Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides

©Scandinavian Fishing Yearbook / www.scandfish.com

United States Ponds

November 27, 2012

Abed Rabbani, Consulting Researcher 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 Largemouth bass raised in ponds in the United States = present a final high overall score of

6.71, and therefore is ranked Green or Best Choice overall.

Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides

USA Ponds

Criterion Score (0-10) Rank Critical?

C1 Data 5.00 YELLOW

C2 Effluent 9.00 GREEN NO

C3 Habitat 5.95 YELLOW NO

C4 Chemicals 8.00 GREEN NO

C5 Feed 3.75 YELLOW NO

C6 Escapes 7.00 GREEN NO

C7 Disease 8.00 GREEN NO

C8 Source 10.00 GREEN

3.3X Wildlife mortalities -3.00 GREEN NO

6.2X Introduced species escape 0.00 GREEN

Total 53.70

Final score 6.71

OVERALL RANKING

Final Score 6.71

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

The largemouth bass (LMB) is the most popular sport fish in North America. There is a growing demand for stocking sport and “trophy” fishing lakes and as a food fish. Largemouth bass are cultured at private, state, and federal facilities.

Up-to-date scientific studies on the production and associated potential environmental impacts of LMB are rare, and one has to cautiously rely on older literature on LMB farming and/or relevant studies or reports from similar production systems for other species such as catfish. In order to get a broad understanding, this report has also relied on personal communication with academics, farmers, government agencies, and feed companies. While these sources provide some relevant information, it is not certain if the data and information fully represent LMB farming. Therefore, data quality and availability is considered moderate overall.

Effluent drainage from largemouth bass farms has a low risk of environmental degradation of adjacent habitats. Infrequent draining combined with pond management strategies reduce the load of harmful effluent discharge to the surrounding environment. Due to smaller farm sizes and infrequent water discharges, the federal and state regulations governing effluent discharge typically do not apply to LMB farming. Overall, the impact of effluent is considered to be low.

Largemouth bass farms are built primarily on former pastures or cropland and are not considered to be responsible for the historic loss of habitat functionality. Only LMB farms that exceed the thresholds for the Clean Water Act, or that are built in sensitive locations, would require an environmental impact assessment (EIA), and overall, impact on habitat is considered to be low-moderate.

Largemouth bass farms are likely to attract other wildlife. There are regulations and procedures in place regarding bird depredation, which involves reporting damages to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as well as damage inspection and monitoring before issuing depredation permits. Therefore, LMB farms are considered to have low impact on wildlife and predator mortalities.

The production system for LMB has demonstrated a low need for chemical use. There is no evidence of impact on non-target organisms, and there is no evidence of resistance to key treatments. The production system has limited discharge of water and the use of drugs and chemicals is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Therefore, there is low concern over chemical use in largemouth bass farming in the U.S.

Largemouth bass diets contain fish meal and fish oil from wild reduction fisheries, of which menhaden is considered the dominant source. These fisheries are considered to be relatively sustainable, but available data shows the level of marine ingredients in feed is high. The high protein requirement of LMB also led to a high (more than 76%) net loss of protein. The high inclusion level of fish meal resulted in a high feed footprint value. The overall score on feed for this predatory species is low, but it is likely that if more complete and up-to-date information is made available from feed manufacturers, this

4

score could improve.

Largemouth bass are significant predators on small-bodied fish. Their role in the alteration of fish communities and reduction in abundance of minnows and other small fish is the biggest reason to consider escape as potentially detrimental. Escaping LMB can negatively impact wild populations of fish, including genetic introgression, but LMB are widely stocked for recreational fishery purposes and the frequency and magnitude of escapes from LMB facilities is low due to the use of the closed pond culture system. Therefore, the impact of escape of farm-raised LMB is considered low.

There is no evidence that LMB farming amplifies pathogens or parasite numbers. Nor is there evidence of increased infection rates in wild fish because of LMB farming. This is due to the use of land-based static pond systems to raise LMB. Pond systems have controls on effluent release, thereby reducing the likelihood of contaminating the surrounding environment. LMB pond systems rarely discharge water. Therefore, risk of disease transfer to wild stock is rated as a low conservation concern.

LMB farms are considered to have no impact on wild fisheries and they do not deplete native fish stocks for use in aquaculture. At present, LMB farmers use broodstock, fry, and fingerlings that are produced entirely at LMB farms.

According to the Seafood Watch criteria, largemouth bass gets a moderate score of 6.71 out of 10.00. The assessment has seven Green scores and three Yellow scores out of 10 criteria. Therefore, the overall rank for largemouth bass is Green and farmed largemouth bass is considered a “Best choice.”

5

Table of Contents Final Seafood Recommendation ............................................................................................................ 2

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 .................................................................................................................... 8

Criterion 3: Habitat ..................................................................................................................... 14

Criterion 3.3X: Wildlife and predator mortalities....................................................................... 16

Criterion 4: Evidence or Risk of Chemical Use ............................................................................ 18

Criterion 5: Feed ......................................................................................................................... 20

Criterion 6: Escapes .................................................................................................................... 23

Criterion 6.2X: Escape of unintentionally introduced species ................................................... 25

Criterion 7. Disease; pathogen and parasite interactions .......................................................... 26

Criterion 8. Source of Stock – independence from wild fisheries .............................................. 28

Overall Recommendation .................................................................................................................... 29

Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. 30

References ........................................................................................................................................... 31

About Seafood Watch® ........................................................................................................................ 36

Guiding Principles ................................................................................................................................ 37

Data points and all scoring calculations ............................................................................................... 39

6

Introduction

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation Species: Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) is a member of the sunfish family

(Centrarchidae). There are two recognized subspecies of largemouth bass: the northern largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides salmoides) and the Florida largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides floridanus). Fishbase listed 66 different common names of largemouth bass used in different countries (Froese and Pauly 2012).

Geographic coverage (Native range): North America: St. Lawrence - Great Lakes, Hudson Bay (Red River), and Mississippi River basins; Atlantic drainages from North Carolina to Florida and to northern Mexico (Froese and Pauly 2012).

Production Method: Ponds Species Overview Largemouth bass (LMB) is the most popular sport fish in North America (Lasenby and Kerr 2000). It is native to the midwestern and southeastern United States, northeastern Mexico, and southeastern Canada. Due to its popularity, LMB has been introduced throughout the United States and in 59 countries throughout the world (Froese and Pauly 2012). There is a growing demand for this fish, not only for stocking in sport fish ponds and commercial “trophy” fishing lakes, but also as a food fish among ethnic Asians (Tidwell et al. 2000, Brown et al. 2009, Heidinger 2000). In the U.S., largemouth bass is cultured at private, state, and federal facilities for recreational fish stocking and human consumption (USDA 2006). The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization reported largemouth bass farming for food for the first time in 1994 (Brown et al. 2009). Regulations for LMB aquaculture in the U.S. vary from state to state (Heidinger 2000). Some states require an aquaculture license to rear and sell fish, but others do not. In a few states, it is not legal to rear or sell largemouth bass for stocking. Additionally, there are a few states in which it is not legal to sell largemouth bass as food fish. It is illegal to commercially harvest largemouth bass from any public lake or stream in the United States (Tidwell, 2012, Heidinger 2000). Production and Market Overview Generally, LMB are grown in constructed ponds with a low water exchange, and farming relies on artificial feed and feed-training of fingerlings (Tidwell 2012, Stone 2012). Under culture conditions, largemouth bass are spawned and reared artificially or allowed to reproduce in culture ponds with the resulting young moved to other ponds for grow-out. According to the 2005 Census of Aquaculture, 192 farms reared largemouth bass in 2005. Of the 192 farms raising largemouth bass, 97 raised fingerlings and fry, 58 raised food-size fish, and 52 raised stockers (USDA 2006). Food-size fish sales were reported to be $8.3 million in the 2005 census. However, several farmers have been reported to be getting out of LMB farming and/ or shifting

7

to other fish species, such as blue gill (Walen 2012). Therefore, the current statistics on number of farms and production of LMB are expected to be lower than previously reported. According to the 2005 Census of Aquaculture, Arkansas, Alabama, and Ohio were major states where food-size LMB producers were located (USDA 2006). This statistic may change after next census, which is due to be published in 2013 (Stone 2013). Food-size LMB is sold in urban oriental markets of cities such as New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Toronto, and San Francisco (Heidinger 2000). The consumers desire fish of 1.5 to 2.0 lbs (Tidwell et al. 2000). Demand for food-size LMB has increased steadily over the past ten years. Tidwell et al. (2000) estimated demand for food-size LMB to be 700,000 lbs/yr; Tidwell and Coyle (2010) estimated the figure to be 1.1 million lbs/yr. Wholesale price of food-size LMB (1 lb or more) has been reported to be as high as US$9.95/lb (Dunns Fish Farm 2012). However, the average wholesale prices ranges from $3.50 to $5.50 with $4.50-$5.00 as the most common (Tidwell, 2012).

8

Analysis Scoring guide

With the exception of the exceptional criteria (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 criteria 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.

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.

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

10)

Industry or production statistics Yes 5 5

Effluent Yes 5 5

Locations/habitats Yes 5 5

Predators and wildlife Yes 5 5

Chemical use Yes 5 5

Feed Yes 5 5

Escapes, animal movements Yes 5 5

Disease Yes 5 5

Source of stock Yes 5 5

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

Total 45

C1 Data Final Score 5.00 YELLOW

9

Justification of Ranking Aquaculture of LMB and its market constitute a small segment of the U.S. aquaculture industry. The most recent statistics available are based on the 2005 Census of Aquaculture reported by USDA. It may be possible to obtain some information after the next 2013 Census of Aquaculture (Stone, 2012). Data reported in the census are considered high quality by the researchers. Since available production data are old, for up-to-date statistics this report relied on projections made by Tidwell (2012). Therefore, the quality of industry or production statistics is considered moderate. Data regarding effluent discharge and management of aquaculture farms are available. This study verified the relevance of data for LMB farms through personal communications. Some key data, such as protein level of feed and use of fertilizer, are available in peer-reviewed articles. However, it is not certain data fully represent the LMB farming operations. Therefore, the quality of effluent discharge and management data for LMB farms is considered moderate. On the habitat issue, information relevant to LMB farming has been established through personal communication. There is available information on freshwater pond aquaculture in the U.S. However, some data regarding habitat and farm siting management effectiveness may not be relevant for the LMB farming. LMB fry and fingerlings produced by state and federal hatcheries are widely used for stocking programs; as a result, there is a relatively large volume of information about the impact of introduced LMB on ecosystems. However, the impact of LMB (foodfish) farming operations on ecosystems is unclear. Therefore, the quality of data on habitat criterion and escapes and animal movement criterion is considered moderate. Information on wildlife and predator mortalities on LMB farms is obtained from published articles. This report also relied on personal communication to verify the previous findings. However, the direct impact of LMB (foodfish) farming on wildlife mortalities is not well understood. There is some useful information on diseases, pathogens, and parasites, but the significance of LMB farming on their transmission is not well established. Therefore, the quality of data on wildlife and predator mortality criterion and disease criterion is considered moderate. There is available literature on chemical use in U.S. pond-based aquaculture. Chemical use and its impact in LMB farms is considered to be similar to that in catfish farms (Tidwell 2012). Due to the lack of specific information on chemical use in LMB farms, the quality of data on chemical use is considered moderate. Steelhead trout commercial diet (Silver Cup, Murray, UT, U.S.) is the most commonly used feed in LMB farms (Amoah et al. 2008, Cochran et al. 2009, Stone 2012, Tidwell 2012). This feed is currently produced by Skretting, USA. Cargill and Purina also produce feeds for LMB. However, the manufacturers were not willing to provide current levels of fish meal and fish oil use and their subsequent inclusion levels because of the proprietary nature of the information. Therefore, this study utilizes a precautionary approach by relying on the feed study by Amoah et al. (2008). The 25% carbohydrate (CHO) diet used in Amoah et al. (2008) was claimed to be most similar to the analyzed composition of the steelhead trout commercial diet. On the issue

10

of source of stock, this study has relied on personal communication with farmers and researchers. Therefore, the quality of data on feed and source of stock is considered moderate. Criterion 1 Synthesis The available information on different aspects of production and their associated potential environmental impacts is useful but not up-to-date. In order to get a better picture of the current status of LMB farming, this report has relied on personal communication with academics, farmers, government agencies, and feed companies. Catfish farming also provides some relatively close approximations for LMB farms. However, personal communication with relevant experts in LMB farming has provided a robust impression. Therefore, data quality and availability are considered moderate and the score is 5.00 out of 10.00.

11

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.

Effluent Full Assessment

Effluent Parameters Value Score

F2.1a Biological waste (nitrogen) production per of fish (kg N ton-1) 69.87

F2.1b Waste discharged from farm (%) 24

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

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

F2.2b Enforcement of regulations (0-5) 4.75

F2.2 Regulatory or management effectiveness score (0-10) 8.075

C2 Effluent Final Score 9.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

Justification of Ranking Waste Discharge Information regarding effluent discharges specific to largemouth bass farms and their impact on the environment is limited. This report relies on aquaculture operations that are similar in scope to LMB farms, such as catfish farms. Tucker et al. (2002) suggested that the principles derived from the extensive studies of channel catfish ponds should apply to all warmwater pond aquaculture including largemouth bass farming. The SSAAST uses nitrogen as the most data-rich proxy for assessing biological waste production from aquaculture. Feed and fertilizer are primary sources of nitrogenous waste. The protein level in feed used for LMB farms is 42.3 % (Amoah et al. 2008) and the economic feed conversion ratio (eFCR) value is 1.5 (Tidwell 2012). Hence, nitrogen input from feed is estimated to be 101.52 kg N/ton of fish. Moreover, fish farms commonly use fertilizer (nitrogen-phosphorus-potassium: 20-20-5) at 16 lbs/acre which is estimated to contribute 0.51 kg N/ton of fish produced (Masser et al. 1999). Therefore, the total nitrogen input per ton of fish produced is 102.03 kg N. On the other hand, protein content of harvested fish is approximately 20%, so the harvested nitrogen per ton is 32 kg N. Therefore, the net nitrogenous waste produced per ton of fish is approximately 69.87 kg N. As discussed below, and depending on the water exchange characteristics of the ponds, only a small percentage of this waste may be discharged from the farms. This discharge is likely to have little negative impact on the environment, and can be managed through best

12

management practices (Boyd et al. 2000). Boyd et al. (2000) also reported that effluents from catfish farms do not have any adverse effect on stream water quality. However, Boyd et al. (2000) did find some local impact on the biodiversity of stream benthos in areas of effluent outfall due to sedimentation. Most of the pollutants are assimilated into pond sediment and remain in the sediment unless resuspension occurs. When ponds are drained, the re-suspended pollutants are released into the environment. Tucker (1998) evaluated effluents originating from bottom (hypolimnetic) waters of three experimental watershed ponds stocked with sunfish and largemouth bass and reported that hypolimnetic waters contained lower dissolved oxygen concentrations and higher concentrations of ferrous iron, total manganese, total sulfide, and total ammonia than commonly found in surface waters. Discharge of hypolimnetic water from ponds into natural waterways can have toxic effects on fish and other aquatic organisms (Tucker 1998). The volume of effluent discharged depends on the type of pond, the extent of rainfall, and management practices. Watershed ponds have more overflow than embankment ponds because they collect not only rainwater falling directly on ponds, but also runoff from the surrounding watershed (Tucker et al. 2002). LMB ponds rarely exchange water for multiple production cycles and sometimes drain excess water during floods (Tidwell 2012). The Seafood Watch criteria designates discharge score for a production system that has zero discharge over multiple cycles as 0.24 (i.e., 24% of waste produced is discharged based on the nitrogen content of pond sediments or sludge). As a result, the net waste discharged per ton of fish produced is approximately 16.7 kg N, which is considered low, resulting in a score of 8 (out of 10). Management Effectiveness This criterion is a measure of presence and effectiveness of laws, regulations, and management controls to limit total discharge of waste from farms and therefore cumulative impacts. Under the Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production (CAAP) program and Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELGs), the EPA has established effluent limits for warmwater aquaculture systems which discharge at least 30 days/year but does not include closed ponds, which discharge only during periods of excess runoff, or facilities that produce less than approximately 100,000 pounds per year (EPA 2004). The warm water category includes ponds, raceways, and other similar structures, and warm water aquatic animals such as the Ameiuride, Centrarchidae, and Cyprinidae families of fish (e.g., respectively catfish, sunfish, and minnows). Most LMB ponds rarely discharge water and, therefore, do not require a discharge permit (Tidwell 2012). However, the intent and content of effluent regulations and management measures related to aquaculture in general are found to be robust. Three out five scoring criteria for regulatory or management effectiveness in the SSAAST are affirmative. As a result, the score on this criterion is assessed to be 4.25 (out of 5.00). Compliance monitoring is one of the key components the EPA uses to protect human health and the environment by ensuring that the regulated community obeys environmental laws/regulations through on-site visits by qualified inspectors. There are 13,035 recorded cases of compliance violation of the Clean Water Act of 1972 against different facilities during 2001-

13

2012; however, none of them is an aquaculture facility (EPA 2012). Due to the affirmative scoring in four out of five scoring criteria, the enforcement level for effluent regulations and management has received a high score of 4.75 (out of 5.00). The overall score for regulatory management effectiveness is 8.075 (out of 10.00). Criterion 2 Synthesis Largemouth bass farms do not discharge water for multiple production cycles and, therefore, effluent drainage from largemouth bass farms does not produce a significant risk of environmental degradation of adjacent habitats. Under current EPA guidelines, largemouth bass aquaculture is exempt from federal NPDES permitting because production facilities primarily discharge only during periods of excess runoff. Moreover, warm water aquaculture operations that discharge less than 30days/year and produce less than 100,000 lbs do not require a permit for discharge. The score of 8.00 for waste discharge when combined with the high score of 8.075 for strong regulations and enforcement results in a final effluent criterion score of 9.00 (out of 10.00).

14

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.

Habitat Parameters Value Score

F3.1 Habitat conversion and function 6.00

F3.2a Content of habitat regulations 3.25

F3.2b Enforcement of habitat regulations 4.50

F3.2 Regulatory or management effectiveness score 5.85

C3 Habitat Final Score 5.95 YELLOW

Critical? NO

Justification of Ranking Factor 3.1. Habitat Conversion and Function Largemouth bass aquaculture operations are land-based. According to the 2005 Census of Aquaculture, food-size LMB farms are located in 22 states. Arkansas, Alabama, and Ohio have the highest number of farms (USDA 2006). LMB farms in the U.S. are usually located on former crop or pasture land (Tidwell 2012). There is no evidence that farms have been sited in ecologically sensitive areas such as wetlands. When farms are located on cropland, they typically replace lower-value rice or soybean farms, rather than higher-quality cotton farm land (Boyd and Tucker 1995). However, the habitat type of LMB farms may be considered to be riparian land and floodplains that have moderate habitat value. Timeframe of habitat loss is more than 10 years (Walen 2012). In general, farm areas are sparsely populated. There is no evidence that conversion of pasture and cropland to ponds has resulted in conflicts among different resource users (Tidwell 2012). There is also no evidence that presence of ponds is causing ecological degradation. Generally, water usage for aquaculture farms ranges from 13-99 inches/year and often exceeds water usage for the crops they replaced (Boyd and Tucker 1995). LMB ponds are likely to reduce peak flows in streams and reduce incidences of stream overflow onto flood plains in rainy weather (Yoo and Boyd 1994). In summary, LMB farming poses little risk to the surrounding habitats because farms are primarily constructed on agricultural land that has lost its habitat functionality more than ten years ago and has moderate habitat value, management involves low frequency of water exchange, and effluent consists primarily of overflow. Therefore, according to the Seafood Watch criteria, the score on habitat is 6.00 (out of 10.00).

15

Factor 3.2. Habitat and Farm Siting Management Effectiveness (appropriate to the scale of the industry) At the federal level, aquaculture is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). About 50 federal statutes and 120 statutory programs were found to have direct effects on the aquaculture industry (DeVoe 1999). About one-half of these statutes and programs require a direct compliance response from a fish farmer. The far more important regulator is the state because most states have been delegated by the EPA to enforce the Clean Water Act (CWA) and all states have regulations concerning culturing, possessing, and selling fish. The majority of laws and regulations that specifically authorize, permit, or control aquaculture are usually found at the state level. Over 1,200 state laws have some significant bearing on aquaculture operations. Policies and regulations were found to affect aquaculture in eight major areas: aquaculture species use, water quality, water use, land use, facility and hatchery management, processing, financial assistance, and occupational safety and health (DeVoe 1999). At the federal level, regulations do not specifically require an environmental impact assessment (EIA) for aquaculture (Telfer et al. 2009, FAO 2012). However, before a permit for aquaculture is issued an application must be submitted that contains much of the production and practice information contained within an EIA (Telfer et al. 2009; Knickerbocker 2012). Moreover, an EIA is required by National Environmental Protection Act when a farm exceeds the CWA thresholds and/or is planned for an environmentally sensitive location. Some states require an EIA for aquaculture development, which stems from respective state plans for the development of the industry (Telfer et al. 2009). For example, in California, a Project Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) is a key to gaining the appropriate license to operate. Such a requirement is not specific to all U.S. states. In summary, there are not only extensive regulations in place regarding farm site selection, but also licensing and enforcement is moderately strong. Under the Seafood Watch criteria, the regulatory or management effectiveness sub-criterion of this fishery has received a score of 3.25 and the siting regulatory or management enforcement sub-criterion has received a score of 4.5. Therefore, the overall score for the habitat and farm siting management effectiveness criterion under the Seafood Watch criteria is moderate at 5.85 out of 10.00. Criterion 3 Synthesis Largemouth bass farms are built primarily on former pastures or croplands and are therefore not directly responsible for any of the historic loss of habitat functionality. There are extensive regulations to operate an aquaculture farm. Moreover, there is no evidence that LMB farms exceed the CWA threshold or are in environmentally sensitive locations. Therefore, impact of largemouth bass farms on habitat is considered to be low-moderate and, according to the Seafood Watch criteria, the habitat criterion final score is 5.95 out of 10.00.

16

Criterion 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” criterion 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.

Wildlife and Predator Mortality Parameters Score

F3.3X Wildlife and predator mortality final score -3.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

Justification of Ranking Fish-eating migratory and wintering birds are a common sight at aquaculture facilities and hatcheries throughout the United States. These ponds are attractive to many species of fish-eating birds whose habitat has been lost to development or other land uses (Barras 2007). Birds are considered major predators of largemouth bass (Williamson et al. 1993). The great blue heron (Ardean herodius), osprey (Pandion heliaetus) (Williamson et al. 1993), and double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) (Fenech et al. 2006) have been reported to prey on adult LMB. All fish-eating birds are protected by federal law under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The United States Department of Agriculture-Wildlife Services (USDA-WS) assists aquaculture producers to reduce predation on aquaculture stocks. Most of this effort is focused on nonlethal methods, but these methods tend to decrease in effectiveness as birds habituate to noise or motion (Dunlap, 2012). Effectiveness can be maintained over time by integrating limited lethal means (shooting) into a wildlife damage management plan (Dunlap, 2012). There are severe legal consequences if a farmer does not adhere to the proper depredation permit process before taking action against migratory species (Gorenzel et al. 2005). The FWC will allow take of wading bird species as long as it is done under an FWS depredation permit and the species is not listed as endangered, threatened, or of special concern. This means that farmers can request a permit to take limited numbers of great blue herons, green herons, and great egrets, but snowy egrets, little blue herons, tricolored herons, and reddish egrets cannot be taken since they are listed as species of special concern Dunlap 2012). Hooded merganser and the red-breasted merganser can be taken under an FWS depredation permit. Because of the rapid increase in the double-crested cormorant population, the FWS (order #63 FR 10550) allows aquaculture producers in 13 states to shoot double-crested cormorants without having to secure a federal permit (Wywialowski 1999, Dorr et al. 2004) in conjunction with an established nonlethal harassment program as certified by the WS program. However, cormorants are not considered to be a major problem of LMB farms (Tidwell 2012). Criterion 3.3X Synthesis Many incidences of aquaculture-related bird depredation cases have been reported, and

17

increased legal action has been directed against growers charged with wildlife violations (Gorenzel et al. 2005). It is not clear how many of these cases are LMB related. Aquaculture of largemouth bass is likely to interact with predators. While mortality of birds due to depredation is a conservation concern, there are regulations and procedures in place regarding bird depredation. Therefore, the score on wildlife and predator mortalities in the Seafood Watch criteria is considered to be -3.00 (out of -10.00).

18

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.

Chemical Use Parameters Score

C4 Chemical use score 8.00

C4 Chemical Use Final Score 8.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

Justification The Fish Culture Section of the American Fisheries Society developed a guide that describes regulated products that are approved for use in U.S. aquaculture (AFS-FCS 2011). These regulated products include: 1) disinfectants as part of biosecurity protocols, 2) herbicides and pesticides used in pond maintenance, 3) spawning aids, 4) vaccines used in disease prevention, 5) marking agents used in resource management, and 6) therapeutic drugs. This guide provides directions for the use of drugs, vaccines, and other chemicals in ways that ensure the safety of treated animals, end-users, consumers of farm-raised seafood, and the environment. The guide presents the following information related to the use of drugs, pesticides, vaccines and other biologics, and disinfectants in aquaculture: 1) regulatory authorities and their purviews, 2) guidance to approved compounds and their uses, 3) application methods and example calculations, and 4) where to find more information. Use of the regulated products is not very common in LMB farming. These chemicals are used only when a farm has certain problems that require specific chemicals, but these products degrade naturally from water (Boyd and Hargreaves 2004). Pond effluents in the U.S. contain environmentally insignificant quantities of pesticides and therapeutants because 1) only approved regulated chemicals are used in ponds, 2) those chemicals are used infrequently, and 3) long hydraulic residence time and intense microbial activity in ponds provides ample time and opportunity for dissipation of chemicals before discharge (Boyd and Hargreaves 2004). Several federal and state agencies are involved in regulating drugs, biologics, and other chemicals used in aquaculture. Each federal agency has specific, congressionally mandated responsibilities to regulate the products under their jurisdictions. In the case of aquaculture, there is some overlap between these federal agencies, as well as with state and local regulatory bodies (AFS-FCS 2011). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has many responsibilities, including regulating the manufacture, distribution, and use of new animal drugs and animal

19

feed and ensuring their safety and efficacy. The U.S. EPA is tasked with various responsibilities under a range of laws, including registration and licensing of pesticides. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulates all veterinary biologics, including vaccines, bacterins, antisera, diagnostic kits, and other products of biological origin. State agencies also regulate the use of drugs, biologics, and other chemicals in aquaculture. While many state agencies simply defer to the federal regulations and regulatory authorities, others impose additional requirements and restrictions beyond those in the federal regulations (AFS-FCS 2011). Criterion 4 Synthesis Specific data on chemical use in largemouth bass farming is limited, but the species or production systems have demonstrated a low need for chemical use. There is no evidence of impacts on non-target organisms, nor is there evidence of resistance to key treatments. The production system has zero or limited water exchange over multiple production cycles. Use of drugs and chemicals is strictly regulated. There are guidelines for the use of drugs and chemicals. Therefore, there is low concern over chemical use in largemouth bass farming in the U.S., which results in a score of 8.00 (out of 10.00) on this criterion.

20

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.

Feed Parameters Value Score

F5.1a Fish In: Fish Out ratio (FIFO) 2.00 5.00

F5.1b Source fishery sustainability score -5.00

F5.1: Wild Fish Use 4.00

F5.2a Protein IN 57.37

F5.2b Protein OUT 13.67

F5.2: Net Protein Gain or Loss (%) -76.18 2

F5.3: Feed Footprint (hectares) 13.92 5

C5 Feed Final Score 3.75 YELLOW

Critical? NO

Justification of Ranking Largemouth bass do not normally accept artificial feeds but can be trained to do so. During training, most producers use freeze-dried krill and gradually replace krill with a prepared diet (Tidwell et al. 2000). Fingerlings are fed 1.0 to 2.5 mm diameter moist pellets at least 8 times per day, 7 days per week (Davis and Lock 1997). Fish are fed at least 15 percent of their body weight daily during the training period. The manufacturer of Silver Cup diet, the most commonly used feed in LMB farms, was not willing to provide up-to-date detailed information about its feed due to the proprietary nature of the information. Cargill and Purina also produce feed for largemouth bass, however, their use in LMB (foodfish) farms are not reported. This lack of information about ingredients was also reported by Cochran et al. (2009) Therefore, this study applied a precautionary approach using peer-reviewed articles and personal communication. During growout, most largemouth bass in commercial production are fed high protein (about 42%) steelhead salmonid diets (Amoah et al. 2008). Bass grow an average of 6 to 8 inches in length in about 100 days. Survival rate is more than 85 percent (Tidwell 2012). Several FCR values for commercial feed have been reported by the researchers, such as 1.4-2.6 (Engle 2010), 1.39 (Cochran et al. 2009), and 3.6 (Amoah et al. 2008). Tidwell (2012) and Stone (2012) suggested that an FCR of 1.5 is more likely to be accurate, so, this value is used in this report.

21

C5.1. Wild Fish Use Artificial feed used in LMB growout has relatively high fish meal (30%) and fish oil (4.8%) inclusion levels (Amoah et al. 2008). Cochran et al. (2009) indicates that fish meal levels in feeds used for the second year growout of LMB can be reduced to 8% of the formulation without reducing survival or growth and without negatively impacting body composition. No information on the use of fish meal and oil made from fishery by-products was made available by the manufacturers. Yield values for fishmeal and fish oil are considered to be 22.5% and 5% as suggested by the Seafood Watch criteria. According to the Seafood Watch criteria, the estimated fish in-fish out (FIFO) value for LMB farming is 2.00, generating a FIFO score of 5.00 (out of 10.00). Tidwell and Coyle (2010) reported menhaden fish meal as a major ingredient in feed used in commercial LMB production. Menhaden is a major ingredient of fish meal produced in the U.S. There are two sources of menhaden: Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) from Atlantic coastal waters from Maine to Florida and Gulf menhaden (Brevoortia patronus) from the Gulf of Mexico (National Grain and Feed Association). The Sustainable Fisheries Partnership (2012) reported in their FishSource website that Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) and its member states (Maine through Florida) have maintained a healthy Atlantic menhaden stock. According to the most recent report, Atlantic menhaden is not overfished but is experiencing excessive harvesting (ASMFC 2011). Out of five FishSource criteria, four scores are above 6. The score on current health of fishery is 8, but the score on the health of the fishery in the future is zero. Gulf of Mexico menhaden stock is also reported to be healthy and not overfished (Vaughan et al. 2007). The Sustainable Fisheries Partnership (2012) concluded that harvests have been well controlled. All of the five FishSource criteria have scores above 6. The scores on current and future health of fishery are 10. Since there is one FishSource score for Atlantic menhaden below 6, in the Seafood Watch criteria, the source fishery sustainability sub-criteria is given a score of -5 (out of -10). The FIFO score coupled with sustainability of source fish score generated a low score on wild fish use of 4.00 (out of 10.00). C5.2. Net Protein Gain or Loss LMB is a carnivorous species that require high level of protein in its diet. Commercial feed, commonly used in LMB farming, has been reported to contain 30% fish meal (Amoah et al. 2008). Protein content of this feed is 42.3%. Approximately 47% of feed protein comes from fish meal and 53% from soybean meal (Amoah et al. 2008). These values were used in an assessment tool that calculated total protein input value to be 57.4. Dress-out percentages for whole dressed LMB were reported to be 68% (Amoah et al. 2008). Average protein content in white muscle tissue averaged 20.1% (Amoah et al. 2008). The percentage of non-edible by-products from harvested LMB used for other food production is not available. According to the assessment tool, total protein output value is 13.7. Using the protein input and output values in the assessment tool, the amount of edible proteins included in the feed that are lost during LMB production is calculated to be approximately 76%, which results in a low score (2.00 out of 10.00) for the net protein gain or loss criterion.

22

C5.3. Feed Footprint The feed footprint is an approximate measure of the global resources used to produce aquaculture feeds and is based on the global ocean and land area utilized to produce feed ingredients necessary to grow one ton of farmed fish. In the case of LMB feed, crop ingredients present the highest inclusion level followed by the marine ingredients. Feed contains 33.5% soybean meal, 7.8% rice mids, and 19.5% wheat, so the inclusion level of crop feed ingredients is about 61% (Amoah et al. 2008). Land area appropriated at this inclusion level is 0.35 hectares/ton of LMB produced. Feeds used in LMB farming have high inclusion levels of marine feed ingredients (fish meal and fish oil): about 35% (Amoah et al. 2008). According to the Seafood Watch Aquaculture Assessment Tool, the ocean area appropriated is 13.58 hectares/ton of LMB produced. The total feed footprint value (13.92) is moderate-high, which results in a moderate score for this criterion (5.00 out 10.00). Criterion 5 Synthesis The available information indicates largemouth bass feed can be considered to contain relatively high levels of fish meal and fish oil from wild reduction fisheries. These fisheries (principally menhaden) are considered to be moderately sustainable. However, the high level of marine ingredients in feed led to a wild fish use score of 4.00. High protein requirements of LMB also led to a high net loss of protein. The high inclusion level of fish meal results in a moderate-high feed footprint value. The combination of the three scores for LMB feed generates a final score of 3.75 (out of 10.00). It is likely that if more complete and up-to-date information is made available from feed manufacturers, this score could improve.

23

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.

Escape Parameters Value Score

F6.1 Escape Risk 7.00

F6.1a Recapture and mortality (%) 0

F6.1b Invasiveness 8

C6 Escape Final Score 7.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

Justification of Ranking Factor 6.1a. Escape Risk Largemouth bass are raised in a static pond system and water is not exchanged over multiple cycles (Tidwell 2012), therefore, the inherent risk of escapes from these aquaculture facilities is considered to be low. However, pond production systems cannot be considered fully closed systems. They are susceptible to overflowing. As a result, some fish are likely to get accidentally released due to flooding and/or collapsed pond dykes (Tucker and Hargreaves 2008). LMB are also sold live, so there is an additional risk that fish could be released or escape during transport or by other means. It should be noted that there is no evidence of LMB escapes from ponds; hence, the recapture or direct mortality rate at the escape site is considered to be zero. Farms are also required to follow best management practices (BMPs) for design, construction, and management in some states (Knickerbocker 2012). Since LMB ponds are vulnerable to flood, escape risk in the Seafood Watch criteria is considered to be low to moderate (7.00 out of 10.00). Factor 6.1b. Invasiveness LMB farms are located mostly in the region where it they are native. LMB have been deliberately introduced into areas where they were not native. They also continue to be stocked into the wild for sport fishing in areas where they are native. During 2005, the U.S. public aquaculture facilities in 31 states produced about 30 million LMB fry, fingerlings, catchable fish and broodstock that weighed about 71,000 lbs for stocking purposes (US-FWS 2005). Therefore, any escape from a farm is considered to have little adverse effect unless it was of a large scale. Largemouth bass have not been genetically modified other than improvements of production traits through traditional selective breeding programs (Williamson

24

et al. 1993). LMB broodstocks are carried over from year to year (Davis and Lock 1997, Tidwell 2012, Walen 2012), but considering the deliberate, ongoing stocking, a potential aquaculture escape is considered to be a low genetic introgression risk in the wild. Thus, the Seafood Watch criteria score on native species—genetic difference from wild populations—is considered to be 4.00 out of 5.00. The largemouth bass is a predatory fish. It competes with a number of other fish species for food and space (Brown et al. 2009). Lasenby and Kerr (2000) created a list of potential competitorsand concluded that LMBs are a typically larger and more aggressive fish species and they can out-compete many other fish. There is a strong negative association between small-bodied fish (i.e., cyprinids) and largemouth bass (MacRae and Jackson 2001). Lakes containing bass have fewer species of cyprinids than lakes lacking bass. Largemouth bass has been blamed for decimating forage fish species such as fathead minnow and golden shiner (Kerr and Grant 1999, Findley et al. 2000). It also consumes salmonids (Fayram 1996, Temple et al. 1998, Bonar et al. 2005). Slaney and Roberts (2005) consider largemouth bass as an invasive fish that have the potential to harm juvenile cutthroat trout through competition and predation. In North America, direct predatory impact of bass on other fish has been documented for lakes (Tonn and Magnuson 1983, Findlay et al. 2000, Jackson 2002) and for streams and rivers (Power et al. 1985, Harvey et al. 1988). Largemouth bass have also been reported to consume mussels, snails, frogs, small rodents (mice, voles, and rats), salamanders, small turtles, ducklings, snakes, and small muskrats (Hill and Cichra 2005). As most of this kind of feeding is highly opportunistic, the ability of bass to influence wildlife communities is questionable (Brown et al. 2009). Considering the ongoing, deliberate stocking, the score on ecosystem impact of farmed LMB in the Seafood Watch criteria is considered to be 4.00 (out of 5.00). Little genetic difference from wild populations combined with moderate ecosystem impact of largemouth bass resulted in invasiveness score of 8.00 out of 10.00. Criterion 6 Synthesis The largemouth bass is a significant predator of small-bodied fish. Its role in the alteration of fish communities and the reduction in abundance of minnows and other small fish is the biggest reason to consider escape as potentially detrimental (Brown et al. 2009). There is also ample evidence about its impact on salmonid populations. Escaped LMB could negatively impact wild populations of fish, including through genetic introgression. However LMB has been deliberately introduced into native and non-native areas, and continues to be deliberately stocked for sport fishing. The frequency and magnitude of escapes from LMB facilities is low due to the use of a closed system of pond culture. Therefore, the escape score is 7.00 out of 10.00.

25

Criterion 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.

Escape of unintentionally introduced species parameters Score

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

F6.2Xb Biosecurity of source/destination 8.00

C6 Escape of unintentionally introduced species Final Score 0.00 GREEN

Justification of Ranking Largemouth bass farming does not require international or trans-waterbody shipments of live animals. In general, farms stock with their own hatchery reared fry and fingerlings (Tidwell 2012, Walen 2012). Thus, the value of international and trans-waterbody live animal shipment is zero resulting in score 10.00 (out of 10.00). LMBs are raised in closed static pond system with no water exchange over multiple production cycle. As a result, the biosecurity of source/destination score is 8.00. The overall score on escape of unintentionally introduced species criterion is 0.00 out of -10.00.

26

Criterion 7. Disease; Pathogen and Parasite 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.

Pathogen and parasite parameters Score

C7 Biosecurity 8.00

C7 Disease; pathogen and parasite Final Score 8.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

Justification Largemouth bass virus (LMBV) has been responsible for a number of largemouth bass kills in eastern North America from 1995 to 2002. Since it was first discovered in Florida in 1991, LMBV has spread north into 18 eastern U.S. states including Michigan and Illinois (Grizzle and Brunner 2003, Great Lakes Fishery Commission 2006). The virus is easily transmitted through fish to fish contact (Grizzle and Brunner 2003). The virus appears to infect a number of other fish species including smallmouth bass, but has only been associated with the death of largemouth bass (Great Lakes Fishery Commission 2006). The virus has not been found in western North America. Parasites such as protozoa, copepods, roundworms, tapeworms, flatworms, and leeches are common on Florida largemouth bass (Hoffman 1967, Craig 1987). In Florida, the ectoparasitic protozoan Scyphidia tholiformis is quite common. The largemouth bass is also a host for bass tapeworm Proteocephalus ambloplitis (Brown et al. 2009). Bass tapeworm is considered a problem for trout and salmon management in the Pacific Northwest. The tapeworm is currently widespread in North America. Closed and semi-closed aquaculture systems have the lowest potential for releasing pathogens into the environment (Blazer and LaPatra 2002). LMB ponds are considered closed systems and pose low risk of pathogen transfer to wild fish populations. LMB ponds can spread diseases through discharge of wastewater and escapes of farmed fish. However, LMB farms rarely discharge wastewater. Pond systems are open to intermediate hosts, which can transport pathogens from one farm pond to another and potentially between farms and the wild. There is no evidence of introduction of parasites due to unintentional escape of LMB. Criterion 7 Synthesis The production practices for LMB are not considered to increase the likelihood of pathogen amplification compared to natural populations. There is no evidence that farming of LMB amplifies pathogens or parasite numbers above background levels. Nor is there evidence of increased infection rates in wild fish because of LMB farming. Pond systems have controls on

27

effluent release and thereby reducing any likelihood of contaminating the surrounding environment. LMB pond systems rarely discharge water. When these factors are taken into account, risk of disease transfer to wild stocks is a low conservation concern and the score for this criterion is 8.00 out of 10.00.

28

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

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

Justification Historically, broodstocks of LMB were derived from wild populations. The hatchery reared LMB offspring were then stocked back into their natural habitat. Over time, hatchery broodstocks adapted to culture conditions and became domesticated due to intentional or inadvertent selection (Williamson 1983). There were occasional exchanges of broodfish among hatcheries, particularly in the federal hatchery system. Davis and Lock (1997) reported that LMB broodfish were collected from wild sources and carried over from year to year by the producers. At present, most farmers use broodstocks raised on their farms (Tidwell 2012, Walen 2012). There are some farmers who use wild broodstock. Considering state regulations regarding freshwater commercial and recreational fisheries and the limited number of farms, it is unlikely that there would be any effect on wild populations. Criterion 8 Synthesis LMB farms are considered to have no impact on wild fisheries and they do not deplete native fish stocks for use in aquaculture. Generally, LMB farmers use broodstock, fry, and fingerlings that are produced entirely at LMB farms. Therefore, source of stock score is considered to be 10.00 out of 10.00.

29

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 criteria 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 criteria

Criterion Score (0-10) Rank Critical?

C1 Data 5.00 YELLOW

C2 Effluent 9.00 GREEN NO

C3 Habitat 5.95 YELLOW NO

C4 Chemicals 8.00 GREEN NO

C5 Feed 3.75 YELLOW NO

C6 Escapes 7.00 GREEN NO

C7 Disease 8.00 GREEN NO

C8 Source 10.00 GREEN

3.3X Wildlife mortalities -3.00 GREEN NO

6.2X Introduced species escape 0.00 GREEN

Total 53.70

Final score 6.71

OVERALL RANKING

Final Score 6.71

Initial rank GREEN

Red criteria 0

Interim rank GREEN

Critical Criteria? NO

Final rank BEST CHOICE

30

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 James Tidwell, Shawn Coyle and one anonymous reviewer for graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy.

31

References

AFS-FCS (2011) Guide to Using Drugs, Biologics, and Other Chemicals in Aquaculture. http://www. fws.gov/fisheries/aadap/AFS-FCS%20documents/GUIDE_FEB_2011.pdf.

Amoah, A., Coyle, S.D., Webster, C.D., Burborow, R.M., Bright, L.A. and Tidwell, J.H. (2008)

Effect of graded levels of carbohydrate on growth and survival of largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, 39 (3): 397-405.

ASMFC (2011) 2010 Atlantic Menhaden Stock Assessment for Peer Review: Update. Atlantic

States Marine Fisheries Commission. http://www.asmfc.org/meetings/winterSpring2011/ AtlanticMenhadenManagementBoard.pdf.

Barras, S. C. (2007) Avian Predators at Aquaculture Facilities in the Southern United States.

SRAC Publication No. 400. Blazer, V.S. and S.E. LaPatra (2002) Pathogens of cultured fishes: potential risks to wild fish

populations. In: J. Tomasso (Ed.) Aquaculture and the Environment in the United States. U.S. Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, LA, pp 197-224.

Bonar, S.A. B.D. Bolding, M. Divens, and W. Meyer (2005) Effects of introduced fishes on wild

juvenile coho salmon in three shallow Pacific Northwest lakes. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 134:641-652.

Boyd, C.E. and J.A. Hargreaves (2004) Environmental Issues. In C.S. Tucker and J.A. Hargreaves

(Eds.) Biology and Culture of Channel Catfish. Elsevier, pp. 634-657. Boyd, C. E., J. Queiroz, J. Lee, M. Rowan, G. N. Whitis and A. Gross (2000) Environmental

assessment of channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus farming in Alabama. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 31(4): 511-544.

Boyd, C. E. and C. S. Tucker (1995) Sustainability of Channel Catfish Farming. World Aquaculture

26(3): 45-53. Brown, T.G., B. Runciman, S. Pollard, and A.D.A. Grant (2009) Biological Synopsis of Largemouth

Bass (Micropterus salmoides). Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2884.

Cochran, N. J., Coyle, S. D. & Tidwell, J. H. (2009) Evaluation of reduced fish meal diets for

second year growth of the largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 40(6):735-743.

Craig, J. (1987). The Biology of Perch and Related Fishes. Portland, OR, Timber Press.

32

Davis, J.T. and J.T. Lock (1997) Largemouth Bass Biology and Life History. SRAC Publication no.

200. DeVoe, M.R. (1999). Marine aquaculture in the United States: Current and future policy and

management challenges. In: B. Cicin-Sain, R. Knecht, and N. Foster (Eds.). Trends and Future Challenges for U.S. National Ocean and Coastal Policy. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD, pp. 85-93.

Dorr, B., D.T. King, M.E. Tobin, J.B. Harrel, and P.L. Smith (2004) Double-crested cormorant

movements in relation to aquaculture in eastern Mississippi and western Alabama. Waterbirds 27(2): 147-154.

Dunlap, J. (2012) Acquiring a Bird Depredation Permit. In: Florida Aquaculture, Issue No. 81.

http://www.floridaaquaculture.com/publications/Issue_81.pdf. Dunns Fish Farm (2012) http://www.dunnsfishfarm.com/fish_pricing.htm. FAO (2012) National Aquaculture Legislation Overview: United States of America. FAO, Rome.

http://www.fao.org/fishery/legalframework/nalo_usa/en. Fayram, A.H. (1996) Impacts of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) and smallmouth bass

(Micropterus dolomieui) predation on populations of juvenile salmonids in Lake Washington. Masters Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Fenech, A. S., T.C. Racey, A.A. Radomski; S.E. Lochmann (2006) Potential Effects of Double-

crested Cormorants on Largemouth Bass in Lake Chicot, Arkansas. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish and Wildlife Agencies 59:303-312.

Findlay, C.S., D.G. Bert, and L. Zheng (2000) Effect of introduced piscivores on native minnow

communities in Adirondack lakes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57:570-580. Froese, R. and D. Pauly (2012) FishBase. www.fishbase.org (Accessed February 2012). Gorenzel W.P., F.S. Conte, T.P. Salmon (2005) Bird Damage at Aquaculture Facilities. The

Internet Center for Wildlife Damage Management. http://icwdm.org/handbook/birds/ BirdDamage.asp.

Great Lakes Fishery Commission (2006) Largemouth Bass Virus Report: Detection of

Largemouth Bass Virus in Minnesota. In: Great Lakes Fish Health Committee Annual Agency Reports, pp. 24. http://www.glfc.org/boardcomm/fhealth/2006agencyreports.pdf.

Grizzle, J.M., and C.J. Brunner (2003) Review of largemouth bass virus. Fisheries 28(11):10-14.

33

Harvey, B.C., R.C. Cashner, and W.J. Matthews (1988) Differential effects of largemouth and

smallmouth bass on habitat use by stoneroller minnows in stream pools. J. Fish Biol. 33:481–487.

Heidinger, R.C. (2000) A White Paper on The Status and Needs of Largemouth Bass Culture in The North Central Region. North Central Regional Aquaculture Center.

Hill, J.E. and Cichra, C.E. (2005) Biological Synopsis of Five Selected Florida Centrarchid Fishes

with an Emphasis on the Effects of Water Level Fluctuations. Special Publication SJ2005-SP3. Water Supply Management Division St. Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, Florida. http://tal.ifas.ufl.edu/PDFs/Hill%20and%20Cichra%202005%20SJ2005-SP3%20Centrarchid% 20biological%20synopsis.pdf.

Hoffman, G.L. (1967) Parasites of North American Freshwater Fishes. Univ. Calif. Press, Los

Angeles, Calif. 486p. Jackson, D.A. (2002) Ecological effects of Micropterus introductions: the dark side of black bass.

In: D. P. Philipp and M. S. Ridgway (Eds.) Black Bass: Ecology, Conservation, and Management. Am. Fish. Soc. pp. 221–232.

Kerr, S.J., and R.E. Grant (1999) Ecological Impacts of Fish Introductions: Evaluating the Risk.

Fish and Wildlife Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/mnr/stocking2002/EcoImpacts_opt.pdf.

Knickerbocker, K. Florida Department of Agriculture. Personal Communication, April 27, 2012. Lasenby, T.A. and S.J. Kerr (2000) Bass transfers and stocking: An annotated bibliography and

literature review. Fish and Wildlife Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural resources. Peterborough, Ontario. 207p.

MacRae, P.S.D., and D.A. Jackson (2001) The influence of smallmouth bass (Micropterus

dolomieu) predation and habitat complexity on the structure of littoral zone fish assemblages. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58: 342–351.

Masser, M. P., D. Steinbach, and B. Higginbotham (1999) Catfish ponds for recreation. Publ. B-

1319, Texas Agricultural Extension Service, College Station, TX. Power, M.E., W.J. Matthews, and A.J. Stewart (1985) Grazing minnow, piscivorous bass, and

stream algae: dynamics of a strong interaction. Ecol. 66:1488–1456. Slaney, P., and J. Roberts (2005) Coastal Cutthroat Trout as Sentinels of Lower Mainland

Watershed Health Strategies for Coastal Cutthroat Trout Conservation, Restoration and

34

Recovery. http://www.shim.bc.ca/cutthroat/ct.pdf. Stone, N. (2012) University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff. Personal Communication, November 8,

2012. Sustainable Fisheries Partnership (2012) FishSource: Status and Environmental Performance of

Fisheries Worldwide. http://www.fishsource.com/site/index. Telfer, T.C., H. Atkin, and R.A. Corner (2009) Review of environmental impact assessment and

monitoring in aquaculture in Europe and North America. In: FAO Environmental impact assessment and monitoring in aquaculture. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 527. Rome, FAO. pp. 285–394.

Temple, R., K. Daily, T. Shrader, and B. Hooton (1998) Predation Issues: Introduced Fishes.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/odfwhtml/research& reports/predatorplans/fishactplan.html.

Tidwell, J. H. (2012) Kansas State University. Personal Communication, June 6, 2012. Tidwell, J. H. and Coyle, S. D. (2010) Effect of feed pellet characteristics on growth and feed

efficiencies of the largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides. Aquaculture 2010 Abstracts, San Diego, CA, p. 1004.

Tidwell, J.H., S.D. Coyle, and T.A. Woods (2000) Species profiles: largemouth bass. SRAC

Publication No. 722. Tonn, W.M. and J.J. Magnuson (1983) Patterns in the species composition and richness of fish

assemblages in northern Wisconsin lakes. Ecol. 63: 1149–1166. Tucker, C.S. (1998) Characterization and Management of Effluents from Aquaculture Ponds in

the Southern United States. SRAC final report no. 600. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, MS.

Tucker, C.S., C.E. Boyd and J.A. Hargreaves (2002) Characterization and management of

effluents from warmwater aquaculture ponds. In: J. Tomasso (Ed.) Aquaculture and the Environment in the United States. U.S. Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, LA, pp. 35-76.

Tucker, C.S. and J.A. Hargreaves (2008) Environmental Best Management Practices for

Aquaculture. Blackwell Publishing. USDA (2006) Census of Aquaculture (2005): Volume 3, Special Studies Part 2. U.S. Department

of Agriculture. http://agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2002/Aquaculture/AQUACEN.pdf.

35

U.S. EPA (2004) Effluent Guidelines - Aquatic Animal Production Industry - Final Technical Development Document. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/aquaculture/tdd_ index.cfm.

U.S. EPA (2012) Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO). http://epa-echo.gov

/echo/index.html. US-FWS (2005) Largemouth Bass Production Report

http://www.fws.gov/fisheries/aadap/ACCESS/ Access%20PDFs/Species%20reports/largemouth%20bass.pdf.

Vaughan, D.S., K.W. Shertzer, and J.W. Smith (2007) Gulf menhaden (Brevoortia patronus) in

the U.S. Gulf of Mexico: Fishery characteristics and biological reference points for management. Fisheries Research 83: 263-275.

Walen, D., Aqua Farming. Personal communication, April 25, 2012. Williamson, J.H. (1983) Comparing training success of two strains of largemouth bass.

Progressive Fish Culturists 45(3). Williamson, J.H., G.J. Carmichael, K.G. Graves, B.A. Simco, and J.R. Tomasso (1993)

Centrarchids. In: R.R. Stickney (Ed.) Culture of Non-salmonid Freshwater Fishes. 2nd edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 145-197.

Wywialowski, A. (1999) Wildlife-Caused Losses for Producers of Channel Catfish Ictalurus

punctatus in 1996. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 30(4): 461-472. Yoo, K.H. and C.E. Boyd (1994) Hydrology and water supply for aquaculture. Chapman and Hall,

New York, New York, USA.

36

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.

37

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.

38

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.

39

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 5 5

Effluent Yes 5 5

Locations/habitats Yes 5 5

Predators and wildlife Yes 5 5

Chemical use Yes 5 5

Feed Yes 5 5

Escapes, animal movements Yes 5 5

Disease Yes 5 5

Source of stock Yes 5 5

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

Total 45

C1 Data Final Score 5 YELLOW

Criterion 2: Effluents Factor 2.1a - Biological Waste Production Score

Protein content of feed (%) 42.3

eFCR 1.5

Fertilizer N input (kg N/ton fish) 0.51

Protein content of harvested fish (%) 20.1

N content factor (fixed) 0.16

N input per ton of fish produced (kg) 102.03

N in each ton of fish harvested (kg) 32.16

Waste N produced per ton of fish (kg) 69.87

40

Factor 2.1b - Production System Discharge Score

Basic production system score 0.24

Adjustment 1 (if applicable) 0

Adjustment 2 (if applicable) 0

Adjustment 3 (if applicable) 0

Discharge (Factor 2.1b) score 0.24

24 % of the waste produced by the fish is discharged from the farm

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?

Yes 1

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

Mostly 0.75

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

Moderately 0.5

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)?

Mostly 0.75

4 - Does enforcement demonstrably result in compliance with set limits? Yes 1

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

4.75

F2.2 Score (2.2a*2.2b/2.5) 8.075

C2 Effluent Final Score 9.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

41

Criterion 3: Habitat 3.1. Habitat conversion and function

F3.1 Score 6

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?

Mostly 0.75

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?

Moderately 0.5

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)

Mostly 0.75

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

Mostly 0.75

3.25

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?

Moderately 0.5

4.5

F3.2 Score (2.2a*2.2b/2.5) 5.85

C3 Habitat Final Score 5.95 YELLOW

Critical? NO

42

Exceptional Factor 3.3X: Wildlife and Predator Mortalities

Wildlife and predator mortality parameters Score

F3.3X Wildlife and Predator Final Score -3.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

Criterion 4: Evidence or Risk of Chemical Use

Chemical Use parameters Score

C4 Chemical Use Score 8.00

C4 Chemical Use Final Score 8.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

Criterion 5: Feed 5.1. Wild Fish Use

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

Fishmeal inclusion level (%) 30

Fishmeal from by-products (%) 0

% FM 30

Fish oil inclusion level (%) 4.8

Fish oil from by-products (%) 0

% FO 4.8

Fishmeal yield (%) 22.5

Fish oil yield (%) 5

eFCR 1.5

FIFO fishmeal 2.00

FIFO fish oil 1.44

Greater of the 2 FIFO scores 2.00

FIFO Score 5.00

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

SSWF -5

SSWF Factor -1

F5.1 Wild Fish Use Score 4.00

43

5.2. Net Protein Gain or Loss

Protein INPUTS

Protein content of feed 42.3

eFCR 1.5

Feed protein from NON-EDIBLE sources (%) 0

Feed protein from EDIBLE CROP soruces (%) 33.5

Protein OUTPUTS

Protein content of whole harvested fish (%) 20.1

Edible yield of harvested fish (%) 68

Non-edible by-products from harvested fish used for other food production 0

Protein IN 57.37

Protein OUT 13.668

Net protein gain or loss (%) -76.176

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 (%) 34.8

eFCR 1.5

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) 13.58

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

Inclusion level of crop feed ingredients (%) 60.8

Inclusion level of land animal products (%) 0

Conversion ratio of crop ingredients to land animal products 2.88

eFCR 1.5

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

Land area appropriated (ha per ton of fish) 0.35

Value (Ocean + Land Area) 13.92

F5.3 Feed Footprint Score 5.00

44

C5 Feed Final Score 3.75 YELLOW

Critical? NO

Criterion 6: Escapes 6.1a. Escape Risk

Escape Risk 7

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 7

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? To some extent

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?

No

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

4

F 6.1b Score 8

Final C6 Score 7.00 GREEN

Critical? NO

45

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 8.00

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 GREEN