Order Code RL32694
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Open Ocean Aquaculture
December 13, 2004
Rachel Borgatti
Intern
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Eugene H. Buck
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Open Ocean Aquaculture
Summary
Open ocean aquaculture, defined as the rearing of marine organisms under
controlled conditions in exposed, high-energy ocean environments beyond significant
coastal influence, is one possible option for meeting increasing consumer demand for
marine products and offering new and alternative employment opportunities.
Proponents see such development as avoiding inshore user conflicts and potentially
addressing the growing seafood trade deficit. Opponents point to other concerns.
Major challenges to open ocean aquaculture development include (1) choosing
appropriate species and culture techniques; (2) obtaining sufficient start-up capital
investment; (3) remaining competitive in an international market; (4) negotiating a
complicated legal and regulatory environment; (5) designing and constructing
facilities able to withstand the open ocean marine environment; (6) evaluating social
and economic impacts; and (7) addressing potential environmental impacts. New and
developmental technology, the risk and uncertainty associated with exposed open
ocean locations, lack of operational experience, and high capital start-up costs make
estimating profitability and securing financing difficult for new open ocean
aquaculture ventures. In addition, significant questions remain about whether an
appropriate mechanism exists for any federal agency to provide an open ocean
aquaculture lease applicant with the necessary property rights to begin construction
and operation. Any U.S. open ocean aquaculture enterprise will also face issues of
how to compete in a global marketplace with nations whose aquaculture production
costs are likely much lower.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has drafted a “National
Offshore Aquaculture Act” that would implement some of the recommendations of
the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, several regional fishery management councils
have adopted fishery management plan amendments to address open ocean
aquaculture development.
This report will be updated as circumstances warrant.

---

Contents
Challenges to Open Ocean Aquaculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Species and Culture Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Market Competitiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Legal and Regulatory Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Technical Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Social and Economic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Federal Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

---

Open Ocean Aquaculture
Open ocean aquaculture is broadly defined as the rearing of marine organisms
under controlled conditions in exposed, high-energy ocean environments beyond
significant coastal influence. These activities are located at a considerable distance
from shore and are open to the natural ocean elements from all sides. When such
operations are located beyond coastal state jurisdiction, within the U.S. Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ), they are regulated primarily by federal agencies.1 Thus far,
only a few aquaculture research facilities have operated in the U.S. EEZ;2 all
commercial aquaculture facilities have been sited in nearshore waters under state or
territorial jurisdiction.
Several terms for open ocean aquaculture are used interchangeably, including
offshore aquaculture and offshore fish farming.3 Open ocean aquaculture facilities4
consist of systems (e.g., cages, net-pens, longline arrays) that can be free-floating,
secured to a structure, moored to the ocean bottom, or towed by a vessel.5 Currently
operating commercial facilities in nearshore waters use cages moored to the ocean
bottom. In addition, there has been some experimentation in offshore shellfish
culture on the bottom (seabed) and from suspended ropes and longlines. Offshore
seaweed culture may also be considered.
Internationally, research and commercial open ocean aquaculture facilities are
in operation or under development in Australia, Chile, China, France, Ireland, Italy,
Japan, Mexico, and Norway.6 Currently, two commercial open ocean facilities are
operating in U.S. state/territorial waters. Cates International, Inc., cultivates moi
1Federal agencies also have regulatory authority over aspects of aquaculture development
in nearshore waters under state/territorial jurisdiction.
2For example, the Gulf of Mexico Offshore Aquaculture Consortium’s site was located 26
nautical miles offshore in federal waters.
3Marine aquaculture and mariculture are broader terms, also referring to the land-based
culture of marine organisms as well as their culture in nearshore, coastal, and exposed
environments.
4Descriptive information on different culture systems was available on Oct. 1, 2004, at
[http://hmsc.oregonstate.edu/projects/msap/system.html].
5Towed cages have been used to hold bluefin tuna prior to harvesting to optimize marketing;
see 69 Federal Register 39435-39436 (June 30, 2004).
6For more information on international efforts, see Biliana Cicin-Sain et al., “Chapter 6:
Lessons from the International Arena,” in Development of a Policy Framework for Offshore
Marine Aquaculture in the 3-200 Mile U.S. Ocean Zone (Newark, DE: Univ. of Delaware,
Center for the Study of Marine Policy, 2001), available at [http://darc.cms.udel.edu/SGEEZ/
SGEEZ1final.pdf], on Oct. 28, 2004.

---

CRS-2
(Pacific threadfin) near Hawaii7 and SnapperFarms, Inc., cultivates cobia (ling) near
Puerto Rico.8 Kona Blue Water Farms of Hawaii recently completed the permitting
process and obtained $4 million in financing to begin constructing deepwater pens
for the culture of kahala (Seriola rivoliana) in state waters.9 Although these are open
ocean operations, all U.S. commercial facilities are currently sited in waters under
state or territorial jurisdiction.
Challenges to Open Ocean Aquaculture
Seven major challenges to open ocean aquaculture development are (1)
choosing appropriate species and culture techniques; (2) obtaining sufficient start-up
capital investment; (3) remaining competitive in a global market; (4) negotiating a
complicated legal and regulatory environment; (5) designing and constructing
facilities able to withstand the open ocean marine environment; (6) evaluating
potential social and economic impacts; and (7) addressing potential environmental
impacts.
Species and Culture Techniques. Appropriate species and culture
techniques, including species selection, egg/larval production, and nutritional/dietary
requirements, need to be identified and developed. New culture techniques may be
required for rearing species not presently grown.
Many economically important species are currently being studied for possible
culture, including halibut, haddock, cod, flounder, and blue mussels at the University
of New Hampshire; black sea bass at the University of South Carolina; mutton
snapper and flounder at the Universities of Miami and North Carolina; cobia at
various universities in Virginia, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Texas; yellowtail
snapper at the University of Texas; amberjack at the Oceanic Institute; several deep-
water snappers at the University of Hawaii; and corvina at the University of
California. Additional universities are experimenting with mahimahi, red drum,
tuna, striped bass, and other species. Other research topics being investigated include
hatchery culture technologies; designs for automated feeders; culture of new species;
identification and control of diseases; development of cages and husbandry
technology for rough water environments; identification of alternative food sources;
information on nutrition requirements; definition of carrying capacity of offshore
waters; development of appropriate mooring systems; development of drifting and
self-powered cages; federal regulatory structure; and development of environmental
monitoring technology.
Financing. New and developmental technology, the risk and uncertainty
associated with operating in exposed open ocean locations, lack of operational
7“Moi to the World,” Hawaii Business (March 2004), at [http://www.hawaiibusiness.cc/
hb32004/default.cfm?articleid=11], visited Aug. 12, 2004.
8Snapperfarms, at [http://www.snapperfarm.com/], visited July 16, 2004.
9Kona Blue Water Farms, at [http://www.blackpearlsinc.com/3_4.shtml], visited Aug. 5,
2004; also Ben DiPietro, Hawaii Company Gets $4 Million Farm Investment, The Wave
News Network, Oct. 25, 2004.

---

CRS-3
experience, and high capital start-up costs make estimating profitability and securing
financing difficult for new open ocean aquaculture companies. In addition to capital
costs, the location of the aquaculture facilities away from shore will necessitate high
variable costs such as fuel, feed, and security and/or surveillance. Proponents of
open ocean aquaculture development assert that, without some form of long-term (at
least 25-year term) leasing10 of the water surface, water column, and seabed, open
ocean aquaculture will have significant problems in securing capital from traditional
funding sources, obtaining suitable insurance on the capital investment and stock,
and protecting investments from vandalism and other property threats. Such leasing
may be problematic until property rights beyond the territorial sea are clarified.
Fostering industry/academic partnerships may be beneficial to open ocean
aquaculture development.11 Some suggest that, for development to occur, one must
accept that open ocean aquaculture is “big science” along the lines of atomic/nuclear
physics research and the Human Genome Project. In this light, the developing open
ocean aquaculture industry may benefit by seeking and promoting partnerships with
large multinational industrial, agricultural, and pharmaceutical corporations.12
Proponents argue that this is the most likely way for open ocean aquaculture to obtain
the ocean engineering, marine technology, and floating platform infrastructure
necessary to match the sophistication of current biological knowledge.
The availability of insurance coverage on stock and equipment is relevant to,
and can facilitate obtaining, front-end capital for offshore aquaculture. The insurance
sector has more than 30 years of experience in managing and insuring risks to
conventional aquaculture stock and equipment in a variety of situations and
conditions. Although the insurance industry is unlikely to view pilot projects
favorably, the earlier the insurance industry is brought into developing open ocean
aquaculture, the earlier the industry is likely to become comfortable with the risks
that must be insured.
Reliance on private capital may ensure that the innovation for U.S. development
of open ocean aquaculture will come from other countries already investing in
technology development. Proponents of open ocean aquaculture suggest that, if
profits are to be made, sufficient investment capital must be available as soon as
10In addition, some nations (e.g., Canada) lease nearshore areas with implied automatic
renewal of tenure as long as the lessee meets current licensing requirements. Alternatives
on leasing for short time periods include issuing research permits or vesting tenure in a
federal or state agency initially to streamline the process and allow greater control over
eventual ownership of tenure issues.
11However, critics caution that funding open ocean aquaculture development through
universities has the potential to slow commercial development if academic solutions are
insufficiently pragmatic for commercial industry.
12Potential partners include oil and gas companies with related support industries, defense
contractors developing large floating structure technology and platforms, and ocean
engineering companies laying submarine cable and developing affiliated technology for
telecommunications corporations. Others may include corporations exploring wind and/or
wave-energy generation, ocean thermal energy conversion and related deep ocean water
upwelling systems, carbon sequestration and mitigation, and ocean fertilization.

---

CRS-4
property rights, permitting, and environmental concerns are resolved. More
pessimistic critics suggest that open ocean aquaculture is unlikely ever to have an
adequate economic return on investment, and that investment should rather be
focused on improving nearshore aquaculture.
Market Competitiveness. The United States has been, for the most part, a
technological innovator, and the use of marine resources to farm new species with
higher market potential could give the United States a competitive edge. On the
other hand, the U.S. commercial fishing industry has been losing market share to
foreign aquaculture production. Dependable air freight has allowed aquaculture
operations to market globally. For example, the worldwide salmon farming industry
has displaced jobs in Alaskan coastal communities. The primary challenge for
developed nations, such as the United States, is how to minimize capital, labor,
energy, permitting, and other costs compared to those for aquaculture in other
countries and to wild stock harvesting. The potential competitive disadvantage posed
by the higher costs for goods and services in the United States also increases the
difficulty in obtaining commercial investment for U.S. open ocean aquaculture
development. More simply, a major challenge is likely to be whether U.S. open
ocean aquaculture operations can produce their product at prices competitive with
foreign aquaculture. As competition increases with global development and
expansion of aquaculture production, controversy could arise if U.S. open ocean
aquaculture operators seek to relocate to nearshore locations to reduce costs and
remain competitive. Government assistance could promote initial development of
a U.S. open ocean aquaculture industry, but global market forces would likely
determine whether it matures or withers.
Legal and Regulatory Environment. Legal and regulatory challenges may
be particularly time-consuming and costly, although some suggest that moving
aquaculture away from the coast, and out of the view of the majority of people, could
alleviate some public concerns. The complexities of multi-agency permitting are not
clearly understood by all interested parties, leading to uncertainty for the open ocean
aquaculture industry and making it difficult to plan and finance operations. Current
permitting requires approval by at least three federal agencies that have jurisdiction
over various aspects of aquaculture — the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
the Army Corps of Engineers, and NOAA Fisheries. The review required under each
of these agencies’ responsibilities can delay or deny a permit. Some of these
agencies will likely be involved in future decisions that provide legal rights to open
ocean aquaculture operators.
For aquaculture projects in offshore federal waters, the lead federal permitting
agency must assure consistency with approved programs in adjacent states under the
Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. §§1451 et seq.). In addition, state waters
are traversed both to operate open ocean aquaculture sites and to bring harvested fish
ashore for processing. States with approved plans may veto federal permits for
activities that are inconsistent with the state’s Coastal Zone Management Plan. This
oversight ensures that operations occurring in federal waters adjacent to state waters
will neither cause harm to that state’s interests nor be inconsistent with state policies.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulates the discharge of pollutants
into waters of the United States from finfish aquaculture facilities under the Clean

---

CRS-5
Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. §§1251, et seq.). Under the CWA’s National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System, such facilities are regulated under the category
“concentrated aquatic animal production facilities.”13 For aquaculture facilities
located in offshore federal waters, §403(c) of the CWA requires an additional review
to prevent unreasonable degradation of the marine environment. Discharges that
cause unreasonable degradation are prohibited.
Because of navigation concerns, the Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction
over permanent or temporary “devices” used to explore, develop, or produce
resources on or around the seabed in federally controlled waters (33 C.F.R. Part 322).
The Coast Guard regulates vessel traffic and dictates safety measures (light and
signal) for aquaculture structures to ensure safe vehicle passage under the Rivers and
Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. §407). In addition, the Department of Defense may
become involved, reviewing proposals for possible interference with naval
operations.
Through a NOAA General Counsel opinion,14 NOAA has assumed the lead
agency role in promoting open ocean aquaculture development and has been
supportive of this industry. In some cases, NOAA Fisheries authorizes open ocean
aquaculture operations for scientific purposes through an exempted fishing permit
and has defined marine aquaculture as fishing, under the authority of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. §§1801 et seq.).15 In
addition, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the federal permitting agency for any
aquaculture facility to consult with NOAA for potential impacts to designated
essential fish habitat (EFH). EFH is designated for all marine species for which there
is a federal fishery management plan (FMP). NOAA Fisheries also has review
responsibilities under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. §§1361, et seq.)
and the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. §§1531, et seq.). These reviews could
conflict with promoting open ocean aquaculture.
Also under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, several regional fishery
management councils have exercised regulatory oversight over open ocean
aquaculture. The New England and Gulf of Mexico Councils have been particularly
active in this respect.16 The New England Council has established evaluation criteria
for open ocean aquaculture proposals that encourage the use of the best management
1340 C.F.R. Part 451; see 69 Federal Register 51891-51930 (Aug. 23, 2004).
14Jay S. Johnson and Margaret F. Hayes, Regulation of Aquaculture in the EEZ,
Memorandum, Office of the General Counsel, NOAA, Washington, DC, Feb. 7, 1993, 5 p.
15Based on a legal opinion by NOAA General Counsel, landings or possession of fish in the
Exclusive Economic Zone from a commercial marine aquaculture operation producing
species managed under FMPs constitutes “fishing” as defined in the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Therefore, to allow such commercial production in the EEZ, FMPs must be amended to
allow for such activity for managed species and for the regulation of the activity by NOAA
Fisheries. Scientific activity for marine aquaculture in the EEZ is regulated by the federal
role for exempted fishing permits (50 C.F.R. §600.745).
16“Agency Sinks Proposal for Gulf Fish Farm,” St. Petersburg Times (Dec. 30, 2003) at
[http://www.sptimes.com/2003/12/30/Southpinellas/Agency_sinks_proposal.shtml], visited
Aug. 4, 2004.

---

CRS-6
practices aimed at reducing environmental and fishery impacts. For other regional
management councils, although the key installation, navigation, and water quality
permits can be obtained from the agencies mentioned above after a thorough permit
development and public review process, commercial aquaculture is less likely to
occur in offshore federal waters because there are no aquaculture FMPs or generic
aquaculture amendments to all the appropriate FMPs for species that could be
cultured. In addition, it is unclear what regulatory authority NOAA Fisheries and the
regional councils might have over species, like mussels, that are not managed
through a federal FMP.17
Finally, using offshore waters will probably be legally controversial.
Traditionally, nearshore waters and their resources under state jurisdiction are
considered to be held and managed “in the public trust.” Open ocean aquaculture
may be perceived by some as the de facto privatization of the ocean, which has
historically been considered a common property resource.18 Precedents in the leasing
of offshore areas for the development of oil and gas resources may be relevant to
these concerns. However, significant questions remain concerning whether an
appropriate mechanism exists for any federal agency to provide an open ocean
aquaculture lease applicant with the necessary property rights to begin construction
and operation. Siting and site tenure in federal waters are important issues for
development and private investment — without assurances and protection of
exclusive rights, there is little incentive for financial investment.
Technical Aspects. Since open water aquaculture is a relatively new
industry, many potential operators are inexperienced with the technical requirements
for open ocean facilities. Open ocean aquaculture facilities, moored or floating miles
off the coast in a high-energy environment, experience numerous environmental
conditions that differ from nearshore aquaculture operations, including exposure to
wind and wave action from all directions, short and steep wave patterns, strong
currents, seasonal anoxic (oxygen-lacking) conditions at depth, and unpredictable
ocean conditions that can prevent operators from being able to access their cages for
days to weeks.19 Systems have been developed to overcome these obstacles,
including cage designs that do not deform under current and wave loads,20
submersible cages, and single-point moorings.21 Cage-mounted autonomous feeding
17A more detailed treatment of the issues discussed in this section is available in
Development of a Policy Framework for Offshore Marine Aquaculture in the 3-200 Mile
U.S. Ocean Zone by the University of Delaware’s Center for the Study of Marine Policy.
This report is at [http://darc.cms.udel.edu/sgeez/sgeez1final.pdf], visited Oct. 18, 2004.
18The government regularly grants exclusive use of public resources when there are public
benefits, establishing a precedent for ocean leasing for commercial aquaculture to increase
domestic fish supply. For a more detailed discussion of these issues, see CRS Report
RL32658, Wind Energy: Offshore Permitting, by Aaron M. Flynn.
19A pilot study cage in the Gulf of Mexico was torn from its mooring in December 2000 and
was later found off the coast of Louisiana after a long search.
20Ocean Spar cages at [http://www.oceanspar.com/seastation.htm], visited Oct. 15, 2004.
21See [http://www.masgc.org/oac/abstract12.html], visited Oct. 15, 2004.

---

CRS-7
systems have been developed that can operate both at the surface and submerged.22
Others have developed closed containment systems for open ocean use to address
environmental concerns.23 Universities and private-sector research interests are
developing automated buoys that can monitor the condition of stock and feed fish on
a regular basis for weeks at a time. Other research groups are working on automated,
floating cages that would travel with the currents and be tracked by satellite.24 These
ship-like structures could float on favorable oceanic currents or be held geostationary
with low-energy thrusters.
As noted above, technological solutions provided from an academic perspective
may not always be pragmatic enough for commercial use. Private industry has often
been at the forefront in addressing and solving pragmatic technical issues in a new
field. Proponents of development also suggest that there has been inadequate
research funding of the amount and duration needed to develop and demonstrate
suitable technologies for meeting open ocean aquaculture’s technical challenges.
Social and Economic Impacts. Some Members of Congress, especially
those from coastal areas with strong fishing communities, are interested in the social
and socioeconomic impacts of open ocean aquaculture development. The
development of open ocean aquaculture could increase competition for wild-caught
fish, lowering prices and driving commercial fishermen out of business. Thus, open
ocean aquaculture could replace current fish production (from commercial fishing)
instead of supplementing (adding to) fish production, with little or no change in
domestic fish production/value, especially if open ocean aquaculture development
is not compatible with existing capture fisheries. Due to international markets and
foreign production, the socioeconomic impacts of open ocean aquaculture production
(e.g., changes in prices and markets) will likely occur whether the United States
permits or denies open ocean aquaculture development (for example, the state of
Alaska prohibited salmon aquaculture, but its development elsewhere resulted in
significant socioeconomic impacts for Alaska). Concerned parties suggest that social
and economic impact assessments should be part of any aquaculture development
plan from the onset.
In addition, if many of the proposed species for open ocean aquaculture are
carnivores, it is possible that increased imports of fishmeal derived from small
pelagic wild fish will be required to feed to the farmed fish. If so, these increased
imports could increase the U.S. trade deficit. Open ocean aquaculture development
also has the potential to interfere with maritime transportation and commercial
fisheries, and potential conflicts over access and transit rights may need to be
mediated. Because of this potential for conflict, a process may need to be developed
to identify the more suitable areas in federal waters for open ocean aquaculture
development. Also, safety issues with offshore facilities may need to be addressed.
22See [http://web.mit.edu/seagrant/aqua/cfer/robofeeder.html], visited Oct. 15, 2004.
23SargoTM products, see [http://www.sargo.net/], visited Nov. 4, 2004.
24See [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.05/fish.html], visited Oct. 15, 2004. Critics
question whether this type of floating-unmanned-remote control cage could ever be
permitted, due to the major navigational hazard it could present.

---

CRS-8
The proponents of offshore aquaculture assert that economic benefits will result
from the development of this industry. Individuals familiar with the experiences of
coastal aquaculture have raised questions about the sustainability of offshore fish
farming in relation to its impact on local communities. The potential cumulative
impacts of open ocean aquaculture development on coastal communities have not yet
been researched. Based on the history of salmon farming, some have questioned the
claims of aquaculture as a jobs creator, especially since it will likely become a highly
automated industry. Additionally, little evidence has been provided for the economic
benefits of open ocean aquaculture development beyond the general acknowledgment
that marine aquaculture has proven profitable elsewhere, especially in areas with little
or no environmental regulation and/or enforcement (e.g. Chile). Profitability aside,
there are indications that marine open ocean aquaculture, like salmon farming, could
produce unintended harm to local economies and commercial fishing. Many of the
species under consideration for open ocean aquaculture are important or valuable fish
that support commercial fisheries and contribute to the national seafood supply.
Aquaculture of these species could create a competing supply, perhaps lowering
prices and harming commercial fishermen and communities. Environmentalists and
advocates of sustainable wild fisheries express fear that an open ocean aquaculture
industry could harm traditional commercial fisheries and the local communities they
support, as has been the case in coastal areas of Alaska, where many commercial
fishermen have been put out of business and there have been dramatic changes to
coastal communities as a result of expanded salmon farming in other parts of the
world.25 The governor of Alaska recently asked the U.S. Secretary of Commerce for
a five-year moratorium on open ocean aquaculture development.26
Environmental Impacts. Proponents of open ocean aquaculture and many
environmental groups suggest that open ocean finfish aquaculture systems may
encounter similar, but fewer, environmental concerns than those experienced by
nearshore aquaculture systems. This in part may be due to the theory that dissolved
and particulate waste products and excess feed may be assimilated and recycled more
efficiently in the open ocean environment. However, the scope of any effects may
vary greatly, depending on the technique, location, size/scale, and species raised.
Some critics of open ocean aquaculture cite concerns with the escape of fish, water
pollution from uneaten feed and waste products,27 use of antibiotics and other animal
drugs, alteration of benthic habitat by settling wastes, and the spread of waterborne
disease from cultured to wild fish.28 The present lack of knowledge, owing to limited
25Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries, Key Figures from Norwegian Aquaculture Industry,
2000, Directorate of Fisheries, Department of Aquaculture (Bergen, Norway: 2001), 15 p.;
Neal Gilbertson, “The Global Salmon Industry,” Alaska Economic Trends, v. 23, no. 10
(Oct. 2003), pp. 3-11; Rosamond L. Naylor et al., “Salmon Aquaculture in the Pacific
Northwest: A Global Industry with Local Impacts,” Environment, v. 45, no. 8 (Oct. 2003),
pp. 18-39.
26See [http://gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?id=1241&type=1], visited Oct. 15, 2004.
27Pollution from wastes will also include drugs, chemicals, and any other inputs, since there
is no way to recover wastes in these systems, and they are simply discharged into the ocean.
28Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Open Ocean Aquaculture, at [http://www.iatp.
org/fish/library/uploadedFiles/Open_Ocean_Aquaculture.pdf], visited Aug. 4, 2004.

---

CRS-9
experience and few studies focusing specifically on open ocean aquaculture, limits
our understanding of potential environmental concerns. Critics of open ocean
aquaculture hope that regulation of this emerging industry will be stringent.
Open ocean aquaculture pens are open to the surrounding environment, allowing
fish feces and uneaten food to fall into the surrounding water, possibly degrading
water quality. An opposing view holds that open ocean waters are normally nutrient-
deficient, and nutrients released from open ocean aquaculture operations may
increase wild production in adjacent areas. A related concern is whether large
operations will result in significant waste settling that could alter benthic habitat.
However, current research indicates that currents may keep water around fish cages
well circulated, dissipating waste products quickly, resulting in minimal impact of
open ocean aquaculture facilities on water quality.29 Critics, however, question
whether the experience with experimental facilities is relevant to future commercial
operations, which will likely need to be much larger to be profitable.30 A possible
solution suggested is to combine finfish operations with the culture of seaweeds or
bivalves to consume the excess nutrients; this approach is being tested by the
University of New Hampshire at their open ocean aquaculture research project, but
may be more appropriate for nearshore operations where waste diffusion is slower
and nutrient concentrations are higher.31
Another environmental concern is the use of pharmaceuticals, antibiotics,
growth-enhancing chemicals, other animal drugs, and antifouling agents used on gear
and enclosures in open water environments.32 Drugs, some of which were developed
and approved for use in a contained or controlled environment, are often introduced
to cultured fish in their feed. The unconsumed feed, and the metabolic waste from
the fish feeding on it, pass through and out of the containment system, where some
of this escaped feed may be consumed by wild organisms. However, the use of some
of these products may be declining, as efficacious vaccines eliminate the need for
antibiotics and other therapeutants.
29See [http://www.lib.noaa.gov/japan/aquaculture/proceedings/report28/Helsley.pdf], visited
Oct 15, 2004.
30Critics assert that the experience with research facilities poorly indicates the impacts that
can be expected when the open ocean aquaculture industry reaches the size/scale NOAA is
promoting. Proponents argue that this research has been conducted with an awareness that
impacts will vary in proportion to size of the operation. Cumulative impacts, both in terms
of multiple farms combining to cause impacts and in terms of multiple impacts from farms
examined as a whole, have not been studied.
31Critics of this approach point out that, because of the practical limits of photosynthetic
rates of seaweed and filtering rates of bivalves, such a nutrient recycling system might have
to be 50 or more times the size of the finfish operation to handle the anticipated nutrient
loads. The cost of such a massive nutrient recycling operation might far exceed any
potential benefits.
32Most of the chemicals used have to be approved for use by the Food and Drug
Administration, and their application is overseen by a veterinarian to ensure proper
application and minimal environmental impact.

---

CRS-10
Most fish currently proposed for open ocean aquaculture are carnivorous and
require feeds containing fishmeal and fish oil, which are obtained from wild stocks.
As a result, three or more pounds of wild fish are required to produce one pound of
farmed fish. Although some question whether aquaculture production could
exacerbate pressures on ocean fish stocks,33 others assert that a feed conversion rate
of three pounds feed to one pound of farmed product is favorable compared to wild
production.34 While concerns could be addressed by improving feed formulations or
by raising more herbivorous fish,35 open ocean aquaculture facilities may need to
initially grow and process high-value fish or shellfish species to offset large
investment costs. Plant protein sources, such as canola, algae, or soybean meal,36 are
being used to partially replace fishmeal, with significantly positive results emerging,
especially where soybean meal is supplemented with certain essential amino acids.
In some operations, the feed may contain as little as 30% fishmeal. An obstacle to
increasing the amount of plant material that can be substituted for fishmeal appears
to be the presence of anti-nutritional factors in the plant-derived materials.37
Another concern involves the spread of fish-borne disease38 and genetic
anomalies that could possibly occur if wild fish are exposed to or interbreed with
hatchery-raised fish.39 This issue might arise if genetically modified or non-native
fish escaped from aquaculture facilities and interbred with wild fish.40 Critics
33Rosamond L. Naylor, et al., “Effect of Aquaculture on World Fish Supplies,” Nature, v.
405 (June 29, 2000), pp. 1017-1024. Critics of this concern, however, point out that it may
indicate the mismanagement of forage fish stock harvesting, rather than be attributable to
aquaculture.
34Actual feed conversion rates can range widely, with wild production often considered to
be around 10 pounds of feed per pound of growth. At one extreme, a feed conversion rate
of 20 pounds of feed per pound of farmed tuna is reported (see Sergi Tudela, “Tuna
Farming: Grab, Cage, Fatten, Sell,” Samudra, No. 32 [July 2002], pp. 9-17). At the other
extreme, feed conversion rates approaching 1.2 pounds of feed per pound of farmed Atlantic
salmon are reported (see British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office at [http://
www.intrafish.com/laws-and-regulations/report_bc/vol3-d.htm], visited Nov. 8, 2004).
35However, there has been little research on these species. NOAA has shown minimal
interest in these species and has not offered much direction in addressing the “net-loss” of
fish protein issue.
36See [http://www.soyaqua.org/quickfacts.html], visited Oct. 15, 2004. See also “Freedom
Feeds” at [http://www.freedomfeeds.com/], visited Nov. 8, 2004.
37G. Francis, H. P. S. Makkar, and K. Becker, “Antinutritional Factors Present in Plant-
Derived Alternate Fish Feed Ingredients and Their Effects in Fish,” Aquaculture, v. 199, no.
3-4 (2001), pp. 197-227.
38However, current scientific knowledge suggests the opposite is occurring — that wild fish
are transmitting disease to farmed fish. For example, a 2003 outbreak of infectious
hematopoietic necrosis virus in British Columbia farmed salmon was confirmed to be a virus
that had been circulating in wild fish for many years.
39The potential interbreeding problem can be greatly reduced if only sterile fish are farmed.
Fairly simple technology exists to accomplish such sterilization.
40Rebecca J. Goldburg, Matthew S. Elliott, and Rosamond L. Naylor, Marine Aquaculture
(continued...)

---

CRS-11
speculate that, since selectively bred and genetically modified fish may grow faster
and larger than native fish, they could displace native fish in the short term (both
through competitive displacement and interbreeding),41 but might not be able to
survive in the wild for the long term.42 This is especially a concern in states such as
California, Maine, Maryland, and Washington, where genetically modified fish are
banned within state waters but could be grown offshore in federal waters. A related
concern is the introduction of exotic species, such as Atlantic salmon in British
Columbia. Escaped fish could be a problem in open ocean facilities battered by
storms. The experience with salmon farming indicates that escaped fish could easily
be a problem, either through interbreeding with closely related native species (genetic
interactions) or through competitive displacement of native species. Although
management techniques at net pen sites are improving and modified cage designs
better prevent escapes, closed containment systems may be the only way to address
this problem. Problems with the transfer of sea lice from salmon farms to wild
salmon have been noted recently.43
Since facilities will be offshore and underwater, possible harm or disturbance
to marine mammals and other wildlife are a concern. To address these concerns,
current cage designs avoid the use of small diameter or loose lines or loosely hung
netting to prevent the entanglement of sea turtles and marine mammals in net pens
and associated gear. Since net pens would be under tension, the possibility that a
turtle flipper or whale fluke would get tangled in lines or nets is likely minimal.
However, experience has shown that dolphins and other marine mammals do get
entangled in fish farms.44 In addition, shellfish farms have many ropes/longlines and
could be problematic. Sound devices at farms to harass animals and keep them away
could harm marine mammals. Open ocean facilities could potentially affect some
endangered species, such as North Atlantic right whales, as they migrate or alter
essential habitat for feeding, breeding, nursing, etc. Also, there could be renewed
interest in killing “problem” animals, as has been the case with salmon farmers
40(...continued)
in the United States: Environmental Impacts and Policy Options, Pew Oceans Commission
(Arlington, VA: July 2001), pp. 6-9. See [http://www.pewoceans.org/reports/137PEWAqua
cultureF.pdf], visited Aug. 17, 2004.
41Others suggest that escaped fish may be less competitive due to inadequate preparation for
the demands of foraging in the wild.
42The Trojan gene hypothesis (William M. Muir and Richard D. Howard, “Possible
Ecological Risks of Transgenic Organism Release When Transgenes Affect Mating Success:
Sexual Selection and the Trojan Gene Hypothesis,” Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the United States, v. 96, no. 24 [Nov. 23, 1999], pp. 13853-13856).
43Alexandra Morton, et al., “Sea Lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) Infection Rates on Juvenile
Pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and Chum (Oncorhynchus keta) Salmon in the Nearshore
Marine Environment of British Columbia, Canada,” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences, v. 61 (2004), pp. 147-157.
44See C. M. Kemper et al., “Aquaculture and Marine Mammals: Coexistence or Conflict?”
In N. Gales, M. Hindell, and R. Kirkwood, eds., Marine Mammals and Humans: Towards
a Sustainable Balance (CSIRO Publishing, 2003). However, bycatch also occurs in many
harvest fisheries, where its extent may be greater and its control may be more difficult than
at stationary aquaculture facilities.

---

CRS-12
killing seals and sea lions. In addition, there could be problems with other predatory
animals such as sharks. For example, great white sharks, an endangered species,
have found their way into tuna farms in Australia on several occasions.
Opportunities
Proponents of open ocean aquaculture see this development as the beginning of
a “blue revolution”45 that might contribute to providing dietary protein for large
populations in the developing world. These proponents believe that if future open
ocean aquaculture development is positioned in appropriate ocean areas, with the
right partners and adequate financing, the industry will be sustainable and
ecologically friendly. They further argue that the development of open ocean
aquaculture might produce sufficient food to slow the conversion of undeveloped
land to agriculture production to feed the growing world population. In addition, the
move of aquaculture further offshore could benefit the crowded coastal zone where
increasing numbers of different interests, such as commercial and sport fishermen,
recreational boaters, and coastal landowners, compete. Proponents of open ocean
aquaculture development cite the need to increase domestic fishery production to
address the growing U.S. seafood trade deficit, increase job generation in coastal
communities, and minimize user conflicts prevalent with nearshore aquaculture as
their main rationales for encouraging open ocean production.
In 2002, the United States imported 55% of its edible seafood,46 with almost half
coming from Asian nations.47 Annual U.S. aquaculture production is currently
valued at less than $1 billion (more than half of which is from freshwater production)
and represents less than 1% of global aquaculture production. Some argue that this
trade deficit is insufficient reason for the United States to subsidize expensive open
ocean aquaculture operations. In addition, this trade deficit exists because U.S.
seafood consumers benefit from less expensive seafood imports. These imports,
including aquaculture production, increase the availability of an excellent protein
source at a reasonable price.
Advocates of open ocean aquaculture operations view them as additional means
to support the domestic seafood industry, which has some of the highest
unemployment rates in the country.48 Critics argue that the potentially higher cost of
45See p. 23 of Open Ocean Aquaculture IV: From Research to Commercial Reality at [http://
nsgl.gso.uri.edu/masgc/masgcw01001.pdf], visited Oct. 1, 2004. The term “blue revolution”
is analogous to the “green revolution” movement to increase agricultural yields, first used
in the late 1960s.
46U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries of the United
States, 2002, Current Fishery Statistics No. 2002 (Washington, DC: Sept. 2003), p. 75.
47However, the majority of these imports are shrimp, especially from aquaculture production
in Asia and South America, and farming carnivorous finfish in the open ocean will not
reduce our dependence on these shrimp imports. In addition to shrimp, imports include
substantial quantities of salmon produced by foreign aquaculture.
48However, unemployment in the seafood industry/wild fisheries is also partly the result of
(continued...)

---

CRS-13
tending fish far from shore means these facilities are likely to be automated, and local
employment benefits may be minimal.49 However, employment is required for much
more than tending to offshore farms — support roles are required in land-based
hatcheries to provide sufficient numbers of fingerlings; feed mills are necessary to
provide feed for the fish; manufacturing is essential to fabricate the cages and other
culture materials; maintenance, logistics, and transportation employment is critical;
and finally, all the fish raised in offshore farms would need to be harvested,
processed, and sold, thereby increasing the use of presently underutilized fish
processing plants along much of the coast.50 Others question whether it is realistic
to assume that these jobs can be filled by unemployed domestic seafood workers.
Another way of looking at opportunities is to consider lessons from past
experience. Proponents of aquaculture development wonder what might have
happened if Alaska — with its processing plants, distribution system, infrastructure,
excellent water quality, and massive coastline — had decided to embrace salmon
aquaculture rather than prohibit this industry. These proponents suggest that, if
Alaska had decided differently, Alaska might still “own” the world salmon market
and enjoy a major source of employment and economic development, rather than
having to watch the marketing of wild Alaskan salmon falter under the aggressive
development by Chile and other nations of salmon aquaculture.
Federal Action
At its November 2003 meeting, the Gulf of Mexico Regional Fishery
Management Council adopted an open ocean aquaculture policy for the Gulf of
Mexico EEZ.51 The council developed this policy, consisting of a variety of
48(...continued)
the development of aquaculture, especially salmon farming.
49Many are researching ways to increase automation, especially with feeding and harvesting,
to the extent that few workers may be needed. All the work may be able to be done from
a computer in a shoreside office with a satellite-controlled robotic system attached to the
offshore cages. Also, the history of salmon farming indicates that as the industry becomes
more efficient, production per unit labor increases and employment decreases, especially
compared to what it may be replacing.
50The Gulf of Mexico Offshore Aquaculture Consortium estimated that, for a 12-cage
offshore production system, eight individuals would be required to tend a sophisticated,
automated offshore facility. However, they forecast that such an operation would produce
an additional annual regional economic output reaching more than $9 million and provide
additional employment for at least 262 persons, when all shoreside support was included.
Although some suggest that, for every dollar of fish landed from fishing, there is a multiplier
of as much as 5-7 in the shoreside economy (with the implication that this relationship
would be roughly equivalent for aquaculture), others argue that these extreme multipliers
may be suspect since the multiplier for the entire U.S. economy is around 2 — meaning that
a new dollar entering the economy manages to generate an additional dollar’s worth of
goods and services before the demand “leaks out” (i.e., gets spent on imports). See [http://
www.choicesmagazine.org/archives/2003/q2/2003-2-06.htm], visited Oct. 27, 2004.
51The Gulf of Mexico Council’s open ocean aquaculture policy is available at
(continued...)

---

CRS-14
guidelines, to encourage environmentally responsible open ocean aquaculture,
opposing the use of non-native species that have detrimental impacts on native
species, and recommending that only FDA-approved therapeutic and chemical
treatments be used as part of best management practices. This policy also contains
guidelines on the location, design, and operation of facilities to prevent adverse
impacts on the environment and minimize conflicts with other stakeholders.
Recently the Gulf of Mexico Regional Council completed public hearings to review
management options for open ocean aquaculture under the Magnuson-Stevens Act
and may adopt a fishery management plan amendment on this subject as early as fall
2005.52 In 1996, the New England Regional Council adopted Amendment 5 to its sea
scallop fishery management plan to facilitate the SeaStead Scallop Aquaculture
Project — one of the earliest U.S. open ocean aquaculture ventures. Some worry that
regional management of open ocean aquaculture under the Magnuson-Stevens Act
may add another layer of bureaucracy, especially if several regional fishery
management councils develop their own, possibly contradictory, open ocean
aquaculture management policies.
NOAA submitted a draft “National Offshore Aquaculture Act” for review by
the Office of Management and Budget that would provide for long-term (10-, 20-, or
30-year) leasing of ocean tracts to enable longer-term business and assist
entrepreneurs in securing financing.53 This draft legislation would establish a “one-
stop” permitting system for open ocean aquaculture operators.54 Under the proposed
measure, open ocean aquaculture facilities would be regulated under fishery
management plans by exempting the farm-raised fish from some of the requirements
normally imposed on conventional commercial fishing.55 This legislation would
implement a U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommendation that a multi-agency
51(...continued)
[http://www.gulfcouncil.org/downloads/mariculture_policy_GMFMC.pdf], visited Aug. 4,
2004.
5269 Federal Register 7185-7186 (Feb. 13, 2004).
53See “Aquaculture for the Future” at [http://www.pnwer.org/meetings/Summer2004/
Presentations/Chaves.pdf], visited Aug. 18, 2004. Critics, however, oppose the longer term
leases (20+ years) and also want to make sure there is a way to evict operations if damage
is found. These critics also believe that companies should post a bond when they start up
to pay for any environmental cleanup or removal of facilities.
54Critics, however, suggest that “one-stop” permitting may not necessarily be a good thing.
The many laws are here for specific reasons, they say, and some could be overlooked in the
“one-stop” process. As an alternative, these critics argue for better coordination among
permitting agencies.
55A proposed exemption on foreign ownership is raising concerns for two reasons: (1) If
open ocean aquaculture is aimed at developing a domestic industry that will benefit
Americans, how does changing the law to allow foreign corporations help the situation?
From the experience with extensive Norwegian investment in Chilean salmon farming,
profits are not necessarily reinvested in the producing country and community but instead
mainly accrue to the foreign nation that has invested; the country where the aquaculture
occurs may get pollution, exotic species, and a few low-paying jobs. Some say that allowing
foreign corporations to obtain a lease, essentially owning a stake in U.S. waters just a few
miles from the coast, could be a potential concern regarding national security.

---

CRS-15
aquaculture program be managed through a new Office of Sustainable Marine
Aquaculture.56 Such an effort within NOAA could again result in the same agency
being responsible for both promotion and regulation of the same industry.
In addition to NOAA Fisheries and the Gulf of Mexico Regional Council
initiatives, the Rigs to Reefs Act of 2003 (H.R. 2654) was introduced in the 108th
Congress to authorize the use of decommissioned offshore oil and gas platforms for
the culture of marine organisms. This bill would have exempted oil and gas
companies from having to remove offshore production platforms within a year of
lease termination and awarded them tax credits for allowing their platforms to be
used for open ocean aquaculture, artificial reefs, or scientific study. Proponents saw
major potential in establishing aquaculture operations at decommissioned oil and gas
platforms, while opponents argued that the oil and gas industry could use the
provisions of this bill to avoid the substantial costs of removing offshore production
platforms. Some proponents of open ocean aquaculture view oil and gas platforms
as less than optimal locations for their operations. Also in the 108th Congress, S.
2859 would have prohibited the issuance of permits for marine aquaculture facilities
in federal waters until requirements for such permits are enacted.
Limited federal funding has been provided for open ocean aquaculture. Under
NOAA’s Ocean and Atmospheric Research budget, $1.7 million was appropriated
in FY1998, followed by an additional $2.4 million each in FY1999, FY2000, and
FY2001, for the open ocean aquaculture demonstration project at the University of
New Hampshire.57 Additional funding for open ocean aquaculture research is
provided through NOAA’s National Sea Grant College Program, but the portion
devoted specifically to open ocean aquaculture could not be determined by CRS.
Some critics of federal funding argue that aquaculture development funds should be
competitively awarded and that legislative earmarking to fund specific projects
should be avoided.
As part of a National Marine Aquaculture Initiative (NMAI), the National Sea
Grant College Program has initiated research throughout the United States on open
ocean aquaculture.58 For several years, NMAI also funded the Gulf of Mexico
Offshore Aquaculture Consortium, whose research program was sited in federal
waters beyond state jurisdiction. Most of the NMAI-funded research has been
conducted to support and help promote the aquaculture industry and often has been
done in collaboration with the industry. There has been minimal independent
research, especially on environmental and socioeconomic impacts.
56 The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy’s preliminary report, Preliminary Report of the
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, was available at [http://oceancommission.gov/
documents/prelimreport/welcome.html] on Apr. 27, 2004.
57See the University of New Hampshire’s open ocean aquaculture project overview at
[http://ooa.unh.edu/overview.html], visited Aug. 5, 2004.
58Charles E. Helsley, “Open Ocean Aquaculture — a Venue for Cooperative Research
Between the United States and Japan,” In Y. Nakamura, et al. (eds.), Ecology of Aquaculture
Species and Enhancement of Stocks, Proceedings of the Thirtieth U.S. — Japan Meeting on
Aquaculture (Sarasota, FL: Mote Marine Laboratory), UJNR Technical Report No. 30
(2003), pp. 1-6.

---

CRS-16
Chronology
09/26/1980 —
The National Aquaculture Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-362, 16 U.S.C.
§§2801 et seq.) established a national policy of encouraging
development of aquaculture in the United States.59
11/25/1988 —
A permit application was filed with U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers seeking approval for operation by American
Norwegian Fish Farm, Inc., of a large aquaculture facility in
federal waters off Gloucester, MA.60 For a variety of reasons,
this project was never built.
— / — /1989 —
First U.S. trials of offshore cages began in Washington state.
09/ — /1995 —
Open ocean aquaculture was recognized by the federal Office for
Technology Assessment as a potentially viable way to raise
fish.61
01/14/1997 —
NMFS closes an area south of Martha’s Vineyard, MA, for the
SeaStead sea scallop aquaculture project.62
— / — /1997 —
The University of New Hampshire began its Open Ocean
Aquaculture Demonstration Project, funded through Sea Grant.
— / — /1998 —
SeaFish Mariculture, L.L.C., with Shell Oil Company, began
culturing red drum in an offshore net-pen facility adjacent to an
oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico, 34 miles off New Orleans,
LA.
02/01/2000
—
The Sea Grant Gulf of Mexico
Offshore
Aquaculture
Consortium, a collaborative, Gulf-wide, university-based
interdisciplinary research program, was formed to address
social, environmental and technological issues that have plagued
offshore aquaculture endeavors in the Gulf of Mexico. The
project began the first fish culture in U.S. federal waters outside
state jurisdiction, 22 miles off Mississippi.63
59National Aquaculture Act of 1980 at [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/sfweb/aqua_act.htm],
visited Aug. 5, 2004.
60This project envisioned occupying 47 square miles of ocean 27 miles east of Cape Ann,
MA, and building 90 pens that would hold 45 million pounds of salmon.
61U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Current Status of Federal Involvement
in U.S. Aquaculture, available at [http://www.wws.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/byteserv.prl/~ota/
disk1/1995/9554/9554.PDF], visited Aug. 6, 2004.
6262 Federal Register 1829-1832.
63The Mississippi Alabama Sea Grant Consortium’s Offshore Aquaculture Consortium at
[http://www.masgc.org/oac/], visited Oct. 1, 2004.

---

CRS-17
05/18/2000 —
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council approved a
motion that the Council work closely with the Gulf of Mexico
Offshore Aquaculture Consortium relative to all aspects of the
development of offshore aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico.
03/ — /2001 —
Cates International, Inc. opened a commercial open ocean
aquaculture facility after its lease was authorized by the State of
Hawaii.
09/ — /2003 —
After federal funding terminated, the Gulf of Mexico Offshore
Aquaculture Consortium removed its offshore infrastructure.
12/23/2003 —
NOAA Fisheries announced disapproval of an exempted fishing
permit for Florida Offshore Aquaculture, Inc.64
12/23/2003 —
A coalition of environmental and fishery groups wrote to NOAA
Fisheries Assistant Administrator Hogarth to request that a
legislative environmental impact statement be prepared on draft
legislation proposing a permitting system for aquaculture in the
EEZ.65
— / — /2004 —
NOAA submitted a draft “National Offshore Aquaculture Act”
to the Office of Management and Budget for review.
04/20/2004 —
The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy’s preliminary report
recommended that open ocean aquaculture be streamlined and
that permitting be located within NOAA.
07/23/2004 —
Sixteen House Members from coastal states sent a letter to
NOAA Administrator Vice-Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher,
calling for a legislative environmental impact statement (LEIS)
on proposed legislation relating to offshore aquaculture.66
09/02/2004 —
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and NMFS
announced their intent to prepare a draft supplemental
environmental impact statement (DSEIS) in support of a
proposed Generic Amendment for Offshore Aquaculture.67
6468 Federal Register 74217-74218.
65See [http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/LetterNOAAforEIS12.23.2003.pdf], visited
Oct. 20, 2004.
66See [http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ca23_capps/pr040723_NOAA.html], visited
Oct. 20, 2004.
6769 Federal Register 53682-53683.

---