Offshore in the Pacific Northwest

A white paper of a forum held at OSU Hatfield Marine Science Center September 9–10, 2008 • Newport, Oregon

Edited by Chris Langdon, Oregon State University Contents

Cover photo: A ship checks the cages Executive Summary...... 3 in an offshore growing field. (© iStockphoto.com/Ziva_K) Acknowledgments...... 4 Introduction...... 5 Why the Pacific Northwest?...... 8 Technical and Scientific Issues...... 9 Environmental Impacts...... 11 Social Needs and Values...... 13 Industry and Other Offshore Interests...... 14 Federal and State Policies...... 15 Recommendations for Future Action...... 18 Bibliography...... 19 Appendix 1 – Forum Participants...... 20 Appendix 2 – Forum Program...... 22 Appendix 3 – Forum Sponsors...... 23

Edited by Chris Langdon, Oregon State Oregon State University; Richard Langan, For a complete list of Oregon Sea Grant publi- University. Copyedited and laid out by University of New Hampshire; George cations, visit http://seagrant.oregonstate.edu/ Rick Cooper, Oregon Sea Grant. Leonard, Ocean Conservancy; Mike Rust, sgpubs Contributors: James Anderson, University Northwest Science Center, This report was prepared by Oregon Sea of Rhode Island; Ed Backus, Ecotrust; NOAA; and Gil Sylvia, Oregon State Grant under award number Michael Banks, Oregon State University; University. NA06OAR4170010 from the National Devin Bartley, California Department of © 2009 by Oregon State University. Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Fish and Game; Susan Bunsick, NOAA This publication may be photocopied or National Sea Grant College Program, U.S. Aquaculture Program; Jeff Feldner, reprinted in its entirety for noncommercial Department of Commerce, and by appropria- Oregon Sea Grant Extension; John Forster, purposes. To order additional copies of tions made by the Oregon State legislature. John Forster Consulting, Inc.; Brian this publication, call 541-737-4849. This The statements, findings, conclusions, and Fredieu, NOAA Aquaculture Program; publication is available in an accessible recommendations are those of the authors Cliff Goudey, Massachusetts Institute of format on our Web site at http://seagrant. and do not necessarily reflect the views of Technology; Kaety Hildenbrand, Oregon oregonstate.edu/sgpubs/onlinepubs.html these funders. Sea Grant Extension; Michael Kent,

Oregon Sea Grant Corvallis, Oregon

ORESU-W-08-001 Executive Summary Chris Langdon, Oregon State University

The United States faces a potential Act, which, if enacted, would au- economic, and social aspects of off- shortage of inexpensive, high-quality thorize the Commerce Secretary to shore aquaculture, in order to better in the near future. The issue offshore aquaculture permits in evaluate its potential in this region. absence of foreseeable increases in federal waters, after careful consid- The forum was comprised of a mix of Tharvests from exploited capture eration of potential environmental talks and breakout sessions. All the fisheries, compounded by an unprec- effects and in consultation with adja- talks are available as PDF documents edented 39 percent predicted growth cent coastal states. The act also would and streaming video from the forum’s in global population in the next 40 authorize the Commerce Secretary Web site, http://oregonstate.edu/ years, will put severe pressure on sea- to establish research programs for conferences/aquaculture2008. A set of food supplies and prices. In addition, all types of marine aquaculture, recommendations is provided for the the anticipated rapid growth and including shellfish farming and future evaluation of offshore aquacul- development of emerging countries marine stock enhancement. Offshore ture in the Pacific Northwest. will lead to increased demand for aquaculture projects in state waters The forum made two overarching high-quality seafood as the dietary in the Northeast, the Southeast, the recommendations: standards of these countries improve. Caribbean, and Hawaii have already been established, and engineering, 1) Education and outreach on Global aquaculture is rapidly ex- biological, and economic challenges offshore aquaculture should be panding to help fill the widening gap are being addressed. However, no undertaken to benefit coastal between seafood demand and supply such projects have been established in communities. from capture fisheries. United States the Pacific Northwest. 2) Demonstration projects should aquaculture production accounts for be established to determine tech- only about 1.5 percent of total global This forum, reviewed in this white nical, biological, economic, and production, and there has been little paper, was an initial step in providing environmental aspects of offshore expansion over the past decade. interested parties with information aquaculture. The U.S. depends on imports to on current scientific, technical, meet about 80 percent of its seafood demand, at an annual cost of $13 bil- lion. Future availability of seafood for U.S. consumers is an issue worthy of immediate attention by policy makers LanganRichard and society.

The Pew Oceans Commission (2003) and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (2004) both described opportu- nities and challenges associated with expansion of offshore aquaculture. In response, NOAA is facilitating development of marine aquaculture, including offshore aquaculture. In 2007 NOAA submitted to Congress the National Offshore Aquaculture A 20-ton, floating container for supplying feed to offshore caged fish.

Offshore Aquaculture in the Pacific Northwest 3 Acknowledgments

The forum was made possible with John Meyer, Communication Goudey, Massachusetts Institute guidance provided by the forum’s Partnership for Science and the of Technology; Richard Langan, Advisory Committee. The committee Sea (COMPASS), OSU; Mike Rust, University of New Hampshire; consisted of Ed Backus, Ecotrust; Northwest Center, Michael Morrissey, OSU; Michael TMichael Banks, Coastal Oregon National Marine Fisheries Service Rubino, NOAA; Mike Rust, NMFS; Marine Experimental Station (NMFS); and Gil Sylvia, COMES, and Gil Sylvia, OSU. (COMES) and the Cooperative OSU. Carol Cole (COMES) coordinated Institute for Marine Resources Invited speakers gave talks that many of the forum’s activities. Justin Studies (CIMRS), Oregon State formed a framework for deliberations Overdevest assembled materials for University (OSU); Peter Becker, that occurred during breakout and the forum’s Web site and, along with Pacific Aquaculture Caucus; George wrap-up sessions. The speakers were Jessica Waddell (CIMRS), helped edit Boehlert, Hatfield Marine Science Jim Anderson, University of Rhode the white paper. Center (HMSC), OSU; Jeff Feldner, Island; Devin Bartley, California OSU Extension Service; Michael Financial support for the forum was Department of Fish and Game; Harte, College of Ocean and provided by a NOAA grant (award Randy Cates, Cates International Atmospheric Sciences (COAS), OSU; number NA080AR4170831). In ad- Inc.; John Forster, John Forster Onno Husing, Oregon Coastal Zone dition, support was generously pro- Consulting Inc.; Rebecca Goldburg, Management Association (OCZMA); vided by the following organizations: Environmental Defense Fund; Cliff COMPASS, OSU; CIMRS, OSU; Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation; HMSC, OSU; Northwest Fisheries Science Center, NMFS; Northwest Regional Office, NMFS; Oregon Sea Grant; and the Western Regional Aquaculture Center, USDA. Courtesy of NOAA Installing a Sea Station cage (Ocean Spar).

4 Offshore Aquaculture in the Pacific Northwest Introduction Chris Langdon, Oregon State University

Offshore aquaculture: current population of 304 million cating that successful aquaculture a pathway for meeting future to an estimated 438 million in 2050 operations can be profitable in devel- U.S. demand for seafood? (USAID 2008). oped countries, even with high labor costs and strong environmental reg- The demand for seafood is projected Clearly there is a need to develop ulations, as long as there is a sup- Oto increase, both as a consequence of additional sources of seafood for portive regulatory and social global population growth and higher a rapidly growing human popula- framework. standards of living in developing tion, if current levels of per-capita countries. The global human popula- consumption are to be maintained. The Pew Oceans Commission (2003) tion is projected to increase from Aquaculture offers one approach and the U.S. Commission on Ocean about 6.7 billion in 2008 to 9.3 bil- in meeting this projected future Policy (2004) both addressed oppor- lion by 2050 (USAID 2008)—a 39 global demand. Global aquaculture tunities and challenges associated percent increase in about 40 years. is already the fastest-growing with expansion of offshore aquacul- This rapid expansion is unprece- food-production sector (an 8.8 ture. In an effort to help stimulate dented and will result in greater percent annual increase since 1970) growth of domestic aquaculture and pressure on the earth’s natural and supplied 43 percent (42.7 million to avoid direct competition with resources, including seafood. tones) of all globally consumed fish other users of coastal waters, NOAA, Globally, 77 percent of wild stocks of in 2004 (FAO 2007). In contrast, following recommendations of the fish are either fully or over-exploited aquaculture production in the U.S. U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (FAO 2007). A similar situation is small, representing only about 1.5 and direction of the U.S. Ocean has developed in the U.S., with percent of total global production, Action Plan, has recently focused on an estimated 45 percent of fish and production has not grown over developing a regulatory structure to stocks overfished, despite efforts to the past decade. support the development of offshore rebuild stocks under the Magnuson- aquaculture in federal waters (the The state of aquaculture Stevens Conservation and zone between 3 and 200 miles from in the U.S. Management Act of 1996 (Rosenberg the coast). In addition, NOAA and et al. 2006). There is little likelihood The reasons for the slow growth of other federal and state agencies have that harvests of will U.S. aquaculture production are supported demonstration projects meet future increased demands for numerous. They include non-sup- to investigate the technical and seafood either in the U.S. or globally. portive state and federal regulatory economic feasibility of aquaculture structures, lack of trained personnel, of marine fish and shellfish species The United States is far from self-suf- insufficient capital investment, in the nearshore state waters of ficient in meeting its demands for demanding environmental require- New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, Gulf seafood; it currently imports about ments, high labor costs, and compe- Coast states, California, and Hawaii. 80 percent of its needs from a wide tition with other users of coastal Several private, commercial finfish range of countries, at an annual waters. As a consequence, many U.S. farms have been established in near- cost of $13 billion. In contrast, U.S. and international companies have shore waters of Hawaii and Puerto seafood exports are valued at only $4 located their operations outside the Rico; commercial mussel farms billion (NMFS 2008). This seafood U.S., mainly in developing countries. operate in state waters off the coast trade deficit will likely increase as However, it should be noted that of New Hampshire and California; the U.S. population grows by 44 salmon aquaculture thrives in and commercial salmon farming has percent in about 40 years, from a Norwegian and Scottish waters, indi- been practiced for more than three

Offshore Aquaculture in the Pacific Northwest 5 Introduction continued

decades in the nearshore waters of ture operations. The forum suggested developed a legislative framework for Maine and Washington State. that consistent and well-coordinated nearshore and offshore aquaculture state and federal policies and reg- as part of its Sustainable Oceans Act Aquaculture in the ulations need to be developed (see that could complement future federal Pacific Northwest section below on federal and state policies and laws. John Forster The Pacific Northwest offers some policies). (Forster Consulting) completed the unique opportunities for offshore talks of the first session by outlining aquaculture. Clean ocean waters will The forum technological, legislative, and social allow production of high-value, The purpose of the forum was to issues that need to be addressed to cold-water fish and shellfish species, bring together a wide range of partic- encourage investment by the busi- while high wave and wind energy ipants from state and federal agen- ness community. could provide offshore structures cies, the media, research institutions, The talks of the first session were with sources of power. In addition, and coastal and fishing communities, followed by a panel of four west coast the region has a strong fishing com- to discuss the risks and opportuni- fishermen who provided the forum munity capable of participating in ties of offshore aquaculture in the with perspectives of the fishing offshore operations. Pacific Northwest (Appendix 1). This industry. They voiced their concerns region previously had not held an West coast state policy and reg- about the potential economic im- informed discussion of this subject, ulatory provisions for offshore pacts of aquaculture production on despite progress made in other parts aquaculture are in various stages of prices of wild-caught fish and about of the U.S. development. In Oregon, aquaculture how offshore aquaculture would operations are covered by Goal 19 The forum consisted of a series of complement their current fishing of Oregon’s Statewide Planning presentations by scientists, econo- activities. They also raised questions Goals, the Territorial Sea Plan mists, members of federal and state about the technological feasibility of (TSP), and the Coastal Management agencies, businesspeople, and a panel offshore aquaculture in the stormy Plan. Furthermore, a House Joint of west coast fishers (Appendix 2). ocean conditions of the Pacific Memorial was passed in 2005 that Text and streaming videos of the Northwest. urged Oregon’s Legislative Assembly talks and panel discussions are Engineering (Cliff Goudey, MIT), to establish a regulatory system available on the forum’s Web site, biological, and husbandry issues for open-ocean aquaculture that http://oregonstate.edu/conferences/ (Mike Rust, NMFS), as well as envi- takes into account the concerns of aquaculture2008/. ronmental issues (Rebecca Goldburg, fishing communities and potential Federal and state perspectives Environmental Defense Fund), were environmental impacts. The state of were provided by Michael Rubino addressed in the second session. Washington has already established (manager of NOAA’s Aquaculture Cliff Goudey discussed differences policies and regulations for both Program) and Devin Bartley (aqua- between the engineering require- shellfish and finfish aquaculture in culture coordinator, California). ments of nearshore and offshore cage nearshore waters, but not specifically Michael Rubino described the goals structures and summarized various for offshore aquaculture. Passed in of the National Offshore Aquaculture engineering approaches that could 2006, the California Sustainable Act and various NOAA-funded, be evaluated. Mike Rust rated the Oceans Act provides a complex pilot aquaculture projects. Devin potential of a wide range of native framework for leasing and rigorous Bartley explained how California has fish and shellfish species for offshore requirements for offshore aquacul-

6 Offshore Aquaculture in the Pacific Northwest Introduction continued

aquaculture. His scoring was based Jim Anderson on availability of seed for grow-out, (University of feed requirements, growth rates to Rhode Island) market size, market value, potential and Gil Sylvia Richard Langan competition with existing fishery (Oregon State products, and existing aquaculture University). Jim information available for each Anderson dis- species. According to his scoring, cussed economic and had the greatest factors that have potential for successful offshore caused the rapid aquaculture, while rockfish and growth of global greenling were the highest-ranking aquaculture. He fish species. Last, Rebecca Goldburg concluded that emphasized the need to develop sus- demonstration Aquaculture mussel lines. tainable offshore aquaculture with projects were a strong and transparent regulatory needed to facilitate technical, envi- framework that addressed potential ronmental, and economic evaluation 5) The and other environmental impacts, such as pol- of this approach to producing offshore interests lution, diseases, and parasites, as well seafood in the Pacific Northwest. Gil 6) Federal and state policies as the effects of cultured escapees on Sylvia focused on the potential social wild populations. benefits and costs of offshore aqua- Session leaders were asked to sum- culture for coastal communities and marize their findings and identify In the third session of the forum, recommended further research and the most important next step(s) in Randy Cates (Cates International, education to provide information evaluating the opportunities and Inc.) provided the forum with a busi- for the development of appropriate risks of offshore aquaculture in the nessman’s perspective on developing policies and regulations. Pacific Northwest. A final wrap-up and operating a profitable nearshore session brought all the forum partici- aquaculture farm in Hawaii. He Breakout sessions were held on six pants together to determine common concluded with the statement: “The topics: themes and recommendations for debate on whether to farm fish is 1) Why the Pacific Northwest? future action. The breakout and over; the debate now is how to do it wrap-up session summaries are pre- 2) Technical and scientific questions right!” sented in this white paper, along with 3) Potential environmental impacts Economic considerations of offshore recommendations for future action. aquaculture were addressed by 4) Social needs and values

Offshore Aquaculture in the Pacific Northwest 7 Why the Pacific Northwest? James Anderson, University of Rhode Island; and John Forster, John Forster Consulting Inc.

The group first sought to identify n Large aquaculture service and versus weakly motivated potential the advantages for offshore marine supply capability in British support from seafood consumers, aquaculture offered by the Pacific Columbia public sectors, and industry Northwest. These were as follows: n Seafood processing and distribu- n Sustained public relations cam- T tion systems are in place, which paign by these groups against Biophysical elements would benefit from the availability floating finfish marine aquacul- n The water temperature provides of farmed products ture has led to more general public the optimal range for salmonids, concern Market and social elements sablefish, , various rockfish n Concern about the leasing of pub- species, oysters, and mussels. n History of near-shore aquaculture, lic waters for private commercial n A gently sloping shelf with a sandy such as oysters, mussels, and activity bottom provides the ideal situa- salmon n Perception that much of the PNW tion for mooring cages. n Strong, west coast seafood de- coastline is still pristine, leading to n Notwithstanding concerns about mand, which provides competitive calls for protection of large areas use of the space for commercial logistical advantages compared to as Marine Protected Areas fishing, there is limited commer- producers elsewhere Physical conditions cial shipping in the area. n West coast Asian ethnic demand n The coast is well studied; therefore, for live fish offers a high-priced n Numerous windy and stormy location siting of cage farms can “way in” for startup projects days will make operating offshore be based on reliable oceanographic n Rockfish bycatch leading to difficult. data. closures of fisheries for other n Currents were reported to be n Naturally productive waters are commercial species suggests an strong—up to two knots (this well suited to shellfish production, opportunity for an enhancement is not necessarily negative for although El Niño years may be a program and, therefore, for a ma- aquaculture). risk. rine that could serve n Dead zones caused by upwelling such a program as well as supply of deep water with little dissolved Inputs and services marine species for commercial oxygen may lead to large-scale fish n Strong PNW traditions in fish- farming mortalities, unless the locations of eries, maritime services, student such upwelling are predictable and Why not the Pacific Northwest? training, and university research avoidable. n Extensive salmonid hatchery and Despite the advantages listed above, Next steps farming experience (if expansion reasons why the Pacific Northwest may not be receptive to or suitable of salmonid farming is deemed n Establish a “demonstration” or for marine aquaculture were identi- acceptable) “experimental” farm to answer fied as follows: n NOAA research on other local questions, build local knowledge, marine finfish species offers a Stakeholder objections and provide training. good basis for starting with new n Create one or more aquaculture n General, strongly motivated species zones. opposition from commercial fish- n Local and regional feed and ermen and environmental NGOs deep-water cage suppliers

8 Offshore Aquaculture in the Pacific Northwest Technical and Scientific Issues Mike Rust, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA; Richard Langan, University of New Hampshire; and Cliff Goudey, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

What information is needed about are two strong ocean sciences uni- n There are large-scale hatcheries for engineering, candidate species, versities in the region, the group salmonids and lab-scale hatcheries husbandry, and other technical assumed that data are available. for other marine finfish. and scientific factors to assess the n Tools and capabilities are available n There is knowledge of and experi- Wpotential for successful, commercial, to determine appropriate sites ence (in the U.S.) with operating offshore culture of species from for cage culture, and appropriate offshore finfish and shellfish larvae to marketable size? mooring technologies can be farms. Similar to other breakout sessions, selected, assuming that adequate n Capabilities exist for acquisition participants were asked to identify oceanographic and benthic data and real-time transmission of what is known and what additional are available. many different types of data. technology or information is needed, n The number, location, and capabil- and then select the top priority from ities (for example, infrastructure) Information and technology the technology and information of harbors is known. needs needs. It became apparent that n Anchoring technology is available n Appropriate sites need to be without a clearer picture of where for depths up to 100 meters. identified based on use by other and under what conditions such an n There are proven cage technologies groups, current and planned ac- initiative was to occur, the known for finfish culture and submerged tivities (including energy develop- and critical unknowns could not be longline technologies for shellfish ment), environmental/biological defined. This need is reflected as the (mussel) culture. sensitivities, and site-specific highest priority emerging from the n oceanographic and benthic data. session. There is considerable knowledge about marine finfish husbandry n The effect of climate change on the Existing information, (feeds, fish health), based on expe- extent, frequency, and duration technology, and capabilities rience with salmon farming and of hypoxic zones is not well other emerging species. understood. n Oceanographic data: This issue actually straddled the known-un- known categories. There was a general opinion that oceano- graphic data are available and that abundant data are available Courtesy of NOAA for Puget Sound and the Straits of Juan de Fuca. However, no one in the group was able to confirm that there was either adequate data or a synthesis of oceanic conditions (waves, currents, temperature, oxygen profiles) for the Pacific Diagram of one type of offshore cage used in aquaculture. Northwest shelf. Given that there

Offshore Aquaculture in the Pacific Northwest 9 Technical and Scientific Issues continued

n The economics and logistics of a mental stage and not yet available n Potential synergies with ocean scale up to commercial production “off the shelf.” renewable power technologies are at open-ocean sites are not well n Technologies for autonomous unknown. known. operations (for example, feeding, Next step n The most-appropriate species for cleaning, and observing) are in an finfish culture need to be identi- early stage of development and not n The identification of appropriate fied. A number of native species yet available “off the shelf.” sites, based on user groups, are promising; however, none has n Methods to determine fingerling current and planned activities, been evaluated in offshore cages quality are lacking. environmental and biological and few have been evaluated in the sensitivities, and site-specific n Species-appropriate cage designs lab. oceanographic and benthic data, may be needed to match local is needed before any meaningful n Capacity for large-scale hatchery species (for example, wolfish). production of marine finfish is progress can be made in other n Affordable and practical technol- lacking. technological or biological aspects ogies are needed for deepwater of marine aquaculture. n Technology for remote monitoring mooring or mobile systems oper- and security are still in develop- ated at open-ocean depths. Richard LanganRichard

Atlantic harvested from cages offshore of New Hampshire.

10 Offshore Aquaculture in the Pacific Northwest Environmental Impacts George Leonard, Ocean Conservancy; Michael Kent, Oregon State University; and Michael Banks, Oregon State University

The environmental impacts of open- Genetic consequences enough known to conclude that risk net pen aquaculture are both scien- of escaped fish of retransmission is a legitimate con- tifically important and politically There is general consensus that farm- cern with open-ocean aquaculture. It contentious. Much of what we know ing of nonnative species poses a is also not known what level of dis- Tscientifically about the risks of open- greater environmental risk than ease at the farm level will put wild ocean aquaculture emerges from an farming of native species. However, fish at risk. To address these con- understanding of the risks of other we also know from experience with cerns, we need open-net pen-farming systems, most hatcheries used for stock enhance- n comprehensive baseline data on notably farmed salmon in coastal ment that native species can be sub- disease in wild fish populations habitats. However, it is difficult to jected to unintended selective pres- before farming begins, make direct comparisons between sures in hatcheries, and thus even n application of island biogeography farmed salmon and hatchery-supple- aquaculture-reared native fish may models at the landscape level to mented, wild-caught salmon and any pose some level of genetic risk to new habitats (that is, treat cages as of a number of potential new species wild fish, should they escape. To novel habitats) to better evaluate that may be grown in offshore address this concern, we need the nature and risk of disease habitats. Nonetheless, it is prudent n a better understanding of the transmission as the industry to apply general insights that have genetic structure of likely can- develops, and emerged from other systems to new didate species for open ocean n species and technologies that hold the development of a Pacific aquaculture, promise for offshore aquaculture. Northwest specific research n knowledge of the abundance and agenda that addresses these issues. Major risks genetic structure of wild stocks of Consequences of nutrient input Five major environmental-impact these same fish, and risks are widely recognized as n the development of sterile stocks The effects of nutrient inputs from important. For each, our group iden- to further reduce the risk of aquaculture on marine ecosystems tified what is known, what is escaped fish. are probably the best understood of unknown, and what needs to be done the environmental concerns, at least to address the issue. These five Disease and pathogen at small scales. Existing models of impact risks are amplification and retransmission nutrient dispersion (for example, DepoMode) are scientifically robust n genetic consequences of escaped Disease issues in aquaculture center and readily available. In addition, fish, on two separate concepts. The first is the introduction of exotic pathogens data from other farming systems (for n disease and pathogen amplifica- through the culture of fish. This is example, salmon farming) are also tion and retransmission, reasonably easy to control with good readily available. What is unclear is n consequences of nutrient input, biosecurity and husbandry tech- the fate of nitrogen and phosphorus n use of marine resources for feed, niques. The second, and more prob- in different systems and under differ- and lematic, issue concerns the amplifica- ent oceanographic and hydrographic conditions. In short, we have a poor n interactions with wild animals. tion of native pathogens, generally during outgrowing of fish in net-pen understanding of when nutrient operations. The universality of inputs can be viewed as food retransmission from farmed fish to (“good”) and when they should be wild fish is unclear, but there is viewed as waste (“bad”). It is difficult

Offshore Aquaculture in the Pacific Northwest 11 Environmental Impacts continued

to satisfactorily address these con- n identify, evaluate, and ameliorate Northwest. Further, offshore aqua- cerns in advance of aquaculture the ecological consequences of culture in the Pacific Northwest may development; therefore, scaled and using other marine and non-ma- put these animals at risk if not proac- cumulative impacts of nutrient rine ingredients. tively addressed. It is unclear what inputs will need to be closely moni- specific effects new structures may In short, we don’t want to uninten- tored during development. have on associated marine animals tionally create greater environmental and what consequences will result impacts by moving to new ingredi- Use of marine resources from aggregation (for example, colli- ents. An additional tool to encourage for feed sion, entanglement, and predation increases in sustainability of It is understood that without substi- effects) of attracted animal commu- traditional, marine-derived feed in- tutes for fishmeal and , limited nities. In advance of industry expan- gredients is exploration and support supplies of these key ingredients will sion, we need to of eco-certification of forage fisheries limit the ability of fed aquaculture to n and other market mechanisms to identify species of concern where expand. It is also clear that without reward ecosystem-based fishery interactions are most likely to these substitutes, industry expansion management. occur, including in the Pacific poses a risk of further degradation of Northwest; and marine ecosystems and food webs Interactions with wild animals n study the behavioral response of through of small, pelagic animals to structures, to deter- fishes as well as population impacts We know that cages will act as mine what monitoring will be on other species dependent on -aggregating devices (FADs), and required. fish for food. We need to the Field of Dreams effect is almost guaranteed to occur: “If you build it, n identify new protein sources for Important caveat they will come.” In this sense, pinne- farmed fish, including those of peds and seabirds will be a problem Much of the breakout group’s discus- marine origin; and for fish farmers in the Pacific sion centered on the need for moni- toring the environmental impacts of open-ocean aquaculture as the indus- try expands. It is important to remember, however, that monitoring is not the same as ameliorating Courtesy of NOAA impacts. Monitoring (and the knowl- edge that emerges from it) is therefore necessary but not sufficient. Impacts must be known but they must also be reduced, minimized, or eliminated (where feasible) to meet the growing expectations of regulators, seafood businesses, and the seafood-consum- ing public for environmentally responsible seafood products.

View from inside a Hawaii offshore aquaculture cage, with moi swimming near the surface.

12 Offshore Aquaculture in the Pacific Northwest Social Needs and Values Ed Backus, Ecotrust; and Gil Sylvia, Oregon State University

The Social Needs and Values break- These included Recommendations out committee identified five sets of n establishing a permitting process The committee recommended that core values representing the Pacific that is fair to potential applicants six steps be taken next to ensure the Northwest. These core values must while allowing good public best decisions are made with respect Tbe considered when evaluating the process; to potential development of offshore potential for offshore aquaculture de- n creating a functional and efficient aquaculture: velopment off the Pacific Northwest multiple-use ocean-zoning n Continue to promote a regular coast. approach supported by relevant (or frequent) public dialogue on Core values research to meet local, regional, offshore aquaculture. and national needs; n Begin the development of a spatial n Preserve and reinforce the struc- n conducting a community needs zoning process that might accom- tural vitality of coastal economies assessment to determine how modate offshore aquaculture. and communities. communities could be impacted n Support the development of n Maintain cultural values inherent by offshore aquaculture develop- legislative initiatives on estab- in coastal communities, including ment and permits; lishing environmental and social those represented by the commer- n underwriting permits with private standards. cial fishing industry. or public insurance to manage n Continue to learn from aqua- n Conserve marine ecosystems so risks and liabilities; culture and other spatial-based they retain their integrity and n developing a cumulative-effects ocean-development projects continue to provide vital services. assessment to understand the occurring in California, Oregon, n Support an equitable public pro- marginal and total effects from and Washington. cess that fairly and transparently multiple aquaculture operations n Make all information available to evaluates the offshore aquacul- together with other ocean uses; the public, using a variety of tools ture industry and its ability to n adopting an aquaculture code of and methods. generate economic, social, and practice that will act to minimize n Develop a pilot commercial-scale environmental benefits for Pacific risks and costs from aquacultural Northwest communities. project to evaluate technical, operations and drive strategies for financial, and environmental n Establish and retain assets asso- effective self-enforcement; viability. ciated with aquaculture permits n establishing effective environmen- and rights that bring greater tal and social standards to ensure Next steps value to the industry and coastal that aquacultural operations are The committee highlighted two communities. meeting environmental and social important concluding recommenda- needs at least cost; and Key issues tions: (1) foster a community “bot- n recognizing that as a new indus- tom-up” process for evaluating off- The committee also discussed key trial sector, there will be a need shore aquaculture with other ocean design issues that must be considered for the regulatory process to adapt uses within a spatial planning sys- when evaluating the development of and learn as the industry develops. tem, and (2) establish early and con- offshore aquaculture development. tinuous dialogue with coastal com- munities and the general public.

Offshore Aquaculture in the Pacific Northwest 13 Fishing Industry and Other Offshore Interests Kaety Hildenbrand, Oregon State University; and Jeff Feldner, Oregon State University

The fishing industry representatives and fishers who were involved in this break- out session were generally not supportive of offshore aquaculture activities of LanganRichard Tfish species in net pens. However, they are interested in being involved in the conversations around this topic. They are potentially interested in learning more about offshore shellfish aquacul- ture, such as mussel culture.

Studies have shown that aquaculture does affect the marketing and prices received for wild-caught fish. The impact to fishermen could be mini- mal or substantial, depending on the species that is grown, the time of year it is harvested, and the marketing strategies. To address this concern, we need to refer to existing studies and Deployment of an Aquapod (Ocean Farm Technologies) sea cage. reports on market competition. n permitting, There are several social questions Offshore activities that could compete that need to be discussed, such as with aquaculture for space include n environmental monitoring, n , recreational n socioeconomic studies, Is this a supplement to commercial fishing activities, or is it meant to fishing, wave energy, offshore n salvage, and wind farms, marine reserves, cable replace commercial fishing? n response. installation, military uses, dredging n Would fishermen actually want to and dredging disposal, transit and Jurisdictional issues also need to be work these types of jobs? navigation, cargo shipping, effluent considered and made clear. n Would there be an investment disposal, sensitive ecological habitats made from the aquaculture devel- or areas that have other protections Can offshore aquaculture oper into the coastal community placed on them (bird sanctuaries, facilities survive in the Pacific as a whole? rockfish conservation areas, etc.), and Northwest? known migration routes for marine Next step n mammals or other species. Therefore, Have adequate studies been done Provide an unbiased outreach pro- we need to address spatial criteria of the devices’ short-term (winter gram to coastal communities, to give when siting offshore aquaculture storms) and long-term durability them an opportunity to learn about facilities. in similar weather and wave conditions? offshore aquaculture and engage in the discussion. A regulatory framework is missing. n If they do not survive, who is Adequate guidelines such as the fol- responsible for the salvage of that lowing need to be put in place before equipment? this type of aquaculture is tried:

14 Offshore Aquaculture in the Pacific Northwest Federal and State Policies Susan Bunsick, NOAA Aquaculture Program; Devin Bartley, California Department of Fish and Game; and Brian Fredieu, NOAA Aquaculture Program

Clear and well-developed federal Sustainable Oceans Act (S.B. 201). lead federal agency for permitting of and state policies and regulations are The California Sustainable Oceans aquaculture in federal waters (3 to necessary for the aquaculture indus- Act provides a rigorous framework 200 miles offshore); however, no try to advance the sustainable devel- for lease requirements of aquaculture Congressional action is anticipated Copment of offshore aquaculture in facilities located in state waters. in 2008. Under current law, the key the Pacific Northwest. This breakout Approval and review of best manage- federal agencies involved in permit- session analyzed and discussed what ment practices, baseline surveys, ting of offshore aquaculture include policies should be recommended to aquaculture fish product identifica- the improve or further develop federal tion, and other testing must be n Army Corps of Engineers, for the and state legislation to responsibly sought from a variety of state and permitting of activities affecting foster aquaculture in the Pacific local agencies. navigable waters under the Rivers Northwest. The session consisted of a and Harbors Act; wide range of stakeholders, including Oregon n Environmental Protection Agency representatives from environmental Aquaculture operations are covered (EPA), which issues National and industry-related NGOs, state by Goal 19 of Oregon’s Statewide Pollutant Discharge Elimination government, federal government, Planning Goals, the Territorial Sea System (NPDES) permits and commercial fishing interests, and Plan (TSP), and also the Coastal reviews environmental effects of aquaculturists. Management Plan. The TSP Part II aquaculture under section 403(c) provides the standard for agencies to of the Clean Water Act; What regulations and legislation apply when reviewing proposals that are currently available? affect Oregon’s ocean resources. n U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for consultations under the The regulations discussed at the state Together these plans provide imple- Endangered Species Act (ESA) level were the existing regulations for mentation requirements and man- to ensure that no project inter- aquaculture in California and agement measures for any actions feres with any species-recovery Oregon. Washington was reported to likely to affect ocean resources or program; have a “good” regulatory framework, Oregon’s territorial sea. but details of this framework were n National Marine Fisheries Service not discussed. Federal (NMFS), for exempted fishing Federal authority for aquaculture permits under the Magnuson- California spans across multiple agencies under Stevens Fishery Conservation Public Resources Code 826 provides multiple laws. The major legislation and Management Act (MSA) and that “it is in the interest of the people for U.S. aquaculture is the National for consultations under the ESA of the state that the practice of aqua- Aquaculture Act of 1980. This act and MSA’s essential fish-habitat culture be encouraged…” This pro- promotes private development in provisions; and vides a stepping stone for other aquaculture and also establishes the n Minerals Management Service California aquaculture legislation Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture, (MMS), for aquaculture as an and regulations that comprise the which is tasked to coordinate alternative use of facilities on the California Fish and Game Code and national aquaculture policy. Outer Continental Shelf, under the California Code of Regulations. Proposed legislation—the National proposed rules to implement the These documents contain provisions Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2007 (S. Energy Policy Act of 2005. from, inter alia, the Coastal Act, the 1609, H.R. 2010)—would establish Marine Life Protection Act, and the the Department of Commerce as the

Offshore Aquaculture in the Pacific Northwest 15 Federal and State Policies continued

What policies management are resolved. Because are needed? the answers either did not exist or The current regula- could be answered only on a case- Richard LanganRichard tory framework for by-case basis, all group members offshore aquaculture agreed that an agency needed to is fragmentary and be designated to take the lead on complicated, and it these issues. The majority of the lacks clear lead stakeholders present agreed that responsibilities, NOAA was the natural choice especially with to manage these operations. regard to how state Resolution is needed on the issue and federal agencies of liability. Although California work together. A has a regulatory structure in place variety of perspec- that gives authority to assess tives were offered on damages and liability, the state has what is needed to not yet worked out how to assess develop a better reg- damages. ulatory structure to n the creation of publicly funded provide for the sus- demonstration projects or pub- tainable development lic-private partnerships. However, of aquaculture. Key there may be a conflict if the same recommendations agencies that are funding projects include are also in charge of regulating. Deployment of a JPS cage (JPS Industries). n the development of Any public demonstration projects should be separate from the For activities in federal waters that prescriptive siting and zone map- licensing, permitting, and regu- may impact state waters and coastal ping for aquaculture operations. lating mechanisms. Mechanisms areas, there are provisions in the Though Oregon has the TSP and need to be developed to ensure Coastal Zone Management Act Ocean Resources Management transparency and accountability that require state certification of Plan, those plans prioritize fisher- in the funding and oversight of activities to be consistent with the ies in terms of preferred use and demonstration projects. enforceable policies of approved state renewable biological assets. TSP coastal-management programs. The provides authority to establish n additional efforts to promote Lacey Act, which prohibits illegal zoning, but currently there is no community involvement. Many trade in fish and wildlife in violation aquaculture zoning in the state. of the stakeholders present ac- of any wildlife-related state, federal, n resolution on how the permit- knowledged that, although there tribal, or foreign laws or regulations ting of aquaculture “worked” are mechanisms for stakeholder (16 U.S.C. §3372(a)), also addresses in federal waters, and—for involvement in project planning, consistency with state laws and agencies with overlapping ocean communities want to know that regulations. jurisdiction (for example, the their interests are going to be Minerals Management Service considered. If you get community and NOAA)—how conflicts in

16 Offshore Aquaculture in the Pacific Northwest Federal and State Policies continued

support, the necessary political to resolve spatial issues prior to crete guidelines on the handling of will to implement these aquacul- development. Impacts must be diseased fish. This would guide the ture operations will develop. It was analyzed as to whether these response from regulatory agencies also noted that during the pub- new ocean uses are cumulative that deal with these impacts. lic-process portion of rulemaking in nature. Although legislation n the establishment of an Ocean and policy development, there often includes a directive on Policy Group for the Pacific should be more transparency reporting requirements for Northwest to concentrate federal and clearer legal standards in aquaculture, enforcement of such or state expertise on evaluating resulting legislation. Scientific and legislation should be improved to permitting and operation of other data must be made more provide better information on the aquaculture. available to the community so industry. they have a better opportunity n a “standard” comprehensive Next step to comment. Historical access to coverage of environmental The immediate next step is to estab- traditional fishing grounds needs impacts, including mandates on lish a clear and streamlined state and to be maintained. Aquaculture and guidelines for evaluating the federal permitting process for aqua- and other new ocean uses need impacts of fish escapes, and con- culture operations. This process must include a clear, understandable regu- latory process that is transparent and is based on accurate information, monitoring, and consideration of

Courtesy of NOAA impacts. Clear standards and guide- lines for environmental impacts, lia- bility, and cost recovery should be established and included in the pro- cess. The overarching principle that guides these processes is adaptive management that incorporates scien- tific research into economically, socially, and environmentally sus- tainable action.

Divers inspect an aquaculture cage.

Offshore Aquaculture in the Pacific Northwest 17 Recommendations for Future Action Chris Langdon, Oregon State University

The following recommendations 3) Regulatory framework: There is rather complement them and were made as a result of discussions confusion about the regulatory provide additional sources of during the breakout and wrap-up framework at both state and income and employment. Zones sessions: federal levels. The absence of for aquaculture, fishing, offshore T1) Core values of coastal communities: a Congressionally approved energy facilities, and other uses Proposed development of offshore National Offshore Aquaculture should be created to facilitate aquaculture must consider the Act adds further uncertainty. The permitting of new enterprises and core values of coastal communi- regulatory framework should reduce competition for space. ties, as listed by participants in address the permitting process as 7) Environmental concerns: the section on “Social Needs and well as environmental monitoring, Environmental concerns need Values.” These include (a) main- salvage responsibilities, and socio- to be addressed to ensure that taining the vitality and cultural economic factors. offshore aquaculture activities values of coastal communities, 4) Coordination between state are consistent with state and (b) conserving marine ecosystems, and federal agencies: Improved federal policies and laws to (c) supporting a transparent eval- coordination between state and protect the marine environment. uation process, and (d) ensuring federal agencies needs to occur to Development of a code of practice that assets and interests of coastal ensure the development of clear and standards would lessen uncer- communities are protected and, policies and regulations to guide tainty of environmental risks and where possible, enhanced. the development of sustainable, costs for aquaculture operations. 2) Scientific, technical, and economic environmentally friendly, socially Highest-priority next steps research needs: There is a great beneficial, and economically viable deal we know based on previous offshore aquaculture in West Many participants in the wrap-up research, pilot-scale demon- Coast states that choose to foster session identified two high-priority stration projects, and business this enterprise. next steps to fully evaluate the poten- enterprises that have focused on 5) Outreach and education: There is tial costs and benefits of offshore nearshore and offshore aqua- a need for outreach and education aquaculture in the Pacific Northwest: culture in the U.S. and abroad, for offshore aquaculture, to inform 1) Establish an outreach and including net-pen salmon culture. local coastal communities of education program for coastal However, the unique conditions potential risks and opportunities. communities to facilitate in- of the Pacific Northwest indicate Local coastal communities should formed discussion and support that additional research and be involved in decision-making decision-making processes. demonstration projects are needed processes. 2) Establish demonstration projects to determine to what extent this 6) Resource conflicts: The potential to address key engineering, knowledge can be applied to this for conflict exists with currently biological, environmental, eco- region. The culturing of species established coastal industries and nomic, and social factors that will that are not currently fished interests, especially the fishing determine the success or failure of commercially should be priori- industry. Development of offshore commercial offshore aquaculture. tized, and there was broad forum aquaculture should not compete support for evaluating offshore with established industries, but shellfish culture.

18 Offshore Aquaculture in the Pacific Northwest Bibliography

(Some of the references cited below ———. 2007. NOAA 10-year plan for U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. can be downloaded as PDF files marine aquaculture. 24 pp. 2004. Chapter 22, “Setting a from the forum’s Web site, http:// ———. 2008. Offshore aquaculture course for sustainable marine oregonstate.edu/conferences/ in the United States: Economic aquaculture,” pp. 330–336. aquaculture2008/.) considerations, implications and U.S. Department of Commerce. 2007. COMPASS. 2005. Architects for opportunities. 263 pp. National Offshore Aquaculture Act sustainable aquaculture. Meeting Pew Oceans Commission. 2001. of 2007. 28 pp. needs while maintaining ecosystem Marine aquaculture in the United U.S. Government Accountability services. University of Miami, States. 34 pp. Office. 2008. Offshore Marine Florida, November 2–3, 2005. ———. 2003. America’s living Aquaculture. 54 pp. 20 pp. oceans—charting a course for sea Washington State Ocean Policy FAO. 2007. The state of world fisheries change. 144 pp. Work Group. 2006. Washington’s and aquaculture 2006. 162 pp. Rosenberg, A. A., J. H. Swasey, and Ocean Action Plan: enhancing NMFS. 2008. Fisheries of the United M. Bowman. 2006. Rebuilding management of Washington State’s States 2007. 41 pp. U.S. fisheries: progress and ocean and outer coasts. 64 pp. NOAA. 2005. Guidelines for ecolog- problems. Front. Ecol. Environ. Woods Hole Oceanographic ical risk assessment of marine fish 4(6):303–308. Institute. 2007. Sustainable marine aquaculture. NOAA Technical USAID. 2008. 2008 World Population aquaculture. Report of the marine Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-71. Data Sheet. Population Reference aquaculture task force. 128 pp. 89 pp. Bureau, 16 pp. Richard LanganRichard

Atlantic cod in sea cage off the coast of New Hampshire.

Offshore Aquaculture in the Pacific Northwest 19 Appendix 1 – Forum Participants

First Name Last Name Affiliation David Allen OPAC James Anderson Department of Environmental and Resource Economics, URI Holly M. Arrigoni Environmental Protection Agency Jan Auyong Oregon State University Brent Bahrenburg Washington State Community, Trade, and Economic Development Michael Banks Cooperative Institute for Marine Resources Studies/COMES Devin Bartley California Department of Fish and Game Caroline Bauman Economic Development Alliance, Lincoln Dale Beasley Columbia River Crab Fishermen’s Association Peter Becker Pacific Aquaculture Caucus Inc. John Bielka Pacific Seafood Jeffrey Bishop Oregon International Port of Coos Bay George Boehlert OSU Hatfield Marine Science Center Gregg Bonacker EWOS Ben Bowman Food and Water Watch Troy Buell Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Susan Bunsick NOAA Aquaculture Program Randy Cates Cates International, Inc. Jingjie Chu University of Rhode Island Leesa Cobb Port Orford Ocean Resource Team Carol Cole Oregon State University Yvonne deReynier NOAA/NMFS/NWR Bill Dewey Taylor Shellfish Company Sarah Dzinbal Washington State DNR Aquatic Resources Dan Edge OSU Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Ford Evans Oregon State University Jeff Feldner Oregon Sea Grant Extension James Ferro Ocean Conservancy Nancy Fitzpatrick Oregon Salmon and Albacore Commissions John Forster Forster Consulting Inc. Brian Fredieu NOAA Aquaculture Program Mark Freeman Port of Siuslaw Nick Furman Oregon Dungeness Crab Commission Langley Gace OceanSpar Jack Ganzhorn Peninsula College Mark Gleason University of Washington/Washington Sea Grant Nate Grader Institute for Fisheries Resources Jessica Hamilton Governor Kulongoski’s Office Michael Harte Oregon State University Scott Heppell Oregon State University Evan Heriot Northwest Farm Credit Services Kaety Hildenbrand Oregon Sea Grant Wayne Hoffman MidCoast Watersheds Council

20 Offshore Aquaculture in the Pacific Northwest Appendix 1 – Forum Participants continued

First Name Last Name Affiliation Peter Huhtala Pacific Marine Conservation Council Onno Husing Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association (OCZMA) Robert Iwamoto DOC/NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC Kym Jacobson NOAA Fisheries/NWFSC Dave Jones American Fish Farms Lissa Jones American Fish Farms Dale Kelley Alaska Trollers Association Michael Kent Department of Microbiology Paul Klarin DLCD/Oregon Coastal Management Program Bruce Koike OCCC-Aquarium Science Program Lucie La Bonte Curry County Commissioner Richard Langan University of New Hampshire Chris Langdon Oregon State University Nancy Leonard City of Waldport George Leonard Ocean Conservancy Hugh Link Oregon Dungeness Crab Commission Lynn Longan Washington State Community, Trade, and Economic Development Scott Luhr Port of Port Orford Sean Matson Oregon State University Ruth McDonald Lincoln County School District John Meyer Oregon State University/COMPASS Sean Nepper Troutlodge Marine David Nisbet Nisbet Oyster Co., Inc. Justin Overdevest University of Oregon Jocelyn Pease University of Oregon School of Law Stephen Phillips PSMFC Fred Postlewait Oregon Coast Bank Joseph Postlewait Oregon Coast Bank Cassandra Profita The Daily Astorian Raymond RaLonde Alaska Sea Grant Peter Roscoe City of Astoria Michael Rubino NOAA Aquaculture Program Michael Rust NOAA/NWFSC Brady Scott Washington Department of Natural Resources—Aquatics Gil Sylvia Oregon State University Paula Terrel , and Alaska Marine Conservation Council Dick Van der Schaaf The Nature Conservancy Joanne Verger Senator, Oregon Jennifer Wagner Congresswoman Darlene Hooley James Wierson II Ocean Stewards and WAS James Wierson Sr. Ocean Stewards; WAS; USAS Diane Windham NOAA/NMFS Graham Young Western Regional Aquaculture Center

Offshore Aquaculture in the Pacific Northwest 21 Appendix 2 – Forum Program

Forum on Offshore Aquaculture in the Pacific Northwest September 9–10, 2008 • OSU Hatfield Marine Science Center, Newport, Oregon

Sept. 9 SCHEDULE INVITED SPEAKERS 9.00 Welcome Chris Langdon, Oregon State University Keynote Speaker: Realizing the vision for open ocean Richard Langan, U. New Hampshire Open 9.15 aquaculture Ocean Aquaculture Project REGULATORY, BUSINESS, AND COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVES – moderator Michael Harte The federal perspective: NOAA’s role in developing U.S. Michael Rubino, Aquaculture Program

marine aquaculture manager, NOAA 10.30 COFFEE/TEA 10.45 Offshore aquaculture – California perspective Devin Bartley, aquaculture coordinator, CA 11.15 Aquaculture industry perspectives John Forster, Forster Consulting Inc. Panel discussion - moderator Kaety 11.45 Fishing industry perspectives Hildenbrand, Oregon Sea Grant Extension 12.30 LUNCH TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC ISSUES – moderator George Boehlert 1.30 Site and engineering issues Cliff Goudey, MIT 2.00 Biological and husbandry issues Mike Rust, NWFSC NMFS Rebecca Goldburg, Environmental 2.30 Environmental issues Defense Fund 3.00 COFFEE/TEA BREAKOUT SESSIONS (concurrent): 1) Why the Pacific Northwest? (Leaders: Anderson and Forster) 2) Technical and scientific questions (Leaders: Rust, Goudey, and Langan) 3.30 3) Potential environmental impacts (Leaders: Leonard, Kent, and Banks) 4) Social needs and values (Leaders: Backus and Sylvia; Barry Fisher Room) 5) The fishing industry and other offshore interests (Leaders: Feldner and Hildenbrand) 6) Federal and state policies (Leaders: Bunsick and Bartley) 5.00 END RECEPTION AND DINNER – Oregon Coast Aquarium 7.00 8.45 pm Dinner speech: Adding value to aquaculture. Michael Morrissey, Food Innovation Center, Oregon State University. Sept. 10 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS – moderator Peter Becker 8.30 Business case study Randy Cates, Cates Intl. Inc. Economic opportunities and strategies for developing Jim Anderson, University of Rhode Island; 9.00 offshore aquaculture in the Pacific Northwest Gil Sylvia, Oregon State University 9.30 PHOTO OF ATTENDEES and COFFEE/TEA WRAP-UP DISCUSSION Jeff Feldner,Oregon Sea Grant Extension; 10.00 1) Reports from session leaders Gil Sylvia, Oregon State University 2) Next steps 12.00 Final comments Chris Langdon, Oregon State University

22 Offshore Aquaculture in the Pacific Northwest Appendix 3 – Forum Sponsors Oregon Sea Grant Corvallis, Oregon

ORESU-W-08-001