Looking into the future the Pelican feeding its young from a self-induced wound in its own breast (as depicted, mysteriously, on the state flag of Louisiana) is accepted as an appropriate symbol of both self-sacrifice and rebirth. Through his selfless efforts, man is raised from the slavery of ignorance to the condition of freedom conferred by wisdom. Given the current state of affairs in Louisiana, one hopes that the understanding of the Pelican as a symbol shall point the way towards a new consciousness of ourselves as a whole, and lead us to face our futures with strength, grace, wisdom and faith, to learn from our mistakes and carry our successes and zest for living to future generations.

---

Letter to The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council

January 17, 2008

The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
2203 N. Lois Avenue
Suite 1100
Tampa, FL 33607
Fax: 813-348-1711
E-Mail: gulfcouncil@gulfcouncil.org

RE: Notice of Intent to Sue under the Clean Water Act, NEPA, Endangered Species Act, Administrative Procedures Act, Equal Access to Justices Act, Due Process and Equal Protection clause guaranteed under U.S. Constitution, and laws and statutes under the La. Civil Code

Dear Gulf Council:

Please accept these comments on behalf of Save Our Wetlands Inc. (SOWL) as Notice of Intent to Sue under the Clean Water Act, and other federal and state laws enumerated above. Our organization SOWL has been an active environmental organization dedicated to protecting the natural resources of Louisiana since 1974. We are very concerned about the development of commercial ocean fish farming in the Gulf of Mexico. We are very disappointed that the Gulf Council is rushing through a plan for ocean fish farming without being considerate of coastal economic and ecological matters. It is the Council’s charge to conserve and manage our marine resources for the benefit of the Nation, not to primarily benefit private business. The current plan is all about ensuring maximum profits and ease for industry development, rather than protections for our natural marine resources and the coastal communities and wildlife that rely on them.

In particular, SOWL is worried Council plan does not:

1. Prevent farming of endangered or threatened species and species of concern

2. Protect essential habitat and fishing grounds by requiring buffer zones around special or fragile places

3. Require compensation for use of public resources for private profit

4. Have strict environmental requirements about pollution and harm to habitat and wildlife

5. Prevent using oil rigs for aquaculture

6. Address how increasing aquaculture can hurt other marine wildlife by using more prey species in feed

7. More fish at lower prices does not mean good quality – Farmed fish are bred to grow fast, reproduce often in overstocked stationary cages prone to disease and parasites and may be exposed to assorted antibiotics and other chemicals to combat illnesses and algae and barnacles. Fish feeds contain concentrates of wild fish exposed to mercury in the wild, and the farmed fish can have high levels of mercury from the feed.

8. We export our good stuff and eat imports - Currently the U.S. exports 71 percent of its domestic production, including tilapia, tuna, salmon, crabs, and some shrimp. Ironically, these all are among the six top seafood imports. Essentially, we are sending our U.S. fish abroad where it fetches a higher price, and serving our own citizens imported fish, often of a lesser quality, that is cheaper. Likely this will still be the case if we begin ocean fish farming in the Gulf, as it is intended to be a profitable industry - leaving the U.S. with the environmental consequences that could devastate wild fish populations and critical habitat, and little else.

9. Farms can infect wild fish - Farmed fish are held in captivity, usually in much higher numbers than would be normal in the wild. Cramped quarters, concentrated fish wastes, stress and other factors are often breeding grounds for illness. In Norway, there have been numerous problems with farmed salmon spreading diseases to wild salmon. Something similar is now happening in the Pacific Northwest. Because the Gulf farm facilities will allow free flow of water in and out of the ocean, parasites and other diseases will be able to escape the farm and infect wild fish.

10. Farms could pollute the environment and wildlife - Concentrated amounts of fish food, fish waste and any chemicals or antibiotics that may be used to treat the fish to kill parasites and diseases or to keep cages free of algae and barnacles will flow straight into ocean waters through the open cages. Environmental problems have been reported at one of the nation’s four experimental fish farms. A farm affiliated with the University of Hawaii “grossly polluted” the seafloor and “severely depressed” sea life. Additionally, the cages themselves could become marine debris in the event they are damaged or pulled free by violent weather.

11. Growing fish on or nearby oil rigs – Wild fish that feed and are caught around oil rigs may have more contaminants than those used in the farm. Mercury levels around oil and gas platforms have been found to be higher than normal, as have mercury levels in fish caught around those platforms and around fish farms. More studies are needed on whether the fish grown in farms near or on oil rigs have higher levels of mercury. Mercury is a known toxin to humans that affects the brain heart and immune system, especially for children and developing babies.

12. Keeping old oil rigs - Another issue with oil rigs is that allowing fish farming on them might give oil companies an excuse to keep the rigs in place, when they were originally to be removed after they were finished extracting oil. It can cost up to $5 million to remove a rig, and only about $800k to convert it to another use, so of course oil companies prefer not to remove the rigs. This means we could have many old oil rigs remaining in the Gulf after they are done extracting oil.

Open Ocean Aquaculture Concerns

1. Compensation to the general public for potentially exclusionary use of public resources for private profits: The waters of the Gulf of Mexico and the resources within them are held in trust by government officials for the people of the U.S. Allowing open water aquaculture in our waters grants a private interest the right to use public resources in a manner that could greatly conflict with and even exclude others’ uses, for personal gain, without definite benefit to the U.S. There should be definite public gain from the contribution of such resources. The justifications of potentially having more seafood, and different jobs does not explain away the need for public compensation, as these are not necessarily benefits that will accrue to our Country unless so required. Foreign investors (who have already shown interest and own much of the ocean fish farming operations worldwide) could establish facilities using entirely their own money and staff, then ship the production elsewhere, leaving the U.S. with the environmental consequences, and little else.

2. Competing/conflicting interests: Because open ocean aquaculture facilities take up real space in the environment, establishment of facilities could cause conflict of interest problems in certain water areas. Areas of current significant competing economic use or existing public value should be eliminated for consideration as sites for open ocean aquaculture. Some areas to consider include 1) fishing grounds and routes to those fishing grounds, 2) vessel traffic lanes, 3) military sites and areas of concern regarding national security, 4) marine reserves/preserves, Sanctuaries and otherwise protected or fragile areas, and 5) areas of significant multiple use.

3. Escapement: Open ocean aquaculture of finfish uses cages, net pens or other containers to hold fish. These structures, even if well designed and built, will have some animal escapes into the ocean, due to various complications like severe weather, equipment failure or human error. In the case of net pens, predators, like sharks, might tear the enclosures to get at the fish. Escapement can affect wild populations through spread of diseases and dilution of local gene complexes, disrupt natural ecosystems and jeopardize the recovery of depleted or endangered species. Consequences could be widespread and devastating. Primary concerns with escapement involve non-native or mutated species, and genetically altered organisms. Currently, modern technologies cannot ensure 100% sterility of organisms to prevent interbreeding with wild populations.
   Use of selective breeding/GMOs/transgenics: It is usually the intent for aquacultured organisms to be bred for profit, thus, those that have certain marketable traits are most desirable for there to be a significant industry. Selecting and only breeding fish with advantageous characteristics (e.g. largest and fastest growers) is one means to alter genetics over time. In some instances, direct genetic manipulation occurs in a lab, to change, for example, appearance and breeding abilities. In either of these circumstances, the outcome produces a genetically different fish than those found in the wild. Proposed farming of altered species raises concerns that once escaped, these fish could change the ecosystem permanently. Use of GMOs should be prohibited,
   Use of non-native species: Problems due to invasive species are well known, widespread and documented. Some will displace native species, some cause significant ecological damage. Using non-native species in open water aquaculture when escapes are certain is simply promoting biological pollution that could become a major issue in the future. Use of non-native species should be prohibited.
   Use of inbred/mutated species: While the use of locally found species in aquaculture presents an arguably less harmful impact should escapes occur, often when cultured species reproduce in captivity, they or their offspring are different behaviorally, physically, or even genetically over time. These “new” species, once escaped, may invade local areas or breed with or overtake natural populations, causing widespread environmental concerns. The Council should consider requiring only the use of 1^st generation fish in offshore aquaculture to ensure the captive fish are as close to wild as possible in the event of a massive escape

4. Feed Inefficiency: Cultured species are often fed wild species either directly (wet feed) or as fish meal or oil (ground fish or fish oil mixed into feed). This is an inefficient use of the available protein resource from the wild. There are particular concerns that aquaculture operations may increasingly rely on natural food sources, such as krill, squid, and other small coastal pelagic fish, as feed for cultured organisms. These lower trophic level species are a crucial part of the marine ecosystem, serving as prey for marine mammals, birds and fish. Many commercially and recreationally important fish species depend directly on the availability and abundance of such prey species for their survival and recovery. Prey species also support diverse marine mammal and seabird communities in the world including several species of endangered marine mammals and seabirds. In order to effectively protect and restore our natural ocean resources, it is critical to protect the health of prey species. Wild fish populations can only recover if the ecosystem upon which they depend is intact.
   While there is a variety of fabricated food for use in fish aquaculture trying to reduce reliance on wild fish food sources, there is also a water pollution concern from outflow of uneaten engineered food into the open ocean (see concerns below under “Water Pollution”).

5. Habitat Impacts: Use of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ: from state water boundary out to 200 miles off the U.S .coast) for aquaculture requires construction of appropriate facilities and in some areas could include severe habitat impacts. Dredging, drilling and other sediment and bottom habitat disturbances, like large anchors, can cause seagrass and coral die-off, displacement of ocean wildlife and other potentially significant ecological changes.

6. Species of concern, endangered or threatened species: Similar to concerns under the above stocking point, the growing of endangered or threatened species and/or species of concern has the potential to disrupt wild populations. Because such species are already at a lower level, and an arguably weakened population state, escapement or intentional addition of captive fish could completely change the integrity of the wild population. The use of species of concern, endangered or threatened species in offshore aquaculture should be prohibited.

7. Stocking: Often aquaculture operations are developed for programs to re-stock natural populations in decline. Unfortunately, cultured organisms, even of the same species, usually are different from wild counterparts and are often bred to develop at rapid growth rates. Intentionally adding cultured animals to wild populations can, over time, change the genetic composition and often behavior of natural stocks. For example, for some species, certain behavior is learned from communal interaction in natural habitats. Such creatures, when raised as farm organisms, could completely lose their natural habits and when introduced into a wild population could harm the integrity and behavior of those natural populations.

8. Unexpected Environmental Harm and Abandoned/Bankrupt Facilities: Open-ocean aquaculture depends on various factors, including weather, currents, disease control and human precision. Some of these are not controllable (such as weather and currents). It is possible that a facility is damaged by any number of unplanned events (inclement weather, hungry predators, human error), causing a major escape or significant chemical pollution. Remedying such situations requires significant monetary resources that might not be available from the company at the time of the occurrence. By posting a bond at the time of permitting, a company would show that money to remedy unforeseen circumstances would exist to insure protection of public resources.
   Given the number and fluctuation of conditions necessary for a successful open-ocean aquaculture facility, under certain circumstances, open-ocean aquaculture might not be economically feasible. Abandonment after bankruptcy can result in serious environmental problems. Posting of a bond would insure proper management of an aquaculture facility through decommissioning and removal in the event of bankruptcy/abandonment to avoid environmental harm.

9. Use of oil rigs for aquaculture: During the violent storms in the Gulf of Mexico in recent years, oil rigs were destroyed, some even being carried miles to shore. Had offshore aquaculture existed on these rigs at the time of the storms, there would have been massive releases of captive fish, feed and other pollutants directly into ocean waters. Oil rigs are erected for a purposes and when that purpose is completed, they should be removed as originally contemplated, not transitioned into other uses that might cause serious long term negative consequences. There are open water net pens and cages better designed to withstand storm activity and other disturbances far better suited for use in open ocean aquaculture than oil rig structures initially created for something entirely different. In general, recycling and re-use of materials is a good idea, but the consequences potentially far outweigh the benefit in this particular instance. Oil rigs, active or decommissioned, should not be substituted for best available technology in open water aquaculture.

10. Water Pollution: There are a number of matters that can fall under water pollution concerns: 1) excess food; 2) feces; 3) animals (escapement); 4) cage materials and 5) anti-biotics/other cleaning/algal growth prohibiting chemicals. Water flowing out of an aquaculture facility can carry excessive nutrients, particulates, bacteria, other diseased organisms and polluting chemicals. These may harm surrounding habitats, causing algal blooms, poisoned ocean wildlife, and other severe disturbances. For example, in more shallow sites the feed and fecal matter from aquaculture facilities can deplete the dissolved oxygen concentrations within the site and also in adjacent areas. This affects the health of surrounding marine communities, particularly if dissolved oxygen levels drop below certain levels. Since fish species may have varying tolerances to dissolved oxygen levels, the wastewater being discharged from an aquaculture operation may have large impacts outside the facility long before a problem is detected within.

Also, anti-fouling agents often used to keep aquaculture cages/pens free of algal growth and colonization by invertebrates such as barnacles or mussels are highly toxic by design and can pose a significant threat to the marine environment. For example, the common anti-fouling agent butyltin (specifically tributyltin (TBT)) has been linked to reproductive problems in gastropod mollusks (i.e. whelks and abalone) and is suspected to cause immune suppression in marine mammals including dolphins, seals, and sea otters. It's formulated to continually slough off (into the environment) so that fresh, biotoxic, TBT is continuously being exposed. Apart from being environmentally troubling, such water pollution impacts also implicate Clean Water Act concerns.

These are all extremely important issues that must be dealt with in detail before any aquaculture permits are even considered in the Gulf of Mexico . Allowing NOAA Fisheries to make regulations piecemeal in the future for environmental standards does not protect our public resources and the people that rely on them. I strongly urge the Council to review your developing plan for ocean fish farming very carefully and not move forward hastily. There is no reason to rush through this process. The Council must take a hard look at its current plan for offshore aquaculture, slow down on finalizing it and be sure the plan is adequately detailed to protect the Gulf, its people and wildlife, in its current form.

It is not only insufficient, but blatantly reckless, immoral and illegal in total disregard to protecting the natural and economic resources of the Gulf of Mexico. Your actions are typical of this administration privatizing our public heritage and resources to multinational resources, and totally repugnant to any American that loves this country.\

Sincerely,
Save Our Wetlands, Inc.
By: Luke Fontana Attorney