{"id":27065,"date":"2020-06-01T00:01:08","date_gmt":"2020-06-01T04:01:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=27065"},"modified":"2020-06-02T00:54:32","modified_gmt":"2020-06-02T04:54:32","slug":"presidential-executive-order-loosens-environmental-restrictions-on-fish-farms-adds-to-degradation-of-waterways","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2020\/06\/presidential-executive-order-loosens-environmental-restrictions-on-fish-farms-adds-to-degradation-of-waterways\/","title":{"rendered":"Presidential Executive Order Loosens Environmental Restrictions on Fish Farms, Adds to Degradation of Waterways"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, June 1, 2020)\u00a0The President issued another executive order<\/a>, on May 7, that continues his administration\u2019s dissembling on matters that affect the well-being of everyday Americans. This EO (executive order) purports to \u201cpromote American seafood competitiveness and economic growth.\u201d The reality, as the Center for<\/em> American Progress<\/em> reports,<\/a> is that the \u201cbulk of the Trump administration\u2019s new executive order sets up a structure for permitting of offshore aquaculture in federal waters with short timelines and few environmental safeguards.\u201d This EO will further erode regulations that have governed the operation of so-called \u201cfish farms,\u201d and open enormous marine areas to exploitation by this industry. Beyond Pesticides has argued for more-protective regulation<\/a> of the aquaculture industry, considering the variety of pesticides and chemical inputs it uses, and the impacts on local ecosystems.<\/p>\n

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines aquaculture as<\/a> any \u201cfarming of aquatic organisms, including baitfish, crustaceans, food fish, mollusks, ornamental fish, sport or game fish, and other aquaculture products. Farming involves some form of intervention in the rearing process, such as seeding, stocking, feeding, protection from predators, etc. Fish, crustaceans, mollusks, and other aquatic products caught or harvested by the public from non-controlled waters or beds are considered wild caught and are not included as aquaculture.\u201d<\/p>\n

In coastal and offshore waters, the industry includes both fed and unfed sectors: fish such as salmon are fed by the \u201cfarmers,\u201d whereas bivalve shellfish, such as mussels, clams, and oysters, feed on plankton that live in seawater and do not require additional dietary inputs. Most U.S. aquaculture is currently for bivalves, which are filter feeders; proponents claim that they actually clean the water and can help restore polluted waterways. However, shellfish farming brings with it other problems<\/a>: competition in localized areas for nutrients, seagrass loss, and excessive sediment buildup that can disturb benthic organisms (those that inhabit that bottom of a waterbody, including sediment layers) and local ecosystems.<\/p>\n

U.S. aquaculture (aka \u201cfish farming\u201d) is a $1.5 billion industry, spread across just under 3,000 \u201cfarms.\u201d It is regulated<\/a> at the federal level primarily by the USDA, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). For example, FDA deals with food safety and pharmaceutical issues, and EPA regulates wastewater permitting. Other federal agencies play more peripheral roles; they include: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce; the Center for Veterinary Medicine within the FDA; the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the USDA; and FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service) under the Department of the Interior (DOI).\u00a0<\/p>\n

At the state and local levels, regulations may vary considerably<\/a> with local statutes, and often with the location of such operations \u2014 whether coastal, inland, wetland, or offshore. There is no particular consistency in regulation because each state and locality may have its own statutes and protocols related to permitting \u2014 which process may consider zoning, water use, waste discharge, wildlife management, processing, and other aspects of aquaculture operations.<\/p>\n

The Trump administration has a long record of dismantling environmental protections<\/a>, failing to enforce<\/a> those that do exist, undermining science<\/a>, and weighting agrochemical and other industry interests<\/a> over those of the public and the environment. It is characterizing this recent EO as an economic \u201cboost,\u201d but in reality, is (once again<\/a>) using the pandemic as a justification for escalating its agenda: slashing regulations that protect health and the environment, and exploiting and commodifying public resources for private gain.<\/p>\n

The primary intent of the EO, as noted above, is to establish \u201ca structure for permitting of offshore aquaculture in federal waters with short timelines and few environmental safeguards.\u201d The Food and Environment Reporting Network (FERN) has criticized this Executive Order<\/a> in part because of the unusual brevity of the timeline it sets out: 90 days for drafting of a permit, and two years for an environmental review. The organization also notes the concern among environmental groups that due diligence will not be a priority.\u00a0<\/p>\n

In its justification, the order references<\/a> \u201cremoving outdated and unnecessarily burdensome regulations,\u201d reducing \u201cburdens on domestic fishing,\u201d and increasing production. Weakening or dismantling federal regulations further weakens federal regulations and increases problems associated with collapsing stocks, polluted habitats, and loss of hundreds of thousands of marine creatures through \u201cbycatch\u201d (a product of destructive fishing practices).<\/p>\n

The argument about an economic boost through expansion of offshore aquaculture \u2014 so as to increase seafood production \u2014 escalates an environmental contamination of waterways. American Progress<\/em> rightly notes,<\/a> \u201cProduction is not the problem; demand is. Boats laden with fish and shellfish are being\u00a0turned away<\/a>\u00a0by seafood buyers because with\u00a0global supply chains in disarray<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0so many restaurants closed<\/a>, there is no way to process, store, or sell more product. More than\u00a0two-thirds<\/a>\u00a0of the money that Americans spend on seafood is spent at restaurants, and sales in that sector have\u00a0plunged by more than 90 percent<\/a>. . . . With nowhere to sell the fish they are catching now, it seems likely that . . . the fisheries management section of . . . [the] executive order has much more to do with [the administration\u2019s] long-standing push to allow industrial fishing in the\u00a0few areas<\/a>\u00a0now protected from it and far less to do with aiding the communities devastated by COVID-19.\u201d<\/p>\n

In addition, expansion of large, industrial fish farms could flood the market with cheaper farmed fish, hurting the sustainably caught seafood sector. Given the grim realities of seafood sales during the pandemic, this economic case is exposed for what it is: an advancing of the administration\u2019s desire to establish aquaculture farms in federal waters. Lead Counsel for the Center for Food Safety<\/a>, George Kimbrell, commented in a Seattle Times<\/em> article<\/a> (on a federal court case in which NOAA was the defendant), \u201cNOAA [has] wanted to do this sort of industrial [aquaculture] permitting not just in the Gulf of Mexico but in the Pacific and along the Atlantic coast.\u201d NOAA has also pursued rulemaking for the industry in waters off of Hawaii and other Pacific islands.<\/p>\n

Modern Farmer<\/em> reports<\/a> FERN\u2019s assertion that this EO opens the door for large offshore fish farms, saying that it is \u201cdesigned, at its core, to expand the scope and facilities for aquaculture. What that likely means is a reduction in regulations, and the creation of large offshore fish farms.\u201d Further, the order puts the regulation of these farms \u2014 typically giant cages in which fish are raised \u2014 under the administration of NOAA, and, in essence, invites input from industry on what regulations should be eliminated.<\/p>\n

The EO<\/a> permits finfish facilities \u201cin marine and coastal waters out to the limit of the territorial sea and in ocean waters beyond the territorial sea within the exclusive economic zone of the United States.\u201d That language describes a vast ocean area that will become vulnerable to aquaculture activity: the \u201cterritorial sea\u201d extends from the continental (and Hawaiian) shoreline to 12 miles offshore; the \u201cexclusive economic zone\u201d constitutes 3.4 million square nautical miles of\u00a0ocean \u2014 an area larger\u00a0than the combined land\u00a0area\u00a0of all 50 states. Prior to this EO, such facilities were not permitted in federal waters between three and 200 miles offshore.<\/p>\n

The environmental impacts of coastal and offshore aquaculture have been amply chronicled by Beyond Pesticides<\/a> and others. They include the pollution from fish farm effluent<\/a>, antibiotic and pesticide inputs<\/a> and residues, impacts on local marine ecosystems, coastal habitat loss<\/a>, and genetic and health risks<\/a> to wild marine populations. One example of the pesticide issues related to aquaculture is the use of insecticides to control sea lice in farmed salmon, covered by Beyond Pesticides here<\/a> and here<\/a>. Another is the pesticide residue<\/a> from farmed fish food pellets that can be consumed by nearby wild marine organisms. Oddly, the food fed to farmed salmon often contains wild-caught fish, which might presumably be better used directly for human food.<\/p>\n

More details on some of those environmental impacts and risks<\/a> include:<\/p>\n