U.S. offshore aquaculture report released
According to the Alaska Journal of Commerce, the report, issued in late May by the Government Accountability Office, said those issues can be grouped into program administration, permitting and site selection, environmental management and research. 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 increased interest, in Alaska and other states, 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.
Stakeholders contacted by the GAO and key studies reviewed identified specific roles and responsibilities for federal agencies, states and regional fishery management councils in program administration. Most stakeholders and studies agreed that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should be the lead federal agency in this area, and emphasized coordination with other federal agencies was important too. Stakeholders and some studies recommended also that the states play an important role in development and implementation of offshore aquaculture programs. Also considered an issue is identifying where aquaculture facilities can be located and for how long.
Many stakeholders stated that offshore facilities would need the legal right, through a permit or lease, to occupy an area of the ocean. They varied, however, on specific terms of the permits or leases, including 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 approaches taken by states that regulate aquaculture in their waters. A process to assess and mitigate the environmental impacts of offshore operations is another important aspect of a regulatory framework, the GAO said. For example, many stakeholders spoke of the value of reviewing the potential cumulative environmental impacts of offshore operations over a broad ocean area before any facilities are sited.
Other important areas to address include policies to mitigate the potential impacts of escaped fish and to remediate environmental damage, the GAO said. Finally, a regulatory framework needs to include a federal research component to help fill current gaps in knowledge about offshore aquaculture, the report said. Stakeholders supported federally funded research on developing alternative fish feeds, best management practices to minimize environmental impacts, data on how escaped aquaculture fish might impact wild fisheries, and strategies to breed and raise fish while effectively managing disease.
