Environmental Assessment for North Central Gulf of America (Gulf) Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) Demonstration, Research, Training, and Outreach

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the United States (U.S.) Department of Commerce (DOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS or Fisheries) has prepared an EA to describe and analyze the potential environmental effects related to the potential funding of the North Central Gulf of America (Gulf), Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) Demonstration, Research, Training, and Outreach pilot project (hereinafter referred as the “Gulf IMTA”). NOAA Fisheries’ proposed action is to provide funding to install, operate, monitor, decommission and remove an IMTA system in the north central Gulf. The proposed action would fund the establishment of an IMTA system, including: 1) the siting of the IMTA demonstration project; 2) construction and deployment of the AquaFort platform; 3) larval rearing and cage stocking; 4) grow-out operations of selected marine species; 5) harvesting of product; 6) decommissioning of the AquaFort platform; 7) environmental monitoring; and 8) training and outreach. This EA describes and analyzes the potential environmental effects related to the potential funding of the Gulf IMTA as required under NEPA and NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A. Two alternatives were considered: Alternative 1, the proposed action for the funding, and subsequent deployment and operation of the IMTA at Site 3B, including monitoring (i.e., the Preferred Alternative), and the No Action (Alternative 2). NOAA Fisheries considered a range of potential environmental impacts associated with funding the IMTA project. The proposed action would have no impact on: climate and air quality, closed areas, marine protected areas, national marine sanctuaries and artificial reefs, military activities and cultural and historic resources. The proposed action is not expected to have disproportionately high or adverse environmental or human health effects on particular communities. The proposed action could have adverse, but not significant or cumulative, potential effects to some physical and biological resources. No federally listed species or critical habitat would be adversely affected by the project. The proposed action could have beneficial, direct and indirect, short and long-term, impacts on social and economic resources. Under the No Action alternative, NOAA Fisheries would not fund the Gulf IMTA project, resulting in none of the activities detailed in the proposed action. The No Action alternative would result in no change to resources in the physical and biological environment. The No Action alternative could have an adverse, direct and indirect, short and long-term, negligible to minor effect to social and economic resources by hindering the growth and development of the marine economy in the region.