[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74217-74218]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-31611]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 071703A]


Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 
Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Coastal Migratory Pelagic 
Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Exempted Fishing 
Permit

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Disapproval of an exempted fishing permit(EFP).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that it has disapproved the request for an 
exempted fishing permit (EFP) from Florida Offshore Aquaculture, Inc., 
of Madeira Beach, FL. The EFP would have authorized a 24-month 
feasibility study for net cage culture of cobia, mahi-mahi, greater 
amberjack, Florida pompano, red snapper and cubera snapper at a site 
approximately 33 statute miles (53 km) WSW. of Johns Pass, FL.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Eldridge, 727-570-5305; fax: 
727-570-5583; e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EFP was requested under the authority of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 
1801 et seq.), and regulations at 50 CFR 600.745(b), concerning 
scientific research activity, exempted fishing permits, and exempted 
educational activity.
    Florida Offshore Aquaculture, Inc., requested an EFP to determine 
the feasibility of raising fish in the exclusive economic zone 
approximately 33 miles (53 km) WSW. of Johns Pass, FL. Initially, the 
project intended to raise juvenile cobia in four cages during the first 
year. The applicant intended to expand the project to eight cages with 
cobia, mahi-mahi, greater amberjack, Florida pompano, red snapper and 
cubera snapper. The applicant stated that disease-free fingerlings 
would be obtained from the Aquaculture Center of the Florida Keys 
(59300 Overseas Highway, Marathon, FL, phone (305) 743-6135) and the 
Marine Science Institute of the University of Texas (750 Channel View 
Drive, Port Aransas, TX, phone (361) 749-6795). Further, the applicant 
stated that the brood stock and their spawn would be genetically tagged 
using the satellite DNA method.
    On July 30, 2003, NMFS published in the Federal Register a notice 
of receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit with a 
request for comments on the EFP (68 FR 44745). During the public 
comment period, 340 individuals opposed the granting of the EFP. In 
addition, one shrimp firm opposed the EFP because it would disrupt 
their operations. Six environmental organizations opposed granting the 
EFP and stated that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) rather than 
an Environmental Assessment (EA) should be prepared for this project. 
In July 2003, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) 
expressed concerns about the EA and requested that the EA be revised to 
reflect their concerns. The Florida Department of Agriculture and 
Consumer Services supported the permit application.
    Consistent with the requirements of 50 CFR 600.745(b)(3)(i), NMFS 
provided copies of the EFP application and information to the State of 
Florida, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council), the 
U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard), and Region 4 of the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) along with information on the EFP's effects on 
target species.
    The Council considered the EFP request at its September 2003 
meeting, and strongly recommended that the EFP for Florida Offshore 
Aquaculture, Inc. be denied. The Coast Guard and the EPA did not 
respond to the NMFS request for comments. On October 27, 2003, the 
Florida Department of Environmental Protection commented that the 
revised EA lacked adequate information pertaining to the environmental 
effects of caged aquaculture operations in warm waters, particularly 
the Gulf of Mexico, and the potential for short- and long-term 
environmental impacts due to expansion of the facility. Also, they 
stated that the precedent setting nature of the proposed action 
warrants a

[[Page 74218]]

thorough evaluation under the National Environmental Policy Act.
    The major issues of concern, as indicated by the Council, 
environmental organizations, and individuals, included: (1) the 
applicant made false statements in connection with the application; (2) 
which vessel would be used for transporting feed and fish to and from 
the cages; (3) who would conduct the DNA fingerprinting that would 
allow tracking of the aquaculture fish throughout their sale; (4) 
possible escapement and its impact on wild stocks; (5) the type of food 
used for feeding; (6) possible transfer of diseases to wild fish; (7) 
timing of cage placement offshore; (8) timing of acquiring fingerlings; 
(9) the expertise and ability of the applicant to undertake the 
endeavor; (10) associated penalties for violating the EFP; (11) who is 
responsible for any environmental damage; (12) staff expertise on 
treating disease; (13) how disease outbreaks would be treated; (14) 
liability and environmental insurance; (15) paper trail on aquacultured 
fish throughout the marketing chain; (16) possible conflicts or impacts 
on or with other fishing activities; (17) possible interactions of wild 
fish or other organisms with the cages; (18) response to storm events; 
(19) why a smaller number of cages will not be used if this is a 
feasibility study; and (20) the range of species for possible stocking.
    Given the inexperience of the applicant and the false information 
in the application, it appears that the applicant lacks the capability 
to comply with the conditions of the EFP. It is likely that the project 
could impact significantly the surrounding habitat and marine fishery 
resources. Virtually all of the agencies and environmental 
organizations stated that the proposed action required either an EIS or 
a thorough analysis of the environmental impacts. Given the precedent 
setting nature of the action, NMFS concurs that the proposed action 
warrants an EIS.
    The Council is developing a generic amendment and an EIS to 
determine the feasibility of conducting and regulating aquaculture 
projects in Federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico. This effort is 
expected to be completed within 2 years. This process will result in 
extensive public input and appears necessary to ensure that no 
unanticipated consequences will result from proposed future aquaculture 
projects. NMFS will work with the Council and support the development 
of the generic amendment and EIS.
    Given the precedent setting nature of the project and the need for 
full public input into the process, especially the need for an EIS, 
NMFS believes that it is premature to grant an EFP at this time. 
Rather, applicants should work closely with the Council to develop 
appropriate procedures for establishing and maintaining future 
aquaculture projects in Federal waters. Thus, NMFS denies the 
application for an EFP.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: December 17, 2003.
Bruce C. Morehead,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 03-31611 Filed 12-22-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S