Red Drum Sciaenops ocellatus

©Diane Rome Peebles

United States Ponds

June 27, 2013

Jennifer Gee, Private Consultant

Disclaimer Seafood Watch® strives to ensure all our Seafood Reports and the recommendations contained therein are accurate and reflect the most up-to-date evidence available at time of publication. All our reports are peer-reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science or aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. We always welcome additional or updated data that can be used for the next revision. Seafood Watch and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

2

Final Seafood Recommendation Farmed Red Drum produced in ponds in the United States is a Best Choice with a numeric score of 7.20. All criterion scored green with the exception of the chemicals and feed criterion which both scored yellow.

Red Drum

Sciaenops ocellatus

United States of America

Ponds

Criterion Score (0-10) Rank Critical?

C1 Data 7.78 GREEN

C2 Effluent 9.00 GREEN NO

C3 Habitat 7.67 GREEN NO

C4 Chemicals 6.00 YELLOW NO

C5 Feed 4.17 YELLOW NO

C6 Escapes 7.00 GREEN NO

C7 Disease 8.00 GREEN NO

C8 Source 10.00 GREEN

3.3X Wildlife mortalities -2.00 GREEN NO

6.2X Introduced species escape 0.00 GREEN

Total 57.61

Final score 7.20

Final Score 7.20

Initial rank GREEN

Red criteria 0

Interim rank GREEN

Critical Criteria? NO

Final Rank BEST CHOICE

Scoring note – scores range from zero to ten where zero indicates very poor performance and ten indicates the aquaculture operations have no significant impact.

3

Executive Summary Red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) production in the United States is relatively minor compared to global production values and, currently, all commercial aquaculture production is located in Texas. Five commercial farms make up the total commercial producers for Texas. The species is a popular target for recreational fisheries, and while commercial capture of red drum is banned in Texas, there is a small commercial fishery for red drum in North Carolina, with landings of up to 100mt a year. Red drum produced in Texas is directed for consumption within the United States or Canada. Overall, data availability is good, but the small size of the industry limits the national reporting on production volumes, exports/imports, and on more detailed production factors. Furthermore, the small industry size has led to a scarcity of recent scientific research publications that would build on the research done in the 1980s and early 1990s on the production of red drum. Red drum operations in Texas are pond-based operations, and as such “pond systems with infrequent and only periodic discharge” was evaluated under the Seafood Watch criteria. Further adjustments to the effluent score were made to reflect the regulatory limitations on discharge releases and the use of constructed wetland filtration systems to limit the release of organic nutrients. The management and regulatory frameworks for aquaculture production of red drum are very robust. The operations are regulated at both the federal and state level. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Aquaculture Act of 1980 (Buck and Becker 1993) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations apply, and the “Regulation of Aquaculture” (chapter 134 of the Texas Agriculture Code) apply to licensing, siting, planning and operations. The Parks and Wildlife Commission of Texas is tasked with regulating the harvest and possession of wild red drum broodstock. Enforcement and consequences of infractions are clearly defined and data on both are made publically available. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality regulates aquaculture discharges. Wildlife and predator mortality was scored as a low concern since aquaculture operations may attract or interact with predators or other wildlife, but effective management and prevention measures limit mortalities to exceptional cases. The main commercial operation in Texas (and therefore the United States) reports that it does not utilize chemicals or hormones in production and there are no antibiotics approved for use on red drum by the FDA. This claim is reinforced by limited or no disease occurrence reports, but currently little specific data or records are available to confirm there is no chemical use at the farm level. Potassium permangate and copper sulfate are used in the pond when a toxic algae bloom cannot be flushed out by pumping water.

4

Although it was not possible to obtain the source species for feed from the feed manufactures the main commercial producer of red drum was able to provide information on the species included. Feed for red drum production is sourced domestically and the feed production companies use domestically captured Gulf Menhaden as the single species in the feed. The sustainability ranking for this species from Fishsource is the second highest ranking available. Less information is available for several important feed factors, including the edible yield, protein content, inclusion of byproducts and crop ingredients; specific information about these factors would help improve the overall score for the feed criterion. Red drum are reared in enclosed ponds and, as is standard practice, all water outlets are covered with mesh and grates to prevent escapes, which results in low risk of escapes. Further, artificially constructed wetlands for nutrient settling are not directly connected to natural water bodies so escapes risk is significantly reduced. Fingerlings are sourced from local hatcheries where genetic fitness is maintained through by using at least 1/4 wild sourced broodstock. The exclusive use of domestic hatcheries removes the risk from international or cross-waterbody animal shipments. The most recent report on the red drum industry in Texas reported that the only on-farm mortalities were due to algal blooms, not diseases or parasites. The main commercial operation in Texas (and therefore the United States) reports that it does not utilize chemicals or hormones in production and this supports the reporting of zero disease or parasite related mortalities. Winter kill is probably the greatest mortality loss for red drum. Thermal refuges are necessary to allow the fish a place to retreat into warmer water to survive. Overall, red drum production in the United States has a small environmental footprint. Data availability is limited in some instances, but that is due to industry size, not lack of transparency. Chemicals and feed were the two factors to score yellow and this score represents the elevated impacts of inputs (paired with low data availability) that are required to produce higher trophic level finfish. The final score of 6.92 represents an overall score of GREEN and is the result of a mix of yellow and green scores for factors

5

Table of Contents Final Seafood Recommendation ..................................................................................................... 1 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 6

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation ............................................................ 6 Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 8

Scoring guide .......................................................................................................................... 8 Criterion 1: Data quality and availability ............................................................................... 8 Criterion 2: Effluents ............................................................................................................ 10 Criterion 3: Habitat .............................................................................................................. 12 Factor 3.3X: Wildlife and predator mortalities .................................................................... 13 Criterion 4: Evidence or Risk of Chemical Use ..................................................................... 15 Criterion 5: Feed .................................................................................................................. 16 Criterion 6: Escapes ............................................................................................................. 19 Factor 6.2X: Escape of unintentionally introduced species................................................. 20 Criterion 7. Disease; pathogen and parasite interactions ................................................... 21 Criterion 8. Source of Stock – independence from wild fisheries ....................................... 23

Overall Recommendation ............................................................................................................. 24 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 25 References .................................................................................................................................... 26 About Seafood Watch® ................................................................................................................. 29 Guiding Principles ......................................................................................................................... 30 Data points and all scoring calculations........................................................................................ 32

6

Introduction Scope of the Analysis and Ensuing Recommendation Species: Red Drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) Geographic Coverage: United States Production Methods: Ponds

Species Overview Red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) is a marine finfish species native to the western Atlantic from Massachusetts in USA to northern Mexico (Froese and Pauley 2011). It is able to live in waters of varying salinities ranging, for example, from estuaries to open ocean. It is a popular game fish, however, a rapid increase in commercial fishery capture in the 1970s led to critical declines in wild populations, resulting in the prohibition of commercial capture in Texas waters (Vega, Neill and Abrega 2010). As part of a stock restoration effort, hatchery operations were started for releasing fingerlings into the wild. The fingerling releases continue to-date and red drum continues to be a popular sport fish (with bag limits in place) (Davis 1990; Vega, Neill and Abrega 2010). Commercial aquaculture operations were started in the late 1980s to early 1990s along the Gulf Coast, with Texas leading the effort. Today, Texas is the only state with commercial red drum production with 7 facilities currently in operation (Treece 2012). Grow-out takes 18-24 months for the fish to reach market size and the market price for 2012 was reported as USD 6.12 – 6.94/kg (Treece 2012). One operation in Texas dominates domestic production, with product sold under the “Copper Shoals” label (Treece 2012). Production Statistics Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) figures for 2007 through 2011 are shown in Table 1 along with their global significance; more recently, the 2011 total production volume of red drum in Texas was estimated at 1,474 tonnes (Treece 2012). Table 1. 2007-2011 United States and Global Aquaculture Production Red Drum (Sciaenops ocellatus). 2007-2010 Production statistics (FAO 2012). 2011 United States production figure from Treece 2012.

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

United States Production (tonnes) 1814 1400 1400 1134 1474

Global Production (tonnes) 51819 53105 51471 54536 67339

% contribution of US to Global Production 3.5% 2.4% 2.7% 2.1% 2.2%

7

Import and Export Sources and Statistics Red drum produced in the United States is consumed domestically or exported to Canada (Copper Shoals 2013). No national import or export data are available on red drum as it is aggregated together with several other species groups (NOAA 2011). Further, no import or export commodity flow data are available from the usual sources such as the FAO of the UN due to aggregation with other species (FAO 2012). Common and Market Names Red drum, redfish, channel bass, and spotted bass. Mostly commonly identified as either red drum or redfish. Product Forms Whole chilled, whole frozen, fresh or frozen fillets and steaks

8

Analysis

Scoring guide With the exclusion of the exceptional factors (3.3x and 6.2X), all scores result in a zero to

ten final score for the criterion and the overall final rank. A zero score indicates poor performance, while a score of ten indicates high performance. In contrast, the two exceptional factors result in negative scores from zero to minus ten, and in these cases zero indicates no negative impact.

The full Seafood Watch Aquaculture Criteria that the following scores relate to are available here http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/sfw_aboutsfw.aspx

The full data values and scoring calculations are available in Annex 1.

Criterion 1: Data Quality and Availability Impact, unit of sustainability and principle Impact: Poor data quality and availability limits the ability to assess and understand the

impacts of aquaculture production. It also does not enable informed choices for seafood purchasers, nor enable businesses to be held accountable for their impacts.

Sustainability unit: The ability to make a robust sustainability assessment. Principle: Robust and up-to-date information on production practices and their impacts is

available to relevant stakeholders. Criterion 1 Summary

Data Category Relevance (Y/N) Data Quality

Score (0-10)

Industry or production statistics Yes 7.5 7.5

Effluent Yes 7.5 7.5

Locations/habitats Yes 10 10

Predators and wildlife Yes 7.5 7.5

Chemical use Yes 7.5 7.5

Feed Yes 5.0 5.0

Escapes, animal movements Yes 10 10

Disease Yes 5 5

Source of stock Yes 10 10

Other – (e.g., GHG emissions) No Not

relevant n/a

Total 70

C1 Data Final Score 7.78 GREEN

9

Justification of Ranking The majority of the factors scored 7.5 for data quality. Full data is not available for some factors due to the small size of the industry in the United States. The poorest score for data quality was for feed (2.5 / 10) as no up-to-date public or scientific information was available. Several factors with more up-to-date and specific data available (locations/habitats; escapes, animal movements; and source of stock) scored 10. A key source of data on red drum production in the United States was a 2012 report on the aquaculture industry in Texas (Treece 2012). Further information on production system details including feed, diseases, and chemical use were provided by the primary producer in Texas, Jim Ekstrom, through personal communications. Overall, scientific publications are limited in number, and there are no recent publications because the small size of the industry hasn’t warranted more.

10

Criterion 2: Effluents Impact, unit of sustainability and principle Impact: Aquaculture species, production systems and management methods vary in the

amount of waste produced and discharged per unit of production. The combined discharge of farms, groups of farms or industries contributes to local and regional nutrient loads.

Sustainability unit: The carrying or assimilative capacity of the local and regional receiving waters beyond the farm or its allowable zone of effect.

Principle: Aquaculture operations minimize or avoid the production and discharge of wastes at the farm level in combination with an effective management or regulatory system to control the location, scale and cumulative impacts of the industry’s waste discharges beyond the immediate vicinity of the farm.

Criterion 2 Summary Full Assessment

Effluent Parameters Value Score

F2.1a Biological waste (nitrogen) production per of fish (kg N ton-1) 105.6

F2.1b Waste discharged from farm (%) 10

F2 .1 Waste discharge score (0-10) 8

F2.2a Content of regulations (0-5) 4.25

F2.2b Enforcement of regulations (0-5) 5

F2.2 Regulatory or management effectiveness score (0-10) 8.5

C2 Effluent Final Score 9.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

Justification of Ranking The full assessment was used because complete data and records were not available, nor were there any scientific publications on the impacts of discharges from red drum operations to draw from. Red drum operations in Texas are self-contained ponds (Treece 2012), and a score of 0.34 or “pond systems with infrequent and only periodic discharge” was assigned. State regulations stipulate that wastewater must be treated before being released into state waters (or not released). To meet this requirement, producers use constructed settling ponds/wetland filtration systems for water discharged from the pond systems, and so an adjustment of -0.24 was given (Section 134.011. Texas Agriculture Code 2007). Based on federal regulations in combination with state regulations full scoring was awarded for the “regulatory or management effectiveness” scoring. Effluent regulations that are scientifically robust—specific to aquaculture operations—and site-specific limits to discharges, effluents and biomass are set to cover the entire production cycle. Water quality measures (with limitation in place and set collection times) that must be collected under the “Texas Commission on Environmental Quality General Permit to Discharge Wastes” (TCEQ 2013)

11

include: flow, total suspended solids, inorganic suspended solids, total residual chlorine, pH, dissolved oxygen, carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand, and ammonia nitrogen. Cumulative impacts are addressed as a control point in Section 309 of the Coastal Management Plan (CMP) along with secondary impacts of development (Texas General Land Office 2011). Enforcement factors from 2.2 also scored well. The Texas Department of Agriculture holds authority for the regulation of aquaculture (Treece 2005). Permitting and enforcement organizations include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ); and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD); US Fish and Wildlife Service; US Army Corps of Engineers, etc. (Treece 2005). Penalties for infractions of the Texas Agriculture Code and the TCEQ’s general permit to discharge waters are clearly identified in Section 134.023 Penalties and charges for infringements range from misdemeanor to felony charges (Texas Agriculture Code 2007). The EPA publishes online its enforcement cases with the name of the respondent, description of alleged violation and the penalty amount (EPA 2012). The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality supplies monthly enforcement reports (TCEQ 2013b) and reported 61.750 on-site investigations in 2012. Furthermore, they reported the percent of permitted facilities in compliance with permits, enforcement orders, or programs per annum. In 2012, it was reported that 99% of all water facilities inspected were in compliance (TCEQ 2013b).

12

Criterion 3: Habitat Impact, Unit of Sustainability and Principle Impact: Aquaculture farms can be located in a wide variety of aquatic and terrestrial habitat

types and have greatly varying levels of impact to both pristine and previously modified habitats and to the critical “ecosystem services” they provide.

Sustainability unit: The ability to maintain the critical ecosystem services relevant to the habitat type.

Principle: Aquaculture operations are located at sites, scales and intensities that cumulatively maintain the functionality of ecologically valuable habitats.

Criterion 3 Summary

Habitat Parameters Value Score

F3.1 Habitat conversion and function 7.00

F3.2a Content of habitat regulations 4.50

F3.2b Enforcement of habitat regulations 5.00

F3.2 Regulatory or management effectiveness score 9.00

C3 Habitat Final Score 7.67 GREEN

Critical? NO

Justification of Ranking Factor 3.1. Habitat Conversion and Function Red drum are raised in enclosed ponds and some of these ponds are converted former shrimp ponds (Treece 2012). Texas has approximately 600 acres of ponds for red drum grow-out (Treece 2012), but not all ponds are stocked in every year. The majority of ponds are located near the coast and are scored as coastal-inshore habitats. The overall habitat impacts were scored as moderate. Factor 3.2. Habitat and Farm Siting Management Effectiveness (appropriate to the scale of the industry) The management and regulatory frameworks for aquaculture production of red drum are very robust. The operations are regulated at both the federal and state level. US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Aquaculture Act of 1980 (Buck and Becker 1993) and EPA regulations apply as well as the Texas Agriculture Code, which applies to licensing, siting, planning and operations. Chapter 281 of the CMP requires the completion of an environmental impact assessment (Texas General Land Office 2011). The Clean Water Act (CWA 2002), Section 404 is enforced by the US Army Corps of Engineers and requires a permit be issued for any dredging, construction of intake structures, and any wetland use (TCEQ 2013). Further, under Section 309 of the CMP (Texas General Land Office 2011) there is a “no net loss of wetlands” policy in place. In the period of 2006-2011, 12,932 acres of wetland were regained through voluntary measures (Texas General Land Office 2011). This does not guarantee that no wetland habitat was lost to

13

aquaculture development, but does suggest that a culture of wetland preservation exists. Data on loss of wetlands is not available as a 2001 US Supreme Court decision removed wetlands not part of navigable waters from permit requirements (Texas General Land Office 2011). As part of the permitting process, cumulative impacts are addressed as a control point in Section 309 of the CMP along with secondary impacts of development (Texas General Land Office 2011). Although cumulative impacts are addressed, overall ecosystem function is not. As stated in Criterion 2, effluent, the enforcement agencies are easily contacted and the enforcement and penalties are robust. Penalties for infractions of the Texas Agriculture Code and the TCEQ general permit to discharge waters are clearly identified in Section 134.023 Penalties and charges for infringements range from misdemeanor to felony charges (Texas Agriculture Code 2007). The EPA publishes online its enforcement cases with the name of the respondent, description of alleged violation, and the penalty amount (EPA 2012). The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality supplies monthly enforcement reports (TCEQ 2013b) and reported 61.750 on-site investigations in 2012. They also reported the percent of permitted facilities in compliance with permits, enforcement orders, or programs per annum. In 2012 it was reported that 99% of all water facilities inspected were in compliance (TCEQ 2013b).

Factor 3.3X: Wildlife and Predator Mortalities A measure of the effects of deliberate or accidental mortality on the populations of affected species of predators or other wildlife This is an “exceptional” factor that may not apply in many circumstances. It generates a negative score that is deducted from the overall final score. A score of zero means there is no impact. Factor 3.3X Summary

Wildlife and Predator mortality Parameters Score

F3.3X Wildlife and predator Mortality Final Score -2.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

Justification of Ranking Wildlife and predator mortality was scored as a low concern as aquaculture operations may attract or interact with predators or other wildlife, but effective management and prevention measures limit mortalities to exceptional cases. Bird predation can have a significant economic impact on aquaculture operations and the Southern Regional Aquaculture Center offers extension services for implementing non-lethal deterrents such as scaring devices as well as physical barriers (Littauer et al. 1997). Although exceptions may be granted, The Migratory Bird

14

Treaty Act of the US prohibits the killing of migratory bird species (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq. available at http://www.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/703). Pond operations do not encounter marine mammal mortalities caused by net entanglement of predators. Farm operators report mostly nuisance occurrences of potential predator birds, but they have permits from USFWS to take lethal action to remove predators in exceptional cases (Jim Ekstrom, Copper Shoals, personal communication, March 2013). In summary, the score for the habitat criterion is good (7.67). The small (approximately 600 acres) industry is mostly situated near the coast in coastal-inshore habitat. Some current operations were converted from former shrimp farms and did not require the conversion of wetlands of similar habitat into new aquaculture ponds. These moderate impacts are combined with very robust regulatory frameworks as well as strong enforcement and penalties for noncompliance. The only shortfall in the established regulations is that ecosystem function is not considered as part of the assessment for farms.

15

Criterion 4: Evidence or Risk of Chemical Use Impact, Unit of Sustainability and Principle Impact: Improper use of chemical treatments impacts non-target organisms and leads to

production losses and human health concerns due to the development of chemical-resistant organisms.

Sustainability unit: Non-target organisms in the local or regional environment, presence of pathogens or parasites resistant to important treatments.

Principle: Aquaculture operations by design, management or regulation avoid the discharge of chemicals toxic to aquatic life, and/or effectively control the frequency, risk of environmental impact and risk to human health of their use.

Criterion 4 Summary

Chemical Use Parameters Score

C4 Chemical Use Score 6.00

C4 Chemical Use Final Score 6.00 YELLOW

Critical? NO

Justification of Ranking The main commercial operation in Texas (and therefore the United States) reports that they do not utilize antibiotics or hormones in production (Copper Shoals 2012), but currently little specific data or records are available to confirm this. The claim is reinforced by limited or no disease occurrences (other than those associated with algal blooms) reported in a 2012 report on the aquaculture industry in Texas (Treece 2012). The only chemicals used historically were copper sulfate and potassium permanganate to control algal blooms and any potential toxins associated with the blooms. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s general permit to discharge wastes (TCEQ 2013) requires that any chemicals, drugs or antibiotics used be reported to the TCEQ. The main cause of mortality is algal blooms, and producers have been modifying salinity levels to control blooms (Treece 2012). Without more data or available reporting, the chemical use score is a6 – low-moderate concern as the operations meet the criteria of “specific data may be limited, but the species or production systems have a demonstrably low need for chemical use.”

16

Criterion 5: Feed Impact, Unit of Sustainability and Principle Impact: Feed consumption, feed type, ingredients used and the net nutritional gains or

losses vary dramatically between farmed species and production systems. Producing feeds and their ingredients has complex global ecological impacts, and their efficiency of conversion can result in net food gains, or dramatic net losses of nutrients. Feed use is considered to be one of the defining factors of aquaculture sustainability.

Sustainability unit: The amount and sustainability of wild fish caught for feeding to farmed fish, the global impacts of harvesting or cultivating feed ingredients, and the net nutritional gains or losses from the farming operation.

Principle: Aquaculture operations source only sustainable feed ingredients, convert them efficiently and responsibly, and minimize and utilize the non-edible portion of farmed fish.

Criterion 5 Summary

Feed Parameters Value Score

F5.1a Fish In: Fish Out ratio (FIFO) 2.10 4.75

F5.1b Source Fishery Sustainability Score -2.00

F5.1: Wild Fish Use 4.33

F5.2a Protein IN 53.27

F5.2b Protein OUT 14.40

F5.2: Net Protein Gain or Loss (%) -72.97 2

F5.3: Feed Footprint (hectares) 9.93 6

C5 Feed Final Score 4.17 YELLOW

Critical? NO

Justification of Ranking A lack of data availability was a main factor in the scoring for all components of Criterion 5: Feed. When data was available it was approximately 15 years old. The combination of older data, as well as limited availability of new data, resulted in a number of average values having to be used. Overall, better information on the composition of the feeds used would, most likely, improve the overall feed score. Factor 5.1. Wild Fish Use Fishmeal and fish oil inclusion levels were only available from an older data source and were reported at 12% and 5%, respectively (Faulk 2005). The economic FCR of 2.1 is reported consistently in the literature (Faulk 2005; Treece 2012). Fish In: Fish Out (FIFO) was calculated based on the larger of the two values calculated using either fishmeal or fish oil. The calculations are shown below (please note that fishmeal and fish oil yield values were not available, so average data provided in the MBA scoring tool were utilized):

17

FIFO Fishmeal= ((fishmeal inclusion level) * (economic FCR)) / (fishmeal yield) FIFO Fishmeal = ((12)*(2.1))/(22.5) = 1.12 FIFO Fish Oil = ((fish oil inclusion level) * (economic FCR)) / (fish oil yield) FIFO Fish Oil = ((5)*(2.1))/(5) = 2.10 Final FIFO Value (larger of the two) = 2.10 Overall, better information on the use of any byproduct for fishmeal or oil would, most likely, improve the feed footprint scoring No public information is available from feed companies on the wild-caught species utilized in the red drum feed used for grow-out (Rangen 2008); however the producer at Copper Shoals (Jim Ekstrom, Copper Shoals, personal communication, March 2013) reported that the feed is sourced from Gulf Menhaden and this is further confirmed in a species fact sheet on red drum (CABI 2006). Gulf Menhaden scores >6 for all Fishsource scores and has more than one score of >8 (Fishsource 2013). As a result, 5.1b Source fishery sustainability score was assessed at -2. Factor 5.2. Net Protein Gain or Loss The protein content of feed used was reported as 40% (Faulk 2005), as high protein inclusion is required for optimal growth of red drum in culture (Webb and Gatlin 1998; McGoogan and Gatlin 1999). Newer data may indicate lower protein inclusion levels, but were not available. Data on use of non-edible feed sources and feed protein from crops were not available and were, therefore, assumed to be the same as average, assumed values (Tacon et al. 2011). In a 2011 report (Tacon, Hasan, and Metian, 2011) commercial feed in the United States had, on average, 26% non-edible byproducts so this value was utilized. The feed protein from crops was also assumed to be an average value of 37% as provided in a 2009 FAO technical paper (Tacon, Metian, and Hasan 2009). The average protein content of whole harvested fish used (18%) was from the MBA scoring tool. The edible yield of the whole harvested fish was not available in the literature and an average value of 60% was taken from an FAO technical paper (Tacon, Metian, and Hasan 2009). Additionally, data specific to the edible yield of red drum were not available so standard, assumed values were utilized from an older FAO technical document (Tory Research Station 1989). Finally, the percentage of non-edible byproducts from harvested, farmed fish used for other food production was not available in the literature so the MBA supplied value of 50% was used. Protein In = [protein content of feed - (protein content of feed*(percentage of feed protein from non-edible sources + (0.286*percentage of feed from edible crop sources)) / 100)] x FCR Protein In = [40 – (40*(26+(0.286*37)) / 100)] * 2.1 = 53.27112 Protein Out = (protein content of whole harvest farmed fish / 100) * [(edible yield of harvest farmed fish + (percentage of non-edible by-products from harvest farmed fish used for other food production * (100-edible yield of harvested farmed fish)) / 100] Protein Out = (18/100) * [(60 + (50 * (100-60)) / 100] = 14.4

18

Net protein gain or loss = (Protein Out – Protein In) / Protein In Net protein loss = (14.4 – 53.27.112) / 53.27112 = -73.0% Red drum culture results in a net loss of protein Overall, better information on the protein content of whole harvested fish, the percentage of non-edible byproducts used for other food production, and the edible yield of the harvested fish would most likely improve the feed footprint scoring. Factor 5.3. Feed Footprint Edible crop inclusion from wheat and soy amounted to a 52% inclusion of crop while meat and bone meal from land animals was 10% (CABI 2006). The greater the component of the feed from crop ingredients the lower the overall feed footprint. Listed in descending order of primary productivity requirements: marine ingredients, land animal ingredients, crop based ingredients. Ocean area appropriated per ton of farmed fish = [(inclusion level of aquatic feed ingredients / 100) * eFCR * average primary productivity (carbon) required for aquatic feed ingredients] / average ocean productivity for continental shelf area Ocean area appropriated per ton of farmed fish = [(17 / 100) * 2.1 * 69.7] / 2.68 = 9.28 ha ton-1 of farmed fish Land area appropriated per ton of farmed fish = [inclusion level of crop feed ingredients + (inclusion of land animal products * conversion ratio of crop ingredients to land animal products) * 0.01 * eFCR] / average yield of major feed ingredient crops The land area appropriated per ton of farmed fish = [52 + (10 * 2.88) * 0.01 * 2.1] /2.64 = 0.64 ha ton-1 of farmed fish Value (ocean + land area) = 9.93 ha ton-1 of farmed fish Overall, better information and/or more up-to-date information on the composition of the feeds used would most likely improve the feed score.

19

Criterion 6: Escapes Impact, Unit of Sustainability and Principle Impact: Competition, genetic loss, predation, habitat damage , spawning disruption, and

other impacts on wild fish and ecosystems resulting from the escape of native, non-native and/or genetically distinct fish or other unintended species from aquaculture operations.

Sustainability unit: Affected ecosystems and/or associated wild populations. Principle: Aquaculture operations pose no substantial risk of deleterious effects to wild

populations associated with the escape of farmed fish or other unintentionally introduced species.

Criterion 6 Summary

Escape Parameters Value Score

F6.1 Escape Risk 8.00

F6.1a Recapture and Mortality (%) 0

F6.1b Invasiveness 6.5

C6 Escape Final Score 7.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

Justification of Ranking Factor 6.1a. Escape Risk Red drum are raised in enclosed earthen ponds (Treece 2012); this assessment therefore considered these as low risk (8) systems with multiple fail-safe escape prevention methods. Aquaculture systems such as ponds without direct connectivity to natural water bodies greatly reduce the risk of escape events. In open systems, such as flow-through or net-pen operations, physical barriers from the surrounding environment may be breached through a variety of mechanisms and the likelihood of escape events is much higher. In the red drum operations in Texas, all water outlet drains have mesh and grate barriers to prevent escapes and no escapes have occurred (Jim Ekstrom, Personal Communication, March 2013). Although the ponds are not discharged regularly, if a flood event occurs the water levels can be lowered through discharge (TCEQ 2013) to prevent overflow that may increase the risk of escapes. Factor 6.1b. Invasiveness Fingerlings are sourced from local hatcheries operated with a mandate of utilizing wild sourced broodstock at a rate of at least 25% of the total broodstock to ensure no loss of genetic fitness (Vega, Neill and Abrego. 2010). Texas operates an extensive restocking program and the broodstock are utilized for aquaculture as well as for restocking operations (Treece 2012) As a result, the invasiveness score of this native species was scored as one-generation hatchery-raised (“6.5”) or genetically similar to wild populations.

20

Factor 6.2X: Escape of unintentionally introduced species A measure of the escape risk (introduction to the wild) of alien species other than the principle farmed species unintentionally transported during live animal shipments. This is an “exceptional” criterion that may not apply in many circumstances. It generates a negative score that is deducted from the overall final score. Factor 6.2X Summary

Escape of unintentionally introduced species parameters Score

F6.2Xa International or trans-waterbody live animal shipments (%) 10.00

F6.2Xb Biosecurity of source/destination 10.00

C6 Escape of unintentionally introduced species Final Score 0.00 GREEN

Justification of Ranking Factor 6.2Xa International or Trans-waterbody Live Animal Shipments The red drum industry utilizes only domestically raised fingerlings in the United States and the industry in Texas has grow-out operations with integrated hatcheries (Treece 2012; Vega, Neill and Abrego 2010) so there is no concern surrounding international or trans-waterbody live animal shipments and F6.2Xa correspondingly scores 0. Factor 6.2Xb Biosecurity of Source/Destination The source/destination receives the same score as the biosecurity for escape risk, but that score in nullified by the lack of risk with international or trans-waterbody shipments. The risk of escape of the farmed fish is weighted by the invasiveness factor (ecosystem impacts of escapees and how genetically different the farmed fish are from wild populations, in the case of rearing native species). These two factors (escape risk of 8 and invasiveness factor of 6.5) are combined to calculate an overall Escape Final Score of 7. Factor 6.2X does not weight the final score as the lack of international or trans-waterbody shipments nullifies the risks.

21

Criterion 7. Disease; Pathogen andPparasitI interactions Impact, Unit of Sustainability and Principle Impact: Amplification of local pathogens and parasites on fish farms and their

retransmission to local wild species that share the same water body. Sustainability unit: Wild populations susceptible to elevated levels of pathogens and

parasites. Principle: Aquaculture operations pose no substantial risk of deleterious effects to wild

populations through the amplification and retransmission of pathogens or parasites. Criterion 7 Summary

Pathogen and Parasite Parameters Score

C7 Biosecurity 8.00

C7 Disease; Pathogen and Parasite Final Score 8.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

Justification of Ranking The most recent report on the red drum industry in Texas (the only state with commercial production in the United States) stated that on-farm mortalities were due to algal blooms, not diseases or parasites (Treece 2012). The main commercial operation in Texas (and therefore the United States) reports that they do not utilize chemicals or hormones in production (Copper Shoals 2012) and this supports the reporting of zero disease or parasite related mortalities. Recent experiences aside, there is always the potential for disease outbreaks. The FAO Cultured Species Factsheet on red drum (Faulk 2005) list the following as diseases that have occurred in red drum under culture with suggested treatments listed in brackets:

viral nervous necrosis (disinfection of culture water – UV, ozone, etc.; culling of effected

fish)

enteromyxosis (disinfection of culture water – UV, ozone, etc.; culling of effected fish)

lymphocystis (minimize stocking density; quarantine fish; disinfection of culture water –

UV, ozone, etc.)

crustacean ectoparasites (freshwater dip; formalin dip)

vibriosis (antibiotics; culling of effected fish; disinfection of culture water; reduce stress)

streptococcus iniaei (antibiotics; culling of effected fish; disinfection of culture water;

reduce stress)

amyloodiniosis (fresh water dip; water filtration; copper sulfate (not approved for food

fish)

22

cryptocaryonosis (reduced salinity; lower temperature; copper sulfate / formalin dip

(neither approved for food fish))

Further, research by Li, Gatlin, and Neill (2007) suggest dietary supplementation with nucleotide mixtures increases red drum juveniles’ ability to overcome bacterial infection with Vibrio harveyi. Although the list of potential diseases and pathogens in the farm culture of red drum is lengthy, the producers in the United States report no occurrences. Furthermore, through salinity management, they have been able to reduce the impact of algal blooms on their farmed fish. An “8 low concern” score was assigned for these production systems as pond water is discharged infrequently (less than once per production cycle) (Treece 2012) and the lack of on-farm disease would indicate the farms are not amplifying pathogens or parasite numbers above background levels.

23

Criterion 8. Source of Stock—Independence from Wild Fisheries Impact, Unit of Sustainability and Principle Impact: The removal of fish from wild populations for on-growing to harvest size in farms. Sustainability unit: wild fish populations. Principle: Aquaculture operations use eggs, larvae, or juvenile fish produced from farm-

raised broodstocks thereby avoiding the need for wild capture. Criterion 8 Summary

Source of Stock Parameters Score

C8 % of production from hatchery-raised broodstock or natural (passive) settlement

100

C8 Source of Stock Final Score 10.0 GREEN

Justification of Ranking The red drum industry utilizes only domestically raised fingerlings in the United States, and the industry in Texas has grow-out operations with integrated hatcheries (Treece 2012). A stock enhancement for wild red drum populations is run in the western Gulf of Mexico and this program accounts for the release of approximately 24 million fingerlings annually (Vega, Neill and Abrego 2010). The sourcing of broodstock from the wild, only when required, combined with the stock-enhancement releases mean that the removal of a small quantity of wild fish for broodstock does not have a detrimental impact on wild stocks. The criterion was scored as 1.0 to reflect the lack of impact the removal of a small number of fish from the wild population has on the overall population health.

24

Overall Recommendation The overall final score is the average of the individual criterion scores (after the two exceptional scores have been deducted from the total). The overall ranking is decided according to the final score, the number of red criteria, and the number of critical scores as follows: – Best Choice = Final score ≥6.6 AND no individual criteria are Red (i.e. <3.3) – Good Alternative = Final score ≥3.3 AND <6.6, OR Final score ≥ 6.6 and there is one

individual “Red” criterion – Red = Final score <3.3, OR there is more than one individual Red criterion, OR there is one

or more Critical score

Red Drum

Sciaenops ocellatus

United States of America

Ponds

Criterion Score (0-10) Rank Critical?

C1 Data 7.78 GREEN

C2 Effluent 9.00 GREEN NO

C3 Habitat 7.67 GREEN NO

C4 Chemicals 6.00 YELLOW NO

C5 Feed 4.17 YELLOW NO

C6 Escapes 7.00 GREEN NO

C7 Disease 8.00 GREEN NO

C8 Source 10.00 GREEN

3.3X Wildlife mortalities -2.00 GREEN NO

6.2X Introduced species escape 0.00 GREEN

Total 57.61

Final score 7.20

Final Score 7.20

Initial rank GREEN

Red criteria 0

Interim rank GREEN

Critical Criteria? NO

Final Rank BEST CHOICE

25

Acknowledgements Scientific review does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program, or its seafood recommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. Seafood Watch would like to thank Jim Ekstrom of Ekstrom Enterprises, Delbert Gatlin of Texas A&M University, Michael Masser of Texas A&M University, and Granvil Treece of Sea Grant for graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy and clarity.

26

References

Buck, E. and G. Becker. 1993. Aquaculture and the Federal Role. Report for Congress. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. 15pp. CABI, 2006. Sciaenops ocellatus [original text by Granvil D. Treece and Robert Adami,]. In: Invasive Species Compendium. Wallingford, UK: CAB International. www.cabi.org/isc. Copper Shoals. 2013. Chilled to Perfection. URL: http://coppershoals.com/copper_shoals.html CWA 2012. Federal water pollution control act. Section 404. URL: http://www.epw.senate.gov/water.pdf Davis, J. 1990. Red Drum: broodstock and hatchery production. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center (SRAC). Publication No. 323. Diamant A. 1998. Red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) (Sciaenidae), a recent introduction to Mediterranean mariculture, is susceptible to Myxidium leei (Myxosporea). Aquaculture. Volume 162(1-2). EPA 2012. EPA announces summary of enforcement action for spring 2012. Released 08/13/2012. United States Environmental Protection Agency. URL: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/28AAA69F276AA65485257A590082EDA9 FAO. 2013. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FIGIS. FishStat (Database). Accessed (28 Feb 2013). URL: http://data.fao.org/ref/babf3346-ff2d-4e6c-9a40-ef6a50fcd422.html?version=1.0 Faulk, C.K. 2005. In: Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme. Sciaenops ocellatus. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. URL: http://www.fao.org/fishery/culturedspecies/Sciaenops_ocellatus/en Fishsource. 2013. Sustainable Fisheries Partnership. FishSource Profile for Gulf menhaden - Gulf of Mexico. http://www.fishsource.com/site/goto_profile_by_uuid/9c1cbdd0-3225-11dd-87d8-daf105bfb8c2 accessed 2013-03-05 Froese, R. and D. Pauly. Editors. 2011. FishBase. URL: http://www.fishbase.org/summary/Sciaenops-ocellatus.html Li, P., Gatlin, D. M. and Neill, W. H. 2007. Dietary Supplementation of a purified nucleotide mixture transiently enhanced growth and feed utilization of juvenile red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, 38: 281–286.

27

Littauer, G., Glahn, J., Reinhold D., and Brunson, M. 1997. Control of bird predation at aquaculture facilities: strategies and cost estimates. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center. SRAC Publication No. 402. October 1997 Revision. URL: https://srac.tamu.edu/index.cfm/event/getFactSheet/whichfactsheet/82/ McGoogan, B. and Gatlin, D. 1999. Dietary manipulations affecting growth and nitrogenous waste production of red drum, (Sciaenops ocellatus). Effects of dietary protein and energy levels, Aquaculture, Volume 178(3–4). NOAA 2011. Imports and exports of fishery products annual summary, 2011. Current Fisheries Statistic No. 2011-2. URL: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/commercial/trade/TRADE2011.pdf Rangen 2008. Red Drum Feed. Rangen Inc.: Aquaculture Feeds Division. URL: http://www.mresourcegroup.com/rangen/redfishfeeds.htm Tacon, A., Hasan, M., Metian, M. 2011. Demand and supply of feed ingredients for farmed fish and crustaceans: trends and prospects. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 564. FAO. 87 pp. Tacon, A., Metian, M., Hasan, M. 2009. Feed ingredients and fertilizers for farmed aquatic animals: sources and composition. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 540. Rome, FAO. 209p. TCEQ 2013. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. TPDES General Permit No. TXG130000 under provision of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act and Chapter 26 of the Texas Water Code. URL: http://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/permitting/wastewater/general/txg130000.pdf TCEQ 2013b. Monthly enforcement reports. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. URL: http://www.tceq.texas.gov/enforcement/reports/mer/enf_reports.html Texas Agriculture Code. 2007. Texas Agriculture Code – Chapter 134 Regulation Of Aquaculture. URL: http://law.onecle.com/texas/agriculture/chapter134.html Texas General Land Office. 2011. Texas coastal management program: Section 309 assessment strategies. Report 2011-2015. URL: http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/mystate/docs/tx3092011.pdf Torry Research Station, Aberdeen (UK). 1989. Yield and nutritional value of the commercially more important fish species. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 309. Rome, FAO. 187p. Treece, G. 2005. Updated governmental permitting and regulatory requirements affecting Texas coastal aquaculture operations. Texas A&M University Sea Grant College Program.

28

TAMU-SG-05-501. URL: http://texas-sea-grant.tamu.edu/WhatWeDo/online%20publications/TexasPerMan.pdf Treece, G. 2012. The Texas Aquaculture Industry 2012. Part 1. Texas A&M University. Sea Grant College Program. URL: http://www.texasaquaculture.org/TX Aqua 2011/Tex. aqua. 2012 part 1.pdf Vega, R., Neill, W., and Abrego, D. 2010. Review of Red Drum Stock Enhancement in Texas. Aquaculture 2010 Conference. Lake Jackson, Texas. March 2010. Webb, K. and Gatlin, D. 2003. Effects of dietary protein level and form on production characteristics and ammonia excretion of red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus). Aquaculture. Volume 225(1–4).

29

About Seafood Watch® Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans. Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices,” “Good Alternatives” or “Avoid.” The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch® Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each species changes, Seafood Watch®’s sustainability recommendations and the underlying Seafood Reports will be updated to reflect these changes. Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems are welcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find useful. For more information about Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports, please contact the Seafood Watch® program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling 1-877-229-9990. Disclaimer Seafood Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

30

Guiding Principles

Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished1 or farmed, that can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. The following guiding principles illustrate the qualities that aquaculture must possess to be considered sustainable by the Seafood Watch program: Seafood Watch will:

Support data transparency and therefore aquaculture producers or industries that make

information and data on production practices and their impacts available to relevant

stakeholders.

Promote aquaculture production that minimizes or avoids the discharge of wastes at the

farm level in combination with an effective management or regulatory system to control

the location, scale and cumulative impacts of the industry’s waste discharges beyond the

immediate vicinity of the farm.

Promote aquaculture production at locations, scales and intensities that cumulatively

maintain the functionality of ecologically valuable habitats without unreasonably penalizing

historic habitat damage.

Promote aquaculture production that by design, management or regulation avoids the use

and discharge of chemicals toxic to aquatic life, and/or effectively controls the frequency,

risk of environmental impact and risk to human health of their use.

Within the typically limited data availability, use understandable quantitative and relative

indicators to recognize the global impacts of feed production and the efficiency of

conversion of feed ingredients to farmed seafood.

Promote aquaculture operations that pose no substantial risk of deleterious effects to wild

fish or shellfish populations through competition, habitat damage, genetic introgression,

hybridization, spawning disruption, changes in trophic structure or other impacts associated

with the escape of farmed fish or other unintentionally introduced species.

Promote aquaculture operations that pose no substantial risk of deleterious effects to wild

populations through the amplification and retransmission of pathogens or parasites.

Promote the use of eggs, larvae, or juvenile fish produced in hatcheries using domesticated

broodstocks thereby avoiding the need for wild capture.

Recognize that energy use varies greatly among different production systems and can be a

major impact category for some aquaculture operations, and also recognize that improving

1 “Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates.

31

practices for some criteria may lead to more energy intensive production systems (e.g.

promoting more energy intensive closed recirculation systems).

Once a score and rank has been assigned to each criterion, an overall seafood recommendation is developed on additional evaluation guidelines. Criteria ranks and the overall recommendation are color-coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocket guide: Best Choices/Green: Are well managed and caught or farmed in environmentally friendly ways. Good Alternatives/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they’re caught or farmed. Avoid/Red: Take a pass on these. These items are overfished or caught or farmed in ways that harm other marine life or the environment.

32

Data Points and All Scoring Calculations This is a condensed version of the criteria and scoring sheet to provide access to all data points and calculations. See the Seafood Watch Aquaculture Criteria document for a full explanation of the criteria, calculations and scores. Yellow cells represent data entry points.

Criterion 1: Data Quality and Availability

Data Category Relevance (Y/N) Data Quality Score (0-10)

Industry or production statistics Yes 7.5 7.5

Effluent Yes 7.5 7.5

Locations/habitats Yes 10 10

Predators and wildlife Yes 7.5 7.5

Chemical use Yes 7.5 7.5

Feed Yes 5.0 5.0

Escapes, animal movements Yes 10 10

Disease Yes 5 5

Source of stock Yes 10 10

Other – (e.g. GHG emissions) No Not relevant n/a

Total 67.5

C1 Data Final Score 7.78 GREEN

Criterion 2: Effluents

Factor 2.1a - Biological Waste Production Score

Protein content of feed (%) 40

eFCR 2.1

Fertilizer N input (kg N/ton fish) 0

Protein content of harvested fish (%) 18

N content factor (fixed) 0.16

N input per ton of fish produced (kg) 134.4

N in each ton of fish harvested (kg) 28.8

Waste N produced per ton of fish (kg) 105.6

Factor 2.1b - Production System Discharge Score

Basic production system score 0.34

Adjustment 1 (if applicable) 0

Adjustment 2 (if applicable) -0.24

Adjustment 3 (if applicable) 0

Discharge (Factor 2.1b) score 0.1

33

2.2 – Management of farm-level and cumulative impacts and appropriateness to the scale of the industry

Factor 2.2a - Regulatory or management effectiveness

Question Scoring Score

1 - Are effluent regulations or control measures present that are designed for, or are applicable to aquaculture?

Yes 1

2 - Are the control measures applied according to site-specific conditions and/or do they lead to site-specific effluent, biomass or other discharge limits?

Yes 1

3 - Do the control measures address or relate to the cumulative impacts of multiple farms?

Partly 0.25

4 - Are the limits considered scientifically robust and set according to the ecological status of the receiving water body?

Yes 1

5 - Do the control measures cover or prescribe including peak biomass, harvest, sludge disposal, cleaning etc.?

Yes 1

4.25

Factor 2.2b - Enforcement Level of Effluent Regulations or Management

Question Scoring Score

1 - Are the enforcement organizations and/or resources identifiable and contactable, and appropriate to the scale of the industry?

Yes 1

2 - Does monitoring data or other available information demonstrate active enforcement of the control measures?

Yes 1

3 - Does enforcement cover the entire production cycle (i.e. are peak discharges such as peak biomass, harvest, sludge disposal, cleaning included)?

Yes 1

4 - Does enforcement demonstrably result in compliance with set limits?

Yes 1

5 - Is there evidence of robust penalties for infringements? Yes 1

5

F2.2 Score (2.2a*2.2b/2.5) 8.5

C2 Effluent Final Score 9.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

34

Criterion 3: Habitat

3.1. Habitat Conversion and Function

F3.1 Score 7

3.2 Habitat and farm siting management effectiveness (appropriate to the scale of the industry)

Factor 3.2a - Regulatory or management effectiveness

Question Scoring Score

1 - Is the farm location, siting and/or licensing process based on ecological principles, including an EIAs requirement for new sites?

Yes 1

2 - Is the industry’s total size and concentration based on its cumulative impacts and the maintenance of ecosystem function?

Moderately 0.5

3 – Is the industry’s ongoing and future expansion appropriate locations, and thereby preventing the future loss of ecosystem services?

Yes 1

4 - Are high-value habitats being avoided for aquaculture siting? (i.e. avoidance of areas critical to vulnerable wild populations; effective zoning, or compliance with international agreements such as the Ramsar treaty)

Yes 1

5 - Do control measures include requirements for the restoration of important or critical habitats or ecosystem services?

Yes 1

4.5

Factor 3.2b - Siting regulatory or management enforcement

Question Scoring Score

1 - Are enforcement organizations or individuals identifiable and contactable, and are they appropriate to the scale of the industry?

Yes 1

2 - Does the farm siting or permitting process function according to the zoning or other ecosystem-based management plans articulated in the control measures?

Yes 1

3 - Does the farm siting or permitting process take account of other farms and their cumulative impacts?

Yes 1

4 - Is the enforcement process transparent - e.g. public availability of farm locations and sizes, EIA reports, zoning plans, etc.?

Yes 1

5 - Is there evidence that the restrictions or limits defined in the control measures are being achieved?

Yes 1

5

F3.2 Score (2.2a*2.2b/2.5) 9.00

35

C3 Habitat Final Score 7.67 GREEN

Critical? NO

Exceptional Factor 3.3X: Wildlife and Predator Mortalities

Wildlife and Predator Mortality Parameters Score

F3.3X Wildlife and Predator Final Score -2.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

Criterion 4: Evidence or Risk of Chemical Use

Chemical Use parameters Score

C4 Chemical Use Score 6.00

C4 Chemical Use Final Score 6.00 YELLOW

Critical? NO

Criterion 5: Feed

5.1. Wild Fish Use

Factor 5.1a - Fish In: Fish Out (FIFO)

Fishmeal inclusion level (%) 12

Fishmeal from by-products (%) 0

% FM 12

Fish oil inclusion level (%) 5

Fish oil from by-products (%) 0

% FO 5

Fishmeal yield (%) 22.5

Fish oil yield (%) 5

eFCR 2.1

FIFO fishmeal 1.12

FIFO fish oil 2.10

Greater of the 2 FIFO scores 2.10

FIFO Score 4.75

36

Factor 5.1b - Sustainability of the Source of Wild Fish (SSWF)

SSWF -2

SSWF Factor -0.42

F5.1 Wild Fish Use Score 4.33

5.2. Net protein Gain or Loss

Protein INPUTS

Protein content of feed 40

eFCR 2.1

Feed protein from NON-EDIBLE sources (%) 26

Feed protein from EDIBLE CROP sources (%) 37

Protein OUTPUTS

Protein content of whole harvested fish (%) 18

Edible yield of harvested fish (%) 60

Non-edible by-products from harvested fish used for other food production 50

Protein IN 53.27

Protein OUT 14.4

Net protein gain or loss (%) -72.9685

Critical? NO

F5.2 Net protein Score 2.00

5.3. Feed Footprint

5.3a Ocean area of primary productivity appropriated by feed ingredients per ton of farmed seafood

Inclusion level of aquatic feed ingredients (%) 17

eFCR 2.1

Average Primary Productivity (C) required for aquatic feed ingredients (ton C/ton fish) 69.7

Average ocean productivity for continental shelf areas (ton C/ha) 2.68

Ocean area appropriated (ha/ton fish) 9.28

5.3b Land area appropriated by feed ingredients per ton of production

Inclusion level of crop feed ingredients (%) 52

Inclusion level of land animal products (%) 10

Conversion ratio of crop ingredients to land animal products 2.88

eFCR 2.1

Average yield of major feed ingredient crops (t/ha) 2.64

Land area appropriated (ha per ton of fish) 0.64

37

Value (Ocean + Land Area) 9.93

F5.3 Feed Footprint Score 6.00

C5 Feed Final Score 4.17 YELLOW

Critical? NO

Criterion 6: Escapes 6.1a. Escape Risk

Escape Risk 8

Recapture & Mortality Score (RMS)

Estimated % recapture rate or direct mortality at the 0

escape site

Recapture & Mortality Score 0

Factor 6.1a Escape Risk Score 8

6.1b. Invasiveness

Part A – Native Species

Score 4

Part B – Non-Native Species

Score 0

Part C – Native and Non-Native Species

Question Score

Do escapees compete with wild native populations for food or habitat?

Yes

Do escapees act as additional predation pressure on wild native populations?

To some extent

Do escapees compete with wild native populations for breeding partners or disturb breeding behavior of the same or other species?

Yes

Do escapees modify habitats to the detriment of other species (e.g. by feeding, foraging, settlement or other)?

No

Do escapees have some other impact on other native species or habitats?

No

2.5

38

F 6.1b Score 6.5

Final C6 Score 7.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

Exceptional Factor 6.2X: Escape of Unintentionally Introduced Species

Escape of Unintentionally Introduced Species Parameters Score

F6.2Xa International or trans-waterbody live animal shipments (%) 10.00

F6.2Xb Biosecurity of source/destination 10.00

F6.2X Escape of Unintentionally Introduced Species Final Score 0.00 GREEN

Criterion 7: Diseases

Pathogen and Parasite Parameters Score

C7 Biosecurity 8.00

C7 Disease; Pathogen and Parasite Final Score 8.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

Criterion 8: Source of Stock

Source of Stock Parameters Score

C8 % of production from hatchery-raised broodstock or natural (passive)

settlement 100

C8 Source of Stock Final Score 10.00 GREEN