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. Site selection is  also an important component of regulating offshore aquaculture. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. Hawaii issued 20-year leases to its two existing  nearshore open-ocean aquaculture facilities. Currently at the state level,  Hawaii, Maine, and Washington all use the case-by-case approach for  approving sites within their state waters. In addition, stakeholders generally supported  monitoring environmental conditions at offshore aquaculture facilities  once they begin operations. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Research into how escaped aquaculture-raised  fish might impact wild fish populations is an example of this type of  research. 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. 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. If a study is not cited for a particular policy issue, it is because the  study did not address that issue. 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. 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;   Brian E. Baird, Assistant Secretary, Ocean and Coastal Policy, California    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    Bill Dewey, Manager of Public Affairs, Taylor Shellfish Company;    Robin Downey, Executive Director, Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers    Kathleen Drew, Executive Policy Advisor, Office of Washington Governor    Tim Eichenberg, Former Director, Pacific Regional Office, Ocean    John Forster, Ph.D., President and Aquaculture Consultant, Forster    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;    John R. MacMillan, Ph.D., President, National Aquaculture Association;    Dr. Larry McKinney, Director of Coastal Fisheries, Texas Parks and    Rosamond Naylor, William Wrigley Senior Fellow and Director, Program  on Food Security and the Environment, Stanford University;   J.E. GAO Comments

1. 4. GAO Comment

1.
Why GAO Did This Study

U. S. aquaculture--the raising of fish and shellfish in captivity--has 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. (1) 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. (2) 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. (3) 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. (4) 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.