The idea of vast, frigid Alaskan waters, kelp swaying in the current, and oyster beds silently growing beneath fishing boats that have worked those same stretches of ocean for generations has an almost cinematic quality. An atlas identifying 77 sites in the Gulf of Alaska that might be appropriate for commercial shellfish and seaweed aquaculture was recently released by NOAA Fisheries. It seems like a wise policy on paper. It sounds more complicated than that on the docks.
Technically speaking, the atlas is a planning document rather than a final designation. It was created by NOAA’s National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science in collaboration with the State of Alaska. The locations are not yet authorized for farming. However, the publication of such comprehensive, scientifically supported geographic guidelines usually carries some weight. The discussion changes after 77 locations are mapped and made public. The tension feels real rather than hypothetical because it’s possible that local fishermen were already aware of some of these locations as productive wild-harvest grounds.
The initiative was framed by NOAA Administrator Neil Jacobs around food security and import reduction. Approximately $15 billion worth of seafood is currently purchased by Americans annually, frequently from nations with laxer environmental regulations than those in the United States. That’s a real worry. However, it’s difficult to ignore the fact that those who would be most impacted by new aquaculture operations in state waters aren’t always the ones dictating the parameters of the discussion. According to the agency, public comment periods were held and these websites underwent a thorough peer-review process by hundreds of organizations. Fishing communities appear to be quietly but persistently questioning whether that is sufficient.
Alaska has more coastline than the entire nation combined, which makes the state a logical frontier for the growth of marine aquaculture, according to Governor Mike Dunleavy, who enthusiastically offered support. In an area where businesses are constantly seeking diversification, it appears that state leadership views this as a business opportunity. But commercial fishermen, many of whom rely on subsistence and recreational fishing as much as commercial harvests, have a different frame of reference. Every designated aquaculture zone is seen by them as a potential source of displacement, a potential alteration in the water, and a potential conflict with the paths and rhythms they have been following for years.
The breadth of NOAA’s efforts is what makes this moment so intriguing. For the first time, state waters—rather than just federal offshore zones—have been subject to the AOA procedure thanks to the Alaska Atlas. Ten locations off the coast of Southern California and three off the coast of Texas were previously designated as being in federal waters. Entering state-managed territory brings with it a whole new set of rules, competing interests, and stakeholders. The sites cover subtidal and intertidal environments and range in size from 50 to 2,000 acres. There are a lot of different circumstances and possible conflicts.
Whether any of these 77 sites will soon be operational aquaculture operations is still up in the air. A thorough National Environmental Policy Act review is necessary for the future, and each project would need to obtain both state and federal permits. It’s usually a slow process. Nevertheless, the atlas provides developers with a clear starting point, and momentum has a way of quietly building in regulatory pipelines. As this develops over the coming years, it appears likely that at least a few of these locations will eventually move toward official designation. At that point, the local communities will need to determine how much they trust the science and how much they trust the methodology that produced it.
