Environmental groups have recently filed lawsuits challenging a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency permit allowing the operation of an aquaculture pilot project about 40 miles offshore from Sarasota County.
The Velella Epsilon project would gather environmental information about such “net-pen” facilities -- which are large cages suspended in ocean waters that corral fish but allow water to flow through the systems -- while producing an estimated 80,000 pounds of seafood during the operation of the project in the Gulf of Mexico.
But environmental groups such as the Center for Food Safety have challenged the project’s permit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit, arguing that EPA officials failed to adequately evaluate the risks from wastewater discharges from the project. Critics have also expressed concerns that the net-pen system might not hold up well during severe weather.
Dennis Peters, the manager of the project spearheaded by Hawaii-based Ocean Era Inc., said Velella Epsilon would gather important information on the efficient operation of such facilities, which have been in use worldwide.
“This is a small 12-month demonstration project,” Peters told the Florida Record. “... We have approached all those risk concerns with the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers.”
The project would use a single tender vessel but only during appropriate weather, Peters said, and the net-pens will be adequately submerged during storms to shield them from potential wind impacts.
Supporters of the project point to studies such as one published last year in “Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture” that concluded environmental challenges to aquaculture projects can be addressed by U.S. regulators and scientists around the globe. The study also found that such projects were needed to provide a sustainable way to meet growing seafood demand in the United States.
Environmentalists contend that net-pen cage systems can lead to the discharge of pharmaceuticals, nutrients and antibiotics contained in fish food when such substances are needed to curb disease, potentially leading to more algal blooms in the Gulf of Mexico. But the Environmental Appeals Board concluded that the petitioners failed to meet their threshold of proof in arguing the project may violate the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act.
The board also concluded there would be minimal risk due to antibiotics since they would likely not be used in the pilot project and that any risk associated with pathogen contamination of the Gulf from wastewater was very low.
EPA officials considered issues raised by petitioners in assessing potential effects of the project on endangered species and habitats and concluded that it was not likely to harm species under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service, the appeals board said.
The board did, however, require EPA officials to clarify certain issues raised by petitioners in relation to Clean Water Act permitting requirements.