Order Code RL32694
Open Ocean Aquaculture
Updated March 15, 2007
Harold F. Upton
Analyst in Natural Resources
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Eugene H. Buck
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Rachel Borgatti
Intern
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

---

Open Ocean Aquaculture
Summary
Open ocean aquaculture is broadly defined as the rearing of marine organisms
in exposed areas beyond significant coastal influence. Open ocean aquaculture
employs less control over organisms and the surrounding environment than do
inshore and land-based aquaculture, which are often undertaken in enclosures, such
as ponds. When aquaculture operations are located beyond coastal state jurisdiction,
within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ; generally 3 to 200 miles from
shore), they are regulated primarily by federal agencies. Thus far, only a few
aquaculture research facilities have operated in the U.S. EEZ; to date, all commercial
aquaculture facilities have been sited in nearshore waters under state or territorial
jurisdiction.
Development of commercial aquaculture facilities in federal waters is hampered
by an unclear regulatory process for the EEZ, and technical uncertainties related to
working in offshore areas. Regulatory uncertainty has been identified by the
Administration as the major barrier to developing open ocean aquaculture.
Uncertainties often translate into barriers to commercial investment. Potential
environmental and economic impacts and associated controversy have also likely
contributed to slowing potential expansion.
Proponents of open ocean aquaculture believe it is the beginning of the “blue
revolution” — a period of broad advances in culture methods and subsequent
increases in production. Critics point to concerns related to environmental protection
and potential impacts on existing commercial fisheries. Potential outcomes are
difficult to characterize because of the diverse nature of potential operations and the
lack of aquaculture experience in open ocean areas.
The National Offshore Aquaculture Act was introduced as S. 1195 in the 109th
Congress at the Administration’s request, but was not enacted. The legislation
focused on the need to develop a framework for issuing permits to operate in the
EEZ. The bill has been re-drafted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and may be introduced in the 110th Congress. Issues raised
in connection with the previous bill included potential environmental impacts, the
role of states, and permit security and duration.
This report discusses four general areas: (1) operational and business-related
challenges; (2) potential environmental impacts; (3) potential economic impacts; and
(4) the legal and regulatory environment. It then summarizes recent executive and
legislative actions. Significant questions remain about whether an appropriate
mechanism exists for any federal agency to provide an open ocean aquaculture lease
with the necessary property rights to begin construction and operation. Policy makers
and regulators will be challenged to weigh the needs of a developing industry against
potential environmental and social impacts.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Challenges of Open Ocean Aquaculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Biological, Operational, and Business Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Species and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Economic Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Shoreside Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Development and Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Social and Economic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Legal and Regulatory Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Marine Aquaculture Task Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Federal Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Legislative Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Agency and Fishery Management Council Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
NOAA Aquaculture Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Council Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

---

Open Ocean Aquaculture
Introduction
Open ocean aquaculture is broadly defined as the rearing of marine organisms
in exposed areas beyond significant coastal influence. Open ocean aquaculture
operations would be located at a considerable distance from shore and subject to
relatively harsh environmental conditions resulting from wind and wave action.
Open ocean aquaculture employs less control over organisms and the surrounding
environment than do inshore and land-based aquaculture, which are often undertaken
in enclosures such as ponds.
The National Offshore Aquaculture Act was introduced as S. 1195 at the
Administration’s request in the 109th Congress, but was not enacted. This legislation
focused on the need for a framework for issuing permits to operate in federal waters
of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), generally 3 to 200 miles from the
coastline.1 The bill has been re-drafted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and may be introduced in the 110th Congress.2 The drafted
bill was modified to strengthen environmental provisions, clarify the role of states
and fishery management councils, and extend the duration of permits to 20 years, as
these were issues raised in connection with the previous proposal.
Background
Several terms for open ocean aquaculture are used interchangeably, including
offshore aquaculture and offshore fish farming.3 Open ocean aquaculture facilities
generally 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.
Currently operating commercial aquaculture farms in nearshore waters and estuaries
use a variety of methods including ponds with earthen dikes, cages and net-pens
1 S. 1195 and the current NOAA draft National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2007 define
“offshore aquaculture” as all activities, including operation of offshore aquaculture
facilities, involved in the propagation and rearing, or attempted propagation and rearing, of
marine species in the United State Exclusive Economic Zone. Open ocean aquaculture is
a more general term for operations in exposed ocean areas beyond significant coastal
influence and may include areas in state waters within 3 miles of the shoreline.
2 The NOAA draft National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2007 and related information are
available at [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mediacenter/aquaculture/offshore.htm].
3 Marine 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.

---

CRS-2
moored to the ocean bottom, enhancement and seeding of the bottom, and suspended
lines. There has been some experimentation in offshore shellfish culture on the
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.4 Currently, three commercial open ocean facilities are
operating in U.S. state/territorial waters. Cates International, Inc., cultivates moi
(Pacific threadfin) near Hawaii, and Snapperfarms, Inc., cultivates cobia (ling) near
Puerto Rico. In September 2005, Kona Blue Water Farms of Hawaii celebrated its
first harvest of kahala reared in deepwater pens in state waters. Although these are
open ocean operations, all three are currently sited in waters under state or territorial
jurisdiction. Thus far, only a few aquaculture research facilities have operated in the
EEZ. When such operations are located beyond coastal state jurisdiction within the
U.S. EEZ, they are regulated primarily by federal agencies.5
Development of commercial aquaculture facilities in federal waters is hampered
by an unclear regulatory process in the EEZ and technical uncertainties related to
working in offshore areas. Regulatory uncertainty has been identified by the
Administration as the major barrier to developing open ocean aquaculture in the
United States.6 Uncertainty is also one of the main barriers to commercial investment
in new industries. Potential environmental and economic impacts and associated
controversy have also likely contributed to slowing potential expansion.
Proponents of open ocean aquaculture position it as the beginning of the “blue
revolution” — broad advances in culture methods and application with resulting
increases in marine aquaculture production. They tout open ocean aquaculture as an
option for meeting consumer demand for marine products, providing new
employment opportunities, decreasing the U.S. trade deficit in seafood products, and
developing a new economically viable industry. It is also asserted by proponents that
development of open ocean sites would have the advantages of avoiding inshore user
conflicts and reducing environmental impacts.
Opponents raise a number of concerns related to environmental protection and
potential impacts on existing commercial fisheries. They point to inshore
aquaculture where mangrove forests have been replaced by shrimp ponds, and waste
4 For more information on international efforts, see Biliana Cicin-Sain, et al., “Chapter 6:
Lessons from the International Arena,” 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].
5 Federal agencies also have regulatory authority over certain aspects of aquaculture
development in nearshore waters under state/territorial jurisdiction.
6 Written statement of Dr. William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Dept. of Commerce, Hearing on Offshore Aquaculture, before the U.S. Senate, Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, National Ocean Policy Study (Apr. 6, 2006).

---

CRS-3
from salmon culture has harmed the seabed environment. Their environmental
concerns include pollution from unused feed, fish wastes, and treatments (e.g.,
antibiotics); entanglement of marine wildlife in gear; introduction of nonnative
species; and escape of organisms that might affect the genetic makeup of wild
species. They say that open ocean aquaculture could also have direct and indirect
effects on commercial fisheries, such as degradation of wild fish habitat; preemption
of commercial fishing grounds; and market competition between wild and cultured
fish products.
The future of open ocean aquaculture in the EEZ is still an open question. A
complex and unpredictable mix of technological, biological, and economic elements
will likely determine the profitability of open ocean aquaculture. However, the future
will also likely depend on the tradeoffs between benefits associated with aquaculture
production and costs of potential environmental and social impacts.
Challenges of Open Ocean Aquaculture
A broad array of questions is associated with the viability and impacts of open
ocean aquaculture initiation and expansion. These concerns are further complicated
by factors such as evolving production technology, uncertain economic costs and
benefits, and environmental and social impacts. Generalizations are also difficult to
make because of the variety of candidate species, associated technologies, and
potential scales of operation.
Major categories of concerns related to open ocean aquaculture development
include (1) biological, operational, and business concerns related to development of
a new industry; (2) potential social and economic impacts; (3) potential
environmental impacts; (4) and the legal and regulatory environment.7
Biological, Operational, and Business Concerns
Species and Technology. Current species and culture techniques —
including species selection, egg/larval production, and nutritional/dietary
requirements — are somewhat limited. Development of open ocean aquaculture
probably will need further research, and new culture techniques may be required for
rearing species not presently grown.
Many economically important species are currently being studied at various
universities and research institutes for possible culture, including amberjack, black
sea bass, blue mussels, cobia, cod, corvina, flounder, haddock, halibut, mahimahi,
7 Detailed discussions of many of the issues discussed in this section are available in
Development of a Policy Framework for Offshore Marine Aquaculture in the 3-200 Mile
U.S. Ocean Zone (2001) by the University of Delaware’s Center for the Study of Marine
Policy, at [http://darc.cms.udel.edu/sgeez/sgeez1final.pdf]; and Recommendations for an
Operational Framework for Offshore Aquaculture in U.S. Federal Waters (October 2005)
by the University of Delaware’s Gerard J. Mangone Center for Marine Policy, at
[http://darc.cms.udel.edu/sgeez/sgeez2final.pdf].

---

CRS-4
mutton snapper, red drum, striped bass, tuna, and yellowtail snapper. Other research
topics being investigated include hatchery culture technologies; automated feeder
design; culture of new species; disease identification and control; cages and
husbandry technology for rough water environments; identification of alternative
food sources; nutrition requirements; definition of carrying capacity of offshore
waters; appropriate mooring systems; drifting and self-powered cages; federal
regulatory structure; and environmental monitoring technology.
Since open water aquaculture is a relatively new industry, many potential
operators are inexperienced with the technical requirements for open ocean facilities.
Historically, development has been limited by technology that requires water depths
of 100-150 feet; this narrow band of acceptable depth exists from ¼ mile to about 50
miles offshore, depending on location. 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, and
unpredictable ocean conditions that can prevent operators from being able to access
their cages for days to weeks.8
Systems have been developed to overcome these obstacles, including cage
designs that do not deform under current and wave loads, submersible cages, and
single-point moorings. Cage-mounted autonomous feeding systems have been
developed that can operate both at the surface and submerged. Others have
developed closed containment systems for open ocean use to address environmental
concerns. 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.9 These ship-like structures
could float on favorable oceanic currents or be held geostationary with low-energy
thrusters.
Financing. Estimating profitability and securing financing is difficult for new
open ocean aquaculture companies because of an uncertain regulatory environment,
the risk associated with operating in exposed open ocean locations, the risk of
catastrophic events (e.g., severe storms), limited operational experience, and high
capital start-up costs. Proponents of open ocean aquaculture development assert that,
without some form of long-term (at least 25 years) permitting or leasing 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
8 A pilot study cage in the Gulf of Mexico was torn from its mooring in December 2000 and
was found off the coast of Louisiana after a long search.
9 Critics question whether floating unmanned remote-control cages could ever be permitted,
due to the major navigational hazard they could present.

---

CRS-5
vandalism and other property threats.10 Such leasing may be problematic unless
property rights beyond the territorial sea are clarified.
The availability of insurance on stock and equipment is relevant to, and can
facilitate obtaining, front-end capital for open ocean 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 insurers are likely to be comfortable with the risks that must
be insured.
Proponents of open ocean aquaculture suggest that, if profits are to be made,
sufficient investment capital must be available as soon as 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 or
shore-based aquaculture.
Economic Potential. The economic potential of U.S. aquaculture will likely
depend on both operational costs and product prices. Costs will largely depend on
several factors, including U.S. regulation, the technology adopted, and national and
international economic conditions. Economic conditions will determine labor,
energy, capital, and other input costs. Prices of U.S. aquaculture products will likely
depend on world demand and the prices of competing products. Competing products
include similar imported cultured products, similar wild species, and other
agricultural product substitutes such as chicken, pork, and beef. One of the primary
challenges for potential U.S. producers is to minimize capital, labor, energy,
permitting, and other costs compared to those for aquaculture in other countries and
to wild stock harvesting.
The level of government support in other countries is often greater than that
provided in the United States. Government assistance could promote the initial
development of a U.S. open ocean aquaculture industry, but global market forces
would likely determine whether it matures or withers.
The United States has been, for the most part, a technological innovator, and the
use of marine resources to farm new species with high market value could give the
United States a competitive edge. On the other hand, operating costs and
environmental standards in other countries are often lower. In addition to capital
costs, the location of aquaculture facilities further from shore will necessitate high
variable costs such as fuel, security, and/or surveillance. Dependable air freight has
allowed aquaculture operations to market globally. Partially as a result, the U.S.
commercial fishing industry has been harmed by lower prices that are directly related
10 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.

---

CRS-6
to foreign aquaculture production. For example, many persons believe that the
worldwide salmon farming industry depresses wild salmon prices and harms the
economy of Alaskan coastal communities.
Shoreside Infrastructure. Supportive shoreside infrastructure, including
hatcheries and nurseries, does not exist and would need to be developed. Support
industries have the potential to provide employment and other economic benefits to
coastal communities. If open ocean aquaculture becomes viable, these business
should also grow. However, the relatively high value of shoreline property could be
an impediment to finding appropriate sites, especially waterfront sites, in coastal
areas with needed transportation infrastructure.
Development and Partnerships. Fostering industry/academic partnerships
may benefit open ocean aquaculture development.11 Some suggest that, for
development to occur, open ocean aquaculture should be considered “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 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 at the necessary scale of production. The developing
industry will also need to refine biological methods related to commercial-scale
hatchery and grow-out facilities. They also state that, without domestic financial
support, aquaculture innovation will likely come from other countries already
providing greater investment in technology development.
Social and Economic Impacts
Some Members of Congress, especially those from coastal areas with strong
fishing communities, are interested in better understanding the social and economic
effects of open ocean aquaculture development. If open ocean aquaculture supplied
a significant level of production at lower cost, it could supplement commercial
fishery production, resulting in greater quantities of products and lower prices.
Lower prices would benefit U.S. consumers, who would likely increase consumption.
However, greater aquaculture production also could supplant commercial
fishery production. Production from open ocean aquaculture could lower prices and
decrease profits of commercial fishing-related businesses. The consequences could
include lower landings by commercial fishermen (assuming that the fish stock had
11 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.
12 Potential 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-7
not been overfished), lower prices (and revenues) for commercial fishermen, the
failure of the least efficient businesses, loss of commercial fishery-related
employment, and disruption of fishing communities. However, the degree of
displacement would depend on the similarity of products, the scale of aquaculture
production, and the characteristics of associated markets for seafood products.
Although the Gulf of Mexico shrimp and Alaska salmon fisheries have been
harmed by lower prices, these commercial fisheries were not replaced by aquaculture.
The precise levels of impacts are difficult to quantify because of differences in
product form, relationships among products, and the general complexity of these
seafood markets. In some cases, competition could provide incentives to improve the
quality of the wild product, management institutions, and marketing. When the
entire economy is considered, greater efficiency in the wild fishery and consumer
benefits related to higher product quality and lower prices resulting from aquaculture
seem likely to result in net national benefits. To improve understanding of gains and
losses to specific sectors and local and national economies, concerned parties suggest
that social and economic impact assessments should be part of any aquaculture
development plan from the onset.
In 2005, the United States imported approximately 10.16 billion pounds of
edible seafood worth $12.1 billion.13 After accounting for exports of $4.1 billion,
there was a trade deficit of approximately $8.0 billion in edible seafood products.
Shrimp accounted for $3.6 billion and salmon accounted for $1.1 billion of total U.S.
imports.14 In 2005, annual U.S. aquaculture production was valued at nearly $1.1
billion15 (more than half of which is from freshwater production), representing less
than 1% of global aquaculture production.
Proponents assert that development of open ocean aquaculture would narrow the
U.S. deficit in seafood trade. However, many economists would assert that the
seafood trade deficit is insufficient reason to advocate for development of a new
industry. They say countries gain from free trade when they specialize in products
that they are best at producing.16 If other countries have an absolute or comparative
advantage in aquaculture, the United States would likely benefit from specializing
in other industries. In reality, say others, it is often difficult to determine whether a
comparative advantage will exist because of uncertainties related to technological
development and future economic conditions.
13 U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries of the United
States, 2005, Current Fishery Statistics No. 2005 (Washington, DC: Feb. 2007), p. 48 and
p. 64.
14 Ibid., p. 48.
15 U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, “Census of
Aquaculture (2005),” 2002 Census of Agriculture, Volume 3, Special Studies Part 2,
(Washington, DC: October 2006), p. 1.
16 A basic discussion of absolute and comparative advantage can be found at [http://
internationalecon.com/v1.0/ch40/40c000.html].

---

CRS-8
Although shrimp and salmon account for a large portion of the seafood trade
deficit, they appear to be poor candidates for open ocean aquaculture. Most shrimp
aquaculture is carried out in ponds in tropical coastal areas. Salmon aquaculture
generally uses net-pens in protected areas such as fjords or bays. It is questionable
whether open ocean aquaculture can be competitive with established inshore
aquaculture of these species. For example, one of the current offshore aquaculture
operators foresees future investment focusing on new species and warmer climates.17
If many of the proposed species for open ocean aquaculture are carnivores, it is
possible that increased imports of fishmeal from small wild fish will be required to
feed the farmed fish. If so, these imports could increase the U.S. trade deficit.
However, these imports may be beneficial to the overall national economy, if the
domestic aquaculture industry is economically viable.
Open ocean aquaculture development also has the potential to interfere with
maritime transportation and commercial fisheries, with potential conflicts over access
and transit rights.18 Because of this potential for conflict, a process would need to be
developed to identify the more suitable areas in federal waters for open ocean
aquaculture development and/or to mediate disputes. Also, safety issues with
offshore facilities may need to be addressed.
Proponents of open ocean 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 and its impact on local communities. They assert that, in many cases, shrimp
and salmon have been produced at the expense of local communities and
environmental concerns.19 From another perspective and with appropriate research
support, open ocean aquaculture might provide opportunities for commercial
fishermen who no longer pursue harvests in managed capture fisheries. Based on the
history of salmon farming, some have questioned the claims of aquaculture as a jobs
creator, especially since it seems likely to become a highly automated industry.
Additionally, little evidence has been provided for the economic benefits of open
ocean aquaculture beyond the general acknowledgment that marine aquaculture has
proven profitable elsewhere, especially in inshore areas with little or no
environmental regulation and/or enforcement (e.g., Chile).
Advocates of open ocean aquaculture operations view it as additional means to
support the domestic seafood industry, which has some of the highest unemployment
17 Written statement of John R. Cates, President of Cates International, Hearing On Offshore
Aquaculture, before the U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
National Ocean Policy Study (Apr. 6, 2006).
18 Submerged technologies for open ocean aquaculture may reduce or eliminate some of
these concerns.
19 Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries, Dept. of Aquaculture, Key Figures from Norwegian
Aquaculture Industry, 2000, (Bergen, Norway: 2001), 15 p.; Neal Gilbertson, “The Global
Salmon Industry,” Alaska Economic Trends, v. 23, no. 10 (Oct. 2003): 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): 18-39.

---

CRS-9
rates in the country. However, others counter, unemployment in the seafood
industry/wild fisheries is also partly the result of the development of aquaculture,
especially salmon farming. Critics also argue that the potentially higher cost of
tending fish far from shore means these facilities are likely to be automated, and local
employment benefits may be minimal.20 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 are critical; and finally,
all the fish raised in offshore farms would need to be harvested, processed, and sold,
thereby potentially increasing the use of presently underutilized fish processing plants
along much of the coast.21 Others question whether it is realistic to assume that these
jobs can be filled by unemployed domestic seafood workers.
Due to international markets and foreign production, some of 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 losses for Alaska
fishermen. Lower prices would benefit U.S. consumers, who would likely increase
consumption regardless of whether open ocean aquaculture is developed inside or
outside the United States.
Environmental Impacts
Proponents of open ocean aquaculture and many environmental groups suggest
that open ocean finfish aquaculture systems may produce fewer and less severe
environmental impacts than those imposed by nearshore aquaculture systems. This
may be in part because 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 culture
20 Many are researching ways to increase automation, especially with feeding and
harvesting, such that few workers may be needed. At the extreme, 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 commercial fishing.
21 The 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/2003-2/2003-2-06.htm].

---

CRS-10
technique, location, size/scale, and species raised.22 Open ocean aquaculture pens
would be open to the surrounding environment. Some critics of open ocean
aquaculture cite concerns with the escape of fish, water pollution from uneaten feed
and waste products (including drugs, chemicals, and other inputs), 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.23 The present lack of knowledge
— owing to limited experience, lack of research funding, and few studies focusing
specifically on open ocean aquaculture — limits understanding of potential
environmental concerns. Critics of open ocean aquaculture hope that regulation of
this emerging industry will be stringent.
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, much like coastal areas benefit from natural upwelling.
A related concern is whether large operations will result in significant waste settling
that could alter benthic habitat. However, research indicates that, in some areas,
currents keep water around fish cages well circulated, dissipating waste products
quickly, resulting in minimal impact of open ocean aquaculture facilities on water
quality. 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.24 A possible solution might be 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.25
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. Chemicals used on foods have to be
approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration, and veterinarian oversight
can ensure proper application and minimal environmental impact. Drugs, some of
22 An extended discussion of most of the issues summarized in this section can be found in
Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment of Marine Fish Aquaculture (Dec. 2005) by
NMFS, available at [http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/25/6450_01302006_155445_Nash
FAOFinalTM71.pdf].
23 Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Open Ocean Aquaculture, at [http://www.
environmentalobservatory.org/library.cfm?RefID=37057].
24 Critics assert that the experience with research facilities poorly indicates the impacts that
could be expected if the open ocean aquaculture industry reaches the size or 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
multiple farms combining to cause impacts and in multiple impacts from farms examined
as a whole, have not been studied.
25 Critics 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.

---

CRS-11
which were developed and approved for use in a contained or controlled
environment, are often introduced to cultured fish in their feed. 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.
Proponents of open ocean aquaculture suggest that, because of the more pristine and
better oxygenated water conditions offshore, no use of antibiotics has been necessary
in any of the offshore areas being tested in the United States.26
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. Some question whether aquaculture production could exacerbate
pressures and cause overfishing of these ocean fish stocks.27 Others assert that wild
fish stocks are well managed and commercial harvest for fishmeal would occur with
or without demand from open ocean aquaculture.28 In addition, a feed conversion
rate of three pounds feed to one pound of farmed product is favorable compared to
wild production.29 Use of a less desirable commodity to produce a more highly
valued product is the basis of most livestock and aquaculture operations.
The price of fishmeal and fish oil could increase if large quantities are required
for open ocean aquaculture. While concerns could be addressed by improving feed
formulations or by raising more herbivorous fish, the choice of open ocean
aquaculture species will likely depend on profitability.30 Many high-value candidate
fish or shellfish species are carnivorous. Plant protein sources, such as canola, algae,
or soybean meal, are being used to partially replace fishmeal, with significantly
positive results emerging, especially where soybean meal is supplemented with
certain essential amino acids. Another approach might use more waste from fish-
processing plants to alleviate pressures to increase wild harvest for fishmeal. In some
26 Personal communication from Dr. James P. McVey, Aquaculture Program Director,
National Sea Grant College Program, NOAA, September 2005.
27 Rosamond L. Naylor, et al., “Effect of Aquaculture on World Fish Supplies,” Nature, v.
405 (June 29, 2000): 1017-1024. Others, however, point out that harvesting of forage fish
stocks may be mismanaged, rather than directly harmed by aquaculture.
28 Clifford A. Goudey, “Letters: Aquaculture in Offshore Zones,” Science, v. 314 (Dec. 22,
2006): 1875.
29 Actual 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 (Sergi Tudela, “Tuna Farming:
Grab, Cage, Fatten, Sell,” Samudra, no. 32 (July 2002): 9-17). At the other extreme, feed
conversion rates approaching 1.2 pounds of feed per pound of farmed Atlantic salmon have
been reported (British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office at [http://www.
eao.gov.bc.ca/epic/output/documents/p20/1051572085662_da81e53841c84e47b5ea9
ab15075741a.pdf]).
30 There has been little research on herbivorous species. NOAA has shown minimal interest
in these species and has not offered much direction in addressing the “net-loss” of fish
protein issue.

---

CRS-12
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.31
Another concern involves the spread of fish-borne disease from aquaculture to
wild populations. In one instance the opposite occurred, 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. Yet,
problems with the transfer of sea lice from salmon farms to wild salmon have been
noted recently.32
Genetic anomalies could occur if wild fish are exposed to or interbreed with
hatchery-raised fish. This issue might arise if genetically modified or non-native fish
escaped from aquaculture facilities and interbred with wild fish.33 The potential
interbreeding problem can be greatly reduced if only sterile fish are farmed; fairly
simple technology exists to accomplish such sterilization. Critics 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), but might not be able to survive in the
wild for the long term.34 This is especially a concern in states (e.g., California,
Maine, Maryland, and Washington) where genetically modified fish are banned
within state waters but could be grown in offshore 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 that
may be particularly vulnerable to storms, although recent hurricanes and tropical
storms in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Bahamas have caused no damage or loss of
fish in submerged cage-culture operations. 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 fully address this problem.
31 G. 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): 197-227.
32 Alexandra 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): 147-157.
33 Rebecca J. Goldburg, Matthew S. Elliott, and Rosamond L. Naylor, Marine Aquaculture
in the United States: Environmental Impacts and Policy Options, Pew Oceans Commission
(Arlington, VA: July 2001), pp. 6-9. See [http://www.pewtrusts.org/pdf/env_pew_oceans_
aquaculture.pdf].
34 The 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): 13853-13856).

---

CRS-13
Since facilities will be offshore and underwater, some are concerned about
possible harm or disturbance to marine mammals and other wildlife. 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 unlikely. However, experience has shown that dolphins and other marine
mammals do get entangled in fish farms.35 In addition, shellfish farms have many
ropes/longlines and could be problematic. Sound devices at farms to keep animals
away could harass or 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, and nursing. Also, there could be
renewed interest in killing “nuisance” animals, as has been the case with salmon
farmers killing seals and sea lions. There could be problems with other predatory
animals, such as sharks, as well.
Legal and Regulatory Environment
The legal and regulatory framework for open ocean aquaculture will, in large
part, determine whether private industry succeeds in establishing commercial
operations. 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 coastal residents, 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 (EPA), the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).36 The
review required under each of these agencies’ responsibilities can delay a permit or
deny it if the expected effects are too great. These agencies will likely be involved
in future decisions that might 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 Coastal Zone Management plans may
veto federal permits for activities that are inconsistent with the state’s plan. This
35 See C. M. Kemper et al., “Aquaculture and Marine Mammals: Coexistence or Conflict?”
Marine Mammals and Humans: Towards a Sustainable Balance, N. Gales, M. Hindell, and
R. Kirkwood, eds., (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.
36 NMFS (also popularly called “NOAA Fisheries”) is part of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the U.S. Dept. of Commerce.

---

CRS-14
oversight ensures that operations occurring in federal waters adjacent to state waters
will neither harm that state’s interests nor be inconsistent with state policies.
EPA regulates the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States from
finfish aquaculture facilities under the Clean 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.”37 For aquaculture facilities located in offshore federal waters, Section
403(c) of the CWA requires an additional review to prevent unreasonable
degradation of the marine environment. Discharges that cause unreasonable
degradation are prohibited, and are evaluated according to ocean discharge criteria
established by the EPA.
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, in the Department of Homeland Security, regulates vessel traffic
and dictates safety measures (lights and signals) for aquaculture structures to ensure
safe vessel 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 that
might interfere with naval operations.
Through a NOAA General Counsel opinion,38 NOAA assumed the lead role in
promoting open ocean aquaculture development and has supported this developing
industry. In some cases, NMFS has authorized 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.).39 In addition, the
Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the federal permitting agency for any aquaculture
facility to consult with NMFS for potential impacts to essential fish habitat (EFH).
EFH is designated for all marine species for which there is a federal fishery
management plan (FMP). NMFS 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 impede or prevent open ocean
aquaculture development in some areas.
37 40 C.F.R. Part 451; see 69 Fed. Reg. 51891-51930 (Aug. 23, 2004).
38 Jay 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.
39 Based on a legal opinion by NOAA General Counsel, landings or possession of fish in the
EEZ 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 NMFS. Scientific activity for
marine aquaculture in the EEZ is regulated by federal exempted fishing permits (50 C.F.R.
§600.745).

---

CRS-15
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.40 The New England Council has established evaluation criteria
for open ocean aquaculture proposals that encourage the use of best management
practices aimed at reducing environmental and fishery impacts. The Gulf of Mexico
Council has adopted an open ocean aquaculture policy and has prepared a
management options paper. Although the key installation, navigation, and water
quality permits can be obtained from the agencies mentioned above after a permit
development and public review process, commercial aquaculture is less likely to
occur in other offshore federal waters, because other regional fishery management
councils have not prepared aquaculture FMPs or generic aquaculture amendments to
the appropriate FMPs for species that could be cultured. In addition, it is unclear
what regulatory authority NMFS and the regional councils might have over species,
like mussels, that are not managed under a federal FMP.
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.41 Precedents in leasing
offshore areas for developing 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 permit
or 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.
Marine Aquaculture Task Force
In 2005, the Pew Charitable Trusts and Lenfest Foundation requested the Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institution to convene a task force to examine the potential risks
and benefits of open ocean aquaculture. The nine-member panel developed a set of
national policy recommendations to guide future development of the industry.42 The
panel concentrated on potential environmental impacts with recommendations related
to:
40 “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].
41 The 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.
42 A copy of the 128-page Task Force report is available at [http://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/
mcarlowicz/2007/1/Sustainable_Marine_Aquaculture_final_1_02_07_17244.pdf].

---

CRS-16
! escapes resulting in introduction of nonnative species;
! disease and parasite spillover into natural ecosystems;
! aquacultural waste resulting in water pollution; and
! market-based incentives to reward environmental protection.
The panel also provided a general governance framework to address
environmental impacts that would provide clear federal leadership and standards to
protect the marine environment. The framework would assign NOAA a lead role in
planning aquaculture in federal marine waters, with emphasis on related activities
such as evaluating environmental risks, consulting with regional and state bodies, and
developing environmental standards.
Federal Action
Legislative Efforts
In 2005, NOAA developed a draft “National Offshore Aquaculture Act.”
Modified legislation was introduced in the 109th Congress as S. 1195. The National
Ocean Policy Study of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation held related hearings in April and June of 2006. S. 1195 would have
established a regulatory framework for aquaculture in federal waters. It would have
provided for the issuing of permits to operate in ocean tracts for 10 years with
potential extensions and established a “one-stop” permitting system for open ocean
aquaculture operators.43 S. 1195 would have:
! authorized the Secretary of Commerce to issue open ocean
aquaculture permits and to establish environmental requirements
where existing requirements under current law are inadequate;
! exempted permitted open ocean aquaculture from legal definitions
of fishing that restrict size, season, and harvest methods;
! authorized a research and development program to support open
ocean aquaculture;
! required the Secretary of Commerce to work with other federal
agencies to develop and implement a streamlined and coordinated
permitting process for aquaculture in the EEZ; and
! offered certain exemptions for foreign ownership.
Current aquaculturalists and related industries have been supportive of offshore
aquaculture expansion. They have voiced a general belief that offshore aquaculture
can be established in a manner that minimizes potential environmental and
commercial fishing impacts while providing a valuable source of seafood.
Aquaculture industry representatives expressed concern that the 10-year site permit
and five-year permit renewals were too short because of the need for a longer
43 See “Aquaculture for the Future” at [http://www.pnwer.org/meetings/Summer2004/
Presentations/Chaves.pdf].

---

CRS-17
investment time frame. Another common concern involved the need for public
investment to support and promote aquaculture development.44
Most environmental and commercial fishing interests have been skeptical or
opposed to plans for offshore aquaculture development. Both groups of interests
generally opposed S. 1195, because they believed it contained weak environmental
provisions.45 Commercial fishing interests also voiced concerns related to potential
impacts on markets and coastal communities.46 In most cases, neither group is
opposed to all development, but both show concern regarding how aquaculture
expansion will proceed. A precautionary approach has been advocated by most
commercial fishing and environmental interests.
NOAA has redrafted legislation for possible re-introduction in the 110th
Congress. In response to public comments and hearing testimony, NOAA modified
S. 1195 to:
! strengthen the environmental provisions;
! clarify the role for fishery management councils and states;
! substitute a single offshore aquaculture permit for separate site and
operating permits; and
! extend the duration of offshore aquaculture permits to 20 years rather
than 10 years.
Additional provisions retained from the original draft include requiring a bond
or other form of financial guarantee; data monitoring and collection; clarifying that
the bill does not supersede other laws and agencies; and providing sufficient authority
for NOAA to address more detailed environmental requirements through rulemaking.
This legislation would also implement a U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
recommendation to designate NOAA as the lead federal agency for marine
aquaculture and create an Office of Sustainable Marine Aquaculture in NOAA.47
Such an effort within NOAA could result in one agency being responsible for both
promoting and regulating the industry.
Agency and Fishery Management Council Actions
NOAA Aquaculture Plan. In November 2006, NOAA released the interim
final version of a 10-Year Plan for its aquaculture program. The plan provides a
44 Written statements of Sebastian Belle and John R. Cates, Hearing on Offshore
Aquaculture, before the U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
National Ocean Policy Study (Apr. 6, 2006).
45 P. N. Spotts, “Fish Farms in the Ocean? Group Pushes Congress to Pass Tough Rules,”
The Christian Science Monitor, (Jan. 10, 2007).
46 Written statement of Mark Vinsel, Hearing on Offshore Aquaculture, before the U.S.
Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, National Ocean Policy
Study (Apr. 6, 2006).
47 The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century, is
available at [http://oceancommission.gov/documents/full_color_rpt/welcome.html].

---

CRS-18
blueprint of likely NOAA involvement in marine aquaculture over the next decade,
including program goals and strategies, budget and staffing requirements, potential
benefits of aquaculture, and associated challenges. The plan was prepared at the
request of the agency’s Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee (MAFAC), which
advises the Secretary of Commerce on living marine resource matters that are the
responsibility of the Department of Commerce. According to the plan, the NOAA
aquaculture program will:
! establish a comprehensive regulatory program for marine
aquaculture;
! develop appropriate technologies to support commercial marine
aquaculture and enhance wild stocks;
! improve public understanding of marine aquaculture; and
! influence the development and international adoption of sustainable
practices and standards for marine aquaculture.
The plan projects potential increases in annual domestic seafood aquaculture
production in the next 20 years of approximately one million metric tons, with nearly
900,000 tons attributable to anadromous or marine aquaculture production. The
projection of future production depends on changes in the current institutional
framework that governs marine aquaculture. According to NOAA, challenges to
achieving these production levels include:
! a complicated, inefficient, and uncertain federal regulatory process to
permit marine aquaculture facilities;
! insufficient research on environmental implications and ecosystem
carrying capacity of marine aquaculture;
! the lack of an adequate supporting research and development
infrastructure and technical infrastructure; and
! the lack of access to coastal sites for marine aquaculture facilities
because of competing high-value uses for housing and tourism.
The first three program challenges are directly related to open ocean aquaculture.
Since inshore marine aquaculture production has been stagnant over the last decade,
a large proportion of future production increases, if they occur, could result from open
ocean aquaculture.
Council Actions. 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.48 The council developed this policy, consisting of a variety
of guidelines, to encourage environmentally responsible open ocean aquaculture,
opposing the use of non-native species that could harm 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 damage to the environment and
minimize conflicts with other stakeholders. The Gulf of Mexico Regional Council
also developed a management options paper for open ocean aquaculture under the
48 Available at [http://www.gulfcouncil.org/downloads/mariculture_policy_GMFMC.pdf].

---

CRS-19
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and has discussed developing an FMP amendment on this
subject.49 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.
Funding. Sporadic 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 $2.4 million annually in FY1999-FY2001
for the open ocean aquaculture demonstration project at the University of New
Hampshire. Some critics of federal funding argue that aquaculture development funds
should be awarded competitively and that directly allocating funds to 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.50 For several years, NMAI also funded the Gulf of Mexico
Offshore Aquaculture Consortium, whose research program was sited in federal
waters beyond state jurisdiction. In addition, NMAI, through competitive grants,
supported policy and regulatory analysis as well as pilot studies in Puerto Rico and
Hawaii, research into fishmeal alternatives, and investigations of potential new species
for culture.51 Specific NMAI funding included $800,000 annually in FY1999 and
FY2000; $5.6 million in FY2001; $2.6 million in FY2002; $700,000 in FY2004; and
$4.6 million in FY2006. 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.
Proponents of development also contend that there has been inadequate federal
research funding of the amount and duration needed to develop and demonstrate
suitable technologies for meeting open ocean aquaculture’s technical challenges.
Private industry has often been at the forefront in addressing and solving pragmatic
technical issues in a new field. Yet there generally has been minimal public or private
research, especially on environmental and socioeconomic impacts.
49 69 Fed. Reg. 7185-7186 (Feb. 13, 2004).
50 Charles E. Helsley, “Open Ocean Aquaculture — a Venue for Cooperative Research
Between the United States and Japan,” Ecology of Aquaculture Species and Enhancement
of Stocks, Y. Nakamura, et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirtieth U.S. — Japan Meeting on
Aquaculture, UJNR Technical Report No. 30 (Sarasota, FL; Mote Marine Laboratory,
2003), pp. 1-6.
51 For a list of funded projects, see [http://www.lib.noaa.gov/docaqua/docresearch.html].

---

CRS-20
Discussion
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
wild Alaskan salmon compete with aggressive salmon aquaculture development by
Chile, Norway, and other nations.
However, environmentalists and commercial fishermen might view the absence
of salmon aquaculture in Alaska differently. Potential environmental and social
problems may have been avoided by concentrating on traditional wild fisheries. Wild
salmon populations have been maintained at high levels and much of the Alaska
coastline is pristine. Although competition from aquaculture salmon imports may
have hurt Alaska salmon fisheries, improvements in marketing and product quality
have kept many market segments competitive and provided greater benefits to U.S.
consumers.
The future of open ocean aquaculture in the U.S. EEZ is still an open question.
A complex and unpredictable mix of technological, biological, and economic factors
will likely determine the profitability of open ocean aquaculture. The outcomes
associated with these questions will likely involve a mix of innovation and technical
advances. Although government may play a role in funding research and pilot
projects, large-scale production will likely depend on private initiatives. The
aquaculture industry may learn from its successes and failures as firms test different
technical, business, and marketing approaches.
In addition to broad policy questions, specific questions revolve around setting
a regulatory framework for a developing industry. The main challenge for policy
makers is to allow for sufficient flexibility while balancing the needs of the
aquaculture industry with public concerns related to environmental and social impacts.

---