Sec. 3. GAO study
546 words·~2 min read·
/bill/117/hr/9477/ih/section-3A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this section, the Comptroller General shall submit a report to the appropriate committees of Congress examining aquaculture permitting, monitoring, and regulation during the 15-year period ending on the date of enactment of this section based on the available literature, case studies, and stakeholder input. The study required under subsection
(a)shall— consider the feasibility and potential positive and negative implications of designating a lead agency to issue aquaculture permits in a timely manner; identify lessons learned during such period with respect to— the implications of aquaculture type, location, and regulatory framework on project success; the degree of involvement of coastal or adjacent States, Tribal groups, underserved communities, or environmental justice communities in consultation, planning, or operations of such aquaculture operations; safety protocols and risk mitigation measures for the permit and oversight processes, including— escape prevention measures; emergency event response planning; compliance monitoring, particularly in remote locations; compliance with Federal laws; reporting mechanisms to appropriate Federal authorities, and vessel navigation aids to ensure navigational safety; the effect of incentives to reduce adverse effects or disparate impacts from aquaculture operations; building and optimizing synergies between aquaculture and wild-caught fishing activities, or offshore, nearshore, and onshore aquaculture activities, including market development, increasing seafood consumption, and shared infrastructure; the environmental effects of marine aquaculture operations, including mechanisms to prevent harm to the environment, wildlife, or human well-being; net economic and social benefits of the aquaculture projects, particularly for nearby communities (including underserved and environmental justice communities), based on project size, regulatory structures, and financing structures; the impact of introducing aquaculture products to the marketplace on supply and demand for wild-capture fisheries products and methods for ensuring resiliency and growth for both aquaculture and wild-capture fisheries products; mechanisms to enhance capital investment, workforce development, and equitable opportunity requirements or assistance programs in the permit process, or to diversify permit applicants; outstanding needs for continued research, development, education activities, programs, and funding regarding offshore aquaculture projects and development of the domestic workforce and entrepreneurship related to offshore aquaculture; and the economic potential for both large- and small-scale aquaculture operations to generate a positive return on investment under various regulatory and financing structures; and make recommendations with respect to future offshore aquaculture operations, including— regulatory processes necessary for permitting, monitoring, and oversight, including processes and techniques related to siting, deployment, operations, and decommissioning; potential safeguards, data collection, or monitoring required to minimize disparate impacts on environmental justice communities, local economies, marine environments, and existing domestic economic sectors; mechanisms for optimizing the efficiency and coordination among Federal agencies with a role in permitting aquaculture in offshore waters without compromising the goals of such permitting; methods for effectively involving stakeholders, including— adjacent jurisdictions; local communities; regional offshore waters users and management groups (including regional fishery management councils); and users of local, State, and Federal waters and coastal resources, including underserved communities, and environmental justice communities; best practices for incorporating local knowledge, including from Tribal or Indigenous communities; Federal agency capabilities that are necessary for effective regulation of the sector; and how creating private rights of action or waiving sovereign immunity would facilitate or hinder the development of offshore aquaculture projects and their acceptance by nearshore and offshore waters user groups and coastal communities.