[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]