This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-594
entitled 'Offshore Marine Aquaculture: Multiple Administrative and
Environmental Issues Need to Be Addressed in Establishing a U.S.
Regulatory Framework' which was released on May 9, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of
Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
May 2008:
Offshore Marine Aquaculture:
Multiple Administrative and Environmental Issues Need to Be Addressed
in Establishing a U.S. Regulatory Framework:
Offshore Marine Aquaculture:
GAO-08-594:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-594, a report to the Chairman, Committee on
Natural Resources, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
U. S. aquaculture梩he raising of fish and shellfish in captivity梙as
generally been confined to nearshore coastal waters or in other water
bodies, such as ponds, that fall under state regulation. Recently,
there has been an increased interest in expanding aquaculture to
offshore waters, which would involve raising fish and shellfish in the
open ocean, and consequently bringing these types of operations under
federal regulation. While the offshore expansion has the potential to
increase U.S. aquaculture production, no comprehensive legislative or
regulatory framework to manage such an expansion exists. Instead,
multiple federal agencies have authority to regulate different aspects
of offshore aquaculture under a variety of existing laws that were not
designed for this purpose. In this context, GAO was asked to identify
key issues that should be addressed in the development of an effective
regulatory framework for U.S. offshore aquaculture. In conducting its
assessment, GAO administered a questionnaire to a wide variety of key
aquaculture stakeholders; analyzed laws, regulations, and key studies;
and visited states that regulate nearshore aquaculture industries.
Although GAO is not making any recommendations, this review emphasizes
the need to carefully consider a wide array of key issues as a
regulatory framework for offshore aquaculture is developed. Agencies
that provided official comments generally agreed with the report.
What GAO Found:
In developing a regulatory framework for offshore aquaculture, it is
important to consider a wide array of issues, which can be grouped into
four main areas.
Program administration: Addressing the administration of an offshore
program at the federal level is an important aspect of a regulatory
framework. Stakeholders that GAO contacted and key studies that GAO
reviewed identified specific roles and responsibilities for federal
agencies, states, and regional fishery management councils. Most
stakeholders and the studies agreed that the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should be the lead federal agency and
emphasized that coordination with other federal agencies will also be
important. In addition, stakeholders and some of the studies
recommended that the states play an important role in the development
and implementation of an offshore aquaculture program.
Permitting and site selection: It will also be important to establish a
regulatory process that clearly identifies where aquaculture facilities
can be located and for how long. For example, many stakeholders stated
that offshore facilities will need the legal right, through a permit or
lease, to occupy an area of the ocean. However, stakeholders varied on
the specific terms of the permits or leases, including their duration.
Some stakeholders said that longer permits could make it easier for
investors to recoup their investments, while others said that shorter
ones could facilitate closer scrutiny of environmental impacts. This
variability is also reflected in the approaches taken by states that
regulate aquaculture in their waters. One state issues 20-year leases
while another issues shorter leases. Stakeholders supported various
approaches for siting offshore facilities, such as case-by-case site
evaluations and prepermitting some locations.
Environmental management: A process to assess and mitigate the
environmental impacts of offshore operations is another important
aspect of a regulatory framework. For example, many stakeholders told
GAO of the value of reviewing the potential cumulative environmental
impacts of offshore operations over a broad ocean area before any
facilities are sited. About half of them said that a facility-by-
facility environmental review should also be required. Two states
currently require facility-level reviews for operations in state
waters. In addition, stakeholders, key studies, and state regulators
generally supported an adaptive monitoring approach to ensure
flexibility in monitoring changing environmental conditions. Other
important areas to address include policies to mitigate the potential
impacts of escaped fish and to remediate environmental damage.
Research: Finally, a regulatory framework needs to include a federal
research component to help fill current gaps in knowledge about
offshore aquaculture. For example, stakeholders supported federally
funded research on developing (1) alternative fish feeds, (2) best
management practices to minimize environmental impacts, (3) data on how
escaped aquaculture fish might impact wild fisheries, and (4)
strategies to breed and raise fish while effectively managing disease.
A few researchers said that the current process of funding research for
aquaculture is not adequate because the research grants are funded over
periods that are too short to accommodate certain types of research,
such as hatchery research and offshore demonstration projects.
What GAO Recommends:
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-594]. For more
information, contact Anu K. Mittal at (202) 512-3841 or
mittala@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
It Is Important to Consider Many Issues in Four Key Areas When
Developing a Regulatory Framework for Offshore Aquaculture:
Concluding Observations:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Stakeholders Consulted by GAO Regarding a Regulatory
Framework for Offshore Aquaculture:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Agriculture:
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Table:
Table 1: Agencies' Regulatory Responsibilities and Authorities for
Offshore Aquaculture:
Figure:
Figure 1: Examples of Cages Used in Nearshore and Offshore Aquaculture:
Abbreviations:
Corps: Army Corps of Engineers:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act:
NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System:
PEIS: programmatic environmental impact statement:
USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 9, 2008:
The Honorable Nick J. Rahall II:
Chairman:
Committee on Natural Resources:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The U.S. aquaculture industry--which primarily raises fish and
shellfish in captivity--is relatively small compared with that of other
countries. According to the most recent data available from the Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the United States
was the tenth largest aquaculture producer in the world in
2004.[Footnote 1] Generally, U.S. aquaculture takes place in nearshore
marine waters or onshore--such as in ponds or tanks--that fall under
the jurisdiction of individual states. Offshore marine aquaculture,
which involves raising fish in cages and shellfish attached to
underwater ropes in open-ocean federal waters, has the potential to
increase U.S. aquaculture production. A move to offshore operations
would mean that aquaculture facilities would be sited in federally
regulated waters that generally extend from 3 to 200 nautical miles
from the U.S. coast. To date, no offshore aquaculture operations exist
in U.S. federal waters. However, a few small-scale commercial and
research operations are ongoing in state or territorial waters in
Hawaii, New Hampshire, and Puerto Rico, which have conditions similar
to the offshore environment such as deep water, rapid currents, and
large waves.
With some recent advances in offshore aquaculture technologies and the
existence of some open-ocean commercial and research operations in
state waters, the aquaculture industry is increasingly interested in
expanding to offshore areas. Proponents of offshore aquaculture have
argued that it can increase production, while potentially alleviating
some of the environmental concerns that have been associated with
aquaculture in nearshore areas. For example, nutrients from nearshore
aquaculture facilities have, in some cases, decreased the diversity of
organisms living in and on the ocean floor--known as the benthic
community. Some have suggested that faster currents and deeper waters
in offshore areas will disperse these nutrients before they can be
deposited on the ocean floor. However, others believe that significant
environmental concerns remain and should be addressed before the United
States authorizes an offshore aquaculture program. For example, fish
may escape from an aquaculture facility, whether nearshore or offshore,
and interbreed with wild fish, potentially reducing the ability of wild
fish to survive. In addition, several nearshore aquaculture facilities
have faced challenges in keeping aquaculture-raised fish free from
diseases, and offshore facilities could face similar challenges as
well. Also, diseases can be transmitted between aquaculture and wild
populations, potentially harming both.[Footnote 2] Finally, the feeds
currently used in aquaculture production rely, in part, on ingredients
derived from wild-caught fish, raising concerns that an expanded
aquaculture industry could result in over-fishing certain species, such
as anchovies, which are used in aquaculture feeds.
Currently, multiple federal agencies have the authority to regulate
different aspects of offshore aquaculture, under a variety of existing
laws that were not designed for this purpose. Additionally, there is no
lead federal agency for regulating offshore aquaculture, and no
comprehensive law directly addresses how it should be administered,
regulated, and monitored. The key federal agencies include the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which has the authority
to protect the marine environment from potential negative impacts from
a variety of sources, including aquaculture. In this regard, NOAA
evaluates proposals for new facilities in the marine environment, such
as those for aquaculture or oil exploration, to ensure that marine
mammals, endangered species, and national marine sanctuary resources
are protected. NOAA also coordinates with eight regional fishery
management councils to manage fishing activity and protect fish habitat
in federal waters.[Footnote 3] In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) issues permits for structures in navigable waters,
such as aquaculture net pens where fish are raised, to ensure that
navigation is not impeded. Similarly, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) issues permits to limit the release of pollutants from
aquaculture facilities into U.S. waters.
This complex structure of federal responsibilities for offshore
aquaculture has led aquaculture researchers, regulators, those who
operate aquaculture facilities (aquaculturists), and environmentalists
to advocate for a coordinated approach to regulating offshore
aquaculture in the United States. In 2005 and 2007, the administration
developed legislative proposals to provide a new regulatory framework
for offshore aquaculture.[Footnote 4] The 2007 legislative proposal was
introduced in the House and Senate but has not progressed any farther
toward becoming law. Within this context, you asked us to identify key
issues that should be addressed in the development of an effective
regulatory framework for U.S. offshore aquaculture.
To conduct this work, we reviewed federal laws and regulations, as well
as a wide range of studies on offshore aquaculture, including four key
studies.[Footnote 5] These key studies--by the Marine Aquaculture Task
Force, the University of Delaware, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy,
and the Pew Oceans Commission--brought together ocean policy
stakeholders to examine, among other things, potential regulatory
frameworks for offshore aquaculture. Throughout the report, we cite
those studies that reached similar conclusions or made similar
recommendations on particular policy issues. If a study is not cited
for a particular policy issue, it is because the study did not address
that issue. If a study is not cited for a particular policy issue, that
study did not address the policy issue. We also visited the states with
active nearshore fish aquaculture industries--Hawaii, Maine, and
Washington--and met with state and federal regulators to discuss state
regulatory frameworks. In addition, we spoke with other relevant
federal agency officials; representatives from six of the eight
regional fishery management councils; and state officials in
California, Florida, and Texas, where new marine aquaculture policies
are under development.
Based on this information, we developed a questionnaire to assess the
level of support for various regulatory policy options. We administered
the questionnaire to, and conducted follow-up structured interviews
with, a variety of aquaculture stakeholders, including key federal and
coastal state officials; representatives from the commercial fishing
industry, aquaculture industry, and environmental groups; and
aquaculture researchers. We selected these stakeholders because of
their knowledge of aquaculture issues and to ensure broad
representation across government, industry, and the environmental and
academic sectors, as well as broad geographic representation throughout
the United States. We sent questionnaires to 28 stakeholders and
received responses from 25. For purposes of characterizing the results
from our questionnaire and follow-up interviews of our 25 stakeholders,
we identified specific meanings for the words we used to quantify the
results, as follows: "a few" means at least three, and up to five
stakeholders; "some" means between 6 and 11 stakeholders; "about half"
means 12 to 14 stakeholders; "a majority" of stakeholders and "many"
stakeholders both mean 15 to 19 stakeholders; and "most" means 20
stakeholders or more. We conducted this performance audit from April
2007 to May 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objective.
Results in Brief:
In developing an effective regulatory framework for U.S. offshore
aquaculture, it is important to consider a wide array of issues. These
issues can be grouped into four main areas: program administration,
permitting and site selection, environmental management, and research.
Aquaculture stakeholders whom we contacted generally agreed on how to
address some specific issues within each of these four broad areas, but
differed on how to address other specific implementation issues.
* Program administration. Identifying a lead federal agency, as well as
the roles and responsibilities of other federal agencies and states, is
key to the administration of an offshore aquaculture program. Most
stakeholders we contacted said that NOAA should be the lead federal
agency to (1) manage a permitting or leasing program for offshore
aquaculture facilities and (2) coordinate with other federal agencies.
About half of these stakeholders supported NOAA because of its
expertise in fisheries and oceans management. In addition, most
stakeholders emphasized that formal agreements among agencies are
essential to enhance federal coordination and take advantage of each
agency's unique expertise. For example, EPA has knowledge of
technologies and practices that control and reduce pollutants from
marine aquaculture, and the lead federal agency for offshore
aquaculture could draw on that experience to protect water quality in
federal waters. Regarding the extent to which states should be involved
in regulating offshore aquaculture, three of the key studies that we
reviewed recommended that states be involved in the development and
implementation of a regulatory framework for offshore aquaculture. In
addition, a majority of stakeholders agreed that states should be able
to "opt out" of the offshore aquaculture program. If a state chose to
opt out, it would be refusing to allow any offshore aquaculture to take
place in the federal waters adjacent to its state waters. However, the
stakeholders also said that states that have not opted out of the
program should not have the authority to veto individual offshore
aquaculture projects. For example, one stakeholder said he did not
support allowing states to veto individual offshore aquaculture
projects because few businesses would be interested in investing time
and money in obtaining federal offshore aquaculture approvals if any
individual state could veto the federal decision. Finally, stakeholders
and studies generally agreed that regional fishery management councils
should review or comment on offshore aquaculture projects but not be
able to veto such projects.
* Permitting and site selection. Permits or leases are important to
establish the terms and conditions for offshore aquaculture operations.
Specifically, stakeholders we contacted, and the University of Delaware
study, emphasized that offshore aquaculturists will need the legal
right--through a permit or lease--to occupy a given tract of ocean.
Some stakeholders were concerned that without legal rights defined in a
permit or lease, aquaculturists might not be able to obtain needed
business loans. However, stakeholders expressed a range of opinions on
the specific terms of offshore aquaculture permits and leases. For
example, some stakeholders supported permits or leases with long time
frames--20 years or more--to allow investors to recoup their
investments, while others advocated for permits or leases with shorter
time frames to ensure close scrutiny of environmental impacts during
the lease or permit renewal process. In addition, site selection--
developing a process to approve offshore aquaculture facility
locations--is an important component of regulating offshore
aquaculture. Stakeholders supported a variety of approaches that the
lead aquaculture agency could use to site new offshore aquaculture
facilities, including (1) reviewing and approving sites on a case-by-
case basis and (2) prepermitting locations by approving sites
independently of and prior to submitting individual facility
applications.
* Environmental management. A regulatory process to review, monitor,
and mitigate the potential environmental impacts of offshore
aquaculture facilities will also be important. Many stakeholders
recognized the value of reviewing the potential environmental impacts
of offshore aquaculture over a broad ocean area before any offshore
aquaculture facilities are sited--which should involve preparing a
programmatic environmental impact statement. A few considered this a
sufficient level of environmental review, while others said that a
follow-up, facility-specific environmental review should also be
required. In addition, the majority of stakeholders supported
conducting environmental monitoring at offshore aquaculture facilities
to identify changes to the benthic community and disease, among other
things. Such monitoring is done for nearshore marine aquaculture
programs in Hawaii, Maine, and Washington, although these states vary
in the frequency and intensity of monitoring they require. Most
stakeholders also supported using an adaptive monitoring approach that
would alter monitoring requirements over time as better information
became available and help focus on the types of monitoring that are
demonstrated to be the most appropriate for tracking changes to the
environment. Finally, stakeholders had varied opinions on policies that
could be used to mitigate the potential impacts of escaped fish and
remediate environmental damage. For example, most stakeholders
supported requiring aquaculturists to develop plans to address fish
escapes from their proposed facilities. Stakeholders' views varied,
however, on whether aquaculturists should be allowed to raise
genetically modified species in offshore aquaculture facilities.
* Research. Finally, research to address gaps in current knowledge on a
variety of issues for offshore aquaculture is an important component of
a regulatory framework. Stakeholders, and the four key studies we
reviewed, generally agreed that the federal government should fund such
research. Most stakeholders said that the federal government should
place particular importance on funding research on (1) developing fish
feeds that do not rely heavily on harvesting wild fish, (2) developing
best management practices, (3) exploring how escaped offshore
aquaculture-raised fish might impact wild fish populations, and (4)
developing strategies to breed and raise fish while effectively
managing disease. Currently, NOAA and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) fund research on marine aquaculture through, for
example, competitive grants. However, some researchers said that grants
are funded over time periods that are too short to accommodate certain
types of research. For example, researchers in Hawaii told us that the
development of healthy breeding fish to supply offshore aquaculture
operations can often require years of intensive breeding efforts, but
that it is difficult to obtain consistent research funding over this
long time period.
Background:
Globally, aquaculture production has grown significantly over the past
50 years, from less than 1.1 million tons around 1950 to about 65.5
million tons in 2004. A majority of global aquaculture fish and
shellfish are raised in a freshwater environment and species raised in
a marine environment make up about 36 percent of aquaculture
production. Marine aquaculture is dominated by high-value fish, such as
salmon. Many countries are producing marine fish, though a NOAA
official indicated that most production is occurring in shallow,
sheltered areas relatively close to shore. A few countries, such as
Ireland, have expressed interest in or are developing policy frameworks
to regulate offshore aquaculture in the open ocean. To date, however, a
NOAA official said that no countries have substantial offshore
aquaculture industries with facilities sited in open-ocean
environments.
The United States' aquaculture industry includes both onshore and
nearshore operations and produces both fish, such as salmon and
catfish, and shellfish, such as oysters. Onshore aquaculture facilities
are primarily involved in raising freshwater species, such as catfish.
Marine aquaculture facilities in the United States are generally
located in waters close to shore and in sheltered conditions, and they
most frequently raise oysters, mussels, clams, and salmon. The salmon
aquaculture industry in the United States is concentrated in Maine and
Washington, although the industry is relatively small compared with the
global salmon aquaculture industry, accounting for less than 1 percent
of the world's production.[Footnote 6]
During the last 10 years, four small-scale aquaculture facilities began
nearshore open-ocean operations in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and New
Hampshire, in conditions similar to those found offshore. All four
facilities grow fish species native to their regions, such as moi and
kahala in Hawaii, cobia in Puerto Rico, and cod and halibut in New
Hampshire. The New Hampshire project also grows mussels. These open-
ocean facilities and similar facilities that may be established in an
offshore environment require technology that differs from what is
generally needed by nearshore facilities. For example, open-ocean
facilities need stronger cages and anchors that can withstand the
strong currents and storms that are prevalent offshore. Furthermore,
offshore aquaculture will face challenges such as inclement weather,
which may prevent offshore aquaculturists from accessing cages due to
their location far from shore and could delay essential activities such
as feeding.
Figure 1: Examples of Cages Used in Nearshore and Offshore Aquaculture:
This figure is an illustration of examples of cages used in nearshore
and offshore aquaculture.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
However, there are concerns that offshore aquaculture may have adverse
environmental impacts. Specifically, excess nutrients or chemicals from
fish food, medication, and fish waste may alter water quality and may
also change the composition of the benthic community. Although the
environmental impact of an offshore aquaculture industry is uncertain
because of a lack of data specific to large-scale, offshore aquaculture
operations, data from existing small-scale, open-ocean facilities in
state waters provide some information about this kind of impact.
Studies of one small-scale commercial facility in Hawaii show that some
water quality changes occurred near the aquaculture cages,[Footnote 7]
but that these changes were within the allowable limits of the
facility's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit.[Footnote 8] Also, the data from the site indicated a slight
change in the benthic community, but researchers noted that it returned
to its original composition after the cages were not used for 6 months.
Studies of other open-ocean sites in state or territorial waters found
little to no impact on water quality or the benthic community.[Footnote
9]
Multiple federal agencies, including NOAA, the Corps, EPA, and USDA,
have regulatory authorities relevant to various aspects of offshore
aquaculture operations (see table 1).
Table 1: Agencies' Regulatory Responsibilities and Authorities for
Offshore Aquaculture:
Agency (Department): NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service
(Commerce);
Responsibilities: Consult with regulating agencies regarding the impact
of permitted activities on living marine resources, marine mammals,
essential fish habitat, and endangered species;
Authority: Marine Mammal Protection Act;
Citation: 16 U.S.C. �71.
Agency (Department): NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service
(Commerce);
Responsibilities: Consult with regulating agencies regarding the impact
of permitted activities on living marine resources, marine mammals,
essential fish habitat, and endangered species;
Authority: Endangered Species Act;
Citation: 16 U.S.C. �36.
Agency (Department): NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service
(Commerce);
Responsibilities: Consult with regulating agencies regarding the impact
of permitted activities on living marine resources, marine mammals,
essential fish habitat, and endangered species;
Responsibilities: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act;
Citation: 16 U.S.C. �55.
Agency (Department): NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service
(Commerce);
Responsibilities: Consult with regulating agencies regarding the impact
of permitted activities on living marine resources, marine mammals,
essential fish habitat, and endangered species;
Authority: Agency (Department): Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act;
Citation: Agency (Department): 16 U.S.C. �1 et seq.
Agency (Department): NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service
(Commerce);
Responsibilities: Regulate fishing activities, including aquaculture.
Performed in consultation with regional fishery management councils;
Authority: Agency (Department): Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act;
Citation: Agency (Department): 16 U.S.C. �01 et seq.
Agency (Department): NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service
(Commerce);
Responsibilities: Cooperate with other federal agencies in implementing
the National Aquaculture Development Plan;
Authority: Agency (Department): National Aquaculture Act of 1980;
Citation: Agency (Department): 16 U.S.C. Ё2801-2810.
Agency (Department): NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service
(Commerce);
Responsibilities: NOAA's National Ocean Service (Commerce): Enforce
prohibitions on the sale, trade, or transportation of fish or wildlife
harvested or attained in violation of federal, state, tribal, or
foreign laws;
Authority: Agency (Department)NOAA's National Ocean Service (Commerce):
Lacey Act;
Citation: Agency (Department)NOAA's National Ocean Service (Commerce):
16 U.S.C. Ё3371- 3378.
Agency (Department): NOAA's National Ocean Service (Commerce);
Responsibilities: Review and approve state coastal management programs,
which identify permissible water uses in the coastal zone. Oversee
federal consistency with these programs;
Authority: Coastal Zone Management Act;
Citation: 16 U.S.C. �51 et seq.
Agency (Department): NOAA's National Ocean Service (Commerce);
Responsibilities: Regulate activities in national marine sanctuaries to
protect sanctuary resources;
Authority: National Marine Sanctuaries Act;
Citation: Agency (Department)Corps (Defense): 16 U.S.C. �31 et seq.
Agency (Department): Corps (Defense);
Responsibilities: Regulate structures, such as aquaculture cages, in
navigable waters through "Section 10" permits;
Authority: Rivers and Harbors Act;
Citation: 33 U.S.C. �3.
Agency (Department): Corps (Defense);
Responsibilities: Regulate structures, such as aquaculture cages, in
navigable waters through "Section 10" permits;
Authority: Agency (Department)EPA: Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act;
Citation: Agency (Department)EPA: 43 U.S.C. �33.
Agency (Department): EPA;
Responsibilities: Regulate discharges to navigable waters through NPDES
permits. Often authorizes states to issue NPDES permits for discharges
to navigable waters within a state;
Authority: Clean Water Act;
Citation: 33 U.S.C. Ё1342, 1343.
Agency (Department): Fish and Wildlife Service (Interior);
Responsibilities: Consult with permitting agencies regarding the impact
of permitted activities on fish and wildlife, including endangered
species;
Authority: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act;
Citation: 16 U.S.C. �1 et seq.
Agency (Department): Fish and Wildlife Service (Interior);
Responsibilities: Consult with permitting agencies regarding the impact
of permitted activities on fish and wildlife, including endangered
species;
Authority: Endangered Species Act;
Citation: 16 U.S.C. �36.
Agency (Department): Fish and Wildlife Service (Interior);
Responsibilities: Regulate the importation and interstate
transportation of fish under humane and healthful conditions;
Authority: Lacey Act;
Citation: Minerals Management Service (Interior): 18 U.S.C. �.
Agency (Department): Minerals Management Service (Interior);
Responsibilities: Authorize the use of existing facilities on the outer
continental shelf, such as oil and gas platforms, for marine-related
activities, including aquaculture;
Authority: Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act;
Citation: 43 U.S.C. �37.
Agency (Department): Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(Agriculture);
Responsibilities: Regulate the movement of aquatic animals in
interstate and foreign commerce and respond to aquatic animal disease
outbreaks;
Authority: Animal Health Protection Act;
Citation: 7 U.S.C. �01 et seq.
Agency (Department): Coast Guard (Homeland Security);
Responsibilities: Require structures that are located in waters under
the jurisdiction of the United States to be marked with lights and
signals to protect navigation;
Authority: Rivers and Harbors Act;
Citation: 14 U.S.C. �.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
In addition to the responsibilities described in table 1, NOAA's
Aquaculture Program coordinates the agency's aquaculture research
activities and conducts outreach and industry development efforts, such
as sponsoring the 2007 National Marine Aquaculture Summit. Similarly,
USDA also chairs the interagency Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture
which, among other things, is creating a federal plan for managing
aquatic animal health and has convened a science and technology task
force to update the federal strategic plan for aquaculture
research.[Footnote 10]
In addition to agency-specific responsibilities and authorities, all
federal agencies are required to comply with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA).[Footnote 11] Under NEPA, agencies evaluate the
likely environmental effects of projects that could significantly
affect the environment. For example, permits for aquaculture facilities
or oil platforms might necessitate such a review. An agency may also
elect to prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS).
A PEIS could either be prepared to help develop regulations for an
industry by evaluating its potential for environmental, social, and
economic impacts or to evaluate proposed actions sharing geographic and
programmatic similarities after regulations have been established, such
as siting a number of aquaculture facilities in the same general
location that plan to raise the same species.
If an offshore aquaculture industry develops, a variety of individuals
and organizations will have a stake in how the industry is regulated
and how it affects the environment. Specifically, federal agencies
would be stakeholders because they would regulate the offshore
aquaculture industry, or guide and fund public research on offshore
aquaculture. Coastal states would be stakeholders because an offshore
aquaculture industry could potentially have impacts on natural
resources in their state waters and provide economic benefits to
coastal communities. The commercial fishing industry would be a
stakeholder both because it may have to share ocean space with
aquaculturists, and the offshore aquaculture industry could affect the
environment that supports wild fish populations. The aquaculture
industry would be a stakeholder because it is interested in developing
offshore facilities. Environmental groups would be stakeholders because
they are interested in protecting marine resources, and the offshore
aquaculture industry could affect those resources. Finally, researchers
would be stakeholders because they are technical experts and want to
ensure proper application of scientific knowledge.
Over the last 5 years, four key studies have been conducted with
stakeholder input that examined, among other things, potential
regulatory frameworks for offshore aquaculture. These four key studies
are as follows:
* The Marine Aquaculture Task Force study was developed by a group of
scientists, legal scholars, aquaculturists, and policy experts who
sought to gather information about aquaculture and its positive and
negative effects. The Marine Aquaculture Task Force's approach to
gathering such information included meeting with aquaculturists, marine
scientists, fishermen, public officials, and others in regional
meetings in the states of Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and
Washington.
* The University of Delaware study was prepared by an interdisciplinary
team with backgrounds in marine policy, law, industry, state
government, environmental protection, and marine science. This study
made recommendations for developing a comprehensive regulatory
framework for sustainable offshore aquaculture in the United States
based on information from literature reviews and consultations with
stakeholders through national and regional workshops throughout the
United States.
* The Pew Oceans Commission study was developed by a bipartisan,
independent group to identify policies and practices necessary to
restore and protect living marine resources in U.S. waters and the
ocean and coastal habitats on which they depend. The Pew Commission
brought together a diverse group of American leaders from the worlds of
science, fishing, conservation, government, education, business, and
philanthropy. The Pew Commission conducted a national dialogue on ocean
issues by convening a series of 15 regional meetings, public hearings,
and workshops to listen to those who live and work along the coasts.
* The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy study, which was required by the
Oceans Act of 2000, established findings and developed recommendations
for a coordinated and comprehensive national ocean policy.[Footnote 12]
The U.S. Commission had 16 members drawn from diverse backgrounds,
including individuals nominated by the leadership in the United States
Senate and House of Representatives. The U.S. Commission held 16 public
meetings around the country and conducted 18 regional site visits,
receiving testimony from hundreds of people. The study includes
detailed recommendations for reform of oceans policy.
It Is Important to Consider Many Issues in Four Key Areas When
Developing a Regulatory Framework for Offshore Aquaculture:
A wide array of issues within four key areas--program administration,
permitting and site selection, environmental management, and research-
-are important to consider when developing an offshore aquaculture
program for the United States. Specifically, identifying a lead federal
agency, as well as the roles and responsibilities of other federal
agencies and states, are key to the administration of an offshore
aquaculture program. In addition, permits or leases are important to
establish the terms and conditions for offshore aquaculture operations.
Site selection is also an important component of regulating offshore
aquaculture. Moreover, reviewing environmental impacts of, and
monitoring environmental conditions at, offshore aquaculture facilities
are key to identifying the scope and nature of potential environmental
issues that may require mitigation. Finally, it is important that a
regulatory framework include research to address gaps in current
knowledge on a variety of issues related to offshore aquaculture.
Stakeholders whom we contacted generally agreed on how to address some
specific issues within each of the four key areas but differed on many
other issues.
Key Program Administration Issues:
Aquaculture stakeholders that we contacted and key studies that we
reviewed identified specific roles and responsibilities for federal
agencies, states, and regional fishery management councils.
Specifically, most stakeholders and all four studies we reviewed agreed
that NOAA should be the lead federal agency for offshore aquaculture
and emphasized that coordination with other federal agencies will be
important. Moreover, the majority of stakeholders we contacted said
NOAA should be the lead agency for research on offshore aquaculture,
although stakeholders were evenly divided about whether NOAA or USDA
should be responsible for promoting or supporting the offshore
aquaculture industry. In addition, stakeholders and three of the key
studies we reviewed recommended that states be involved in the
development and implementation of a regulatory framework for offshore
aquaculture.[Footnote 13] Stakeholders told us that states should have
the ability to opt out of the offshore aquaculture program, but that
those states that have chosen to participate should not have the
ability to veto individual offshore aquaculture facility proposals.
Finally, stakeholders generally supported regional fishery management
councils having the opportunity to comment on individual offshore
aquaculture facility proposals but did not support councils having
other authorities, such as veto authority, over individual proposals.
Roles and Responsibilities of Federal Agencies:
Most stakeholders that we contacted and the four key studies that we
reviewed agreed that NOAA should be the lead federal agency for
offshore aquaculture, both to manage a new permitting or leasing
program for aquaculture in federal waters and to coordinate federal
responsibilities for offshore aquaculture. About half of the
stakeholders said they supported NOAA as the lead offshore aquaculture
agency because of its experience managing ocean resources. One study,
conducted by the University of Delaware, also stated that NOAA was the
best choice for a lead agency because of its extensive expertise and
knowledge of marine science and policy. However, a few stakeholders we
spoke with who did not agree that NOAA should be the lead agency said
that other agencies, such as USDA or the Corps, would be better
equipped to serve as the lead agency. Two of the stakeholders who
supported USDA explained that since aquaculture is ultimately an
agricultural activity, USDA would be best able to effectively regulate
the industry and coordinate with other agencies. One stakeholder, who
supported the Corps as the lead agency, said that since the Corps is
currently the de facto lead federal agency for aquaculture permitting
in state waters, the Corps should also assume that role for offshore
aquaculture in federal waters.
Most stakeholders, and the University of Delaware study, stated that it
was important for NOAA to develop formal agreements, such as
regulations or memorandums of understanding, with other federal
agencies to define the responsibilities, authorities, and procedures
for regulating offshore aquaculture. Some stakeholders also suggested
that close coordination with agencies will allow NOAA to draw on each
agency's expertise when developing regulations or making permitting
decisions. For instance, one stakeholder said that EPA has expertise in
protecting marine water quality in state waters, and the offshore
aquaculture program could draw on that experience to protect water
quality in federal waters. Another stakeholder suggested that since
aquaculture is a food production business, close coordination with USDA
could draw on USDA's experience in developing food production
industries. The administration's 2007 legislative proposal for offshore
aquaculture requires that the Department of Commerce consult with other
federal agencies, as appropriate, while developing regulations for an
offshore aquaculture program.
Despite strong support for NOAA as the lead agency for offshore
aquaculture, stakeholders were about evenly divided on whether those
responsibilities should be assigned to a new NOAA office or an existing
NOAA office. One stakeholder who supported creating a new office in
NOAA said that existing offices currently focus on the conservation of
marine resources and that aquaculture is a fundamentally different
enterprise meriting a separate office that can focus on developing the
aquaculture industry. The studies conducted by the University of
Delaware and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy also suggested that a
new office be created to manage the offshore aquaculture program. Of
the stakeholders who said that an existing office should manage the
offshore aquaculture program, a few mentioned that this would keep NOAA
small and streamlined.
A majority of stakeholders also said that NOAA should be responsible
for managing federal research related to offshore aquaculture,
including funding marine aquaculture research and the development of
offshore aquaculture technologies. A few stakeholders emphasized that
NOAA should coordinate on both research and technology development with
other agencies, particularly USDA. Stakeholders who did not support
NOAA as the lead agency for technology development generally supported
USDA or said that the federal government should not support technology
development at all. One stakeholder supported USDA because he said it
has a superior record in developing aquaculture technology for both
freshwater and marine aquaculture. Another stakeholder emphasized that
he did not support government funding for offshore aquaculture
technology development because funding should come from the aquaculture
industry, particularly for any technologies needed to comply with
environmental regulations.
Stakeholders were also about evenly divided on whether NOAA or USDA
should be responsible for promoting and supporting the offshore
aquaculture industry, though a few stakeholders did not think this was
a role for the federal government. One stakeholder who said that NOAA
should promote the offshore aquaculture industry suggested that NOAA
should restructure its mission to support not just offshore aquaculture
but the production of sustainable seafood from wild fisheries, as well
as offshore aquaculture. Another stakeholder said that USDA is the
logical choice to promote and support the offshore aquaculture industry
because it has experience marketing agricultural products. In contrast,
a few stakeholders said that promotion or support of the offshore
aquaculture industry is not a role for the federal government. One
stakeholder objected to government promotion of offshore aquaculture
because it amounts to the government promoting one industry over
another, for instance, promoting offshore aquaculture at the expense of
other types of aquaculture, such as nearshore shellfish aquaculture.
Finally, stakeholders expressed concern over having one agency, such as
NOAA, be responsible for both regulating and promoting the offshore
aquaculture industry because of the potential conflict of interest
between those two responsibilities. One stakeholder suggested that NOAA
regulate the industry and develop offshore aquaculture technologies and
that USDA focus on promoting offshore aquaculture. In this context, at
the state level, Maine, Hawaii, and Washington have each separated
their regulatory and promotion agencies. Despite Hawaii's and Maine's
separation of these responsibilities, officials from both states said
that agencies have the ability to balance these competing
responsibilities. In fact, one state official in Hawaii stated that
keeping promotion and regulatory responsibilities together can allow
officials to share expertise, thereby increasing efficiency and
resulting in cost savings. A NOAA official said that NOAA's mission is
to enable marine aquaculture, with appropriate environmental
safeguards, and that the agency has consistently balanced its missions
of enabling and regulating other industries.
Roles and Responsibilities of States:
Three of the key studies we reviewed recommended that states be
involved in the development and implementation of a regulatory
framework for offshore aquaculture.[Footnote 14] For instance, the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy recommended that any proposed federal
permitting and leasing program be coordinated with aquaculture-related
regulations developed at the state level to provide regulatory
consistency to the industry and manage potential environmental impacts
that cross jurisdictional lines, such as the spread of disease. The
administration's 2007 legislative proposal for offshore aquaculture
requires coordination with coastal states during the process of
establishing regulations for offshore aquaculture.
In addition, a majority of stakeholders supported a policy that would
allow states to opt out of the offshore aquaculture program. If a state
chose to opt out, it would be refusing to allow any offshore
aquaculture to take place in the federal waters adjacent to its state
waters. Of those who supported an opt-out provision, a majority said
that states should be able to opt out of fish aquaculture anywhere in
the 200 miles of federal waters directly offshore from their state
waters. A few stakeholders stated that the opt-out provision should
apply only within a certain distance from shore--ranging from 5 to 12
miles. The administration's 2007 legislative proposal for offshore
aquaculture includes a provision that would allow a state to opt out of
offshore aquaculture within 12 miles of its coast. NOAA officials
explained that the agency's decision to limit the opt-out provision to
12 miles was a policy decision that balanced the need to give states a
reasonable buffer zone and the difficulty of identifying boundaries
between states out to 200 miles in the exclusive economic zone. For
example, while it is relatively clear where the boundaries of Alaska's
state line would be when extended out to 200 miles, state boundaries on
the New England coast overlap extensively, even relatively close to
shore.
Stakeholders who supported providing the states the ability to opt out
did so for various reasons. A few stakeholders said they supported an
opt-out provision because offshore aquaculture could still affect a
state's natural resources. For example, escaped fish could travel into
state waters and spawn, potentially interbreeding with wild fish
populations in state waters, which could reduce the ability of wild
fish to survive. Three stakeholders said that this provision is
necessary for political reasons--that without the ability for states to
opt out, it would be difficult to garner enough support to enact
offshore aquaculture legislation. Stakeholders who opposed the state
opt-out provision also listed various reasons. A few stakeholders
argued that states should not make decisions about the use of federal
resources, and one stakeholder said that allowing states to opt out is
contrary to a nationally stated goal of increasing domestic seafood
production. Other stakeholders proposed more flexible opt-out policies.
For instance, one stakeholder supported a policy that would allow
states to selectively opt out of particular locations, rather than
opting out of offshore aquaculture entirely. In addition, a few
stakeholders mentioned using an "opt-in" policy, in which states would
need to declare their support for offshore aquaculture before any
facilities could be located in the waters adjacent to their coasts.
Regardless of how the opt-out provision is applied, the majority of
stakeholders agreed that states that participate in the offshore
aquaculture program should not have the ability to veto individual
offshore aquaculture projects. One stakeholder was concerned that, if
states were allowed to veto individual offshore aquaculture projects,
then this would prevent offshore aquaculture development since few
businesses would be interested in investing time and money in obtaining
federal approvals if a state could ultimately veto a federal decision.
A few stakeholders who opposed veto authority for states explained
that, since offshore aquaculture would be in waters under federal
jurisdiction, states should not be allowed to overrule federal
decisions.
Stakeholders who supported giving states veto authority said that
offshore aquaculture could affect states' natural resources. For
instance, disease could spread from fish in offshore facilities to fish
in state waters requiring state and federal regulators to coordinate
closely to manage the disease. A few stakeholders, including NOAA, said
that states could use the Coastal Zone Management Act--rather than veto
authority--to challenge offshore aquaculture proposals. For instance, a
state could determine that a proposed offshore aquaculture facility was
inconsistent with the state's coastal zone management plan. According
to NOAA officials, a state could only make this determination if the
proposed offshore aquaculture facility would clearly violate provisions
of the state's coastal zone management plan. In addition, one
stakeholder was concerned that states would not be assured of
preventing proposals they objected to, since the Secretary of Commerce
has the authority to override states' objections under certain
circumstances.
Finally, although the majority of stakeholders did not support veto
authority for states participating in the program, most stakeholders
said that states should have the opportunity to provide input regarding
proposed offshore aquaculture facilities, such as comments on potential
environmental impacts or proposed facility locations. Three of the key
studies we reviewed also recommended that states have the opportunity
to comment on proposed facilities.[Footnote 15] In particular, the
Marine Aquaculture Task Force study said that federal agencies should
use states' comments on proposed facilities to ensure that permits
issued for offshore aquaculture are integrated with regional marine
planning efforts and do not undermine the effectiveness of ongoing
state conservation measures. In its response to our questionnaire, NOAA
agreed that adjacent states should have an opportunity to provide
comments regarding proposed projects.
Roles and Responsibilities of Regional Fishery Management Councils:
Finally, stakeholders generally agreed on how regional fishery
management councils should be involved in regulating offshore
aquaculture. For instance, most stakeholders indicated that councils
should have the opportunity to provide comments on proposed offshore
aquaculture projects in their regions. Some stakeholders, including
NOAA, emphasized that councils should comment on proposed projects to
ensure that they will not adversely impact wild fisheries or fish
habitat managed by the councils. The University of Delaware and Marine
Aquaculture Task Force studies also supported allowing councils to
review or comment on offshore aquaculture projects. Representatives
from five of the six councils that we spoke with wanted the opportunity
to comment on proposed offshore aquaculture projects.[Footnote 16] Most
stakeholders also agreed that councils should not have veto authority
for proposed projects within their regions. Some stakeholders did not
support a veto for councils because they believed the councils are
dominated by wild fishery interests and might veto projects simply to
avoid any potential competition in their markets. In contrast,
representatives from two councils wanted more direct authorities, such
as the ability to approve or deny proposed offshore aquaculture
projects. For example, a representative from the Western Pacific
council said that councils should have this additional authority
because councils are best positioned to address region-specific issues
that may not be considered in a nationwide top-down permitting process.
Most stakeholders also agreed that offshore aquaculture should not be
subject to some of the regulations that are currently used to manage
wild fisheries under fishery management plans, including restrictions
on season of harvest, size of the fish that may be harvested, and the
method that may be used to harvest fish. Because offshore aquaculture
is considered fishing under Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, the councils could impose these types of restrictions
on offshore aquaculture operations.[Footnote 17] According to NOAA,
many offshore aquaculture tasks, such as stocking cages outside of
fishing season and harvesting small fish, would be illegal under
current regulations for species managed under fishery management plans.
Therefore, the administration's 2007 legislative proposal for offshore
aquaculture would exempt offshore aquaculture facilities from fishing
restrictions under current law.[Footnote 18] The University of Delaware
study reached a similar conclusion stating that offshore aquaculture
facilities should be exempt from restrictions that apply to wild
fisheries. About half of the stakeholders who agreed with this approach
told us that offshore aquaculture is a completely different enterprise
from fishing and does not result in an increase or decrease of the wild
stocks managed by councils. One stakeholder suggested that subjecting
offshore aquaculture facilities to catch restrictions for wild
fisheries is like limiting poultry production to duck hunting season.
Representatives from five of the six councils we interviewed also
supported exempting offshore aquaculture facilities from catch
restrictions placed on wild fisheries. However, a representative from
the South Atlantic council was concerned that it is too soon to enact
such an exemption since any escapes from offshore aquaculture
facilities could impact wild fisheries.
Establishing the Terms and Conditions, and Selecting Appropriate Sites,
for Offshore Aquaculture:
Permits or leases are important to establish the terms and conditions
for offshore aquaculture operations, including authorizing aquaculture
activities and providing the legal right to occupy an area of the
ocean.[Footnote 19] In addition, developing a process to select
appropriate sites was identified as an important component of planning
for offshore aquaculture facilities and most stakeholders supported a
variety of approaches to approve aquaculture facility locations.
Permits or Leases:
Permits or leases are important to establish the terms and conditions
for offshore aquaculture operations, including authorizing aquaculture
activities and providing legal rights to occupy an area of the ocean.
Several existing federal permits--such as EPA's NPDES permit for water
quality and the Corps' section 10 permit for structures in navigable
waters--can regulate specific offshore aquaculture activities, such as
the release of pollutants into, or the installation of structures in,
U.S. waters. In addition, according to the University of Delaware study
and stakeholders we talked to, offshore aquaculturists will need a
legal right--through a permit or lease--to occupy a given area of the
ocean. Some stakeholders identified this legal right as important for
financing offshore aquaculture operations because it would have market
value and, therefore, could be sold, or used as collateral on a loan to
allow aquaculturists to secure funding for their projects.
According to NOAA officials, however, permits are more appropriate than
leases for aquaculture operations beyond the territorial sea, which
extends 12 miles from the shore.[Footnote 20] Specifically, NOAA
officials stated that, under customary international law, it is well
established that the United States has exclusive rights to regulate
economic activities, such as fishing and aquaculture, in the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone, which generally extends from 3 to 200 miles
from shore. While this jurisdiction and authority do not include any
proprietary rights for waters or submerged lands beyond the territorial
sea, NOAA officials stated that other types of permits issued by NOAA
have provided the security of tenure--the right to occupy an area of
the ocean--necessary for obtaining financing, or selling the permits.
However, when questioned on the most appropriate vehicles for
authorizing an offshore aquaculture program, the majority of
stakeholders told us that an offshore aquaculture program should
include both permits and leases. Some stakeholders articulated distinct
and important benefits for both permits and leases. For example, a few
stakeholders said permits should have shorter time frames to ensure
compliance with regulations and best management practices while leases
should grant a long-term right to occupy a given area of the ocean to
encourage investment.[Footnote 21] One stakeholder said that investors
may be less receptive to permits as a mechanism for assigning the legal
right to occupy an area of the ocean because they perceive permits to
grant fewer legal rights. However, others stated that either a permit
or lease could be used to secure legal rights and, thereby, encourage
financial investment. For instance, two stakeholders said that whether
one identifies a document as a permit or a lease is unimportant as long
as the document provides legal rights to the area.
Stakeholders also expressed a range of opinions on the specific types
of permits or leases that should be issued. Most stakeholders supported
issuing both commercial and research permits or leases. For example,
one stakeholder stressed the importance of research permits or leases
for further developing a commercially viable offshore aquaculture
industry. In addition, many stakeholders supported issuing emergency
permits or leases that allow facility relocation in the case of natural
events such as hurricanes or red tides, but NOAA did not support this
approach. A NOAA official told us that emergency permits or leases are
not necessary because offshore aquaculture facilities would be
difficult to move and, therefore, aquaculturists would be unlikely to
take advantage of such a permit or lease. NOAA officials emphasized,
however, that there are other ways, besides emergency permits or
leases, of addressing emergencies, such as modifying the terms of an
existing permit to allow facilities to relocate. In addition,
stakeholders expressed differing opinions about whether to allow short-
term permits or leases to allow an aquaculturist to test the
feasibility of a proposed offshore aquaculture facility. For example,
one stakeholder questioned the utility of short-term permits or leases
because the costs associated with offshore aquaculture make it
impractical to operate facilities for a short period of time. Two
others were concerned that either emergency or short-term permits or
leases could be used to circumvent permitting requirements associated
with longer term commercial permits or leases.
Stakeholders' opinions also varied on the appropriate length for
commercial permits or leases, with some stakeholders supporting time
frames of approximately 20 years and others supporting shorter terms
such as 10 years. Some stakeholders stressed the need for longer
permits or leases to allow time for the operation to become profitable.
The states we visited have taken varying approaches on this issue. For
example, while Maine issues 10-year leases to facilities in nearshore
state waters, a state official recognized that an offshore facility
would require a larger investment and, therefore, need a longer term
permit or lease to recoup initial investments. Hawaii issued 20-year
leases to its two existing nearshore open-ocean aquaculture facilities.
Conversely, a state official from Washington supported shorter permit
or lease lengths because offshore aquaculture is new and, therefore,
the full impacts on the environment are unknown. Similarly, a few
stakeholders we spoke with did not support longer terms out of concern
that permits or leases would be difficult to revoke midterm in cases of
environmental damage or stressed that if permits had longer terms, then
regulators should be able to revoke permits early if such damage were
to occur. The administration's 2007 legislative proposal for offshore
aquaculture would authorize permits for 20-year terms and includes
language allowing the suspension or revocation of a permit.
Regardless of their opinions on permit or lease terms, the majority of
stakeholders supported public involvement during the permitting or
leasing process. Most stakeholders indicated that the public should
have the opportunity to both comment for the record and present
evidence at public hearings associated with permitting or leasing
decisions. Some stakeholders noted that because facilities will be
located in public waters, a permitting or leasing process requires
transparency and public input. However, a few stakeholders who
supported public participation also expressed concern that some public
comments and hearing testimony could be misinformed or unnecessarily
stall the decision-making process. Based on their experience with this
issue, state regulators and others that we spoke to in Hawaii and Maine
also supported public involvement. For example, a key regulator,
researchers, and aquaculturists involved with existing aquaculture
facilities in Hawaii's state waters identified public involvement as
key to a successful and transparent permitting process. In Hawaii, the
main permitting process authorizing aquaculture operations requires
public hearings as part of its approval process. Both aquaculturists
and researchers in Hawaii said that the public involvement process
ultimately decreases opposition to proposals because applicants can
modify their plans in response to public comments or alleviate public
concerns by providing more comprehensive information about the
proposal. For example, one aquaculturist adjusted the site and
specifications of his operation in response to requests made during a
public hearing. Similarly, state regulators in Maine also stressed the
importance of public involvement in their states' permitting and
leasing approval process. Maine requires a public scoping meeting
before an aquaculturist may submit an aquaculture application.
Officials have found this early dialogue between the aquaculturists and
the public useful in resolving concerns while the details of the
proposed facility are still under development.
Site Selection:
Developing a process to approve aquaculture facility locations is an
important component of regulating offshore aquaculture according to
federal regulators, environmentalists, and researchers. For instance,
NOAA officials in Hawaii emphasized that siting aquaculture facilities
away from areas known to have high concentrations of marine mammals
could reduce the likelihood that aquaculture facilities would adversely
affect these animals. In Maine, some environmental groups also
advocated siting aquaculture facilities outside known fish migration
corridors to reduce the interactions between aquaculture-raised and
wild fish, thereby reducing the likelihood that disease will be passed
from aquaculture-raised to wild populations.
Although the majority of stakeholders we contacted supported a variety
of approaches that federal regulatory agencies could use to approve
aquaculture facility sites, there was a lack of consensus on any one
approach. These approaches include (1) determining whether a site is
appropriate on a case-by-case basis, (2) prepermitting locations by
approving sites independently of and prior to submitting individual
facility applications, (3) zoning ocean areas to identify both
appropriate areas for offshore aquaculture and prohibited areas, and
(4) developing aquaculture parks containing multiple facilities in
areas that are unlikely to result in conflicts between aquaculture
facilities and other ocean uses and have optimum access to land-based
aquaculture services.
Those stakeholders who supported using a case-by-case site selection
strategy agreed that regulators should assess the appropriateness of a
specific site. One stakeholder who supported the approach stated that
aquaculturists are most likely to know which locations best fit their
planned operations and type of species and, therefore, should be the
ones to propose aquaculture facility site locations. Two other
stakeholders noted that this approach is advantageous during the early
stages of offshore aquaculture development because it requires only
knowledge about proposed facility sites rather than a wide variety of
potential sites. However, a few stakeholders also criticized the case-
by-case approach, saying that it could create additional costs for
applicants or lengthen the permitting process. In addition, according
to a few stakeholders, this approach would create a less standardized
process for approving facilities than other approaches would. Another
stakeholder expressed concern that the case-by-case approach would not
allow regulators to collectively assess the cumulative impacts of
several sites located near one another because they would be assessed
individually. Currently at the state level, Hawaii, Maine, and
Washington all use the case-by-case approach for approving sites within
their state waters. For example, in Hawaii, regulators consider the
impacts of a proposed site on marine mammals and ocean users, such as
native Hawaiian fishermen, among other things, when deciding whether to
approve a facility site.
Those stakeholders who supported a prepermitting site selection
strategy agreed that regulators should assess the suitability of a
location for aquaculture before, and independently of, individual
aquaculture applications. In this context, the University of Delaware
study describes prepermitting as the process of establishing
appropriate areas for offshore aquaculture by conducting environmental
assessments of potential sites; creating a master plan for siting in
the area; determining which aquaculture techniques and projects are
appropriate for that area; creating a general permit authorizing use of
the area, approved by other regulatory agencies; and, ultimately,
issuing individual permits for occupying the area. A few stakeholders
told us that prepermitting would make site approval more predictable
and consistent, and another said that it would allow for cumulative
environmental review of multiple projects. However, certain
stakeholders who supported a prepermitted approach noted that
establishing such a system will be time consuming and, therefore, not
feasible in the short term. A few stakeholders were opposed to using
prepermitted site selection. Two of these stakeholders questioned the
appropriateness of making regulatory agencies responsible for selecting
facility locations, stating that this approach may not identify the
most viable sites. Furthermore, a stakeholder who did support
prepermitting still noted that permit holders may unreasonably expect a
prepermitted location to produce high yields and blame regulators if
this does not occur.
Those stakeholders who supported a zoning approach to site selection
agreed that regulators should use a process in which government
agencies would designate allowable uses--both aquaculture-related and
others--for various ocean areas. However, stakeholders expressed many
of the same concerns about a zoning approach as they did about a
prepermitting approach. For example, a few stakeholders were wary of
allowing regulatory agencies to select sites that may ultimately be
unsuccessful. Among these stakeholders was a state regulator in
Florida, a state which initially created aquaculture zones in their
state waters but later shifted to a case-by-case site-selection
approach because it allowed them to better identify appropriate sites
for specific aquaculture operations. While a few stakeholders
considered aspects of zoning and prepermitting approaches to be
similar, others distinguished zoning as being a more far-reaching
approach than prepermitting. Similarly, a few stakeholders supported
zoning as a method to systematically manage the ocean ecosystem and
identify appropriate sites. Alternatively, two stakeholders expressed
concerns about the technical feasibility of zoning the ocean because
the process would be too time consuming due to the extensive
information needed about appropriate uses for broad areas of the ocean.
In addition, Hawaii state officials responsible for developing Hawaii's
aquaculture industry expressed concerns about zoning. They said that
the extensive work necessary for zoning federal waters would
unnecessarily delay offshore aquaculture development.
Stakeholders we contacted were less supportive of establishing
aquaculture parks compared with the other approaches to site selection.
According to the University of Delaware study, aquaculture parks could
be designed to provide adequate space for aquaculture operations in an
area environmentally suited to the operations, with minimal user
conflicts and access to land and coastal services. Aquaculture parks
could be managed by a private-sector entity, a government agency, or a
public-private partnership. Like the prepermitting site selection
approach, a few proponents of aquaculture parks said the approach made
the permitting process more predictable, while another stakeholder was
concerned that this approach involved regulators too heavily in the
site selection process. In addition, stakeholders identified issues
unique to aquaculture parks. One stakeholder said that parks could
allow greater business efficiencies by consolidating necessary
aquaculture infrastructure and supplies like dock facilities and fuel
into one area, but others were concerned that offshore aquaculture
facilities would be located too close to one another. They asserted
that concentrating offshore aquaculture facilities within the confines
of aquaculture parks would not be in the best interest of
aquaculturists and could also lead to increased environmental impacts.
Key Environmental Management Issues:
Most stakeholders we contacted supported an environmental review of the
potential impacts of offshore aquaculture facilities before any
facilities are sited, which can help agencies approve facilities in
areas less likely to suffer ecological harm. In addition, stakeholders
generally supported monitoring environmental conditions at offshore
aquaculture facilities once they begin operations. Most stakeholders
supported an adaptive approach to monitoring that would alter
monitoring requirements over time to focus on the measures demonstrated
to be the most appropriate for tracking changes to the environment.
Stakeholders also generally supported conducting regular inspections of
offshore aquaculture facilities. However, stakeholders did not always
agree on how to mitigate the potential environmental impacts of escaped
aquaculture-raised fish, including restrictions on the types of fish
that could be raised in offshore cages, whether fish should be marked
or tagged, and whether facilities should be required to develop plans
outlining how they would respond to fish escapes.
Reviewing Potential Environmental Impacts:
Most stakeholders we contacted generally supported an environmental
review prior to offshore aquaculture facilities' beginning operations
to ensure that these facilities are established in areas less likely to
suffer ecological harm. For instance, a majority of stakeholders
recognized the value of reviewing the potential environmental impacts
of offshore aquaculture over a broad ocean area before any aquaculture
facilities are sited--which involves preparing a PEIS. But these
stakeholders also articulated different views on the goal of a PEIS for
offshore aquaculture. While some stakeholders emphasized that a PEIS
should examine the potential environmental impacts of an offshore
aquaculture industry, other stakeholders noted that a PEIS would be
most useful if it reduced the need for facility-specific environmental
reviews. While the administration's 2007 legislative proposal requires
NOAA to conduct a PEIS, it does not specify exactly what the PEIS
should include. In this context, in 2006, California enacted a law to
allow fish aquaculture facilities in state marine waters, which
requires the state to conduct a review similar to a PEIS. The law
requires the review to consider, at a minimum, 10 factors, such as:
appropriate areas for siting aquaculture facilities; the effects of
aquaculture on ocean and coastal habitats, marine ecosystems, and
commercial and recreational fishing; and the potential environmental
impacts of escaped fish, medications, and the use of fish meal and fish
oil. A few stakeholders said that it is not important for the federal
government to conduct a PEIS for offshore aquaculture. Two of these
stakeholders stated that a PEIS would require a significant amount of
data and would take a very long time, unnecessarily delaying the
development of offshore aquaculture.
While a few stakeholders considered the broad level of review in a PEIS
to be sufficient, about half of the stakeholders we contacted suggested
that a facility-specific environmental review, conducted in accordance
with NEPA, should also be required. About half of the stakeholders who
supported the facility-specific review said that such reviews could
examine site-specific or facility-specific issues that cannot be
addressed in a broader PEIS. In its response to our questionnaire, NOAA
indicated that a facility-specific review is very important and stated
that the complexity of this type of review should reflect the risk
level of the project. For instance, a review of a project that uses
technologies, species, and sites that are well understood could draw on
existing documentation, while a proposal for a project that uses a new
species or untested technology may require a more in-depth review. Of
the few stakeholders who supported only the PEIS, two stakeholders said
that if the PEIS was done correctly, a facility-specific review should
not be necessary. One stakeholder mentioned that requiring a facility-
specific review for each proposed offshore aquaculture facility would
be expensive for aquaculturists and would be a barrier to offshore
aquaculture development.
With regard to the states' approaches for addressing environmental
reviews, we found that Maine and Hawaii both require facility-specific
environmental reviews for proposed aquaculture facilities in their
state waters. Maine requires that applicants collect environmental
baseline data on sediment characteristics; the benthic community; water
quality; and existing uses of the site, such as commercial fishing and
recreational boating. Once an application is submitted, the state also
conducts a site review, which can include conducting video surveys of
the area and gathering water quality information. Hawaii requires a
similar level of detail from its applicants through an environmental
assessment process. Aquaculture industry representatives and state
regulators in Hawaii both told us that they supported Hawaii's process.
Most stakeholders also stated that considering the potential cumulative
impacts of aquaculture facilities is important when evaluating offshore
aquaculture proposals. Two stakeholders suggested that cumulative
impacts be considered as part of the PEIS process. The University of
Delaware and Marine Aquaculture Task Force studies both recommended
that agencies consider cumulative impacts of offshore aquaculture
facilities during environmental reviews. The administration's 2007
legislative proposal includes language requiring that a permitting
process address the potential cumulative impacts of offshore
aquaculture on marine ecosystems, human health and safety, other ocean
uses, and coastal communities. In addition, many stakeholders offered
suggestions for mitigating cumulative impacts, including siting
facilities far enough apart that their operations will be less likely
to affect one another, combining multiple kinds of aquaculture--such as
fish and shellfish--to take advantage of shellfish's ability to remove
nutrients from the water column, and limiting the number of fish within
a given cage or area. An industry representative also pointed out that
it is in the best interest of aquaculturists to locate their facilities
far from one another to avoid being affected by potential water quality
or disease problems from neighboring facilities.
Monitoring Environmental Conditions and Inspecting Facilities:
Stakeholders generally supported monitoring a variety of potential
environmental impacts of offshore aquaculture facilities once they have
been approved and are operating, though they varied on the types of
monitoring they supported for fish and shellfish aquaculture
facilities. While most stakeholders said it is important to monitor
both fish and shellfish aquaculture facilities for impacts on the
benthic community and disease outbreaks, stakeholders said it is more
important to monitor fish aquaculture facilities than shellfish
aquaculture facilities for chemical levels in the water. In addition,
some stakeholders mentioned that monitoring fish aquaculture facilities
for escapes will be very important.
Maine and Washington have developed monitoring programs for their
nearshore aquaculture facilities, which provide examples of how the
federal government could implement the types of monitoring recommended
by stakeholders for offshore aquaculture facilities. Specifically, we
found that these states have developed monitoring programs--although
they vary significantly between states--to address benthic community,
disease, and chemical impacts for nearshore fish aquaculture
facilities. For example, Maine's general NPDES permit for salmon
aquaculture facilities requires multiple kinds of benthic community
monitoring, including color video or photographic evaluations of the
ocean floor under and around each net pen twice per year and a detailed
analysis of samples of benthic community organisms at least once every
5 years. In contrast, Washington requires video evaluations under net
pen facilities twice every 5 years but requires detailed analysis of
samples of benthic community organisms only if routine video evaluation
results show that the facility samples exceed the permit requirements.
Maine and Washington also both have regulations to control disease
outbreaks in fish aquaculture facilities. Both states require that an
aquaculturist whose fish test positive for certain diseases notify the
state within 48 hours. Maine and Washington can require a number of
mitigation measures--depending on the severity of the outbreak and the
potential for the disease to impact other aquaculture-raised or wild
fish--including requiring that the infected fish be quarantined,
removed, or destroyed. Finally, if aquaculturists use medications to
treat disease, Maine requires them to monitor the concentration of
those medications in benthic sediments. Washington requires
aquaculturists to monitor for antibiotics in benthic sediments if
antibiotic use could pose a threat to human health or the environment.
Although monitoring was identified as important by stakeholders, state
regulators in Hawaii identified some challenges to monitoring the
nearshore, open-ocean aquaculture facilities in Hawaii state waters.
Specifically, Hawaii state regulators said they do not have the data to
determine whether medications used to treat fish for disease could
affect the marine environment. These officials suggested that EPA could
help the states evaluate these impacts by developing standardized
laboratory tests that could detect medications in the marine
environment, as well as by developing protocols for monitoring such
medications. Another monitoring challenge, according to aquaculturists
in Hawaii, is that some types of monitoring, such as collecting
sediment samples beneath the cages for benthic community analysis, are
very difficult to conduct in open-ocean conditions. Diving for these
samples in deep water is dangerous and, as a result, aquaculturists
find it difficult to obtain insurance coverage for deep water diving.
In addition to supporting specific types of environmental monitoring
for fish and shellfish facilities, most stakeholders also supported
using an adaptive monitoring approach that would allow regulators to
change monitoring requirements over time to focus only on the types of
monitoring demonstrated to be the most appropriate for tracking changes
to the environment. Some stakeholders said that an adaptive monitoring
approach would provide regulators the flexibility to respond to new
information on environmental risks and change monitoring requirements
accordingly. Others mentioned that, since offshore aquaculture is a new
industry, it is difficult to predict the impacts and the monitoring
measures needed beforehand, and so the flexibility of adaptive
monitoring would be appropriate. The University of Delaware study also
recommended that monitoring requirements and regulations be flexible
and adaptive to allow regulators to modify these requirements as
warranted by changes in environmental conditions. Officials in Maine
also supported adaptive monitoring and suggested that regulators need
flexibility to adjust monitoring requirements to ensure that resources
are focused on monitoring the most important measures.
Finally, most stakeholders wanted federal agencies to require
inspections for the security of structures and equipment at the
aquaculture site, as well as for compliance with the terms and
conditions of permits, among other things. The University of Delaware
study stated that regulators should conduct both announced and
unannounced inspections. For instance, announced inspections could be
conducted to oversee chemical treatments of fish or obtain water
samples from the cages. Unannounced inspections could be useful if the
permitting agency suspects that the operator is not meeting permitting
conditions.
Mitigating the Potential Impact of Escaped Fish and Remediating
Environmental Damage:
Stakeholders had varied opinions about other policies related to
offshore aquaculture that could be used to mitigate the potential
environmental impact of escaped aquaculture-raised fish, including
restricting the types of fish that could be raised in offshore cages,
requiring fish to be marked or tagged, and requiring facilities to
develop plans outlining how they would respond to fish escapes.
Specifically, a majority of the stakeholders supported a policy that
would limit offshore aquaculture to species native to the region in
which the facility is located. The administration's 2007 legislative
proposal includes language to require that offshore aquaculture
facilities raise only species that are native to the aquaculture
facility's geographic region unless a scientific analysis shows that
the harm to the marine environment is negligible or can be mitigated. A
similar approach is currently being used by Maine, in which a proposal
to raise nonnative species that have never been cultured in Maine must
be presented at a public hearing in addition to the regular
environmental review process. By contrast, in California, an official
told us that the state prohibits aquaculturists from raising nonnative
species. About half of the stakeholders we spoke to also supported a
policy that would prohibit raising genetically modified species
offshore. The administration's 2007 legislative proposal includes
language to require that offshore aquaculture facilities not raise
genetically modified species unless a scientific analysis shows that
the harm to the marine environment is negligible or can be mitigated.
One stakeholder said he opposed a prohibition on genetically modified
species because it could reduce the competitiveness of U.S. industry by
preventing U.S. companies from raising species that may become
economically important.
Stakeholders also had varied views on a policy that would require
aquaculturists to mark or tag their fish to distinguish them from wild
fish.[Footnote 22] The majority of stakeholders we spoke with supported
this policy, often citing the need to hold aquaculture producers
accountable for fish escapes. In addition, a few stakeholders said that
marking or tagging fish would also allow researchers to gather
additional information about the impacts that escaped fish have on wild
populations. Three of the six regional fishery management council
representatives we spoke with said that marking or tagging aquaculture-
raised fish was a good idea. The council representatives were generally
concerned with how aquaculture-raised fish would complicate their
efforts to enforce wild fisheries regulations. For instance, council
representatives said that if aquaculture-raised fish are
indistinguishable from wild fish, then this increases the potential for
illegally caught wild fish to be passed off as aquaculture-raised fish,
undermining wild fisheries enforcement. One NOAA official and a
representative of the Gulf of Mexico council, however, suggested that a
tracking system with a paper trail to follow aquaculture-raised fish
from offshore cages to the marketplace could alleviate some of the
concerns raised by stakeholders. Most stakeholders who opposed marking
or tagging of aquaculture-raised fish did so because they said that
this practice is expensive. A NOAA official opposed requiring marking
or tagging for each offshore aquaculture facility, but noted that if
there is a scientific basis for it because of a high risk of
environmental harm from escapes from a particular aquaculture facility,
the agency would support marking or tagging for that facility.
States have developed marking requirements for fish raised in nearshore
aquaculture facilities that provide examples of how the federal
government could implement marking requirements for fish raised
offshore. Maine and Washington currently require aquaculture-raised
salmon in their marine waters to be marked so as to be distinguishable
from wild populations. For instance, one environmentalist in Maine
explained that wild Atlantic salmon--an endangered species--are highly
adapted to their environments, including the particular river in which
they were hatched. As a result, interbreeding with aquaculture-raised
salmon could change the genetics of the wild population and reduce the
ability of wild Atlantic salmon to survive. In Washington, the marking
requirement stems from a desire to identify aquaculture-raised Atlantic
salmon found spawning in state rivers. British Columbia also has an
Atlantic salmon aquaculture industry. Marking aquaculture-raised fish
from Washington can clarify whether fish are escaping from U.S.
aquaculture facilities or from Canadian ones. Aquaculturists raising
fish in Hawaii's open-ocean state waters told us that the state does
not require them to mark or tag their fish.
Most stakeholders also supported requiring aquaculturists to develop
plans to address fish escapes from their proposed offshore aquaculture
facilities. NOAA indicated that requiring aquaculturists to submit
escape response plans is very important. The administration's 2007
legislative proposal states that environmental requirements must
include safeguards to prevent fish escapes that may cause significant
environmental harm. Most stakeholders also agreed that aquaculturists
should be required to develop emergency response plans in the event
that aquaculture operations need to be temporarily relocated. The
University of Delaware study also supported the development of such
plans, which they believe could also help aquaculturists relocate their
facilities in an emergency, such as if a red tide or large storm system
threatened the aquaculture-raised fish.
Most stakeholders also supported a requirement that aquaculturists
provide a financial guarantee, such as a bond, letter of credit,
insurance policy, or trust fund, to cover the cost of removing
abandoned aquaculture facilities. For example, two stakeholders
supported this policy because, in the event that the aquaculturist goes
bankrupt, the guarantee prevents the government from having to pay to
remove the facility. Both Maine and Hawaii use a similar approach for
aquaculture in their state waters by requiring companies to obtain
bonds for removing aquaculture facilities when aquaculture operations
cease. In its response to our questionnaire, NOAA indicated that it
supports requiring this type of financial guarantee.
Stakeholder views varied, however, about whether a similar financial
guarantee should be required to remediate environmental damage caused
by an offshore aquaculture operation, with about half of the
stakeholders supporting such a requirement as a necessary and logical
accountability provision. A few stakeholders stated that without a
financial guarantee, any damage caused by a facility would require
public funds for remediation. Other stakeholders objected to requiring
a financial guarantee for remediating environmental damage. Some
stakeholders cited a variety of concerns with bonds for environmental
remediation, such as (1) difficulty proving that the environmental
damage was caused by a particular facility, (2) difficulty quantifying
the damage, and (3) that the cost of providing such a guarantee,
particularly if there are no numerical limits on the total
environmental damages that could be claimed, might hinder offshore
aquaculture industry development. One NOAA official said that requiring
a financial guarantee for mitigation of the benthic habitat in the
immediate vicinity of the aquaculture site is practical but did not
agree with a requirement for mitigation of all other environmental
damage.
To address the issue of financial guarantees to cover environmental
damage from aquaculture facilities in state regulated waters,
California recently enacted a marine aquaculture law, which includes a
provision requiring a financial guarantee from companies to cover
environmental damage, but specifies that the extent of environmental
damage and related costs will be determined by the state Fish and Game
Commission. An environmentalist involved in the negotiations
surrounding the law explained that identifying a specific entity--the
state Fish and Game Commission--to determine the extent of
environmental damage was a compromise acceptable to both the
aquaculture industry and environmental groups. Specifically, he said
that environmentalists supported the compromise because it holds
aquaculture facilities accountable for environmental damage, while
industry supported it because it is confident that the Fish and Game
Commission will deal with environmental damage issues fairly. About
half of the stakeholders that we contacted said that they would support
a similar provision at the federal level. Two stakeholders suggested
that NOAA could make determinations about the extent of environmental
damage at the federal level since it has experience assessing impacts
on the marine environment. One stakeholder who did not support a
federal government system similar to California's feared that the
criteria for identifying environmental damage could change from year to
year, thereby increasing the risk of investing in offshore aquaculture.
Priorities for Aquaculture Research and Limitations of Current
Programs:
It is also important for a regulatory framework to include federally
funded research to address gaps in current knowledge on a variety of
issues related to offshore aquaculture. Stakeholders identified four
research areas as particularly appropriate for federal funding--the
development of alternative fish feeds; the development of best
management practices; the investigation of how escaped aquaculture-
raised fish might impact wild fish populations; and the development of
hatchery technologies to breed and grow fish, while effectively
managing disease. In addition, while NOAA and USDA fund research on
marine aquaculture through, for instance, competitive grants, some
researchers said that these grants are funded over time periods that
are too short to accommodate certain types of research.
Federal Research Priorities:
Stakeholders we contacted and the four key studies we reviewed
generally agreed that the federal government should fund aquaculture
research to address gaps in current knowledge. Stakeholders identified
four research areas as particularly appropriate for federal funding.
These four research areas are as follows:
* Most stakeholders supported research to help in the development of
alternative fish feeds, citing reasons such as protecting wild species
from overfishing because wild species are currently used as a source of
fish meal and fish oil, and helping to lower industry costs. For
example, a NOAA official noted that the demand for fish feed has
increased in recent years, leading to a steep rise in the price of
aquaculture fish feeds. Due to this price increase, industry
representatives and researchers are interested in developing
alternative feeds that cost less.
* Most stakeholders also supported federal research that would help
develop best management practices. For example, one stakeholder said
that best management practices are very important because they identify
accepted practices for aquaculturists to follow and provide a method
for agencies to judge whether aquaculture facilities are operating
appropriately.
* Most stakeholders supported federally funded research investigating
how escaped aquaculture-raised fish might impact wild fish populations.
One stakeholder supported this research because existing research on
escapes does not focus on the species likely to be raised offshore.
* Many stakeholders also supported federal research that would help
develop hatchery technologies to breed and grow the fish that
ultimately populate offshore cages, while effectively managing disease.
Aquaculturists have identified the hatchery stage of aquaculture as
particularly difficult because hatchery fish are susceptible to
diseases, young fish need specially formulated feeds, and breeding fish
is complex.
While stakeholders generally identified these areas as priorities, a
few stakeholders also emphasized that federal funding should focus on
research that helps regulate the aquaculture industry or mitigate
environmental impacts. Research into how escaped aquaculture-raised
fish might impact wild fish populations is an example of this type of
research. Other stakeholders, as well as the U.S. Ocean Commission
study, suggested that federal research should also assist aquaculture
industry development. For instance, one stakeholder suggested that the
top issue for government funding should be determining which species
will be commercially viable for offshore aquaculture. Similarly, the
stakeholder noted that developing a species for aquaculture is
difficult for the private sector to do because it is very expensive and
would take 10 to 30 years.
Components and Potential Limitations of the Current Federal Aquaculture
Research Program:
NOAA and USDA currently support research on marine aquaculture through,
for example, competitive grants. NOAA's major competitive grant program
for marine aquaculture is the National Marine Aquaculture Initiative,
which funded approximately $4.6 million in projects related to marine
species during the 2006 grant cycle. NOAA also manages funding for a
number of offshore aquaculture-related projects, such as the open-ocean
aquaculture demonstration project off the coast of New Hampshire.
Similarly, USDA's Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service funds external aquaculture research through such vehicles as
competitive grant programs, land grant institutions, and regional
aquaculture centers. In addition, USDA's Agricultural Research Service
conducts research at its federal science centers and laboratories.
Several researchers, including some whom we interviewed during our site
visits, identified potential limitations of the current federal
aquaculture research programs. Specifically, they said that many of the
available competitive grants are funded over time periods that are too
short and at funding levels too low to accommodate certain types of
research. For example, researchers in Hawaii said that the development
of healthy breeding fish to supply offshore aquaculture operations can
require years of intensive breeding efforts, but that it is difficult
to obtain consistent research funding over this longer time period.
Both USDA and NOAA officials acknowledged that demonstration projects
and other lengthy research projects may be difficult to complete within
current competitive grant time frames. However, they noted that
appropriations for their programs dictate the current length of these
grants. USDA officials identified some programs that could be used for
long-term research, including competitive grants from the agency's
regional aquaculture centers or the agency's Agricultural Research
Service internal research projects. The regional aquaculture centers
set their own priorities and funding allocations, which allows centers
to focus on long-term offshore aquaculture research if they so choose.
For instance, the regional center in Hawaii has supported research that
applies to offshore aquaculture, but none of the other centers
currently support research specifically related to offshore
aquaculture. A USDA official also suggested that the Agricultural
Research Service could support long-term projects if such projects are
identified as priorities in future 5-year plans for aquaculture
research. The Agricultural Research Service uses feedback from
aquaculturists and regulatory agencies, among others, to identify
priorities and develop 5-year plans for aquaculture research.
Agricultural Research Service officials indicated that the current 5-
year plan directs about one-third of the agency's aquaculture funding
to research related to marine species.
Concluding Observations:
An effective federal regulatory framework for U.S. offshore aquaculture
will be critical to facilitating the development of an economically
sustainable industry, while at the same time protecting the health of
marine ecosystems. As the Congress considers providing a cohesive
legislative framework for regulating an offshore aquaculture industry,
we believe it will need to consider a number of important issues. A key
first step in developing a U.S. regulatory framework could be
designating a lead federal agency that has the appropriate expertise
and can effectively collaborate and coordinate with other federal
agencies. In addition, setting up clear legislative and regulatory
guidance on where offshore aquaculture facilities can be located and
how they can be operated could help ensure that these facilities have
the least amount of impact on the ocean environment. Moreover, a
regulatory framework could also include a process for reviewing the
potential environmental impacts of proposed offshore aquaculture
facilities, monitoring the environmental impacts of these facilities
once they are operational, and quickly identifying and mitigating
environmental problems when they occur. Inclusion of an adaptive
management approach by which the monitoring process can be modified
over time could be useful not only to ensure that the most effective
approaches are being used to protect the environment but also to help
reduce costs to the industry. In addition, a transparent regulatory
process that gives states and the public opportunities to comment on
specific offshore aquaculture projects could help allay some of the
concerns about the potential environmental impacts of offshore
aquaculture. Finally, because the offshore aquaculture industry is in
its infancy much remains unknown, and many technical challenges remain,
such as the best species to raise offshore and the most effective
offshore aquaculture practices. In this context, there may be a role
for the federal government in funding the research needed to help
answer these questions and facilitate the development of an
ecologically-sound offshore aquaculture industry.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Agriculture,
the Army, and Commerce; and also to the Environmental Protection Agency
for review and comment. We received written comments from the
Department of Commerce, EPA, and USDA. Overall, the Department of
Commerce's NOAA stated that the report accurately presented information
regarding the opportunities and challenges for offshore aquaculture and
will contribute to the discussion of environmentally responsible and
sustainable offshore aquaculture. NOAA also commented on many issues
discussed in our draft report, expressing three areas of concern.
* NOAA listed several issues it thought were not adequately addressed
in the report, including the role aquaculture can play in the
development of a safe, sustainable, domestic seafood supply. These
issues were outside our scope which was focused on identifying key
elements of a federal regulatory framework for offshore aquaculture.
* NOAA said that by indicating that the environmental impacts of an
offshore aquaculture industry are uncertain due to a lack of data
specific to such facilities, we were diminishing the importance of the
findings from environmental monitoring of the small-scale open ocean
aquaculture operations in state waters. We do not agree. Our report
acknowledges that the results of environmental monitoring at small-
scale open ocean facilities have found modest impacts. However, as
larger facilities begin operating, their impacts could become more
pronounced. Given that such facilities do not yet exist, it is too
early to know what their impacts will be.
* NOAA said that our report did not adequately discuss offshore
shellfish aquaculture. We believe that it did. Most of the policy
issues raised in the report apply equally to shellfish and fish
aquaculture. In those cases where the issues differ for shellfish and
fish aquaculture, we discussed them separately.
NOAA also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated in
the report as appropriate. NOAA's comments and our detailed responses
are presented in appendix III.
EPA provided clarifying language regarding their expertise in
regulating water quality related to offshore aquaculture, which we
incorporated as appropriate. EPA's comments are presented in appendix
IV.
The Department of Agriculture provided two comments on the report.
First, USDA mentioned two issues that it did not think were adequately
addressed in the report.
* USDA said that a mechanism for a coordinated federal-wide research
framework exists through the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture. Our
report acknowledges that USDA chairs the interagency Joint:
Subcommittee on Aquaculture and that the Subcommittee is currently
working to update the federal strategic plan for aquaculture research.
* USDA also said that it has a wide diversity of aquaculture research
that is not limited or directed by whether the fish will be raised in
fresh, brackish, or salt water. Characterizing all of USDA's
aquaculture-related research activities was not within the scope of our
report. Rather, our report is focused on offshore marine aquaculture.
As such, we reported what stakeholders told us regarding research
related to offshore marine aquaculture.
Second, USDA explained that it did not feel that it was appropriate to
respond to our questionnaire on offshore aquaculture because it asked
for individual opinions related to policy matters. USDA's comments and
our detailed responses are presented in appendix V.
The Department of the Army did not have any comments on the report.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of the Army,
Agriculture, and Commerce; the Administrator of the EPA; appropriate
congressional committees; and other interested parties. We also will
make copies available to others upon request. In addition, this report
will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report or need
additional information, please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or
mittala@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional
Relations and of Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this
report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
]Anu K. Mittal:
Director, Natural Resources:
and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology:
The objective of this report was to identify key issues that should be
addressed in the development of an effective regulatory framework for
U.S. offshore aquaculture. To address this objective, we reviewed key
academic and government-sponsored studies that analyzed proposed
regulatory frameworks for offshore aquaculture in federal waters;
reviewed existing federal laws that include provisions that are
applicable to offshore aquaculture, as well as federal agencies'
regulations, policies, and guidance for marine aquaculture; reviewed
laws, regulations, policies, and guidance for marine aquaculture in
selected states; visited aquaculture facilities in selected states; and
administered questionnaires to, and conducted follow-up structured
interviews with, a variety of aquaculture stakeholders.
We identified studies on offshore aquaculture regulations by conducting
a literature search of online databases for studies and reports from
government agencies, nonprofit organizations, industry associations,
and academia. We also obtained references from aquaculture experts and
agency officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). After reviewing various studies,
we identified four key studies that examined offshore aquaculture and
made recommendations to improve the regulatory framework for offshore
aquaculture. These key studies--by the Marine Aquaculture Task Force,
the University of Delaware, the Pew Oceans Commission, and the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy--brought together ocean policy stakeholders
to examine, among other things, potential regulatory frameworks for
offshore aquaculture. These studies of offshore aquaculture regulations
were each developed in the last 5 years with stakeholder input and
discuss a variety of issues related to marine aquaculture. Throughout
the report, we cite those studies that reached similar conclusions or
made similar recommendations on particular policy issues. If a study is
not cited for a particular policy issue, it is because the study did
not address that issue.
To identify existing federal laws that include provisions that are
applicable to offshore aquaculture, as well as federal agencies'
regulations, policies, and guidance for marine aquaculture, we
interviewed officials from the NOAA's National Marine Fisheries
Service, NOAA's National Ocean Service, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the EPA, the Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife
Service and Minerals Management Service, and the USDA's Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service. We also reviewed a wide variety of
laws to identify federal agencies' responsibilities and authorities for
offshore aquaculture. The laws we reviewed included the Marine Mammal
Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Coastal Zone Management
Act, the Rivers and Harbors Act, the National Environmental Policy Act,
the National Aquaculture Act of 1980, and the Clean Water Act.
We identified relevant state laws, regulations, policies, and guidance
for marine aquaculture by interviewing state regulators,
environmentalists, representatives of the commercial fishing industry,
and representatives of the aquaculture industry in California, Florida,
Hawaii, Maine, Texas, and Washington. We selected these states because
they currently regulate, or are in the process of developing regulatory
frameworks for, aquaculture operations in state waters, and because
they represent different geographic areas of the United States.
Additionally, we met with state and federal regulators in Hawaii,
Maine, and Washington--the states with active nearshore fish
aquaculture industries--to discuss state regulatory systems and visited
aquaculture facilities in Hawaii and Maine.
Based on issues identified in the four key studies, and in our
interviews with federal and state officials, we developed a
questionnaire on the elements of a regulatory framework for offshore
aquaculture. Prior to distributing the questionnaire, we conducted
pretests with stakeholders who were similar to those we intended to
survey and modified some questions in response to those
results.[Footnote 23] The final questionnaire covered a range of topics
including which federal agencies should be responsible for various
program administration activities such as program management and agency
coordination; how a potential permitting or leasing program should be
structured, including to what extent various stakeholders should be
involved in the process; opinions on the types of environmental review
and monitoring that should be required as part of a regulatory
framework; and what should be the priority areas for potentially
federally funded aquaculture research.
In addition to developing the questionnaire, we identified key
aquaculture stakeholders to respond to the questionnaire. We selected
these stakeholders because of their expertise in aquaculture at the
national, state, or local level; to provide representation across
academia, government, industry, and the nonprofit sector; and to
provide broad geographic representation throughout the United States.
To ensure that our initial list of stakeholders satisfied these
criteria, we asked two noted aquaculture experts to review our
selections. Both experts submitted three additional names for our
consideration--two of which were the same individuals--otherwise they
both agreed our list satisfied our criteria. The two individuals
recommended by both experts were then included as stakeholders. See
appendix II for a list of the stakeholders who responded to our
questionnaire.
We distributed the questionnaire to 28 stakeholders electronically,
asking them to fill it out and return it to GAO. We received 25
responses. Three federal agencies with responsibilities relating to
offshore aquaculture--the Department of the Interior, the USDA, and the
EPA--did not provide official or complete written responses to the
questionnaire. However, we met with officials from these agencies to
discuss their responsibilities related to aquaculture. After reviewing
the questionnaire responses we received, we conducted follow-up
structured interviews with each stakeholder to clarify some responses
and to obtain additional details on stakeholders' responses to some
open-ended questions. To identify trends in responses, we analyzed the
results of the questionnaire by summarizing responses and producing
descriptive statistics using Microsoft Access. In addition, we
qualitatively analyzed open-ended responses from the questionnaire and
responses from follow-up interviews to provide additional insight into
stakeholder views on key issues that should be addressed in the
development of a regulatory framework for offshore aquaculture. For
purposes of characterizing the results from our questionnaire and
follow-up interviews of our 25 stakeholders, we identified specific
meanings for the words we used to quantify the results, as follows: "a
few" means at least three, and up to five stakeholders; "some" means
between 6 and 11 stakeholders; "about half" means 12 to 14
stakeholders; "a majority" of stakeholders and "many" stakeholders both
mean 15 to 19 stakeholders; and "most" means 20 stakeholders or more.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2007 to May 2008 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objective. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objective.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Stakeholders Consulted by GAO Regarding a Regulatory
Framework for Offshore Aquaculture:
The following stakeholders responded to our questionnaire and
participated in follow-up interviews regarding administrative and
environmental issues that should be addressed in the development of an
effective regulatory framework for U.S. offshore aquaculture:
* Sue Aspelund, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game;A:
* Brian E. Baird, Assistant Secretary, Ocean and Coastal Policy,
California Resources Agency;
* Sebastian M. Belle, Executive Director, Maine Aquaculture
Association;
* John Connelly, President, National Fisheries Institute;
* Cora Crome, Fisheries Policy Advisor, Office of the Governor, State
of Alaska;A:
* Bill Dewey, Manager of Public Affairs, Taylor Shellfish Company;
* Robin Downey, Executive Director, Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers
Association;
* Kathleen Drew, Executive Policy Advisor, Office of Washington
Governor Chris Gregoire;
* Tim Eichenberg, Former Director, Pacific Regional Office, Ocean
Conservancy;B:
* John Forster, Ph.D., President and Aquaculture Consultant, Forster
Consulting Inc;
* Rebecca Goldburg, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Environmental Defense
Fund;
* Samantha D. Horn Olsen, Aquaculture Policy Coordinator, Maine
Department of Marine Resources;
* Dr. Richard Langan, Director, Atlantic Marine Aquaculture Center and
Open Ocean Aquaculture Program, University of New Hampshire;
* George H. Leonard, Ph.D., Aquaculture Director, Ocean Conservancy;B:
* John R. MacMillan, Ph.D., President, National Aquaculture
Association;
* Dr. Larry McKinney, Director of Coastal Fisheries, Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department;
* Rosamond Naylor, William Wrigley Senior Fellow and Director, Program
on Food Security and the Environment, Stanford University;
* J.E. Jack Rensel, Ph.D., Principal Scientist, Rensel Associates
Aquatic Sciences;
* Dr. Michael Rubino, Manager, NOAA Aquaculture Program, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
* Mitchell Shapson, LL.M., Policy and Legal Analyst, The Institute for
Fisheries Resources;
* Neil Anthony Sims, Co-founder and President, Kona Blue Water Farms,
LLC, and Founding Boardmember, Ocean Stewards Institute;
* Chip Smith, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works), Assistant for Environment, Tribal and Regulatory Affairs;
* Linda L. Smith, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of the Governor, State
of Hawaii;
* Albert G.J. Tacon, Ph.D., Technical Director, Aquatic Farms Ltd;
* Paula Terrel, Commercial Fisherman & Fish Farming Issues Coordinator,
Alaska Marine Conservation Council;
* Jose Villalon, Director, Aquaculture Program, World Wildlife Fund;
and:
* Sherman Wilhelm, Director, Division of Aquaculture, Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
[A] Both Sue Aspelund and Cora Crome contributed to the stakeholder
response for the state of Alaska. Because we received a single
questionnaire and conducted a single follow-up interview, we treated
them as a single stakeholder for purposes of analysis even though they
are acknowledged separately here.
[B] Both Tim Eichenberg and George Leonard contributed to the
stakeholder response for the Ocean Conservancy. Because we received a
single questionnaire and conducted a single follow-up interview, we
treated them as a single stakeholder for purposes of analysis even
though they are acknowledged separately here.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
The Secretary Of Commerce:
Washington, D.C. 20230
April 25, 2008:
Ms. Anu K. Mittal:
Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Mittal:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government
Accountability Office's draft report entitled Offshore Marine
Aquaculture: Multiple Administrative and Environmental Issues Need to
be Addressed in Establishing a U.S. Regulatory Framework (GAO-08-594).
On behalf of the Department of Commerce, I enclose the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration's comments on the draft report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Enclosure:
Department of Commerce:
Comments on the Draft GAO Report Entitled "Offshore Marine Aquaculture:
Multiple Administrative and Environmental Issues Need to Be Addressed
in Establishing a U.S. Regulatory Framework" (GAO-08-594/May 2008):
General Comments:
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) Offshore Marine Aquaculture
Report captures the growing interest in offshore aquaculture in the
United States as an additional form of domestic seafood production. The
report accurately presents the opportunities and challenges for this
new form of seafood production by succinctly summarizing information
from major publicly and privately funded studies, representatives of
key stakeholder groups, and the experience of selected coastal states.
GAO's report will contribute to the discussion of environmentally
responsible and sustainable offshore aquaculture in the broader context
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) overall
marine aquaculture program.
{See comment 1.):
Issues of considerable interest to the public not examined in the
report are the role of aquaculture and its relevance to a safe,
sustainable domestic seafood supply, the net environmental benefits of
aquaculture production, and the creation of jobs from coastal
communities to the American heartland.
As the Nation's oceans and fisheries agency, NOAA has already begun to
address the administrative and environmental issues highlighted in the
GAO report. The agency established an aquaculture program in 2004, and
has been working with Congress on national offshore aquaculture
legislation since 2005. NOAA is also supporting internal and external
marine aquaculture research and collaborating with other federal
agencies on broader initiatives such as the implementation of a
National Aquatic Animal Health Plan.
In addition to its dual mandate to protect the marine environment and
manage sustainable use of living marine resources, NOAA is already
tasked with providing the best available science about marine
aquaculture to policymakers and the public so that government agencies
can make informed regulatory and policy decisions. NOAA's existing
grant programs such as the National Marine Aquaculture Initiative
support priority aquaculture research topics identified in the GAO
report, including projects to evaluate sites for offshore aquaculture
and assess the environmental risks and mitigation options for offshore
production technologies and species.
Consistent with GAO's findings, stakeholders at a National Marine
Aquaculture Summit, which was organized by NOAA and hosted by the
Secretary of Commerce in June 2007, emphasized the need for
transparent, consistent, and predictable regulations and environmental
protections in order for the offshore aquaculture industry to move
forward in the United States. Similarly in 2007, NOAA adopted a 10-Year
Plan for Marine Aquaculture, which also includes a comprehensive
regulatory program for environmentally sustainable marine aquaculture
as a priority goal. Summit participants and NOAA's 10-Year Plan also
pointed out the need for additional research, as indicated in GAO's
report.
By highlighting the importance of the siting, monitoring, and
management of marine aquaculture operations, GAO accurately reflected
stakeholders' concerns over preventing or minimizing adverse
environmental impacts of marine aquaculture. However, its focus on the
lack of data on the environmental impacts of commercial scale offshore
aquaculture operations (since these do not yet exist) diminishes the
importance of findings based on environmental monitoring and research
at the five small-scale open ocean operations in U.S. state waters.
These operations have shown insignificant environmental effects to
date, and the adaptive monitoring approaches that GAO describes in the
report will provide a way to ensure that these impacts remain minimal
as projects scale up in size. Also, the lessons learned from managing
and regulating commercial finfish aquaculture in Maine, Washington
State, and elsewhere, as cited in the report, as well as the experience
with stock enhancement and shellfish farming in the United States,
provide a substantial body of knowledge about the net environmental
effects of marine aquaculture and the regulatory approaches that will
apply to offshore aquaculture.
(See comment 2.):
NOAA is fully engaged in issues relating to the use of fish meal and
fish oil in aquaculture feeds, a priority issue identified in the
report. As stated, fish meal and fish oil are important components in
the feeds for many farm-raised species, from pigs and poultry to farmed
fish. As ingredients in aquaculture feed, fish meal and fish oil
support normal growth for cultured species, and maintain the important
human health benefits of seafood. However, both the relatively high
cost of fish meal and fish oil, and growing pressure on the wild
fisheries that supply it, are fueling research on suitable alternative
feed ingredients. This research has led to significant improvements in
reducing the reliance on fish meal and fish oil for feeds for many
cultured fish species. NOAA and other federal agencies play a vital
role in continuing to fund feeds research and the transfer of
technology to industry. For example, in 2008, NOAA is partnering with
the U.S. Department of Agriculture on an initiative to advance the
development and commercialization of alternatives to fish meal and fish
oil in aquaculture feeds.
Two additional topics of importance to NOAA are not adequately
addressed in the report: offshore shellfish aquaculture and regional
initiatives to regulate offshore aquaculture under existing fishery
management authorities. Shellfish aquaculture accounts for most of the
current U.S. marine aquaculture production (over 80 percent by value),
and in 2008, NOAA is sponsoring a symposium on Shellfish Aquaculture
and the Environment. Although the symposium will focus mainly on issues
associated with existing operations in coastal areas, expansion of
coastal shellfish aquaculture production is limited by coastal
development杦hich has made it difficult to find appropriate, affordable
sites closer to shore朼nd interest in open ocean mussel farming is
growing rapidly in the United States. Commercial fishermen and others
in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and California have established open
ocean production of mussels as a way to supplement their income. This
highlights the natural synergy linking aquaculture with many aspects of
commercial and recreational fishing.
(See comment 3):
It should also be noted the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
is developing a generic amendment to several of its Fishery Management
Plans that would establish a permitting program for aquaculture
facilities in federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico. All of the issues
identified in the GAO report have been addressed in various scoping
documents prepared by the Council in cooperation with NOAA and have
been informed by extensive public input. It is possible the Council may
submit its proposal for Secretarial review later this year.
(See comment 4):
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Commerce's letter
dated April 25, 2008.
GAO Comments:
The issues identified by NOAA are outside the scope of our review,
which was to identify key elements of a federal regulatory framework
for offshore aquaculture.
1. We believe our statements regarding the lack of data on the
environmental impacts from large-scale commercial offshore aquaculture
operations are appropriate. As NOAA points out, these large-scale
operations do not yet exist. On page 9 of the report, we stated that
environmental monitoring at the existing small-scale research and
commercial open-ocean aquaculture operations in Hawaii, New Hampshire,
and Puerto Rico has found modest environmental impacts. However, as
facilities begin to scale-up, their impacts on the marine environment
could become more pronounced. Given the lack of such large facilities
to date, it is too early to know what the environmental impacts of
large-scale commercial offshore aquaculture facilities will be.
2. We believe that the report adequately discusses offshore shellfish
aquaculture within the context of offshore aquaculture. Most of the
policy issues raised in the report apply equally to shellfish and fish
aquaculture. For instance, the need for clear federal leadership, a
sound permitting system, and additional research all apply equally to
shellfish and fish. In cases where the issues differ for shellfish and
fish aquaculture--such as for environmental monitoring protocols--we
discussed shellfish aquaculture separately from fish aquaculture.
3. We are aware of the efforts of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council to develop a generic amendment to their fishery management
plans to establish an offshore aquaculture program in the Gulf of
Mexico. While we discuss the roles and responsibilities of fishery
management councils on pages 19 and 20, we did not discuss this
regional initiative in our report because it was outside our scope of
identifying key elements of a federal regulatory framework for offshore
aquaculture.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:
United States Environmental Protection Agency:
Washington D.C.:
Internet Address (URL) [hyperlink, http://www.epa.gov]:
April 21, 2008:
Office Of Water:
Ms. Anu Mittal:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Natural Resources and Environment, Room 2T23:
441 G Street, N.W.:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Mittal:
Thank you for providing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with
an opportunity to review the draft report "Offshore Marine
Aquaculture." We provided comments on an earlier draft of this report
to GAO staff during a conference call on March 27, 2008. Our comments
at that time focused on the description of the Clean Water Act programs
that control the release of pollutants from aquaculture facilities. We
were pleased to see that the current draft responds to our comments.
We would like to submit one additional comment on this draft report. On
page 5, line 4 of the draft, GAO states, "For example, EPA has
expertise in protecting marine water quality in state waters, and the
lead federal agency... " We suggest rephrasing this sentence to read,
"For example, EPA has knowledge of technologies and practices that
control and reduce the pollutants discharged from open water
aquaculture, and the lead federal agency."
If you have any questions about our comments, please let me know, or
contact Mary Smith, Director of the Engineering and Analysis Division,
at 202-566-1000.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Benjamin H. Grumbles:
Assistant Administrator:
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Agriculture:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
USDA:
United States Research Office:
Room 216W:
Department of Education of the Under Jamie L. Whitten Building:
Agriculture Economics Secretary:
Washington, DC 20250-0110:
May 1, 2008:
In Reply Refer To: Draft Report GAO-08-594, "Offshore Marine
Aquaculture: Multiple Administrative and Environmental Issues Need to
Be Addressed in Establishing a U.S. Regulatory Framework" (360830)
Ms. Anu K. Mittal:
Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Mittal:
I am responding on behalf of the Agricultural Research Service (ARS),
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES),
and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Thank you for
the opportunity to review and comment on the subject draft report.
General comments are provided for your use in preparing the final
report.
I would like to take this opportunity to clarify two points: KEY
Program Administration Issues (P. 17):
First in oral comments, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) officials
stressed that a mechanism for a coordinated Federal-wide research
framework exists through the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture (JSA) of
the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Further, USDA emphasized
the wide diversity of its aquaculture research portfolio that is not
limited, influenced or directed by water salinity or the aquatic
environment of production systems or their locations. These comments
were not reflected in this report.
(See comment 1.):
USDA administers numerous major programs to encourage and support the
development of private-sector aquaculture in freshwater, brackish
water, and marine environments. USDA recognizes private-sector farming
of fish and shellfish as a form of agriculture. Delineation of
aquaculture research into marine and freshwater components is complex,
as some species have life cycles in both environments; some hybrids
involve crosses of freshwater and marine species; and new advancements
in technology include growing marine species under low salinity culture
conditions that are much lower than their natural marine environment.
Programs supported by USDA include research to develop husbandry
practices to control and manage predictably the entire life cycle of
marine species for commercial production; improved breeding stocks of
production animals; nutrition programs to improve diets and nutrient
utilization; aquatic animal health; extension, education; economics;
statistical reporting; marketing support; farm services; risk
management; natural resource conservation; and other services provided
to U.S. agriculture.
USDA has made significant investments in these programs over the last
ten years with substantial impacts on the development of the diverse
U.S. aquaculture industry.
USDA firmly believes that the U.S. aquaculture industry and our public
are best-served through. interagency cooperation and collaboration and
that the JSA is an excellent coordinating structure to facilitate multi-
agency planning and coordination of research and development programs.
Regulatory Framework Questionnaire (Appendix I, P. 46):
Second, USDA (ARS, APHIS, and CSREES) did not provide a written
response to the GAO questionnaire because many questions sought
opinions on a variety of policy issues - e.g., "in your opinion which
one of the following agencies, if any, should be the lead agency for
funding marine aquaculture research?" USDA already has provided
information on the Department's official position for a number of
issues and policies related to aquaculture. USDA officials did not feel
that it was appropriate to provide individual opinions related to
policy matters through a questionnaire that was provided to diverse
stakeholders.
The two comments have been coordinated with the staffs of both CSREES
and APHIS. Once again, we appreciate the chance to review and comment
on this draft report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Gale A. Buchanan:
Under Secretary:
cc:
C. Hefferan, CSREES:
C. Smith, APHIS:
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Agriculture's
letter dated May 1, 2008.
GAO Comment:
We believe the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture was adequately
addressed in the report. Specifically, we mentioned on page 11 that
USDA chairs the interagency Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture and that
the Subcommittee is currently working to update the federal strategic
plan for aquaculture research. In addition, characterizing all of
USDA's aquaculture-related research activities was not within the scope
of our report. Rather, our report is focused on offshore marine
aquaculture. As such, we reported what stakeholders told us regarding
research related to offshore marine aquaculture.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Anu K. Mittal, Director, (202) 512-9846, or mittala@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Stephen D. Secrist,
Assistant Director; Leo G. Acosta; Nancy Crothers; Kathleen Gilhooly;
Janice M. Poling; Katherine Raheb; Jerry Sandau; Julie E. Silvers;
Barbara Steel-Lowney; Shana Wallace; and Monica L. Wolford, made
significant contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Fisheries
and Aquaculture Department, The State of World Fisheries and
Aquaculture 2006 (Rome, Italy: 2007).
[2] Concerns about disease interactions between wild fish and
aquaculture facilities received attention recently in response to a
2007 study of nearshore salmon aquaculture operations in British
Columbia. The study argued that aquaculture facilities near inlets and
channels where juvenile salmon migrate from fresh to marine waters have
led to damaging levels of sea lice transmission from aquaculture-raised
fish to wild populations. Other scientists disagreed, noting that there
are many wild sources of sea lice that could have accounted for the sea
lice infections of wild salmon and disputed some of the methods used in
the study.
[3] Regional fishery management councils are composed primarily of
federal and state fishery management officials and individuals selected
by the Secretary of Commerce from lists submitted by the Governors of
the states in the councils' regions.
[4] The bills were introduced as S. 1195 in 2005 and as H.R. 2010 and
S. 1609 in 2007.
[5] Marine Aquaculture Task Force, Sustainable Marine Aquaculture:
Fulfilling the Promise; Managing the Risks (Takoma Park, MD: 2007);
University of Delaware, Recommendations for an Operational Framework
for Offshore Aquaculture in U.S. Federal Waters (Newark: 2005); U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century
(Washington, D.C.: 2004); Pew Oceans Commission, America's Living
Oceans: Charting a Course of Sea Change (Washington, D.C.: 2003).
[6] Knapp, G., C. Roheim, and J. Anderson, The Great Salmon Run:
Competition between Wild and Farmed Salmon (Washington, D.C.: TRAFFIC
North America and World Wildlife Fund, 2007).
[7] Ostrowski, Anthony. Hawaii Offshore Aquaculture Research Project-
Phase I. (Waimanalo, HI: 2000); Ostrowski, Anthony. Hawaii Offshore
Aquaculture Research Project-Phase II. (Waimanalo, HI: 2001); Helsley,
Chuck. Hawaii Offshore Aquaculture Research Project--Phase III:
Critical Research and Development Issues for Commercialization and
Supplement for Acquisition of Initial Sedimentation Rate Data around
Sea Cages Operating off the Coast of Oahu. (Waimanalo, HI: 2007).
[8] The Clean Water Act generally prohibits discharge of pollutants
into waters of the United States. NPDES permits include limits on the
pollutants that can be released, as well as monitoring requirements to
ensure that a stipulated level of water quality is retained.
[9] Alston, Dallas, et al. Environmental and Social Impact of
Sustainable Offshore Cage Culture Production in Puerto Rican Waters.
(Mayaguez, PR: 2005); Ward, Larry, et al. Atlantic Marine Aquaculture
Center Open Ocean Aquaculture Annual Progress Report. (Durham, NH: 2001-
2007).
[10] In addition to USDA, other member agencies of the Joint
Subcommittee on Aquaculture are: Department of Commerce, Department of
the Interior, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human
Services, EPA, Corps, Small Business Administration, Agency for
International Development, Tennessee Valley Authority, National Science
Foundation, and Farm Credit Administration.
[11] 42 U.S.C. Ё 4321-4347.
[12] Pub. L. No. 106-256, Sec. 3(f)(1), 114 Stat. 647 (2000).
[13] Marine Aquaculture Task Force, University of Delaware, and U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy.
[14] Marine Aquaculture Task Force, University of Delaware, and U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy.
[15] Marine Aquaculture Task Force, University of Delaware, and U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy.
[16] The sixth council representative said that the council does not
have a unified position on whether they want to be involved in
permitting issues for every proposed project.
[17] See NOAA's interpretation in Memorandum from Jay S. Johnson,
Deputy General Counsel, NOAA, & Margaret F. Hayes, Assistant General
Counsel for Fisheries, NOAA, to James W. Brennan, Acting General
Counsel, NOAA, Regulation of Aquaculture in the EEZ (Feb. 7, 1993).
[18] The exemption applies only to hatchery-raised fish that were not
taken from the wild. If an aquaculture operation harvested wild fish
for broodstock--adult fish kept for breeding purposes--or to put in
offshore cages, their wild harvests would still be subject to catch
restrictions.
[19] The rights granted by permits versus leases can vary depending on
how they are written.
[20] Although NOAA could theoretically issue leases for aquaculture
facilities between 3 and 12 miles, the administration's 2007
legislative proposal for offshore aquaculture would authorize permits
for all aquaculture facilities in federal waters. NOAA officials said
they prefer this approach because it sets up a consistent regulatory
framework throughout federal waters.
[21] Best management practices are operating procedures, schedules of
activities, maintenance procedures, and other management practices that
aquaculturists can use to prevent or reduce impacts on the ocean
environment.
[22] Marking or tagging could be done in a variety of ways. For
instance, Washington state requires that aquaculture-raised fish be
exposed to different temperatures throughout the rearing process in a
hatchery (before the fish are transferred to a marine cage). These
temperature changes create a distinctive pattern, similar to tree
rings, on a particular bone in the fish, thereby making it identifiable
as from a hatchery in Washington. Maine's aquaculture industry
currently uses a genetic method of marking fish in which the genetics
of aquaculture-raised fish are distinctive and documented so that a
sample of scales taken from an aquaculture-raised fish can identify the
facility where that fish was raised. In addition to these methods,
physical tags could also be used, though two stakeholders mentioned
that tagging fish causes stress and increases mortality.
[23] These pretesters were: Susan Bunsick, Policy Analyst, NOAA
Aquaculture Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
Mark Drawbridge, M.S., Senior Research Biologist, Hubbs-SeaWorld
Research Institute; Roger Fleming, Attorney, Earthjustice; and W.
Richard Smith, Jr., Partner, Robinson & Cole LLP.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: