries Center (NWAFC) to determine
the feasibility of developing an Atlantic salmon brood stock
on the West Coast to provide a source of eggs for restocking
New England rivers. The potential for expansion of this
study was enhanced in 1972 when the NWAFC, in conjunc-
tion with the NEROO, developed a cooperative state/
federal proposal entitled Salmon for New England.’ The
proposal provided alternatives for the enhancement of rec-
reational fishing in New England.

Inaddition to providing an Atlantic salmon egg source,
the envisioned initial efforts involved a pilot program to
hatch coho salmon in existing state hatcheries, and subse-
quently, to rear the cultured fish in saltwater pens on Plum
Island Sound, Massachusetts. In 1975, the coho salmon
component of the proposal was deleted, primarily due to
opposition from private Atlantic salmon conservation groups.

The revised proposal was renamed the Atlantic Salmon
Brood Stock Program in 1979 when the USFWS requested
assistance from NMFS in stabilizing the egg supply for
state/federal Atlantic salmon programs in New England.
The program continued from 1979 to 1982, and represented
NMFS’s contribution to a joint state/federal partnership in
a proposed long-term effort to restore Atlantic salmon to
New England waters. As of 1983, over 9,600 juvenile and
25,000 fry were reared at the NWAFC’s Manchester Station
for East Coast brood stock purposes. During this period,
176,000 eggs were shipped to New England hatcheries for
subsequent stocking. A goal of 3.5-million eggs was antici-
pated for shipment the following year. In 1984, the program
was terminated prematurely due to perceived disease risks
and fish health concerns.

INDUSTRY ISSUES

Throughout the Northeast, the establishment of agency
forums and advocate organizations in both the public and
private sectors has facilitated the evolution of aquaculture as
a growing and integral component of food production.
Recent assessments in the Northeast have indicated that
commercial watermen are willing and able to learn the
“ropes” and technical details necessary for productive aquac-
ulture operations. The availability of information on tech-
nology, production costs, and market conditions improves
the evaluation of risks and the obtaining of needed financial
support. Increasing liaison among government, industry,



probability for success with summer flounder culture in the
United States.

2.3.2.1.2 Waste Treatment and Energy
Recovery in Closed-Cycle
Aquaculture Systems

The goal of this project, conducted by Fresh-Culture
Systems, Inc., located in Kutztown, Pennsylvania, is to
develop an economically feasible, indoor, medium-scale
aquaculture system for raising both coldwater and warmwater
finfish species year-round in urban and rural regions in the
northeastern United States. A demonstration facility, treat-
ing fecal wastes from aquaculture operations, will be oper-
ated and monitored for the efficacy of the system’s design to
treat waste and produce methane. The methane will be used
to heat the water required in the aquaculture facility.

Successful completion of this project will demonstrate
significant cost advantages to medium-scale, year-round,
indoor aquaculture for finfish species such as striped bass
and rainbow trout.

2.3.2.1.3 Growth and Metabolism Energy
Budget of Lake Sturgeon

This investigation explores the relationships between
food ration and growth for lake sturgeon collected in the
Great Lakes region. Standard metabolism will be deter-
mined in flow-through respirometers for a wide range of fish
sizes at temperatures typical of the sturgeon’s natural habitat
and hatchery environments. The data will be used to
construct a model of energy flux and feeding and growth
rates to identify optimal culture practices.

It is anticipated that this project will determine the
energy budget for lake sturgeon, classified as rare by the
U.S. Department of the Interior and threatened by the state
of Michigan, thereby providing essential data for hatchery
culture and habitat management practices/policies for propa-
gation of this species. The work is being conducted by the
University of Michigan in cooperation with the Michigan
and Wisconsin Departments of Natural Resources. The
growth energetics aspects of the study are being coordinated
with the University of Miami.

2.3.2.1.4 Development of Benthic-threshold
Environmental Impact Model for
Net-Pen Atlantic Salmon Culture
Mutually Beneficial to Aquaculture
and Traditional Fisheries

This project, conducted by the University of Maine, is
assessing the environmental effect of organic enrichment
derived from net-pen Atlantic salmon culture production
wastes upon the benthic community in Maine’s coastal

Page 7

marine waters. The study is being performed at an aquacul-
ture facility located near Swans Island, and will calculate
carbon flux to the bottom from sediment trap and core data
from samples taken seasonally during various production
stages.

2.3.2.2 Commercial Fisheries Research and
Development Act

The CFRDA (Public Law 88-309) was enacted in 1964
to authorize the Secretary of Interior (Secretary of Com-
merce subsequent to the Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970)
to cooperate with the states through their respective state
agencies in carrying out projects designed for the research
and development of the commercial fisheries resources of
the nation. This law was repealed effective October 1, 1987,
with the enactment of the IFA of 1986. During the 23-year
period during which funds were apportioned under this
legislation, the NEROO administered approximately 80
aquaculture-related projects conducted or coordinated by
state fishery resource agencies in the New England, Mid-
Atlantic, and Great Lakes states. Costs incurred under these
aquaculture projects comprised about 16 percent of the total
federal funds made available to the 19 states served by the
NER. This represented aquaculture-related expenditures of
$11,363,100 ($7,800,000 federal share) unadjusted for in-
flation under the Public Law 88-309 program. The aquac-
ulture activities were divided among six primary categories
(Table 1): marine fish & shellfish culture (71.8 percent);
environmental monitoring (10.7 percent); aquaculture sys-
tems/management analysis (7.8 percent), freshwater fish &
invertebrate culture (3.8 percent); restoration/stocking/fish-
eries enhancement (3.2 percent); and processing technology
(2.7 percent).

Shell planting to maintain, restore, and/or perpetuate
the eastern oyster commercial fisheries, primarily in the
Chesapeake and Delaware Bays, comprised the major com-
ponent of the marine fish & shellfish culture projects.
Approximately 37 percent ($2,891,900) of the federal funds
awarded under this category were allocated under the re-
source disaster provisions (Section 4b) of the act. Funds
were awarded under this section when the Secretary of
Commerce determined that there was a failure of the eastern
oyster commercial fishery due to natural or undetermined
causes. The disasters were declared (through a notice in the
Federal Register) in 1972 resulting from Tropical Storm
Agnes and again in 1987 resulting from prolonged drought
and warm temperatures in 1985/86 which caused the spread
of major eastern oyster diseases. The importance of shell
planting toeastern oyster aquaculture is discussed in Section
2.6.2. Other research conducted under this category in-
cluded northern quahog and bay scallop culture techniques,
and a pilot study on the commercial rearing of winter
flounder at the University of New Hampshire.

Environmental monitoring projects were conducted by
New York and Virginia to monitor water quality on com-


AFCA
ASMFC
BCF
CBF
CFRDA
DFO
EDA
EEC
EPA
FAO
FDA
FMP
GATT
HHS
IFA
THN
ISFMP
LOP
MAIC
MDA
MDNR
NAA
NAIA
NASCO
NCRAC
NEFSC
NER
NEROO
NESDIS
NMFS
NOAA
NOS
NRAC
NSGCP
NTIS
NWAFC
OAR
ODRP
S-KA
SFCPD
USACOE
USDA
USDC
USFWS
VMRC

Page ix
LIST OF ACRONYMS

Anadromous Fish Conservation Act

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
(USFWS) Bureau of Commercial Fisheries
Chesapeake Bay Foundation

Commercial Fisheries Research and Development Act
(Canada) Department of Fisheries and Oceans
(USDC) Economic Development Administration
European Economic Community

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

UN. Food and Agriculture Organization

(HHS) Food and Drug Administration

fishery management plan

governing agreement on tariffs and trade

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act

infectious hematopoietic necrosis

(NMFS/ASMFC) Interstate Fisheries Management Program
letter of permission

Maine Aquaculture Innovation Center

Maryland Department of Agriculture

Maryland Department of Natural Resources

National Aquaculture Act

National Aquaculture Improvement Act

North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization
(USDA) North Central Regional Aquaculture Center
(NER) Northeast Fisheries Science Center

(NMFS) Northeast Region

(NER) Northeast Regional Operations Office

(NOAA) National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
(NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service

(USDC) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) National Ocean Service

(USDA) Northeastern Regional Aquaculture Center
(NOAA) National Sea Grant College Program
(USDC) National Technical Information Service
(NMFS) Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center
(NOAA) Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
Oyster Disease Research Program

Saltonstall-Kennedy Act

(NEROO) State, Federal, and Constituent Programs Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Department of Agriculture

U.S. Department of Commerce

USS. Fish and Wildlife Service

Virginia Marine Resources Commission


As of December 1990, the NRAC was supporting nine
regional projects involving 11 states, 11 universities, three
federal agencies, and over adozen private companies (North-
eastern Regional Aquaculture Center 1990). These projects
included: (1) genetic improvement of the eastern oyster for
commercial culture in the Northeast; (2) genetic manipula-
tion and sex control in striped bass; (3) analysis of the
economics and marketing of farmed finfish in the Northeast;
(4) governmental regulation of growth and development of,
and improving the legal framework for, aquaculture in the
Northeast; (5) a Northeast Regional Aquaculture Extension
Program for a more viable, profitable industry; (6) genetic
manipulation of eastern oysters through hybridization and
polyploidy; (7) a Northeastern Regional Aquaculture Cen-
ter Newsletter; (8) increasing aquaculture production in the
Northeast through nutrition; and (9) commercial field trials
of MSX-tesistant strains of the eastern oyster.

Aquaculture research is a priority under another major
USDA program to support agricultural research entitled,
“The National Initiative for Research on Agriculture, Food

- and Environment.” This initiative is authorized at $500
million annually by the 1990 farm bill. Congress has
appropriated $73 million for the first year of this.program.
These are new dollars and do not come at the expense of
other USDA efforts (Northeast Regional Aquaculture Cen-
ter 1991). The program has six component areas: (1) natural
resources and the environment; (2) nutrition, food quality, or
health; (3) processes antecedent to adding value or develop-
ing new products; (4) markets, trade, and policy; (5) animal
systems; and (6) plant systems. .

In addition, the USDA administers a competitive grant
program under its Special Research Grants Program. The
objective of this program is to enhance the knowledge and
technology base necessary for the continued growth of the
domestic aquaculture industry. Emphasis is placed on
research leading to improved production efficiency and
increased competitiveness of private-sector aquaculture in
the United States. During Fiscal Year 1991, priority re-
search categories included disease and parasite control, and
integrated aquatic animal health management.

2.4 HABITAT AND WATER QUALITY

The aquaculture industry, as well as the traditional
commercial and recreational fishery user groups, have been
and will continue to depend upon good environmental water
quality. The quality of the aquatic environment is critical not
only to the health and survival of the fishery resources on
which the industry depends, but also to public acceptance
and consumer confidence in the resultant fishery products.
For coastal aquaculture, and perhaps more notably for pond/
containment culture operations, their success will require a
large volume of high quality, virtually “free” water. Regu-
lating parameters such as ammonia, dissolved oxygen, and
water temperature will require the development of reliable

Page 13.

techniques to measure and control water quality for opti-
mum production.

Thrée initiatives have been conducted in the NMFS
Northeast Region over the last four years which have.
effectively facilitated federal/state/private industry coordi-
nation and communications in addressing the habitat-re-
lated concerns of aquaculture operations. First, the NEROO,
the state of Maine, EPA, USFWS, and the USACOE’s New
England Division have developed application guidelines for
net-pen aquaculture projects. The joint application will
satisfy requirements for securing USACOE, state, and EPA’s

- National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits.

The guidelines are intended to minimize adverse environ-
mental effects, reduce permit process time, and monitor the
environmental effects of net-pen aquaculture.

Second, the NEFSC published a guide for enhancing
estuarine molluscan shellfish populations. Habitat deterio-
ration (e.g., shellfish beds silted over so that larval settle-
ment is inhibited) is thought to be a major factor in the
resource declines. The guide describes suitable and unsuit-
able shellfish bed characteristics, survey techniques, and
habitat improvement measures. The information contained
in this publication directly benefits not only state/federal
resource and habitat managers, but also shellfish aquacul-
ture operations along the northeastern Atlantic coast.

~ Last, in May 1988, the NEROO, in cooperation with the
Maine Department of Marine Resources and the USFWS,
met with Maine and Canadian fish farming representatives
at various field operation sites. These interests represented
the Maine Aquaculture Association, fish farm owners, New
Brunswick Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Canada’s De-
partment of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and Environmen-
tal Protection Service. During this round of field site
reviews, information was exchanged concerning the status
and concerns of aquaculture operations in Maine and Canada.
Topics discussed included pollution, spread of disease from
pen-raised salmon to wild stocks, effects on the wild salmon
gene pool, hydrology, the use of antibiotics, and the effects
of aquaculture on traditional fisheries. -

With regard to salmon farming operations in southern
New Brunswick and northeastern Maine, protected areas
along the coast have been found'to be ideal for the culture of
Atlantic salmon. Presently, many sheltered areas are occu-
pied for other purposes, and aquacultural industry expan-
sion appears to be contingent on the development of fish
containment systems technology for more exposed or on-
shore locations.

Federal permits are required for coastal aquaculture
operations under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act
and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In the review.of
federal permits for aquacultural activities, ‘issues of site
selection, water quality, pollution, diseases, and the intro-
duction of non-native species present major regulatory
concerns to finfish and shellfish farming ventures. Specifi-
cally, some of these concerns include: (1) pollution from
residual feeds, feces, and other excreta; (2) altered water


“pp93114072 _ \
aati |

|
~B MM Mo A SS.

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NER-4

This TM series is used for documentation and timely communication of preliminary results,
interim reports, or special purpose information, and has not undergone external scientific
review.

Aquaculture in the Northeast Region
of the
National Marine Fisheries Service

Harold C. Mears
Northeast Regional Operations Office, National Marine Fisheries Serv., Gloucester, MA 01930

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Barbara H. Franklin, Secretary
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
John A. Knauss, Administrator
National Marine Fisheries Service
William W. Fox, Jr., Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
Northeast Region ‘
Northeast Regional Operations Office
Gloucester, Massachusetts

July 1992
oat

.( REPRODUCED BY }
| U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
| NATIONAL TECHNICAL
1 INFORMATION SERVICE
: SPRINGFIELD, VA 22161





Page xi

FOREWORD

In the November 1990 reorganization of the NER, the NEROO’s State, Federal, and Constituent Programs Division
(SFCPD) was assigned responsibilities relating to aquaculture/mariculture issues and policy. Concurrent with this
reorganization, amandate to formulate plans and enhance the NER’s involvement in aquaculture was articulated in the NMFS
Strategic Plan.

This document provides a comprehensive overview of aquaculture activities in the Northeast in order to facilitate an
assertive and proactive response to the NMFS Strategic Plan. It was also written to enhance the NER’s ability to respond
to public inquiries and internal questions concerning not only “where we've been,” but also “where we're going,” relative
to aquaculture-related involvement. We anticipate that this document will also serve as a valuable reference to assist in the
development of acoordinated regional framework with respect to current and future operating/regional implementation plans
and consequent aquaculture program activities in the NER.

In recognition that aquaculture entails organizational involvement and program interests which “cut across” division
lines as well as between research and management, a request to facilitate the input for this document was forwarded to all
NER units in March 1991. The material presented in this document is largely based upon review of available documents
in the NER’s files, of outside information sources such as Sea Grant newsletters, and of personal communications between
SFCPD staff, state representatives in Maine and Maryland, and other NMFS personnel in the NER and headquarters.

The NER serves 19 states in three geographical areas: New England, the Mid-Atlantic, and the Great Lakes. This
document emphasizes marine aquaculture along the Atlantic coast; however, activities for inland states are briefly
summarized, particularly with respect to federally funded research, in Section 2.3.2, Time constraints in the preparation of
this document preclude verification of selected data, such as industry economic references. Most details for such accounts
have been taken from single sources and not checked against others for verification.

| Preceding page blank




Page 20

university research organizations; (5) lack of public under-
standing that the aquaculture industry, as well as traditional
fisheries, depend on good environmental quality in Maine's
coastal waters; and (6) lack of an adequate, organized
market institution for sale of cultured seafoods.

Subsequent strategies to ‘address these impediments
included the encouragement of a positive investment cli-
mate for small entrepreneurs, designating a lead state agency
to support development of aquaculture, ensuring consis-
tency in the regulatory process, the protection and enhance-
ment of coastal water quality, and development of acompre-
hensive plan for use of coastal waters. Recently, thestate has
negotiated a consistent application, assessment, and moni-
toring protocol with the USACOE and EPA with regard to
aquaculture. The application eliminates unnecessary and
duplicative requirements on the applicant and on the in-
volved agencies.

In 1989, the Maine Aquaculture Innovation Center
(MAIC) was formed through a partnership between the
Maine Agricultural Experiment Station's Fisheries and
Aquaculture Research Group, the Maine Aquaculture Asso-
ciation, the Maine Department of Marine Resources, and the
Maine Science & Technology Commission. The MAIC was
established for the purpose of creating industry/academic
partnerships to help overcome obstacles to success in aquac-
ulture. The NEROO awarded a $250,000 grant tothe MAIC
to study the environmental effects of ocean cage rearing of
salmon in thestate. The MAIC also receives anapproximate
$250,000 appropriation from the Maine Science & Technol-
ogy Commission to fund other components of its 1991
research program, such as commercialization of triploid
eastern oysters and advanced spawning of Atlantic salmon
and Donaldson rainbow trout. The MAIC’s board of direc-
tors voted in June 1991 to leave its current office quarters at
the University of Maine and operate as part of the Maine
Aquaculture Association. 7

A collaborative research effort has been initiated be-
tween-North Atlantic Aquaculture, Inc., of Eastport, the
Washington County Technical College, andthe St. Andrews
(New Brunswick) Biological Station. Technologies are
being developed for the rearing of larval Atlantic halibut and
the collection of zooplankton for the halibut’s first-feeding
stage. A prototype submersible: grow-out cage is being
constructed for bottom-dwelling flatfish which will be tested
at the Eastport lease site. Researchers believe that the halibut
has the potential to be a viable aquaculture species due to the
low abundance of wild stocks and high market demand.

The MAIC and the college are currently planning to
establish a Northeast Finfish Aquaculture Center in Eastport
on Cobscook Bay, the watershed from which originates
most of Maine's cultivated salmonid production. The
Proposed components of the center are a diagnostic labora-
tory for finfish health services, educational facilities for
finfish aquaculture training, and a visitor's center.

In July 1991, “An Act Regarding Aquaculture” (Chap-
ter 381 of the Public Laws of 1991) was passed by the Maine
legislature which includes provisions for amandatory leas-

ing program for net-pen and suspended shellfish aquacul-
ture operations, with those under threshold sizes excused
from certain elements of the application process (e.g.,
adjudicatory hearings). The act also calls for a “tax” from
suspended-culture operations, the proceeds from which will
enhance the capabilities of the Department of Marine Re-
sources in the continued monitoring of approved aquacul-
ture leases. Finally, due to disease transmission concems,
the new legislation provides for a prohibition by 1995 on the
import of salmonid (excepting rainbow trout) eggs and
smolts into the state from Icelandic or European territorial
waters, or from areas west of the North American continen-
tal divide. -

3.2 MARYLAND

The Maryland Department of Agriculture (unlike the
state agriculture agency in Maine) is the lead organization
for promoting and coordinating aquaculture-related con-
cers. The MDA employs an aquaculture coordinator, and
integrates agency responsibilities with industry participa-
tion through the State Aquaculturist Association.

The MDNR is responsible for the enforcement of laws
and regulations pertaining to all aquaculture in the state,
ensuring that industry operations do not spread disease or
parasites, or otherwise adversely affect wild stocks of fish or
shellfish. Within the MDNR, the Tidewater Administration's
Fisheries Division includes the Hatchery and Aquacultural
Programs Unit. This organizational unit, established in
1989, is composed of a staff of three professionals charged
with the responsibility for all finfish hatcheries, for restora-
tion programs for (production of) striped bass, yellow perch,
and American shad, and for permitting/consultation for
commercial aquaculture projects. Additional missions en-
compass industry issues associated with- importation of
exotic species, the state's eastern oyster bottom-lease pro-
gram, eastern oyster cultch plantings, and experimental
research located at the MDNR/NMFS Cooperative Labora-
tory in Oxford. Within the MDNR, the 1992. budget for
aquaculture-related programs is approximately $1.7 mil-
lion.

InMaryland, there areapproximately.90 permitted sites
for hybrid striped bass culture, and three for channel catfish
production. Finfish aquaculture production figures esti-
mated for 1990 were:

Species Production Average Total
(Ib) Price Value

(S/lb) (S)
Hybrid striped bass 250,000 3.50 875,000
Channel catfish 107,600 1.50 161,000
Rainbow trout 48,500 5.27 256,000
Tilapia 21,700 3.86 84,000



ing strict inspection/certification procedures under the terms
of risk assessment protocols. However, in November 1984,
the Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission voted
(5 in favor, 2 in opposition, and 1 abstention) torecommend
that the USFWS, on the basis of the Draft Disease Control
Policy, not import Atlantic salmon eggs from brood stock
being reared by NMFS in Puget Sound.

Accordingly, the anticipated shipment of eggs from
Manchester during the spring of 1985 did not occur, thereby
terminating the Atlantic Salmon Broodstock Program. In
September 1989 (nearly five years later), the New England
Atlantic Salmon Committee, a policy-level group represent-
ing that region’s Atlantic salmon restoration initiatives,
voted unanimously to adopt the New England Salmonid
Health Guidelines initially drafted in 1984.

3. STATE AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

State government involvement in aquaculture issues
varies considerably within the Northeast. The extent of this
involvement, which has greatly increased over the past
decade, largely depends on legislative and organizational
authorities, resultant public policies, the availability of
educational support to foster communication among the
government/academic/private sectors, and the status as well
as evolution of aquaculture operations in the respective
jurisdictions.

Leasing of subtidal lands from state governments for
shellfish and finfish culture occurs in several states, ¢.g.,
Connecticut--40,000 acres; Maine-- 1,050 acres; Maryland-
-9,500 acres; and Virginia--110,000 acres. Most of these
leases are almost exclusively associated with shellfish pro-
duction. -Approximatély 48 percent of leases in Maine,
however, are devoted to either finfish or combined finfish/
shellfish operations. Since 1987, the demand for shellfish
leases has diminished, and that for finfish has increased (511
finfish sites as of May 1991), presumably due to industry
economics.

Notwithstanding federal involvement as discussed in
Chapter 2, it is actually state (versus federal) government
which exercises the most control over aquaculture due to
state jurisdictional authorities (Hildreth 1991). In this
chapter, Maine and Maryland are highlighted to demon-
strate examples of active aquaculture programs in the North-
east. Interstate activities through the auspices of the ASMFC
are also noted to provide an indication of the increasing
reliance on coordination, not only between states, but be-
tween the state and federal sectors as well, in addressing
aquaculture issues of interjurisdictional interest.

3.1 MAINE

The major species cultured in Maine are Atlantic salmon,
rainbow trout, blue mussels, and eastern oysters. Potential

Page 19

also exists for increased production of trout, clams, scallops,
and American lobsters. The aquaculture industry has shown
rapid growth in the past decade, Cultivated seafood prod-
ucts in 1979 were valued at approximately $450,000. In
1990, the salmonid net-pen industry became the second
most valuable “fishery” in the state valued alone at $25
million (landed product only) versus $62 million for the
commercial American lobster fishery. For comparative
purposes, the commercial groundfish and Atlantic herring
fisheries were valued at approximately $21 million and $3
million, respectively. The major species raised in Maine’s
net-pen industry are Atlantic salmon and sea-run rainbow
trout. In 1989, there were 15 firms, 17 sites, 355 pens, and
9 hatcheries. In 1991, the associated production figures
were about 10-million pounds for salmon and 280,000
pounds for trout. Approximately 80 percent of salmon
aquaculture production is located in Cobscook Bay, Maine,
on the southwesterly shores of Passamaquoddy Bay. Cur-
rently, these farms vary in size from a single, four-pen
operation witha total annual production of 80,000 pounds to
farms with over 130 pens.

Most of the existing and proposed salmon aquaculture
Projects in Maine involve a 4-8 pen operation. Generally,
net pens are approximately 12 meters square, 6 meters deep,
and consist of two nets, one to hold the fish and the second
for protection from predators. Each pen holds approxi-
mately 3,000 fish.

In Maine, state aquaculture responsibilities are shared
by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (salmon
eggs and smolts in freshwater jurisdictions), the Department
of Marine Resources (primary regulatory authority relative
to permit requirements), and the Department of Environ-
mental Protection (water quality certification). Unlike other
states, Maine’s agricultural agency (the Department of
Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources) has no direct in-
volvement in aquaculture regulatory matters.

In 1987, the aquaculture statutes pertaining to the
Maine Department of Marine Resources were changed to
reflect an increased level of review prior to the approval of
an aquacultural lease. This change was due primarily to
alleviate conflicts between traditional fishermen and shell-
fish aquaculturists. In 1988, the Maine State Planning
Office and the Maine Department of Marine Resources,
with funding support from the EDA, convened an Aquacul-
ture Development Committee that included state agency,
university, and industry representation. A report (Maine
State Planning Office 1990) resulted which assessed the
economic potential of aquaculture in Maine and devised a
public policy strategy designed to support the aquaculture
industry in meeting research, marketing, environmental,
and technological challenges. Identified impediments to the
industry included: (1) inaccessibility of information essen-
tial to aquaculture development; (2) lack of a lead state
agency to coordinate effective action; (3) insufficient state
services to aid the industry, such as programs for training,
inspection, and grading; (4) lack of coordinating aquacul-
ture research and development among federal, state, and


Page viii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Iam grateful to the following people who contributed to this project: Walter Blogoslawski, Tony Calabrese, Glenn
Flittner, Stan Gorski, David Ham, Lee Harrell, Joyce Lacerda, Mike Ludwig, Chris Mantzaris, Dave Moisan, Tom Moreau,
Sandra Nadeau, Susan Olsen, John Pearce, Bob Rubelmann, Diane Rusanowsky, and Dick Seamans. lespecially appreciate
the input and encouragement provided by Ken Beal, Jim Hanks, and Bob Pawlowski. Virginia Fay devoted many hoiirs to
this task and assisted in extensive editing of early drafts.

E. Penn Estabrook of the Maine Department of Marine Resources and Ben Florence of the Maryland Department of
Natural Resources contributed valuable information pertaining to the section of the document describing state’ agency
involvement. :



Page 10

former involved a study on the techniques for cleaning and
shucking eastern oysters (for commercial sale) through the
use of vibration, ultraviolet light, and thermal shock. The
Ohio project investigated the development of processing
technology that would allow extended storage and utiliza-
tion of cultured freshwater drum products.

The above summary presents only a “bird’s eye” view
of Public Law 88-309 program accomplishments. A more
detailed description of the objectives and results of aquacul-
ture projects is available upon request from the NEROO’s
SFCPD.

2.3.2.3 Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act

The IFA of 1986 (Title III of Public Law 99-659) is a
formula-based financial assistance program with two over-
all purposes: (1) to promote and encourage state activities
in support of the management of interjurisdictional fisheries
resources; and (2) to promote the management of
interjurisdictional fisheries resources throughout their range.
Any state may, either directly or through its interstate
commission, submit a research program which supports
management of fishery resources: (1) for which a fishery
occurs in waters under the jurisdiction of one or more states
and the U.S. Exclusive Economie Zone; (2) for which there
exists an interstate fishery management plan; or (3) which
migrate between the waters under the jurisdiction of two or
more states bordering on the Great Lakes. Aquaculture-
telated activities which have been conducted by the ASMFC
(supported by IFA funds) are summarized in Section 3.3.

During 1987-91, five aquaculture-related projects have
been conducted at an estimated total cost of $1.0 million
($15,400 nonfederal match) in the states of Delaware,
Maryland, New Jersey, and Vermont. Projects in the Mid-
Atlantic states ($916,300) have been funded under the
resource disaster provisions of the IFA, which are similar to
those previously incorporated under Public Law 88-309 for
restoring the viability of commercial fisheries adversely
affected by natural or undetermined causes. Specifically,
state activities have involved the planting of eastern oyster
shell cultch material and an expanded eastern oyster seed
distribution program in efforts to alleviate losses to the
commercial industry resulting from disease-associated
mortalities in the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays.

One goal of the ongoing Atlantic salmon restoration
programs in New England is to restore naturally sustained
populations of sea-run Atlantic salmon in the Connecticut
River system. The present programs are sustained through
stocking of hatchery-reared smolts and fry. In Vermont, the
Department of Fish and Wildlife, in cooperation with the
University of Vermont, is assessing the first-year survival
and growth of Atlantic salmon stocked as either feeding or
nonfeeding fry at various densities in the White River;
additional investigations are evaluating the habitat param-
eters which affect fry survival. This research is anticipated

to provide critical information determining the efficacy of
fry stocking in Vermont waters and the data necessary to
develop models to allow adjustments of fry stocking levels
on a stream-by-stream basis.

2.3.2.4 Anadromous Fish Conservation Act

The AFCA (Public Law 89-304) was enacted in 1965 to
authorize the Secretary of Interior (and Secretary of Com-
merce subsequent to the Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970)
to cooperate with the states in carrying out projects for the
conservation, development, and enhancement of the nation’s
anadromous fish resources and fish in the Great Lakes and
Lake Champlain that ascend streams to spawn. During the
25-year period during which funds have been apportioned
under this legislation, the NEROO has administered ap-
proximately 15 aquaculture-related projects conducted by
state fishery resource agencies in the New England, Mid-
Atlantic, and Great Lakes states. These projects represent
total expenditures of approximately $3.4 million (incorpo-
rating a $1.6-million federal cost-sharing level of participa-
tion) divided between three primary categories (Table 2):
hatchery construction (41 percent); hatchery operation &
maintenance (33 percent); and fish culture (26 percent).

The major program expenditure involved the construc-
tion, operation, and maintenance of an anadromous fish
hatchery in Milford, New Hampshire, by the New Hamp-
shire Fish and Game Department. The objectives of this
initiative were to hatch, rear, and release coho and chinook
salmon in an effort to generate a marine coastal recreational
fishery; and to hatch, rear, and release Atlantic salmon
smolts to facilitate meeting the goals of the Merrimack River
Anadromous Fish Restoration Program. Construction funds
were also allocated to Connecticut and Massachusetts for
enhancing Atlantic salmon culture capabilities at the
Kensington and Sunderland hatchery facilities, respectively.
Also in Massachusetts, a study was funded to investigate the
feasibility of raising coho salmon in heated seawater under
varying salinity and temperature conditions.

Fish culture projects have been conducted by Michigan,
Wisconsin, Maine, and Maryland. The Michigan study
investigated the effects of disease on salmonid (brook/
brown/rainbow/lake trout and coho/chinook salmon) sur-
vival, and systematic control of ectoparasites in hatcheries.
Studies in Wisconsin were directed toward assessing the
survival and growth of hatchery-reared walleyes stocked as
fry and fingerlings in Green Bay. In Maine, striped bass eggs
have been obtained from New York, raised to fingerling size
at the federal fish hatchery in North Attleboro, Massachu-
setts, and transported/released in Maine’s Kennebec River
in efforts to re-establish a spawning population in that
watershed. Striped bass investigations in Maryland have
assessed the relative viabilities and potential for growth of
larvae originating from adult spawning stock in three areas
of Chesapeake Bay. Differences in growth/survival were



In Canada, the New Brunswick Department of Fisher-
ies and Aquaculture has adopted what essentially can be
referred to as an extension approach to assure the orderly
development of the aquaculture industry. These activities
have included institutional changes, fish health monitoring
programs, and development of a leasing/licensing policy for
the allocation of provincial marine lands for aquaculture.
Direct provincial involvement with private industry has
addressed the selection of freshwater and marine aquacul-
ture sites, disease diagnostics, and parasite research.

5.2.6 Trade and Marketing

In 1989, the United States imported $5.5 billion worth
of edible seafood products and exported $2.3 billion, result-
ing in a differential of $3.2 billion. At the same time, the
demand is increasing--per capita consumption of seafood in
the United States increased approximately 24 percent be-
tween 1980 and 1989. The lack of market availability of
more desirable wild species (product) acceptable to the
consumer, coupled with a concurrent need to decrease the
fishery trade deficit, has been responsible for increasing
industry interest in commercial aquaculture of finfish and
shellfish to accommodate the increased demand for seafood.

In an industry where packaging, package colors, and
portion sizes are important concerns, one overriding im-
pediment is the lack of an organized marketing framework
for the sale of cultured seafood. One example which
demonstrates contrasting differences is how Norway has
succeeded in marketing its salmon aquaculture product
advertised on American (including New England) restau-
Tant menus as “Norwegian salmon,” not Atlantic salmon,
which in fact it is. At a recent Boston Seafood Show, the
Norwegian Salmon Marketing Council sponsored taste tests
and offered prizes (cookbooks) to the American public,
providing an opportunity for consumers to see new types of
portion-controlled and value-added products from Norwe-
gian-cultured salmon. Along with fresh and frozen whole
salmon, the council contended that the new products make
Norway the number one supplier of value-added products to
the American market. The council also publicized a tele-
phone number to obtain recipes and additional information
for Norwegian-cultured salmon: (800) EAT-SALMON
(328-7256).

Many foreign salmon-producing countries directly sub-
sidize market initiatives of private companies through bro-
chures and other publicity avenues. Unconfirmed figures
estimate that freight costs alone for salmon produced in
Chile and shipped to American markets are about $0.90 per
pound, Yet the Chilean market is apparently able to offer
aquacultured salmon in the United States at $2.90-3.25 per
pound.

The NRAC recently hosted a workshop to discuss
funding priorities under the heading “Alternative Marketing
Options to Improve Profitability of the Northeastern Aquac-
ulture Industry.” The highest ranked priorities were market-

Page 27

ing strategies, marketing constraints, regional identification
of products, and new products with value-added potential.
The workshop participants summarized these top priorities
into two categories: (1) situation analysis which covers
structure, conduct, and performance of the industry, public
perceptions, food safety, and consumer education and health
awareness, and which, in turn, would provide an assessment
for dealing with marketing constraints, domestic and inter-
national competition, product distribution, and the financial
structure of the industry, and (2) the potential for value-
added products, buyer-consumer awareness, niche markets,
trade names, and actual product development.

The baitfish and aquarium trade industries are often
overlooked by those who intuitively restrict their definition
of aquaculture to the production of food commodities. A
recent survey discussed in the November 1991 issue of
Catfish and Aquaculture News indicated that freshwater live
bait sales in the United States totaled $609 million in 1985.
The industry is controlled especially by seasonal marketing
factors, including weather and sales. In addition, the market
is affected by government regulations on the use of chemi-
cals used to control the spread of disease during handling
and shipping. Irregularities in state inspections and quaran-
tines in the interstate commerce of commercially raised fish
have also been identified as prominent concerns affecting
the industry.

Ata recent Midwest Aquaculture Conference cospon-
sored by the NSGCP, marketing factors discussed as affect-
ing the aquarium industry (native fish trade) involved opti-
mum size and aesthetic considerations. In Minnesota,
aquarium fish wholesalers and pet stores that retail native
game fish must be licensed by the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources to preclude sale of other than hatchery-
raised fish.

Aquaculture interests in the United States may be
affected by a February 1991 directive adopted by the EEC.
That directive, which becomes effective January 1993,
defines the animal health conditions governing the placing
onthe market of aquaculture animals and products. An EEC
commission has been instructed to create a list of countries
whose products are approved for import into the EEC.
Products must meet the EEC-approved health conditions
and shipments must be accompanied by a certificate drawn
up by appropriate authorities.

5.2.7 User Conflicts

There is no question that the growth of aquaculture has
ledtoincreasing concerns about its effects on the Northeast’s
historical commercial fisheries. User conflicts are apparent
among the Mid-Atlantic states as reported by Virginia Sea
Grant (1990):

In New York, there isa fierce competition for both
waterfront and bay bottom use. Access to suitable
bottom space is limited by townships who view


Page 28

water bottom as a public resource for commercial
and, more so, public recreational use. Dedication
of significant water bottom for use in aquaculture
is clearly problematic. In Maryland, there is a
continuing opposition even to bottom leasing; the
traditional watermen viewing this as a competitor
totheir lifestyle. In Virginia, there is a much older
diversity with both public fisheries and private
bottom leases serving an industry; however, there
remains staunch opposition to limitation of access
of public watermen to previously productive oys-
ter bottom.

The selection of sites for aquaculture operations is a
particularly sensitive concern. For example, in Maine, the
priority of “rights” assigned to potential sites is vested in the
existing commercial fishery and the “nearby” property
owner. Prominent environmental and social sensitivities
include the effect of aquaculture operations on the endemic
flora and fauna, the protection of property owners” access,
and the effects upon navigation and commercial fishing
activities. Other areas of concern include the effects .of
aquaculture upon salmonid restoration efforts, and the aes-
thetics (i.e., size, color, and shape) of aquaculture facilities.
The latter issue includes opposition by landowners who
maintain they have a right to a view of pristine waters.

The competition for use of public lands for aquaculture
purposes is not limited to inshore coastal waters, but also
extends into waters under federal jurisdiction. These issues,
as well as an overview of state regulatory authorities in
Connecticut and New York, are briefly summarized in Terry
(1977).

The relationship between aquaculture and the capture
(historical) fisheries is often assessed from both economic
and biological perspectives. For example, a 1988 report by
the USDC evaluated whether existing capture fisheries in
the United States are adversely affected by competition from
commercial aquaculture enterprises. This report concluded
that dockside prices received by U.S. fishermen are lower
than they would be otherwise (i.e., in the absence of cultured
products) in the U.S. market. However, U.S. consumers
enjoy benefits of lower salmon and shrimp prices that are the
result of unrestricted foreign imports.

From a biological viewpoint, it has.been widely recog-
nized that aquaculture standards must be established to
ensure that aquaculture operations do-not adversely affect
the conservation and enhancement of wild stocks. The use
of endemic species only is often advocated for aquaculture
(Sections 2.6.2.3 and 5.2.3). Otherwise, even stricter stan-
dards must be considered to ensure that non-native stocks do
not escape, or are not released, outside the confines of the.
aquaculture facility (pens, nets, etc.). In the case of hybrid
striped bass aquaculture, for example, state permit regula-
tions often restrict operations to nontidal lakes, ponds, or
compounds, thereby assuring that the non-native strains do
not enter tidal waters or “contaminate” the natural stocks.
Similarly, concern has been expressed that aquaculture for

selected species may encourage market opportunities for
fish from depressed stocks illegally captured from the wild
population. In this respect, the ASMFC has approved a
resolution that whereas aquaculture-raised striped bass pro-
duced for market create a potential for the illegal capture of
undersized wild striped bass that could undermine manage-
ment and enforcement goals, all member states should
identify hybrid striped bass for market through uniform
labeling and tagging procedures.

Clearly, from one perspective, aquaculture is seen as
separate and distinct from the traditional commercial fisher-
ies and as a potential threat to their existence. Yet, from

‘another viewpoint, aquaculture is seen by others asa comple-

mentary commercial industry which has many of the same
attributes and interests, e.g.,a healthy and unpolluted aquatic
environment, conservation and productivity of the nation’s
fishery resources, and profitable seafood marketing chan-
nels. This relationship becomes even more aligned, consid-
ering that aquaculture operations, by their nature, depend
upon the existing traditional fishery services, such as whole-
salers, processors, packagers, and transportation. In addi-
tion, several examples can be used to demonstrate potential
commonalities between the two livelihoods. For instance,
the commercial harvesting of American lobsters and the
cultivation of blue mussels can form a single employment
opportunity. Similar equipment and fishing skills could
conceivably be utilized to take advantage of peak seasonal
variations in the productivity of the respective occupational
endeavors (Maine State Planning Office 1990).

In Canada, most jurisdictions recognize the potential
for adverse effects of aquaculture on wild fish, but believe
that the government should make efforts to reduce unneces-
sary constraints on the aquaculture industry to support
aquaculture through research and development, but not with
capital; and to coordinate the involvement of diverse gov-
emment departments so that aquaculture is not continuously
embroiled.in red tape. The. prevailing Canadian view
recognizes the risks in supporting aquaculture development
while maintaining conservation of the
wild fisheries, but also acknowledges that risk management
implies regulation, not prohibition (American. Fisheries
Society 1991). An ideal scenario would be to treat all
interest groups ina fair and equitable manner, as commercial
fishermen, aquaculturists, recreationalists, and developers
contend for use of the public resources and the aquatic
environment they depend upon.

6. NMFS POLICY AND STRATEGIES

‘This document demonstrates that the NER has had an
involvement in aquaculture since the inception of the agency.
With few exceptions, however, this involvement has been:
more a result of circumstantial management/research pro-
gram priorities and events, than a directed, concerted ap-
proach toward assessing the. NER’s role in enhancing the
development of the aquaculture industry. From one per-



Page 16

The American shad restoration effort, although not as
formally structured as the salmon program, has the follow-
ing objective: provide an annual run of 1,000,000 adult shad

- back to the mouth of the Connecticut River by the year 2000
in order to support a sport harvest of 100,000 adults and a
commercial harvest of 150,000 adults.

2.6.1.2 Merrimack River Program

The current initiative to restore Atlantic salmon and
American shad to the Merrimack River began in 1968 by
Massachusetts. The initiative became an interagency (two
federal and three state fishery resource agencies) coopera-
tive effort in.1979. ‘The goal of the long-range plan -- to
restore the Atlantic salmon resource to a level of optimal
utilization of the existing habitat in the Merrimack River for
public benefit -- has two supportive objectives. The first is
to achieve an annual production of 86,000 wild smolts in the
Pemigewasset River system. The second objective is to
ensure that 1,000 adults in excess of the spawning popula-
tion will be available for sport harvest annually within the
mainstem of the Merrimack River system.

The planning effort relating to restoring American shad
hasasingle long-term objective -- to provide an annual, self-
sustaining run of adult shad of 1,000,000 individuals back to
the mouth of the Merrimack River.

2.6.1.3 Delaware River Program

The Delaware Basin Fish and Wildlife Management
Cooperative was organized by unanimous consent of the
directors of the fish and wildlife resource agencies of
Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, and
the regional offices of NMFS and the USFWS. Its formation
Particularly reflects recognition of the need for a unified
approach to management of the interstate fishery resources
of the basin.

The need for this organization is exemplified by the
reduced availability of some fishes, the poor suitability of
parts of the river for fish, and the recognized potential for
damage to the resource through water resource and related
development projects. It is the purpose of this organization
to review basin matters in order to provide input.on behalf
of fisheries in the planning process, and to promote a viable
fisheries program to protect and, where possible, enhance
the resource. Presently, the cooperative devotes most of its
efforts on American shad and striped bass restoration.

2.6.1.4 Susquehanna River Program

In. 1962, an administrative committee composed of
Tepresentatives from the states of Maryland, New York, and
Pennsylvania, the USFWS’s former Bureau of Sport Fish-
erties & Wildlife, and the BCF was established to study the

river and assess the watershed’s suitability for spawning of
American shad. In 1976, the Susquehanna River Anadro-
mous Fish Restoration Committee was formed to administer
programs for the restoration of American shad and other
migratory fishes. The ultimate goal is to develop a self-
sustaining annual run of two-million shad to the river above
dams.

2.6.2 Fishery Enhancement

Other programs to improve commercial and recre-
ational fisheries can be grouped under the term “fishery
enhancement.” The following subsections selectively ad-
dress examples of such programs, including commercial
fish stocking activities, eastern oyster replenishment projects,
and a joint NMFS Northwest/Northeast Region initiative to
generate enhanced recreational coastal fisheries for coho
and Atlantic salmon.

2.6.2.1 Stocking of Commercial Fish Species

Stocking programs have been and are being conducted

throughout the country in areas where population growth,
watershed development, and increased fishing pressure
have decreased the spawning potential and habitat of many
fish species. A California program provides a unique
example of this type initiative. At the Hubbs:Sea-World
Research Institute and San Diego State University, re-
searchers have combined resources under the Ocean. Re-
sources Enhancement and Hatchery Program to develop the
technology for culturing and releasing juvenile marine fish
(Sport Fishing Institute 1991). In 1977, experiments began
with striped bass as a potential species for enhancement
within San Diego Bay. After several successful releases,
efforts expanded toa white seabass culture program in 1982,
with the collection of juvenile fish donated by local anglers,
and the subsequent raising of these fish to spawning size.
_ In 1983, the California legislature gave life to the
program under authority of the California Department of
Fish and Game. The bill provides support funds through the
sale of $1 (sport) and $10 (commercial) marine enhance-
ment stamps attached to southern California fishing li-
censes. The California program is being evaluated through
marking of hatchery-reared fish (tetracycline) and coded
wire tags to track individual release groups. The program is
being broadened to include other species suchas the Califor-
nia halibut.

Inthe Northeast, notwithstanding the success of Pacific
salmon introductions into the Great Lakes (Tody and Tanner
1966) and ongoing restoration efforts for Atlantic salmon
(by all New England states except Rhode Island) and striped
bass (by Maryland, Virginia, and Maine), hatchery pro-
grams for the express purpose of providing enhanced sport
and commercial fisheries have been limited. Notable ex-
amples include coho/chinook salmon (in New Hampshire





diseases, and aquaculture demonstration projects; (3) pro-
vides a repository for national aquaculture information
through the agency’s National Agricultural Library [c/o
Aquaculture Information Center, U.S. Department of Agri-
culture, 10301 Baltimore Boulevard, Room 111, Beltsville,
Maryland 20705; (301) 344-3704], and participates with
NOAA in the collection and distribution of aquaculture
information from around the world as part of an international
project coordinated by the FAO; (4) conducts research on
the market opportunities for aquaculture products; (5) con-
ducts research to determine causes of off-flavor in freshwa-
ter catfish, improve productivity and quality in catfish
through genetic selection and breeding programs, and de-
velop efficient aquaculture systems for catfish production;
(6) provides disease diagnostic and water quality services to
fish farmers; (7) makes and guarantees loans to provide
facilities and operational resources to produce fish under
controlled conditions; (8) prepares and publishes reports
from monthly surveys of freshwater catfish processors to
monitor prices paid to catfish producers, and prices received
by processors by methods of sale; (9) provides leadership for
the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture; (10) works with
state agricultural experiment systems, forestry schools, the
Land Grant colleges, and colleges of veterinary medicine in
the administration of the Aquaculture Special Research
Grant Program; and (11) purchases meat and fish products
in order to stabilize market conditions and furnish nutritious
food to meet needs of the USDA’s domestic feeding pro-
grams.

2.2.2 United States Department of
Commerce

Several programs within USDC are involved in aquac-
ulture research and development. The following subsec-
tions highlight this involvement for six departmental agen-
cies. The first four agencies belong to NOAA.

2.2.2.1 National Marine Fisheries Service

NMFS directs its efforts toward management and re-
search of living marine resources. The agency cooperates
with federal and state agencies, international bodies, foreign
governments, and university and private interests. Inhouse
research, management, and grant programs by the NER are
described in Sections 2.3 - 2.6.

2.2.2.2 National Ocean Service
The NOS National Shellfish Register provides an as-

sessment of recorded changes in the pollution-based certifi-
cation of molluscan shellfishing waters. Implemented in

Page 3

1966 and published every five years, the register is produced
and published in cooperation with the coastal states and the
Interagency Task Force on Shellfish Growing Waters, which
includes NOAA, FDA, EPA, and USFWS.

2.2.2.3 National Environmental Satellite, Data,
and Information Service (NESDIS)

Through NESDIS’s National Environmental Data Re-
ferral Service, the agency maintains a data base across the
full spectrum of environmental sciences. This data base TM
includes materials from the physical and life sciences that
support marine sciences and aquaculture research programs.

2.2.2.4 Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric
Research

The OAR’s NSGCP conducts research, extension, and
educational programs with universities in coastal and Great
Lakes states. Sea Grant aquaculture programs, on a state-
by-state basis, are briefly addressed in Section 2.3.3.

2.2.2.5 Economic Development Administration

Under its Public Works and Development Facilities
Program and its Technical Assistance Program, EDA con-
siders funding aquaculture projects that meet EDA regula-
tions, applicant eligibility requirements, and project selec-
tion criteria, Recently, EDA has provided funds to the
Maine Office of State Planning and the Maine Department
of Marine Resources to prepare a report on the economic
potential of aquaculture in Maine.

2.2.2.6 National Technical Information Service
(NTIS)

The NTIS is the central source for the public sale of
U.S.-government-sponsored research and development re-
ports on all subjects, including those related to aquaculture.

2.2.3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The new aquaculture initiative within USFWS head-
quarters has been given further substance by the appoint-
ment of a national aquaculture coordinator. The expanding
interest in aquaculture by the USFWS is two pronged. First,
the agency encourages aquaculture development that is
compatible with sound public resource stewardship. Sec-
ond, to the extent possible, the USFWS makes its expertise
available to assist the private sector. Within the USFWS


newly-set spat. Their methods differed primarily from
previous culture research in that live algal food, cultured in
the laboratory, was provided for larval nutrition. This, plus
temperature control of the laboratory seawater, made it
possible to conduct hatching operations on a year-round
basis and opened the potential for the reliable commercial
production of eastern oyster seed (Hanks 1987).

. The following is summarized from an article by the late
Dr. Victor L. Loosanoff (1971), then Director of the Milford
Laboratory: mo

During the early 1950s, the cultivation (research)
program went through an extremely difficult pe-
tiod when early efforts on shellfish mariculture
were considered in some quarters as an undesirable
folly. The program was revived subsequently by
an inhouse transfer of funds and encouragement.
from the BCF’s Clam Investigations Unit. Due to
this support, and continuing success in rearing
shellfish larvae at the Milford Laboratory, outside
opposition to the mariculture program subsided. In
1954, an article entitled, “New Advances in the
Study of Bivalve Larvae,” was published in The
American Scientist and “received general acclaim.

The status of aquaculture-related research at Milford
was bolstered by Congress in August 1961 through the
enactment of Public Law 87-183. This legislation autho-
rized the construction at Milford of an expanded research
center for shellfisheries production. The center was empow-
ered to consist of “research facilities, a pilot hatchery
including rearing tanks and ponds, anda training school...for
the conduct of basic research on the physiology and ecology
of commercial shellfish, the development of hatchery meth-
ods for cultivation of mollusks, including the development
of principles that can be applied to the utilization of artificial
and natural salt water ponds for shellfish culture, and to train
persons in the most advanced methods of shellfish culture.”

Molluscan research has continued at Milford on a
variety of subjects including natural diets (e.g., Ukeles
1971), eastern oyster culture (e.g., Davis 1971), genetics
(e.g., Longwell 1976), disinfection techniques for contami-
nated shellfish hatchery. water (e.g., Blogoslawski 1988),
and culture methods for bay scallops and Atlantic surfclams
(e.g., Goldberg 1980).

2.3.1.2 Current

Since the 1970s, aquaculture-related research has con-
tinued at Milford and, to a limited extent, at other laborato-
ries of the NEFSC. In 1986, however, fish and shellfish
culture work was “reprogrammed” in the NER and else-
where within NMFS to other program priorities such as
environmental pollution.research. This was a function of
overriding legislative mandates and specific intents of agency
appropriations, but was also due to the perceived potential

Page 5

conflicts concerning the effects of aquaculture on traditional
commercial fisheries. As summarized by the Joint Subcom-
mittee on Aquaculture (U.S., Department of Agriculture
1991), NMFS in the mid-1980s directed its aquaculture
efforts .

toward managing common property resources and
contributing to the restoration and protection of
endangered species or stocks. It accomplishes this
primarily through inhouse research at several NMFS
laboratories in the United States. In addition,
NMFS disseminates aquaculture-related informa-
tion and technological advances. gained from its
fisheries research. NMFS cooperates with [flederal
and [s]tate agencies, international bodies and for- -
eign governments, and universities and private
interests, and promotes the development and ex-
pansion of domestic and international markets for
products produced by the U.S. aquaculture indus-

try.

Examples of contributions to the aquacultural sciences
by the NEFSC during the last four years include: (1) large-
scale stocking of broken ocean quahog shell throughout
New Jersey’s Barnegat Bay to enhance wild northern qua-
hog spat concentrations, a collaborative effort with Rutgers
University and New Jersey Sea Grant; (2) commercial
testing of Atlantic surfclam rearing methods by private
aquaculturists in the Northeast who have received grants
from various federal agencies to test the commercial feasi-
bility of rearing Atlantic surfclams using methods estab-
lished by NEFSC researchers; (3) study of algal nutritional
content to promote growth in post-set eastern oysters and
northern quahogs; (4) publication of “Rearing of Bivalve
Mollusks” by Dr. V. Loosanoff and H. C. Davis; (5) devel-
opment of mass culture techniques for rearing algae; (6)
evaluation of food requirements for larval shellfish; (7)
investigations of disease-causing bacteria foundonnorthern
quahog planting beds; (8) genetic studies of the eastern
oyster; (9) assessment of die-offs and putative bacterial and
viral infections of blue crabs held in flow-through and
recirculating shedding systems; (10) studies of larval dis-
eases of eastern oysters; (11) evaluation of methods for
cleansing bacterial pathogens from the digestive systems of
shellfish; (12) study of limiting factors on northern quahog
production ‘including assessment of shell-stocking as a
means to reduce predation by mud crabs, and investigation
of naturally occurring and artificially stocked populations to.
determine effects of different sites, stocking densities, phy-
toplankton blooms, and bacterial infections on the quahog's
reproduction, growth, and health; (13) publication of a
report useful to shellfish aquaculturists on the parasites and
predators of shellfish; (14) conduct of annual shellfish
biology seminars sponsored by the Milford Laboratory for
sharing information’ about’ shellfish aquaculture with re-
searchers, extension agents, and industry representatives;
and (15) assessment of juvenile eastern oyster mortalities at


Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ....
Acknowledgments
List of Acronyms ..
Foreword ....

1. Overview

2. Federal Involvement
2.1 Legislation...
2.2 Agency Responsibilities and Involvement
2.3 Aquaculture-related Research and Development
2.4 Habitat and Water Quality ....

2.5 Trade and Industry Authorities ....
2.6 Fishery Restoration and Enhancement Programs .

3. State Agency Involvement...
3.1 Maine ...
3.2 Maryland
3.3 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

4. Aquaculture in Canada
5. Aquaculture Industry in the Northeast
5.1 Industry Overview
5.2 Industry Issues
6. NMFS Policy and Strategies ..
6.1 National Overview
6.2 Northeast Regional Overview
6.3 Summary .......
7, References Cited .....

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Summary of aquaculture research under Public Law 88-309 ....

Table 2. Summary of aquaculture research under Public Law 89-304...
Table 3. Summary of fishway construction and fish stocking (anadromous fish restoration)
activities under Public Law 89-304



Page 26

Proponents of aquaculture retort that “wild strains” of
many native species no longer exist (due to hatchery breed-
ing techniques, etc.) and that aquaculture, restoration-pro-
grams, and commercial capture fisheries can peaceably co-
exist (see Section 5.2.7). A report by Virginia Sea Grant
(1990) advocates that “added options” (e.g., hybrids) are
more palatable biologically and politically than an introduc-
tion of a pure non-native species in that they retain a majority
or significant component of the native gene pool. That
report further encouraged an informative discussion of this
option with ASMFC to encourage support of proposed
research efforts involving rejuvenation of the Chesapeake
Bay eastern oyster resource.

Exotic species introduced into the Northeast for aquac-
ulture purposes include coho, chinook, and kokanee salmon.
(Great Lakes, Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts),
rainbow and brown trout, edible oyster (Maine), and tilapia.
The support for the introduction of the Pacific oyster has
increased in recent years due to the demise of the eastern
oyster fishery. Although no large-scale introductions have
been formally documented, there have been allegations that
8,000 bushels of seed eastern oysters from Washington
(state) were introduced in 1988 in the Rappahannock River
in Virginia. This has, accordingly, caused concern by state
and federal agencies about possible consequences, includ-
ing: (1) overgrowth and replacement of native eastern
oysters by exotic Pacific oysters; and (2) possible introduc-
tion of as many as five serious diseases [i.e., Bonamia
ostreae, nocardiosis (focal necrosis), Microcytos mackini,
irridovirus disease, and the parasitic copepod Mytilicola
orientalis) that do not occur in East Coast mollusks.

In October 1991, an international workshop funded
under the ODRP was held in Annapolis, Maryland, to
address the ecological aspects of proposed Pacific oyster
introductions on the Atlantic coast of the United States. The
workshop concluded that if a self-sustaining population of
this species were introduced in the Mid-Atlantic region, then
the introduction could be irreversible and could introduce
disease agents not currently present. Identified research
needs included studies of physical tolerance, disease sus-
ceptibility, gametic competition, and relationships with
hard-bottom epibiota. With regard to aquaculture, it was
concluded that intertidal bottom and off-bottom culture
seems feasible in the Mid-Atlantic region. The workshop
report indicated that controlled field experiments were nec-
essary to answer some of the associated research questions.
However, the authors recognized that the decision to con-
duct these field experiments isa managementone (Sutherland
and Osman 1991).

§.2.5 Extension and Education

Increasing liaison among government, industry, and
academia is evident in addressing the management and
research aspects of aquaculture in the Northeast. Histori-

cally, extension activities have focused on the exchange and
transfer of information between these sectors to facilitate the
awareness of regulatory requirements for commercial aquac-
ulture operations as well as the adoption and use of advances
in finfish and shellfish culture techniques.

In Maryland, for example, Baltimore Gas & Electric
Co. in 1990 agreed to transfer the license to the Maryland
Department of Agriculture (MDA) of its Crane aquaculture
facility for the next 10 years. Under the terms of this private/
public cooperative agreement, the MDA will contract with
the University of Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station
to operate the facility for aquacultural research, education,
and demonstration. Research will include nutrition, repro-
duction and disease prevention studies using the facility’s
flow-through and closed-loop isolation tanks. The facility
provides a unique opportunity to conduct research that can
lead to the intensive tank-culture production of striped bass
in Maryland.

Atthe University of Maryland, the Sea Grant extension
staff, in cooperation with the NRAC, has offered courses for
extension professionals on striped bass aquaculture. The
university was given, under the Maryland Aquaculture Bill
of 1988, a formal research/educational role in aquaculture.
This role encompasses educational opportunities available
through training and demonstration programs offered to the
general public and through curricula in the aquaculture-
related sciences leading to the Master of Science and Doctor
of Philosophy degrees. Programs at other educational
institutions are focusing on aquaculture as well, including a
Bachelor of Science curriculum at the University of Maine
in Orono. Selected course offerings include resource busi-
ness management, food and fiber marketing, shellfisheries
biology, processing technology, and water supply and waste
management. Through this program, graduates receive
training and become prepared for technical and supervisory
positions in aquaculture, and may choose to pursue ad-
vanced degrees in related fields, particularly the pending
gtaduate program in marine Tesources at Orono. In-
creased private and public interest in aquaculture has also
led to an enhanced emphasis in veterinary school curricula
on aquatic animal medicine.

Atthe high-school level, a national aquaculture curricu-
lum for 11th and 12th grade students was being developed
under the provisions of a $485,000 federal grant and tested
at several pilot schools in Indiana and Pennsylvania in fall
1991. The program uses an integrated approach with active
roles for both agriculture and science teachers.

In the Great Lakes states, a video presentation called
“Aquaculture in Illinois” has been developed in the interest
of the various public sectors (i.e., governmental and educa-
tional) participating in the developing aquaculture industry
in Illinois. The basic objective of the video is to improve
public understanding of the potential for a strong aquacul-
ture industry in that state. Sponsors include the Illinois State
University and the Illinois Department of Commerce and
Community Affairs.



Page 14

circulation patterns, suspended sediments, and silt deposi-
tion; (3) escapement and transmission of disease from
cultured to wild stocks; (4) organic solids and effects on
benthic organisms; (5) increased phytoplankton growth and
its effects on toxicity and dissolved oxygen levels; (6)
dispersal of antibiotics and hormones used on farms; (7) use
of toxic substances; (8) conflicts with marine birds and
mammals; and (9) wastes associated with hatchery and
processing operations.

The USACOE has published a public notice requesting
comments ona draft Letter of Permission (LOP) for bottom
shellfish aquaculture operations in Massachusetts. There
have been approximately 150 federally unlicensed shellfish
aquaculture operations in the state, predominantly on Cape
Cod. These activities have not been covered previously by
the USACOE because they were considered to be covered.
under a nationwide permit program. The NEROO has
offered to work with the state and the USACOE to develop
a LOP to comply with federal regulations. The issuance of
the LOPs will work to the advantage of the aquaculturist in
that permit procedures will be shortened considerably and
will also limit potential disagreements between state and
federal authorities.

The Shellfish Register of Classified Estuarine Waters
(National Ocean Service 1991) concluded that separate
national surveys conducted in 1985 and 1990 confirm that a
decline in water quality has led to a decrease in the acreage
of approved molluscan shellfishing waters, and toacontinu-
ing decline in the nation’s shellfish harvest. As recently as
1959, the Mid-Atlantic region harvested the greatest amount
of shellfish, especially eastern oysters, in the nation. How-
ever, since then, increasing urban pollution has closed many
historically productive areas. Overharvesting, eutrophica-
tion, and disease have also destroyed many shellfishing
areas. Consequently, declines in the overall landings of
estuarine shellfish continued between 1985 and 1990, de-
spite increased aquaculture. The survey results indicated an
“almost inexorable process which threatens to destroy the
harvest of wild or natural shellfish throughout the [nJation’s
coastal areas.” This decline in the water quality of produc-
tive estuaries in combination with problems of overharvesting
and disease may place the natural harvest of shellfish at risk
of elimination.

In March 1990, a workshop was held in St. Andrews,
New Brunswick, for discussion of environmental effects of
finfish culture in the Gulf of Maine (Hayden and Choate
1990). Topics discussed included the nature and scale of
tisks to the environment from cage culture, the role of
monitoring in regulation, and research -- both ongoing and
needed.

The success of present and future aquaculture efforts, as
well as the viability of the existing “capture” fisheries, is
contingent upon acceptable water quality. This fact, while
recognized by the resource community as a “given,” will
likely become even more pronounced in the public view as
aquaculture issues receive continued attention.

2.5 TRADE AND INDUSTRY
AUTHORITIES

As with any industry, the need to maintain profitability
in aquaculture operations is affiliated with a need to reduce
risks and increase returns on investment. Product safety and
quality, access to markets, and methods of dealing with
trade barriers are being addressed by the Codex Alimentarius
Commission, by the governing agreements on tariffs and
trade (GATT), and by bilateral negotiations on free trade.

2.5.1 Codex Alimentarius Commission

The NMFS Office of Trade and Industry Services’
National Technical Services Unit supplies technical support
tothe U.S. delegation at meetings of the Codex Alimentarius
Commission and actively participates as members of the
U.S. delegation at meetings of the Codex Committee on Fish
and Fishery Products. Codex is a joint commission of the
FAO and the U.N. World Health Organization. The Codex
Committee’s interest concerns the safety, wholesomeness,
and trade equities in international trade of fish and fishery
products. Codex has adopted a number of Codes for
Hygienic Practice dealing with fish and seafood.

At the committee meeting in June 1990, the committee
endorsed the FAO Fisheries Department’s proposal to hold
an expert consultation in late 1990 to review a first draft of
a Code of Hygienic Practice for the Products of Aquaculture.
The consultation would also provide guidance as to whether
an attempt should be made to produce a single code or to
divide the subject matter by species or growing technology.
The committee noted that a first draft of the code prepared
by the FAO Fishery Industries Division would be presented
to the committee for consideration at its next session in June
1992. This major undertaking will probably take several
meetings to complete.

2.5.2 Governing Agreements on Tariffs
and Trade

The United States was an active party to the Uruguay
Round of GATT; however, the U.S. Trade Representative’s
attempts, on behalf of NMFS/NOAA, to have fish and
fishery products covered under the Agriculture Negotiating
Group were unsuccessful. The U.S. position was that fish is
food, and it is closely linked to agriculture in the GATT.
Furthermore, fish isa rapidly expanding commodity through
aquaculture, and in many countries, fish is dealt with in the
same government agency as agriculture. The goal was to
protect the U.S. fishing industry from adverse trade-offs at
the negotiating table when other commodities or goals were
the primary concerns. However, the European Economic
Community (EEC) wanted fish to be included in the Natural



Page ii

NOTE ON SPECIES NAMES

The Northeast Regional Operations Office’s policy on the use of species names in technical publications and reports is to
follow the American Fisheries Society’s (AFS) lists of common and scientific names for fishes (Robins etal, 1991)*, mollusks
(Turgeon et al, 1988)°, and decapod crustaceans (Williams et al. 1989)'. This policy applies to all issues of the NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-. HINER series.

Robins, C.R. (chair), R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. Lachner, R.N. Lea, and W.B. Scott. 1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from.
the United States and Canada, Sth ed. Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ, 20. 183 pp.

Turgeon, D.D. (chair), A-E. Bogan, E. V. Coan, W.K. Emerson, W.G. Lyons, W.L. Pratt, CFE. Roper, A. Scheltema, F.G. Thompson, and J.D, Williams.
1988. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: mollusks. Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 16. 277 pp.

Williams, A.B. (chair), L.G. Abele, D.L. Felder, H.H. Hobbs, Jr., R.B. Manning, P.A. McLaughlin, and I. Pérez Farfante, 1989. Common and scientific
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: decapod crustaceans. Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 17. 77 pp.



Page 22

for disease certification and quarantine procedures as estab-
lished by the ICES Code of Practice to Reduce the Risks of
Adverse Effects Arising from Introduction of Non-Indig-
enous Marine Species. In 1990, the plan was amended by the
ASMEFC toreflect concems over introductions of the Pacific
oyster which is currently being considered as a potential
aquaculture initiative on the East Coast.

4. AQUACULTURE IN CANADA

Canada offers a unique perspective in the development
of the aquaculture industry with government involvement.
Within the Gulf of Maine region, the province of New
Brunswick has produced 10-times more Atlantic salmon.
than the state of Maine, despite sharing similar growing
conditions and similar start-up dates for industry operations.
The industry in New Brunswick benefits from: educational
and training programs; coordination of research at the fed-
eral and provincial levels; and planning/administrative ca-
pacities that include coordinating permitting systems and
lending predictive abilities to public policy and industry
development (Maine State Planning Office 1990). In 1984,
the annual value of aquaculture totaled $7 million; by 1988,
the value increased to $109 million (Department of Fisheries
and Oceans 1990). In that same year, there were approxi-
mately 150 farms and two federally-operated hatcheries
capable of producing 1.5-million Atlantic salmon smolts
annually. The industry has provided a growing source of
employment, particularly in Canada’s more remote regions.
In 1988, 1,500 jobs were attributed directly to aquaculture
operations.

The following overview of shellfish aquaculture in
Canada is taken from MacKenzie (1991):

Following a large decline from 1954 to 1972,
production of oysters (C: virginica) on Prince
Edward Island has since turned upward. Produc-
tion in 1989, about 60,000 bushels worth $3.8
million Canadian...(ex-island), was four times the
total in 1954 and was two-thirds of the total in the
best year, 1890. The province produced the in-
crease by transplanting unfished oysters to good
market beds and by spreading fossil shells it dredged
from deposits on depleted oyster beds to collect
spat. In 1989 and 1990, the Province used a new
procedure, i.e., cultivating dormant shell beds to
Temove a deposit of silt. It was successful as the
beds (60 acres) received good sets of spat. Such
cultivating is perhaps one of the least expensive
methods available for producing eastern oysters.
New Brunswick has been using cone-shaped spat
collectors, about 2/3 meter in diameter and termed
Chinese hats, to cultivate eastern oysters success-
fully. In contrast to Prince Edward Island which

has a mixed public and private eastern oyster
fishery, New Brunswick’s is mainly private. Lease-
holders remove the seed collected on the hats,
spread them on their leases for growth, and then
market them after they reach a length of three
inches.

Since the early 1980s, the Maritime Prov-
inces, led by Prince Edward Island and Nova
Scotia, have been culturing mussels (Mytilus edulis).
Mussel production has been rising rapidly. In 1989
production from Prince Edward Island was about
90,000 bushels worth $4.3 million Canadian...

The Maritime Provinces have-achieved their
successes in producing shellfish by: (1) using wild
seed (it is abundant and inexpensive to collect; little
seed has been raised in hatcheries); (2) providing
their industries with substantial government finan-
cial and technical support; (3) inviting
shellfishermen to contribute to development plans;
(4) sending biologists and lead fishermen to the
U.S. and Europe to observe the best culture meth-
ods; and (5) having government personnel aggres-
sively market their shellfish in Canada and the U.S.
Thus, sales of oysters and mussels have been good.

The DFO is the lead federal agency for aquaculture in
Canada. The DFO has generally defined aquaculture as a
fishery, but several provincial governments have given the
lead aquaculture role to agricultural agencies. The prevail-
ing Canadian view recognizes the risks in supporting aquac-
ulture development while maintaining conservation of wild
fisheries, but also recognizes that risk management implies
regulation, not prohibition. Five goals of the DFO in
aquaculture are: (1) industry support through scientific and
technological leadership and innovation; (2) sound coopera-
tive management for a healthy and productive aquatic envi-
ronment; (3) an inspection system to support the industry's
reputation for high-quality cultured products; (4) provision
of market and commercial analysis and advice to assist
Canadian aquaculturists to capitalize on market opportuni-
ties; and (5) advocacy and dialogue to promote sustained
growth and development of the aquaculture industry.

In Canada, recent research has included a plan to
maintain genetic integrity between wild and raised salmon,
setting standards for both physical and chemical parameters
of aquaculture operations and for disease control. Recently,
the DFO has announced that three aquaculture research
projects at the St. Andrews (New Brunswick) Biological
Station have received funding under DFO’s Atlantic Fisher-
ies Adjustment Program. The studies involve: phytoplank-
ton monitoring; Atlantic halibut egg and larval rearing; and
striped bass salinity tolerance. In 1991, funding was ap-
proved to assist in the transfer of aquaculture technology, in
development, and in improvement of husbandry in such
areas as handling and nutrition.



North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization. 1991.
Guidelines to minimize the threats ‘to wild salmon
stocks from salmon aquaculture; 10 p. Available from:
North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization,
Edinburgh, Scotland.

Northeastern Regional Aquaculture Center. 1990. Annual
accomplishment report, October 1, 1989 - December
31, 1990; 46 p. Available from: University of Massa-
chusetts - North Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, MA.

Northeastern Regional Aquaculture Center. 1991. North-
eastern Regional Aquaculture Center Newsletter, vol.
3, iss. 1,p.6. Available from: University of Massachu-
setts - North Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, MA.

Roe, R.B. 1992. Stewardship of the Northeast’s living
marine resources: Northeast implementation plan for
the NMFS strategic plan. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-F/
NER-2; 33 p. Available from: National Marine Fisher-
ies Service, Gloucester, MA.

Sport Fishing Institute. 1991. Ocean resources enhance-
ment and hatchery program. SFI Bull. 421: 6-7. Avail-
able from: Sport Fishing Institute, Washington, DC.

Sutherland, J.; Osman, R., rapporteurs. 1991, Synopsis of
the Oyster Ecology Workshop: Crassostrea gigas, Oc-
tober 28-30, 1991; 6 p. Available from: Maryland Sea
Grant College Program, College Park, MD.

Syslo, M. 1986. Getting the “bugs” out. Mass. Wildl. 3: 4-
10. Available from: Massachusetts Division of Fisher-
ies and Wildlife, Westborough, MA.

Terry, O. 1977. Aquaculture; 36 p. Avaiable from: New
York Sea Grant Institute, Albany, NY. .

Theberge, B.; Neikirk, R. 1987. Legal restraints to marine
aquaculture at the state level -- the Virginia example.

In: Jarman, M.; Conner, D.,eds. Conference on Gulf &

South Atlantic fisheries: law & policy; proceedings of

Page 31

aconference; 18-20 March 1987; p. 159-169. Avail-
able from: Louisiana Sea Grant College Program, Ba-
ton Rouge, LA, or Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant
Consortium, Oxford, MS.

Tody, W.; Tanner, H. 1966. Coho salmon for the Great
Lakes. Mich. Fish Div. Fish Manage. Rep. No. 1; 38 p.
Available from: Michigan Department of Natural Re-
sources, Lansing, MI.

Ukeles, R. 1971. Nutritional requirements in shellfish
culture. In: Price, K.; Mauer, D., eds. Proceedings of
the Conference on Artificial Propagation of Commer-
cially Valuable Shellfish -- Oysters, October 22-23,
1969; p. 43-63. Available from: University of Dela-
ware, College of Marine Studies, Newark, DE.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1991. Aquaculture: a
guide to federal government programs; 38 p. Available
from: National Agriculture Library, Beltsville, MD.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Restoration of
Atlantic salmon and American shad toselected rivers of
New England (information package); 15 p. Available
from: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner,
MA.

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. 1989.
Ocean system studies. NOAA/OAR research strategy
II: the ocean system -- use and protection; 12 p. Avail-
able from: University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research, Boulder, CO.

University of Maryland System. 1991. Enhancing Mary-
land aquaculture: action plan; 33 p. Available from:
University of Maryland System, College Park, MD.

Virginia Sea Grant College Program. 1990, A planaddress-
ing the restoration of the American oyster industry; 64
p. Available from: University of Virginia,
Charlottesville, VA.

YE U, S. GOVERNYENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1992--600-031-~60002


and Massachusetts) and eastern oyster (in Maryland, Vir-
ginia, Delaware, and New Jersey) aquaculture initiatives
(described below) to enhance the Northeast’s recreational
and commercial fisheries, respectively.

2.6.2.2 Oyster Replenishment

The status of eastern oyster replenishment/aquaculture
activities in Maryland is included in Section 2.2.. The
following overview of this program in Virginia is para-
phrased from Haven et.al. (1978).

Active replenishment. efforts have been under-
taken by Virginia since the 1928 Oyster Repletion
Act was passed by the Virginia legislature. Early
efforts consisted mainly of spreading or planting
cultch in the form of eastern oyster shells on public
oyster grounds for the purpose of catching set and,
- thereby, increasing the supply of eastern oysters.
, More recently, seed has been transplanted for the
same purpose. The effort, the quantity of cultch
material planted, and the cost increased signifi-
cantly from 11,678 bushels ($717) in 1931 to a
maximum of 4,148,702 bushels ($494,482) in 1965.
Costs have since steadily increased, e.g., to$803,353
for 3,481,727 bushels in 1975.
There are three primary reasons why the Vir-
ginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC)
_plants shell: (1) to receive a strike of eastern oyster
on the shell to provide seed eastern oysters for use
by VMRCand the public, i.e., harvest by watermen
for sale as seed to growers or for use on their own
growing grounds; (2) to receive a strike of suffi-
cient intensity to provide a later catch of market
eastern oysters; and (4) political considerations.
The aim of the public repletion efforts in
Virginia was stated clearly by VMRC in its report
to the governor for Fiscal Year 1968-69: “an
intensive rehabilitation program (was begun) in
1963 in an effort to assist the faltering industry.”
Since its beginning, the repletion program has been
a partial state subsidy for the entire eastern oyster
industry. It benefits harvesters, commercial
watermen, shippers, and private growers.

Ina July 1991 letter from the Chesapeake Bay Founda-
tion (CBF) to the Governor of Maryland, the CBF recom-
mended that “efforts to enhance wild stocks of eastern
oysters and restore the public fishery should be-comple-
mented by a broad-based federal/state partnership to pro-
mote aquaculture. The increase in the number of eastern
oysters in the water and the off-season marketplace provided
by private culture will help both the [b]ay and the public
fishery by increasing reproductive potential and fil iltering
capacity and by stabilizing markets.”

Federal support has been’ provided to the states for

Page 17

eastern oyster repletion activities under the Grant-In-Aid
Program administered by the NEROO. A summary of this
support is presented in Section 2.3.2.

2.6.2.3 Salmon for New England

In 1970, NMFS initiated an experiment at the NWAFC
todetermine the feasibility of developing an Atlantic salmon
brood stock on the West Coast to provide a source of eggs
for restocking New England rivers. This investigation was
conducted on the premise that the moderate saltwater tem-
peratures of Puget’ Sound were conducive to the rapid
growth of marine-reared Atlantic salmon. The potential for
expansion of this study was articulated in 1972 when the
NWAFC, in conjunction with the NEROO, developed a
cooperative state/federal proposal entitled, “Salmon for
New England.” . The proposal was designed asa twofold
approach to meeting regional commitments to the increas-
ing number of New England recreational fishermen. The
Salmon for New England Program had two major objec-
tives: (1) to develop the technology for large-scale coho
salmon releases to generate a coastal marine sport fishery if
the states decide this is desirable; and (2) to raise Atlantic
salmon brood stock in the Pacific Northwest as an interim
means of augmenting East Coast egg production until egg
requirements can be satisfied from East Coast sources.

During 1967-73, fishery resource agencies of four
coastal New England states experimented with stocking of
coho salmon in an attempt to provide improved marine
recreational fishing. This species had previously been
introduced successfully in Lake Michigan. Massachusetts
and New Hampshire were successful: in introducing this
species, and the sportfishermen’s favorable response to this
limited effort demonstrated the potential for the develop-
ment of a coho sport fishery in the coastal waters north of
Cape Cod.

In recognizing the potential for introducing certain
species of Pacific salmon to the Northeast (Mahnken and
Joyner 1973), NMFS held meetings with all New England
state fisheries directors in October 1971 to determine their
degree of interest ina program involving West Coast species
of salmon. They indicated enough interest at that time to
justify further action, and in 1972, a group of scientists from
the NWAFC spent several weeks in New England studying
this possibility. A proposal was subsequently developed
which provided several alternatives for the enhancement of
recreational fishing in New England. The envisioned initial
efforts would have been directed toward a pilot program to:
(1) hatch coho salmon in existing state facilities, subse- ~
quently rear these fish in saltwater pens in Plum Island
Sound, Massachusetts; and (2) develop concurrently. a reli-
able Atlantic salmon egg source at the NMFS Manchester
(Washington) facility for augmenting hatchery production
contributing to New England Atlantic salmon restoration
programs being conducted jointly by the states, USFWS,
and NMFS. Should the techniques have proved successful,


1. OVERVIEW

Aquaculture is defined by Meade (1989) as “the prac-
tice of rearing, growing or producing products in water or in
managed water systems.” For federal fishery resource
agencies, the term has varied connotations depending upon
legislative mandates, articulated program priorities, and/or
agency policy (implied or otherwise). This, in turn, influ-
ences the public perception of the agency’s role in aquacul-
ture issues. Historically, the term as used by state, federal,
and private interests includes one or a combination of the
following definitions: (1) culture of marine and freshwater
organisms in laboratory systems for specific research pur-
poses, such as nutrition and metabolic studies, disease
research and life history investigations; (2) hatchery opera-
tions encompassing the hatching and rearing of finfish and
shellfish for purposes of restoring depleted populations
through stocking programs designed to restore species (e.g.,
Atlantic salmon, American shad, and Atlantic sturgeon) to

. their historical breeding and nursery grounds, or maintain a
“put and take” commercial or recreational fishery for public
use and enjoyment; (3) maintenance of commercial fisheries
through specific artificial propagation techniques, such as
the planting of cultch (shells): for eastern oyster larval
attachment and subsequent growth to a size suitable for
harvesting; and/or (4) commercial rearing of finfish, shell-
fish, and aquatic plants for sale, trade, barter, or shipment.

Attention in this document is given to all four facets of
aquaculture as outlined above, but emphasis. is directed
toward a special assessment of the last. It is noteworthy that
the FAO has recently changed its definition of aquaculture
inan effort to better assist its Fishery Statistics Unitand FAO
member countries in compiling more accurate statistics for
both cultured and wild-harvested species. The new defini-
tion restricts aquaculture to operations which harvest aquatic
organisms by an individual or corporate body which has
owned them throughout their rearing period. Accordingly,
the revised FAO terminology does not include aquatic
organisms which are exploitable by the public as acommon
property resource. Similarly, Nakahara (1992) restricts the
definition of aquaculture to “the cultivation of fish in the
protected sea area.... The most important characteristics [be-
ing] (1) that the ownership of fish is quite clear, (2) that
human control is possible throughout the whole life of the
fish although conditions...are supported by nature, and (3)
that the final fruits of the production are countable.”

With the passage of the NAIA in 1985, the principal
responsibility for the coordination of federal activities relat-
ing to the development of aquaculture in the United States
became vested with the USDA (Section 2.1). Until recently,
other federal agencies have generally not included refer-
ences in strategic or operating plans concerning aquaculture
development, other than through participation in state/fed-
eral fishery restoration initiatives (Section 2.6.1) and grants
to states and private interests (Section 2.3.2). Within the
USFWS, for example, an aquaculture initiative was devel-

Page 1

oped in 1991, with a public policy statement and the desig-
nation of a-national aquaculture coordinator (Section 2.2).

In the NER, aquaculture research was a prominent and
“visible” component of agency task plans and program
activities from the establishment of the agency.in 1970 until
the 1980s. The reasons for a de-emphasis on aquaculture
during the past decade are not specific, but they may be
attributed to realignment of overall fisheries program priori-
ties accompanying changing administrations, increased de-
votion of agency resources toadministration of the Magnuson
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the per-
ceived negative implications of aquaculture upon the “cap-
ture” (wild stock) fisheries (National Marine Fisheries Ser-
vice 1988). Nevertheless, it should be noted that the NMFS
research laboratory in Milford, Connecticut (Section 2.3.1);
has been involved in eastern oyster biology with aquaculture
implications since its inception in 1931.

Given the recent growth of aquaculture operations in
the Northeast, it is anticipated that many ongoing aquacul-
ture ventures will expand rapidly and that new ones will
develop. Accompanying this growth, it is apparent that
several key issues must be addressed. These include: (1)
how aquaculture should “fit in” with NMFS stewardship
responsibilities for the long-term health of living marine
resources; and (2) how should the NER interact with other
federal, state, academic, and private interests regarding
aquaculture research and development issues.

This document presents an overview of previous and
current NER involvement in aquaculture, and suggests
future directions and options for responding to the aquacul-
ture-related goals as set forth in the NMFS Strategic Plan.

2. FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT

The Aquaculture Policy of the American Fisheries
Society (1991) indicates that “agencies charged with re-
sponsibility of natural resource stewardship owe primary
allegiance to the protection of natural resources. Because
many proponents believe aquaculture is best served under
auspices of agriculture departments, there is a natural ten-
dency to view natural resource agencies and agriculture
agencies supporting aquaculture in adversary roles. This
must not be allowed to happen because the resource will be
the ultimate loser.”

This chapter provides an overview of current federal
agency involvement in aquaculture. Section 2.1 addresses
the primary legislative authorities for this involvement, and
Section 2.2 describes the major federal roles and policies in
aquaculture, agency by agency. Much of the material for the
latter section is taken from the United States Department of
Agriculture (1991). Finally, Sections 2.3 - 2.6 provide a
comprehensive summary of NER involvement in the areas
of inhouse research, state/federal and industry programs,
habitat/water quality issues, trade and industry services, and
fishery restoration/enhancement initiatives. Aquaculture


Page 4

Northeast Region (i.e., Region 5), a regional aquacultural
coordinator has been designated at the USFWS Northeast
Fishery Center in Lamar, Pennsylvania.

2.2.4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Aquaculture projects that involve discharge of dredged
or fill materials into waters of the United States, or construc-
tion in the navigable waters of the United States, must have
a permit from the USACOE under Section 404 of the Clean

Water Act and Section 10 of the 1899 Rivers and Harbors

Act, respectively.

2.2.5 U.S. Department of Energy

The agency supports aquatic species research as part of
the Biofuels and Municipal Waste Technology Research
Program. Research is conducted to devélop and provide the
technology base that leads to the production of liquid fuels
from the outdoor mass culture of microalgae.

2.2.6 U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS)

Through HHS’s FDA, the agency evaluates marketed
animal drugs, feed additives, and devices used in aquacul-
ture; and coordinates the veterinary medical aspects of the
FDA inspection, surveillance, and compliance programs
relating to animal drugs, animal feeds, and other veterinary
medical matters. Through the Fishery Research Branch; the
HHS conducts inhouse research in aquaculture including
processing practices which may contaminate fish products
with microbial, chemical, and naturally occurring biotoxins
of public health concern.

2.2.7 National Science Foundation

This agency’s Small‘ Business Innovation Research
Program provides funding for aquaculture research. This
Program annually solicits research proposals from small
business firms on important scientific or engineering prob-

- lems that could lead to significant public benefit. Aquacul-
ture proposals fall under two major topic areas: marine/
estuarine or freshwater.

2.2.8 U.S. Environmental Protection
_ Agency

The EPA’s water quality programs are concerned with
setting standards for assuring the protection of the nation’s

waterways and water supplies. The National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System issues permits for the dis-
charge of waste to surface waters. Permits must be obtained
under this program to use pollutants in public waters for
aquacultural purposes.

Municipal wastewater treatment in publicly-owned treat-
ment works is amenable to the use of aquaculture systems
funded, in part, by EPA’s Construction Grant Program.
Chemicals and other materials to be used in aquaculture are
subject to pesticide registration by EPA.

2.3 AQUACULTURE-RELATED
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

NOAA conducts aquaculture research and develop-
ment through NMFS and the NSGCP. Aquaculture-related
research supported by NMFS is conducted by scientific staff
at NMFS fisheries science centers and their component
laboratories, and through agency funding of projects con-
ducted by state fishery resource agencies, academia, and
private industry.

The NSGCP supports research through grants to uni-
versities and other entities. The technology gained from this
research is utilized by private industry for commercial
purposes and by public agencies for augmenting natural
stocks through enhancement programs.

The following subsections refer.to: (1) aquaculture
activities conducted expressly by the NEFSC; (2) research
funded by NEROO grant programs; and (3) an overview of
activities funded under Sea Grant and USDA programs.

2.3.1 NMFS Research -- Northeast
Region :

2.3.1.1 Historical

The genesis of aquaculture research in the NER con-
ducted by inhouse scientific expertise dates back prior to
Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970, at which time the BCF
(as well as the Marine Game Fish Program) of the USFWS
of the U.S. Department of the Interior was transferred to
NOAA of the USDC, and was renamed NMFS.._ The first
permanent assignment of a full-time biologist and the plan
to establish a laboratory in Milford, Connecticut, occurred
in November 1931. At that time, this small program was
concemed with biological problems facing the Connecticut
shellfish industry. Construction of the original laboratory
building was completed in 1940.

The development of methods for commercial shellfish
cultivation began in 1944 at the current-day NEFSC’s
Milford Laboratory. During’ the mid-1940s, the Milford
group established routine and dependable procedures for
conditioning eastern oysters to ripeness, inducing spawning
and fertilization, rearing larvae to setting, and growing