United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on 

Natural Resources, House of 

Representatives 

OFFSHORE MARINE 

AQUACULTURE 

Multiple 

Administrative and 

Environmental Issues 

Need to Be Addressed 

in Establishing a U.S. 

Regulatory 

Framework 

May 2008 

 

GAO-08-594 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

May 2008

OFFSHORE MARINE AQUACULTURE

Multiple Administrative and Environmental Issues

Need to Be Addressed in Establishing a U.S. 

Highlights of GAO-08-594, a report to the Regulatory Framework 

Chairman, Committee on Natural 

Resources, House of Representatives 

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-bycase 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. 

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. 

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on GAO-08-594. 

For more information, contact Anu K. Mittal at 

(202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 4

Background 7

It Is Important to Consider Many Issues in Four Key Areas When 

Developing a Regulatory Framework for Offshore Aquaculture 13 

Concluding Observations 37 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 37 

Appendix I Objective, Scope, and Methodology 40 

Appendix II Stakeholders Consulted by GAO Regarding a 

Regulatory Framework for Offshore Aquaculture 43 

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Commerce 45 

Appendix IV Comments from the Environmental Protection 

Agency 49 

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Agriculture 50 

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 53

Table 

Table 1: Agencies’ Regulatory Responsibilities and Authorities for 

Offshore Aquaculture 10 

Figure 

Figure 1: Examples of Cages Used in Nearshore and Offshore 

Aquaculture 8

Page i GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine 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 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, 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. 

Page ii GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
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.

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 

 1

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Fisheries and Aquaculture 

Department, The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2006 (Rome, Italy: 2007). 

Page 1 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
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.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.3

 In addition, the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) issues permits for structures in 

 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. 

Page 2 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
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.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.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, 

 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). 

Page 3 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
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 followup 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. 

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. 

Results in Brief 

• 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) 

Page 4 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
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 

Page 5 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
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 aquacultureraised 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 

Page 6 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
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. 

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 openocean 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.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 

Background 

 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). 

Page 7 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
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 

Surface cages Subsurface cages

Source: GAO.

Page 8 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
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,7

 but that these changes were 

within the allowable limits of the facility’s National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

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.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).

 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). 

Page 9 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
Table 1: Agencies’ Regulatory Responsibilities and Authorities for Offshore Aquaculture 

Agency (Department) Responsibilities Authority Citation 

NOAA’s National Marine

Fisheries Service 

(Commerce) 

Consult with regulating agencies regarding the 

impact of permitted activities on living marine

resources, marine mammals, essential fish habitat, 

and endangered species. 

Marine Mammal Protection

Act 

16 U.S.C. §1371 

Endangered Species Act 16 U.S.C. §1536 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and 

Management Act 

16 U.S.C. §1855 

Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act 

16 U.S.C. §661 et seq.

Regulate fishing activities, including aquaculture. 

Performed in consultation with regional fishery 

management councils. 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and 

Management Act 

16 U.S.C. §1801 et 

seq. 

Cooperate with other federal agencies in 

implementing the National Aquaculture Development 

Plan. 

National Aquaculture Act of 

1980 

16 U.S.C. §§2801-

2810 

Enforce prohibitions on the sale, trade, or 

transportation of fish or wildlife harvested or attained 

in violation of federal, state, tribal, or foreign laws. 

Lacey Act 16 U.S.C. §§3371-

3378 

NOAA’s National Ocean 

Service (Commerce) 

Review and approve state coastal management 

programs, which identify permissible water uses in 

the coastal zone. Oversee federal consistency with 

these programs. 

Coastal Zone Management 

Act 

16 U.S.C. §1451 et 

seq. 

Regulate activities in national marine sanctuaries to 

protect sanctuary resources. 

National Marine Sanctuaries 

Act 

16 U.S.C. §1431 et 

seq. 

Corps (Defense) Regulate structures, such as aquaculture cages, in 

navigable waters through “Section 10” permits. 

Rivers and Harbors Act 33 U.S.C. §403 

Outer Continental Shelf 

Lands Act 

43 U.S.C. §1333 

EPA Regulate discharges to navigable waters through 

NPDES permits. Often authorizes states to issue 

NPDES permits for discharges to navigable waters 

within a state. 

Clean Water Act 33 U.S.C. §§1342, 

1343 

Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Interior) 

Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act 

Consult with permitting agencies regarding the 16 U.S.C. §661 et seq.

impact of permitted activities on fish and wildlife, 

including endangered species. Endangered Species Act 16 U.S.C. §1536 

Regulate the importation and interstate 

transportation of fish under humane and healthful 

conditions. 

Lacey Act 18 U.S.C. §42

Minerals Management 

Service (Interior) 

Authorize the use of existing facilities on the outer 

continental shelf, such as oil and gas platforms, for 

marine-related activities, including aquaculture. 

Outer Continental Shelf 

Lands Act 

43 U.S.C. §1337 

Page 10 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
Agency (Department) Responsibilities Authority Citation 

Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service 

(Agriculture) 

Regulate the movement of aquatic animals in

interstate and foreign commerce and respond to 

aquatic animal disease outbreaks. 

Animal Health Protection Act 7 U.S.C. §8301 et seq.

Coast Guard (Homeland 

Security) 

Require structures that are located in waters under 

the jurisdiction of the United States to be marked 

with lights and signals to protect navigation. 

Rivers and Harbors Act 14 U.S.C. §85

Source: GAO.

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.10

In addition to agency-specific responsibilities and authorities, all federal 

agencies are required to comply with the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA).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 

 10In 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.

1142 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347. 

Page 11 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
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 

Page 12 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
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.

 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. 

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. 

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 

It Is Important to 

Consider Many Issues 

in Four Key Areas 

When Developing a 

Regulatory 

Framework for 

Offshore Aquaculture 

Key Program 

Administration Issues 

 12Pub. L. No. 106-256, Sec. 3(f)(1), 114 Stat. 647 (2000). 

Page 13 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
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.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. 

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 

Roles and Responsibilities of

Federal Agencies 

 13Marine Aquaculture Task Force, University of Delaware, and U.S. Commission on Ocean

Policy. 

Page 14 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
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. 

Page 15 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
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. 

Three of the key studies we reviewed recommended that states be 

involved in the development and implementation of a regulatory 

framework for offshore aquaculture.14 For instance, the U.S. Commission 

on Ocean Policy recommended that any proposed federal permitting and 

Roles and Responsibilities of

States 

 14Marine Aquaculture Task Force, University of Delaware, and U.S. Commission on Ocean

Policy. 

Page 16 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
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 

Page 17 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
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 

Page 18 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
comment on proposed facilities.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. 

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.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 

Roles and Responsibilities of

Regional Fishery Management 

Councils 

 15Marine Aquaculture Task Force, University of Delaware, and U.S. Commission on Ocean

Policy. 

16The 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. 

Page 19 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
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. 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.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. 

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.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. 

Establishing the Terms and 

Conditions, and Selecting 

Appropriate Sites, for 

Offshore Aquaculture 

 17See 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). 

18The 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. 

19The rights granted by permits versus leases can vary depending on how they are written. 

Page 20 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
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.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 

Permits or Leases 

 20Although 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. 

Page 21 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
to occupy a given area of the ocean to encourage investment.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 

 21Best 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.

Page 22 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
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 

Page 23 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
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. 

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 

Site Selection 

Page 24 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
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 

Page 25 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
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. 

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 

Key Environmental 

Management Issues 

Page 26 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
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.

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 

Reviewing Potential 

Environmental Impacts 

Page 27 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
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 

Page 28 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
aquaculturists to locate their facilities far from one another to avoid being 

affected by potential water quality or disease problems from neighboring 

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. 

Monitoring Environmental 

Conditions and Inspecting 

Facilities 

Page 29 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
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

Page 30 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
inspections could be useful if the permitting agency suspects that the 

operator is not meeting permitting conditions. 

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.22

Mitigating the Potential Impact 

of Escaped Fish and 

Remediating Environmental 

Damage 

 22Marking 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. 

Page 31 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
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 aquacultureraised fish would complicate their efforts to enforce wild fisheries 

regulations. For instance, council representatives said that if aquacultureraised fish are indistinguishable from wild fish, then this increases the 

potential for illegally caught wild fish to be passed off as aquacultureraised 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. 

Page 32 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
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 aquacultureraised 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. 

Page 33 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
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.

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.

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: 

Priorities for Aquaculture 

Research and Limitations 

of Current Programs 

Federal Research Priorities 

Page 34 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
• 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. 

Page 35 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
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 openocean 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 longterm 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 

Components and Potential 

Limitations of the Current 

Federal Aquaculture Research 

Program 

Page 36 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
about one-third of the agency’s aquaculture funding to research related to

marine species. 

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. 

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 

Concluding 

Observations 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 37 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
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. 

Page 38 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
• 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 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, 

Anu K. Mittal 

Director, Natural Resources 

 and Environment 

Page 39 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology 

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 

Page 40 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and 

Methodology 

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.1

 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, 

 1

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. 

Page 41 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and 

Methodology 

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. 

Page 42 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
Appendix II: Stakeholders Consulted by GAO 

Regarding a Regulatory Framework for Appendix II: Stakeholders Consulted by GAO Offshore Aquaculture 

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; 

Page 43 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
Appendix II: Stakeholders Consulted by GAO 

Regarding a Regulatory Framework for 

Offshore Aquaculture 

• 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. 

Page 44 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
Appendix III: Comments from the Department Appendix III: Comments from the of Commerce 

Department of Commerce 

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear at 

the end of this appendix. 

Page 45 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce 

See comment 1. 

Page 46 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce 

See comment 2. 

See comment 3. 

See comment 4. 

Page 47 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce 

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Commerce’s 

letter dated April 25, 2008. 

1. 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.

GAO Comments 

2. 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. 

3. 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. 

4. 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. 

Page 48 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
Appendix IV: Comments from the Environmental Protection Appendix IVAgency: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Page 49 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
Appendix V: Comments from the Department Appendix V of Agriculture : Comments from the Department 

of Agriculture 

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear at 

the end of this appendix. 

See comment 1. 

Page 50 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Agriculture 

Page 51 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Agriculture 

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Agriculture’s 

letter dated May 1, 2008.

1. 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. 

GAO Comment 

Page 52 GAO-08-594 Offshore Marine Aquaculture
Appendix VI: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 53 GAO-08-594 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Anu K. Mittal, Director, (202) 512-9846, or mittala@gao.gov

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 SteelLowney; Shana Wallace; and Monica L. Wolford, made significant 

contributions to this report. 

Offshore Marine Aquaculture

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(360830) 
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. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (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 www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

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, DC 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER