Jonathan Proctor, 2010 J.D. Candidate, University of Mississippi School of Law

On October 27, 2008, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (“Gulf Council”) held its final public hearing concerning a proposal for the issuance of permits for offshore fishery aquaculture in the federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico. As this article went to press, a final decision from the Council on the proposal appeared imminent.

Background
Aquaculture is a controlled means of cultivating fish, often through the use of nets and cages.1 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad­ min­ istra­ tion (“NOAA”) has been involved in controlled seafood stocks since the late 1800s.2 However, NOAA’s involvement with aquaculture generally has been limited to shellfish, algae cultures, and feeds.3 The need to mitigate the nation’s dependence on seafood imports has been a driving factor in NOAA’s decision to establish offshore aquaculture for additional fish species.

Almost 80 percent of seafood sold in the U.S. is imported4 and 40 percent of those imports are farmed.5 Additionally, the average American’s yearly seafood consumption rose from 12.5 lbs to 16.5 lbs from 1980 to 2005.6 Projections regarding future demand and population growth in the U.S. estimate that the “seafood gap,” or the difference between domestic production and imports, will be between two and four million tons in 2025.7
           
Overseen by NOAA, the Gulf Council is one of eight regional fishery management councils authorized to make recommendations regarding the regulation of fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico in accord with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Manage­ ment Act (“Magnuson Act”).8 By enacting the Magnuson Act, Congress sought to establish a federal program to “realize the full potential of the Nation’s fishery resources.”9

The Gulf Council proposed a Fishery Management Plan (“FMP”) to establish a permitting process to accommodate commercial offshore aquaculture.10 Currently there are five offshore aquaculture operations in the U.S. an Puerto Rico. How­ ever, none of these operations are located in federal waters.11 In creating the FMP, the Council seeks to maximize the sustainable and optimum yields of fish by supplementing the wild harvest with controlled populations in the Gulf of Mexico.12

The Offshore Aquaculture Fishery Management Plan
The proposal calls for the commercial rearing and harvesting of fish in federally managed waters in the Gulf of Mexico, beginning where state jurisdiction ends and extending up to 200 miles offshore, an area known as the Exclusive Economic Zone (“EEZ”).13 By proposing requiring  NOAA permits to participate in aquaculture offshore only after public comment periods, the Council hopes to minimize interference with other fishing operations and recreational boating.14

Increasing the optimum yield (“OY”) of fish from the aquaculture is of vital importance to the FMP. The OY must take several factors into account, such as potential overfishing, recreational opportunities, and protecting ecosystems surrounding the aquacultures.15 The OY must not exceed the maximum sustainable yield (“MSY”), or “the fishery’s ability to replace removals through natural growth or replenishment.”16 By balancing these yields, the domestic harvest can increase while maintaining a sustainable aquaculture population.
     
Environmental Impact
Under the proposal, all permits must identify, among other information, the species and expected harvest amounts in the FMP.17 The Council contends that the increased water currents well offshore will mitigate the environmental impact of permitted aquaculture.18

In its Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”),  NOAA detailed many environmental concerns raised by interested parties, and addressed possible solutions for ensuring that the FMP will not have an adverse effect on the ecosystems surrounding proposed aquaculture operations.

Despite the EIS, however, there are environmental concerns associated with such a relatively large population of fish limited to a confined space. Fish waste, large amounts of uneaten food, and any pesticides or biologics could contaminate the seafloor and the surrounding ecosystem.19 Furthermore, with an elevated population density, the risk that the fish within the aquaculture pens could spread disease and parasites to wild species increases.20 To address these concerns, the Council’s proposal would require aquaculture operators to report findings of pathogens, instances of major escapes, and interactions with endangered species.21

Another environmental concern involves the risk that aquaculture fish, though contained by cages or nets, could escape and mix with the wild population where they may mate and compete for food. Further, due to their limited breeding stock, the aquaculture fish may produce genetically inferior offspring, affecting both the health of the wild species and the amount/quality available to commercial and recreational fishermen in the event of an escape.22 In order to minimize this risk, the EIS suggests using fish that are genetically similar to the wild populations, possibly by using eggs or juveniles from the wild broodstock.23

Economic Impact
By moving forward with offshore aquaculture, the U.S. may be able to reduce its dependence on imported seafood, which is evidenced by the nation’s seafood trade deficit of $9.1 billion.24 Considering that aquaculture is the fastest growing method of food production in the world, NOAA asserts there is a need for the nation to have an aquaculture program to prevent falling further behind in seafood trade.25

A precise assessment of the FMP’s economic impact on Gulf Coast communities is difficult to compute, due to the fact that the large-scale aquaculture companies that could develop as a result of the FMP currently are not in operation.26 However, the potential for a reduction in the nation’s dependence on seafood imports is predicted to benefit consumers through a reduction in prices.

The seemingly apparent economic value of aquacultures is not without potential difficulties. In several instances, the commercial harvesting of fish via aquaculture in other countries has decreased net profits, and caused many local fishing fleets to go out of  business.27

Despite the negative local economic impacts of aquaculture abroad, a Mississippi State University study concluded that such offshore harvesting in the Gulf would be economically beneficial to fishing communities, as the proposal may result in job growth, higher revenues, and increased supply.28 The study shows an expected increase in labor income of $2.17 million and a projected overall economic gain of $6.84 million.29

Conclusion
By expanding the means and scope of domestic fish production, NOAA envisions a more self-sufficient U.S. seafood supply. However, the proposal raises questions about aquaculture’s impacts on offshore ecosystems and the local and national economy.

The EIS provides measures designed to mitigate a number of environmental concerns, but close monitoring of such large-scale operations will be necessary to ensure compliance. Through proper implementation, the Council suggests that aquaculture can provide numerous economic benefits to consumers and businesses alike without causing undue environmental harm.

Endnotes:
1.   See Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, “Fishery Management Plan for Managing Offshore Aquaculture: Frequently Asked Questions” (hereafter “FAQ”), Gulf Fishery News 2, August-September 2008.
2.   See U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, “NOAA 10-Year Plan for Marine Aquaculture,” October 2007, at 8, available at http://aquaculture.noaa.gov/pdf/finalnoaa10yrrweb.pdf.
3.   Id.
4.   See Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, “Fishery Management Plan for Re­ gulating Offshore Marine Aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico” (hereafter “FMP”), September 2008, at 12.
5.   See NOAA Aquaculture Program, “Quick Stats on Aquaculture,” March 12, 2007, available at http://aquaculture.noaa.gov/pdf/15_aq_statistics.pdf.
6.   National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Science and Technology, “Fisheries of the United States, 2006,” Elizabeth S. Pritchard, ed., July 2007 at 74, available at http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/fus/fus06/fus_2006.pdf.
7.   NOAA Aquaculture Program, “Quick Stats on Aquaculture,” supra note 5.
8.   16 U.S.C. A7 1852(a)(1)(E) (2007).
9.   Id. A7 1801(a)(6).
10. See Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, FAQ, supra note 1, at 2.  
11. See Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, FMP, supra note 4, at 17.
12. Id. at 9.
13. Id.
14. Id.
15. Id. at 20.
16. Id.
17. 50 C.F.R. 600.745.
18. See Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, FAQ, supra note 1, at 9-10.
19. Food & Water Watch, “Offshore Aquaculture: Bad News for the Gulf,” Press Release, October 24, 2007, available at http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/press/releases/offshore-aquaculture-in-the-gulf-article10242007.    20.  Id.
21. See Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, FAQ, supra note 1, at 10.
22. See Food & Water Watch, “Offshore Aqua­ culture: Bad News for the Gulf,” supra note 19.
23. See Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Coun­ cil, FMP, supra note 4, at 183.
25. See Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Coun­ cil, FAQ, supra note 1, at 2.
26. See Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Coun­ cil, FMP, supra note 4, at 324.
27. Food & Water Watch, “Offshore Aquaculture: Bad News for the Gulf,” supra note 22.
28. Benedict C. Posadas, “Potential Economic Impact of Commercial Offshore Aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico,” Mississippi State University – Coastal Research & Extension Center, Mississippi Sea Grant Extension Program 2, 2005.
29. Id. at 6.