Offshore Marine Aquaculture: Multiple Administrative and Environmental Issues Need to Be Addressed in Establishing a U.S. Regulatory Framework
Published: 2008-05-09T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In developing a regulatory framework for offshore aquaculture, it is important to consider a wide array of issues, which can be grouped into four main areas. (1) Program administration: Addressing the administration of an offshore program at the federal level is an important aspect of a regulatory framework. Stakeholders that GAO contacted and key studies that GAO reviewed identified specific roles and responsibilities for federal agencies, states, and regional fishery management councils. Most stakeholders and the studies agreed that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should be the lead federal agency and emphasized that coordination with other federal agencies will also be important. In addition, stakeholders and some of the studies recommended that the states play an important role in the development and implementation of an offshore aquaculture program. (2) Permitting and site selection: It will also be important to establish a regulatory process that clearly identifies where aquaculture facilities can be located and for how long. For example, many stakeholders stated that offshore facilities will need the legal right, through a permit or lease, to occupy an area of the ocean. However, stakeholders varied on the specific terms of the permits or leases, including their duration. Some stakeholders said that longer permits could make it easier for investors to recoup their investments, while others said that shorter ones could facilitate closer scrutiny of environmental impacts. This variability is also reflected in the approaches taken by states that regulate aquaculture in their waters. One state issues 20-year leases while another issues shorter leases. Stakeholders supported various approaches for siting offshore facilities, such as case-by-case site evaluations and prepermitting some locations. (3) Environmental management: A process to assess and mitigate the environmental impacts of offshore operations is another important aspect of a regulatory framework. For example, many stakeholders told GAO of the value of reviewing the potential cumulative environmental impacts of offshore operations over a broad ocean area before any facilities are sited. About half of them said that a facility-by-facility environmental review should also be required. Two states currently require facility-level reviews for operations in state waters. In addition, stakeholders, key studies, and state regulators generally supported an adaptive monitoring approach to ensure flexibility in monitoring changing environmental conditions. Other important areas to address include policies to mitigate the potential impacts of escaped fish and to remediate environmental damage. (4) Research: Finally, a regulatory framework needs to include a federal research component to help fill current gaps in knowledge about offshore aquaculture. For example, stakeholders supported federally funded research on developing (1) alternative fish feeds, (2) best management practices to minimize environmental impacts, (3) data on how escaped aquaculture fish might impact wild fisheries, and (4) strategies to breed and raise fish while effectively managing disease. A few researchers said that the current process of funding research for aquaculture is not adequate because the research grants are funded over periods that are too short to accommodate certain types of research, such as hatchery research and offshore demonstration projects.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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. Generally, U.S. aquaculture  takes place in nearshore marine waters or onshore—such as in ponds or  tanks—that fall under the jurisdiction of individual states. Offshore marine  aquaculture, which involves raising fish in cages and shellfish attached to  underwater ropes in open-ocean federal waters, has the potential to  increase U.S. aquaculture production. A move to offshore operations  would mean that aquaculture facilities would be sited in federally  regulated waters that generally extend from 3 to 200 nautical miles from  the U.S. coast. To date, no offshore aquaculture operations exist in U.S.  federal waters. However, a few small-scale commercial and research  operations are ongoing in state or territorial waters in Hawaii, New  Hampshire, and Puerto Rico, which have conditions similar to the offshore  environment such as deep water, rapid currents, and large waves.
With some recent advances in offshore aquaculture technologies and the  existence of some open-ocean commercial and research operations in  state waters, the aquaculture industry is increasingly interested in  expanding to offshore areas. Proponents of offshore aquaculture have  argued that it can increase production, while potentially alleviating some  of the environmental concerns that have been associated with aquaculture  in nearshore areas. For example, nutrients from nearshore aquaculture  facilities have, in some cases, decreased the diversity of organisms living  in and on the ocean floor—known as the benthic community. Some have  suggested that faster currents and deeper waters in offshore areas will  disperse these nutrients before they can be deposited on the ocean floor.  However, others believe that significant environmental concerns remain  and should be addressed before the United States authorizes an offshore  aquaculture program. For example, fish may escape from an aquaculture  facility, whether nearshore or offshore, and interbreed with wild fish,  potentially reducing the ability of wild fish to survive. In addition, several  nearshore aquaculture facilities have faced challenges in keeping  aquaculture-raised fish free from diseases, and offshore facilities could  face similar challenges as well. Also, diseases can be transmitted between  aquaculture and wild populations, potentially harming both. 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. In addition, the  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) issues permits for structures in  navigable waters, such as aquaculture net pens where fish are raised, to  ensure that navigation is not impeded. Similarly, the Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA) issues permits to limit the release of pollutants  from aquaculture facilities into U.S. waters.
This complex structure of federal responsibilities for offshore aquaculture  has led aquaculture researchers, regulators, those who operate  aquaculture facilities (aquaculturists), and environmentalists to advocate  for a coordinated approach to regulating offshore aquaculture in the  United States. In 2005 and 2007, the administration developed legislative  proposals to provide a new regulatory framework for offshore  aquaculture. 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. These key studies—by the Marine Aquaculture Task Force, the  University of Delaware, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, and the  Pew Oceans Commission—brought together ocean policy stakeholders to  examine, among other things, potential regulatory frameworks for  offshore aquaculture. Throughout the report, we cite those studies that  reached similar conclusions or made similar recommendations on  particular policy issues. If a study is not cited for a particular policy issue,  it is because the study did not address that issue. If a study is not cited for  a particular policy issue, that study did not address the policy issue. We  also visited the states with active nearshore fish aquaculture industries— Hawaii, Maine, and Washington—and met with state and federal regulators  to discuss state regulatory frameworks. In addition, we spoke with other  relevant federal agency officials; representatives from six of the eight  regional fishery management councils; and state officials in California,  Florida, and Texas, where new marine aquaculture policies are under  development.
Based on this information, we developed a questionnaire to assess the  level of support for various regulatory policy options. We administered the  questionnaire to, and conducted follow-up structured interviews with, a  variety of aquaculture stakeholders, including key federal and coastal state  officials; representatives from the commercial fishing industry,  aquaculture industry, and environmental groups; and aquaculture  researchers. We selected these stakeholders because of their knowledge of  aquaculture issues and to ensure broad representation across government,  industry, and the environmental and academic sectors, as well as broad  geographic representation throughout the United States. We sent  questionnaires to 28 stakeholders and received responses from 25. For  purposes of characterizing the results from our questionnaire and follow- up interviews of our 25 stakeholders, we identified specific meanings for  the words we used to quantify the results, as follows: “a few” means at  least three, and up to five stakeholders; “some” means between 6 and 11  stakeholders; “about half” means 12 to 14 stakeholders; “a majority” of  stakeholders and “many” stakeholders both mean 15 to 19 stakeholders;  and “most” means 20 stakeholders or more. We conducted this  performance audit from April 2007 to May 2008 in accordance with  generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards  require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate  evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objective. We believe that the evidence obtained  provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our  audit objective.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Globally, aquaculture production has grown significantly over the past   50 years, from less than 1.1 million tons around 1950 to about 65.5 million  tons in 2004. A majority of global aquaculture fish and shellfish are raised  in a freshwater environment and species raised in a marine environment  make up about 36 percent of aquaculture production. Marine aquaculture  is dominated by high-value fish, such as salmon. Many countries are  producing marine fish, though a NOAA official indicated that most  production is occurring in shallow, sheltered areas relatively close to  shore. A few countries, such as Ireland, have expressed interest in or are  developing policy frameworks to regulate offshore aquaculture in the open  ocean. To date, however, a NOAA official said that no countries have  substantial offshore aquaculture industries with facilities sited in open- ocean environments.
The United States’ aquaculture industry includes both onshore and  nearshore operations and produces both fish, such as salmon and catfish,  and shellfish, such as oysters. Onshore aquaculture facilities are primarily  involved in raising freshwater species, such as catfish. Marine aquaculture  facilities in the United States are generally located in waters close to shore  and in sheltered conditions, and they most frequently raise oysters,  mussels, clams, and salmon. The salmon aquaculture industry in the  United States is concentrated in Maine and Washington, although the  industry is relatively small compared with the global salmon aquaculture  industry, accounting for less than 1 percent of the world’s production.
During the last 10 years, four small-scale aquaculture facilities began  nearshore open-ocean operations in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and New  Hampshire, in conditions similar to those found offshore. All four facilities  grow fish species native to their regions, such as moi and kahala in Hawaii,  cobia in Puerto Rico, and cod and halibut in New Hampshire. The New  Hampshire project also grows mussels. These open-ocean facilities and  similar facilities that may be established in an offshore environment  require technology that differs from what is generally needed by nearshore  facilities. For example, open-ocean facilities need stronger cages and  anchors that can withstand the strong currents and storms that are  prevalent offshore. Furthermore, offshore aquaculture will face challenges  such as inclement weather, which may prevent offshore aquaculturists  from accessing cages due to their location far from shore and could delay  essential activities such as feeding.
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, but that these changes were  within the allowable limits of the facility’s National Pollutant Discharge  Elimination System (NPDES) permit. 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.
Multiple federal agencies, including NOAA, the Corps, EPA, and USDA,  have regulatory authorities relevant to various aspects of offshore  aquaculture operations (see table 1).
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.
In addition to agency-specific responsibilities and authorities, all federal  agencies are required to comply with the National Environmental Policy  Act (NEPA). Under NEPA, agencies evaluate the likely environmental  effects of projects that could significantly affect the environment. For  example, permits for aquaculture facilities or oil platforms might  necessitate such a review. An agency may also elect to prepare a  programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS). A PEIS could  either be prepared to help develop regulations for an industry by  evaluating its potential for environmental, social, and economic impacts or  to evaluate proposed actions sharing geographic and programmatic  similarities after regulations have been established, such as siting a  number of aquaculture facilities in the same general location that plan to  raise the same species.
If an offshore aquaculture industry develops, a variety of individuals and  organizations will have a stake in how the industry is regulated and how it  affects the environment. Specifically, federal agencies would be  stakeholders because they would regulate the offshore aquaculture  industry, or guide and fund public research on offshore aquaculture.  Coastal states would be stakeholders because an offshore aquaculture  industry could potentially have impacts on natural resources in their state  waters and provide economic benefits to coastal communities. The  commercial fishing industry would be a stakeholder both because it may  have to share ocean space with aquaculturists, and the offshore  aquaculture industry could affect the environment that supports wild fish  populations. The aquaculture industry would be a stakeholder because it is  interested in developing offshore facilities. Environmental groups would  be stakeholders because they are interested in protecting marine  resources, and the offshore aquaculture industry could affect those  resources. Finally, researchers would be stakeholders because they are  technical experts and want to ensure proper application of scientific  knowledge.
Over the last 5 years, four key studies have been conducted with  stakeholder input that examined, among other things, potential regulatory  frameworks for offshore aquaculture. These four key studies are as  follows:    The Marine Aquaculture Task Force study was developed by a group of  scientists, legal scholars, aquaculturists, and policy experts who sought to  gather information about aquaculture and its positive and negative effects.  The Marine Aquaculture Task Force’s approach to gathering such  information included meeting with aquaculturists, marine scientists,  fishermen, public officials, and others in regional meetings in the states of  Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Washington.
The University of Delaware study was prepared by an interdisciplinary  team with backgrounds in marine policy, law, industry, state government,  environmental protection, and marine science. This study made  recommendations for developing a comprehensive regulatory framework  for sustainable offshore aquaculture in the United States based on  information from literature reviews and consultations with stakeholders  through national and regional workshops throughout the United States.
The Pew Oceans Commission study was developed by a bipartisan,  independent group to identify policies and practices necessary to restore  and protect living marine resources in U.S. waters and the ocean and  coastal habitats on which they depend. The Pew Commission brought  together a diverse group of American leaders from the worlds of science,  fishing, conservation, government, education, business, and philanthropy.  The Pew Commission conducted a national dialogue on ocean issues by  convening a series of 15 regional meetings, public hearings, and  workshops to listen to those who live and work along the coasts.
The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy study, which was required by the  Oceans Act of 2000, established findings and developed recommendations  for a coordinated and comprehensive national ocean policy. 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.
section_title: It Is Important to Consider Many Issues in Four Key Areas When Developing a Regulatory Framework for Offshore Aquaculture
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Key Program Administration Issues
paragraphs: Aquaculture stakeholders that we contacted and key studies that we  reviewed identified specific roles and responsibilities for federal agencies,  states, and regional fishery management councils. Specifically, most  stakeholders and all four studies we reviewed agreed that NOAA should be  the lead federal agency for offshore aquaculture and emphasized that  coordination with other federal agencies will be important. Moreover, the  majority of stakeholders we contacted said NOAA should be the lead  agency for research on offshore aquaculture, although stakeholders were  evenly divided about whether NOAA or USDA should be responsible for  promoting or supporting the offshore aquaculture industry. In addition,  stakeholders and three of the key studies we reviewed recommended that  states be involved in the development and implementation of a regulatory  framework for offshore aquaculture. 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.
subsections: section_title: Roles and Responsibilities of Federal Agencies
paragraphs: Most stakeholders that we contacted and the four key studies that we  reviewed agreed that NOAA should be the lead federal agency for offshore  aquaculture, both to manage a new permitting or leasing program for  aquaculture in federal waters and to coordinate federal responsibilities for  offshore aquaculture. About half of the stakeholders said they supported  NOAA as the lead offshore aquaculture agency because of its experience  managing ocean resources. One study, conducted by the University of  Delaware, also stated that NOAA was the best choice for a lead agency  because of its extensive expertise and knowledge of marine science and  policy. However, a few stakeholders we spoke with who did not agree that  NOAA should be the lead agency said that other agencies, such as USDA  or the Corps, would be better equipped to serve as the lead agency. Two of  the stakeholders who supported USDA explained that since aquaculture is  ultimately an agricultural activity, USDA would be best able to effectively  regulate the industry and coordinate with other agencies. One stakeholder,  who supported the Corps as the lead agency, said that since the Corps is  currently the de facto lead federal agency for aquaculture permitting in  state waters, the Corps should also assume that role for offshore  aquaculture in federal waters.
Most stakeholders, and the University of Delaware study, stated that it was  important for NOAA to develop formal agreements, such as regulations or  memorandums of understanding, with other federal agencies to define the  responsibilities, authorities, and procedures for regulating offshore  aquaculture. Some stakeholders also suggested that close coordination  with agencies will allow NOAA to draw on each agency’s expertise when  developing regulations or making permitting decisions. For instance, one  stakeholder said that EPA has expertise in protecting marine water quality  in state waters, and the offshore aquaculture program could draw on that  experience to protect water quality in federal waters. Another stakeholder  suggested that since aquaculture is a food production business, close  coordination with USDA could draw on USDA’s experience in developing  food production industries. The administration’s 2007 legislative proposal  for offshore aquaculture requires that the Department of Commerce  consult with other federal agencies, as appropriate, while developing  regulations for an offshore aquaculture program.
Despite strong support for NOAA as the lead agency for offshore  aquaculture, stakeholders were about evenly divided on whether those  responsibilities should be assigned to a new NOAA office or an existing  NOAA office. One stakeholder who supported creating a new office in  NOAA said that existing offices currently focus on the conservation of  marine resources and that aquaculture is a fundamentally different  enterprise meriting a separate office that can focus on developing the  aquaculture industry. The studies conducted by the University of Delaware  and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy also suggested that a new office  be created to manage the offshore aquaculture program. Of the  stakeholders who said that an existing office should manage the offshore  aquaculture program, a few mentioned that this would keep NOAA small  and streamlined.
A majority of stakeholders also said that NOAA should be responsible for  managing federal research related to offshore aquaculture, including  funding marine aquaculture research and the development of offshore  aquaculture technologies. A few stakeholders emphasized that NOAA  should coordinate on both research and technology development with  other agencies, particularly USDA. Stakeholders who did not support  NOAA as the lead agency for technology development generally supported  USDA or said that the federal government should not support technology  development at all. One stakeholder supported USDA because he said it  has a superior record in developing aquaculture technology for both  freshwater and marine aquaculture. Another stakeholder emphasized that  he did not support government funding for offshore aquaculture  technology development because funding should come from the  aquaculture industry, particularly for any technologies needed to comply  with environmental regulations.
Stakeholders were also about evenly divided on whether NOAA or USDA  should be responsible for promoting and supporting the offshore  aquaculture industry, though a few stakeholders did not think this was a  role for the federal government. One stakeholder who said that NOAA  should promote the offshore aquaculture industry suggested that NOAA  should restructure its mission to support not just offshore aquaculture but  the production of sustainable seafood from wild fisheries, as well as  offshore aquaculture. Another stakeholder said that USDA is the logical  choice to promote and support the offshore aquaculture industry because  it has experience marketing agricultural products. In contrast, a few  stakeholders said that promotion or support of the offshore aquaculture  industry is not a role for the federal government. One stakeholder objected  to government promotion of offshore aquaculture because it amounts to  the government promoting one industry over another, for instance,  promoting offshore aquaculture at the expense of other types of  aquaculture, such as nearshore shellfish aquaculture.
Finally, stakeholders expressed concern over having one agency, such as  NOAA, be responsible for both regulating and promoting the offshore  aquaculture industry because of the potential conflict of interest between  those two responsibilities. One stakeholder suggested that NOAA regulate  the industry and develop offshore aquaculture technologies and that USDA  focus on promoting offshore aquaculture. In this context, at the state level,  Maine, Hawaii, and Washington have each separated their regulatory and  promotion agencies. Despite Hawaii’s and Maine’s separation of these  responsibilities, officials from both states said that agencies have the  ability to balance these competing responsibilities. In fact, one state  official in Hawaii stated that keeping promotion and regulatory  responsibilities together can allow officials to share expertise, thereby  increasing efficiency and resulting in cost savings. A NOAA official said  that NOAA’s mission is to enable marine aquaculture, with appropriate  environmental safeguards, and that the agency has consistently balanced  its missions of enabling and regulating other industries.
section_title: Roles and Responsibilities of States
paragraphs: Three of the key studies we reviewed recommended that states be  involved in the development and implementation of a regulatory  framework for offshore aquaculture. For instance, the U.S. Commission  on Ocean Policy recommended that any proposed federal permitting and  leasing program be coordinated with aquaculture-related regulations  developed at the state level to provide regulatory consistency to the  industry and manage potential environmental impacts that cross  jurisdictional lines, such as the spread of disease. The administration’s  2007 legislative proposal for offshore aquaculture requires coordination  with coastal states during the process of establishing regulations for  offshore aquaculture.
In addition, a majority of stakeholders supported a policy that would allow  states to opt out of the offshore aquaculture program. If a state chose to  opt out, it would be refusing to allow any offshore aquaculture to take  place in the federal waters adjacent to its state waters. Of those who  supported an opt-out provision, a majority said that states should be able  to opt out of fish aquaculture anywhere in the 200 miles of federal waters  directly offshore from their state waters. A few stakeholders stated that  the opt-out provision should apply only within a certain distance from  shore—ranging from 5 to 12 miles. The administration’s 2007 legislative  proposal for offshore aquaculture includes a provision that would allow a  state to opt out of offshore aquaculture within 12 miles of its coast. NOAA  officials explained that the agency’s decision to limit the opt-out provision  to 12 miles was a policy decision that balanced the need to give states a  reasonable buffer zone and the difficulty of identifying boundaries  between states out to 200 miles in the exclusive economic zone. For  example, while it is relatively clear where the boundaries of Alaska’s state  line would be when extended out to 200 miles, state boundaries on the  New England coast overlap extensively, even relatively close to shore.
Stakeholders who supported providing the states the ability to opt out did  so for various reasons. A few stakeholders said they supported an opt-out  provision because offshore aquaculture could still affect a state’s natural  resources. For example, escaped fish could travel into state waters and  spawn, potentially interbreeding with wild fish populations in state waters,  which could reduce the ability of wild fish to survive. Three stakeholders  said that this provision is necessary for political reasons—that without the  ability for states to opt out, it would be difficult to garner enough support  to enact offshore aquaculture legislation. Stakeholders who opposed the  state opt-out provision also listed various reasons. A few stakeholders  argued that states should not make decisions about the use of federal  resources, and one stakeholder said that allowing states to opt out is  contrary to a nationally stated goal of increasing domestic seafood  production. Other stakeholders proposed more flexible opt-out policies.  For instance, one stakeholder supported a policy that would allow states  to selectively opt out of particular locations, rather than opting out of  offshore aquaculture entirely. In addition, a few stakeholders mentioned  using an “opt-in” policy, in which states would need to declare their  support for offshore aquaculture before any facilities could be located in  the waters adjacent to their coasts.
Regardless of how the opt-out provision is applied, the majority of  stakeholders agreed that states that participate in the offshore aquaculture  program should not have the ability to veto individual offshore  aquaculture projects. One stakeholder was concerned that, if states were  allowed to veto individual offshore aquaculture projects, then this would  prevent offshore aquaculture development since few businesses would be  interested in investing time and money in obtaining federal approvals if a  state could ultimately veto a federal decision. A few stakeholders who  opposed veto authority for states explained that, since offshore  aquaculture would be in waters under federal jurisdiction, states should  not be allowed to overrule federal decisions.
Stakeholders who supported giving states veto authority said that offshore  aquaculture could affect states’ natural resources. For instance, disease  could spread from fish in offshore facilities to fish in state waters requiring  state and federal regulators to coordinate closely to manage the disease. A  few stakeholders, including NOAA, said that states could use the Coastal  Zone Management Act—rather than veto authority—to challenge offshore  aquaculture proposals. For instance, a state could determine that a  proposed offshore aquaculture facility was inconsistent with the state’s  coastal zone management plan. According to NOAA officials, a state could  only make this determination if the proposed offshore aquaculture facility  would clearly violate provisions of the state’s coastal zone management  plan. In addition, one stakeholder was concerned that states would not be  assured of preventing proposals they objected to, since the Secretary of  Commerce has the authority to override states’ objections under certain  circumstances.
Finally, although the majority of stakeholders did not support veto  authority for states participating in the program, most stakeholders said  that states should have the opportunity to provide input regarding  proposed offshore aquaculture facilities, such as comments on potential  environmental impacts or proposed facility locations. Three of the key  studies we reviewed also recommended that states have the opportunity to  comment on proposed facilities. 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.
section_title: Roles and Responsibilities of Regional Fishery Management Councils
paragraphs: 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. Most stakeholders also agreed  that councils should not have veto authority for proposed projects within  their regions. Some stakeholders did not support a veto for councils  because they believed the councils are dominated by wild fishery interests  and might veto projects simply to avoid any potential competition in their  markets. In contrast, representatives from two councils wanted more  direct authorities, such as the ability to approve or deny proposed offshore  aquaculture projects. For example, a representative from the Western  Pacific council said that councils should have this additional authority  because councils are best positioned to address region-specific issues that  may not be considered in a nationwide top-down permitting process.
Most stakeholders also agreed that offshore aquaculture should not be  subject to some of the regulations that are currently used to manage wild  fisheries under fishery management plans, including restrictions on season  of harvest, size of the fish that may be harvested, and the method that may  be used to harvest fish. Because offshore aquaculture is considered fishing  under Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the  councils could impose these types of restrictions on offshore aquaculture  operations. 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. 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.
section_title: Establishing the Terms and Conditions, and Selecting Appropriate Sites, for Offshore Aquaculture
paragraphs: 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. 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.
subsections: section_title: Permits or Leases
paragraphs: 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. Specifically, NOAA officials stated that, under  customary international law, it is well established that the United States  has exclusive rights to regulate economic activities, such as fishing and  aquaculture, in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone, which generally  extends from 3 to 200 miles from shore. While this jurisdiction and  authority do not include any proprietary rights for waters or submerged  lands beyond the territorial sea, NOAA officials stated that other types of  permits issued by NOAA have provided the security of tenure—the right to  occupy an area of the ocean—necessary for obtaining financing, or selling  the permits.
However, when questioned on the most appropriate vehicles for  authorizing an offshore aquaculture program, the majority of stakeholders  told us that an offshore aquaculture program should include both permits  and leases. Some stakeholders articulated distinct and important benefits  for both permits and leases. For example, a few stakeholders said permits  should have shorter time frames to ensure compliance with regulations  and best management practices while leases should grant a long-term right  to occupy a given area of the ocean to encourage investment. One  stakeholder said that investors may be less receptive to permits as a  mechanism for assigning the legal right to occupy an area of the ocean  because they perceive permits to grant fewer legal rights. However, others  stated that either a permit or lease could be used to secure legal rights  and, thereby, encourage financial investment. For instance, two  stakeholders said that whether one identifies a document as a permit or a  lease is unimportant as long as the document provides legal rights to the  area.
Stakeholders also expressed a range of opinions on the specific types of  permits or leases that should be issued. Most stakeholders supported  issuing both commercial and research permits or leases. For example, one  stakeholder stressed the importance of research permits or leases for  further developing a commercially viable offshore aquaculture industry. In  addition, many stakeholders supported issuing emergency permits or  leases that allow facility relocation in the case of natural events such as  hurricanes or red tides, but NOAA did not support this approach. A NOAA  official told us that emergency permits or leases are not necessary because  offshore aquaculture facilities would be difficult to move and, therefore,  aquaculturists would be unlikely to take advantage of such a permit or  lease. NOAA officials emphasized, however, that there are other ways,  besides emergency permits or leases, of addressing emergencies, such as  modifying the terms of an existing permit to allow facilities to relocate. In  addition, stakeholders expressed differing opinions about whether to  allow short-term permits or leases to allow an aquaculturist to test the  feasibility of a proposed offshore aquaculture facility. For example, one  stakeholder questioned the utility of short-term permits or leases because  the costs associated with offshore aquaculture make it impractical to  operate facilities for a short period of time. Two others were concerned  that either emergency or short-term permits or leases could be used to  circumvent permitting requirements associated with longer term  commercial permits or leases.
Stakeholders’ opinions also varied on the appropriate length for  commercial permits or leases, with some stakeholders supporting time  frames of approximately 20 years and others supporting shorter terms  such as 10 years. Some stakeholders stressed the need for longer permits  or leases to allow time for the operation to become profitable. The states  we visited have taken varying approaches on this issue. For example,  while Maine issues 10-year leases to facilities in nearshore state waters, a  state official recognized that an offshore facility would require a larger  investment and, therefore, need a longer term permit or lease to recoup  initial investments. Hawaii issued 20-year leases to its two existing  nearshore open-ocean aquaculture facilities. Conversely, a state official  from Washington supported shorter permit or lease lengths because  offshore aquaculture is new and, therefore, the full impacts on the  environment are unknown. Similarly, a few stakeholders we spoke with  did not support longer terms out of concern that permits or leases would  be difficult to revoke midterm in cases of environmental damage or  stressed that if permits had longer terms, then regulators should be able to  revoke permits early if such damage were to occur. The administration’s  2007 legislative proposal for offshore aquaculture would authorize permits  for 20-year terms and includes language allowing the suspension or  revocation of a permit.
Regardless of their opinions on permit or lease terms, the majority of  stakeholders supported public involvement during the permitting or  leasing process. Most stakeholders indicated that the public should have  the opportunity to both comment for the record and present evidence at  public hearings associated with permitting or leasing decisions. Some  stakeholders noted that because facilities will be located in public waters,  a permitting or leasing process requires transparency and public input.  However, a few stakeholders who supported public participation also  expressed concern that some public comments and hearing testimony  could be misinformed or unnecessarily stall the decision-making process.  Based on their experience with this issue, state regulators and others that  we spoke to in Hawaii and Maine also supported public involvement. For  example, a key regulator, researchers, and aquaculturists involved with  existing aquaculture facilities in Hawaii’s state waters identified public  involvement as key to a successful and transparent permitting process. In  Hawaii, the main permitting process authorizing aquaculture operations  requires public hearings as part of its approval process. Both  aquaculturists and researchers in Hawaii said that the public involvement  process ultimately decreases opposition to proposals because applicants  can modify their plans in response to public comments or alleviate public  concerns by providing more comprehensive information about the  proposal. For example, one aquaculturist adjusted the site and  specifications of his operation in response to requests made during a  public hearing. Similarly, state regulators in Maine also stressed the  importance of public involvement in their states’ permitting and leasing  approval process. Maine requires a public scoping meeting before an  aquaculturist may submit an aquaculture application. Officials have found  this early dialogue between the aquaculturists and the public useful in  resolving concerns while the details of the proposed facility are still under  development.
section_title: Site Selection
paragraphs: Developing a process to approve aquaculture facility locations is an  important component of regulating offshore aquaculture according to  federal regulators, environmentalists, and researchers. For instance,  NOAA officials in Hawaii emphasized that siting aquaculture facilities  away from areas known to have high concentrations of marine mammals  could reduce the likelihood that aquaculture facilities would adversely  affect these animals. In Maine, some environmental groups also advocated  siting aquaculture facilities outside known fish migration corridors to  reduce the interactions between aquaculture-raised and wild fish, thereby  reducing the likelihood that disease will be passed from aquaculture-raised  to wild populations.
Although the majority of stakeholders we contacted supported a variety of  approaches that federal regulatory agencies could use to approve  aquaculture facility sites, there was a lack of consensus on any one  approach. These approaches include (1) determining whether a site is  appropriate on a case-by-case basis, (2) prepermitting locations by  approving sites independently of and prior to submitting individual facility  applications, (3) zoning ocean areas to identify both appropriate areas for  offshore aquaculture and prohibited areas, and (4) developing aquaculture  parks containing multiple facilities in areas that are unlikely to result in  conflicts between aquaculture facilities and other ocean uses and have  optimum access to land-based aquaculture services.
Those stakeholders who supported using a case-by-case site selection  strategy agreed that regulators should assess the appropriateness of a  specific site. One stakeholder who supported the approach stated that  aquaculturists are most likely to know which locations best fit their  planned operations and type of species and, therefore, should be the ones  to propose aquaculture facility site locations. Two other stakeholders  noted that this approach is advantageous during the early stages of  offshore aquaculture development because it requires only knowledge  about proposed facility sites rather than a wide variety of potential sites.  However, a few stakeholders also criticized the case-by-case approach,  saying that it could create additional costs for applicants or lengthen the  permitting process. In addition, according to a few stakeholders, this  approach would create a less standardized process for approving facilities  than other approaches would. Another stakeholder expressed concern  that the case-by-case approach would not allow regulators to collectively  assess the cumulative impacts of several sites located near one another  because they would be assessed individually. Currently at the state level,  Hawaii, Maine, and Washington all use the case-by-case approach for  approving sites within their state waters. For example, in Hawaii,  regulators consider the impacts of a proposed site on marine mammals  and ocean users, such as native Hawaiian fishermen, among other things,  when deciding whether to approve a facility site.
Those stakeholders who supported a prepermitting site selection strategy  agreed that regulators should assess the suitability of a location for  aquaculture before, and independently of, individual aquaculture  applications. In this context, the University of Delaware study describes  prepermitting as the process of establishing appropriate areas for offshore  aquaculture by conducting environmental assessments of potential sites;  creating a master plan for siting in the area; determining which  aquaculture techniques and projects are appropriate for that area; creating  a general permit authorizing use of the area, approved by other regulatory  agencies; and, ultimately, issuing individual permits for occupying the  area. A few stakeholders told us that prepermitting would make site  approval more predictable and consistent, and another said that it would  allow for cumulative environmental review of multiple projects. However,  certain stakeholders who supported a prepermitted approach noted that  establishing such a system will be time consuming and, therefore, not  feasible in the short term. A few stakeholders were opposed to using  prepermitted site selection. Two of these stakeholders questioned the  appropriateness of making regulatory agencies responsible for selecting  facility locations, stating that this approach may not identify the most  viable sites. Furthermore, a stakeholder who did support prepermitting  still noted that permit holders may unreasonably expect a prepermitted  location to produce high yields and blame regulators if this does not occur.
Those stakeholders who supported a zoning approach to site selection  agreed that regulators should use a process in which government agencies  would designate allowable uses—both aquaculture-related and others— for various ocean areas. However, stakeholders expressed many of the  same concerns about a zoning approach as they did about a prepermitting  approach. For example, a few stakeholders were wary of allowing  regulatory agencies to select sites that may ultimately be unsuccessful.  Among these stakeholders was a state regulator in Florida, a state which  initially created aquaculture zones in their state waters but later shifted to  a case-by-case site-selection approach because it allowed them to better  identify appropriate sites for specific aquaculture operations. While a few  stakeholders considered aspects of zoning and prepermitting approaches  to be similar, others distinguished zoning as being a more far-reaching  approach than prepermitting. Similarly, a few stakeholders supported  zoning as a method to systematically manage the ocean ecosystem and  identify appropriate sites. Alternatively, two stakeholders expressed  concerns about the technical feasibility of zoning the ocean because the  process would be too time consuming due to the extensive information  needed about appropriate uses for broad areas of the ocean. In addition,  Hawaii state officials responsible for developing Hawaii’s aquaculture  industry expressed concerns about zoning. They said that the extensive  work necessary for zoning federal waters would unnecessarily delay  offshore aquaculture development.
Stakeholders we contacted were less supportive of establishing  aquaculture parks compared with the other approaches to site selection.  According to the University of Delaware study, aquaculture parks could be  designed to provide adequate space for aquaculture operations in an area  environmentally suited to the operations, with minimal user conflicts and  access to land and coastal services. Aquaculture parks could be managed  by a private-sector entity, a government agency, or a public-private  partnership. Like the prepermitting site selection approach, a few  proponents of aquaculture parks said the approach made the permitting  process more predictable, while another stakeholder was concerned that  this approach involved regulators too heavily in the site selection process.  In addition, stakeholders identified issues unique to aquaculture parks.  One stakeholder said that parks could allow greater business efficiencies  by consolidating necessary aquaculture infrastructure and supplies like  dock facilities and fuel into one area, but others were concerned that  offshore aquaculture facilities would be located too close to one another.  They asserted that concentrating offshore aquaculture facilities within the  confines of aquaculture parks would not be in the best interest of  aquaculturists and could also lead to increased environmental impacts.
section_title: Key Environmental Management Issues
paragraphs: Most stakeholders we contacted supported an environmental review of the  potential impacts of offshore aquaculture facilities before any facilities are  sited, which can help agencies approve facilities in areas less likely to  suffer ecological harm. In addition, stakeholders generally supported  monitoring environmental conditions at offshore aquaculture facilities  once they begin operations. Most stakeholders supported an adaptive  approach to monitoring that would alter monitoring requirements over  time to focus on the measures demonstrated to be the most appropriate  for tracking changes to the environment. Stakeholders also generally  supported conducting regular inspections of offshore aquaculture  facilities. However, stakeholders did not always agree on how to mitigate  the potential environmental impacts of escaped aquaculture-raised fish,  including restrictions on the types of fish that could be raised in offshore  cages, whether fish should be marked or tagged, and whether facilities  should be required to develop plans outlining how they would respond to  fish escapes.
subsections: section_title: Reviewing Potential Environmental Impacts
paragraphs: Most stakeholders we contacted generally supported an environmental  review prior to offshore aquaculture facilities’ beginning operations to  ensure that these facilities are established in areas less likely to suffer  ecological harm. For instance, a majority of stakeholders recognized the  value of reviewing the potential environmental impacts of offshore  aquaculture over a broad ocean area before any aquaculture facilities are  sited—which involves preparing a PEIS. But these stakeholders also  articulated different views on the goal of a PEIS for offshore aquaculture.  While some stakeholders emphasized that a PEIS should examine the  potential environmental impacts of an offshore aquaculture industry, other  stakeholders noted that a PEIS would be most useful if it reduced the need  for facility-specific environmental reviews. While the administration’s 2007  legislative proposal requires NOAA to conduct a PEIS, it does not specify  exactly what the PEIS should include. In this context, in 2006, California  enacted a law to allow fish aquaculture facilities in state marine waters,  which requires the state to conduct a review similar to a PEIS. The law  requires the review to consider, at a minimum, 10 factors, such as:  appropriate areas for siting aquaculture facilities; the effects of  aquaculture on ocean and coastal habitats, marine ecosystems, and  commercial and recreational fishing; and the potential environmental  impacts of escaped fish, medications, and the use of fish meal and fish oil.  A few stakeholders said that it is not important for the federal government  to conduct a PEIS for offshore aquaculture. Two of these stakeholders  stated that a PEIS would require a significant amount of data and would  take a very long time, unnecessarily delaying the development of offshore  aquaculture.
While a few stakeholders considered the broad level of review in a PEIS to  be sufficient, about half of the stakeholders we contacted suggested that a  facility-specific environmental review, conducted in accordance with  NEPA, should also be required. About half of the stakeholders who  supported the facility-specific review said that such reviews could  examine site-specific or facility-specific issues that cannot be addressed in  a broader PEIS. In its response to our questionnaire, NOAA indicated that  a facility-specific review is very important and stated that the complexity  of this type of review should reflect the risk level of the project. For  instance, a review of a project that uses technologies, species, and sites  that are well understood could draw on existing documentation, while a  proposal for a project that uses a new species or untested technology may  require a more in-depth review. Of the few stakeholders who supported  only the PEIS, two stakeholders said that if the PEIS was done correctly, a  facility-specific review should not be necessary. One stakeholder  mentioned that requiring a facility-specific review for each proposed  offshore aquaculture facility would be expensive for aquaculturists and  would be a barrier to offshore aquaculture development.
With regard to the states’ approaches for addressing environmental  reviews, we found that Maine and Hawaii both require facility-specific  environmental reviews for proposed aquaculture facilities in their state  waters. Maine requires that applicants collect environmental baseline data  on sediment characteristics; the benthic community; water quality; and  existing uses of the site, such as commercial fishing and recreational  boating. Once an application is submitted, the state also conducts a site  review, which can include conducting video surveys of the area and  gathering water quality information. Hawaii requires a similar level of  detail from its applicants through an environmental assessment process.  Aquaculture industry representatives and state regulators in Hawaii both  told us that they supported Hawaii’s process.
Most stakeholders also stated that considering the potential cumulative  impacts of aquaculture facilities is important when evaluating offshore  aquaculture proposals. Two stakeholders suggested that cumulative  impacts be considered as part of the PEIS process. The University of  Delaware and Marine Aquaculture Task Force studies both recommended  that agencies consider cumulative impacts of offshore aquaculture  facilities during environmental reviews. The administration’s 2007  legislative proposal includes language requiring that a permitting process  address the potential cumulative impacts of offshore aquaculture on  marine ecosystems, human health and safety, other ocean uses, and  coastal communities. In addition, many stakeholders offered suggestions  for mitigating cumulative impacts, including siting facilities far enough  apart that their operations will be less likely to affect one another,  combining multiple kinds of aquaculture—such as fish and shellfish—to  take advantage of shellfish’s ability to remove nutrients from the water  column, and limiting the number of fish within a given cage or area.  An  industry representative also pointed out that it is in the best interest of  aquaculturists to locate their facilities far from one another to avoid being  affected by potential water quality or disease problems from neighboring  facilities.
section_title: Monitoring Environmental Conditions and Inspecting Facilities
paragraphs: Stakeholders generally supported monitoring a variety of potential  environmental impacts of offshore aquaculture facilities once they have  been approved and are operating, though they varied on the types of  monitoring they supported for fish and shellfish aquaculture facilities.  While most stakeholders said it is important to monitor both fish and  shellfish aquaculture facilities for impacts on the benthic community and  disease outbreaks, stakeholders said it is more important to monitor fish  aquaculture facilities than shellfish aquaculture facilities for chemical  levels in the water. In addition, some stakeholders mentioned that  monitoring fish aquaculture facilities for escapes will be very important.
Maine and Washington have developed monitoring programs for their  nearshore aquaculture facilities, which provide examples of how the  federal government could implement the types of monitoring  recommended by stakeholders for offshore aquaculture facilities.  Specifically, we found that these states have developed monitoring  programs—although they vary significantly between states—to address  benthic community, disease, and chemical impacts for nearshore fish  aquaculture facilities. For example, Maine’s general NPDES permit for  salmon aquaculture facilities requires multiple kinds of benthic  community monitoring, including color video or photographic evaluations  of the ocean floor under and around each net pen twice per year and a  detailed analysis of samples of benthic community organisms at least once  every 5 years. In contrast, Washington requires video evaluations under  net pen facilities twice every 5 years but requires detailed analysis of  samples of benthic community organisms only if routine video evaluation  results show that the facility samples exceed the permit requirements.  Maine and Washington also both have regulations to control disease  outbreaks in fish aquaculture facilities. Both states require that an  aquaculturist whose fish test positive for certain diseases notify the state  within 48 hours. Maine and Washington can require a number of mitigation  measures—depending on the severity of the outbreak and the potential for  the disease to impact other aquaculture-raised or wild fish—including  requiring that the infected fish be quarantined, removed, or destroyed.  Finally, if aquaculturists use medications to treat disease, Maine requires  them to monitor the concentration of those medications in benthic  sediments. Washington requires aquaculturists to monitor for antibiotics in  benthic sediments if antibiotic use could pose a threat to human health or  the environment.
Although monitoring was identified as important by stakeholders, state  regulators in Hawaii identified some challenges to monitoring the  nearshore, open-ocean aquaculture facilities in Hawaii state waters.  Specifically, Hawaii state regulators said they do not have the data to  determine whether medications used to treat fish for disease could affect  the marine environment. These officials suggested that EPA could help the  states evaluate these impacts by developing standardized laboratory tests  that could detect medications in the marine environment, as well as by  developing protocols for monitoring such medications. Another  monitoring challenge, according to aquaculturists in Hawaii, is that some  types of monitoring, such as collecting sediment samples beneath the  cages for benthic community analysis, are very difficult to conduct in  open-ocean conditions. Diving for these samples in deep water is  dangerous and, as a result, aquaculturists find it difficult to obtain  insurance coverage for deep water diving.
In addition to supporting specific types of environmental monitoring for  fish and shellfish facilities, most stakeholders also supported using an  adaptive monitoring approach that would allow regulators to change  monitoring requirements over time to focus only on the types of  monitoring demonstrated to be the most appropriate for tracking changes  to the environment. Some stakeholders said that an adaptive monitoring  approach would provide regulators the flexibility to respond to new  information on environmental risks and change monitoring requirements  accordingly. Others mentioned that, since offshore aquaculture is a new  industry, it is difficult to predict the impacts and the monitoring measures  needed beforehand, and so the flexibility of adaptive monitoring would be  appropriate. The University of Delaware study also recommended that  monitoring requirements and regulations be flexible and adaptive to allow  regulators to modify these requirements as warranted by changes in  environmental conditions. Officials in Maine also supported adaptive  monitoring and suggested that regulators need flexibility to adjust  monitoring requirements to ensure that resources are focused on  monitoring the most important measures.
Finally, most stakeholders wanted federal agencies to require inspections  for the security of structures and equipment at the aquaculture site, as well  as for compliance with the terms and conditions of permits, among other  things. The University of Delaware study stated that regulators should  conduct both announced and unannounced inspections. For instance,  announced inspections could be conducted to oversee chemical  treatments of fish or obtain water samples from the cages. Unannounced  inspections could be useful if the permitting agency suspects that the  operator is not meeting permitting conditions.
section_title: Mitigating the Potential Impact of Escaped Fish and Remediating Environmental Damage
paragraphs: 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.
The majority of stakeholders we spoke with supported this policy, often  citing the need to hold aquaculture producers accountable for fish  escapes. In addition, a few stakeholders said that marking or tagging fish  would also allow researchers to gather additional information about the  impacts that escaped fish have on wild populations. Three of the six  regional fishery management council representatives we spoke with said  that marking or tagging aquaculture-raised fish was a good idea. The  council representatives were generally concerned with how aquaculture- raised fish would complicate their efforts to enforce wild fisheries  regulations. For instance, council representatives said that if aquaculture- raised fish are indistinguishable from wild fish, then this increases the  potential for illegally caught wild fish to be passed off as aquaculture- raised fish, undermining wild fisheries enforcement. One NOAA official  and a representative of the Gulf of Mexico council, however, suggested  that a tracking system with a paper trail to follow aquaculture-raised fish  from offshore cages to the marketplace could alleviate some of the  concerns raised by stakeholders. Most stakeholders who opposed marking  or tagging of aquaculture-raised fish did so because they said that this  practice is expensive. A NOAA official opposed requiring marking or  tagging for each offshore aquaculture facility, but noted that if there is a  scientific basis for it because of a high risk of environmental harm from  escapes from a particular aquaculture facility, the agency would support  marking or tagging for that facility.
States have developed marking requirements for fish raised in nearshore  aquaculture facilities that provide examples of how the federal  government could implement marking requirements for fish raised  offshore. Maine and Washington currently require aquaculture-raised  salmon in their marine waters to be marked so as to be distinguishable  from wild populations. For instance, one environmentalist in Maine  explained that wild Atlantic salmon—an endangered species—are highly  adapted to their environments, including the particular river in which they  were hatched. As a result, interbreeding with aquaculture-raised salmon  could change the genetics of the wild population and reduce the ability of  wild Atlantic salmon to survive. In Washington, the marking requirement  stems from a desire to identify aquaculture-raised Atlantic salmon found  spawning in state rivers. British Columbia also has an Atlantic salmon  aquaculture industry. Marking aquaculture-raised fish from Washington  can clarify whether fish are escaping from U.S. aquaculture facilities or  from Canadian ones. Aquaculturists raising fish in Hawaii’s open-ocean  state waters told us that the state does not require them to mark or tag  their fish.
Most stakeholders also supported requiring aquaculturists to develop  plans to address fish escapes from their proposed offshore aquaculture  facilities. NOAA indicated that requiring aquaculturists to submit escape  response plans is very important. The administration’s 2007 legislative  proposal states that environmental requirements must include safeguards  to prevent fish escapes that may cause significant environmental harm.  Most stakeholders also agreed that aquaculturists should be required to  develop emergency response plans in the event that aquaculture  operations need to be temporarily relocated. The University of Delaware  study also supported the development of such plans, which they believe  could also help aquaculturists relocate their facilities in an emergency,  such as if a red tide or large storm system threatened the aquaculture- raised fish.
Most stakeholders also supported a requirement that aquaculturists  provide a financial guarantee, such as a bond, letter of credit, insurance  policy, or trust fund, to cover the cost of removing abandoned aquaculture  facilities. For example, two stakeholders supported this policy because, in  the event that the aquaculturist goes bankrupt, the guarantee prevents the  government from having to pay to remove the facility. Both Maine and  Hawaii use a similar approach for aquaculture in their state waters by  requiring companies to obtain bonds for removing aquaculture facilities  when aquaculture operations cease. In its response to our questionnaire,  NOAA indicated that it supports requiring this type of financial guarantee.
Stakeholder views varied, however, about whether a similar financial  guarantee should be required to remediate environmental damage caused  by an offshore aquaculture operation, with about half of the stakeholders  supporting such a requirement as a necessary and logical accountability  provision. A few stakeholders stated that without a financial guarantee,  any damage caused by a facility would require public funds for  remediation. Other stakeholders objected to requiring a financial  guarantee for remediating environmental damage. Some stakeholders  cited a variety of concerns with bonds for environmental remediation,  such as (1) difficulty proving that the environmental damage was caused  by a particular facility, (2) difficulty quantifying the damage, and (3) that  the cost of providing such a guarantee, particularly if there are no  numerical limits on the total environmental damages that could be  claimed, might hinder offshore aquaculture industry development. One  NOAA official said that requiring a financial guarantee for mitigation of the  benthic habitat in the immediate vicinity of the aquaculture site is practical  but did not agree with a requirement for mitigation of all other  environmental damage.
To address the issue of financial guarantees to cover environmental  damage from aquaculture facilities in state regulated waters, California  recently enacted a marine aquaculture law, which includes a provision  requiring a financial guarantee from companies to cover environmental  damage, but specifies that the extent of environmental damage and related  costs will be determined by the state Fish and Game Commission. An  environmentalist involved in the negotiations surrounding the law  explained that identifying a specific entity—the state Fish and Game  Commission—to determine the extent of environmental damage was a  compromise acceptable to both the aquaculture industry and  environmental groups. Specifically, he said that environmentalists  supported the compromise because it holds aquaculture facilities  accountable for environmental damage, while industry supported it  because it is confident that the Fish and Game Commission will deal with  environmental damage issues fairly. About half of the stakeholders that we  contacted said that they would support a similar provision at the federal  level. Two stakeholders suggested that NOAA could make determinations  about the extent of environmental damage at the federal level since it has  experience assessing impacts on the marine environment. One stakeholder  who did not support a federal government system similar to California’s  feared that the criteria for identifying environmental damage could change  from year to year, thereby increasing the risk of investing in offshore  aquaculture.
section_title: Priorities for Aquaculture Research and Limitations of Current Programs
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Federal Research Priorities
paragraphs: Stakeholders we contacted and the four key studies we reviewed generally  agreed that the federal government should fund aquaculture research to  address gaps in current knowledge. Stakeholders identified four research  areas as particularly appropriate for federal funding. These four research  areas are as follows:    Most stakeholders supported research to help in the development of  alternative fish feeds, citing reasons such as protecting wild species from  overfishing because wild species are currently used as a source of fish  meal and fish oil, and helping to lower industry costs. For example, a  NOAA official noted that the demand for fish feed has increased in recent  years, leading to a steep rise in the price of aquaculture fish feeds. Due to  this price increase, industry representatives and researchers are interested  in developing alternative feeds that cost less.
Most stakeholders also supported federal research that would help  develop best management practices. For example, one stakeholder said  that best management practices are very important because they identify  accepted practices for aquaculturists to follow and provide a method for  agencies to judge whether aquaculture facilities are operating  appropriately.
Most stakeholders supported federally funded research investigating how  escaped aquaculture-raised fish might impact wild fish populations. One  stakeholder supported this research because existing research on escapes  does not focus on the species likely to be raised offshore.
Many stakeholders also supported federal research that would help  develop hatchery technologies to breed and grow the fish that ultimately  populate offshore cages, while effectively managing disease.  Aquaculturists have identified the hatchery stage of aquaculture as  particularly difficult because hatchery fish are susceptible to diseases,  young fish need specially formulated feeds, and breeding fish is complex.
While stakeholders generally identified these areas as priorities, a few  stakeholders also emphasized that federal funding should focus on  research that helps regulate the aquaculture industry or mitigate  environmental impacts. Research into how escaped aquaculture-raised  fish might impact wild fish populations is an example of this type of  research. Other stakeholders, as well as the U.S. Ocean Commission study,  suggested that federal research should also assist aquaculture industry  development. For instance, one stakeholder suggested that the top issue  for government funding should be determining which species will be  commercially viable for offshore aquaculture. Similarly, the stakeholder  noted that developing a species for aquaculture is difficult for the private  sector to do because it is very expensive and would take 10 to 30 years.
section_title: Components and Potential Limitations of the Current Federal Aquaculture Research Program
paragraphs: NOAA and USDA currently support research on marine aquaculture  through, for example, competitive grants. NOAA’s major competitive grant  program for marine aquaculture is the National Marine Aquaculture  Initiative, which funded approximately $4.6 million in projects related to  marine species during the 2006 grant cycle. NOAA also manages funding  for a number of offshore aquaculture-related projects, such as the open- ocean aquaculture demonstration project off the coast of New Hampshire.  Similarly, USDA’s Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension  Service funds external aquaculture research through such vehicles as  competitive grant programs, land grant institutions, and regional  aquaculture centers. In addition, USDA’s Agricultural Research Service  conducts research at its federal science centers and laboratories.
Several researchers, including some whom we interviewed during our site  visits, identified potential limitations of the current federal aquaculture  research programs. Specifically, they said that many of the available  competitive grants are funded over time periods that are too short and at  funding levels too low to accommodate certain types of research. For  example, researchers in Hawaii said that the development of healthy  breeding fish to supply offshore aquaculture operations can require years  of intensive breeding efforts, but that it is difficult to obtain consistent  research funding over this longer time period.
Both USDA and NOAA officials acknowledged that demonstration projects  and other lengthy research projects may be difficult to complete within  current competitive grant time frames. However, they noted that  appropriations for their programs dictate the current length of these  grants. USDA officials identified some programs that could be used for  long-term research, including competitive grants from the agency’s  regional aquaculture centers or the agency’s Agricultural Research Service  internal research projects. The regional aquaculture centers set their own  priorities and funding allocations, which allows centers to focus on long- term offshore aquaculture research if they so choose. For instance, the  regional center in Hawaii has supported research that applies to offshore  aquaculture, but none of the other centers currently support research  specifically related to offshore aquaculture. A USDA official also suggested  that the Agricultural Research Service could support long-term projects if  such projects are identified as priorities in future 5-year plans for  aquaculture research. The Agricultural Research Service uses feedback  from aquaculturists and regulatory agencies, among others, to identify  priorities and develop 5-year plans for aquaculture research. Agricultural  Research Service officials indicated that the current 5-year plan directs  about one-third of the agency’s aquaculture funding to research related to  marine species.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Agriculture, the  Army, and Commerce; and also to the Environmental Protection Agency  for review and comment. We received written comments from the  Department of Commerce, EPA, and USDA. Overall, the Department of  Commerce’s NOAA stated that the report accurately presented  information regarding the opportunities and challenges for offshore  aquaculture and will contribute to the discussion of environmentally  responsible and sustainable offshore aquaculture. NOAA also commented  on many issues discussed in our draft report, expressing three areas of  concern.
NOAA listed several issues it thought were not adequately addressed in the  report, including the role aquaculture can play in the development of a  safe, sustainable, domestic seafood supply. These issues were outside our  scope which was focused on identifying key elements of a federal  regulatory framework for offshore aquaculture.
NOAA said that by indicating that the environmental impacts of an  offshore aquaculture industry are uncertain due to a lack of data specific  to such facilities, we were diminishing the importance of the findings from  environmental monitoring of the small-scale open ocean aquaculture  operations in state waters. We do not agree. Our report acknowledges that  the results of environmental monitoring at small-scale open ocean  facilities have found modest impacts. However, as larger facilities begin  operating, their impacts could become more pronounced. Given that such  facilities do not yet exist, it is too early to know what their impacts will be.
NOAA said that our report did not adequately discuss offshore shellfish  aquaculture. We believe that it did. Most of the policy issues raised in the  report apply equally to shellfish and fish aquaculture. In those cases where  the issues differ for shellfish and fish aquaculture, we discussed them  separately.
NOAA also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated in  the report as appropriate. NOAA’s comments and our detailed responses  are presented in appendix III.
EPA provided clarifying language regarding their expertise in regulating  water quality related to offshore aquaculture, which we incorporated as  appropriate. EPA’s comments are presented in appendix IV.
The Department of Agriculture provided two comments on the report.  First, USDA mentioned two issues that it did not think were adequately  addressed in the report.
USDA said that a mechanism for a coordinated federal-wide research  framework exists through the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture. Our  report acknowledges that USDA chairs the interagency Joint   Subcommittee on Aquaculture and that the Subcommittee is currently  working to update the federal strategic plan for aquaculture research.
USDA also said that it has a wide diversity of aquaculture research that is  not limited or directed by whether the fish will be raised in fresh, brackish,  or salt water. Characterizing all of USDA’s aquaculture-related research  activities was not within the scope of our report. Rather, our report is   focused on offshore marine aquaculture. As such, we reported what  stakeholders told us regarding research related to offshore marine  aquaculture.
Second, USDA explained that it did not feel that it was appropriate to  respond to our questionnaire on offshore aquaculture because it asked for  individual opinions related to policy matters. USDA’s comments and our  detailed responses are presented in appendix V.
The Department of the Army did not have any comments on the report.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of the Army,  Agriculture, and Commerce; the Administrator of the EPA; appropriate  congressional committees; and other interested parties. We also will make  copies available to others upon request. In addition, this report will be  available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 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.
section_title: Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The objective of this report was to identify key issues that should be  addressed in the development of an effective regulatory framework for  U.S. offshore aquaculture. To address this objective, we reviewed key  academic and government-sponsored studies that analyzed proposed  regulatory frameworks for offshore aquaculture in federal waters;  reviewed existing federal laws that include provisions that are applicable  to offshore aquaculture, as well as federal agencies’ regulations, policies,  and guidance for marine aquaculture; reviewed laws, regulations, policies,  and guidance for marine aquaculture in selected states; visited aquaculture  facilities in selected states; and administered questionnaires to, and  conducted follow-up structured interviews with, a variety of aquaculture  stakeholders.
We identified studies on offshore aquaculture regulations by conducting a  literature search of online databases for studies and reports from  government agencies, nonprofit organizations, industry associations, and  academia. We also obtained references from aquaculture experts and  agency officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration  (NOAA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). After reviewing various studies,  we identified four key studies that examined offshore aquaculture and  made recommendations to improve the regulatory framework for offshore  aquaculture. These key studies—by the Marine Aquaculture Task Force,  the University of Delaware, the Pew Oceans Commission, and the U.S.  Commission on Ocean Policy—brought together ocean policy  stakeholders to examine, among other things, potential regulatory  frameworks for offshore aquaculture. These studies of offshore  aquaculture regulations were each developed in the last 5 years with  stakeholder input and discuss a variety of issues related to marine  aquaculture. Throughout the report, we cite those studies that reached  similar conclusions or made similar recommendations on particular policy  issues. If a study is not cited for a particular policy issue, it is because the  study did not address that issue.
To identify existing federal laws that include provisions that are applicable  to offshore aquaculture, as well as federal agencies’ regulations, policies,  and guidance for marine aquaculture, we interviewed officials from the  NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA’s National Ocean  Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the EPA, the Department of the  Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service and Minerals Management Service, and  the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. We also reviewed  a wide variety of laws to identify federal agencies’ responsibilities and  authorities for offshore aquaculture. The laws we reviewed included the  Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the  Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Coastal  Zone Management Act, the Rivers and Harbors Act, the National  Environmental Policy Act, the National Aquaculture Act of 1980, and the  Clean Water Act.
We identified relevant state laws, regulations, policies, and guidance for  marine aquaculture by interviewing state regulators, environmentalists,  representatives of the commercial fishing industry, and representatives of  the aquaculture industry in California, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Texas, and  Washington. We selected these states because they currently regulate, or  are in the process of developing regulatory frameworks for, aquaculture  operations in state waters, and because they represent different  geographic areas of the United States. Additionally, we met with state and  federal regulators in Hawaii, Maine, and Washington—the states with  active nearshore fish aquaculture industries—to discuss state regulatory  systems and visited aquaculture facilities in Hawaii and Maine.
Based on issues identified in the four key studies, and in our interviews  with federal and state officials, we developed a questionnaire on the  elements of a regulatory framework for offshore aquaculture. Prior to  distributing the questionnaire, we conducted pretests with stakeholders  who were similar to those we intended to survey and modified some  questions in response to those results. The final questionnaire covered a  range of topics including which federal agencies should be responsible for  various program administration activities such as program management  and agency coordination; how a potential permitting or leasing program  should be structured, including to what extent various stakeholders  should be involved in the process; opinions on the types of environmental  review and monitoring that should be required as part of a regulatory  framework; and what should be the priority areas for potentially federally  funded aquaculture research.
In addition to developing the questionnaire, we identified key aquaculture  stakeholders to respond to the questionnaire. We selected these  stakeholders because of their expertise in aquaculture at the national,  state, or local level; to provide representation across academia,  government, industry, and the nonprofit sector; and to provide broad  geographic representation throughout the United States. To ensure that  our initial list of stakeholders satisfied these criteria, we asked two noted  aquaculture experts to review our selections. Both experts submitted three  additional names for our consideration—two of which were the same  individuals—otherwise they both agreed our list satisfied our criteria. The  two individuals recommended by both experts were then included as  stakeholders. See appendix II for a list of the stakeholders who responded  to our questionnaire.
We distributed the questionnaire to 28 stakeholders electronically, asking  them to fill it out and return it to GAO. We received 25 responses. Three  federal agencies with responsibilities relating to offshore aquaculture—the  Department of the Interior, the USDA, and the EPA—did not provide  official or complete written responses to the questionnaire. However, we  met with officials from these agencies to discuss their responsibilities  related to aquaculture. After reviewing the questionnaire responses we  received, we conducted follow-up structured interviews with each  stakeholder to clarify some responses and to obtain additional details on  stakeholders’ responses to some open-ended questions. To identify trends  in responses, we analyzed the results of the questionnaire by summarizing  responses and producing descriptive statistics using Microsoft Access. In  addition, we qualitatively analyzed open-ended responses from the  questionnaire and responses from follow-up interviews to provide  additional insight into stakeholder views on key issues that should be  addressed in the development of a regulatory framework for offshore  aquaculture. For purposes of characterizing the results from our  questionnaire and follow-up interviews of our 25 stakeholders, we  identified specific meanings for the words we used to quantify the results,  as follows: “a few” means at least three, and up to five stakeholders;  “some” means between 6 and 11 stakeholders; “about half” means 12 to 14  stakeholders; “a majority” of stakeholders and “many” stakeholders both  mean 15 to 19 stakeholders; and “most” means 20 stakeholders or more.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2007 to May 2008 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those  standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,  appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objective. We believe that the evidence  obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objective.
section_title: Appendix II: Stakeholders Consulted by GAO Regarding a Regulatory Framework for Offshore Aquaculture
paragraphs: The following stakeholders responded to our questionnaire and  participated in follow-up interviews regarding administrative and  environmental issues that should be addressed in the development of an  effective regulatory framework for U.S. offshore aquaculture:    Sue Aspelund, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, Alaska Department  of Fish and Game;   Brian E. Baird, Assistant Secretary, Ocean and Coastal Policy, California    Sebastian M. Belle, Executive Director, Maine Aquaculture Association;    John Connelly, President, National Fisheries Institute;    Cora Crome, Fisheries Policy Advisor, Office of the Governor, State of    Bill Dewey, Manager of Public Affairs, Taylor Shellfish Company;    Robin Downey, Executive Director, Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers    Kathleen Drew, Executive Policy Advisor, Office of Washington Governor    Tim Eichenberg, Former Director, Pacific Regional Office, Ocean    John Forster, Ph.D., President and Aquaculture Consultant, Forster    Rebecca Goldburg, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund;    Samantha D. Horn Olsen, Aquaculture Policy Coordinator, Maine  Department of Marine Resources;    Dr. Richard Langan, Director, Atlantic Marine Aquaculture Center and  Open Ocean Aquaculture Program, University of New Hampshire;   George H. Leonard, Ph.D., Aquaculture Director, Ocean Conservancy;    John R. MacMillan, Ph.D., President, National Aquaculture Association;    Dr. Larry McKinney, Director of Coastal Fisheries, Texas Parks and    Rosamond Naylor, William Wrigley Senior Fellow and Director, Program  on Food Security and the Environment, Stanford University;   J.E. Jack Rensel, Ph.D., Principal Scientist, Rensel Associates Aquatic    Dr. Michael Rubino, Manager, NOAA Aquaculture Program, National  Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;   Mitchell Shapson, LL.M., Policy and Legal Analyst, The Institute for    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    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.
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Commerce
paragraphs: The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Commerce’s  letter dated April 25, 2008.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: 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.  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.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Agriculture
paragraphs: The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Agriculture’s  letter dated May 1, 2008.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comment
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Stephen D. Secrist, Assistant  Director; Leo G. Acosta; Nancy Crothers; Kathleen Gilhooly; Janice M.  Poling; Katherine Raheb; Jerry Sandau; Julie E. Silvers; Barbara Steel- Lowney; Shana Wallace; and Monica L. Wolford, made significant  contributions to this report.