    [Senate Hearing 116-612]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 116-612

       FEEDING AMERICA: MAKING SUSTAINABLE OFFSHORE AQUACULTURE A REALITY

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                             COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                          SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION
                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 16, 2019
                                   __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
                                 Transportation

                      [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                    Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    52-761 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2023

           SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                      ROGER WICKER, Mississippi, Chairman
    JOHN THUNE, South Dakota             MARIA CANTWELL, Washington,
    ROY BLUNT, Missouri                      Ranking
    TED CRUZ, Texas                      AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               TOM UDALL, New Mexico
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          GARY PETERS, Michigan
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
    MIKE LEE, Utah                       TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               JON TESTER, Montana
    TODD YOUNG, Indiana                  KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
    RICK SCOTT, Florida                  JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
                           John Keast, Staff Director
                      Crystal Tully, Deputy Staff Director
                          Steven Wall, General Counsel
                     Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
                  Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
                          Renae Black, Senior Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on October 16, 2019.................................     1
    Statement of Senator Wicker......................................     1
        Letter dated December 17, 2018 to Senator Roger Wicker and
          Senator Marco Rubio from The Center for a Livable Future,
          Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health............    36
    Statement of Senator Cantwell....................................     2
    Statement of Senator Blumenthal..................................    29
    Statement of Senator Young.......................................    31
    Statement of Senator Sullivan....................................    32
    Statement of Senator Markey......................................    35

                                   Witnesses

    Linda Cornish, Founder and President, Seafood Nutrition
      Partnership....................................................     4
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
    Kathryn Unger, Managing Director, Cargill Aqua Nutrition North
      America and President, Stronger America Through Seafood, Inc...     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    11
    Benjamin S. Halpern, Director, National Center for Ecological
      Analysis and Synthesis; and Professor, Bren School of
      Environmental Science and Management, University of California,
      Santa Barbara..................................................    13
        Prepared statement...........................................    15
    Dr. Paul Doremus, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations,
      National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and
      Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce........    18
        Prepared statement...........................................    20
    Jeremiah (Jay) Julius, Chairman, Lummi Nation....................    22
        Prepared statement...........................................    24

                                    Appendix

    Letter dated October 15, 2019 to Senator Roger Wicker and Senator
      Maria Cantwell from Christian Cannon, President, Spat Tech.....    41
    Letter dated October 24, 2019 to Senator Roger Wicker from Jim
      Parsons, President, National Aquaculture Association...........    49
    Response to written questions submitted to Linda Cornish by:
        Hon. Roger Wicker............................................    52
    Response to written questions submitted to Kathryn Unger by:
        Hon. Roger Wicker............................................    54
        Hon. John Thune..............................................    54
    Response to written questions submitted to Benjamin S. Halpern
      by:
        Hon. Roger Wicker............................................    55
        Hon. John Thune..............................................    56

       FEEDING AMERICA: MAKING SUSTAINABLE OFFSHORE AQUACULTURE A REALITY

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2019

                                           U.S. Senate,
            Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m. in
    room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Roger Wicker,
    Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Wicker [presiding], Cantwell, Blumenthal,
    Young, Sullivan, and Markey.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER,
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI

        The Chairman. Good morning. Today, the Committee gathers
    for a hearing on the topic Feeding America: Making Sustainable
    Offshore Aquaculture a Reality.
        I'm glad to convene this hearing with my colleague, the
    distinguished Ranking Member, Senator Cantwell.
        I'd like to welcome our panel of witnesses and thank them
    for appearing. They are Linda Cornish, President, Seafood
    Nutrition Partnership; Kathryn Unger, Managing Director, CQN
    North America at Cargill Aqua Nutrition; Ben Halpern, Director
    of the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis at
    University of California, Santa Barbara; Paul Doremus, Deputy
    Assistant Administrator for Operations at NOAA Fisheries and
    NOAA Lead for Seafood Production and Aquaculture; and Chairman
    Jay Julius of the Lummi Nation.
        Today's hearing will focus on the potential benefits to our
    Nation's economy and health of offshore aquaculture.
        America imports over 90 percent of the seafood we consume.
    Simply put, there's not enough fresh, healthy, and local
    seafood produced in the United States to meet consumer demand
    and that's what we'll talk about today.
        Hardworking fishermen across this country are closing that
    gap, including those in my home state of Mississippi, with the
    farm-raised catfish industry. Mississippians use aquaculture to
    restore oyster reefs, replenish stocks for sport fishing, grow
    seaweed for the biofuels of the future, and provide fresh
    seafood for America's restaurants.
        These men and women are testaments to the fact that our
    Nation already has the best-managed fisheries in the world but
    bridging the divide between domestic supply and demand will
    require us also to have the best-managed aquaculture in the
    world.
        Aquaculture will never replace wild-caught fisheries.
    However, it can replace imports with better American-grown
    products. If this happens, not only will the quality of our
    seafood be improved but a more robust domestic supply chain
    will benefit producers, retailers, and consumers.
        We've already seen the economic rewards of aquaculture
    extend beyond coastal communities. Aquaculture also creates
    jobs in states like Nebraska, Indiana, Kansas, and South Dakota
    because products grown in the Heartland can be used as a major
    component of aquaculture feed.
        Positive health impacts of eating more fish also go without
    saying. Americans eat approximately half of the amount of
    seafood recommended for a healthy diet. As world population
    increases, wild-caught fisheries will not be able to produce
    enough to meet needs.
        This hearing provides an opportunity for witnesses to
    discuss potential job creation from increased aquaculture and
    the broad health benefits of eating more seafood. Because of
    programs like NOAA's Sea Grant, the U.S. is the leader of
    aquaculture technology, but we're often unable to use that
    technology in our own waters.
        For example, despite the fact that we have technical
    expertise and entrepreneurs ready to start growing fish, there
    are no finfish aquaculture operations in Federal waters.
        By carefully considering existing uses of our busy coasts,
    we can thoughtfully place new aquaculture facilities and reduce
    spatial conflicts.
        Today's witnesses can provide their perspectives on the
    benefits of open ocean aquaculture and about where we can make
    decisions about the location of aquaculture facilities.
        This month, I plan to introduce the Advancing the Quality
    and Understanding of American Aquaculture Act or AQUA Act.
    Under this bill, NOAA would be directed to take the lead in the
    Federal permitting process, effectively organizing a currently
    fragmented regulatory system.
        This bill would not allow any shortcuts around
    environmental protections. This legislation would create a set
    of national standards for sustainable aquaculture similar to
    the standards set by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Because of the
    Magnuson-Stevens Act, the U.S. has the best-managed fisheries
    in the world. We should lead the world and the aquaculture
    management, also.
        I invite our witnesses to provide the Committee with their
    views on how we can improve the permitting process for
    aquaculture in Federal waters. I also ask them to discuss their
    thoughts on potential aquaculture legislation, including my
    AQUA Act.
        So we look forward to a good discussion, and I'm very
    pleased to recognize my good friend and Ranking Member, Senator
    Cantwell.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    for holding this hearing and inviting one of our witnesses,
    especially Chairman Jay Julius of the Lummi Nation. I
    appreciate him traveling all the way from the Northwest.
        Chairman Julius is a lifelong fisherman and knows firsthand
    how fish farms can impact wild salmon stocks and our fishing
    rights.
        Fish farm failures, mismanagement, and poor oversight have
    adversely impacted our fisheries, our coastal communities, and
    our ecosystem. Chairman Julius and everyone in Washington State
    knows about the high-quality sustainable seafood that can come
    from our state's shellfish farms. However, I also appreciate
    the fact that the Chairman is looking beyond shellfish and
    trying to look at the promise that this might bring, but we
    also have to look at the potential for tremendous peril when it
    comes to finfish agriculture. We must proceed with caution and
    get this right.
        Two years ago in my state, a net pen failed and broke
    apart, sending around 300,000 non-native farmed Atlantic salmon
    into Puget Sound. This salmon spill threatened tribes, our
    fisheries, and our ecosystem. The spill of non-native fish into
    the Salish Sea exposed our native fisheries to disease and
    habitat competition.
        People from all over the world travel to the Pacific
    Northwest to have our salmon. The fish farm failure compromised
    that economic livelihood of many people and yet there was no
    plan in place for how to respond to the spill. Recognizing that
    their sacred and protected resources were at risk, the Lummi
    Nation and their tribal partners sprang into action to catch
    the escaped fish.
        Our Washington State legislature responded to the crisis by
    phasing out farming of non-native finfish agriculture in our
    waters and imposed fines on the Cook Agriculture for its
    negligence.
        Washington's spill wasn't the first incident and it
    certainly won't be the last. Just 2 months ago, the same
    company had yet another salmon spill on the Atlantic Coast in
    Canadian waters near the United States and even though this
    spill happened across the maritime border in Canada, we all
    know that fish move.
        These farm salmon swam down the coast and so we've heard
    very little in response from NOAA about how to deal with these
    spills or the fact that I believe they didn't take the spill in
    Washington serious enough.
        We also have international examples of where finfish
    agriculture operations and oversight failed. In 2016, salmon
    farming in Chile contributed to a harmful algae bloom that
    killed nearly 300 million salmon and countless shellfish. The
    Scottish Environmental Protection Agency is currently
    investigating a Norwegian salmon farming company for
    allegations of its large-scale use of pesticides harming the
    environment.
        So let me be clear. Poorly managed and under-regulated
    offshore aquaculture poses a direct threat to our marine
    ecosystems and domestic fisheries. It is my understanding that
    the Chairman is working on legislation to seize the opportunity
    that aquaculture represents but we would be remiss if we didn't
    address some of the challenges.
        There are many unanswered questions when it comes to
    offshore aquaculture. Who decides where to site the facilities?
    Who will monitor and inspect the offshore fish farms? What
    response plans are in place for companies to respond?
        In our instance, the company blamed the changing of the
    tide and the full Moon, I think it was. Basically said that was
    the problem that broke open their pens. When in reality it was
    just gross negligence.
        So what happens to bad actors? Will these offshore farms
    impact our wild fisheries? How do we prevent and monitor for
    entanglement and bycatch?
        So these are just some of the questions, Mr. Chairman, and
    I know we could go on, but our maritime ecosystems are already
    under dire threat from rapidly-changing acidity in our oceans,
    marine heat waves, oxygen depletion, and global climate change,
    and while we need high-quality protein to feed the world, it
    must be sustainable.
        So we can't further exacerbate the problems of our current
    fisheries and so we must answer these questions.
        So I look forward to working with you on this issue. I know
    the many challenges and, as I said, our shellfish industry has
    proven that there are great ways that you can produce
    aquaculture, but they meet many high standards and I applaud
    them for meeting those standards.
        I would just point out, Mr. Chairman, our committee rules
    require that witnesses provide written testimony in advance of
    the hearing, yet as of 9 p.m. last night, we still did not have
    testimony from the agency witnesses because I understand that
    they are going through a review of the Department of Commerce.
        These issues are legally and scientifically hard and NOAA
    needs to make sure that they are giving us this information so
    that we can have answers and questions prepared.
        Our Pacific Northwest shellfish growers consistently
    demonstrate that science-based sustainable aquaculture is a
    benefit to both the environment and the economy and so we need
    to make sure that we are fully addressing these issues at
    today's hearing.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Senator Cantwell,
    for a very balanced and thought-provoking opening statement,
    which I very much appreciate, and also thank you for pointing
    out the delay that we experienced with one of the opening
    statements.
        I'm told there was an OMB review that was required that
    took a little more time and we received that written statement
    late last night. So thank you for pointing that out. We'll work
    on that, be advised, in the future.
        But at this point, let's hear five-minute opening
    statements from each of our witnesses, and we'll begin down
    here with Ms. Cornish.
        Welcome and thank you.

      STATEMENT OF LINDA CORNISH, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, SEAFOOD
                         NUTRITION PARTNERSHIP

        Ms. Cornish. Great. Thank you, Senator Wicker and Committee
    Members, for the invitation to testify today.
        I will focus my testimony on the health and nutritional
    benefits of seafood. Specifically how Seafood Nutrition
    Partnership is improving public health by encouraging healthy
    seafood consumption.
        Eating seafood solves many of the key issues we face today.
    Seafood is essential for our health, the health of our planet,
    and our future food security. Seafood, which includes fish and
    shellfish, is a healthy lean protein, a nutrition powerhouse
    filled with vitamins, minerals, and essential fatty acids,
    eicosapentaenoic acid or EPA, docosahexaenoic acid or DHA.
        These Omega-3s are essential because our bodies cannot
    produce them to any appreciable amount and therefore we need to
    eat seafood and/or take supplements as needed.
        Seafood supports our heart health, brain health, eye
    health, and overall wellness. There are over 40,000 studies
    since the 1970s that have been published on health benefits of
    seafood omega-3s.
        The brain is made up of fats and DHA Omega-3s are key
    building blocks for the cell structure. It has been said that
    as calcium is to bones, DHA is to the brain. Moms-to-be who ate
    seafood at least twice a week had babies with higher IQs than
    moms who did not eat seafood and numerous high-quality studies
    show that eating seafood as part of a healthy diet can help to
    reduce risk of dying from heart disease by 30 to 50 percent.
        The U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans and prominent
    health organizations, such as the American Heart Association
    and World Health Organization, recommend eating seafood at
    least twice a week and taking in at least 250 milligrams of
    Omega-3s EPA and DHA a day.
        Unfortunately, only 10 percent of Americans follow the
    dietary guidelines to eat seafood twice a week and Americans on
    average only take in 80 milligrams of Omega-3s EPA/DHA per day.
        We have a public health crisis in the U.S. mainly from
    diseases that can be prevented. Per the CDC, seven out of 10
    premature deaths in the U.S. can be preventable through diet
    and lifestyle changes. Ninety percent of our 3.3 trillion
    health care spending is on chronic diseases and mental health
    conditions. So eating the recommended amount of seafood can be
    part of a solution to our public health crisis.
        Seafood Nutrition Partnership is a nonprofit with a mission
    to help Americans get healthier through a balanced diet that
    includes seafood. Our vision is for Americans to live smarter
    and healthier through sustainable seafood and our strategy is
    to build lifelong seafood consumers.
        How we help the American public. Our work includes
    communicating seafood nutrition science. We hold an annual
    State of the Science Symposium to bring the latest seafood
    nutrition science and information to global health leaders and
    nutrition policymakers. We translate available science into
    educational resources for health and nutrition professionals,
    retail and food service operators, K through 12 schools,
    workplace wellness and the general public.
        We have an extensive reach with health and nutrition
    professionals. To date, we have reached over 26,000 RDNs.
    Registered dietitians are trusted health and nutrition advisors
    and work in all areas of our society.
        In addition, we conduct public health campaigns to build
    awareness of the health benefits of consuming seafood and
    educating people on how to buy, cook, and eat seafood. Our
    Seafood Twice a Week Campaign has secured over 52,000 people to
    pledge to eat seafood twice a week and our newest seafood
    campaign is encouraging families to feed their kids more
    seafood to build lifelong seafood consumers.
        These public health campaigns have been conducted in
    Birmingham, Alabama; Boston, Massachusetts; Brunswick, Georgia;
    Charleston, West Virginia; Hartford, New Haven, Connecticut;
    Indianapolis, Indiana; Jacksonville, Florida; Lexington,
    Kentucky; Memphis, Tennessee; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; and
    Toledo, Ohio.
        To date, we have generated over seven billion positive
    impressions on the benefits of eating seafood for better
    health.
        Since our founding in 2013, the per capita consumption of
    seafood in the U.S. has grown from 14 pounds to 16 pounds per
    person per year and one in three Americans have started to add
    seafood to their diets more often.
        The opportunities for expanding sustainable aquaculture in
    the U.S. are the ability to ensure a healthier America, support
    our future food security, and support food equity.
        Seafood is important for our citizens to eat to support
    overall health and wellness. It has a much lower environmental
    footprint than land-based agriculture and an adequate supply of
    seafood will help to make it available for all Americans.
        Currently, we eat 16 pounds of seafood per person per year.
    If we all ate two portions of seafood a week, we will need 26
    pounds of seafood per person per year. We do not currently have
    enough seafood to provide every American with the recommended
    two servings of seafood per week.
        The barriers to expanding sustainable aquaculture are
    around the misconceptions of farmed fish. We encourage
    consumers to eat a variety of sustainable seafood that is both
    wild and farmed, domestic and imported. We receive many
    questions on farmed fish, such as whether if it's okay to eat
    farmed fish, if it's as nutritionally beneficial to eat wild
    fish, and certainly around how fish is raised.
        We remind consumers that seafood is the last source of wild
    food that we have commercially available. Almost everything we
    have on our dinner plates, from beef, chicken, pork,
    vegetables, fruits and grains, are farmed.
        America has a beautiful history and heritage of being
    skilled farmers of our great land and we have the experience of
    good farming practices that we can take to farming in our
    oceans.
        From a nutritional standpoint,----
        The Chairman. If we could wrap it up, we'll have the entire
    statement----
        Ms. Cornish. OK.
        The Chairman.--in the record.
        The Chairman. We appreciate that very fine statement. Thank
    you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Cornish follows:]

                                  Seafood Nutrition Partnership
                                                       October 14, 2019
    Senator Roger Wicker, Chairman,
    United States Senate,
    Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
    Washington, DC.

    Re: October 16, 2019 Hearing on ``Feeding America: Making Sustainable
                Offshore Aquaculture a Reality.''

    Dear Senator Wicker,

        Thank you for the invitation to testify at the hearing on ``Feeding
    America: Making Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture a Reality'' on October
    16, 2019. My testimony on the opportunities and barriers to expanding
    sustainable aquaculture in the U.S. to foster informed discussions on
    the environment, economic, and social impacts of open ocean aquaculture
    is enclosed. I will focus my testimony on the health and nutritional
    benefits of seafood and how Seafood Nutrition Partnership is improving
    public health by encouraging healthy seafood consumption.
    Health and Nutritional Benefits of Eating Seafood
        Eating seafood solves many of the key issues we face today. Seafood
    is essential for our health, the health of our planet, and our future
    food security. Seafood, which includes fish and shellfish, is a healthy
    lean protein and a nutrition powerhouse filled with vitamins, minerals,
    and essential omega-3 fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) +
    docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).
        These omega-3s are essential because our bodies cannot produce them
    to any appreciable amount and therefore we need to eat seafood and/or
    take supplements as needed. Seafood supports heart health, brain
    health, eye health, and overall wellness.

       There are over 40,000 studies since the 1970s that have been
            published on the health benefits of seafood and omega-3s.

       The brain is made up of fats and DHA omega-3 fatty acids are
            key building blocks for the cell structure. It has been said
            that as calcium is to bones, DHA is to the brain.

       Moms to be who ate seafood at least twice a week had babies
            with higher IQ than moms who did not eat seafood.

       Numerous high-quality studies show that eating seafood as
            part of a healthy diet can help to reduce the risks of dying
            from heart disease by 30-50 percent.

       Studies show that people with higher omega-3 levels in their
            blood had an 80-90 percent risk reduction in sudden cardiac
            death.

       Half of the eye's light detecting cells are made up of
            omega-3s.

        The U.S. Department of Agriculture and Health and Human Services
    Dietary Guidelines for Americansi and other prominent health
    organizations such as the American Heart Associationii and
    World Health Organizationiii recommend eating seafood at
    least twice a week and taking in at least 250mg of omega-3 fatty acids
    EPA+DHA a day. Unfortunately, only about 10 percent of Americans follow
    the dietary guideline to eat seafood twice a weekiv and
    Americans on average take in about 80-90mg of omega-3s EPA+DHA per
    dayv.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \i\ https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/
        \ii\ https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-
    smart/fats/fish-and-omega-3-fatty-acids
        \iii\ https://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/5_population_nutrient/
    en/index13.html
        \iv\ https://ods.od.nih.gov/pubs/2015_dgac_scientific_report.pdf
        \v\ https://www.ncdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/Default.aspx
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Seafood's Nutritional Role in America's Public Health Crisis
        Per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 7 out of 10
    premature deaths in the U.S. can be preventable through diet and
    lifestyle changesvi. 90 percent of our $3.3 Trillion in
    healthcare spending is on chronic diseases and mental health
    conditionsvii. Eating the recommended amounts of seafood can
    be part of the solution to our public health crisis.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \vi\ https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm
        \vii\ https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/about/costs/index.htm
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Seafood Nutrition Partnership's Role in Improving Public Health by
            Encouraging Healthy Seafood Consumption
        Seafood Nutrition Partnership (SNP) is a charitable non-profit
    formed in 2013 with a mission to help Americans get healthier through a
    balanced diet that includes seafood.

       Our Vision: For Americans to live smarter and healthier
            through sustainable seafood.

       Our Strategy: Build lifelong seafood consumers.

        SNP is supported by our Board of Directors, Scientific & Nutrition
    Advisory Council, National Leadership Council, Ambassadors, Partners,
    and Donorsviii. SNP's work includes:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \viii\ https://www.seafoodnutrition.org/about-us/

       Communicating Seafood Nutrition Scienceix: We
            hold an annual State of the Science Symposium to bring the
            latest seafood nutrition science and information to global
            health leaders and nutrition policy makers. We translate
            available science into educational resources for Health &
            Nutrition Professionals, Retail & Foodservice Operators, K-12
            Schools, Workplace Wellness, and the general public.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \ix\ https://www.seafoodnutrition.org/seafood-research/

       Educating Health & Nutrition Professionalsx: We
            have an extensive reach with health & nutrition professionals.
            To date we have reached over 26,000 Registered Dietitian
            Nutritionists (RDNs). RDNs are trusted health and nutrition
            advisors and many work in retail, foodservice, workplace
            wellness, K-12 schools, higher education, healthcare, and
            institutions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \x\ https://www.seafoodnutrition.org/resources/health-
    professionals/

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Conducting Public Health Campaigns:

         We conduct public health campaigns to build awareness
                of the health benefits of consuming seafood and educating
                people on how to buy, cook, and eat seafoodxi.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \xi\ https://www.seafoodnutrition.org/

         Our #Seafood2xWk Campaign has signed up 52,298 people
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                to pledge to eat seafood at least twice a week.

         Our newest#LittleSeafoodies Campaign is encouraging
                families to feed their kids more seafood to build lifelong
                seafood consumers.

         These public health campaigns have been conducted in
                Birmingham AL; Boston, MA; Brunswick, GA; Charleston WV;
                Hartford/New Haven CT; Indianapolis, IN; Jacksonville, FL;
                Lexington, KY; Memphis, TN; Oklahoma City, OK; Toledo, OH.

         To date we have generated over 7 billion positive
                impressions on the importance of eating seafood for better
                health.

        Since our founding in 2013, the per capita consumption of seafood
    in the U.S. has grown from 14 pounds to 16 pounds per person per
    yearxii, and 1 in 3 Americans have started to add seafood to
    their diets more often.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \xii\ https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/fisheries-
    united-states-2017-report
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Opportunities and barriers to expanding sustainable aquaculture in the
            U.S. to foster informed discussions on the environment,
            economic, and social impacts of open ocean aquaculture
        Opportunities: The opportunities to expanding sustainable
    aquaculture in the U.S. are the ability to ensure a healthier America,
    support our future food security, and support food equity. Seafood is
    important for our citizens to eat to support overall health and
    wellness, it has a much lower environmental footprint than land-based
    agriculture, and an adequate supply of seafood will help to make it
    available for all Americans.
        Americans currently eat on average 16 pounds of seafood per person
    per year. If we all ate two portions of seafood a week, or 8 ounces of
    seafood a week, we will need 26 pounds of seafood per person per year.
    We do not currently have enough seafood to provide every American with
    the recommended two servings of seafood per week. With 70 percent of
    the planet covered by oceans and currently only about 3 percent of the
    ocean is utilized to grow our food, we have the capacity and know-how
    to grow more healthy seafood for our citizens.
        Through the work of Seafood Nutrition Partnership, consumers are
    getting more comfortable with eating seafood as it is being recognized
    for its numerous health benefits as well as a sustainable protein
    option for the futurexiii. Today, 80-90 percent of U.S.
    retailers and restaurants have a sustainable seafood policy in place.
    So, American consumers can feel good about choosing seafood.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \xiii\ https://www.seafoodnutrition.org/seafood-research/seafood-
    sustainability/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Barriers: The barriers to expanding sustainable aquaculture are
    around the misconceptions of farmed fish. We encourage consumers to eat
    a variety of sustainable seafood that is both wild and farmed, domestic
    and imported. We receive many questions on farmed fish, such as whether
    if it is okay to eat farmed fish, if it is as nutritionally beneficial
    as wild fish, and general uncertainty around how fish is raised.
        We remind consumers that seafood is the last source of wild food
    that we have commercially available. Almost everything we have on our
    dinner plates, from beef, chicken, pork, vegetables, fruits, and grains
    are farmed. America has a beautiful history and heritage of being
    skilled farmers of our great land and we have the experience of good
    farming practices that we can take to farming in our oceans. We
    encourage fish farmers to utilize the best available science and
    responsible farming practices to grow healthy seafood for Americans. We
    need to communicate the importance of eating both wild and farmed fish
    to the American public, and we need to have an adequate supply of
    healthy seafood to meet the growing seafood demand.
        Nutritional profile of farmed fish: From a nutritional standpoint,
    farmed fish have a similar nutrient profile to that of wild fish. A
    great level of science and technical skills are required to grow fish
    successfully at the commercial level and fish are fed a feed that
    mimics what wild fish eat in the wild. The U.S. Department of
    Agriculture has a FoodData Central databasexiv that analyzes
    the major foods available to the American public, and it shows that
    farmed fish is nutritionally comparable to that of wild fish.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \xiv\ https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/index.html
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the importance of
    seafood nutrition for the American public at the U.S. Senate Committee
    on Commerce, Science, and Transportation hearing on October 16, 2019. I
    look forward to productive discussions on feeding Americans healthy
    seafood.
                Sincerely,
                                            Linda Cornish, MBA,
                                                   Founder & President.

        The Chairman. Ms. Unger.

             STATEMENT OF KATHRYN UNGER, MANAGING DIRECTOR,

                CARGILL AQUA NUTRITION NORTH AMERICA AND

           PRESIDENT, STRONGER AMERICA THROUGH SEAFOOD, INC.

        Ms. Unger. Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and
    Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify before you today on the important issue of offshore
    aquaculture.
        My name is Kathryn Graves Unger, and I am Managing Director
    of Cargill's North America Aqua Nutrition Business and also
    President of Stronger America Through Seafood or SATS.
        I am honored to speak about the value of providing American
    consumers with a steady, healthy, and sustainable supply of
    U.S. farm-raised seafood.
        I care about responsible farming. In fact, my husband and I
    own a plot of land in my home state of North Carolina where we
    are currently starting a small solar-powered organic farm.
        This passion for sustainability is a primary reason why I
    joined Cargill's Aqua Nutrition Team to deliver on Cargill's
    promise of healthy seafood for future generations. We are
    committed to supporting the sustainable growth of the global
    aquaculture industry.
        But right now, the U.S. ranks 16th in production of farmed
    seafood. We import most of the seafood we consume and half of
    the fish eaten in the United States comes from farms, but not
    from American farms. Honestly, we can do better.
        While wild-caught fishing will continue to be an important
    source of seafood for Americans, the growing global demand for
    seafood cannot be met by wild-caught fishing alone. That's why
    SATS supports maintaining a robust commercial fishing industry
    alongside aquaculture production.
        Growing U.S. aquaculture production benefits our economy,
    public health, and the environment. The United States' long
    coastline, Exclusive Economic Zones, skilled labor force,
    superior technology, ample feed sources, and growing seafood
    market puts us at the top of the list of countries with
    aquaculture potential.
        Doubling U.S. aquaculture production to about one million
    tons could create an additional 50,000 direct and indirect jobs
    that could provide additional stable, year-round employment
    opportunities in coastal and fishing communities where
    opportunities are often limited and seasonally dependent.
        Growing U.S. offshore aquaculture production also benefits
    U.S. agriculture. Replacing wild-caught fishmeal and fish oil
    with alternative protein, such as soy, eases pressure on ocean
    resources while also providing a new market outlet for U.S.
    soybean farmers.
        Sustainable raw materials for feed are also important.
    Cargill's goal is for all our marine ingredients to come from
    Marine Stewardship Council-certified fisheries by 2025 and our
    U.S.-sourced marine ingredients will be fully MSC-certified by
    next spring. Cargill also supports increasing conservation
    practices on soybean farms.
        Finally, farmed seafood is a healthy meal option, providing
    a variety of nutrients to humans that are not supplied in
    meaningful quantities by other foods. Unfortunately, despite
    the known health benefits, Americans are not meeting their
    targeted seafood consumption.
        So why aren't we producing our seafood here at home? The
    answer is simple. There is no clear regulatory framework for
    permitting, enforcement, or management of offshore aquaculture
    in U.S. Federal waters.
        This means anyone wanting to invest in offshore farming in
    U.S. waters faces a very unclear, expensive, and uncertain
    process to gain permission to operate.
        One example of this is Pacifico Aquaculture, headquartered
    in San Diego. Instead of tackling the uncertain permitting
    process in the U.S., Pacifico took their U.S.-based investors
    60 miles south of the U.S. border into Ensenada, Mexico, where
    they now operate a striped bass farm that employs over 200
    workers and they ship that bass primarily back to U.S.
    retailers.
        According to Pacifico's CEO, they would be willing to look
    into further investments here but not until the regulatory
    process is made clear.
        So given the numerous benefits of U.S.-based aquaculture,
    it did not make sense to me why so many roadblocks exist to
    developing this industry. That is why SATS was created, to
    support congressional action to establish a clear permitting
    process for U.S. marine aquaculture while also prioritizing
    environmental and societal health.
        I will state clearly that SATS is not asking to eliminate
    or reduce proper oversight of or regulations for offshore
    aquaculture, but rather, seeks a clearly defined regulatory
    path forward to provide certainty for businesses that want to
    make these major investments in our economy.
        Thank you, Senator Wicker, for your leadership in
    developing and introducing the AQUAA Act, and I implore members
    of this committee to join Senator Wicker and commit to
    bipartisan support for enacting sustainable offshore
    aquaculture legislation soon, and SATS stands ready to support
    your efforts.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Unger follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Kathryn Unger, Managing Director, Cargill Aqua
        Nutrition North America and President, Stronger America Through
                                 Seafood, Inc.
        Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the
    Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on
    the important issue of offshore aquaculture. My name is Kathryn Unger
    and I am Managing Director of Cargill's North American Aqua Nutrition
    business and also President of Stronger America Through Seafood, or
    SATS, a coalition of business leaders who joined together to promote
    Federal policies favorable to U.S. seafood production and aquaculture.
    But that is my professional life. Personally, I care deeply about the
    environment, am a seafood-lover, and a bit of a health and fitness-nut,
    and I am honored to speak about the value of providing American
    consumers with a steady, healthy and sustainable supply of U.S. farm-
    raised seafood.
        I care deeply about being a good steward of the land and
    responsible farming practices. In fact, my husband and I own a plot of
    land in my home state of North Carolina where we will open a small,
    organic farm that is solar powered. This passion for sustainability is
    a primary reason why I joined Cargill's Aqua Nutrition team almost five
    years ago. Cargill was making big investments globally in fish feed
    production and, knowing that aquaculture has the least environmental
    impact of any animal protein production available, it seemed like the
    perfect position to blend my personal and professional values.
        Cargill is a global agribusiness company with 160,000 employees
    across 70 countries who work relentlessly to achieve our purpose of
    nourishing the world in a safe, responsible and sustainable way. Every
    day, we connect farmers with markets, customers with ingredients, and
    people and animals with the food they need to thrive. My business,
    Cargill Aqua Nutrition, is a world leader in aquaculture feed and
    nutrition. To deliver on our promise of healthy seafood for future
    generations, we are committed to supporting the sustainable growth of
    the global aquaculture industry, enabling better seafood and partnering
    with farmers to help them succeed. We operate regional businesses in
    Chile, the North Sea, North America, northern Latin America, and Asia.
        Early in my time at Cargill, I learned that aquaculture is the
    fastest growing food sector in the world but, sadly, the U.S. ranks
    only 16th in production of farmed seafood, behind producers in Asia,
    Europe, South America, Canada and Africa. This means that the U.S. is
    missing out on something. While wild-caught fishing will continue to be
    an important source of seafood for Americans, the growing global demand
    for seafood cannot be met by wild-caught fishing alone. That is why
    SATS supports maintaining a robust commercial fishing industry
    alongside offshore aquaculture production. The U.S. imports most of the
    seafood it consumes, and half of the fish eaten in the United States
    comes from farms--but not from American farms \1\. American aquaculture
    (both marine and freshwater) meets only 5-7 percent of U.S. demand for
    seafood. Honestly, we can do better.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/faqs/faq_aq_101.html
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Before I address why the U.S. lags so far behind in aquaculture
    production, I want to elaborate on what the U.S. is missing out on by
    not engaging in domestic production.
        For the Economy: Globally, aquaculture is one of the fastest
    growing, sustainable forms of food production. According to the World
    Bank, by 2030, aquaculture's share in the global seafood supply will
    expand to supply over 60 percent of fish for human consumption, whereas
    wild-capture seafood production will remain steady. The United States'
    long coastline, expansive Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), skilled labor
    force, superior technology, ample feed sources, and growing seafood
    market put us at the top of the list of countries with aquaculture
    potential. A doubling of U.S. aquaculture production to about 1 million
    tons could create an additional 50,000 direct and indirect jobs,
    assuming 20 direct jobs per 1,000 tons of seafood produced, or five
    jobs per 1,000 tons in equipment, feeds, processing, marketing, and
    food service. These jobs could provide additional stable, year-round
    employment opportunities in coastal and fishing communities where
    opportunities are often limited and seasonally dependent.
        In addition, U.S. offshore aquaculture production can also benefit
    U.S. agriculture. Replacing wild-caught fishmeal and fish oil with
    alternative proteins, such as soy, eases pressure on ocean resources
    while also providing a new market outlet for U.S. soybean farmers.
    Soybeans contain much needed omega-3 fatty acids, proteins, and
    unsaturated fats that are critical for healthy fish. Soy can replace
    from one-third to one-half of the fishmeal in feeds for many farmed
    species, and soybean meal has a significantly lower cost than most
    animal meals. And, farmers stand ready to meet new demand for soybeans.
    Soybean production in the U.S. has increased more than tenfold in the
    last four decades, and can sustain this growth in the coming years.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://ussec.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Farm-land-sea.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For the Environment: With modern siting and monitoring
    technologies, marine finfish aquaculture can be managed in an
    environmentally sound manner that mitigates impacts on competing ocean
    uses and ocean ecosystems. Marine aquaculture requires no land, minimal
    fresh water and a relatively small amount of space to provide abundant,
    healthful seafood making it an extremely efficient means of animal
    protein production.
        Aquaculture is also a highly efficient way of producing nutritious
    food. Naturally high conversion rates of feed to seafood have been
    improved over the last two decades. Nevertheless, our industry
    continues to look for ways to increase sustainability and meet consumer
    demands for more information about the food that they eat. As a major
    feed producer, we are mindful that our decisions affect the
    sustainability of the value chain and are taking steps to reduce the
    footprint even further. This all starts with the feed raw materials and
    their origins. We work continuously with our suppliers to develop more
    sustainable sources of marine and plant-based raw materials.
        One recent example is a partnership with the World Wildlife
    Federation to better manage the wild fish stocks that we use for our
    fishmeal and oil. Our goal is for all marine ingredients to come from
    Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)-certified fisheries by 2025, and we
    are well on our way to meeting that target. For our U.S.-sourced marine
    ingredients we will be fully MSC-certified by next spring, and globally
    we are over 40 percent.
        For our soy-based feeds, our sourcing depends on the region in
    which the feed is being produced. For our U.S. feed operations--
    including any expansion that may come to support the growth of U.S.
    marine aquaculture--we will use only U.S. grown soy. As noted earlier,
    use of soybean meal in feeds can reduce pressure on wild fish resources
    and prevent overfishing. In addition, we are working to increase the
    sustainability of U.S. soybean production through partnerships with
    farmers focused on increasing soil health, which has numerous
    environmental benefits as well as benefits to the farmers' bottom line.
        For our health: Farmed seafood provides a source for local,
    affordable meal options that benefit public health. The U.S. Dietary
    Guidelines currently recommend that Americans eat at least eight ounces
    of a variety of seafood per week--which equates to 2 meals a week. This
    is because seafood provides a variety of nutrients to humans that are
    not supplied in meaningful quantities by other foods, such as omega-3
    fatty acids and fat soluble vitamins, such as A, D and K.
    Unfortunately, despite the health benefits, Americas are not meeting
    the recommended consumption target, with data from 2016 suggesting that
    Americans are only consuming about 2.7 ounces of seafood per week, or
    1/3 of recommendations.\3\ Growth of abundant, local, U.S.-produced
    seafood could be key to changing those habits.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/october/americans-
    seafood-consumption-below-recommendations/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Clearly, aquaculture is something that we should be doing ourselves
    here in the U.S.
        So, WHY AREN'T WE? The answer is simple: There is no clear
    regulatory framework for the permitting, enforcement or management of
    offshore aquaculture in U.S. Federal waters. This means anyone wanting
    to invest in offshore farming in U.S. waters faces a very unclear,
    expensive and uncertain process to gain permission to operate. Nobody
    is in charge but everybody is in charge--which leaves potential
    investors and farmers with few options but to take their money, and
    jobs, overseas.
        One example of this is Pacifico Aquaculture, headquartered in San
    Diego, California. Instead of tackling the uncertain permitting process
    in the U.S., Pacifico took their U.S.-based investors 60 miles south of
    the U.S. border into Ensenada, Mexico, where they now operate a
    remarkable striped bass farm. Pacifico employs 200 workers in Mexico,
    including divers, engineers, processors, harvesters and biologists, and
    has become a major employer in the community. Pacifico is selling their
    delicious, sustainably-sourced, fully-traceable striped bass to major
    U.S. retailers, high-end white tablecloth restaurants and sushi
    outlets. According to Pacifico's Chief Executive Officer Frank Dulcich,
    they would be willing to look into further investments in the U.S., but
    not until the regulatory process is made clear. He recently told me,
    ``The current situation makes it difficult to accurately assess
    business plans as permitting and expansion considerations are
    handicapped by an environment where there is very little confidence in
    the ability to receive permits.''
        Other groups have tried for decades and spent millions of dollars
    to navigate the regulatory quagmire surrounding offshore aquaculture
    development, and very few have succeeded. Another California-based
    group, Hubbs Sea World Research Institute, started their permitting
    journey in the late 1990s. They have spent over $4 million so far and
    still do not have the requisite permits to farm yellowtail off the
    coast of Southern California. According to them, the primary roadblock
    has long been a lack of consistency or coordination among Federal
    agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corps of
    Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, and U.S. Navy, as well as State agencies.
        Given the numerous benefits of U.S. aquaculture to our economy, our
    health, and the environment, it did not make sense to me why so many
    roadblocks exist, effectively preventing the development of a robust
    offshore aquaculture industry in the United States. Not one to stand by
    and wait for someone else to fix our problems, in late 2017, I called a
    group of U.S. seafood industry leaders to Washington, D.C. to identify
    possible solutions to the U.S. aquaculture problem. That first meeting
    led to what is now Stronger America Through Seafood and together we are
    advocating for an improved regulatory environment that can support a
    vibrant U.S. aquaculture community. Companies like Red Lobster, Sysco,
    Pacific Seafoods, Taylor Shellfish, High Liner Foods, Fortune Fish and
    many others who are on the Board of SATS determined that our first
    order of business would be to support an act of Congress which would
    establish a clear permitting process for U.S. marine aquaculture while
    also prioritizing environmental and societal health.
        Since that time, SATS has been very pleased with the work that you,
    Senator Wicker, have undertaken to develop and introduce the AQUAA Act
    in the last Congress. I am confident that legislation like this could
    provide much-needed regulatory certainty for U.S. marine farmers while
    also preserving the environment, local economies and public health.
    Legislation like the AQUAA Act will lead to increased U.S. seafood
    production that benefits ALL Americans.
        I will state clearly that SATS is not asking to eliminate or reduce
    proper oversight of or regulations for U.S. offshore aquaculture.
    However, what is needed is a clearly defined regulatory path forward to
    provide certainty for businesses that want to make these major
    investments in our economy. I implore the members of this Committee to
    join in your effort Senator Wicker to enact offshore aquaculture
    legislation soon. My colleagues and I at Cargill and at Stronger
    America Through Seafood are eager to share our knowledge and experience
    to support this process. I am happy to answer any questions you may
    have.
        Thank you.

        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Unger. We appreciate
    that.
        And we now recognize Dr. Halpern of UC Santa Barbara.
    Welcome, sir.

              STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN S. HALPERN, DIRECTOR,

              NATIONAL CENTER FOR ECOLOGICAL ANALYSIS AND

                SYNTHESIS; AND PROFESSOR, BREN SCHOOL OF

                 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND MANAGEMENT,

                UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA

        Dr. Halpern. Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and
    Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify here today about the science around offshore
    aquaculture.
        My name is Dr. Ben Halpern, and I am the Director of the
    National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, the
    first and longest-running center of its kind of the world, and
    a Professor of Marine Conservation at the Bren School of
    Environmental Science and Management at the University of
    California, Santa Barbara.
        I got my Ph.D. in Marine Ecology and have spent the last 15
    years of my career focused on global scale research questions
    that address topics, such as the cumulative impact of human
    activities on oceans and measuring the many benefits people
    derive from the ocean, in particular related to the food we get
    from fisheries and aquaculture.
        Marine aquaculture has huge potential to provide nutritious
    and environmentally friendly food, but to produce safe,
    sustainable, and scientifically informed marine aquaculture
    requires clear policy based on the best available science.
        To that end, I would like to offer three related main
    points. First, we have to get our food from somewhere and there
    is huge potential in U.S. waters from marine aquaculture.
    Second, all food production has impact but not all foods are
    equal. Well-managed offshore aquaculture can have low impact.
    Third, science already provides a number of key best practices
    and advantages of offshore aquaculture and ecosystem-based
    integrated aquaculture frameworks already exist to guide
    aquaculture siting.
        Americans love seafood, annually consuming nearly 50 pounds
    of seafood per capita. Many argue that our country was founded
    on the backs or fins of cod and fisheries remain the fabric and
    diet of many communities around our country.
        In the last few decades, strong and effective fisheries
    management has returned many of our stocks to healthy,
    sustainable levels, but that success creates a Catch-22.
    There's relatively little room for further growth and
    sustainable harvest of wild fisheries to feed our ever-
    increasing appetite for seafood.
        Indeed, currently the U.S. imports roughly 65 percent of
    its seafood. Thus, there are only two options for meeting
    growing seafood demand in the future: import more seafood or
    farm it in our own waters.
        There is huge potential in U.S. waters for marine
    aquaculture. The U.S. would only need to farm one-hundredth of
    1 percent of its EUZ to produce all of the seafood people eat
    domestically. This huge production potential in such a small
    space creates key opportunities for strategic science-informed
    siting of marine aquaculture to maximize benefits and minimize
    conflicts and negative impacts while still meeting conservation
    objectives.
        Whether we harvest fish, farm fish, grow livestock, or farm
    crops, we have an impact on the environment, but not all food
    production is created equal. As scientists, we measure these
    impacts in many different ways. The emissions of greenhouse
    gases that fuel climate change, the nitrogen pollution that
    leads to dead zones in lakes and coastal waters, the natural
    landscapes converted and tilled under, the spread of non-native
    species or pests, the use of limited freshwater resources, and
    so on. These costs vary enormously among different foods
    growing in different places using different means.
        Offshore aquaculture has impacts on the environment just
    like any other food production, but in many cases, these
    impacts are far less than those for other foods. Little to no
    freshwater is needed, feed innovations have reduced nitrogen
    pollution to very low levels, very small amounts of space are
    needed to grow food in the sea, and for shellfish and seaweed
    aquaculture, some can actually improve local water quality
    rather than add pollutants.
        Strategic and science-informed siting of offshore
    aquaculture can further reduce potential environmental impacts.
    For example, some best practices for offshore aquaculture
    include placing farms at least 300 feet away from critical
    benthic habitat, in ocean currents at least one-tenth of a mile
    per hour and at least 60 feet above the sea floor, and
    maintaining low stocking densities to reduce the chance of
    diseases.
        The perception of many people in the U.S. is that
    aquaculture is bad, offshore in particular. The science does
    not bear this out for offshore aquaculture if it is managed
    well, but nonetheless aquaculture policy and management efforts
    will continue to face this public perception.
        It is critical that efforts to create aquaculture policy
    are informed by science and adaptive to new science. As a
    global leader in the management of our marine resources, the
    U.S. has the opportunity, knowledge, and capacity to produce
    safe, sustainable, and scientifically informed marine
    aquaculture in a way that sets the global standard.
        Thank you for your time and attention. I welcome any
    questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Halpern follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Benjamin S. Halpern, Director, National Center
     for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis; and Professor, Bren School of
     Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa
                                    Barbara
        Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the
    committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify here today about
    the science around offshore aquaculture. My name is Dr. Ben Halpern and
    I am the Director of the National Center for Ecological Analysis and
    Synthesis, the first and longest running center of its kind in the
    world, and a Professor of marine conservation at the Bren School of
    Environmental Science and Management at the University of California,
    Santa Barbara. I got my PhD in marine ecology and have spent the last
    15 years of my career focused on global-scale research questions that
    address topics such as the cumulative impact of human activities on
    oceans and measuring the many benefits people derive from the ocean, in
    particular related to the food we get from fisheries and aquaculture.
        My research leverages synthesis, which is a scientific tool that
    brings together all available data and evidence, collected as part of
    dozens to hundreds of studies from around the world, to extract the
    `big picture' and identify key gaps in our knowledge. I then use other
    analytical tools to strategically fill those gaps. This context is
    important because it helps explain my scientific approach and
    perspective--my work doesn't focus on if or where to site a specific
    aquaculture farm off the coast of California, for example, but instead
    focuses on broader questions about the potential and limits to growth
    in marine aquaculture globally or in the U.S., the comparative
    environmental impacts of different kinds of aquaculture, and the
    lessons learned about best practices for offshore aquaculture.
        Aquaculture comes in many forms and flavors. There are three broad
    places where aquaculture is done--freshwater (on land), brackish (in
    estuaries), and marine. Globally, freshwater aquaculture is the
    majority of total production, with marine and brackish aquaculture
    totaling about 40 percent (FAO 2018). In the U.S., approximately 43
    percent is marine (FAO 2018).
        There are also three broad types of aquaculture--seaweed,
    shellfish, and finfish. Within each of these broad categories there are
    dozens to hundreds of different species that are grown globally. As of
    2017, at least 18 species of marine finfish could viably be farmed in
    the U.S. and dozens of shellfish already are.
        Marine aquaculture has huge potential to provide nutritious and
    environmentally-friendly food that simultaneously creates economic
    value and local jobs. But to produce safe, sustainable and
    scientifically-informed marine aquaculture requires clear policy based
    on the best available science.
        To that end, I would like to offer three related, main points:

      1.  We have to get our food from somewhere, and there is huge
            potential in U.S. waters for marine aquaculture.

      2.  All food production has impact, but not all foods are equal--well
            managed offshore aquaculture can have low impact.

      3.  Science already provides a number of key best practices and
            advantages of offshore aquaculture, and ecosystem-based/
            integrated aquaculture frameworks already exist to guide
            aquaculture siting.
    The U.S. has huge potential for safe and sustainable offshore
            aquaculture
        Americans love seafood, annually consuming nearly 50 pounds of
    seafood per capita, or 6.8 million metric tons total a year, above the
    global average. Many argue that our country was founded on the backs--
    or fins--of cod, and fisheries remain the fabric and diet of many
    communities around our country. In the last few decades, strong and
    effective management of fisheries has returned many of our stocks to
    healthy, sustainable levels. But that success creates a catch-22. There
    is relatively little room for further growth in sustainable harvest of
    wild fisheries to feed our ever-increasing appetite for seafood here or
    in other countries.
        Indeed, currently the U.S. imports roughly 65 percent of its
    seafood (Gephart et al., 2019)--not the 90 percent number that often
    gets mentioned, but 65 percent is still the majority of our seafood.
    Even if we didn't export any of the seafood we catch and farm in the
    US, we would still be more than a million metric tons short of current
    domestic seafood demand. Thus, there are only two options for meeting
    growing seafood demand in the future: import more seafood, or farm it
    in our own waters.
        There is huge potential in U.S. waters for marine aquaculture
    (Gentry et al., 2017), even when using very conservative assumptions
    about where and to what extent to allow aquaculture (Fig. 1). The U.S.
    would only need to farm 0.01 percent of its EEZ to produce all of the
    seafood people eat domestically. We don't need to do even that, though,
    because we have our fisheries too. This huge production potential in
    such a small space creates key opportunities for strategic, science-
    informed siting of marine aquaculture to maximize benefits and minimize
    conflicts and negative impacts while still meeting objectives of
    conservation and other marine sectors.
    All food production has impact, but not all foods are equal
        Whether we harvest fish, farm fish, grow livestock, or farm crops,
    we have an impact on the environment. We can't feed the nearly 330
    million people in the U.S. without having an impact on the environment.
    But not all food production is created equal. As scientists, we measure
    these impacts in many different ways: the emissions of greenhouse gases
    that fuel climate change, the nitrogen pollution that leads to dead
    zones in lakes and coastal waters, the natural landscapes converted and
    tilled under, the spread of non-native species or pests, the use of
    limited freshwater resources, and so on. These costs vary enormously
    among different foods grown in different places using different means.
        Offshore aquaculture has impacts on the environment, just like any
    food production. But in many cases these impacts are far less than
    those for other foods. Little to no freshwater is needed, feed
    innovations have reduced nitrogen pollution to very low levels, very
    small amounts of space are needed to grow food in the sea, and for
    shellfish and seaweed aquaculture, some can actually improve local
    water quality rather than add pollutants. Strategic and science-
    informed siting of offshore aquaculture can further reduce potential
    environmental impacts.
        In other cases the impacts of offshore aquaculture may be similar
    to other foods. The potential for spread of disease, and the
    antibiotics used to deal with disease, is common to many food
    production systems. For offshore aquaculture, these risks appear easier
    to mitigate. In the U.S., no antibiotics have been cleared for use, and
    there are known best practices that significantly reduce rates of
    disease, so clear and established strategies exist to minimize issues
    of disease. Another potential impact comes from risk of escape of
    farmed fish into wild stocks. Integrated ecosystem-based management of
    aquaculture provides one mechanism for reducing these risks.
    Guiding best practices for offshore aquaculture
        There is sufficient science to inform and guide best practices for
    offshore aquaculture that can be used to help minimize environmental
    impacts. Some of these guidelines include:

       Place farms at least 300 feet (less than a football field)
            away from critical benthic habitat

       Farms placed in ocean currents at least 0.1mph have better
            growth and a lower pollution footprint

       Farms positioned at least 60 feet above the seafloor have
            little impact on the seafloor below

       Lower stocking densities reduce the chance of diseases--for
            example, the European `organic' standard is 11 kg/m\3\ for
            finfish

       Use anti-predator netting and anchoring to reduce wildlife
            conflict and entanglements

       Promptly remove attractants to minimize wildlife
            interactions

       Apply strict rules on antibiotics--currently none are
            permitted for use in U.S. marine waters

       Require consistent and standardized monitoring and reporting
            of conditions and farm practices to help inform science and
            improve best practices

       Establish and implement distinct criteria for finfish,
            shellfish, and seaweed

        The perception of many people in the U.S. is that aquaculture is
    bad, offshore in particular (Froehlich et al., 2017). The science does
    not necessarily bear this out for offshore aquaculture if it is managed
    well, but none-the-less aquaculture policy and management efforts will
    continue to face this public perception. It is critical that efforts to
    create aquaculture policy are informed by science and adaptive to new
    science. Well-managed aquaculture will need to take into account
    community and social aspects, and the science on this is more sparse.
        I would like to end by reiterating something I started with. To
    produce safe, sustainable and scientifically-informed marine
    aquaculture requires clear policy based on the best available science.
    As a global leader in the management of our marine resources, the U.S.
    has the opportunity, knowledge and capacity to do this in a way that
    sets a global standard.
        Thank you for your time and attention. I welcome any questions you
    may have.
    References
        FAO. (2018). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture: Meeting
    the sustainable development goals (p. 227). Rome, Italy: Food and
    Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
        Froehlich, H.E., R.R. Gentry, M.B. Rust, D. Grimm, and B.S.
    Halpern. (2017). Public perceptions of aquaculture: evaluating
    spatiotemporal patterns of sentiment around the world. PLoS ONE 12:
    e0169281
        Gentry, R.R., H.E. Froehlich, D. Grimm, P. Kareiva, M. Parke, M.
    Rust, S.D. Gaines and B.S. Halpern. (2017). Mapping the global
    potential for marine aquaculture. Nature Ecology & Evolution, doi:
    10.1038/s41559-017-0257-9
        Gephart, J. A., Froehlich, H. E., & Branch, T. A. (2019). Opinion:
    To create sustainable seafood industries, the United States needs a
    better accounting of imports and exports. Proceedings of the National
    Academy of Sciences, 116(19), 9142-9146. https://doi.org/10.1073/
    pnas.1905650116

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you very, very much, Dr. Halpern.
        And is it Dr. Doremus? Welcome and you're recognized for
    your opening statement.

            STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL DOREMUS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT

             ADMINISTRATOR FOR OPERATIONS, NATIONAL MARINE

          FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
              ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

        Dr. Doremus. Thank you, Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member
    Cantwell, and Members of the Committee.
        I'm Paul Doremus, and I am the Deputy Assistant
    Administrator for Operations within NOAA's National Marine
    Fisheries Service.
        We support the long-term sustainability of our fisheries to
    benefit commercial, recreational, and subsistence fishermen as
    well as aquaculture producers, the seafood industry, and
    coastal communities that depend on fisheries and the other
    marine resources that we are responsible for stewarding.
        Limits to wild fisheries, environmental changes, the
    nutritional benefits of seafood, and trends in global seafood
    markets all point toward the need to increase U.S. marine
    aquaculture production.
        I appreciate the opportunity to discuss aquaculture with
    you today and to convey the uncapped potential of this segment
    of the U.S. seafood sector.
        U.S. fisheries are among the world's largest and most
    sustainable. By preventing the overfishing and rebuilding
    stocks, we're strengthening the value of fisheries to the
    economy and the communities that depend on them while ensuring
    the sustainable supply of seafood for the Nation in the future.
        However, the U.S. currently imports at least 85 percent of
    its seafood and about half of that is from aquaculture produced
    in other countries. The U.S. trade deficit in seafood has grown
    to over 16 billion and is increasing steadily.
        In effect, we have outsourced the large majority of our
    seafood production and the associated jobs that go with that.
    We've captured fishery production approaching biological
    limits. Major increases in domestic seafood production can
    really only come from aquaculture.
        While NOAA Fisheries is committed to improving output from
    the sustainable harvest of wild-captured fisheries, there is
    simply not enough fish in the ocean to meet demand. Global
    aquaculture supplies more than half of all seafood produced for
    human consumption and that percentage will continue to rise as
    global seafood demand increases while wild harvest levels
    remain relatively flat and relative to other types of farming,
    growing seafood is one of the most resource-efficient ways to
    produce protein, generally requiring less space, less feed, and
    less freshwater than farming the equivalent amount of animals
    on land.
        With proper management and with science-based polls, such
    as those developed by NOAA and our partners, we can minimize
    environmental impacts, minimize user conflicts, and realize the
    benefits among those being public health and nutrition
    benefits, that have been cited from a more seafood-rich diet.
    All of these are substantial reasons.
        Stated simply, responsible aquaculture is good for the
    economy, it's good for the planet, and it's good for our
    people, but despite these benefits and despite strong and
    growing demand for more seafood, U.S. aquaculture production
    remains far below its potential.
        The U.S. has the second largest EUZ in the world but ranks
    17th in aquaculture output. An uncertain regulatory
    environment, particularly in Federal waters, has constrained
    the growth of U.S. marine aquaculture.
        To overcome these constraints, NOAA works to facilitate
    permitting and siting of aquaculture facilities and contributes
    to the science and technology advancements needed to develop
    and manage responsible aquaculture production.
        For example, NOAA recently released our Ocean Reports Tool.
    This is an intelligent web application that provides a
    transparent, rigorous, and very efficient way to identify
    sustainable areas for siting new aquaculture and other
    industries while minimizing potential user conflicts.
    Sustainable aquaculture really begins with siting and this tool
    will help us work with the fishing industry and with other
    ocean users to get it right at the start.
        NOAA's scientists and our partners have worked on numerous
    other tools to foster sustainable aquaculture developments,
    such as new feeds, models to predict and avoid negative impacts
    to water quality and wild populations, and new ways to promote
    the resistance to disease, such as probiotics in the shellfish
    industry.
        Looking ahead, we can build on many years of sustainable
    seafood management under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and improve
    the future for the U.S. seafood sector as a whole.
        The U.S. has one of the most dynamic, accountable, and
    innovative wild capture fishery management systems in the world
    and our fishermen abide by the most robust stewardship laws.
        NOAA manages its wild capture fisheries in a coordinated,
    multi-stakeholder process that is rooted in science. This
    approach is built into the fabric of our organization. It is
    how we do business, and we will apply these same approaches and
    lessons from wild fish management to the management of the
    aquaculture sector in the marine environment.
        By making aquaculture facility permitting more efficient
    and coordinated and by expanding investment in research, the
    U.S. can produce greater volumes of high-quality local seafood
    and be more competitive in the global marketplace. We can
    support the growth of U.S. seafood farming in ways that
    complement our management of commercial fishing and provide
    additional employment and economic opportunities throughout the
    seafood supply chain.
        We stand ready to work with the Committee on this important
    national issue.
        Thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and I
    certainly look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Doremus follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Dr. Paul Doremus, Deputy Assistant Administrator
    for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and
            Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
        Good morning, Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members
    of the Committee. My name is Paul Doremus and I am the Deputy Assistant
    Administrator for Operations within the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service
    (NMFS) in the Department of Commerce. From daily weather forecasts and
    severe storm warnings, to fishery management, coastal restoration, and
    supporting marine commerce, NOAA's products and services support
    economic vitality and affect more than one-third of America's gross
    domestic product. NMFS' mission includes supporting sustainable
    fisheries, including aquaculture, while recovering and conserving
    protected marine species. We support the long-term sustainability of
    our fisheries to benefit commercial, recreational, and subsistence
    fishermen as well as aquaculture producers, the seafood industry, and
    coastal communities that depend on those fisheries and coastal
    resources. Our support for aquaculture is part of a larger priority
    initiative to grow the American Blue Economy.
        Limits to wild fisheries, environmental changes, the nutritional
    benefits of seafood, and trends in global seafood markets underscore
    the need to increase U.S. marine aquaculture production, particularly
    in Federal waters. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss aquaculture
    with you today, and to convey the untapped potential of this segment of
    the U.S. seafood sector.
    Overview and Opportunities
        U.S. wild-capture fisheries are among the world's largest and most
    sustainable. By preventing overfishing and rebuilding stocks, we are
    strengthening the value of fisheries to the economy and communities
    that depend on them, and also ensuring a sustainable supply of seafood
    for the Nation in the future. However, the U.S. currently imports at
    least 85 percent of its seafood, about half from aquaculture in other
    countries. The U.S. trade deficit in seafood has grown to over $16
    billion and is increasing. In effect, we have outsourced the large
    majority of our seafood production and associated jobs. By providing a
    clear regulatory framework for aquaculture in Federal and State waters,
    we could increase U.S. seafood production, while maintaining a healthy
    and vibrant wild capture fishery industry, creating more jobs in
    coastal communities and throughout the agricultural heartland and
    providing our country with more local sources of one of the most
    healthy, sustainably produced forms of protein. Stated simply,
    responsible aquaculture is good for the economy, good for our
    communities, and good for the planet.
        NMFS is fully committed to improving output from the sustainable
    harvest of wild capture fisheries; however, there simply is not enough
    fish in the water to meet demand. Today, global aquaculture supplies
    more than 50 percent of all seafood produced for human consumption.
    That percentage will continue to rise as global seafood demand
    increases. In addition, relative to other types of farming, growing
    seafood is one of the most resource-efficient ways to produce protein,
    generally requiring less space, less feed, and less fresh water than
    farming the equivalent amount of terrestrial animals. With proper
    management and science-based tools, such as those developed by NOAA and
    our partners, we can minimize environmental impacts and user conflicts.
    These two conditions--the global imbalance between supply and demand
    and the comparatively low environmental impact of seafood production--
    are compelling reasons alone for focusing on U.S. aquaculture
    production. The benefits to public health and nutrition of a more
    seafood-rich diet provide yet additional reasons. Despite these
    considerable benefits, U.S. aquaculture production remains far below
    its potential.
        The United States has significant untapped potential to expand
    sustainable marine aquaculture. While the U.S. has the second largest
    Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the world, it ranks 17th in the world
    in aquaculture. An uncertain regulatory environment has constrained the
    growth of U.S. aquaculture. To overcome these burdens and increase
    domestic aquaculture production over the next decade, NOAA is working
    to improve opportunities for investment in and development of
    aquaculture businesses by facilitating permitting and siting of
    aquaculture facilities and by advancing the science and technologies
    needed to develop and manage responsible aquaculture production.
    NOAA's Role
        At NOAA, we support cutting-edge science and research to grow
    sustainable aquaculture in the United States. I'd like to provide just
    a few examples to highlight these efforts.
        Sustainable aquaculture begins with proper siting. To this end,
    NOAA recently released our OceanReports tool, an intelligent web
    application developed in partnership with the Bureau of Ocean Energy
    Management and the Department of Energy. OceanReports is capable of
    providing custom spatial analysis of any U.S. ocean space within
    seconds. Now anyone can quickly get wide-ranging information for a
    particular space--from ocean laws to environmental data and economic
    data about shipping activity and energy infrastructure. By providing
    instant access to an ocean of data and spatial reports for our ``ocean
    neighborhoods,'' this web-based tool provides a transparent, rigorous,
    and efficient way to identify sustainable areas for siting new ocean
    industries while minimizing potential user conflicts. OceanReports and
    similar tools provide an excellent starting point for discussions with
    the fishing industry and other ocean users about where to site, or not
    site, aquaculture operations. This tool is one example of a larger
    NOAA-wide effort to rapidly advance emerging technologies such as
    artificial intelligence, unmanned systems, and cloud computing to more
    effectively and efficiently accomplish our mission.
        NOAA scientists and our partners have also worked on numerous other
    tools to foster sustainable aquaculture development. These include
    supporting advances in new finfish feeds that have significantly
    reduced the amount of wild fish required to raise a given volume of
    farmed fish; models to predict and avoid negative impacts to water
    quality and wild populations; and novel ways such as use of probiotics
    to reduce the incidence of disease in shellfish farms. NOAA continues
    to refine and expand these and other tools.
    Looking Ahead
        NOAA has a long history of sustainable seafood management under the
    Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The United
    States now has one of the most dynamic, accountable, and innovative
    wild-capture fishery management systems in the world. Our fishermen
    abide by the most robust stewardship laws. Evolving over the past 40
    years, the results of our science-based management system are
    impressive: overfishing and overfished stocks are at historic lows.
    NOAA manages its wild fisheries in close coordination and proactive
    engagement with states, fishing communities, environmental
    organizations, and the public in a coordinated multi-stakeholder
    process. This approach is built into our fabric and we apply these same
    collaborative, locally driven approaches and lessons from wild fish
    management to marine aquaculture. However, in order to be more
    effective, we need to address several key underlying challenges.
        By making aquaculture permitting more efficient and coordinated,
    U.S. aquaculture production can be more competitive in the marketplace.
    Furthermore, providing mechanisms establishing the security of tenure
    required for private sector investment in offshore aquaculture is
    essential for growth in this space.
        Currently, there is only one commercial aquaculture facility
    permitted in Federal waters--a mussel farm off the coast of California.
    There are several pilot and commercial projects at various stages in
    the permitting process; however, none are at commercial production
    levels. A good model of sustainable aquaculture offshore production is
    occurring in state waters. Blue Ocean Mariculture operates in Hawaiian
    state waters but in conditions similar to the open-ocean given the
    location's steep continental shelf. Blue Ocean's fully integrated
    facility optimizes the life cycle of a finfish species called Almaco
    jack from hatch to harvest. Production begins with fertilized eggs from
    dedicated brood stock, meaning there is no capture pressure on wild
    fish populations beyond securing the initial brood stock. They transfer
    juvenile fish from their hatchery facility to open ocean net pens.
    Careful monitoring occurs during feeding. This feeding approach, along
    with the selection of a site with relatively deep waters and strong
    currents, greatly reduces the probability of feed settling to the
    bottom. The farm site has been in continuous operation within the
    Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary since 2004 and adheres to
    robust environmental monitoring protocols. It recently received
    authorization to expand production on its current site.
        Blue Ocean Mariculture is just one example of how industry is
    implementing what we have learned since the origins of U.S. marine
    aquaculture about how to properly locate and manage marine aquaculture
    to reduce potential impacts and user conflicts. It also provides a
    compelling example of what kind of businesses can evolve in Federal
    waters if we respond to the challenges that have prevented more
    extensive investment in this promising segment of the seafood sector.
        We can support the health and future prosperity of sustainable
    seafood through U.S. seafood farming in ways that complement our
    management of commercial fishing and provide additional employment and
    economic opportunities throughout the seafood supply chain. The
    Department stands ready to work with the Committee on this important
    national issue. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before
    your Committee today. I would be happy to answer any questions you may
    have.

        The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Doremus.
        And, Chairman Julius, we're now pleased to recognize you
    for your statement.

             STATEMENT OF JEREMIAH (JAY) JULIUS, CHAIRMAN,
                              LUMMI NATION

        Mr. Julius. Good morning and thank you, Chairman Wicker,
    Ranking Member Cantwell, Members of the Committee. Thank you
    for the opportunity to testify on both the threats and benefits
    of offshore aquaculture.
        My name is Jay Julius, a fisherman and Chairman of the
    Lummi Nation.
        Located in the Northwest corner of Washington State, the
    Lummi Nation and its people represent the largest fishing tribe
    in the country. Since time immemorial, the Lummi people have
    relied on the Salish Sea and the fisheries it provides for
    ceremonial, subsistence, and economic purposes.
        Our lives and culture depend on the health and
    sustainability of its resources and our right to harvest these
    resources is protected by our treaty with the United States.
        Native salmon stocks are already under tremendous pressure
    and struggling to survive. Habitat destruction, pollution, lack
    of forage fish are but a few of the threats facing salmon
    today.
        In August 2017, an environmental disaster took place in the
    Salish Sea and directly impacted the Lummi Nation. The desires
    of a foreign corporation, Cook Aquaculture, to negligently
    exploit our waters led to the massive release of a pollutant,
    approximately 240,000 Atlantic salmon, an invasive species,
    into our waters.
        The Lummi Nation incurred significant expense in trying to
    clean up the mess created by Cook. We declared a state of
    emergency and it was literally all hands on deck as our fishing
    fleets stopped everything as well as the government they were
    doing to capture the Atlantic salmon and clean up the spill.
        It's important to note this industry was operating in our
    waters without our consent. This industry has the potential to
    adversely impact our ability to exercise our treaty-reserved
    rights.
        Having seen firsthand how poor aquaculture policy can
    threaten fragile ecosystems and endanger fish stocks, I have
    several suggestions on principles for future aquaculture
    policy.
        First, the rights of treaty tribes need to be protected. It
    is not uncommon for aquaculture facilities to be sited in areas
    that are an integral part of our usual and accustomed fishing
    places of the Lummi Nation.
        Consequently, as part of the permitting process for these
    facilities, the Federal Government is required to ensure that
    treaty rights are not abrogated or impinged upon by any
    permitted project.
        This right was recognized by Federal courts who, in
    Northwest Sea Farms v. United States Army Corps of Engineers,
    blocked the permitting of an offshore aquaculture facility
    because of its potential impacts on treaty fishing rights of
    the Lummi Nation.
        Second, there should be a ban on non-native fin fish
    aquaculture. The risks of disease, pollution, predation, and
    integrating are far too great, particularly in my region where
    we are struggling to recover native species.
        Certain forms of net pen aquaculture externalize the true
    cost of industry while ensuring that a few multi-national
    corporations reap tremendous economic benefits while
    endangering our way of life.
        Third, the regional differences and priorities need to be
    respected. While full-scale offshore aquaculture may be
    acceptable in some regions of the country, it's not appropriate
    in many regions, including the waters where my people fish.
        Finally, there needs to be strong environmental protections
    and enforcement of those laws. The Cook disaster happened
    because of weak laws and little or no inspections or
    enforcement from either the State of Washington or Federal
    Government.
        While aquaculture presents many threats, it also has been
    essential in keeping the fishing traditions of the Lummi people
    alive.
        Due to habitat destruction, previous management practices
    by state and local governments, climate change, and many other
    reasons, the fish populations in the Salish Sea have been
    decimated and are a fraction of their historic levels.
        In order to maintain even the most meager of fisheries, my
    people have relied on fin fish and shellfish hatcheries to
    maintain our way of life and provide for our families.
        Lummi Nation started the hatchery program in 1969, but it
    wasn't until 1975, the year after the Bolt decision, that the
    hatchery program shifted to focus on releasing juvenile salmon
    to enhance the water surrounding Lummi Nation.
        Today, the Lummi Nation has become one of the major
    producers of Chinook and Coho salmon in the Salish Sea.
    Hatcheries are an important part of aquaculture and when done
    correctly can help to supplement wild fish populations, provide
    a resource for tribal and non-tribal fishermen, and an
    important food source for endangered species, such as orcas.
        Under Phase 2 of the Bolt decision, hatchery fish are
    treaty fish, mitigation for lost habitat. It is both the treaty
    and trust responsibility of the Federal Government to ensure
    that future aquaculture policy both support and enhance our
    Nation's hatchery infrastructure.
        Under the United States Constitution, our treaty with you
    is the supreme law of the land and a healthy Salish Sea is
    essential to our treaty rights, our identity as a people, our
    culture, and our way of life.
        Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I look
    forward to answering any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Julius follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Jeremiah (Jay) Julius, Chairman, Lummi Nation
        Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, members of the Committee,
    thank you for the opportunity to testify on both the threats and
    benefits of offshore aquaculture.
        Located in the Northwest corner of Washington State, the Lummi
    Nation and its people represent the largest fishing tribe in the
    country. Since time immemorial the Lummi people have relied on the
    Salish Sea and the fisheries it provides for ceremonial, subsistence
    and economic purposes. Our lives and culture depend on the health and
    sustainability of its resources and our right to harvest these
    resources is protected by our treaty with the United States. Native
    salmon stocks are already under tremendous pressure and struggling to
    survive. Habitat destruction, pollution, lack of forage fish are but a
    few of the threats facing salmon.
        In August of 2017, an environmental disaster took place in the
    Salish Sea and directly impacted the Lummi Nation. The desires of a
    foreign corporation, Cooke Aquaculture, to negligently exploit our
    waters lead to the massive release of a pollutant, approximately 240,00
    Atlantic salmon, an invasive species, into our waters. The Lummi Nation
    incurred significant expense in trying to clean up the mess created by
    Cooke. We declared a state of emergency, and it was literally all
    hands-on deck as our fishing fleet stopped everything they were doing
    to capture the Atlantic Salmon and clean up the spill. It's important
    to note, this industry was operating in our waters without our consent.
    This industry has the potential to adversely impact our ability to
    exercise our treaty-reserved rights.
        Having seen firsthand how poor aquaculture policy can threaten
    fragile ecosystems and endangered fish stocks, I have several
    suggestions on principles for future aquaculture policy.
        First, the rights of treaty tribes need to be protected. It is not
    uncommon for aquaculture facilities to be sited in areas that are an
    integral part of the usual and accustomed fishing places of the Lummi
    Nation. Consequently, as part of the permitting process for these
    facilities, the Federal government is required to ensure that treaty
    rights are not abrogated or impinged upon by any permitted project.
    This right was recognized by the Federal courts who, in Northwest Sea
    Farms v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, blocked the permitting
    of an offshore aquaculture facility because of its potential impacts on
    treaty fishing rights of the Lummi Nation.
        Second, there should be a ban on non-native finfish aquaculture.
    The risks of disease, pollution, predation and interbreeding are far
    too great, particularly in my region where we are struggling to recover
    native species. Certain forms of net pen aquaculture externalize the
    true costs of the industry while ensuring that a few multinational
    corporations reap tremendous economic benefits while endangering our
    way of life. Nutrient loading (phosphorus and nitrogen), toxic heavy
    metals, predation, competition, colonization and disease all accompany
    certain forms of net pen aquaculture.
        Third, regional differences and priorities need to be respected.
    While full scale offshore aquaculture may be acceptable in some regions
    of the country, it is not appropriate in many regions, including the
    waters where my people fish.
        Finally, there needs to be strong environmental protections and
    enforcement of those laws. The Cooke disaster happened because of weak
    laws and little or no inspections or enforcement from either the State
    of Washington or Federal Government.
        While aquaculture presents many threats, it has also been essential
    keeping the fishing traditions of the Lummi people alive. Due to
    habitat destruction, previous management practices by state and local
    governments, climate change, and many other reasons, the fish
    populations in the Salish Sea have been decimated and are a fraction of
    their historic levels. In order to maintain even the most meager of
    fisheries my people have relied on finfish and shellfish hatcheries to
    maintain our way of life and provide for our families.
        Lummi Nation started a hatchery program in 1969, but it wasn't
    until 1975, a year after the Boldt Decision that the hatchery program
    shifted to focus on releasing juvenile salmon to enhance the waters
    surrounding Lummi Nation. Today, the Lummi Nation has become one of the
    major producers of Chinook and Coho salmon in the Salish Sea.
    Hatcheries are an important part of aquaculture, and when done
    correctly, can help to supplement wild fish populations, provide a
    resource for tribal and non-tribal fishermen and an important food
    source for endangered species, such as Orcas. Under Phase II of the
    Boldt Decision, hatchery fish are Treaty fish, mitigation for lost
    habitat.
        It is both the treaty and trust responsibility of the Federal
    government to ensure that future aquaculture policy both support and
    enhance our Nation's hatchery infrastructure.
        Under the United States Constitution, our Treaty with you is the
    Supreme Law of the Land and a healthy Salish Sea is essential to our
    Treaty Rights, our identity as a people, our culture, and our Sche lang
    en, our way of life.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I look forward to
    answering any questions.

        The Chairman. Well, thank you very much.
        I think the testimony has been very, very interesting and
    thought-provoking.
        Ms. Cornish, Mrs. Wicker and I are expecting our seventh
    grandchild in 5 weeks. I'm intrigued that if moms eat seafood
    twice a week, babies have higher IQ. Do we still have time to
    talk to my daughter-in-law?
        Ms. Cornish. You do, Senator Wicker. It starts with the
    moms that are expecting but also kids as they're born, if they
    eat seafood, there's a new study coming up, in fact we'll
    publish press on it today, that kids up to 18 still receive
    benefits from eating seafood at least twice a week.
        The Chairman. And kids up to age 60 and 70, also.
        Ms. Cornish. Still helps.
        The Chairman. Well, it does sound like this is a way to
    alleviate the striking lack of seafood intake that we have as
    Americans and clearly there's a lot that needs to be done.
        Let me ask. I think, Chairman Julius, you raised a lot of
    issues there. You wouldn't have had the invasive species grown
    there at all. I understand your testimony.
        How could the aquaculture business have been more careful
    in preventing this escape into nature?
        Mr. Julius. I think the carefulest way is no bringing of
    invasive species in our waters, period.
        The Chairman. I understand that, but were they careless in
    the type of nets or was this an accident? Was it a weather
    event?
        Mr. Julius. Yes.
        The Chairman. How did that happen?
        Mr. Julius. So 3 days following the net pen collapse, the
    state was not aware. They left voice mails in the government
    office machines and they came out with a press release saying
    that the solar eclipse created high tides.
        The Chairman. How soon were you aware of the collapse?
        Mr. Julius. We weren't aware until the Tuesday, three days
    following the collapse, and it wasn't confirmed until Wednesday
    when we went out there ourselves and witnessed it.
        The Chairman. OK. Right. Well, then let me ask you, Dr.
    Doremus, and then maybe skip on to academia here.
        If NOAA is the lead agency, how are we going to resolve
    this conflict, avoid it, and facilitate conversations between
    the stakeholders and at what stage of the process should NOAA
    engage with local communities, such as fishermen and tribes?
        Dr. Doremus. Thank you, Senator. The range of stakeholder
    consultations are indeed very broad. We are accustomed to
    working in the wild capture sector with states, with tribal
    authorities, with industry, and many other environmental
    stakeholders that care about how we steward our resources.
        As I indicated earlier, in many respects, aquaculture
    really starts with siting and that's the most important
    stakeholder-driven process. We've innovated new tools to make
    that process work well, such as ocean reports, as I cited in my
    testimony, and we think that with those kinds of science-based
    decisionmaking aids that we can bring the right people to the
    table, all the authorities involved, and the multiple users of
    the ocean resources to early in the process decide where and
    what ways do we want aquaculture in a given region.
        As Chairman Julius noted, one major consideration, for
    example, is what species are allowed in the region and a
    significant way to mitigate risks from escapement is to focus
    on a naturalized or native species, and this indeed has been
    NOAA's policy. It has been our policy statement around
    aquaculture for many years and it seems to be a strong trend in
    the thinking of how best to do responsible aquaculture.
        Those discussions happen right up front and I think through
    that degree of collaboration, we would see significant
    mitigation of the conflicts that you cited.
        The Chairman. Dr. Halpern, what are you learning at the
    University of California about this issue?
        Dr. Halpern. About the issue of siting or about the issue
    of----
        The Chairman. Of solving the conflict between potential job
    creators in aquaculture and the concerns and interests of the
    local fishermen and tribes.
        Dr. Halpern. Well, there are two parts to it. One, as I
    said in my testimony, there's so much potential in such a small
    space, it creates a lot of opportunity to think strategically
    about where to site aquaculture in a way that minimizes any
    potential conflict with other stakeholder users.
        But in the end, it's a policy decision and a social
    decision, not a scientific one, about what kinds of species and
    operations we want in any particular waters. So the science
    absolutely can inform what potential risks there might be and
    what potential opportunities there are, but in the end, it's a
    social and policy decision.
        The Chairman. Show of hands. We've had testimony that we're
    just not going to be able to increase the amount of
    traditionally caught seafood for Americans.
        Does everyone agree with that? Show of hands.
        [Show of hands by all witnesses.]
        The Chairman. OK. All right. I think that was Chairman
    Julius' testimony. Thank you to our witnesses.
        I'll recognize my friend, Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and recognizing,
    you know, how important this issue is to you and to, you know,
    our colleagues, I would again say that I feel like the
    Washington experience shows the both positive aspects and some
    very negative aspects.
        As I said, our shellfish industry has done tremendous work
    and while most people in this Washington wouldn't know a darn
    thing about a geoduck, I guarantee you the Asian market is
    consuming it at a very high price.
        So there are benefits, but Chairman Julius' comments show
    the great risk and how we didn't have an appropriate response
    from NOAA and that in a bipartisan way, if I'm correct, Mr.
    Chairman Julius, I think, in fact, it was the Republicans who
    led the way in our state legislature to just shut down the non-
    native aquaculture that existed in our state and the reason is
    we have more than 15,000 fishing jobs and we have recreational
    fishermen and they weren't having it. They just weren't having
    it.
        And so I guess I'd go back to you on this point about the
    risk to the fishing economy that exists in both tribal and non-
    tribal parts of our region, why they felt so threatened by this
    collapse and catastrophe and why those fish, those non-native
    fish were such a threat to the already endangered runs of
    salmon.
        Mr. Julius. Yes. It's quite broad what led up to it and
    this legislation. Sport, state, and tribal fishermen struggle
    right now. Underfunded hatcheries, hatcheries have produced and
    provided for a long time and now you've seen a major cut in
    hatchery funding while tribes have severely increased funding
    or heavily increased funding, trying to build and continue to
    build the hatchery runs.
        So when the cleanup took place, sport fishermen, when we
    arrived onsite, sport fishermen were notified before everyone,
    including tribal fishermen. Their attempt to pull these out of
    the water was unsuccessful because they had fed on--I'm not
    sure, for lack of better terms, cat food form all their lives.
    So that's all they'd known. They adapted after a couple weeks
    when they were caught in rivers 25 miles up, local rivers. They
    figured it out how to hunt after a short period of time but
    immediately after the collapse, they couldn't hook them.
        So for many reasons, I think leading up to this, you know,
    look at the situation with the orcas and the Southern resident
    killer whales. There's a major--we're at a major tipping point
    right now for the survival of the Salish Sea as a whole, all
    that call it home, and the rivers, the health of the rivers and
    the tribes.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you. And so do you have any idea
    how many people work at that particular Cook site?
        Mr. Julius. I want to say it was 50s, 58 maybe or total.
        Senator Cantwell. Yes. So 58 people versus 15,000 and
    that's not even including, you know, the diversity of our
    fishing economy downstream.
        OK. So one thing I wanted to say, Dr. Doremus. So this is
    why we want money for stock assessments. This is why we want
    better fisheries management. I don't agree that we can't do
    better on creating more wild fish. We already heard about the
    hatchery programs.
        This is going to be a challenge. This is not an either or
    question but we shouldn't be negligent in understanding the
    risk that this poses to our native sources of salmon in the
    Pacific Northwest which is just vital. I can't even say how
    vital it is to the Northwest economy and to say nothing of the
    larger economy in Washington, Oregon, and Alaska.
        So one thing I've also been impressed with is this issue,
    what I would call just scraps, the notion that the tribe
    seafood industry has now created a seafood pasta that's 10
    grams of protein, or the fact that they're using the whole fish
    in fish powder, which I think we need to do a little bit more
    research on as we look at fishing protein issues on a global
    basis.
        Why shouldn't we just up the R&D budget on all of these
    things, in addition to this discussion we're having today?
        Dr. Doremus. Thank you, Senator. I think you're absolutely
    right to point out that it isn't fully an either or situation.
        Our approach to seafood competitiveness and trying to
    improve the prospects for U.S.-produced seafood is a holistic
    approach. It involves ways in which we can enhance output from
    our wild capture fisheries. You pointed to several very
    important things that we can continue to work on, full
    utilization of product.
        There are also issues around underutilized species. There's
    areas where we are capturing under quota. So we're not--AR
    fishermen are not selling at a level that is sustainable. All
    of these things are very, very much a focus of the National
    Marine Fisheries Service and are a complement to our focus on
    aquaculture.
        We do believe on a global basis, looking fundamentally,
    supply and demand, that the amount of increased wild capture
    output is not going to be sufficient to meet demand, either
    U.S. or globally, and a balanced approach that can foster
    really responsible aquaculture, that can deal with risks, like
    the escape risk that you've pointed to, through close industry-
    government collaboration, improved engineering, risk management
    techniques, as the Chairman pointed out, species selection, all
    of these kinds of issues are ways that governments can
    collaborate with industry to reduce the risk of these kinds of
    problems.
        In fact, for the countries that do report escapes, like the
    U.S.----
        Senator Cantwell. I'm over my----
        Dr. Doremus. I'm very sorry.
        Senator Cantwell. I'm sorry. I'm over my time. So I want to
    let my colleagues, but I just want to make clear, too, that I'm
    also a believer in exporting Magnuson-Stevens as a policy
    around the globe.
        If we're going to embrace this notion of aquaculture, we
    should also be embracing that the rest of the world can do very
    well and we can benefit from it, as well, of helping them
    understand fisheries management. What is sustainable fisheries
    management?
        Dr. Doremus. Senator, I couldn't agree more. We do seek to
    do that and we would love to see the U.S. get in the position
    of being able to do the same for the aquaculture sector, set a
    high bar, sustainability-oriented, and hold the world to that
    standard.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you. I would note that there will be a
    series of four votes on the Floor beginning at 11. So we're
    going to do our best to be mindful of that, too.
        Senator Blumenthal is next.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT

        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        My apologies for missing a part of the hearing. As you may
    know, we have a lot of hearings going on, usually and
    especially so this morning.
        I would like to ask about state preemption for offshore
    aquaculture farms that will affect operations in state waters,
    the interplay between Federal and state laws and regulations.
        I understand that the topic for today's hearing is offshore
    aquaculture in Federal waters, but obviously there are no real
    enforceable boundaries between Federal and state waters and the
    two are inextricably linked.
        In New England, our state borders are situated in close
    proximity to each other, making the need for cooperation and
    coordination all the more necessary. The Federal Government
    really has to take into consideration the concerns of local and
    state governments when making decisions about offshore
    aquaculture and it should encourage cooperation among the
    states.
        What process do you think should be in place for state and
    local stakeholders to engage on these issues? How can NOAA, for
    example, effectively address state and local concerns about
    offshore aquaculture farms which undoubtedly would have an
    effect on state waters?
        Dr. Doremus. I'd be happy to answer that, Senator, and
    thank you for the question.
        We do collaborate very closely with the states in the
    management of wild capture fisheries and would have very much
    the same approach to working with the states in decisions
    around permitting for aquaculture facilities in Federal waters
    off state boundaries.
        So we think that there are tools for planning and for
    engagement not only at multiple levels of government but with
    multiple stakeholder communities who currently use or have
    interest in using ocean resources and we've put considerable
    investment into tools that would facilitate that decisionmaking
    and we have a very deep commitment to that process.
        We also have experience through existing mechanisms, such
    as the Coastal Zone Management Act, to ensure consistency
    between permitted activities in Federal and in state waters.
    That offers at least one model where a Federal agency really
    can't authorize an activity without the approval of the states
    and that is one mechanism. There may well be others, but that
    is certainly one mechanism that we have a lot of experience
    with and in my estimation has worked very well in helping to
    coordinate state-Federal activities in ocean space.
        Senator Blumenthal. Do you think states ought to have the
    option to opt out of the development of an offshore aquaculture
    facility if it disagrees with the priorities that are set forth
    in the Coastal Zone Management Plan?
        Dr. Doremus. There have certainly been discussions of how
    states could ultimately opt out. The only observation I could
    make is that we need to make sure that whatever mechanism is
    put in place to ensure consistency between state preferences,
    state needs, and Federal offshore activities is done in a way
    that provides consistency and predictability for industry.
        I do think that one of the main things that has been well
    mentioned in testimony here today, the uncertainty around the
    regulatory environment has been a major barrier to investors
    and to the growth of the aquaculture industry.
        So whatever mechanism is used, if it can be done in a way
    that provides a stable and consistent and predictable
    regulatory environment, that would be most effective.
        Senator Blumenthal. Ms. Unger, you are sort of the
    representative here from the corporate side, and I notice in
    your testimony, you give as the reason for the lack of
    investment and involvement in aquaculture, and I'm quoting,
    ``There is no clear regulatory framework for the permitting,
    enforcement, or management of offshore aquaculture in Federal
    waters.'' Why is that?
        Ms. Unger. I truly believe that what's missing is something
    like the AQUAA Act that Senator Wicker has brought forward, so
    that we have comprehensive legislation that addresses
    questions, such as whether or not to allow native species and
    what kind of enforcement needs to be in place, what kind of
    supervision we need to give to help prevent bad actors, what
    kind of investment must be had in terms of the equipment and
    the technology to help prevent escapes.
        All of those things won't be dictated specifically in this
    but generally can be addressed in a comprehensive aquaculture
    act and it really does need to be nationwide and comprehensive
    so that we know what the standards are and we have the
    opportunity to do it right.
        Senator Blumenthal. Do you think others, like Cargill, and
    I assume you're speaking for your company here,----
        Ms. Unger. And Stronger America through Seafood.
        Senator Blumenthal.--would be joining in this effort? In
    other words, would the private sector strongly support and
    would there be dissenters?
        Ms. Unger. Cargill 100 percent supports a thriving
    aquaculture industry in the United States and I think that we
    have the ability, because we're starting from scratch here now
    to benefit from the decades of aquaculture that have existed in
    other developed countries and we see industry investing in that
    heavily.
        The example I gave, while I think you were out, was that of
    Pacifico which went south into Ensenada in order to invest in
    aquaculture specifically because of the lack of clarity here in
    the United States. Industry stands ready to support.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
        Senator Young.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. TODD YOUNG,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA

        Senator Young. Ms. Unger, I'm going to pick up on that line
    of questioning----
        Ms. Unger. Yes, sir.
        Senator Young.--momentarily, but I appreciate you being
    here.
        I happen to be incredibly excited about the possibilities
    not just for individual Americans but for people worldwide as
    it relates to farmed seafood and the continued growth of the
    U.S. aquaculture industry.
        As I understand, we're Number 14 in the world. My sense is
    the United States can do much better than that. You've
    indicated that by your estimates, a mere doubling of U.S.
    aquaculture's industry would lead to 50,000 jobs, roughly. It
    would, of course, benefit our ag sector and many of our rural
    communities. It would give our soy farmers in particular
    another outlet for their crops. It would reduce our
    environmental footprint and, of course, you know, there are
    market forces at play here.
        To the extent you have seafood that grow at a more rapid
    rate in a controlled environment that increases the supply,
    that decreases the price, that increases accessibility for a
    very healthy product to improve the health and wellness of our
    citizens and to feed the world.
        The United Nations indicates that global food production
    will have to double by the year 2050 at which time no new land
    will be available.
        So we, America, through the private sector in particular
    can help lead the way in helping to address some of these
    challenges and seizing opportunities.
        In Indiana, we have a facility I visited not too long ago
    located in Delaware County, the town of Albany, where we had
    production which started of GE salmon at a now defunct or
    formerly defunct fish facility. This has saved taxpayer
    dollars. This has led to the creation of 160 jobs, and they're
    already in production.
        This type of salmon grows to market size in 16 to 18 months
    as compared to traditional, you know, few years, but they faced
    over 20 years of regulatory review before receiving approval in
    2015.
        The last regulatory hurdle was removed earlier this year
    and since then, great things have happened in Albany, which I
    mentioned. We have 160,000 healthy fish that are now swimming
    in very safe, controlled environments in landlocked tanks.
        Albany's become an innovative example about what I sense
    will continue to occur if we get the regulatory environment
    right around the country. They're helping with jobs and wages.
    They're helping with upward economic mobility. They're helping
    with health and wellness, all the stuff we talk about around
    here. Environmental sustainability.
        Unfortunately, knowing that an approval could take 20 years
    constrains investment and communities in Indiana and across the
    Nation who are looking to get involved in aquaculture may not
    do so with that regulatory environment continuing the way it
    is.
        So I may ask you to recapitulate something you just
    discussed, but I think it's really important. Your reference to
    Pacifico Aquaculture, which is headquartered in San Diego, and
    you explained that they've decided to take their business to
    Mexico due to our cumbersome, uncertain, and chaotic permitting
    process around aquaculture.
        In your opinion, how should the U.S. react to this
    regulatory uncertainty? I know the Chairman has introduced his
    AQUA Act, which it sounds as though that will mitigate any of
    the concerns of the industry and with the investors.
        Tell us about the benefits of that and anything else we
    might do to reduce regulatory uncertainty.
        Then secondarily, maybe you could explain what are the
    implications for inaction.
        Ms. Unger. OK. I'm going to try to answer all of that in
    one go here.
        I think first, one of the things that you make me think of
    is the importance and the need that Americans want of
    transparency and choice and options with respect to the seafood
    that they consume and I think that by producing our seafood
    here, we provide the ability through the AQUAA Act to produce
    that seafood here and give Americans transparency, choice, and
    options with respect to the aquaculture that they have,
    including the farm that you mentioned there, and so people can
    choose how they want to spend their dollars.
        I think that producing here is important because we are
    going to continue to consume aquaculture. We will continue to
    consume seafood. We'll consume as much wild catch as we can,
    but it cannot keep up with the global growth in the human
    population and the need for that healthy seafood, and if we
    don't produce here, we will simply continue to import and I
    heard we are 16th. You mentioned 17th. You mentioned 14th. No
    matter what the number, we're not where we need to be and we're
    not taking advantage of the resources that we have at our
    disposal.
        Senator Young. Thank you. I look forward to working
    actively with the Chairman and others who seem to be providing
    constructive solutions to address the permitting challenges.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Young.
        Senator Sullivan is next.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    for holding this hearing, and the witnesses, thanks for your
    excellent testimonies.
        It's a very important issue, I think, for a lot of our
    states, certainly important issue for my state. You know, on
    this committee, I like to mention that my state is the super
    power of seafood, the state of Alaska. We have almost 60
    percent, close to 60 percent of all the commercial,
    recreational subsistence seafood harvested in the United States
    comes from Alaska's waters. So this is a very important issue.
        Close to 60,000 of my fellow Alaskans are employed in this
    industry and I was honored to have the Chairman out in Alaska
    this August seeing some of the different aspects of the Alaska
    fisheries industry, which was a great visit. Thank you again,
    Mr. Chairman, for coming.
        But, you know, since 1990, fin fish aquaculture has been
    prohibited in Alaskan waters. However, Alaska does choose to
    allow certain forms of aquaculture, such as salmon fishery
    enhancements through hatcheries, aquatic farming of shellfish
    and seaweeds.
        So what I wanted to ask first of Dr. Doremus is the
    resources that NAMSA, NOAA have to just manage fisheries writ
    large as currently exist are strained. We think, you know, our
    fisheries commonly referred to as the best-managed, most
    sustainable fishery, the Alaska fishery probably in the world,
    but that takes data, that takes science, that takes the ability
    for sustainable stocks.
        Do you worry that a full development of offshore
    aquaculture would compete for the limited funds that NOAA and
    NAMSA have to already manage fisheries such as those in Alaska,
    and has there been thought to the development of some sort of
    cost recovery program, similar to commercial fisheries, in an
    effort to self-fund portions of what would be significant
    Federal financial need?
        Dr. Doremus. Thank you, Senator. We have ultimately to look
    to Congress for deciding on the allocation of resources on the
    different components of the seafood sector that we address.
        We certainly understand our core requirement around
    continued surveys, stock assessments, and enhancing the science
    required to sustainably manage our living marine habitat.
        Senator Sullivan. And I think most of these Senators on
    this committee fully support that. I certainly do, and I've
    been a huge advocate for you all to be fully funded to do that
    mission, critical mission. We just don't want that to be
    undermined.
        Dr. Doremus. We can't thank you enough for your support and
    we don't want that to be undermined either. We do view
    ultimately complementarity between these two parts of the
    seafood world and we'd like to approach this in as holistic and
    balanced manner as possible. We don't foresee the need--
    certainly you're very clear on this--to reduce existing levels
    of support on the wild capture side. That is no one's intent at
    all.
        Senator Sullivan. Good. We wouldn't be supportive of that.
        Dr. Doremus. I understand, sir, and thank you for your
    continued support there. We do think a lot of things like the
    regulatory improvements are major improvements that can be made
    with very modest resource levels and we stand ready to work
    with the Committee and others on assessing requirements for
    sustainable and responsible management of aquaculture.
        Senator Sullivan. Let me follow up on Senator Blumenthal's
    questions relating to state interests and, Chairman Julius, I
    want to compliment you on your testimony. I think a lot of what
    you raised are concerns that I share in what's happened,
    particularly with regard to the issue of more localized
    interest, and the regional differences, as you mentioned, that
    need to be respected. I think that's a very important point.
        Senator Blumenthal highlighted this with the idea of kind
    of an opt-out provision or an exclusion provision as it relates
    to states and the important issues that you raise with regard
    to tribes, and I think they're analogous in many ways.
        I'd like just very quickly for you and Dr. Doremus, also,
    to just talk about the importance--I think it's an important
    concept here to be able to have regional differences, the
    potential for states, like mine, to have very, very strong
    interest in healthy fisheries, to be able to opt out in areas
    where they think it can't be managed.
        Dr. Doremus, I know you weren't trying to say this, but
    your response to Senator Blumenthal kind of indicated that the
    interest of industry might trump those of states and I
    certainly hope that's not the view that you were taking.
        But, Chairman Julius, can you just comment a little bit
    further on your testimony and your thoughts on this?
        Mr. Julius. Absolutely. Thank you, Senator. Like yourself
    and like your state, Washington, before it was the Apple State,
    was the Salmon State and for a number of----
        Senator Sullivan. My state is still the Salmon State.
        Mr. Julius. Yes, yes. And if ours could be, we would love
    that to be our reality again.
        When we entered into the treaty 164 years ago, that was our
    reality and that's what we secured it. I was important for us
    to maintain that.
        New settlers who came in always wrote about the fact that
    they could walk across the backs of the salmon on every river,
    my river, the Nooksack, the Skagit, the Fraser just north of
    us, which we rely heavily on. Today, we're faced with water
    quality standards. How much fish can you consume per week
    without being harmed or how high do the increases of cancer go
    if you consume more than one a week, 175 grams a week? You
    know, what does that increase do?
        Those are the realities we live with right now. EPA's now
    looking to lower those standards even more than what we agreed
    upon in 2016. Those are some of the things we face with the
    pollution and salmon's directly tied to the contaminants that
    are dumped into the Salish Sea for jobs and for corporations
    and industry, but those are some of the things we face today
    and those are our reality.
        While we can eat five times a week salmon, king salmon and
    things like that, there are extreme dangers that we live with
    today. That is our reality with the cancer risks and things
    like that from water quality standards.
        So, you know, I'll keep it short, but, you know, those are
    some of the things we face, what it was yesterday, what it is
    today. I think if we can restore habitat, I think if we can,
    you know, work together, come together to bring back what the
    Creator gifted us with since time immemorial and look at where
    we're at today, I think we could feed this country with what
    the two states used to produce and could produce if we can
    focus some intention on that because bringing in net pens and
    things like that for yourself, for Washington State is kind of
    a slap in the face when we know that we have the ability to
    produce with the natural, the rivers and the streams. We just
    need to work on that together.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Well, thank you.
        Senator Markey, you are next on the list. Let me announce
    that the Floor has advised Senators that they're not going to
    be as flexible with holding votes open today as they've been in
    the past.
        So with that in mind, Senator Markey, you are recognized.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS

        Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    your flexibility in allowing me to ask questions at this time.
        Last month's IPCC Report on the Ocean in a Changing Climate
    found that the maximum sustainable catch of global fisheries
    could decrease as much as 25 percent by the year 2100. Warming
    ocean waters are already causing our wild fish populations to
    migrate north and making it more difficult for cod stocks to
    rebuild. The Gulf of Maine is the fastest warming body of water
    behind the Arctic and New England fisheries are ground zero.
        Dr. Halpern, I have a few questions to get through, so
    please answer with a simple yes or no.
        Do you agree that wild fisheries are currently being
    affected by climate change?
        Dr. Halpern. Yes.
        Senator Markey. The IPCC report also illustrates how
    climate change threatens aquaculture and shellfish. When carbon
    dioxide dissolves in water, it reacts to form acids that can be
    lethal to baby oysters, mussels, and scallops that we love in
    New England. It prevents them from forming their shells. The
    shellfish industry is a crucial economic driver for our coastal
    communities.
        For example, in 2017, over $511 million worth of scallops
    were landed in the United States, mostly in New Bedford.
        Dr. Halpern, would you agree that climate change and
    greenhouse gas emissions adversely affect shellfish?
        Dr. Halpern. Yes.
        Senator Markey. The IPCC report also found that kelp
    forests and other sensitive ocean ecosystems are also at high
    risk if global warming exceeds 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
        Dr. Halpern, do you agree that climate change can hurt kelp
    and seaweed farms, a form of aquaculture?
        Dr. Halpern. Yes, if they're not able to move.
        Senator Markey. Climate change will only continue to
    exacerbate warming waters, ocean acidification, harmful algae
    blooms, the spread of diseases, and storms that could increase
    the risk of fish escapes from aquaculture pens. We need to
    sustain the wild-caught fisheries and shellfisheries we already
    have by taking action on climate and supporting our fishermen
    and women.
        We also need to understand the environmental risks of
    aquaculture and how they might interact with climate change
    before opening up all Federal waters to this industry.
        Mr. Julius, you spoke about the devastating effects of
    climate change, habitat destruction, and other threats on the
    fishing traditions of the Lummi people.
        Do you agree that we must account for climate change in
    supporting wild-caught fisheries in developing any aquaculture?
        Mr. Julius. Yes.
        Senator Markey. As Congress considers, Mr. Chairman, ways
    to expand aquaculture and support the $200 billion fishing
    industry, climate change must be a central part of the
    conversation to avert the worst of these effects on our entire
    seafood industry.
        We need to take climate action now. We know that the more
    acidity in the ocean, the greater the change, the greater the
    impact is going to be on each and every one of the subjects
    that we've been talking about here today.
        My hope is that this warning that we received from the IPCC
    will only accelerate the time in which we begin to realize that
    we're endangering industries that we never associated
    historically with this threat of global warming, but the
    evidence is now incontrovertible that it does.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Markey.
        I want to thank our very knowledgeable and articulate panel
    of witnesses.
        I would like at this point, without objection, to submit a
    letter written by several fisheries scientists entitled
    Advancing the Quality and Understanding of American Aquaculture
    Act, to be included in the hearing record and that will be done
    at this point in the record without objection.
        [The letter referred to follows:]

                                The Center for a Livable Future
                Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
                                       Baltimore, MD, December 17, 2018
    Senator Roger Wicker,
    Dirksen Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC.

    Senator Marco Rubio,
    Russell Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC.

    Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are our own and do not
    necessarily reflect the views of The Johns Hopkins University.

    RE: Senate Bill 3138: The ``Advancing the Quality and Understanding of
                American Aquaculture Act'' or ``AQUAA Act''

    Dear Senators Wicker and Rubio,

        We are researchers at The Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable
    Future, based at the Bloomberg School of Public Health in the
    Department of Environmental Health and Engineering. The Center engages
    in research, policy analysis, education, and other activities guided by
    an ecologic perspective that diet, food production, the environment,
    and public health are interwoven elements of a complex system.
        We are writing to share our concerns and provide pertinent
    information regarding Senate Bill 3138, the ``Advancing the Quality and
    Understanding of American Aquaculture Act'' or the ``AQUAA Act.''
    Aquaculture, or farmed seafood, plays an important and growing role in
    our global food system, providing more than half of the seafood
    consumed globally,\1\ and there are potential economic opportunities
    and benefits for nutrition and sustainability associated with expansion
    of some types of aquaculture. At the same time, robust oversight of
    aquaculture operations is needed to minimize negative impacts on
    ecosystems and public health.
        The AQUAA Act aims to establish a regulatory system and permitting
    process for offshore aquaculture in the Exclusive Economic Zone (i.e.,
    Federal waters) and fund research and development to advance the
    aquaculture industry. Offshore aquaculture operations may produce
    molluscan shellfish (e.g., oysters, mussels, clams, and scallops),
    seaweed (e.g., kelp, nori), and/or fish. Molluscan shellfish and
    aquatic plants have fewer potential environmental impacts compared to
    fish because they do not require feed inputs or receive disease
    treatments in open water. They also take up nutrients, such as nitrogen
    and carbon, from the water column.
        Fish production in coastal or nearshore waters poses additional
    challenges compared to seaweed and molluscan aquaculture, and moving
    fish production to an offshore setting involves a developing type of
    aquaculture that is not fully characterized. Although over half of the
    seafood consumed globally is farmed, fish farmed in marine settings
    contributes 8 percent of farmed seafood (excluding plants) and almost
    all of this production currently takes place in coastal settings.\1\
    Ongoing challenges in coastal fish production include fish escapes,
    disease transfer among farmed and wild fish, use of veterinary drugs to
    treat infectious diseases in farmed fish, and release of fish waste
    into the environment; additional details on these problems are provided
    below. The environmental and public health risks associated with
    coastal fish production are likely transferable in some ways to
    offshore aquaculture. It is critical that expansion of the aquaculture
    industry to offshore waters be accompanied by comprehensive, robust,
    and transparent oversight to address uncertainty and prepare for
    unforeseen challenges that will need to be addressed by regulators and
    the industry.
    Coastal Fish Production: Ongoing Challenges
        The following section provides information about pressing
    challenges in coastal fish production that are highly relevant to the
    emerging offshore fish aquaculture industry. For a full summary of
    these issues, please refer to our 2018 Science Brief: Ecosystem and
    Public Health Risks from Nearshore and Offshore Finfish Aquaculture.\2\
    We provided similar information in a comment submitted to the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in 2014 regarding the
    proposed Fishery Management Plan for Regulating Offshore Marine
    Aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico.\3\
    Occupational Health and Safety
            Working in the near- or offshore aquaculture industry
            (including molluscan shellfish and seaweed production)
            incorporates elements from multiple occupational fields,
            including agriculture, commercial fishing, and commercial
            diving, all of which have high rates of injury, illness, and
            death for workers.\4\,\5\ In general, occupational
            risks for aquaculture workers in various settings include
            electrical shock; drowning; slips; trips; falls; sprains and
            strains; machinery-related accidents; fires; explosions; and
            exposure to chemicals, infectious pathogens, and veterinary
            drugs.\4\,\5\ Offshore aquaculture workers may face
            increased risk for accidents resulting in injuries or deaths
            compared to onshore aquaculture workers due to the challenging
            setting. Recent research in Norway and Australia found elevated
            rates of injuries among aquaculture workers compared to other
            industries.\6\,\7\ Despite the unique combination of
            risks these workers face, countries, including the United
            States (U.S.), continue to rely on existing laws that do not
            adequately protect aquaculture workers rather than passing new
            regulations specific to these challenges.\8\,\9\ In
            a 2014 analysis of U.S. policies, we identified a critical
            regulatory gap for occupational safety and health for
            aquaculture workers in Federal waters. We found that the
            Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act does not apply to
            offshore aquaculture operations in Federal waters due to
            limitations in jurisdictional authority.\10\
    Fish Escapes
            Farmed fish escapes remain a perpetual issue for coastal fish
            aquaculture in the U.S. and abroad. Several million farmed fish
            escape net pens across the globe every year, with significant
            economic losses to producers.\11\ Large escapes have been
            documented in recent years in Europe and
            Canada,\11\,\12\ and in August 2017, approximately
            160,000 farmed Atlantic salmon escaped from net pens in
            Washington State.\13\ The success rate of catching escaped fish
            and returning them to the farm are very low, averaging around 8
            percent according to one study.\14\ These farm escapes can pose
            ecological risks in the short-and long-term when escaped fish
            compete for food or resources with wild populations, and/or
            establish a population in the wild on their own or by breeding
            with wild fish.\15\,\16\
    Disease Pressures and Treatments
            Disease burden associated with parasites, bacteria, and viruses
            is a significant consideration for the aquaculture industry,
            with the associated economic losses related to disease
            treatment and the culling of sick or dead fish, and also for
            wild fish populations. Disease outbreaks on near-and offshore
            aquaculture operations can spread to wild fish populations, and
            vice-versa.\17\ Veterinary drugs, including antibiotics and
            antiparasitics, and their residues have been found in
            surrounding ecosystems.\18\,\19\ Many producers have
            used vaccines to prevent specific diseases and reduce the need
            for antibiotics. Norway, the world's largest producer of farmed
            salmon, is an example of a country that has utilized vaccines
            and other methods to reduce their use of antibiotics. At the
            same time, the salmon industry in Norway and other countries
            have a significant and ongoing problem with sea lice, a
            parasite.\20\,\21\ Sea lice infestations have
            resulted in rising production costs due to mortalities and the
            cost of antiparasitic treatments, and treatments have led to
            wide-spread resistance among sea lice. In 2016, the Norwegian
            salmon industry experienced a 19 percent mortality rate in net-
            pens, mostly due to sea lice and other diseases.\22\
    Fish Waste
            There is no system for collecting and managing animal waste
            from net-pens and cages in near-and offshore fish aquaculture.
            Instead, farms are ideally sited in areas with water flow that
            disperses fish waste. In some cases, fish waste accumulates in
            sediment below net pens and cages. Fish waste contributes
            nutrients into the surrounding environment; in 2010, marine
            fish aquaculture waste was estimated to contain 345 million kg
            of nitrogen and 50 million kg of phosphorus.\23\ If
            concentrated in a water body, this nutrient loading can cause
            algal blooms, which lead to low oxygen levels and a `dead zone'
            that kills fish and other marine animals.

        These public health and environmental risks must be taken into
    account when considering establishment of this industry, and any
    development must be pursued in a careful manner with a high level of
    oversight and transparency.
        The AQUAA Act places lead regulatory authority of offshore
    aquaculture with NOAA, within the U.S. Department of Commerce.
    Importantly, NOAA and the Commerce Department have explicitly stated
    goals to establish and grow marine aquaculture (i.e., coastal and
    offshore).* \24\,\25\ This regulatory structure
    could result in prioritization of industry expansion over protection of
    the environment and public health. The appearance of conflict of
    interest presented by these stated goals highlights the need to assign
    lead regulatory authority to another agency.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \*\ NOAA has the specific goal of growing marine aquaculture 50
    percent by 2020, and the Department of Commerce's 2018-2020 Strategic
    Plan includes a specific objective, Strategic Objective 2.1, to
    increase aquaculture production with a focus on marine aquaculture.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We should learn from experiences in other countries. Canada is the
    fourth largest producer of farmed salmon, and the Canadian Department
    of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has regulated aquaculture and also worked
    to support industry growth. A commission examined the country's
    aquaculture industry in recent years as part of an inquiry into a
    decades-long decline of sockeye salmon in the Fraser River, and the
    final recommendations included 13 focused on aquaculture. One
    recommendation called for a complete separation of industry regulation
    and promotion,\26\ and DFO has begun to meet the directive.\27\
    Recommendations for the AQUAA Act
        As written, the AQUAA Act lacks an appropriate framework or
    regulatory structure needed to prevent, monitor, and respond to the
    issues we describe above. Below, we offer recommendations for
    strengthening the proposed regulatory system for the offshore
    aquaculture industry in the U.S.

       Identify an agency to oversee safety and health for offshore
            aquaculture workers, and provide adequate resources to support
            efforts to i) monitor safety and health and ii) develop and
            deliver safety training for the industry. Develop a robust set
            of requirements for reporting of injuries, illnesses, and
            deaths to support surveillance. Data should also be reported to
            the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and
            information should be accessible to researchers, with
            aggregated reports released annually.

       Increase requirements for monitoring and reporting to
            include monthly reports of fish stocking, fish biomass, feed
            use, veterinary drug use, escapes, and diseases. All
            information should be posted by regulatory agencies on a
            website accessible to the public.

       Require active environmental monitoring systems that test
            for fish pathogens, escaped farmed fish, nutrient loading,
            veterinary drugs, and drug resistant microorganisms in fish
            tissue and sediment samples. The monitoring system should be
            fulfilled by trained agency staff with cooperation from
            industry staff. This system should also incorporate assessments
            of specific regional impacts and pathways for remediation if
            all individual permitted sites are in compliance but problems
            are still present.

       Set limits in each category of environmental impact that, if
            exceeded, result in increased monitoring, penalties, and
            termination of permits.

       Develop specific requirements for adoption of new best
            management practices that will be developed while the operation
            is permitted. This is especially critical if the proposed
            permit duration of 25 years in the AQUAA Act is retained. Best
            management practices can include technology, equipment,
            husbandry practices, disease treatments, and other production
            practices.

       For fish, limit acceptable species to native, non-
            genetically engineered species to reduce negative impacts
            resulting from fish escapes.

       Separate Federal regulatory efforts from aquaculture
            industry promotion to reduce potential conflicts of interest.
            Identify and charge another regulatory body with oversight
            responsibility and authority.

        Thank you for considering our comments. Our oceans are a critical,
    shared resource and must be protected. To set the parameters for an
    offshore aquaculture industry in U.S. ocean waters that is highly
    sustainable and accountable, the AQUAA Act should set high standards at
    this important stage. We welcome the opportunity to discuss this
    further and answer any questions you many have. Please contact us at
    (410) 2231811 or by e-mailing Dr. Jillian Fry, Director, Seafood,
    Public Health & Food Systems Project, at JFry3@jhu.edu.
                Sincerely,

    Jillian Fry, PhD, MPH
    Assistant Scientist, Departments of Environmental Health & Engineering
    and Health, Behavior and Society
    Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
    Project Director, Seafood, Public Health & Food Systems
    Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future
    Johns Hopkins University

    Robert Martin
    Senior Lecturer, Department of Environmental Health & Engineering
    Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
    Program Director, Food System Policy
    Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future
    Johns Hopkins University

    Dave Love, PhD, MSPH
    Associate Scientist, Department of Environmental Health & Engineering
    Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
    Seafood, Public Health & Food Systems Project
    Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future
    Johns Hopkins University

    Carolyn Hricko, MPH
    Research Program Manager, Food System Policy
    Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future
    Johns Hopkins University
    Department of Environmental Health & Engineering
    Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
    References
        \1\ Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
    The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. 2018. Available: http://
    www.fao.org/3/i9540en/I9540EN.pdf.
        \2\ Fry J, Love D, Innes G. Ecosystem and Public Health Risks from
    Nearshore and Offshore. Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future.
    Revised August 2018. https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-
    andinstitutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-a-livable-future/_pdf/research/
    clf_reports/offshor-finfish-final.pdf.
        \3\ Lawrence R et al., Comment on the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Proposed Rule: Fisheries of the
    Caribbean, Gulf, and South Atlantic: Aquaculture. Oct 27, 2014. ID:
    NOAA-NMFS-2008-0233-1162. Regulations.gov. https://www.regulations.gov/
    document?D=NOAA-NMFS-2008-02331162.
        \4\ Myers ML, Cole HP. Simple solutions for reduced fish farm
    hazards. J Agromedicine. 2009;14(2):150-156.
        \5\ Cole DW, Cole R, Gaydos SJ, et al., Aquaculture: Environmental,
    toxicological, and health issues. Int J Hyg Environ Heal.
    2009;212(4):369-377.
        \6\ Mitchell RJ, Lystad RP. Occupational injury and disease in the
    Australian aquaculture industry. Mar Policy. 2019;99:216-222.
        \7\  Holen SM, Utne IB, Holmen IM, Aasjord H. Occupational safety
    in aquaculture--Part 1: Injuries in Norway. Mar Policy. 2018;96:184-
    192.
        \8\ Watterson A, Little D, Young JA, Boyd K, Azim E, Murray F.
    Towards integration of environmental and health impact assessments for
    wild capture fishing and farmed fish with particular reference to
    public health and occupational health dimensions. Int J Environ Res
    Public Heal. 2008;5(4):258-277.
        \9\ Watterson A. Towards Healthy Work. Samudra Rep. 2018;79.
    https://www.icsf.net/images/samudra/pdf/english/issue_79/
    269_Samudra_79_August_2018.pdf.
        \10\ Fry J, Love D, Shukla A, Lee R. Off-shore Finfish Aquaculture
    in the United States: An Examination of Federal Laws That Could be Used
    to Address Environmental and Occupational Public Health Risks. Int J
    Environ Res Public Heal. 2014;11(11):11964-11985.
        \11\ Jackson D, Drumm A, McEvoy S, et al., A pan-European valuation
    of the extent, causes and cost of escape events from sea cage fish
    farming. Aquaculture. 2015;436:21-26.
        \12\ Mapes L V. After Atlantic salmon spill, fish farms' future
    under attack on both sides of border. The Seattle Times. https://
    www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/after-atlantic-salmon-
    spill-fish-farms-futureunder-attack-on-both-sides-of-border/. Published
    2017.
        \13\ Mapes L V., Bernton H. Please go fishing, Washington state
    says after farmed Atlantic salmon escape broken net. The Seattle Times.
    https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/oops-
    afteraccidental-release-of-atlantic-salmon-fisherman-being-told-catch-
    as-many-as-you-want/. Published 2017.
        \14\ Dempster T, Arechavala-Lopez P, Barrett LT, Fleming IA,
    Sanchez-Jerez P, Uglem I. Recapturing escaped fish from marine
    aquaculture is largely unsuccessful: alternatives to reduce the number
    of escapees in the wild. Rev Aquac. 2018;10(1):153-167.
        \15\ Tave D. Selective Breeding Programmes or Medium-Sized Fish
    Farms | Chapter 5: Simple Selective Breeding Programmes to Improve
    Growth Rate and Other Quantitative Phenotypes. Rome: FAO Fisheries
    Technical Paper 352; 1995.
        \16\ Wringe BF, Jeffery NW, Stanley RR, et al., Extensive
    hybridization following a large escape of domesticated Atlantic salmon
    in the Northwest Atlantic. Commun Biol. 2018;1.
        \17\ Lafferty KD, Harvell CD, Conrad JM, et al., Infectious
    Diseases Affect Marine Fisheries and Aquaculture Economics. Ann Rev Mar
    Sci. 2015;7:471-496.
        \18\ Holmer M. Environmental issues of fish farming in offshore
    waters: Perspectives, concerns and research needs. Aquac Environ
    Interact. 2010;1(1):57-70.
        \19\ Torrissen O et al., Salmon lice--impact on wild salmonids and
    salmon aquaculture. J Fish Dis. 2013;36(3):171-194.
        \20\ Hjeltnes B, Bang-Jensen B, Born< G, Haukaas A, Walde C S (Ed.)
    NVI 2018. The Health Situation in Norwegian Aquaculture 2017. Norwegian
    Veterinary Institute 2018.
        \21\ Giske The expectation that Atlantic salmon will increase current
            disease incidence in wild and hatchery salmon is low.

       The risk that escaped Atlantic salmon will compete with wild
            salmon for food or habitat is low, considering their well-known
            inability to succeed away from their historic range.

       The risk that salmon farms will adversely impact Essential
            Fish Habitat is low, especially when compared to other commonly
            accepted activities that also occur in nearshore marine
            environments.

        . . . there appears to be little risk associated with escaped
    Atlantic salmon, in particular:

       There is little risk that escaped Atlantic salmon will
            hybridize with Pacific salmon.

       There is little risk that Atlantic salmon will colonize
            habitats in the Puget Sound chinook salmon and Hood Canal
            summer-run chum salmon ESUs [evolutionary significant unit].

       There is little risk that escaped Atlantic salmon will prey
            on Pacific salmon.

       There is little risk that existing stocks of Atlantic salmon
            will be a vector for the introduction of an exotic pathogen
            into Washington State.

       There is little risk that the development of antibiotic-
            resistant bacteria in net-pen salmon farms or Atlantic salmon
            freshwater hatcheries will impact native salmonids, as similar
            antibiotic resistance often observed in Pacific salmon
            hatcheries has not been shown to have a negative impact on wild
            salmon (page x).''

        Subsequent peer-reviewed papers reported the same conclusions.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Nash, CE. 2003. Interactions of Atlantic salmon in the Pacific
    Northwest VI. A synopsis of the risk and uncertainty. Fisheries
    Research 62:339-347. Waknitz, F.W., R.N. Iwamoto and M.S. Strom. 2003.
    Interactions of Atlantic salmon in the Pacific Northwest IV. Impacts on
    local ecosystems. Fisheries Research 62:307-328.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        A recent and highly publicized net pen collapse and escape of farm-
    raised Atlantic salmon in Puget Sound resulted in state legislation
    phasing out nonnative fish culture when existing permits expire. An
    initial analysis by the Washington Department of Natural Resources\5\
    concluded:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Clark, D., K. Lee, K. Murphy and A. Windrope. 2018. 2017
    Cypress Island Atlantic Salmon Net Pen Failure: An Investigation and
    Review. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA.
    (https://www.dnr.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/
    aqr_cypress_investiga
    tion_report.pdf?vdqi7rk&6zpmtj5 accessed October 18, 2019).

            ``What were the implications for the Puget Sound ecosystem from
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            the Cypress Island Atlantic salmon net pen failure?

          1.  To date, there is no evidence that the escaped Atlantic
                salmon were eating native fauna nor is there evidence that
                they were sexually mature.

          2.  Over time, the fish in the marine system contracted native
                pathogens and have shown decreasing health status.

          3.  Atlantic salmon have been found in a limited number of rivers
                in Puget Sound (Skykomish and Skagit rivers). Atlantic
                salmon have not been seen at any DFW [Department of Fish
                and Wildlife] hatchery despite monitoring. There is no
                indication that Atlantic salmon have been caught in
                Nooksack drainage or at Whatcom Creek Hatchery drainage.
                DFW was present at the chum spawns in late fall at
                Bellingham Technical College and did not see any Atlantic
                salmon in Whatcom Creek.

          4.  The limited numbers of Atlantic salmon found in the
                freshwater system appear healthy. There is no evidence that
                they were feeding in the freshwater system nor were they
                sexually mature. The Atlantic salmon in freshwater may
                survive for some time.

        Monitoring through the winter and the subsequent fall will be
    critical to know if the Atlantics remain in the freshwater systems and
    if they are reproducing (page 113).''
        Public concern following the escape focused on the presence of
    piscine orthoreovirus (PRV) in escaped Atlantic salmon that were tested
    for pathogens. Subsequent analysis revealed:

            ``The ubiquitous nature of piscine orthoreovirus (PRV), its
            apparent historic presence in wild Pacific salmonid stocks in
            the Pacific Northwest and the lack of clear association with
            disease in Pacific salmonids suggest the virus poses a low risk
            to wild species of Pacific salmonids.'' \6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Pacific Northwest Fish Health Protection Committee and Myers.
    2017. Piscine orthoreovirus (PRV) in the Pacific Northwest appears to
    be of low risk to wild Pacific salmonids. Informational Report No. 10
    (https://www.dnr.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/
    PRV%20whitepaper
    %20revised%20Sept%202017.pdf?3c0h5&g0ewylow29 accessed October 18,
    2019).

        And state agency analysis of public comments further rebutted
    concerns that a unique pathogen or disease had been introduced.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. WDFW review
    of Wild Fish Conservancy's Feb. 15 news release on presence of virus in
    escaped Atlantic salmon. (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/
    4381114-WDFW-Response-to-Wild-Fish-Conservancy-Release.html accessed
    October 18, 2019).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Atlantic Salmon Escape in Maine
        Maine net pen farms culture Atlantic salmon in proximity to a Gulf
    of Maine Atlantic salmon population that is listed as endangered under
    the authority granted by the Endangered Species Act. Through a
    collaborative effort by the farming and environmental community a
    salmon containment policy was created in 2002.\8\ Containment
    management is based upon a hazard analysis critical control point
    program and has resulted in no escapes since 2003.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Whoriskey and Goode. 2003. Finding resolution to farmed salmon
    issues in eastern North America. Atlantic Salmon Federation. (http://
    citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=
    10.1.1.180.6133&rep=rep1&type=pdf accessed October 22, 2019).
        \9\ Please visit: https://www.maine.gov/dmr/aquaculture/reports/
    documents/ReportedEscapes
    ofFarmedAtlanticSalmoninMaine.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Federal Environmental Regulations Relative to Offshore Aquaculture
        In the United States, since the 1970s, the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA) has held authority to regulate discharges from
    fish farms (e.g., nutrients, chemicals and solid waste) under several
    iterations of the Clean Water Act. More recently, environmental groups
    sought EPA re-evaluation of the Clean Water Act standards applied to
    aquaculture.
        During a four-year period, between 2000 and 2004, the agency
    completed a detailed technical review of its then-current standards and
    modern aquaculture methods, including those used for marine
    aquaculture. Formal rulemaking was conducted to ensure that Clean Water
    Act regulations for aquaculture met all standards of environmental
    protection mandated by Congress. In that process, the EPA determined,
    contrary to the position of environmental groups, that the proposed and
    adopted revised regulations assured environmental protection.
        Other current Federal regulatory authorities, unilaterally or in
    partnership with the states, provide enforceable standards to protect
    navigation and navigational aids, water and benthic quality, food
    safety, drug and chemical use, aquatic animal health, endangered
    species, wild fishery stocks (with respect to potential aquaculture
    impacts to those populations), marine mammals, migratory birds and
    essential fish habitat. The existing and newly proposed aquaculture
    permitting procedures also provide an opportunity for coastal states to
    comment on proposed Federal permits and leases associated with offshore
    marine aquaculture. Existing laws applicable to aquaculture operations
    include, but are not limited to, the Animal Health Protection Act;
    Animal Medicinal Use Drug Clarification Act; Coastal Zone Management
    Act; Endangered Species Act; Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act;
    Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; Federal Water
    Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act); Lacey Act; Magnuson-Stevens
    Fishery Conservation and Management Act; Marine Mammal Protection Act;
    Migratory Bird Protection Act; National Environmental Policy Act; Outer
    Continental Shelf Lands Act; and Rivers and Harbors Act.
        Through rulemaking, judicial rulings and an opportunity to comment
    on significant Federal permitting by other Federal agencies, the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Defense, Federal
    Aviation Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of
    Ocean and Energy Management, and state agencies (agriculture, natural
    resources, and environmental protection) have an important regulatory
    role relative to offshore aquaculture and, in particular, the coastal
    states are provided an opportunity to comment on proposed Federal
    permits and leases associated with offshore marine aquaculture.
        Current regulatory authority exists to appropriately protect marine
    water quality and benthic environmental systems, manage fish escapes,
    protect wild fish stocks, marine mammals and migratory birds, protect
    essential habitat, require responsible drug and chemical use, ensure
    safe navigation, and assure consumers that they will have access to
    safe foods. Indeed, it has been argued, and we agree, that:

      a)  The regulatory environment in the United States has become
            increasingly stringent in recent years in terms of both the
            number and complexity of regulations that affect U.S.
            aquaculture.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Engle, C.R. and N. M. Stone. 2013. Competitiveness of U.S.
    aquaculture within the current U.S. regulatory framework. Aquaculture
    Economics and Management 17(3): 251-280.

      b)  Especially difficult is the lack of a lead agency at both Federal
            and state levels to effectively coordinate and streamline
            regulatory and permitting processes that result in timely
            decisions and more certainty for investment in new enterprises
            and expansion of existing operations. The overall cumulative
            effect has been continued increases in the regulatory costs and
            risk faced by aquaculture growers in the United States.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ Ibid.

        In conclusion, NAA urges the Committee to support the expansion of
    offshore aquaculture by providing the opportunity to lease a site and a
    clear pathway for commercial use of Federal waters for farming fish,
    shellfish and seaweed. The important concerns expressed at the recent
    hearing regarding salmon farming in coastal waters of Washington and
    Maine can be effectively managed under existing environmental laws and
    regulations and mitigated by applying known science and Best Management
    Practices available today.
        The existing U.S. regulatory regime governing coastal and offshore
    aquaculture is rigorous and comprehensive. Issues concerning
    environmental impacts on wild stock and coastal ecosystems, such as:
    disease introduction and transfer, competition for food and habitat,
    and genetic dilution have been studied and the risk of negative impacts
    on fisheries is low across the board. Thank you for your efforts and
    NAA would be pleased to work with you and your staff to finalize the
    pending legislation and move it forward.
                Sincerely,
                                                   Jim Parsons,
                                                             President.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger Wicker to
                                 Linda Cornish
        Question 1. Are there nutritional differences between eating farmed
    and wild caught fish?
        Answer. It depends on the diet fed to farmed fish. This question
    was addressed by the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee in
    their Scientific Report on pages 293 and 294, ``What are the
    comparative nutrient profiles of current farm-raised versus wild caught
    seafood?'' ``For commonly consumed fish species in the United States,
    such as bass, cod, trout, and salmon, farmed-raised seafood has as much
    or more of the omega-3 fatty acids EPA and DHA as the same species
    captured in the wild. In contrast, farmed low-trophic species, such as
    catfish and crawfish, have less than half the EPA and DHA per serving
    than wild caught, and these species have lower EPA and DHA regardless
    of source than do salmon. Farm-raised seafood has higher total fat than
    wild caught.
        Recommended amounts of EPA and DHA can be obtained by consuming a
    variety of farm-raised seafood, especially high-trophic species, such
    as salmon and trout.
        The U.S. population should be encouraged to eat a wide variety of
    seafood that can be wild caught or farmed, as they are nutrient-dense
    foods that are uniquely rich sources of healthy fatty acids. It should
    be noted that low-trophic farm-raised seafood, such as catfish and
    crayfish, have lower EPA and DHA levels than do wild-caught. Nutrient
    profiles in popular low-trophic farmed species should be improved
    through feeding and processing systems that produce and preserve
    nutrients similar to those of wild-caught seafood of the same
    species.''

        Question 2. What is the latest scientific evidence as it relates to
    seafood consumption and brain development?
        Answer. There is strong evidence on seafood consumption supporting
    brain development. Seafood is widely recognized as the richest food
    source of omega-3 docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid
    (EPA) in the American diet. Moreover, DHA and EPA are widely known as
    metabolites that support neural structure and metabolism in the brain.
    A paper recently published in the Journal of Prostaglandins,
    Leukotrienes and Essential Fatty Acids (PLEFA) by a group of leading
    dietary fats scientists that utilized U.S. Department of Agriculture
    Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review protocols and conducted two
    systematic reviews on the health benefits from consuming seafood for
    infant and adolescent brain development. This paper is titled,
    ``Relationships between seafood consumption during pregnancy and
    childhood and neurocognitive development: two systematic reviews,'' and
    focused on studies that examined seafood consumption. These reviews
    focused on seafood as a whole food and not any of its constituent
    nutrients. An additional paper, ``An abundance of seafood consumption
    studies presents new opportunities to evaluate effects on
    neurocognitive development,'' published in PLEFA provides more
    background on the systematic review paper.
        Among the key findings of the systematic reviews is an average 7.7
    IQ point gain in children whose mothers ate seafood during pregnancy
    compared to mothers who did not eat seafood. This paper uncovered 44
    scientific studies since 2000 that collectively show the importance of
    consuming seafood by moms to support the brain development of their
    babies as well as the need for children to consume more fish and
    shellfish. Highlights from the paper, which evaluates studies on over
    100,000 mother-offspring pairs and over 25,000 children, includes:

       Twenty-four (24) studies reported that seafood consumption
            among mothers was associated with beneficial outcomes to
            neurocognition on some or all of the tests administered to
            their children. The beneficial outcomes appeared on tests
            administered as early as three days of age and as late as 17
            years in age. Five studies reported null results on all tests.
            Zero studies reported negative results on any test.

       In the studies that reported beneficial associations with
            IQ, children gain an average of 7.7 full IQ points when their
            moms ate seafood during pregnancy compared to moms that did not
            eat seafood. The size of benefits for IQ ranged from 5.6 to 9.5
            points.

       In addition to IQ, measures of neurocognitive outcomes
            included verbal, visual and motor skill development, scholastic
            achievement, and four specifically looked at hyperactivity and
            ADHD diagnoses. One finding showed that children of mothers not
            eating oily seafood had nearly three times greater risks of
            hyperactivity.

       Benefits to neurocognitive development began at the lowest
            amounts of seafood consumed in pregnancy (one serving or about
            4 oz per week) and some studies looked at greater than 100 oz.
            per week. No adverse effects of seafood consumption were found
            for neurocognition in any of the 29 publications on seafood
            consumption in pregnancy or the additional 15 publications on
            seafood consumption by offspring (44 studies total).

       Seafood contains nutrients including zinc, iron, choline,
            folate, iodine, selenium, vitamins A, D, B6, and B12, and
            omega-3 fatty acids that contribute as a whole package to these
            important outcomes.

        American Academy of Pediatrics, Health Canada, the European Food
    Safety Authority, and World Health Organization are among the medical
    and government organizations that have recommended seafood consumption.
    For instance, the American Academic of Pediatricsvi earlier
    this year that emphasized the importance of fish and called attention
    to the fact that U.S. children are not eating enough seafood and are
    missing the important nutrients from fish.

        Question 3. What are the health benefits of eating seafood for
    adults?
        Answer. The health benefits of eating seafood for adults are
    numerous and backed by strong scientific evidence. In summary, eating
    seafood supports brain health, heart health, and overall wellness.

       Older adults with highest fish consumption lived an average
            of 2.2 years longer.

       Fish literally saves lives. Eating seafood two to three
            times per week reduces the risk of death from any health-
            related cause by 17 percent.

       Seven out of 10 deaths in the U.S. are preventable through
            nutrition and lifestyle changes, like adding omega-3s to your
            diet. Low seafood intake contributes to 55,000 deaths each
            year, making seafood deficiency a leading dietary contributor
            to preventable death in the U.S.

       In the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study published in 2018
            titled, ``Association of fish and long-chain omega-3 fatty
            acids intakes with total and cause-specific mortality:
            prospective analysis of 421,309 individualsx,''
            found that consumption of fish and long-chain omega-3
            polyunsaturated fatty acids were robustly associated with lower
            mortality from major causes. The study followed the
            participants made up of a total of 240,729 men and 180,580
            women for 16 years and found that higher fish and long-chain
            omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids intakes were significantly
            associated with lower total mortality. Comparing the highest
            with lowest quintiles of fish intake:

         Men had 9 percent lower total mortality, 10 percent
                lower cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality, 6 percent
                lower cancer mortality, 20 percent lower respiratory
                disease mortality, and 37 percent lower chronic liver
                disease mortality.

         Women had 8 percent lower total mortality, 10 percent
                lower CVD mortality, 38 percent lower Alzheimer's disease
                mortality.

        This study included double (two-fold) the number of participants as
    has been reported in all other prospective cohort studies to date.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger Wicker to
                                 Kathryn Unger
        Question 1. What are the economic benefits of offshore aquaculture
    for inland states?
        Answer. Globally, aquaculture is one of the fastest growing,
    sustainable forms of food production. According to the World Bank, by
    2030, aquaculture's share in the global seafood supply will expand to
    supply over 60 percent of fish for human consumption, whereas wild-
    capture seafood production will remain steady. A doubling of U.S.
    aquaculture production to about 1 million tons could create an
    additional 50,000 direct and indirect jobs, assuming 20 direct jobs per
    1,000 tons of seafood produced, or five jobs per 1,000 tons in
    equipment, feeds, processing, marketing, and food service. These jobs
    could provide additional stable, year-round employment opportunities in
    coastal and fishing communities where opportunities are often limited
    and seasonally dependent.
        In addition to supporting coastal communities, U.S. offshore
    aquaculture production can also benefit U.S. agriculture and inland
    states. Replacing wild-caught fishmeal and fish oil with alternative
    proteins, such as soy, eases pressure on ocean resources while also
    providing a new market outlet for U.S. soybean farmers. Soybean
    production in the U.S. has increased more than tenfold in the last four
    decades, much of it on the same land as yield per acre and growing
    efficiencies have increased. We believe soybean farmers can be a key
    beneficiary of a domestic aquaculture industry.
        Finally, aquaculture can benefit all Americans by providing an
    affordable, healthy, and sustainable protein meal option. The U.S.
    Dietary Guidelines currently recommend that Americans eat at least
    eight ounces of a variety of seafood per week--which equates to 2 meals
    a week. Unfortunately, despite the health benefits, Americans are not
    meeting the recommended consumption target, with data from 2016
    suggesting that Americans are only consuming about 2.7 ounces of
    seafood per week, or 1/3 of recommendations. Growth of abundant, local,
    U.S.-produced seafood could be key to changing those habits.

        Question 2. How can the feed industry use ingredients that are low
    value for human consumption to create aquaculture feed?
        Answer. Cargill's aqua feed business is committed to
    sustainability, and this starts with our ingredients. The species used
    for fishmeal and oil fall into two categories--forage fish and
    trimmings/by-products. Forage fish are generally not species used for
    direct human consumption. These fish are cooked and squeezed,
    extracting the oil and meal at the same time. Trimmings and by-products
    are extracted after fish caught for direct human consumption are
    processed to remove the fillets, leaving plenty of nutrients behind.
        Currently about 1/3 of Cargill's global marine ingredients come
    from trimmings and fishery by-products, and we are working to increase
    that number. In Canada our proportion is close to 50 percent as there
    is so much material to source. The ability to reuse fish trimmings and
    by-products are part of our aqua feed enables a more circular industry
    and cuts down on food waste.

        Question 3. How has Cargill worked to decrease the amount of fish
    products in aquaculture feed?
        Answer. As noted in response to question 2, we are continuing to
    work to increase the amount of marine ingredients from trimmings and
    fishery by products to displace the need for forage and wild-caught
    marine ingredients. Currently, about 1/3 of Cargill's global marine
    ingredients come from trimmings and fishery by products. In addition,
    we are continuing to use soy and other alternative proteins in our
    feed. Soybeans contain much needed omega-3 fatty acids, proteins, and
    unsaturated fats that are critical for healthy fish. Soy can replace
    from one-third to one-half of the fishmeal in feeds for many farmed
    species, and soybean meal has a significantly lower cost than most
    animal meals. We continue to look at ways to incorporate soy and other
    healthy proteins into our feeds to displace the need for marine
    ingredients, where possible.
                                     ______

         Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
                                 Kathryn Unger
        Question. South Dakota soybeans are some of the best in the world
    and are used in many products, including fish feed. Some may be
    surprised to hear that landlocked states like ours have an important
    role to play in aquaculture.
        In fact, Prairie AquaTech, a technology company that has developed
    and patented a high-protein fish feed from soy meal, is based in
    Brookings, South Dakota. Due to high demand in their product, they
    completed construction of a new commercial facility earlier this year
    capable of processing 30,000 tons of feed annually.
        a. What would be the economic impact on soybean-growing states if
    the United States embraces domestic aquaculture?
        Answer. Growth in U.S. offshore aquaculture production will benefit
    U.S. agriculture. Replacing wild-caught fishmeal and fish oil with
    alternative proteins, such as soy, eases pressure on ocean resources
    while also providing a new market outlet for U.S. soybean farmers. For
    Cargill's U.S. aqua business, we would source soy from U.S. farmers for
    our aqua feed to support a U.S. aquaculture industry. Soybean
    production in the U.S. has increased more than tenfold in the last four
    decades, much of it on the same land as yield per acre and growing
    efficiencies have increased. We believe soybean farmers can be a key
    beneficiary of a domestic aquaculture industry.

        b. Work continues to be done to improve the environmental impacts
    associated with soy-based fish feed. Prairie AquaTech, for example, has
    been internationally recognized for its work in reducing phosphorus
    effluent. Can you speak to the innovations we are seeing in this space
    to support the sustainable growth of the aquaculture industry?
        Answer. Cargill is likewise committed to nourishing the world in
    safe, responsible, and sustainable way. Sustainable feeds start with
    sourcing responsible raw materials for both our marine and terrestrial
    ingredients. For our global aqua feed business, our soy sourcing
    depends on the region in which the feed is being produced. For our U.S.
    operations, including any expansion that may come to support the growth
    of U.S. marine aquaculture, we will use only U.S. grown soy. We are
    working to increase sustainability of U.S. soy farmers through
    partnerships focused on increasing soil health, which has numerous
    benefits both for the environment and for farmers' bottom lines.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger Wicker to
                              Benjamin S. Halpern
        Question 1. What is the difference between offshore and onshore
    aquaculture? What are the benefits of moving aquaculture operations
    offshore?
        Answer. Offshore aquaculture is defined differently in each
    country, but in the United States it generally refers to aquaculture
    that is located at least 3nm off the coast. Onshore aquaculture can
    either refer to coastal aquaculture (ocean aquaculture near the coast,
    usually within 1nm of the coast) or aquaculture on land. These
    differences in location have large implications, on average, for the
    environmental impact of aquaculture. On land, aquaculture is comprised
    almost entirely of freshwater species and has a substantial requirement
    for freshwater inputs and can often create downstream pollution that
    impacts rivers and lakes. The impacts of coastal marine aquaculture
    vary by the species being farmed and the specific location, but can
    include habitat destruction, pollution inputs to sensitive habitats,
    and leaching of antibiotics into surrounding waters, among others,
    although some coastal aquaculture, in particular shellfish and seaweed
    farming, can actually create net benefits for coastal ecosystems.
        The main benefits from offshore aquaculture accrue with finfish
    farming. Deeper water and stronger currents lead to very little
    detectable impact from pollution, little to no impact on the habitat
    below the farm (if the water is deep enough), and little need for
    antiobiotics (the faster water means the fish stay healthier as they
    swim to stay in place). There are also fewer potential conflicts with
    other sectors, which tend to be concentrated near coastal areas
    (tourism, coastal property values, nearshore fishing, and so on).
    However, data on these impacts and benefits comes from relatively
    small-scale offshore farms; we do not yet have sufficient data on the
    potential impacts of very large scale, industrial fish farming to know
    if environmental impacts of large-scale offshore aquaculture might be
    greater than small-scale farming.

        Question 2. How do the environmental impacts of offshore
    aquaculture compare to other types of food production?
        Answer. All food production has at least some impact on the
    environment, and different foods have very different total
    environmental impacts. Anything that is fed (livestock on land, farmed
    finfish) will have a greater overall impact than most unfed food (e.g.,
    crops and shellfish) because the environmental impact of the food
    production comes from both the direct impact of the food product itself
    and the indirect impact from growing the food crops that are fed to
    those animals. In most cases, shellfish farming has less environmental
    impact than most crop farming because it takes almost no resource input
    to farm shellfish, whereas crops require tilling the land, adding water
    and fertilizer in most cases, and often adding pesticides.
        Ocean aquaculture has the additional benefits that no freshwater is
    directly needed (but for fed fish, growing the feed requires water
    resources) and feed conversion ratios (how much feed is needed to grow
    a kilogram of food product) are generally much better. Moving
    aquaculture offshore has the additional benefits that pollution impacts
    are near zero and the need for antibiotics is significantly reduced.
    Growth rates of the fish are also often faster, allowing for shorter
    time to reach market size.

        Question 3. How can science help inform the siting of offshore
    aquaculture?
        Answer. The decision about where to site anything (whether on land
    or in the sea) involves assessing the costs and benefits to different
    sectors and making a strategic decision about how to optimize the
    outcome, i.e., find win-win situations where possible and minimize
    costs. Science is fundamental to this process at many levels. At the
    highest level, the field of decision science, which is closely allied
    to economics, emerged to address exactly these types of questions, and
    conservation science later grew out of decision science in order to
    apply the approaches to resource management questions. At the scale of
    local decisions, different disciplines of science are key to
    understanding how any action (e.g., placing a aquaculture farm in a
    specific location) will impact the ecology, economics, social and
    cultural aspects of the people and species in that location.
    Environmental impact assessments are one of the main mechanisms for
    implementing and synthesizing this local-scale science, but these
    assessments vary substantially in the degree to which they do or do not
    incorporate multiple disciplines and data into their assessments.
        When siting decisions are made without science to inform them,
    there is not only much greater risk of decisions that unnecessarily
    harm or impact a sector, but also of settling on lose-lose outcomes
    where all parties involved could actually be better off if they had let
    science guide the evaluation of possible siting options. There are many
    real-world examples of where such lose-lose outcomes have occurred when
    science was insufficiently used.
                                     ______

         Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
                              Benjamin S. Halpern
        Question. Dr. Halpern, in your testimony, you discuss the public
    perception of aquaculture. Some critics of aquaculture point to the use
    of fishmeal as feed to suggest that aquaculture is a zero sum game.
    That is to say, by increasing aquaculture, you are decreasing the
    amount of wild caught fish available for consumption. How does growth
    in the soy-based feed industry impact our wild caught fisheries and
    address these concerns?
        Answer. There are two parts to the answer to this question. First,
    the critiques around the need to feed fishmeal to aquaculture are
    largely misguided. Prior to the growth in global aquaculture, forage
    fish (the source of fishmeal) were caught at the same level globally
    and largely fed to pigs and chickens (and used as fertilizer for
    crops). Because forage fish are of higher value to aquaculture, the
    market has shifted to 75 percent of forage fish going to aquaculture,
    i.e., aquaculture farms are willing to pay a higher price for fishmeal
    than pig and chicken farmers, but there is still 25 percent of the
    global supply that goes to feed pigs and chicken, and the total catch
    is still the same. As such, decisions about how much forage fish to
    remove from the ocean are not driven by aquaculture demand but instead
    by fisheries policy; the markets then just determine where that catch
    ends up. If we want to leave more fish in the ocean, policy must make
    this decision.
        However, because the global catch of forage fish has an ecological
    limit (and we have largely reached this limit during the past 30
    years), there is concern that as aquaculture continues to grow, the
    ability of forage fish to provide a secure supply of feed is at risk.
    Soy-based feed is already a major component of fish feed for several
    species (especially farmed salmon) and has the potential to provide an
    increasing supply of feed components. Soy-based feed is unlikely to
    have any benefit to wild caught fisheries, but it will have the benefit
    of allowing further growth of the aquaculture sector.

                                      [all]