[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 [email protected].
            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]