Council briefed on NOAA aquaculture opportunity areas, MPC to monitor project proposals and BOEM leasing

The Pacific Fishery Management Council heard an update on marine planning matters, including NOAA’s recently published programmatic environmental impact statement that designates 10 Aquaculture Opportunity Areas (AOAs) in federal waters off Southern California and work underway at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to refresh the national OCS oil and gas leasing program.

Mike Conroy, co‑chair of the council’s Marine Planning Committee, told the council NOAA selected what the agency described as “alternative 4b,” authorizing the possibility of shellfish, macroalgae, finfish or multispecies aquaculture in the identified AOAs. Conroy said the programmatic EIS is a planning‑level NEPA document that does not itself create binding mitigation, containment or monitoring requirements and that “future proposed projects may require additional analysis.”

Conroy listed likely near‑term projects that could pursue permits, including a larger kelp proposal from Ocean Rainforest, which applied to the U.S. Army Corps for a 2,000‑acre permit, and an effort connected to Ventura Shellfish Enterprise. He said the Army Corps is likely to serve as the lead federal agency for individual project permits and that the California Coastal Commission will be the lead state permitting body where state approvals are necessary.

On offshore energy, Conroy and council staff flagged BOEM’s April request for information and the agency’s still‑pending draft proposed program for the revised national five‑year leasing schedule. Conroy said BOEM’s RFI covered 27 planning areas and that publication of a draft program — expected at various points this year — remains imminent.

The council’s Habitat Committee reported it will help monitor potential aquaculture project proposals, track BOEM’s draft proposed program and coordinate comment letters “as needed,” and recommended focusing comments on opposing any offshore oil and gas leases rather than offering mitigation suggestions.

Several council members and advisory body representatives urged vigilance and cooperation with state and tribal partners, emphasizing the potential for gear conflicts, navigational hazards and ecological impacts if finfish net‑pen aquaculture advances in the region. Public commenters and scientists who testified urged the council to differentiate kelp and other low‑risk macroalgae aquaculture from higher‑risk finfish operations, and to press federal and state agencies for stronger containment, monitoring and cumulative impact analysis at project‑level review.

What’s next: The Marine Planning Committee and Habitat Committee will monitor project‑level permit applications and BOEM’s draft proposed program; council staff and advisory bodies said they will prepare rapid‑response comment letters if formal comment windows open.

Sources from the meeting: Mike Conroy, MPC co‑chair; Scott Hapelle, Habitat Committee; public commenters including graduate researchers from Scripps Institution of Oceanography.