best interests of the American people (the public interest) to develop open ocean
aquaculture, yet only limited action has occurred.
Advantages of an overarching national regulatory system include: direct agency
implementation of nationwide plans and policies, designation of a lead agency to
issue and manage permits for all federal waters, opportunity for close coordination
with all stakeholder agencies involved in the EEZ, and placement of the management entity in the nation’s ocean management agency for efficient application of the
best science to decisions. There appear to be no major disadvantages with this
comprehensive, overarching approach.
Due to the political road blocks in Congress for national legislation, agency
proponents utilized an obscure legal opinion that aquaculture is fishing and therefore the nation’s principle fisheries management legislation, the MSA, as amended,
could be used to move forward. MSA utilizes a regional approach through eight
agency-stakeholder managed councils that prepare plans and policies and manage
the fisheries in their jurisdiction, while working closely with NOAA. This
community-based approach allows each region to develop a plan (or not) for
aquaculture in federal waters and work with NOAA to promulgate rules to
manage it.
The advantages of this regional approach include some of the same achieved by
a national approach: the lead agency for fisheries would also be the lead agency for
aquaculture, NOAA would still issue and manage site permits for the EEZ, and
coordination would have a more regional focus.
Apparent disadvantages to this approach include: regionalizing planning and
policy development could lead to differing approaches to implementation for each
region (NOAA does have final approval on all plans and policies), plans and
projects have to go through the “filter” of a diverse public-private management
body (e.g., includes national and state agencies, commercial and recreational fishers, ocean recreation interests, cultural and environmental interests, etc.), the
Councils are currently not staffed to manage commercial aquaculture in the EEZ
and implementation and placement under the Fishery Councils adds another layer
of bureaucracy to navigate.
The Gulf Plan Rules, Concerns
The adopted Gulf of Mexico Offshore Aquaculture Plan and pending Rules have
been subject to intense stakeholder and public comment using Internet posting.
Comments from a wide variety of stakeholders note a number of concerns and
potential flaws in the Rules as currently written. The major concerns expressed by
the aquaculture industry and potential investors are briefly highlighted below.
Fortunately, if these concerns are realized as serious impediments to development,
the Gulf Plan includes change processes to amend both the Plan and the Rules,
hence the approach could be considered an Adaptive Management Approach to
establishing a regulatory system for the U.S. EEZ.
208
J.S. Corbin et al.
aquaculture, yet only limited action has occurred.
Advantages of an overarching national regulatory system include: direct agency
implementation of nationwide plans and policies, designation of a lead agency to
issue and manage permits for all federal waters, opportunity for close coordination
with all stakeholder agencies involved in the EEZ, and placement of the management entity in the nation’s ocean management agency for efficient application of the
best science to decisions. There appear to be no major disadvantages with this
comprehensive, overarching approach.
Due to the political road blocks in Congress for national legislation, agency
proponents utilized an obscure legal opinion that aquaculture is fishing and therefore the nation’s principle fisheries management legislation, the MSA, as amended,
could be used to move forward. MSA utilizes a regional approach through eight
agency-stakeholder managed councils that prepare plans and policies and manage
the fisheries in their jurisdiction, while working closely with NOAA. This
community-based approach allows each region to develop a plan (or not) for
aquaculture in federal waters and work with NOAA to promulgate rules to
manage it.
The advantages of this regional approach include some of the same achieved by
a national approach: the lead agency for fisheries would also be the lead agency for
aquaculture, NOAA would still issue and manage site permits for the EEZ, and
coordination would have a more regional focus.
Apparent disadvantages to this approach include: regionalizing planning and
policy development could lead to differing approaches to implementation for each
region (NOAA does have final approval on all plans and policies), plans and
projects have to go through the “filter” of a diverse public-private management
body (e.g., includes national and state agencies, commercial and recreational fishers, ocean recreation interests, cultural and environmental interests, etc.), the
Councils are currently not staffed to manage commercial aquaculture in the EEZ
and implementation and placement under the Fishery Councils adds another layer
of bureaucracy to navigate.
The Gulf Plan Rules, Concerns
The adopted Gulf of Mexico Offshore Aquaculture Plan and pending Rules have
been subject to intense stakeholder and public comment using Internet posting.
Comments from a wide variety of stakeholders note a number of concerns and
potential flaws in the Rules as currently written. The major concerns expressed by
the aquaculture industry and potential investors are briefly highlighted below.
Fortunately, if these concerns are realized as serious impediments to development,
the Gulf Plan includes change processes to amend both the Plan and the Rules,
hence the approach could be considered an Adaptive Management Approach to
establishing a regulatory system for the U.S. EEZ.
208
J.S. Corbin et al.