Congressional Hearings
GROWING THE FUTURE: OPPORTUNITIES TO SUPPORT DOMESTIC SEAFOOD THROUGH AQUACULTURE
Congressional Hearings
SuDoc ClassNumber: Y 4.C 73/7
Congress: Senate
CHRG-115shrg37301
| AUTHORITYID | CHAMBER | TYPE | COMMITTEENAME |
|---|---|---|---|
| sscm00 | S | S | Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation |
[Senate Hearing 115-655]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-655
GROWING THE FUTURE:
OPPORTUNITIES TO SUPPORT DOMESTIC SEAFOOD THROUGH AQUACULTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JANUARY 30, 2018
__________
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
37-301 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, po@custhelp.com.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking
ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
TED CRUZ, Texas AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
DEAN HELLER, Nevada TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma GARY PETERS, Michigan
MIKE LEE, Utah TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
CORY GARDNER, Colorado CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
TODD YOUNG, Indiana JON TESTER, Montana
Nick Rossi, Staff Director
Adrian Arnakis, Deputy Staff Director
Jason Van Beek, 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 January 30, 2018................................. 1
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 1
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 21
Statement of Senator Blunt....................................... 23
Statement of Senator Hassan...................................... 31
Statement of Senator Blumenthal.................................. 34
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 36
Statement of Senator Sullivan.................................... 37
Witnesses
Mark Luecke, Managing Director and CEO, Prairie AquaTech......... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Kelly Lucas, Ph.D., Director, Thad Cochran Marine Aquaculture
Center, University of Southern Mississippi..................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Barton Seaver, Director, Sustainable Seafood and Health
Initiative, Center for Health and the Global Environment,
Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health..................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Donald B. Kent, President and CEO, Hubbs-SeaWorld Research
Institute...................................................... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Appendix
Letter dated February 13, 2018 to Hon. John Thune and Hon. Bill
Nelson from Kathryn Unger, President; Tony Dal Ponte, Vice
President; Max Holtzman, Secretary; and Bill Dewey, Treasurer,
Stronger America Through Seafood Campaign...................... 41
Prepared Statement of the National Aquaculture Association....... 44
Written Comments by the San Diego Unified Port District.......... 49
Response to written questions submitted to Mark Luecke by:
Hon. Roger F. Wicker......................................... 51
Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Kelly Lucas by:
Hon. Roger F. Wicker......................................... 52
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 53
Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto.................................. 54
Response to written questions submitted to Barton Seaver by:
Hon. Roger F. Wicker......................................... 54
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 55
Hon. Edward Markey........................................... 56
Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto.................................. 57
Response to written questions submitted to Donald B. Kent by:
Hon. Roger F. Wicker......................................... 57
Hon. Bill Nelson............................................. 59
GROWING THE FUTURE:
OPPORTUNITIES TO SUPPORT DOMESTIC SEAFOOD THROUGH AQUACULTURE
----------
TUESDAY, JANUARY 30, 2018
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John Thune,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Thune [presiding], Blunt, Heller,
Fischer, Gardner, Sullivan, Young, Nelson, Cantwell, Klobuchar,
Tester, Blumenthal, and Hassan.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
The Chairman. Good morning. Thank you all for being here.
Today we're going to hear from some remarkable leaders in the
field of aquaculture. They are working to ensure Americans have
access to safe and sustainably grown seafood from right here at
home.
Many of us have benefited from aquaculture, perhaps without
realizing it. For years, lakes and rivers in my home state of
South Dakota have been stocked with juvenile game fish raised
in hatcheries. The town of Spearfish houses the Fish Culture
Hall of Fame, which documents the history and importance of
this type of aquaculture. The effort it took to transport fish
eggs and juvenile fish in the days before refrigeration or
reliable transportation is truly impressive.
Thanks to its vast coastlines, the United States has the
largest Exclusive Economic Zone in the world, and yet we import
90 percent of our seafood. Half of those imports are not wild
caught and are farmed in other countries around the world where
we have little control over the practices and conditions in
which the seafood is grown or harvested.
Domestic farming of seafood done in a safe, well-monitored
manner can provide economic opportunities for all Americans,
both for our coastal and inland communities. Agricultural
states like mine can play an important role in providing feed
for fish farms, and everyone benefits from having increased
domestic seafood production.
Currently, however, those seeking to expand the domestic
farming of seafood often face a confusing regulatory maze.
Permits for an aquaculture farm may be required from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Coast
Guard, the Department of Agriculture, and the Food and Drug
Administration. This overlapping web of Federal jurisdiction
and lengthy, sometimes unending, permitting process can take 10
years or more, scaring many investors away. Too often, this
results in entrepreneurs taking their skills, talents, and
ideas overseas to a more business-friendly environment.
The United States is a global leader in how to manage wild-
caught fisheries, but we regularly send our expertise, our
innovation, and our dollars overseas when it comes to
aquaculture. Rather than buying seafood from a global market
that has seen repeated instances of labor and environmental
violations, we should do a better job at home. It's time we
straighten our Byzantine permitting regime and start growing
some more fish.
Our witnesses today are working to promote aquaculture in
the United States and will share with us some of their ideas to
reduce the barriers to aquaculture and support innovative
strategies for food security.
I'm pleased to welcome a fellow South Dakotan, who is
bringing South Dakota soy into the fish farming market in a big
way. Mr. Mark Luecke is the CEO of Prairie AquaTech, a
technology company that has developed and patented a high-
protein fish feed from soy meal. Prairie AquaTech is based in
Brookings, South Dakota, and due to high demand in their
product, they will be breaking ground on a new commercial
facility this spring that will process 30,000 tons of feed per
year.
As a scientist and the Director of the Thad Cochran Marine
Aquaculture Center at the University of Southern Mississippi,
Dr. Kelly Lucas will testify about her work overseeing a $25
million aquaculture facility, which employs cutting-edge
technology, peer-reviewed research, and hands-on testing to
grow fish in an environmentally responsible and economically
feasible manner.
Mr. Barton Seaver began his career as a celebrity chef here
in Washington, D.C., where he realized the key role aquaculture
plays as a sustainable food resource and the importance of
seafood in a healthy diet. He is the author of seven highly
regarded books and is an internationally recognized speaker on
the topic of sustainable seafood and aquaculture.
Testifying with firsthand experience in aquaculture is Mr.
Don Kent, who has spent many years working to get a commercial-
scale fish farm up and running off the coast of Southern
California.
Aquaculture is the fasting growing food industry in the
world. If encouraged in the United States, it has the potential
to create jobs and boost the economy from states like South
Dakota to the coasts. As Department of Commerce Secretary
Wilbur Ross has stated, ``This country, with its abundant
coastline, should not have to import billions of pounds of
seafood each year.'' Let's harness this opportunity and become
the world leader in safe and sustainable domestic seafood
production.
And with that, I will recognize our Ranking Member, Senator
Nelson, who knows a little bit about seafood and oceans and
coastlines and all that sort of thing.
So, Senator Nelson.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. It's especially important to have
aquaculture that is under conditions that are not just so nasty
and putrid as we've learned about some of the aquaculture in
foreign countries.
The Chairman. Yes.
Senator Nelson. And, indeed, as the Chairman has said,
Florida has long been known as the fishing capital, 2,300 miles
of shore land, by the way, only exceeded by Alaska. But Alaska
doesn't have a lot of beaches.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Yes, that's true.
Senator Nelson. It's fishing-friendly weather, millions of
dollars of shrimp, snapper, grouper, spiny lobster, stone crabs
on the plates of Americans' restaurants, and yet there's room
to grow. America consumes the second largest amount of seafood
in the world, but 90 percent of it comes from other countries,
and that's huge. We need to dramatically grow our domestic
seafood capacity, and I think marine aquaculture should be a
part of that.
A variety of fishermen, entrepreneurs, academics, and
environmental groups have started to come together to figure
out how we can develop a sustainable aquaculture industry. Just
last year, a group at the University of Miami received a
million dollar grant from the National Sea Grant college
program to advance technology for captive spawning of different
marine species.
I've been to the little town of Cedar Key, which back in
the old days was a flourishing little coastal town, but had
gone into significant decline economically when seafood had
lessened as an industry, not unlike the oysters in Apalachicola
Bay, and what they have done is they have started an
aquaculture industry in Cedar Key, which is turning things
around. So the question is: How do we turn all of this interest
into commercially viable businesses?
Permitting marine aquaculture is not a simple matter. In
any aquaculture permitting process, we must ensure that
consumers are able to distinguish, full disclosure, between
fish that have been raised in a pen and fish caught by
commercial fishermen in the wild. We also need to protect our
environment. Any type of permitting framework needs to ensure
that we avoid harmful effects of waste, discharge, fish
disease, chemical and drug use, and invasive species. That is
why I'm concerned that 90 percent of our consumption in America
that comes from foreign shores; they are not paying attention
to these things.
I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. Donald
Kent, President and CEO of Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute,
which is a major institution in the South. And we have an
opportunity as a nation to develop a sector that will bring
jobs and economic growth, and especially to those little
fishing communities.
So I look forward to hearing the results of this panel. And
you don't have much seafood.
[Laughter.]
[The prepared statement of Senator Nelson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator from Florida
Florida has long been called the fishing capital of the world. With
roughly twenty-three hundred miles of shoreline and year-round,
fishing-friendly weather, Florida is the source of hundreds of millions
of dollars of shrimp, snapper, grouper, spiny lobster, and stone crab
on the plates of America's restaurants and households.
Even so, there is room to grow this important sector of our
economy. Although America consumes the second largest amount of seafood
in the world, over ninety percent of it comes from other countries.
That is a staggering percentage, Mr. Chairman.
We need to dramatically grow our domestic seafood capacity and I
think that marine aquaculture should be a part of that.
A variety of fishermen, entrepreneurs, academics and environmental
groups have started to come together to figure out how we can develop a
sustainable U.S. marine aquaculture industry.
And Florida is leading the pack. Just last year, a group at the
University of Miami received an almost one million dollar grant from
the National Sea Grant college program to advance technology for
captive spawning of different marine species.
The question is: how do we turn all of this interest into
commercially viable businesses? This is where we have run into problems
in the past.
Permitting marine aquaculture is not a simple matter. In any
aquaculture permitting process we must ensure that consumers are able
to distinguish between fish that have been raised in a pen and fish
caught by commercial fishermen. We also need to protect our
environment. Any type of permitting framework needs to ensure that we
avoid harmful effects of waste discharge, fish disease, chemical and
drug use, escapes and invasive species.
I also want to thank our witnesses for testifying today, especially
Donald Kent, President and CEO of the Hubbs-SeaWorld Research
Institute.
We have the opportunity as a nation to develop a sector that will
bring jobs and economic growth to many communities across the Nation.
We need to take advantage of it. I look forward to hearing our
witnesses' ideas on the best paths forward.
The Chairman. But they have a few people that come through
the cities in Las Vegas and consume a good amount. That's
right.
As I mentioned earlier, we've got a great panel. I want to
welcome Mark Luecke, who is the Managing Director and CEO of
Prairie AquaTech; Dr. Kelly Lucas, Director of the Marine
Aquaculture Center at the University of Southern Mississippi;
Mr. Barton Seaver, who is a Chef and Author, as has been
pointed out; and Dr. Donald Kent, President and CEO of Hubbs-
Seaworld Research Institute.
So we'll proceed on my left, and your right, with Mr.
Luecke. And if you could confine your oral remarks to 5 minutes
or so, we'll make sure that your entire statement gets made
part of the hearing record. And we look forward to asking you
some questions.
So, Mr. Luecke, please proceed. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF MARK LUECKE, MANAGING DIRECTOR
AND CEO, PRAIRIE AQUATECH
Mr. Luecke. Chairman Thune, members of the Committee, thank
you for the opportunity to speak with you this morning on
aquaculture, an important topic for each of your states and for
our country.
My name is Mark Luecke. I'm the Managing Director and CEO
of Prairie AquaTech, a specialty feed ingredient and
aquaculture technology company based in South Dakota. Like many
of your constituents, I grew up on a small family farm in rural
America. I graduated from business school and migrated to
larger markets, pursuing a career in finance and eventually
becoming an entrepreneur.
Nine years ago, a group of civic leaders recruited me back
to my home state to start South Dakota Innovation Partners. We
had a mission of commercializing research from our Nation's
land-grant universities where innovation in agriculture was
occurring. Our national security interest of protecting our
country's food supply, the process of getting crops from our
farmers' fields to food on our plates, became our investment
thesis, more specifically, animal health and nutrition. In
fact, a milestone that one of our companies will achieve this
week is becoming the first USDA-licensed vaccine production
facility in the State of South Dakota. This company, Medgene
Labs, has a focus on foreign animal diseases that threaten our
food supply.
Prairie AquaTech started with research at South Dakota
State University that received both public and private funding.
Technology transfer policies based on the Bayh-Dole Act allowed
us to license the technology and begin the commercialization
process. We constructed a 30,000-square-foot pilot-scale
facility with support of the Brookings Economic Development
Corporation and the Department of Commerce's Economic
Development Administration. This facility, the AgTech Center
for Rural Enterprise, has a mission of scaling and de-risking
university technologies and starting new operating companies to
support job growth in rural communities.
With further public and private support from the National
Science Foundation and the USDA's Small Business Innovation
Research Programs, the United Soybean Board, South Dakota
Soybean Alliance, Indiana Soybean Alliance, Soy Aquaculture
Alliance, and many private investors, Prairie AquaTech
developed a sustainable plant-based protein ingredient that is
being used in many locations around the country, including a
large fish supplier to Whole Foods Market in the State of
Wisconsin.
Committee members will appreciate that the seed funding
provided by the NSF, USDA, and others has put Prairie AquaTech
in a position to close on $60 million of private funding next
month. This funding will be used to construct a large protein
ingredient production facility in rural South Dakota. We take
our responsibility of generating a return on both public and
private investment very seriously, and we believe we have done
so with Prairie AquaTech.
While Prairie AquaTech is an extraordinary example of the
effectiveness of public-private partnerships, it is important
for Committee members to understand that our collective work is
only beginning. Despite a number of important policy statements
supporting the growth of a sustainable aquaculture industry in
the United States, we have made limited progress. Seafood
remains one of our country's highest trade deficits in the
natural resource category, while aquaculture remains one of the
fastest growing segments in the agriculture outside the U.S.
We believe the reasons for our country's slow growth in
aquaculture include: one, the unavailability of high-quality
feed ingredients produced locally, which equates to over 50
percent of fish production costs; two, the unavailability of
investment capital to construct more fish production
facilities; and, three, an inefficient regulatory pathway
permitting fish production facilities while preserving our
marine and land-based environments. An opportunity exists to
improve our position.
With partner support, Prairie AquaTech has solved the first
challenge of high-quality feed ingredients produced locally.
Soybean farmers across many of your states have been searching
for new and higher value uses of soybean meal, given an
increase in supply and global competition. The process
developed by Prairie AquaTech opens a new global market for our
soybean farmers by eliminating allergenic proteins and sugars
found in soybean meal that limit inclusion levels in
aquaculture feed.
The process also increases phosphorus availability to the
animal so that fish production facilities no longer discharge
phosphorus in the surrounding environment. Imagine our country
feeding local plant-based protein ingredients that are 100
percent digestible to fish, which have the highest feed
conversion rate of all animals in an environmentally conscious
manner. This is a major win for all of our constituents.
However, we need the Committee's support to increase the
availability of investment capital to construct more fish
production facilities in the U.S. Unlike investments in
software companies, these facilities have a long lead time to
design, construct, start production, and achieve break-even.
This long lead time creates risk and prevents investors and
lenders from supporting these projects.
We propose a public-private advisory group with a mission
of recommending economic policies to the Committee that create
incentives and reduce risks for private investors and lenders
to support more fish production facilities.
Similarly, we need the Committee's support to establish an
efficient regulatory pathway permitting fish production
facilities in the U.S. Multiple Federal and state agencies
claim and disclaim jurisdiction in the current regulatory
pathway, which is unproductive to building an industry. The
public-private advisory group would further recommend
regulatory policies supporting entrepreneurs, investors, and
lenders.
I appreciate the Committee members' time and attention.
Thank you very much, Chairman Thune.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Luecke follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Luecke, Managing Director and CEO,
Prairie AquaTech
Chairman Thune, Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to speak with you this morning on aquaculture--an important
topic for each of your states, and for our country.
My name is Mark Luecke. I am the Managing Director and CEO of
Prairie AquaTech, a specialty feed ingredient and aquaculture
technology company based in South Dakota. Like many of your
constituents, I grew up on a small family farm in Rural America. I
graduated from business school and migrated to larger markets, pursuing
a career in finance and eventually becoming an entrepreneur. Nine years
ago, a group of civic leaders recruited me back to my home state to
start South Dakota Innovation Partners. We had a mission of
commercializing research from our Nation's land grant universities,
where innovation in agriculture was occurring. Our national security
interest of protecting our country's food supply--the process of
getting crops from our farmers' fields to food on our plates--became
our investment thesis; more specifically, animal health and nutrition.
In fact, a milestone that one of our companies will achieve this week
is becoming the first USDA-licensed vaccine production facility in the
State of South Dakota. This company, Medgene Labs, has a focus on
foreign animal diseases that threaten our food supply.
Prairie AquaTech started with research at South Dakota State
University that received both public and private funding. Technology
transfer policies based on the Bayh-Dole Act allowed us to license the
technology and begin the commercialization process. We constructed a
30,000 square foot pilot scale facility with support from the Brookings
Economic Development Corporation and the Department of Commerce's
Economic Development Administration. This facility, the AgTech Center
for Rural Enterprise, has a mission of scaling and de-risking
university technologies and starting new operating companies to support
job growth in rural communities. With further public and private
support from the National Science Foundation and USDA's Small Business
Innovation Research Programs, the United Soybean Board, South Dakota
Soybean Association, Indiana Soybean Alliance, Soy Aquaculture
Alliance, and many private investors, Prairie AquaTech developed a
sustainable, plant-based protein ingredient that is being used in many
locations around the country, including a large fish supplier to Whole
Foods Market in the State of Wisconsin. Committee Members will
appreciate that the seed funding provided by the NSF, USDA, and others
has put Prairie AquaTech in a position to close on $60 million of
private funding next month. This funding will be used to construct a
large protein ingredient production facility in rural South Dakota. We
take our responsibility of generating a return on both public and
private investment very seriously, and we believe we have done so with
Prairie AquaTech.
While Prairie AquaTech is an extraordinary example of the
effectiveness of public/private partnerships, it is more important for
Committee Members to understand that our collective work is only
beginning. Despite a number of important policy statements supporting
the growth of a sustainable aquaculture industry in the United States,
we have made limited progress. Seafood remains one of our country's
highest trade deficits in the natural resource category, while
aquaculture remains one of the fastest growing segments in agriculture
outside the U.S. We believe the reasons for our country's slow growth
in aquaculture include: (1) the unavailability of high quality feed
ingredients produced locally, which equates to over 50 percent of fish
production costs, (2) the unavailability of investment capital to
construct more fish production facilities, and (3) an inefficient
regulatory pathway permitting fish production facilities while
preserving our marine and land-based environments. An opportunity
exists to improve our position.
With partner support, Prairie AquaTech has solved the first
challenge of high quality feed ingredients produced locally. Soybean
farmers across many of your states have been searching for new and
higher value uses of soybean meal given an increase in supply and
global competition. The process developed by Prairie AquaTech opens a
new global market for our soybean farmers by eliminating allergenic
proteins and sugars in soybean meal that limit inclusion levels in
aquaculture feed. The process also increases phosphorus availability to
the animal so that fish production facilities no longer discharge
phosphorus into the surrounding environment. Imagine our country
feeding local, plant-based protein ingredients that are 100 percent
digestible to fish, which have the highest feed conversion rate of all
animals, in an environmentally conscious manner--this is a major win
for all constituents.
However, we need the Committee's support to increase the
availability of investment capital to construct more fish production
facilities in the U.S. Unlike investments in software companies, these
facilities have a long lead time to design, construct, start
production, and achieve breakeven. This long lead time creates risk and
prevents investors and lenders from supporting these projects. We
propose a public/private advisory group with a mission of recommending
economic policies to the Committee that create incentives and reduce
risks for private investors and lenders to support more fish production
facilities.
Similarly, we need the Committee's support to establish an
efficient regulatory pathway permitting fish production facilities in
the U.S. Multiple Federal and state agencies claim and disclaim
jurisdiction in the current regulatory pathway, which is unproductive
to building an industry. The public/private advisory group would
further recommend regulatory policies supporting entrepreneurs,
investors, and lenders.
I appreciate the Committee Members' time and attention; thank you
very much, Chairman Thune.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Luecke.
Dr. Lucas.
STATEMENT OF KELLY LUCAS, Ph.D., DIRECTOR,
THAD COCHRAN MARINE AQUACULTURE CENTER,
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI
Dr. Lucas. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank
you for inviting me to testify before you today. For the
record, I'm Dr. Kelly Lucas, Director of the Thad Cochran
Marine Aquaculture Center at the University of Southern
Mississippi.
The Center includes approximately 100,000 square feet of
culture space devoted to environmentally responsible and
economically feasible marine aquaculture. Our research focuses
on alleviating the bottlenecks that constrain the production of
marine species. As you both have mentioned, the United States
imports over 90 percent of our seafood, and half those imports
are aquaculture products. We have a $14 billion seafood trade
deficit.
With the growing demand for seafood and static wild-capture
fisheries since the 1990s, aquaculture must continue to grow to
meet this demand. While the United States has seen an increase
in aquaculture production, mostly in land-based operations or
in sheltered nearshore waters, we remain a minor producer.
Nevertheless, we are a major supplier, an exporter of
equipment, feed, and advanced technology.
We have a choice: we can continue to source our new seafood
supply from abroad, or we can use our expertise to develop the
domestic capacity to supply our needs. Sourcing from other
countries means that the United States misses out on the
opportunity to create jobs that generate wealth in our
communities and provide safe, local, sustainable seafood
products. There is a growing consensus among scientists,
resource managers, and industry that diversification of
aquaculture, to include offshore farming, could expand our
capacity for local safe seafood production.
Coastal communities are recognizing that aquaculture
presents a sustainable business alternative. These communities
have the infrastructure, such as the boats and the processing
plants, the seafood markets, and the working waterfronts, to
help support operations, and aquaculture can consistently
supply products to keep these businesses operating.
Other businesses, such as feed suppliers, equipment
companies, and repair shops will also grow in these
communities. Several offshore aquaculture operations use
advanced remote sensing, unmanned systems, and artificial
intelligence. This sector of the Blue Economy would also
continue to expand to meet industry needs.
Regulatory uncertainty has widely been mentioned as a
barrier to offshore aquaculture. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Plan for Aquaculture, or the Gulf Rule, published in
January 2016. The plan established a regional permitting
process to manage offshore aquaculture in an environmentally
and economically sustainable manner. However, investors have
expressed concerns regarding the time, actual cost, and
uncertainty of permit approval. Additional industry concerns
with the Gulf Rule relate to the permit duration, the size of
the restricted zones around the permitted areas, and community
acceptance.
There is a concern that the Magnuson-Stevens Act is not the
right tool for regulating aquaculture. Offshore aquaculture
legislation could provide more certainty for permitting and
management of aquaculture operations. Diversification of
seafood products through systems, species, and location will
help build a more resilient community and will help increase
production to meet demands.
The aquaculture industry has made advancements. However,
there still are challenges and needs. Although we have made
advancements in fish feed and have reduced reliance on forage
fish, we should continue to identify alternative sustainable
feeds for large-scale aquaculture. Improvements in net and cage
technology have decreased chances of escapes; however, we can
continue to improve the containment systems with new materials
and remote monitoring technology. Continued use of unmanned
systems could further improve safety, provide more timely and
accurate assessments, and potentially reduce costs.
The development of hatchery capacity and the refinement of
culture techniques is vital to industry development. Commercial
operators need a reliable and consistent source of disease-free
larval fish. Whereas some larval fish species can be reliably
supplied, many other species that are high value and fast
growing lack sufficient research development.
The use of selective breeding as a tool to increase
production is far behind the plant and farm animal industries.
Selective breeding of fish with higher growth rates can
generally be completed in less time than breeding of farm
animals. Domestication of new species and offshore aquaculture
will require monitoring and adaptive health management plans to
reduce disease and outbreaks.
Supporting aquaculture development by mechanisms similar to
those used to support agriculture can help industry grow. The
agricultural industry grew vastly from public support of
research occurring at universities, state and Federal
laboratories, and research stations spread across the Nation to
bring techniques directly to farmers. Aquaculture can benefit
from a similar approach of competitive peer-reviewed-based
research funding and extension funding to advance the
technology and the development.
Advancement of aquaculture, especially selective breeding,
health management, and culture species can take multiple years
for significant gains, and long-term funding programs will be
critical to success. Public and private partnerships will also
be important to help address industry needs, promote industry
growth, and successfully transfer technology and techniques.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this
Committee regarding aquaculture. I believe the time is now for
the United States to become more self-reliant in the production
of seafood.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Lucas follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kelly Lucas, Ph.D., Director, Thad Cochran Marine
Aquaculture Center, University of Southern Mississippi
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting
me to testify before you today. For the record, I am Dr. Kelly Lucas--
Director of the Thad Cochran Marine Aquaculture Center (TCMAC)-
University of Southern Mississippi--Ocean Springs. The Center includes
approximately 100,000 square feet of culture space devoted to
environmentally responsible and economically feasible marine
aquaculture. Our research focuses on alleviating the bottlenecks that
constrain the production of marine species. We work with government and
industry to address research that will advance sustainable aquaculture
on land and in coastal and marine environments. Prior to my appointment
at USM, I was chief scientific officer for the Mississippi Department
of Marine Resources, the state agency with regulatory authority for
managing and conserving coastal and marine resources. My testimony will
provide both a science and management perspective.
The United States imports over 90 percent of our seafood and half
the imports are aquaculture products. We have a $14 billion-dollar
seafood trade deficit. With a growing demand for seafood and static
wild capture fisheries since the 1990s, aquaculture must continue to
grow to meet increasing demand. While the United States has seen an
increase in aquaculture production, mostly in land-based operations or
in sheltered nearshore waters, we remain a minor producer.
Nevertheless, we are a major supplier and exporter of equipment, feed
and advanced technology. We have a choice. We can continue to source
new seafood supply from abroad or we can use our expertise to develop
the domestic capacity to supply our needs. There is a risk in
continuing to source aquaculture products from abroad. Several of the
major producer countries do not have the environmental standards we
have in the United States and they do not have robust disease
management regulations. Further, they tend to lack transparency which
creates easy avenues for fraud and quality issues. New supply is also
often from countries with political uncertainty or geopolitical
instability that can threaten the supply chain and create food
insecurity. Importantly, sourcing from other countries means the United
States misses out on the opportunity to create jobs that generate
wealth in our communities and provide safe, local, sustainable, seafood
products.
Opportunities
There is growing consensus among scientists, resource managers and
industry that diversification of aquaculture to include offshore
farming could expand our capacity for local, safe, seafood production.
Even some environmental groups have expressed interest in the potential
for aquaculture to supply a healthier protein with less impact than
that from other animal sources. This is not to say that there is no
opposition to aquaculture. However, public engagement and outreach on
advances in aquaculture can help educate consumers and address
concerns. By siting aquaculture farms away from sensitive habitats in
deep waters with adequate currents the potential for pollution is
reduced. Improved materials for containment and remote sensing
technology has decreased the likelihood of fish escapement. Remotely
controlled feeding and observation systems have helped create a
mechanism for reducing over-feeding and improved feeds have reduced the
reliance on forage fish.
The economic success of sustainable commercial operations abroad
and in Hawaii, Maine and New Hampshire have created a renewed optimism
for offshore commercial development. Coastal communities are
recognizing that aquaculture presents a sustainable business
alternative. These communities have the infrastructure such as boats,
processing plants, seafood markets and working waterfronts to help
support operations and aquaculture can consistently supply products to
keep these businesses operating. Other businesses, such a feed
suppliers, equipment companies and repair shops also grow in these
communities. Several offshore aquaculture operations use advanced
remote sensing, unmanned systems and artificial intelligence. This
sector of the blue economy would also expand to meet industry needs.
Businesses need regulatory certainty to reduce the risk of
investment. Regulatory uncertainty has been widely mentioned as a major
barrier to offshore aquaculture. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Plan for Aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf Rule) published in
January of 2016. The plan established a regional permitting process to
manage offshore aquaculture in an environmentally sustainable manner
and NOAA worked with Federal permitting agencies to create a
coordinated permit process. The estimated cost for engineering, siting
and environmental assessment to permit a commercial structure under the
Gulf rule has been estimated at $1 million dollars. However, investors
expressed concerns regarding the time, actual cost and uncertainty of
permit approval. Additional industry concerns of the Gulf Rule relate
to permit duration, size of restricted zones around permitted areas and
community acceptance. The day the Gulf Rule was announced several
groups filed a lawsuit challenging NOAA's authority for permitting
aquaculture under the 2007 Magnuson-Stevens Act. There is a concern
that the Magnuson-Stevens Act is not the right tool to regulate
aquaculture. Offshore aquaculture legislation could provide more
certainty for permitting and management of aquaculture operations.
Opportunities also exist for the growth of land-based and near-
shore aquaculture. Land-based aquaculture in recirculating closed loop
systems is advantageous for numerous reasons. Land-based, recirculating
systems provide a controlled environment that allows year round
production, increased biosecurity that reduces the occurrence and
spread of disease, and the capability for reusing and recycling water
to decrease the waste and increase sustainability. Because such systems
are self-contained and decoupled from a water source, they can be
located almost anywhere near the markets they serve where they create
local jobs and supply safe, fresh, local, seafood for consumers. Near-
shore aquaculture in the United States also has been increasing.
Shellfish aquaculture has expanded into new geographic areas and
production has increased significantly along coastal shorelines.
Seaweed aquaculture has been increasing in several regions of the
United States. Growth of near-shore finfish operations also has
occurred in regions with nearshore water-depths sufficient to support
the structures. Diversification of seafood products through systems,
species and location will help build a more resilient industry and will
help increase production to meet demand.
Challenges and Needs
For the aquaculture industry to be successful on a scale necessary
to meet demand, there are things that still need to be addressed.
Although we have made advancements in fish feed and have reduced
reliance on forage fish, we should continue to identify alternative
sustainable feeds for large-scale aquaculture. Improvements in net and
cage technology have decreased chances of escapes; however, we can
continue to improve containment systems with new materials and remote
monitoring technology. Unmanned systems and artificial intelligence can
aid operators in tasks such as cleaning cages, feeding fish and
detecting potential problems. This technology decreases reliance on
divers and helps improve safety of operations. Continued use of these
systems could further improve safety, provide for more timely and
accurate assessments, and potentially decrease cost. The development of
hatchery capacity and refinement of culture techniques is vital to
industry development. Commercial operators need a reliable and
consistent source of disease-free larval fish from documented
broodstock. Whereas some larval fish species can be reliably supplied,
many other species that are high value and fast-growing lack sufficient
research development. Other challenges for hatcheries include a
shortage of customers to purchase fish and keep the hatchery operating
while waiting on domestic industry development. The use of selective
breeding as a tool to increase production is far behind the plant and
farm animal industries. Selective breeding of fish with higher growth
rates can generally be completed in less time than breeding of farm
animals. Fish convert feed to meat more efficiently than terrestrial
animals and the ability to produce a steady fish supply can meet the
increasing demand for protein. Fish health management is also critical
to increasing aquaculture production. For some species raised in re-
circulating systems or pond culture disease has been well studied and
management for prevention has been important for success. Domestication
of new species and offshore culture will require monitoring and
adaptive health management plans to reduce disease and outbreaks.
Supporting aquaculture development by mechanisms similar to those
used to support agriculture can help industry grow. The agriculture
industry grew vastly from public support of research occurring at
universities, state and Federal laboratories and research stations
spread across the Nation to bring techniques directly to farmers.
Aquaculture can benefit from a similar approach of competitive peer-
reviewed based research funding and extension funding to advance
research and development. Advancement of aquaculture, especially
selective breeding, health management and culture techniques can take
multiple years for significant gains and long-term funding programs
will be critical to success. Public and private partnerships also will
be important to help address industry needs, promote industry growth
and successfully transfer technology and techniques.
Concluding Remarks
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this Committee
regarding aquaculture. I believe the time is now for the United States
to become more self-reliant in the production of seafood. We can create
jobs and reduce the seafood trade deficit while supplying safe, local,
sustainable, seafood. Diversification of aquaculture production in
addition to commercial fishing can help supply seafood to help meet the
growing demand. Government, universities and industry working together
can help create regulatory certainty, address research needs and
advance sustainable aquaculture.
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Lucas.
Mr. Seaver.
STATEMENT OF BARTON SEAVER, DIRECTOR, SUSTAINABLE SEAFOOD AND
HEALTH INITIATIVE, CENTER FOR HEALTH AND THE GLOBAL
ENVIRONMENT, HARVARD T. H. CHAN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Mr. Seaver. Hi. Good morning, Chairman Thune and all the
Ranking Members here. An incredible opportunity and honor to be
here representing my home state of Maine and all of the coastal
communities along this great Nation's shorelines.
I want to talk a little bit today just about why
aquaculture matters, why seafood is important to us, and a
little bit of the opportunity that resides within it for us to
look ahead, too, as so many of my fellow panelists have spoken
about, and I look forward to continuing conversation.
So in Maine, we have a slightly unique cultural dynamic.
There we honor the legacy and the presence of the lobster
fisheries specifically, also the fin fisheries. The working
waterfronts that they support, the sophisticated cold chain
supply systems, individual boat operators, owners, ice
producers, the cold chain, all of it there. There's a strong
apprentice program, a strong presence and legacy of this
industry. And there we view lobstering and fishing as a noble
profession, one that is very essential to the state's identity.
But this genuflection to the men and women harvesting seafood
is not shared by all communities in America, and rarely so
actually only in specific areas around the country.
When we, as citizens, as an analogy, envision an
agricultural scene, we envision amber waves of grain, the
fruited plain, the picturesque red barns. We get this. This is
American iconography, a conjuring that represents and renders
farming as the best possible use of fertile land. But when we
think of the ocean, it's often wilderness that captures our
imaginations about it. We value the open sea because the hand
of man is simply not present. But I argue that we must
emotionally embrace farming our seas and fishing them so as we
do farming the land. And this is an important part of putting
the culture into aquaculture.
There is more America underwater than there is above it. As
Chairman Thune mentioned, we have more--there is more coastline
in America and the longest--the largest Exclusive Economic
Zone. Recently, a study mapped global marine aquaculture
productivity concluded that in an area the size of the ocean,
just an area of the ocean the size of Lake Michigan, we could
sustainably farm as much seafood as is currently captured
globally in the wild. With that amount of opportunity, it is
incredible.
And as railroads once allowed our expansion westward,
aquaculture will be the vehicle that allows us to pioneer our
path into a new economic geography. In eras past, the rallying
cry was, ``Go west, young man!'' and it was 40 acres and a mule
that allowed us to succeed. And today, that same rallying cry
is, ``Go west, young person!'' It's going to be 20 acres of
marine lease and an outboard that is going to get us there.
In a paper by esteemed colleague Michael Rubino and Gunner
Knapp, they say that the biggest impediment to developing
American aquaculture is the industry's lack of social license.
And an industry gains social license when the general public
understands the benefits that it brings to the table, and for
aquaculture, that is a healthier citizenry. It is economic
opportunity and a chance to maintain out leadership on a global
stage presenting a consistent model for responsibly and
ecologically sustainable practices.
Seafood is an important part of our diet, as Americans, and
should be more so. If Americans followed our own government's
recommendations to eat omega-rich seafood twice a week, 55,000
lives would be saved annually from stroke and heart disease,
and yet only 1 in 10 Americans follow these regulations. It's
not a stretch to say that America--a ``Made in the USA'' stamp
of sustainably produced domestic aquaculture could inspire
confidence and lead to increased consumption.
Further, the average age of fishermen in this country is
growing, and few participants are joining their ranks. A lack
of jobs and prosperity in wild fisheries has led young people
in coastal communities to look for work elsewhere. This is
particularly true in Maine. Aquaculture could provide that
missing opportunity in an exciting and innovative new industry,
and this is already happening, beginning to happen, in Maine,
where sons and daughters of fishermen are operating dozens of
oyster, mussel, seaweed, fish farms.
But I cannot stress enough how much aquaculture must
coexist in parallel with our wild fisheries, as they will
augment each other and ultimately raise the profile and value
of each of each other's products.
And I would also like to touch briefly on the notion that
about how investment in and growth of domestic aquaculture will
affect our trade imbalance in seafood. I think it's very
important from a public health perspective that we acknowledge
that access to sustainable healthy protein, healthy seafood, is
imperative in America's society. What we should be focusing on
is growing increased consumption, going from 15 pounds per
person per year to 25 pounds, and it is within that increased
consumption that America's aquaculture industry should find its
opportunity to provide for America's table.
A thoughtful and inclusive approach to aquaculture
regulation will set in motion a very compelling American
success story, will author a new chapter in our economic
history, and I ask this Committee, in its wisdom, to consider
regulations that are offered--that are oriented to and governed
by regional knowledge. One size does not fit all. And though we
need overarching regulations, please consider that there are
cultures that will be commended--that will be purposed with
executing aquaculture. And any aquaculture farm must be
ecologically and culturally relevant to the area in which it is
produced.
It is my hope ultimately that my son, 16 months old, grows
up on the coast of Maine in the--with all of the opportunity
that aquaculture presents to him, amongst thriving neighbors,
and with a dream that he, too, might nobly provide for
America's tables.
Thank you so much for the opportunity to be here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Seaver follows:]
Prepared Statement of Barton Seaver, Director, Sustainable Seafood and
Health Initiative, Center for Health and the Global Environment,
Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health
Good afternoon Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson and all other
members of the committee. I am honored to be here speaking on behalf of
my neighbors in coastal communities throughout America. We have very
good reason to consider the promising future of aquaculture.
I began my career as a chef here in Washington, D. C. I used that
platform to espouse a negative view of aquaculture. My opinion was
based on a limited scope of information I gathered from environmental
advocacy groups concerning the state of the aquaculture industry at
that point in time 15 years ago. As my career progressed, I gained an
understanding of the full context of aquaculture's impact, both
positive and negative.
I left the restaurant industry 8 years ago and took an assignment
as a National Geographic Explorer. My mission focused on marine
ecosystems, discovering strategies to minimize human impact upon them.
I came to understand that the whole concept of environmental
sustainability hinges on thriving coastal communities. Certainly, the
coastal way of life depends on a resilient underlying marine ecosystem
to which we must be good stewards. But I believe that in aquaculture,
we can sustainably capitalize on the positive impact marine ecosystems
have on these communities and the wider population.
I now live in a Maine coastal community where I am raising my son.
His ability to thrive depends on the well-being of the entire
community. As such, this topic has become a deeply personal issue.
In Maine we honor the legacy of the lobster fishery that supports
working waterfronts, a sophisticated cold chain system, bait suppliers,
individual boat owners, and a strong apprentice program. We view
lobstering as a noble profession, one essential to the state's
identity. But this genuflection to the men and women harvesting seafood
is not widespread beyond Maine.
When we as citizens envision an agricultural scene, we see amber
waves of grain, the fruited plains, stoic white farm houses and
picturesque red barns; a conjuring that renders farming the best
possible use of fertile land. We value land for our presence there. But
when we think of the ocean, it's the wildness that captures our
imaginations. We value the open sea because the hand of man is not
present. I argue that just as we emotionally embrace farming the land,
so must we embrace fisheries and aquaculture.
The diesel engine pushed Americans westward to manifest destiny.
But we've hit hard limitations--depleted aquifers, soil erosion, and
changing weather events--to further increasing agriculture production
on land. We need to look to the oceans for long-term food security.
More of America sits under the ocean than above it. We have the longest
coastline in the world and the largest exclusive economic zone. In a
study mapping the global potential for marine aquaculture conducted by
a group of University of California at Santa Barbara scientists
concludes that in an area of the ocean the size of Lake Michigan that
is ripe for aquaculture, we could sustainably farm fish equal to the
amount of seafood currently caught globally in the wild today.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mapping the global potential for marine aquaculture http://
www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0257-9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As railroads facilitated westward expansion, aquaculture will
pioneer a path into an ocean geography that will become Blue America.
In eras past, the rally cry was ``Go west, young man!'' And the means
to settlement and prosperity was 40 acres and a mule. Today, that same
sentiment comes in the declaration ``Go wet, young person!'' It will be
20 acres of marine lease and an outboard motor that will get us there.
In a paper on the political economics of marine aquaculture in the
United States,\2\ scientist Gunner Knapp, recently retired from the
University of Alaska, and Michael Rubino, Director of the Office of
Aquaculture at NOAA's Fisheries Service, say the biggest impediment to
developing American aquaculture today is the industry's lack of social
license. An industry gains social license when the general public
understands the benefits it brings to the table. For aquaculture, those
include a healthier citizenry as Americans will have better access to
more seafood; economic opportunity by way of new jobs, and, a chance to
maintain our leadership on the world stage as a consistent model for
responsible and ecologically sustainable aquaculture practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Political Economics of Marine Aquaculture in the United
States http://www.tand
fonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23308249.2015.1121202?journalCode=brfs21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seafood is an important ingredient in a healthy diet. Fish--
compared to cows, sheep, pigs and chickens--levy the least
environmental impact to produce, and their protein is healthier for the
human diet. If Americans followed our own government's recommendation
to eat omega-3 rich seafood just two times a week, 55,000 lives would
be saved annually from heart disease and stroke annually.\3\ And yet,
only 1 in 10 Americans follow these guidelines.\4\ It is not a stretch
to say that developing the United State aquaculture industry as a
trusted source for seafood would lead to increased consumer confidence
and consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Association between Dietary Factors and Mortality from Heart
Disease, Stroke, and Type 2 Diabetes in the United States https://
jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2608
221
\4\ Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory
Committee https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-report/
PDFs/Scientific-Report-of-the-2015-Dietary-Guidelines-Advisory-
Committee.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This nation was founded on cod and the backs of the men and woman
who fished them. The ocean economy spurred the economic and political
freedoms we enjoy today and we have watched as it atrophied before our
eyes. The once mighty North Atlantic fishery struggles mightily now.
While we manage our wild fisheries well, the bounty is a fraction of
what it once was.
The average age of fishermen is increasing and few new participants
join their ranks. A lack of wild fishing jobs drives young people in
coastal communities to seek work elsewhere. Aquaculture could provide
that missing opportunity in an exciting and innovative industry. It
could offer a fishing family's son or daughter an opportunity, a step
towards to owning a small business and a chance to remain in their
coastal community and contribute to its evolving maritime heritage.
This is already happening in Maine where sons and daughters of
fishermen operate dozens of oyster, mussel, seaweed, and fish farms.
I cannot stress enough that for all of the opportunity aquaculture
presents, it exists in parallel with our storied wild fisheries.
Aquaculture is not a replacement for wild fisheries but an augmentation
to their culture and economy that will raise the profile and value of
all American seafood.
I want to touch briefly on the assertion that an investment in
American aquaculture will level the trade imbalance between domestic
and foreign seafood. We should not seek to decrease imports of healthy
seafood but work to increase overall seafood consumption to drive
demand seafood raised in our own waters. As the goal is to get more
people eating more seafood for a healthier America, we cannot vilify
responsibly sourced seafood imported from other parts of the world.
Doing so would diminish consumer confidence in all seafood.
The committee holds this hearing at a unique moment because we have
the opportunity to be architects of a substantial new economy. A
thoughtful and inclusive approach to regulating aquaculture will set in
motion a compelling American success story. I ask this committee to set
regulations that are oriented to and governed by regional knowledge.
While we need overarching guidelines, one size will not fit all as
aquaculture is a product of a community and is unique to the
environment in which it is executed. Likewise, we must move forward
with the understanding that not all forms of aquaculture are culturally
or ecologically appropriate for all places. Please consider giving
residents of those places--especially First Nations People and those
with a significant heritage in fishing--the chance to decide what
aquaculture means for them and let them design regionally specific
methods in pursuit of the seemingly inexhaustible potential of
America's Blue Economy.
It is my hope that my son grows up surrounded by opportunity,
thriving neighbors, and a dream to nobly provide food for America's
tables. Again, I thank you for the honor of appearing before you today.
And I stand ready to answer any questions you or your staff may have
now or in the future.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Seaver.
I have to step out momentarily, so I'm going to hand the
gavel over to Senator Blunt.
But, Mr. Kent, Dr. Kent, good to have you here. Please,
proceed.
STATEMENT OF DONALD B. KENT, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
HUBBS-SEAWORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Mr. Kent. Thank you. My name is Don Kent, and I'm the
President and CEO of Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute. I want
to thank Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and the other
members of the Committee for this opportunity to discuss the
opportunities and concerns arising from the development of
marine farming in our Nation's waters.
I've been involved in aquaculture research for over 40
years and have worked on research involving the culture of a
wide range of species, including plants, shellfish, and
finfish.
Our Institute is a nonprofit scientific research
organization dedicated to advancing a healthy ocean environment
to the benefit of both human and animal populations. As a part
of this mission, we have developed a comprehensive aquaculture
research program looking at the feasibility of not only
restoring depleted marine stocks, but also developing a broader
sustainable seafood production capability.
Our Nation leads the world in the production of farm
products except for seafood. Presently, the United States is a
minor player in aquaculture production, but the second largest
consumer of seafood. The resulting dependence on importing
farmed seafood from other countries could be reversed by the
United States using its existing regulations to demonstrate
best management practices for seafood in the open ocean. The
lack of a Federal management framework to grow fish in the
Exclusive Economic Zone is a significant barrier to reaching
this goal and presents an almost insurmountable barrier to
investors that would rather invest in farms in other countries
and import the product into our Nation.
Our Nation has invested heavily in marine aquaculture
research, resolving issues like fishmeal replacement, disease
prevention and management, open ocean equipment engineering,
and domesticating regionally appropriate species for culture,
and our Institute and its collaborators have contributed
significantly to setting the stage for offshore farming.
The research we have conducted over the decades has not
gone unnoticed. To demonstrate the potential for open ocean
farming, the Institute has provided juvenile fish reared in our
hatchery to farms off the coast of Baja California, Mexico,
farms funded and operated by Americans. These farms have
expanded well beyond the demonstration scale and are now
selling the majority of their product to U.S. markets.
For more than a decade, we have been working without
success to permit a farm off the coast of Southern California.
This one farm, while using less than a square kilometer of open
ocean space, would produce five times more seafood than all the
commercially harvested seafood in San Diego County while
supporting 70 farm jobs as well as an additional 200 or more
indirect jobs. The problem is not a lack of regulatory process,
but, rather, the lack of Federal research--excuse me--the
Federal leadership in managing that process.
Agencies like the Army Corps of Engineers and the
Environmental Protection Agency know what permits are needed
and understand their authorities. The limiting factor has been
a lack of defined leadership for the required environmental
review. As both the Corps and the EPA were disinclined to
accept that responsibility, in 2014, we submitted permit
applications to these agencies, but it took 7 months before the
EPA finally agreed to lead a single consolidated NEPA review
process in collaboration with the Corps and NOAA fisheries
under the auspices of a multiagency MOU.
After both the EPA and Army Corps had published their
individual notices of intent in the Federal Register and had
each received comments following the extended public review
periods, the wheels came off the wagon. Eleven months after
agreeing to take the lead, the then EPA Regional Director
recanted the agreement, forcing two disconnected and
independent reviews, and cost us more than a year of lost
effort.
A year later, NOAA fisheries offered to undertake the lead
even though their agency did not need to issue a permit for the
project. Hopefully, we are now moving forward and are trying to
assure our understandably nervous investors that we have a
viable permitting process to guide us.
The need for expanding domestic aquaculture and recognizing
its net positive environmental impact has become more prevalent
over the past decade. Numerous studies point to marine farming
as the most sustainable way to grow animal protein for human
consumption. Marine conservation groups as diverse as the
Coastal Conservation Association, the Nature Conservancy, and
World Wildlife Fund are interested in improved technologies and
best practices, enhancing a positive role of aquaculture in the
U.S., reducing the Nation's reliance on imported farmed seafood
and commercially caught wild finfish, that are far more
difficult to manage and far more subject to fluctuations in the
ocean environment.
Last week, the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental
Studies published an article stating ``if you look at best
management practices in aquaculture, there's nothing comparable
in terms of land-based meat production that has such a low
level of environmental impacts.''
The limited scope of the U.S. marine aquaculture industry
will not expand without access to the offshore Federal waters.
Urgency needed is clear authority for U.S. aquaculture
entrepreneurs to operate in the EEZ while complying with
existing regulations and doing so and creating a viable,
competitive business model.
Marine aquaculture in the EEZ promotes public health, food
security, and American economic interests, but only if
government provides clear and timely legal authority for our
private sector's mission and removes unwarranted regulatory
obstacles. We need a consistent, predictable, efficient
permitting process to incentivize American investors, keeping
their capital here, thereby creating a new paradigm for
domestic seafood production toward higher food security, lower
transport costs, more American jobs, and a larger tax base, and
rebirth of our working waterfronts.
Thank you very much for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kent follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donald B. Kent, President and CEO,
Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute
My name is Donald Kent and I am the President and CEO of the Hubbs-
SeaWorld Research Institute. I want to thank Chairman Thune, Ranking
Member Nelson, and the other Members of the Committee for this chance
to discuss opportunities and concerns arising from the development of
marine farming in our Nation's waters. I have been involved in
aquaculture research for over 40 years and have worked on research
involving the culture of a wide range of species including plants,
shellfish and finfish. In addition to these brief remarks, I will
append an annotated list of references for the Committee's
consideration.
Our Institute is a non-profit, scientific research organization
dedicated to advancing a healthy ocean environment to the benefit of
both human and animal populations. As a part of this mission, we have
developed a comprehensive aquaculture research program looking at the
feasibility of not only restoring depleted marine fish stocks, but also
developing a broader sustainable seafood production capability.
Our nation leads the world in the production of farmed products
except for seafood. Presently, the United States is a minor player in
aquaculture production but the second largest consumer of seafood. The
resulting dependence on importing farmed seafood from other countries
could be reversed by the United States using its existing regulations
to demonstrate best practices for farming seafood in the open ocean.
The lack of a Federal management framework to grow fish in the
Exclusive Economic Zone is a significant barrier to reaching this goal,
and presents an almost insurmountable barrier to investors that would
rather invest in farms in other countries and import the product into
our markets.
Our nation has invested heavily in marine aquaculture research
resolving issues like fish meal replacement, disease prevention and
management, open ocean equipment engineering and domesticating
regionally appropriate species for culture, and our Institute and its
collaborators have contributed significantly to setting the stage for
offshore farming. The research we have conducted over the decades has
not gone un-noticed. To demonstrate the potential for open ocean
farming, we have provided juvenile fish reared in our hatchery to farms
off the coast of Baja California, Mexico; farms funded and operated by
Americans. These farms have expanded well beyond the demonstration
scale and are now selling the majority of their product to U.S.
markets.
For more than a decade we have been working, without success, to
permit a farm off the coast of southern California. This one farm,
while using less than a square kilometer of open ocean surface area,
would produce 5 times more seafood than all the commercially harvested
seafood in San Diego County while supporting 70 direct farm jobs as
well as additional 200 or more indirect jobs. The problem is not a lack
of regulatory process, but rather the lack of Federal leadership to
manage that process.
Federal agencies, including the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have relevant permitting
authorities and understand those authorities. The limiting factor has
been a lack of defined leadership for the required environmental
review, as neither the Corps nor the EPA has been willing to accept
that responsibility. In 2014 we submitted permit applications to these
agencies, but it took seven months before the EPA finally agreed to
lead a single, consolidated NEPA review process in collaboration with
the Corps and NOAA Fisheries under the auspices of a multi-agency
Memorandum of Understanding. After both the EPA and Corps had published
their individual Notices of Intent in the Federal Register and had each
received public and various agency comments following extended public
review periods, the wheels came off the wagon. In March 2016, 11 months
after the EPA agreed to lead the joint NEPA review, the Regional
Director of the EPA recanted the agreement thereby bifurcating the
conjoined environmental reviews into two, disconnected and independent
reviews.
A year later in the spring of 2017, NOAA Fisheries, based on their
unique aquaculture and marine resources expertise, offered to undertake
the lead agency role for the requisite NEPA review even though their
agency does not have permitting authority for aquaculture at this time.
(NOAA Fisheries is consulted by EPA and the Corps via their respective
consultation processes.) We are hopeful that we now have a process to
move the environmental review process forward with NOAA Fisheries
leading NEPA review, and the EPA and the Corps as cooperating or
participating agencies and are trying to assure our understandably
nervous investors that this time there will be no recanting of the
process.
As the recognition over the past decade of the need for expanding
domestic aquaculture has become more prevalent, far more attention is
being paid to the potential for a net benefit to the environment that
would result from farming more seafood. Numerous studies now point to
marine farming as the most sustainable way to grow animal protein for
human consumption. Marine conservation groups as diverse as the Coastal
Conservation Association, The Nature Conservancy and the World Wildlife
Fund are exploring how improved technology and best practices can
enhance the potential positive role aquaculture could play in reducing
the U.S. seafood market's sole reliance on commercially caught wild
finfish and imported farmed seafood products. Many studies now point to
the need to turn to aquaculture to meet the growing demand for protein
since terrestrial based animal production puts far more pressure on
limited natural resources. Last week the Yale School of Forestry and
Environmental Studies published an article in which Dr. Steve Gaines,
the Dean of the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management at UC
Santa Barbara, stated: ``If you look at best management practices in
aquaculture, there's nothing comparable in terms of land-based meat
production that has such a low level of environmental impacts.''
The limited scope and size of today's U.S. marine aquaculture
industry simply cannot substantially expand without access to the
offshore waters controlled by the Federal Government, the Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ). However, access alone is not sufficient, and will
not create the fertile environment for private investment in U.S.
marine aquaculture. What is urgently needed is clear legal authority
for U.S. aquaculture entrepreneurs to operate in the EEZ in compliance
with existing regulatory programs toward implementation of viable
business models that will prosper in the highly competitive global
seafood marketplace.
Offshore marine aquaculture in the EEZ holds tremendous potential
for advancing the public health, food security and economic interests
of Americans, but those interests can only be served if government
provides the legal authority for the private sector to fulfill that
mission without unwarranted regulatory obstacles. We need to establish
a consistent, predictable and efficient permitting process that will
incentivize American investors into keeping their investment capital in
this country to create a new paradigm for domestic seafood production
thereby leading to higher food security, lower transportation costs to
our seafood supply chain, more American jobs, a larger tax base and
greater utilization of our working waterfronts.
Additional Comments and References\1\ to Augment the Testimony
Presented by Donald Kent to the Commerce, Science and Transportation
Committee of the United States Senate's hearing on Growing the Future:
Opportunities to Support Domestic Seafood through Aquaculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Content compiled by Paul W. Zajicek, Executive Director of the
National Aquaculture Association for its Marine Aquaculture Committee
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the last 20 years, responsible environmental stewardship has
become the proven business model in the states or territorial waters of
Maine, Washington, Hawaii and Puerto Rico where commercial scale net
pens have been operated to farm Atlantic salmon, Almaco jack or cobia.
Additionally, shellfish farming is expanding in Alabama, Alaska,
California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, North
Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, South Carolina and
Washington, growing abalone, clams, oysters, geoduck, mussels or
scallops. These farms have been managed in compliance with state and
Federal regulations with Best Management Practices, along with the
provisions of long-term lease agreements with the states or territory.
All such operations are conducted with regulatory transparency
supported by environmental monitoring data and periodic reporting for
these operations in publicly available documentation required by state
and Federal agencies.
It is abundantly clear: the limited scope and size of today's U.S.
marine aquaculture industry simply will not substantially expand
without access to the majority of offshore waters that are controlled
by the Federal Government. Large-scale marine aquaculture production in
the United States would create the ability to:
Close a significant gap in U.S. food security (availability)
through the farming of seafood products in U.S. waters rather
than relying as the United States currently does on foreign
seafood sources for 90 percent of the seafood consumed by our
citizens.
Create ancillary equipment and service businesses and new
jobs within coastal and inland communities.
Accelerate technological development to reduce production
costs and minimize adverse environmental effects.
Maintain working waterfronts and build upon the existing and
unique knowledge, skills and abilities possessed by commercial
fishers.
Preserve rural and coastal communities by providing economic
development and diversification opportunities and jobs
consistent with community desires for a sustainable future.
While these potential outcomes are well-documented,\2\ we have yet
to make any significant advances in U.S. marine aquaculture production
in the 37 years since passage of the National Aquaculture Act of 1980.
Currently marine farming production is approximately 45,500 tons valued
at $327 million and supplies about 3 percent of U.S. seafood
consumption. Federally managed waters beyond coastal state boundaries,
termed the Exclusive Economic Zone, encompass 4.4 million square miles
(11.3 million square kilometers). A U.S. study estimated that 195
square miles (500 sq. km) of ocean, managed under existing regulations,
could produce 1.3 billion pounds (600,000 metric tons) or more of high
quality seafood.\3\ Theoretically, the farming of 970 sq. miles (2,500
sq. km), an area representing .0002 percent of the Exclusive Economic
Zone, less than half the size of Delaware, would double U.S. edible
seafood production or an area the size of the Pentagon could produce
220 million pounds (100,000 MT). A doubling of U.S. aquaculture
production to about 1 million tons could create an estimated additional
50,000 farm and non-farm jobs.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Rubino, Michael (ed). 2008. Offshore Aquaculture in the United
States: Economic Considerations, Implications & Opportunities. U.S.
Department of Commerce; Silver Spring, MD; USA. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS F/SPO-103
\3\ Nash, C.E. 2004. Achieving Policy Objectives to Increase the
Value of the Seafood Industry in the United States: The Technical
Feasibility and Associated Constraints. Food Policy 29:621-641.
\4\ Knapp, G. and M.C. Rubino. 2016. The political economics of
marine aquaculture in the United States. Reviews in Fisheries Science
and Aquaculture 24(3): 213-229.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the last 20 years, rather than acknowledging the many advances
in marine aquaculture production practices and successful management
strategies for adverse environmental impacts, the environmental
community continues to restate a variety of potential adverse
environmental effects of aquaculture based on outdated production
methods and standards.\5\ We note the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency has held authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate
discharges from fish farms for decades. During a four-year period,
2000-04, the agency completed a detailed technical review of its
standards and modern aquaculture methods, including those used for
marine aquaculture. The Clean Water Act regulations for aquaculture met
all standards of environmental protection mandated by Congress and
additional regulatory standards were found to be unwarranted. Current
regulatory authority exists to appropriately protect marine water
quality and benthic environmental systems, manage fish escapes, and
require responsible drug and chemical use. Basic and applied research
supported by governmental agencies and the private sector has led to
continuing improvements in reducing the use of essential fish meal and
fish oil components in pelleted aquaculture feeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Goldburg, R. and T. Triplett. 1997. Murky Waters: Environmental
Effects of Aquaculture in the United States. Environmental Defense
Fund, New York NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the last 20 years, responsible environmental stewardship has
become the proven business model in the states or territorial waters of
Maine, Washington, Hawaii and Puerto Rico where commercial scale net
pens have been operated to farm Atlantic salmon, Almaco jack or cobia.
Additionally, shellfish farming is expanding in Alabama, Alaska,
California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, North
Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, South Carolina and Washington
growing abalone, clams, oysters, geoduck, mussels or scallops. These
farms have been managed in compliance with state and Federal
regulations with Best Management Practices, along with the provisions
of long-term lease agreements with the states or territory. All such
operations are conducted with regulatory transparency supported by
environmental monitoring data and periodic reporting for these
operations in publicly available documentation required by state and
Federal agencies.
The inherent sustainability of aquaculture production as practiced
in the United States is recognized by marine education organizations,
academic institutions and national agricultural and aquaculture
organizations as vividly described in recent videos:
Aquarium of the Pacific, Perspectives on Marine Aquaculture
in California and the U.S.: https://vimeo.com/211721422 and
Marine Aquaculture: a tool for conservation: https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygoU5knT7ww.
University of Miami, The Business of Aquaculture: https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vduoM7hYKA.
University of Maine, Farming the Sea: https://
science360.gov/obj/video/ae3d54f0-eb7e-4b0d-9db8-379be48f7b04/
farming-sea
Soy Aquaculture Alliance, The Working Waterfront--American
Aquaculture in the 21st Century: https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=aGgtS4v9WBM.
Senator Nelson. May I just ask, Mr. Kent, are you
headquartered at Melbourne Beach?
Mr. Kent. Our--we have our laboratory--one of our
laboratories at Melbourne Beach and another laboratory in San
Diego. So we operate on both coasts of the United States.
Senator Blunt [presiding]. I thank all of you for your
testimony. We will start our 5-minute round of questions.
And, Senator Klobuchar, if you want to start that, that
will be great.
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you, Senator Blunt, you and the
Chairman, and Senator Nelson.
Minnesota is into fishing, as you probably know. We're the
land of 10,000 lakes. One of our TV stations for the Super Bowl
that's going to come to Minnesota has actually installed an ice
fishing hole on the roof, and people are going up there and ice
fishing in 5 degree weather.
So my question is about aquaculture, though, because we
also have some exciting developments there. Cargill Aqua
Nutrition is a leader in supplying sustainable nutrition
solutions for aquaculture farmers. But we also have a company
called Tru Shrimp that is currently developing some jobs in
southwestern Minnesota. I actually just visited them this past
summer, and they're going to break ground on a $50 million
facility that will produce 9 million pounds of shrimp annually
right near the South Dakota border actually, and this is in
Luverne, Minnesota.
And, Mr. Lucas, can you talk about the role of a reliable
water source? Dr. Lucas, I'm sorry, could you please describe
that? Because one of the reasons they could locate down there
is we've got this Lewis and Clark water project going with the
Federal Government, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa.
Dr. Lucas. Yes, thank you. So our center also employs
recirculating aquaculture technology. And the great thing about
these land-based recirculating systems is they can locate
pretty much anywhere. And the use of the recirculating systems
to salt the water artificially, and you flow the water through
the systems. So you're able to mechanically filter and
biologically filter as well as sterilize the water so that you
can reuse it. So it makes the use of water very efficient. And
so they're able to produce. And so the great thing is you can
be really close to your market supply. And these facilities can
locate anywhere and be part of the chain and help provide
local, safe, sustainable seafood to their consumers.
Senator Klobuchar. Right, exactly. And do you see, Dr.
Lucas, maybe Mr. Kent, just what are some of the obstacles--
water is one of them--if you're in a location like our company
is, but we fixed that, other obstacles to going forward with
this?
Dr. Lucas. Yes, ma'am. I think, like I said, the ability to
be able to use the artificial seawater is great. I think the
other thing is consumer education, making sure people know that
there is a domestically produced seafood product, that it's
local, that it came from their environment, that it helped
create jobs in their environment. So I think education is also
critical to getting people to understand that this is helping
support their local working population as well as provide them
with some sustainable seafood product that is very healthy.
So in terms of land use, being able to do something
similar, which is on a recirculating basis, or using the same
water and using it, you know, even if you discharge water to
grow plants or something like that, is very beneficial.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
Do you want to add anything, Mr. Kent?
Mr. Kent. Well, certainly. I think there's a wide range of
technologies that can be brought to bear in developing
aquaculture. We use recirculation in our hatchery operations.
And, as Dr. Lucas suggested, being close to market is critical
in producing the product right now. Importing so much of our
seafood means that there's a huge cost in bringing that product
in.
Senator Klobuchar. Exactly.
Mr. Kent. At the same time, if we have recirculation going
on in some areas, we can also have open ocean farming going. We
have 37 million people in California, quite a few people in
Florida. In fact, 70 percent of the world's population lives
within the coastal zone around the world. So being able to
utilize the ocean in combination recirculating technology means
that we can get product closer to market, cutting the cost of
producing that as well as reducing the energy requirements in
transporting that product around the world.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. I mentioned Cargill Aqua
Nutrition with aqua feed, but, Mr. Luecke, we also will see
some big benefit for grain farmers. What types of benefits
would they potentially see from further development of the
inland aquaculture? I keep emphasizing ``inland,'' because of
where my state is, like Missouri. Yes.
Mr. Luecke. Yes, no, thank you, Senator Klobuchar. And
consistent with what Dr. Lucas and Mr. Kent were saying, I
think transportation is an important topic, and we're excited
to be about 60 miles to the west of Tru Shrimp in Minnesota, so
we're very excited about the project that they have. We hope to
be providing feed to them at some point.
And so regarding transportation, being able--in Minnesota,
the State of Minnesota produces a lot of soybeans as well. So
being able to take soybeans out of our farmers' fields, process
them locally, and then quickly move them into a value-added
product like a fish or a shrimp is absolutely critical because
we're reducing transportation costs all the way through the
value chain.
Senator Klobuchar. Exactly. And is soybeans something like
45 percent of shrimps' diet, is that right?
Mr. Kent. It's close to 45 percent.
Senator Klobuchar. Yes.
Mr. Kent. And, you know, interestingly, what the other
panelists have talked about is the use of forage fish or
fishmeal as the primary protein source. And what our process
has done is we've taken soybean meal and taken the allergenic
proteins and the allergenic sugars out of soybean meal,
increased the protein level to 70 percent, which is what shrimp
and fish want nutritionally. So having a technology that comes
out of a land-grant university being commercialized, scaled up,
and then being applied to companies like Tru Shrimp is a great
opportunity for agriculture and for aquaculture.
Senator Klobuchar. Mm-hmm. And with the low commodity
prices right now, I think it would just be really helpful for
soybeans and really all grains if this could move forward.
Mr. Kent. It's adding value to the crops coming out of the
farmer's field.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. Well, thank you. Well, maybe I'll
see you there next time I visit.
Mr. Kent. I look forward to it.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROY BLUNT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. I was
wondering how long it would take Senator Klobuchar to mention
the Super Bowl.
[Laughter.]
Senator Klobuchar. Ah, well, we keep mentioning that even
though the Vikings aren't in it, and we are now going to be
hosts to the Philadelphia fans. Not too easy for us after that
game.
Senator Blunt. There you go. It took 11 seconds, by the
way.
[Laughter.]
Senator Blunt. And not bad time on task, 11 seconds to get
there.
On this topic, with what's going to happen with world food
demand, the incredible change in what it's going to take to
feed people over the next 25 or 30 years, I think the generally
accepted estimate is that world food demand doubles between now
and 2050, on the topic of just hatching to table, I think
aquaculture either recirculating or on the coast, is about as
quick as anything, but a little more information on that would
be helpful. How quick does this process move along with the
kind of product that Mr. Seaver and others who are preparing
that product would want to have, that families would want to
have? This is a pretty efficient process, I think.
Mr. Kent, do you want to start talking about that a little
bit?
Mr. Kent. Certainly. The estimate is something like 400 to
500 million metric tons of protein more required than what we
have now.
Senator Blunt. Mm-hmm. And this is 33 years from now.
Mr. Kent. Yes.
Senator Blunt. Growing every year between now and then.
Mr. Kent. What's been interesting is back in the eighties,
about a third of our protein was coming from the ocean
globally, but only a small percentage of that was aquaculture.
Now it's still about 30 percent, but it's half and half. And if
we try to get the makeup of the protein, that difference, that,
say, 300 more million metric tons, the effect on the
terrestrial side of things is going to be dramatic.
Beef, cattle, chicken: I mean, these are all important
protein sources, but they're far more requiring of resources to
grow, water. I live in the largest agricultural state in the
Nation, we do $45 billion a year, and 80 percent of our water
goes to food production. And when we have a drought like we had
over the last few years, we lose 10 percent of our
productivity. So having the ocean available, or recirculation,
means that we become independent of what's going on in the
terrestrial environment.
Also, these animals are inherently more efficient. The food
conversion efficiency for a white sea bass or a yellowtail,
some of the species we work with, is about 1.5:1. The protein
gets converted much more efficiently from the food source into
making protein. The primary reason for that is these animals
aren't fighting gravity, they are floating in the environment,
they are cold-blooded, so they're not maintaining body
temperature. And also, as far as space goes, you can stack them
in a cage the way you can't stack cows. So it is a much more
efficient process. And utilizing the ocean means that we're
not--we don't have to have the land or the fresh water to grow
some of these species.
Senator Blunt. And I don't think I have an answer. Give me
an example of one or more of the species you like to work with.
Mr. Kent. Key species we like to work with is California
yellowtail. It's imported for the sushi trade, for hamachi. All
the hamachi in the U.S. is farmed in Japan.
Senator Blunt. And you start with a hatchling?
Mr. Kent. We start with adult fish weighing 30, 40 pounds.
We get eggs that are about a tenth of a millimeter--or, excuse
me, a tenth of an inch in diameter. We will harvest about
120,000 1-gram fish out of an 8-foot pool after 60 days. Those
fish will weigh 30 grams in another 30 days, and they'll grow
to a marketable size of 4 to 5 kilos in 18 to 20 months,
depending on ocean temperature. So that may not compare to how
fast you can grow a cow, but it required a lot less food to get
you there.
Senator Blunt. Mm-hmm. And on the non-saltwater species,
the catfish, the tilapia, how do those numbers compare, Dr.
Lucas?
Dr. Lucas. I am marine species by trade, so I can't really
speak to the freshwater species and information.
Senator Blunt. Mm-hmm. Can you, Mr. Luecke?
Mr. Luecke. Yes, Senator Blunt. They're faster than marine
species. They grow to a smaller size, you know, so 4 to 5
pounds, typically 6, 8 months, you know, for a medium-size
trout or slightly faster for tilapia.
Senator Blunt. Six to 8 months?
Mr. Luecke. Mm-hmm.
Senator Blunt. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Luecke. And I think, you know, one of the important
things to think about when you think about both the water
supply and the sustainability of, you know, the nutritional
process, we're looking at, as Mr. Kent mentioned, the entire
nutritional value chain. So how efficient are we converting one
protein to another?
So we look at the digestibility of the ingredients. So we
want to make sure that the ingredients that we're feeding to
any type of fish, whether it's freshwater or marine species,
are very digestible. So we look at how digestible the protein
that we're feeding them is. For example, fishmeal, which is a
less sustainable ingredient, is about 85 to 90 percent
digestible. Our soy product is 100 percent digestible. And what
that means is that the animal is using that ingredient much
more efficiently.
And then back to Mr. Kent's comments, that animal, the
fish, can actually convert that into a fish filet on a 1:1 for
1.5:1 basis. So it's a very efficient process when you look at
the digestibility of the ingredient.
Now, one other factor with the digestibility of ingredients
is that you get a much cleaner water if the ingredient is
digested. For example, the phosphorus in soybean meal or in
fishmeal is--without other processing, is not fully digested by
the animal. So when you're feeding fishmeal, about 50 percent
of the phosphorus goes into the surrounding environment. When
you feed an advanced soy protein, 100 percent of the phosphorus
is being digested, so you're not discharging that into the
environment. So the digestibility of nutrients is absolutely
critical to the growth of the fish.
Senator Blunt. And, Mr. Seaver, how about just generally
the digestibility of the fish? I mean, how would fish, as we're
thinking about this, as a protein source both mix in with the
other protein sources available to you, as an entrepreneur and
to people who are consuming, and what advantage do you get when
that fish is close rather than further away?
Mr. Seaver. Well, there are a number--thank you for the
question. There are a number of benefits, physically speaking,
from the public health side. Diversity in our diet is not what
it should be in terms of our protein consumption, and beginning
to not necessarily reduce--well, there's an opportunity really
to radically increase the amount of seafood that we consume,
and I think that especially when it comes to the local
opportunities, as Senator Klobuchar was speaking to, there is
really a lot of opportunity to create a narrative around
seafood, that this is produced locally, this is shrimp from
Minnesota, gets attention on a menu, it gets that menu item to
sing, it gets it onto the table. And so there are the
efficiencies there that Mr. Kent spoke to about in terms of the
energy efficiencies.
But then also we've been speaking largely around finfish,
but there is also the opportunity to look at marine shellfish
production, and especially when we speak to oysters, clams,
mussels, scallops--no offense to the soybean farmers of
America--but those things feed themselves completely, and while
I very much support all these efforts as well, I think we need
to be looking at the farming of shellfish varieties as truly
just a magnificent opportunity as they, in fact, improve the
quality of water in which they are grown.
And they also are--while we are speaking here about large-
scale opportunities and large-scale investment that's needed to
go offshore, when you're speaking about nearshore and inshore
aquaculture, we're also sort of inherently speaking about the
primacy of the small farmer owner/operator and the great
narrative that is there, the job creation that is there. And so
when we talk about a mussel that can be seeded, attached to a
rope, put out into the environment, it feeds itself, and in 12
to 18 months be ready for the table, this is a commendable
opportunity and something I think that we should be really
supporting full-fledged.
Senator Blunt. And I think there is some concern. I don't
know who on the panel might be in a position to talk about
this, but some concern about seafood that is farmed rather than
wild caught and where it was and how it was grown. And I think
there would be reasons that Americans would like to think that
that seafood had come from a place, or fish of any kind, come
from a place that they had a greater sense of supervision and
regulation. We occasionally hear on fish issues that, well, a
lot of people got a product that didn't turn out to be a very
good product. What would be the benefits of more U.S.-grown
seafood?
Mr. Kent?
Mr. Kent. Well, living within the regulatory framework for
how all of our food is produced, meets a very high standard.
When you're importing so much of your seafood from somewhere
else, how do you know how it was grown? I'm not suggesting that
it wasn't grown properly, I'm just saying it's very hard to
know whether it has been or not. And even sometimes the origin
gets confused. Even the species of what you're consuming can be
confused. But if it's coming from a farm in your backyard
through recirculation, or out in the ocean and coming back into
the dock, and you're permitted to grow a given species in a
certain way following USDA and FDA standards, then you have a
lot more reliability on the idea that, well, that fish was
grown according to the way we want it grown. And there are even
ways to put traceability into it, where you can actually go
into the market and put a little code that's called the Q----
Mr. Seaver. QR codes.
Mr. Kent.--QR code and flash and know when that fish was
spawned or when the hatch occurred and when it was harvested
and when it went on ice and when it went into the store. That
can all be done by the consumer now, which is very difficult to
do if you're unloading a freighter full of frozen fish coming
from Taiwan, but it's something we can do very readily in our
own farming capabilities here in this country.
Senator Blunt. And one last question from me for I think
Dr. Lucas and Mr. Kent. What could the Congress do to help
create the kind of access that you need to the coast or
anything we can do to eliminate obstacles you're finding in
aquaculture generally? But I think particularly the Federal
issue here may be a coastal issue.
And, Dr. Lucas, why don't you start, and then Mr. Kent, and
then we'll go to Senator Fischer.
Dr. Lucas. We have to look at ways to reduce the barriers
to entry. Businesses need certainty. The permitting is going to
be key. They need a defined permitting process. They need to
know the backbone or structure of the permitting that can
occur, and that can be regionalized in some aspects, but they
need to know that one agency is in charge. They don't need to
run around to five different agencies who nobody takes
ownership. They need somebody to have ownership, and they need
to get that through designating an agency.
They need to also know that their lease or that their
permit is going to be of a long enough duration that they can
not only capitalize those expenses that went into getting the
operation up and running, but that they can also see a return
on investment and a profit. And if they're good actors, and
trust me, they want to be good actors. They want to follow all
the rules and all the regulations, and they want others that
are in the industry to follow those regulations, so they're
looking for that level of enforcement. But, they want to know
if they follow those rules and those regulations, that they are
going to be able to get a renewed permit, that it's almost
pretty much certain. They want those level of certainties to
help reduce the risk.
In addition to that, we need to continue to work with
academics and governments to decrease some of the things that
are barriers in terms of production. Businesses often come to
us in regards to larval culture or hatchery techniques, helping
to reduce some of the uncertainty there and reduce the
bottlenecks that occur in the hatchery. They need a safe,
disease-free larval fish. Some companies will put that into
their vertical integration, they may put the hatchery as part
of their plan. Others may just purchase from a hatchery.
The other things they come to us about is in regard to
selective breeding. Universities tend to have access to a lot
of equipment in terms of being able to look at the genes of
fish and help determine which fish are going to be more
successful in aquaculture. And so using those tools as well as
disease management, those are things that industry often comes
to a university to help them with and to overcome those
barriers as well as continuing to expand the nutrition and look
at reducing our reliance on the reduction fishery for products.
And, of course, advanced technology, which I think will
continue, continue to grow.
Senator Blunt. OK. Mr. Kent, Federal obstacles that we can
do something about.
Mr. Kent. Well, wearing my--I'm trying to get a permit hat
right now, I'd say that the biggest thing that we need is a
process that's defined. And as I mentioned, I don't think it's
really the legal permits that are required, the Section 10 or
the NPDS permit that are a limitation, because the agencies in
charge of those understand what their authorities are.
It's really the NEPA, the National Environmental Protection
Act, certification that needs to be done. That needs to be led
by an organization, a Federal agency, that has the broad scope
of understanding of environmental concerns that people have and
how to mitigate or eliminate those. And in my mind, that has to
be the NOAA fisheries.
NOAA has the--when you talk about habitat, interference
with other fishing operations, endangered species, these are
all consultations that have to be performed with NOAA anyway,
so why not put them in the authority? They have not only the
research, but the regulatory experience, to deal with these
issues. And if there is something that the legislature could
do, it might be to mandate that through legislation to bring
forward a law that said NOAA is the lead agency.
From putting on my researcher hat, the first thing we need
is an industry. Dr. Lucas' team, our team, we're ready to solve
problems, but we need an industry that needs these problems
solved, and until we have more aquaculture, we can be working
on new diets, we can work on species that need to be
domesticated, and we can work on disease treatments, but until
we're actually going to have an industry that uses it, we're
kind of just spending your money and not really getting us any
return on the investment. So we need to start an industry that
then the scientific community can rally behind and help support
in cooperation with the agencies, the USDA, NOAA, all the
different organizations that recognize needs, and science can
come and help solve the problems.
Senator Blunt. Well, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Thune, and
I are pretty interested in that industry being also inland and
close to those consumers, but I think this is an important part
of the solution we need for the opportunity and the challenge
we're about to face. And I want to thank you for your time
today.
Senator Thune.
The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you. Thank you, Senator
Blunt. And again thanks to our panel, and I appreciate very
much you being here and sharing your thoughts about what we can
do to do a better job of growing this economy, growing this
business, in our country.
And thank you, Senator Klobuchar, having worked to
authorize the Lewis and Clark Rural Water Program during my
time in the House of Representatives, a long history of
supporting this important project. And Tru Shrimp's story shows
what's possible when this country has a solid infrastructure
backbone. So it's quite a testament to American hard work and
ingenuity, when ``Minnesota-grown'' includes shrimp, right?
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Well, we've got the Vikings, we've got to
have shrimp, so . . .
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Sorry. I know, I brought it up. That's----
Senator Klobuchar. We already talked about it.
The Chairman. Yes.
[Laughter.]
Senator Blunt. It took Senator Klobuchar 11 seconds to
mention the Super Bowl. It took you 23 seconds.
The Chairman. Oh, did she really get into it?
[Laughter.]
Senator Klobuchar. Yes, but Senator Thune does have the
Corn Palace.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Ooh, careful, easy.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. It's our pride and joy.
So, Mr. Luecke, as you well know, and I know you talked
about this, South Dakota soy is some of the best in the world,
and it's used in many products. Some may be surprised to hear
that the so-called square states, like ours, have an important
role to play in fish farming. So could you kind of just tell us
how your new commercial-scale facility impacts the local
economy in South Dakota?
Mr. Luecke. Absolutely. Thank you, Senator Thune. And the
square states do have an important role to play in aquaculture
because right now for aquaculture producers that are trying to
get started in the United States, the high-quality feed
ingredients that they depend on, they're coming from foreign
countries like Peru and Chili and even Southeast Asia. The
forage fish that we've talked about are what is used in the
diets of aquaculture species, and that transportation cost to
get the high-quality feed ingredients into the United States
for aquaculture production is cost prohibitive. And so
producers are losing a significant amount of money to their
bottom line.
And so what we're doing with our process and, again, our
process is taking soybean meal, which is a co-product of soy
processing, we get soy oil and we get soybean meal, and we're
taking some of the things that fish don't like to eat--the
allergenic proteins, the allergenic sugars--we're taking that
out of the soybean meal and really making it look like, from a
protein ingredient standpoint, the very feed ingredient that
aquaculture producers are accustomed to feeding the forage
fish. It's a 70 percent protein, very highly digestible.
So once we can bring that high-quality feed ingredient
domestically, we can provide that from the heartland, then we
should be able to grow more aquaculture facilities because
we're not depending on importing the very feed ingredients that
we're dependent on to start this industry.
So we feel like we've got an important role to play. We
feel like soy has a very important role to play. It's a
sustainable product. It has a high amino acid digestibility.
And it's good for the environment, it's not discharging
phosphorus into, whether it's a recirculating system or a
marine environment. So we do, we feel like we've got a very
important role to play.
The Chairman. So what would be the economic impact on soy-
growing states if the United States were to embrace domestic
aquaculture?
Mr. Kent. Well, it's significant, Senator Thune, because
the--right now, you know, we're feeding a lot of soybean meal
to livestock, and as we've talked about on the panel, the feed
conversion ratio of that is--it's not as efficient as
aquaculture. So for a soybean farmer that's looking for higher
value uses of its soybean meal, aquaculture is a perfect
example. Today, soybean meal trades for about $300 a ton
whereas fishmeal trades for between $1,500 and $1,600 per ton.
So there's a significant spread between those two high-quality
ingredients, and it's something that our soybean farmers can
actually take advantage of the marketplace.
Now, you know as well as I do, when the farmers do well in
the fields, they're spending that money locally, and so not
only do family farm incomes increase because we found higher
value uses of a commodity, but the rural communities around
them, just like the coastal communities, when aquaculture
thrives in a marine environment, those rural communities thrive
because the farmers are buying new pickup trucks, they're
spending money at their local grocers, and that money gets
recirculated in rural economies.
And so, again, it's a very high impact, and it's not just
the farmer that's seeing the impact, it's really the rural
communities around them.
The Chairman. The critics of aquaculture point to the use
of fishmeal as feed to suggest that aquaculture is a zero-sum
game. In other words, by increasing aquaculture, you're
decreasing the amount of wild-caught fish available. How does
using soy-based feed change the impact of aquaculture on our
wild-caught fisheries?
Mr. Luecke. And that's one of the biggest problems that
we're trying to solve, Senator Thune. And, again, I think
everybody on the panel can agree that nutrition is a key
element. And so you want to make sure that you have high-
quality ingredients that are going into aquaculture production
and you have a very efficient process. We've shown that we can
use soy to replace or extend the use of fishmeal in diets up to
100 percent. So, again, not only are you not in that zero-sum
game of fish in and fish out, which is what the industry uses,
but the retail channel is also looking very closely about the
traceability of the ingredients that are going into fish
production.
So, for example, the retail channel wants to know that
because a fish is almost a 1:1 basis for what it's eating to
what is being produced on the shelf, they want to know where
the ingredients came from, and when you can trace that back to
the farm, which we can do, they get much more comfortable in
the product that they're putting out onto the shelf.
And the other thing that we mentioned previously on the
panel is the fact that when you're feeding forage fish, not
only is it a zero-sum game, but there are also a lot of things
in forage fish, like phosphorus, that's not being completely
digested by the animal. So one of the things that we have to be
very careful of, as stewards of our environment, we have to be
very careful about the nutrients that are fed and not digested.
And so with forage fish, 50 percent of the phosphorus is not
being used by the animal, it's being discharged into the
environment, and that's harmful. So soy helps all of those
things and really gives us a step up. It creates a much, much
cleaner image for aquaculture.
The Chairman. Dr. Lucas, the regulatory barriers to
offshore aquaculture in the United States seem to be a textbook
example of how regulatory burdens can stifle economic
innovation. Could you talk a little bit more about the barriers
to a healthy aquaculture industry in the United States and any
suggestions that you might have to alleviate those?
Dr. Lucas. Yes. So we discussed a little bit earlier about
trying to make sure we have regulatory certainty, that somebody
takes ownership of kind of the permit process. I think that's
something that this--that Congress could do through
legislation, designating that person who is going to take
ownership of it, work through the NEPA process, work through
the environmental process. I think that's going to be critical
to helping industry move forward. They want some certainty that
at the end of all the money and all the hard work that they put
into finding a site, that they are going to be able to get a
permit and that the permit and the lease duration is going to
be long enough to not only see a return on their investment,
but to also see them be able to profit from their investment.
They also want to be good actors and want to have the
enforcement element piece. They want to know that if they
follow all the rules and regulations and the monitoring
requirements, that they will have reasonable certainty that
they can renew that permit that they've been working on. And I
think those will be critical moving forward for industry. In
addition, working with industry and developing industry, we are
developing an industry, and what it looks like on day one will
be a lot different than what it looks like at year 10 or year
20 and the advancements that we make. And some of those things
are through research.
I think Congress and legislation and appropriations that
are on the scale of what we did with the agricultural industry
is critical. We used the agricultural industry and we used
academia and Federal and State labs to do the research and then
do the extension, you know, across the Nation to help farmers
grow. I think the same thing can be done in aquaculture. You
can use the same kind of pattern of competitive-based research
and extension funding and those long-term fundings to actually
get that technology out to the industry and to work with
industry.
I think public-private partnerships will be critical to
helping the industry advance. And I think that funding along
those lines for things that are the barriers in terms of being
able to do marine species offshore will be critical to industry
developing.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Hassan.
STATEMENT OF HON. MAGGIE HASSAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Hassan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And good morning to the panel. Thank you all for being
here.
Aquaculture has brought my State of New Hampshire a new
support system to the local seafood industry. In New Hampshire,
our Sea Grant Program and the University of New Hampshire have
been working with the Portsmouth Commercial Fishermen's
Association to farm steelhead trout, mussels, and sugar kelp in
floating pens on the Piscataqua River, and it has been a
terrific partnership between the state's Sea Grant Program and
the university. It has allowed both teams of experts to help
train local fishermen in the basics of aquaculture, which
include feeding, maintenance, harvesting, and packaging the
products for sale.
So my question is to you, Mr. Kent. How else can
aquaculture be integrated with the existing harvesting and
processing sectors of the fishing industry? And do you believe
fishermen can transfer their existing skills to other sectors
in the aquaculture industry?
Mr. Kent. Certainly. I've been approached by commercial
fishermen that have--are third- and fourth-generation
fishermen, and they're going--like my dad fished, I fish, but
son is not going to be able to do this.
Senator Hassan. Right.
Mr. Kent. And they're looking at, as Mr. Seaver was talking
about earlier, this idea that we have a culture of being on the
sea and providing product and bringing it back to the dock. The
big difference is you're not going to go out and have to find
it, it's sitting right there, you know, at the farm----
Senator Hassan. Right.
Mr. Kent.--and you can harvest it on demand.
And the other important factor is the idea that for every
job in the fishing boat or on the farm, there are two, two and
one-half jobs downstream to keep that industry going: the
processing of the fish, the distribution, the maintenance of
the boats, the nets, and everything else. So it really
increases the profitability of the working waterfront. And, you
know, I'm from San Diego, we were the tuna capital of the
world, and now our waterfront is made up of Hyatt Regency
Hotels and maritime museums.
Senator Hassan. Right.
Mr. Kent. Our working waterfront has been reduced down to
very small areas that there's heavy competition for putting
luxury yachts in there instead of fishing boats.
Senator Hassan. Right.
Mr. Kent. So having product coming in means these ports
have the capacity to say, oh, this is an income stream now that
we need to maintain, and we need to have the infrastructure in
place.
Senator Hassan. That is very helpful and I think something
that the fishermen in my community--you know, New Hampshire's
coastline is relatively short, but it is very vibrant, and
we're trying to keep it that way.
Mr. Kent. Well, something to keep in mind is my guys sit at
microscopes.
Senator Hassan. Yes.
Mr. Kent. They're not going to go out pulling nets. We need
the skill set of guys that can work in a 10-, 12-foot sea,
bringing product in, and working, maneuvering boats out there
in the ocean. So that's really the people we're turning to, to
run these farms.
Senator Hassan. OK. That is very helpful. And I guess the
other question I have for you is around environmental quality.
How can we maintain environmental quality and strengthen it
while providing the industry with this kind of flexibility it
needs to develop in offshore areas?
Mr. Kent. I think it's really about the location.
Senator Hassan. Yes.
Mr. Kent. If you pick the right site where you're not
interfering with other operations and you have the right depth
and the right current flow, the presence of the farm is
undetectable.
Senator Hassan. Yes.
Mr. Kent. And that has been shown in lots of circumstances.
And that's a hard lesson that the salmon industry in Chili had
to learn, that a lot of other industries or a lot of other
aquaculture industries in other parts of the world have had to
learn, is that if you pollute the environment that you're
growing your fish in, you're causing yourself problems.
Senator Hassan. Right. Yes.
Mr. Kent. And so picking the site is critical. And so we've
been working with NOAA on doing that as well for our proposed
farm.
Senator Hassan. Well, thank you very much.
That's all the questions I had, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hassan.
Senator Klobuchar, anything else?
Senator Klobuchar. No. I'm all done. I really learned a
lot, and I'm excited about what you're doing. Thank you.
The Chairman. Let me ask a question, and anybody on the
panel can respond to it. But your testimonies highlight the
economic, environmental, global security and health benefits of
increasing domestic aquaculture. However, there is still a
perception that farm fish is somehow bad or less desirable than
other seafood. So what is your response to some of those
perceptions?
Dr. Kent, and then we'll just go across.
Mr. Kent. Well, the reality is half of the world's supply
is farm now, and so it's if you don't like the idea of farm
fish, then don't eat it, the next guy will. I mean, that's just
flat out the reality of it. In fact, what's so problematic with
that attitude is really if you grow fish correctly, if you grow
shellfish correctly, you have far more control over the
quality. You don't have to harvest it until Mr. Seaver wants
it. On Tuesday, he goes to put a ton of yellowtail on the dock;
Monday, he will go out to get it; Tuesday morning it will be on
the dock for him. It's not going to get any fresher than that.
And so control over the supply chain is critical in that.
Knowing how it's grown, as we were discussing earlier, is
critical in that.
And we've taken our fish and provided it to some of the
most discriminating chefs around, and they feel it's some of
the best product they've ever worked with. In fact, the head
chef for the Hyatt Regency said that fish that we provided him
was better than anything else he could buy in the market. He'd
like to make it a signature dish at all the Hyatt Regencies
around the world. So that speaks to the quality of how the fish
can be harvested and grown and provided to the consumer.
The Chairman. Thanks.
Mr. Seaver. Thank you for that question. Unfortunately, I
think seafood across the board suffers from the stigma of being
somehow a lesser protein. In fact, I believe that seafood is
the only protein that we eat that's considered guilty before
proven innocent, whether it be the quality of the
wholesomeness--I've never asked, ``Is that pork fresh?'' But I
hear that asked. You know, the quality of seafood is contended
from the minute we decide that we would like seafood if we are
going to enjoy it at all. And unfortunately, through
environmental conversation as well as through just cultural
conversation, farmed seafood and wild seafood have been put
into alternate categories, but really they are the same thing.
They are the source of the healthiest animal protein that we
can eat as people, and the source of the most sustainable
seafood and the most sustainable animal protein that we can
produce as a nation.
And so I think that there is a--unfortunately, an
illegitimate barrier to separating seafood from farmed seafood
from wild seafood that we need to address first and foremost.
And I think once that happens, once we begin to elevate seafood
categorically using whatever means we might have to do it,
whether it is the story of local shrimp in Minnesota at the
Super Bowl, whether it is soy and the opportunities that
creates, or whether it is just public health, I think using
those opportunities, those angles of leverage, to elevate
seafood as a aspirational protein in our nation is going to
be--is going to have a major effect on reducing that stigma and
beginning to allow opportunity for the industry that Mr. Kent
spoke so eloquently about, that Dr. Lucas has spoken so
eloquently about, allow for that industry to thrive and to
grow.
The Chairman. And how does the restaurant industry, how do
people like yourself, chefs, get the message out about the
health and qualitative advantages of seafood relative to other
forms of protein?
Mr. Seaver. Quite honestly, unfortunately, a lot of us
spend our time combating negative messaging, and there is so
much misperception and negative messaging around seafood, and
part of this is that there has not been a very concerted effort
to go pro-seafood information. It is a very fractured industry
unfortunately as we look at when we're talking about imports,
exports, the domestically produced, farmed, wild, even the
seafood industry internally doesn't necessarily always have a
positive narrative about itself. And so when we combat, when we
try and talk about seafood, unfortunately we're oftentimes
dismissing the negatives.
And having the opportunity, especially with colleges and
universities, which offer the opportunity to really engage, and
you were saying the state extension programs and using the
academia. Well, hey, let's use the whole campus of academia as
a methodology, as a means, to really increase the presence of
seafood in our dialogue, cultural dialogue. And these are also
state institutions that have massive purchasing power that
maybe likely won't be producing or using very high-end
products, but certainly can provide opportunity I think to
invest in and be sort of the building block contractors for the
seafood being produced. Thank you.
The Chairman. Great. All right.
Senator Blumenthal.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all for being here and for your excellent
testimony. Connecticut has a long and historic involvement in
shellfish and aquaculture and generally the commitment to the
environmental treasures that are reflected in this important
work. And so I would like to begin by asking you about the
potential dangers of offshore drilling to aquaculture and the
kinds of interests it represents. Are you concerned with
offshore drilling as a potential danger?
Mr. Kent. We actually have in Santa Barbara, California, we
have an offshore farm that's growing mussels, and Santa Barbara
is probably the center of our oil industry in California.
Certainly, a leak, a spill, or something would have a
devastating effect on a farm. At the same time, the increased
infrastructure in the ports that support offshore drilling can
be supportive of aquaculture as well. When we originally were
proposing a farm, it was off the coast of Ventura, and they
spotted the dock where the crew boats leave to go out to the
platforms was right--was the same dock that the commercial
fishermen offload their product at. So having that working
waterfront is extremely valuable. That aside, I don't--other
than the concerns about leakage or spills or something, I don't
see that they're mutually exclusive.
Dr. Lucas. Being from the Gulf of Mexico, we have a
relationship with our oil industry. And so I speak to the same
thing that Mr. Kent spoke to in terms of having the
infrastructure that's already in place. Also, I know several of
the investors have reached out to some of the oil companies
that may be decommissioning rigs for the potential to use those
rigs as a station in which they can house people, fly in
product and stuff, and have their farm far enough away that
that's an easier access. Deep water in the Gulf of Mexico is
not found right offshore, we have to go a good ways, and so
looking for those logistics has been important.
So other than the things that Mr. Kent has spoke to, we
understand that there is a greater good for energy producing as
well as there is a greater good for reducing the seafood trade
deficit through aquaculture production.
Senator Blumenthal. Let me ask you about the budget that
we've received from the administration, which cuts back on a
number of programs that I think are important to aquaculture;
for example, the NOAA Sea Grant Program. Is that kind of
program important to you?
Dr. Lucas. That kind of program is very important to us. In
terms of how you see the agricultural industry using land-grant
institutions for extension services and getting those products
out to farmers, the same thing is true of Sea Grant. They work
with industry and they work with academics to bridge that gap.
So they are able to work with the academics and partner with
the industry to work on what industry needs and then transfer
that technology over. So they are our extension, and that is
very critical to helping us advance aquaculture. They have been
a huge player in helping with aquaculture technology.
Mr. Seaver. If I may briefly speak to that as well, Sea
Grants are inherently attached to and very close to the next
generation that's coming up. And in my home state of Maine,
this is a very big deal that aquaculture presents the
opportunity of innovation, of excitement, for that young son or
daughter to stay in their community, to combat the brain drain
of rural coastal communities, and to begin to rebuild the
vibrancy and heritage of those areas, and that slightly less
tangible result of that Sea Grant impact, but----
Senator Blumenthal. It's still important.
Mr. Seaver.--it's very intangible on the community. Thank
you.
Mr. Kent. Just on a personal note, as a former Sea Grant
trainee, I think it's a hell of a good program and certainly
helped me with my career and got me introduced immediately from
the academic sector right into the research field, and I think
that's critical, is giving students that experience and set
them on the course to the practical side of science.
Senator Blumenthal. Let me just close because my time is
limited by saying that there are--and I appreciate that
perspective on Sea Grant. Another Federal program is the
Seafood Import Monitoring Program that establishes reporting
and recordkeeping requirements for certain kinds of fish so as
to make sure of their origin. The program unfortunately applies
only to 13 species. So much of the world's seafood comes from
sources that could be misrepresented or mislabeled. I've worked
with a number of my colleagues on this issue, including Senator
Wicker, from Mississippi, whom you no doubt know. And I'm
hopeful that we can expand this program.
In the meantime, domestic aquaculture could overcome some
of these issues, I think, and ensuring confidence in the
origins and integrity of our seafood supplies. So I hope that
this point will be emphasized as well, and I'm assuming that
all of our panelists would agree with that point today. And I'm
not going to overstay my time, but thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Cantwell.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Seaver, thank you and all the panelists for being here.
Bristol Bay supports about 20,000 jobs in commercial and
recreational fisheries and as well as restaurants, which I'm
guessing you're here to represent. Recently, the EPA announced
they would not withdraw the proposed determination under the
Clean Water Act. However, they are not finalizing it either, so
it's a question about what remains and what they will do.
How important is Bristol Bay salmon to the restaurant
industry?
Mr. Seaver. Bristol Bay salmon and all that it represents--
the jobs, the culture, the heritage, the communities, that is
the--those are the very basic underpinnings of what restaurants
serve both in terms of what we give, but also who we serve.
Bristol Bay salmon specifically is--you know, we have
strategic oil reserves in this Nation. That is our strategic
salmon reserve. That is our strategic food reserve. In fact, it
is also our strategic example of how and why fisheries should
be managed as we do. I don't think that there is--it's hard to
say that one fishery is more important than another, but I
think Bristol Bay sets the example of what all fisheries should
be, and should be held up and preserved as an American icon in
that way, and everything possible should be done to protect
them--the fisheries--and those who fish them.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
Mr. Kent, well, or in general to our panelists, so last
August we had a pen holding more than 300,000 farmed Atlantic
salmon that broke and released thousands of Atlantic salmon
into the Salish Sea. So this caused very great concern to us
because the wild Pacific salmon compete for resources and prey
and obviously they can carry different diseases. So the
negative impact on Pacific salmon is something that we just
can't sit still for. So we need to do something.
The Federal response to the pen failure was very
uncoordinated in the sense that this pen hadn't been examined
since 1987. This partly falls under the jurisdiction of the
Army Corps and partly under NOAA. We also just had a mussel
issue in the Northwest, too.
So who owns the--particularly when it comes to this netting
issue? If there had been an inspection in both of these cases,
we might have determined something before. So I don't know who
the best person to answer this is.
Mr. Kent. I don't know that I am, but I'll take a shot at
it.
Senator Cantwell. Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Kent. It was a very unfortunate occurrence that
happened, and equipment has to be maintained, and maybe there
is a little complacency that occurs within an industry that has
been operating for 40 years and is using technology from back
40 years ago. Out in the open ocean, it's a much more rigorous
environment, and the cages have to be inspected more often. You
have moorings that are going down to 300 feet of depth, and
that's something where a diver doesn't swim down there
everyday, but remotely operated robots can do that. And that
would be part of what we're trying to do.
And more importantly than anything else, I know there has
been a lot of statement about, well, the fish appear to be
malnourished and they look like they're healthy enough and they
didn't think there was going to be an adverse impact in some of
the reports that I've seen, but the reality is, why are we
trying to grow species that are not native to a given area in a
new area? We should be growing Pacific salmon in the Pacific,
white sea bass in California, red drum in the Gulf, and
Atlantic salmon on the Atlantic coast. Let's grow the species
that are appropriate and not move these things around.
Some California abalone farmers imported South African
abalone one time to see if they could grow nicely in San Diego
and ended up with a parasite, the sabellid worm, that not only
spread through the farms, but it spread into the wild
population. This is the kind of commonsense thing that really
should be avoided, and, you know, trying to--I don't have a--I
don't have a solution for how to deal with the Atlantic salmon
issue in Puget Sound, but it's not the direction I would go in,
in starting a farm. There are species in each region that
should be grown in that region.
Senator Cantwell. Nor would I. Nor would I.
Anybody else?
Dr. Lucas, did you want to mention something there?
Dr. Lucas. I echo what Mr. Kent said. I'll also say that,
you know, we've improved a lot of technologies now. I mean, the
new materials that are coming out for some of these cages as
well as the remote detection devices and stuff, industry needs
to advance, like you said, and look at some of these things,
especially for offshore. And I think that the intensive
monitoring programs that go along with that can go a long way
in helping to prevent an instance like you had.
Senator Cantwell. Well, I'm definitely going to look in
further to whether the Army Corps and NOAA need to play a
stronger role in making sure that things are being inspected.
We can't have something there since 1987 not being inspected. I
guarantee you, protecting the wild Pacific coast salmon is
something our country believes in, and we're going to fight to
make sure that it is protected.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
Senator Sullivan.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the witnesses here. I appreciate Senator
Cantwell's comments, all of which I agree with. And, Mr.
Seaver, your comments on Bristol Bay salmon were also something
that was music to my ears. You didn't add that farm-raised
seafood doesn't even remotely compete with wild Alaska seafood,
whether it's Bristol Bay salmon or otherwise, in terms of taste
and texture. And I guarantee you if every single person in this
room did a blind taste test, it would be 100 percent for the
wild Alaska salmon. But I know that's not what you're here to
testify about.
[Laughter.]
Senator Sullivan. I think that's a fact, and maybe I can
submit something for the record that makes it 100 percent
clear.
But, you know, Mr. Kent, I actually want to follow up on
what Senator Cantwell asked about the massive Atlantic salmon
escapement from an operation in Washington State, and, of
course, that brought enormous concern to Alaskan fishermen in
terms of the impacts on healthy stocks. And do you think there
is something we can do? It does seem somewhat uncoordinated,
but a policy perhaps, that you mentioned that just makes sense,
hey, if there's a risk, and there is always going to be a risk,
right? I mean, we want to minimize that risk certainly, but if
there is a risk, does it make sense to kind of do this
checkerboard approach to having species that have no business
being any part of that world out in that part of the world when
there's a risk? I mean, it seems to me that might be a policy
area that we could pursue that might make sense. Right? Why do
we want very foreign species in an area if there is a risk that
you could see some kind of escapement that could cause damage
and certainly cause worry to the fishermen who fish for the
wild Alaska salmon or other wild Alaskan products?
Mr. Kent. It's a very good question. And I don't know
exactly what agency would handle it. I go back to this concept
of best management practices. My recommendation would be that
in an open system that's out in the environment, that we ought
to be growing the species that are native to that area. In a
recirculating system, of course, you can grow something that,
you know, in Minnesota we can grow a foreign species in an
enclosed tank without much chance of that escaping and
endangering endemic species in the area.
And then back to Mr. Seaver's point, I think it's also
playing to the idea of the culture within a given area. If
we're going to be growing species that are native to a certain
area, there's a grouper in the Gulf, I mean there's this
respect for that fish down there, salmon in the Pacific
Northwest, cod in other parts of the country. White sea bass in
San Diego, red drum in the Gulf. We have these existing
fisheries that aren't in some cases able to produce enough of
what we need. And building off of that market regionally I
think is of benefit. There's no reason why we can't bring a red
drum fillet into San Diego and enjoy it, or a white sea bass
into Apalachicola, Florida, but at the same time, we don't want
to grow them there. We want to grow them in our own regions.
Senator Sullivan. Let me ask kind of a related question.
It's kind of a federalism, and, Dr. Lucas, maybe you can start
by addressing it in a little bit of background. Since 1990,
finfish aquaculture has been prohibited in Alaska's state
waters. However, Alaska does choose to allow certain forms of
aquaculture, such as salmon fishery enhancement through
hatcheries and aquatic farming of shellfish and seaweeds. And
in 2016, we created, in my state, the Alaska Mariculture Task
Force to help accelerate development of mariculture.
But I think it begs a question: How can the Federal
Government help coastal states, like mine, develop the types of
aquaculture that they choose to that have the support of the
citizens, like some elements of mariculture, while also
maintaining their right to choose what not to do? And this
discussion kind of impacts that.
So there needs to be, in my view, a very healthy federalism
component here about what a state and its citizens and its
fishermen support. How can we do that better?
Dr. Lucas. Well, to begin with, I know social license, that
we call it, or industry, they are looking to go into an area
where they're accepted. And that's part of going into an area
where you're doing species that are already part of the
heritage and already part of the culture and already are an
important part of the community. The industry looks for things
like that. They want to work with their local communities.
I think in the case of states, there are a couple of
options for states that do have CZMA through consistency, that
they could not allow certain species that weren't part of their
state plans for states that don't have the CZMA. I think
potentially doing some kind of opting program where you could
opt out of, you know, species that you didn't--that your state
doesn't wish to engage in, as long as there is some certainty
there that--I mean, you can't just opt in 1 year and opt out.
You want some kind of plan as to how those were chosen, and I
do believe Alaska has a law that doesn't allow for the finfish
aquaculture, so that would probably be something that would
have to grow in support from the public before that law was
even changed in your state to allow for it. You do have great
shellfish work and even some of the seaweeds, the macroalgae,
I've been working with some of the people from Alaska on that,
and so I think that's great. But it's part of the social
acceptance.
We, as a community, need to get out there and engage in the
public in terms of what aquaculture really looks like because
what they see--what they see is some of these farms from
overseas, and these areas that don't have the robust
environmental regulations that we have do not have the robust
regulations for drugs, such as through the FDA, don't have the
transparency that we have. And when people can see that
transparency and they can see a video, like the QR codes we
were talking about where you take a picture and you see the
farmer out there working on their farm and bringing their fish
in to the dock, you can help create that local farm to the
table, that I'm helping my community, I am helping people with
jobs, and I am able to eat a local, safe, sustainable product.
And so I think there is a role for states. I don't think,
you know--if you don't want somebody there in terms of
industry, they likely also don't want to be there because that
would be combative. So I think states do have a role in saying
what species occur off their coastlines.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Sullivan.
And, Senator Cantwell, anything else?
Senator Cantwell. I can't wait till Copper River salmon
season.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. OK. I want to referee this one right one
here, but . . .
[Laughter.]
Senator Cantwell. We're in agreement.
The Chairman. They're in agreement. Yes. All right. Yes,
both of you have a great interest in this subject, and it's an
important one. And I appreciate our witnesses' testimony today
and insights about how we can grow and strengthen and improve
the impact of aquaculture on the economy here in the U.S. When
we are getting so much of the seafood that we consume in this
country from other parts around the world, it makes no sense.
So we appreciate the good work that all of you are doing on
that front and look forward to partnering with you in the
future and hope that you will share with us your ideas about
things that we can be doing along the lines of some of the
things you shared today.
And I will ask you, if you will, in response to written
questions, and we'll keep the record open for a couple of weeks
so that Senators on the Committee, some who weren't here and
some who were, can follow up with additional questions that
they might want to put on the record. And if you could get
those back to us as quickly as possible, that would be greatly
appreciated.
But thanks again for your testimony. And with that this
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Stronger America Through Seafood
Wilmington, DE, Feb. 13, 2018
Hon. John Thune, Chairman,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Bill Nelson, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson,
On behalf of the Stronger America Through Seafood (SATS) Campaign,
we would like to thank you for calling a full Committee hearing on the
critical issue of domestic aquaculture on Jan. 30, 2018. We ask that
this letter of support for the Committee's leadership on domestic
aquaculture expansion be included in the written record of the hearing.
With support from seafood leaders from across the country, SATS is
uniting American businesses, consumers, health advocates, and NGOs
behind a single, positive message regarding the ecological, societal
and economic benefits of U.S. seafood production. It was invigorating
to hear a diverse panel of witnesses and a bi-partisan panel of
Senators all agree on the importance of increasing U.S. production of
healthful, sustainable, and affordable seafood. With this letter, we
ask for your continued leadership and partnership in this effort.
Wild fish harvests are and always will be an important part of
seafood supply. There is, however, a significant economic and social
opportunity for aquaculture to supplement wild harvests in both
domestic and international markets. Aquaculture is one of the fastest
growing sustainable forms of food production and has the unique
potential to improve food security and nutrition, enhance coastal
resiliency, create quality jobs, help restore species and habitats, and
ensure that seafood (both wild caught and farmed) continues to be an
important part of the global food supply.
Unfortunately, domestic aquaculture development is currently
constrained by disjointed Federal leadership and numerous regulatory
hurdles, including overlapping jurisdiction of federal, state,
regional, county and municipal governments, and the absence of a
predictable, affordable and efficient permitting process, particularly
in marine environments.
To overcome these regulatory hurdles and lay groundwork for
strengthening the U.S. aquaculture industry, Congress must demonstrate
unequivocal willingness to streamline the existing bureaucracy and
support domestic aquaculture development. We strongly recommend
legislation to establish the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) as the lead agency in charge of overseeing
coordination among all Federal partners on U.S. aquaculture interests
and on U.S. aquaculture regulation in Federal waters. The legislation
should task NOAA with implementing coordinated, consistent and
efficient regulatory processes for the marine aquaculture sector, like
that outlined in Goal #1 of NOAA Fisheries' Marine Aquaculture Strategy
for FY 2016-2020 \1\ and make funds available for these activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/docs/aquaculture_docs/
aquaculture_strategic_plan_
final.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legislation should also empower NOAA with the authority to remain a
strong advocate for all marine aquaculture, facilitate streamlined
permitting in Federal waters and increase coordination among agencies
with jurisdiction in state waters. Further, as with any new industrial
venture, the U.S. marine aquaculture industry will be hugely capitol-
intensive, particularly during the first few decades. As such,
legislation should provide regulatory certainty and sufficient permit
or lease length to maximize success while effectively de-risking the
project for potential investors. Attached, please find a document
titled ``Investment Considerations Regarding U.S. Offshore Marine
Aquaculture'' prepared by Max Holtzman, a partner at Pontos Aqua
Advisory and a Board Member of the Stronger America Through Seafood
campaign, for more background on this topic.
The Stronger America through Seafood Campaign's Board of Directors
will be in Washington, D.C. March 14--15, 2018 and we would like to
meet with Members of the Committee at that time to discuss these items
in greater depth. Please contact us at your convenience to arrange for
this meeting. By working together, we will see the responsible
development of commercial-scale, affordable aquaculture become a
reality for the betterment of our businesses and of our citizens.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Unger,
President.
Tony Dal Ponte,
Vice President.
Max Holtzman,
Secretary.
Bill Dewey,
Treasurer.
______
Investment Considerations Regarding U.S. Offshore Marine Aquaculture
There have been many conversations related to the length of time of
a permit or lease for an offshore marine aquaculture operation
contemplated in the proposed Senate Bill related to the U.S.
Aquaculture industry. This brief summary attempts present a view from
members of the investment community related to permit or lease length
and risk assessment in the evaluation of potential investment in an
offshore aquaculture operation.
While there are multiple risk factors that must be fully evaluated
and properly de-risked in this type of investment analysis, this
current discussion is related to one sliver of this de-risking process:
The length of time of a permit or lease for a certain operation.
There is no ``magic number'' related to the length of time either a
lease or permit should be, however the longer this time period the more
benefits will accrue to the entrepreneurs and companies that wish to
start-up this type of operation. A lease or permit with a length of
time greater than 20 years would provide benefits to the borrower/
investee that maximize the best chance for success while more
effectively de-risking the project for potential investors. A brief
overview of the reasons for this assumption are included herein.
First, it is helpful to understand the capital intensity of
offshore aquaculture operations. Of all of the factors that contribute
to this capital intensity, the main drivers in offshore operations are
the high cost of cages and infrastructure to support these operations
along with very high working capital requirements. These operations
typically involve long cycle species which require high amounts of
feed, labor and depreciation before they reach the market. Below is
further detail of the costs associated with these operations, both
offshore, and the necessary onshore support:
Offshore requirements:
Offshore equipment including cages, barges and service
vessels for feeding, harvest, monitoring and general servicing;
Remote monitoring equipment, remote underwater camera
systems, pathogen detection and monitoring;
Harvesting equipment, including fish pumps, insulated bins
and other necessary equipment;
Labor costs
Labor related to construction of site which varies
across production methods;
FTE's for operations and maintenance;
Insurance, relevant bonding other capital requirements;
Onshore requirements:
Research, development and testing of species suitable for
relevant siting;
Maintenance of fleet of vessels to move personnel, equipment
and feed from shore to site;
Dockage of vessels;
Storage of feed (climate controlled), equipment;
Harvesting and processing equipment including industrial ice
machinery, adequate equipment to move ice and fish to various
locations;
If integrated operation with hatchery, full hatchery and
recirculating aquaculture system to operate hatchery;
Hatchery personnel and equipment;
Land, buildings, personnel and equipment necessary for
hatchery operation;
If integrated operation with feed mill: full feed mill and
capex necessary to construct feedmill including land,
buildings, personnel and equipment;
Specific factors related to the need for long lease or permit
length:
1. The highly capital-intensive nature of these operations: Offshore
aquaculture operations are multi-million-dollar agricultural
operations with very high initial startup and working capital
requirements. There is an often misunderstanding that these
operations are simply cages in the water full of fish, when in
reality, sustainable modern offshore marine aquaculture relies
on cutting edge technology, equipment and highly trained
personnel to construct, operate and maintain these facilities.
Equipment and facilities are located offshore, and in addition
there is a vast land-based network of support infrastructure
and personnel to run these operations. While these operations
create hundreds of jobs throughout the supply chain necessary
to support these operations, the highly capital-intensive
nature of start-up and working capital is a major factor
related to the necessity of a longer lease or permit period.
2. Long length of grow-out from hatch to harvest: Many species
suitable for offshore aquaculture operations can take anywhere
from 1-3 years to reach harvest from the time of eggs hatching.
This longer than typical harvest times compared to terrestrial
agricultural protein producers brings additional risk. However,
just as with our land based producers, the dynamics are the
same: The longer you are controlling a live animal, the more
issues you will need to contend with including adverse weather,
rising costs of inputs such as feed, risk of disease and other
unpredictable but known adversaries. Accordingly, investors
will rely on longer capital cycles to flatten out this risk
curve across multiple harvests to reduce risk over increased
time and volume of product.
3. Risk of Price Volatility: Many of the species suitable for
offshore aquaculture operations have pricing that are based on
and behave like agricultural commodities. The cyclical nature
of the pricing of these products then demands that the
investment periods must be longer than the cycles themselves.
If not, the producer will face much greater risk as you attempt
to time your entry and exit within these markets. Long lease or
permit lengths allow a producer to both withstand and manage
the cyclical nature of commodities and transform unbeatable
risk in the short term into manageable volatility in the long
run.
4. Ability to exit the investment and bring new investors: For a
multitude of reasons, owners, operators and investors exit or
sell operations during the course of a business. The value of a
business will in part be valued by the length of time that
remains on a lease or permit. If the initial length of time of
the permit or lease is too short, then any subsequent investor
will only be able to assign value to the operation based on the
remaining time that operation retains its certainty to operate,
and thus its ability to generate cash flow.
5. Risk and Return Expectations: Different investors have different
appetites for risk and return requirements within certain asset
classes. Well known in any investment is the higher the risk,
the higher the expected returns of the investor. If operating
within a short time frame, and therefore higher risk, investors
may rightly seek returns that are not aligned with the
intrinsic potential of the business. However, if you are able
to extend the investment period and decrease the risk, you have
the potential to capture investment with more reasonable
returns and more aligned with the de-risked intrinsic potential
of offshore operations.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Aquaculture Association
Achieving Sustainable Sea Farming
``We must plant the sea and herd its animals using the sea as
farmers instead of hunters. That is what civilization is all
about--farming replacing hunting.''
Jacques-Yves Cousteau
The National Aquaculture Association \1\ is a U.S. producer-based,
non-profit association incorporated in 1991 that supports the
establishment of governmental programs that further the common interest
of our membership, both as individual producers and as members of the
aquaculture community. For over 27 years NAA has been the united voice
of the domestic aquaculture sector committed to the continued growth of
our industry, working with state and Federal governments to create a
business climate conducive to our success, and fostering cost-effective
environmental stewardship and sustainability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Aquaculture Association, PO Box 12759, Tallahassee, FL
32317; Telephone: 850-216-2400; E-mail: naa@thenaa.net; Website: http:/
/thenaa.net/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NAA offers the following recommendations with respect to
drafting U.S. marine aquaculture legislation to support the creation of
a commercially viable framework for U.S. aquaculturists to grow,
handle, transport and sell marine finfish, shellfish (clams, oysters,
mussels or scallops) and seaweed from farms located in the Exclusive
Economic Zone of the United States.
Advancing Public Health, Food Security and Sustainable Economic Growth
Offshore marine aquaculture in the Exclusive Economic Zone holds
tremendous potential for advancing the public health, food security and
economic interests of Americans, but those interests can only be served
if government provides the legal authorities for the private sector to
fulfill that mission without unwarranted regulatory obstacles. Large-
scale marine aquaculture production in the United States would create
the ability to:
Close a significant gap in U.S. food security (availability)
through the farming of seafood products in U.S. waters rather
than relying as the United States currently does on foreign
seafood sources for 90 percent of the seafood consumed by our
citizens.
Create ancillary equipment and service businesses and new
jobs within coastal and inland communities.
Accelerate technological development to reduce production
costs and minimize adverse environmental effects.
Maintain working waterfronts and build upon the existing and
unique knowledge, skills and abilities possessed by commercial
fishers.
While these projections are well-documented,\2\ the United States
has yet to make any significant advances in U.S. marine aquaculture
production in the 38 years since passage of the National Aquaculture
Act of 1980. Aquaculture production is approximately 45,500 tons valued
at $327 million and supplies about 3 percent of U.S. seafood
consumption. Federally managed waters beyond coastal state boundaries,
termed the Exclusive Economic Zone, encompass 4.4 million square miles
(11.3 million square kilometers). A U.S. study estimated that 195
square miles (500 sq. km) of ocean, managed under existing regulations,
could produce 1.3 billion pounds (600,000 metric tons) or more of high
quality seafood.\3\ Theoretically, the farming of 970 sq. miles (2,500
sq. km), an area representing .0002 percent of the Exclusive Economic
Zone, less than half the size of Delaware, would double U.S. edible
seafood production or an area the size of the Pentagon could produce
220 million pounds (100,000 MT). A doubling of U.S. aquaculture
production to about 1 million tons could create an estimated additional
50,000 farm and non-farm jobs.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Rubino, Michael (ed). 2008. Offshore Aquaculture in the United
States: Economic Considerations, Implications & Opportunities. U.S.
Department of Commerce; Silver Spring, MD; USA. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS F/SPO-103
\3\ Nash, C.E. 2004. Achieving Policy Objectives to Increase the
Value of the Seafood Industry in the United States: The Technical
Feasibility and Associated Constraints. Food Policy 29:621-641.
\4\ Knapp, G. and M.C. Rubino. 2016. The political economics of
marine aquaculture in the United States. Reviews in Fisheries Science
and Aquaculture 24(3): 213-229.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish Farming is Inherently Efficient
Farmed and wild-caught fish, shellfish and sea vegetables have been
recognized as critical components to achieving global food security and
nutrition. Farmed and wild fish production have been the main
contributor to the 61 percent increase in world protein consumption,
fish are very efficient converters of feed into protein, and aquatic
animal production systems have a lower carbon footprint, lower nitrogen
and phosphorus losses and in the case of shellfish and sea vegetable
production remove carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus from the environment.
The inherent energy and feed advantages of fish are derived from the
``cold-blooded'' nature, meaning they expend little to no energy to
maintain a constant body temperature, and the physical support water
provides to directs growth to protein and not a bony muscular-skeletal
structure that is always fighting gravity.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Bene, et al., 2015. Feeding 9 billion by 2050--Putting fish
back on the menu. Food Security 7(2): 261-274 (https://
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12571-015-0427-z accessed February
1, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Regulations are Proven and Effective
Over the last 20 years, rather than acknowledging the many advances
in marine aquaculture production practices and successful management
strategies for adverse environmental impacts, many in the environmental
community continue to attribute a variety of potential adverse
environmental effects to aquaculture based on outdated production
methods and standards.\6\ We note that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has held authority to regulate discharges from
fish farms (nutrients, chemicals and solid waste) under several
iterations of the Clean Water Act since the 1970s. More recently,
environmental groups sought EPA reevaluation of the Clean standards
applied to aquaculture. During a four-year period, 2000-04, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Goldburg, R. and T. Triplett. 1997. Murky Waters: Environmental
Effects of Aquaculture in the United States. Environmental Defense
Fund, New York NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other current Federal regulatory authorities, unilaterally or in
partnership with the states, exist 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), essential fish habitat, and the opportunity for coastal
states to comment on proposed Federal permits and leases associated
with offshore marine aquaculture. Existing law 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.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current regulatory authority exists to appropriately protect marine
water quality and benthic environmental systems, manage fish escapes,
require responsible drug and chemical use, insure safe navigation, and
assure consumers that they will have access to safe foods; although, it
has been argued, and we agree, that:
The stringency of the regulatory environment in the United
States has increased in recent years in terms of both the
number and complexity of regulations that affect U.S.
aquaculture. Especially difficult is the common 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.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Ibid at 274.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Salmon in Puget Sound
The potential environmental effects of the escape of Atlantic
salmon in Puget Sound on Pacific salmon as a result of a net pen system
that collapsed has created intense public and media speculation.
Fortunately, several publications have examined this risk and other
risks and reported that those risks are manageable or unlikely to be
realized.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Nash, C.E. (editor). 2001. The net-pen salmon farming industry
in the Pacific Northwest. U.S. Department of Commerce. NOAA Tech. Memo.
NMFS-NWFSC-49 (http://www.westcoast
.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/aquaculture/
noaa_memo_net_pen_salmon_farming_sept2001
.pdf accessed January 28, 2018).
Waknitz, F.W., T.J. Tynan, C.E. Nash, R.N. Iwamoto, and L.G.
Rutter. 2002. Review of potential impacts of Atlantic salmon culture on
Puget Sound chinook salmon and Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon
evolutionarily significant units. U.S. Department of Commerce. NOAA
Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-53 http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/
publications/aquaculture/
waknitz.2002.nwfsc_tm53.reviewofpotentialimpacts.pdf accessed January
28, 2018)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that when the potential effects associated with this
escape are thoroughly analyzed this prior work will be confirmed. We
are also hopeful that enough time will have passed to then allow a
dispassionate discussion and reassessment of Atlantic salmon culture to
occur. We are confident that this assessment will recognize that
potential risks are being adequately managed under existing state and
Federal regulations. It is also unfortunate, that currently little to
no recognition of public and private investment to improve Atlantic
salmon production characteristics (e.g., weight gain, feed
efficiencies), human diet and nutrition, fish health, and reduced
environmental effects through fish husbandry, domestication and
technology gained by the global production of Atlantic salmon
production has not been made known to the public.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Kumar, G. and C. R. Engle. 2016. Technological advances that
led to growth of shrimp, salmon, and tilapia farming, Reviews in
Fisheries Science and Aquaculture, 24(2): 136-152
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As summarized by Ganesh and Engle (2016) (internal citations
deleted):
The Atlantic salmon industry overcame several biological,
ecological, and disease constraints throughout its history.
Advanced automated feed monitoring systems provided greater
resource and environmental management efficiency.
Commercialization of genetic and vaccination programs improved
growth and survival while nutritional developments reduced the
use of fishmeal and oil while improving performance. Such
continued technological advances resulted in continuous growth
in Atlantic salmon production with significant reductions in
cost of production. The Atlantic salmon industry is one of the
leaders in terms of biological knowledge and production
technology, raising a very resource-efficient species that is
often termed ``the super-chicken of the sea.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Ibid at 145.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research with Significant ROI
Research supported by governmental agencies and the private sector
has led to continuing improvements in reducing the use of essential
fish meal and fish oil components in pelleted aquaculture feeds.
Research programs within NOAA and USDA that focus on marine aquaculture
are critical to U.S. aquaculture and to national efforts to reduce our
trade deficit, create jobs and increase national security through the
provision of wholesome domestic food sources. These aquaculture
research efforts have benefited U.S. aquaculture by resolving complex
biological, environmental, chemical, or public relations constraints to
increase aquatic animal or plant production or sales. Research funds
are not wasted public monies. An independent analysis focused on public
investment in aquaculture research found an estimated 37-fold return
for each research dollar spent since 2000.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Love, D.C., I. Gorski and J.P. Fry. 2017. An analysis of
nearly one billion dollars of aquaculture grants made by the U.S.
Federal Government from 1990 to 2015. Journal of the World Aquaculture
Society 48:689-710.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States Are Managing Aquaculture
Over the last 20 years, responsible environmental stewardship has
become the proven business model in the state or territorial waters of
Maine, Washington, Hawaii and Puerto Rico where commercial scale net
pens have been operated to farm Atlantic salmon, Almaco jack or cobia
and in the state waters of Alabama, Alaska, California, Connecticut,
Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island,
Virginia, South Carolina and Washington where shellfish farms have
farmed abalone, clams, oysters, mussels or scallops. These farms have
been managed in compliance with state and Federal regulations and the
provisions of lease agreements with the states or territory. All such
operations are conducted with regulatory transparency supported by
environmental monitoring data and periodic reporting for these
operations in publicly available documentation required by state and
Federal agencies.
Creating Security of Tenure is Critical
The limited scope of today's U.S. marine aquaculture industry
simply will not substantially expand without access to the majority of
offshore waters that are controlled by the Federal Government. However,
access alone is not sufficient, and will not create the fertile
environment for investment in U.S. marine aquaculture. What is needed
is security for tenure (e.g., a lease) to allow U.S. aquaculture
operations to operate in the Exclusive Economic Zone in compliance with
existing regulatory programs that will provide a viable financial model
(private investment and insurance) that will survive in the free
market.
Marine aquaculture facilities in the Exclusion Economic Zone must
be provided security of tenure to occupy a location to the exclusion of
other conflicting uses by means of a recognized and commercially
understood legal agreement such as a lease granted by an appropriate
Federal agency on behalf of the U.S. Government. Property rights in
marine waters are typically available under state laws in state waters
where marine aquaculture is recognized as a being in the public
interest. This is typically done by means of a lease. The leasing of a
public resource for commercial use appropriately requires payment for
use of public space (i.e., rental payments). However, this use of
public trust lands (offshore ``spaces'') must be not be confused with
business models for industries that actually consume public trust
resources (e.g., oil and gas resources that are owned in trust by the
U.S. Government for the people).
A viable offshore aquaculture operation will require the same level
of commercial certainty and property rights available to land-based
agricultural enterprises or those aquaculture farms located in state
waters. Offshore aquaculture operations are complex and expensive
facilities that require reasonable business planning and construction
periods and phased development to provide economies of scale necessary
to internalize the regulatory and operation costs. Offshore aquaculture
leases should be renewable and should have initial terms of at least 25
years in order to secure financing on commercially-viable terms. Leases
should also be transferable to support potential sale or other transfer
of a farm operation.
Regulatory Burden and Costs Stifle Small Business Innovation
The majority of U.S. aquaculture producers are small business
entities. The USDA Census of Aquaculture conducted in 2012 showed that
86 percent of all aquaculture businesses had sales less than $500,000.
The costs of regulatory compliance for small businesses are having
devastating effects on the ability of these businesses not only to
exist, but to expand or add capacity. Additionally, these same burdens
are prohibiting new businesses from starting up, further exacerbating
the issue.
As a specific example, the average total regulatory cost on U.S.
batfish/spearfish farms was $148,554 per farm, or $2,989 per acre of
production.\13\ The regulatory cost burden composed 25 percent of total
costs of baitfish/sportfish farms, making it one of the largest cost
components in their businesses. Total cost to the U.S. baitfish/
sportfish industry was estimated to exceed $12 million. On 38 percent
of the farms, the cost of regulations exceeded the value of profits on
baitfish/sportfish farms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ van Senten, J. and C.R. Engle. 2017. The cost of regulations
on U.S. baitfish and Sportfish producers. Journal of the World
Aquaculture Society. 48(3): 503-517.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The data also revealed that only 1 percent of total regulatory
costs were those of the fees for permits and licenses. The real burden
of the regulatory environment was found to be the indirect costs
associated with increased manpower costs for record-keeping, reporting,
and applying for permits, farm changes to remain in compliance, and
lost sales (that could not be replaced or re-directed to other markets)
that were lost directly due to regulatory actions. Environmental
management regulations composed 61 percent of the total regulatory cost
burden in spite of representing only 17 percent of the total number of
regulations with which farms had to comply. The regulatory burden was
substantially greater on smaller farms ($5,533 per acre) than on larger
farms ($321 per acre), and very likely has contributed to the 29
percent decline in the number of small baitfish/sportfish farms in the
United States as compared to no decline in the number of large farms
from 2005 to 2012.
Seafood Safety from Farm to Plate
The U.S. domestic aquaculture industry is committed to supplying
consumers with consistent, high quality, safe products that are
produced in an environmentally sound manner. Numerous Federal and state
agencies are involved with maintaining the wholesome attributes of
farm-raised seafood. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration works with
state departments of agriculture, the Association of Food and Drug
Officials, and the American Association of Feed Control Officials to
regulate aquaculture food handling and processing and the manufacture
of feeds to ensure that they are safe and do not contain contaminants
or illegal substances. The U.S. Department of Agriculture inspects the
processing of catfish and tests catfish products, foreign and domestic,
for contaminants.
The Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference in cooperation with
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and state agencies administers a
certification program requiring all shellfish dealers to handle,
process, and ship shellfish under sanitary conditions and maintain
records that the shellfish were harvested from approved waters. State
agencies establish standards for shellfish growing areas and regularly
monitor water quality to make sure that growing waters meet those
standards.
Fish and shellfish packers, warehouses, and processors must comply
with the mandatory requirements of the Hazard Analysis Critical Control
Point (HACCP) Program administered by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration. The program identifies potential food safety hazards
and develops strategies to help ensure that they do not occur. New
rules by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration authorized by the Food Safety Modernization Act have
added additional regulations for the processing, handling and
transportation of animal feeds and human food. All of these controls
help to make farm-raised seafood products safe and wholesome foods.
The United States as a World Leader in Marine Aquaculture
The United States is not a world leader in sustainable aquaculture
production by volume or value but we are in the thoughtful and rigorous
development of regulatory and nonregulatory production practices,
animal nutrition and health management, and the efficient processing
and distribution of high-quality, wholesome foods. A recent global
analysis of global marine aquaculture potential concluded with a
statement that is very relevant to U.S. marine aquaculture in
highlights the unlimited potential of the United States to be a global
leader in sustainability, technology and production (citations
deleted):
Given the significant potential for marine aquaculture, it is
perhaps surprising that the development of new farms is rare.
Restrictive regulatory regimes, high costs, economic
uncertainty, lack of investment capital, competition and
limitations on knowledge transfer into new regions are often
cited as impediments to aquaculture development. In addition,
concerns surrounding feed sustainability, ocean health and
impacts on wild fisheries have created resistance to marine
aquaculture development in some areas. While ongoing and
significant progress has been made in addressing sustainability
issues with marine aquaculture, continued focus on these issues
and dedication to ensuring best practices will be a crucial
element shaping the future of marine aquaculture. Both the
cultural and economic dimensions of development and the
management and regulatory systems are critically important to
understanding realistic growth trajectories and the
repercussions of this growth. Our results show that potential
exists for aquaculture to continue its rapid expansion, but
more careful analysis and forward-thinking policies will be
necessary to ensure that this growth enhances the well-being of
people while maintaining, and perhaps enhancing, vibrant and
resilient ocean ecosystems.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Gentry, et al., 2017. Mapping the global potential for marine
aquaculture. Nature Ecology and Evolution 1:1317-1324.
The National Aquaculture Association requests the U.S. Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation create, introduce
and shepherd national legislation to lead the world and benefit the
Nation. It would be our honor and privilege to assist in this effort as
fish, shellfish and sea vegetable farmers with the experience,
knowledge, skills, scars and persistence to make this happen.
______
Written Comments submitted by the San Diego Unified Port District
In follow up to the testimony that you heard from our stakeholders
and colleagues on January 30, 2018, the San Diego Unified Port District
(District) would like to provide additional comments regarding
developing aquaculture opportunities as public private partnerships.
The District serves the people of California as a special district,
balancing multiple uses on 34 miles along San Diego Bay spanning five
cities. Collecting no tax dollars, the District manages a diverse
portfolio to generate revenues that support vital public services and
amenities.
The District champions Maritime, Waterfront Development, Public
Safety, Experiences and Environment, all focused on enriching the
relationship people and businesses have with our dynamic waterfront.
From cargo and cruise terminals to hotels and restaurants, from marinas
to museums, from 22 public parks to countless events, the District
contributes to the region's prosperity and remarkable way of life on a
daily basis.
Background
As you heard from Mr. Don Kent during oral testimony, on October 8,
2014, Rose Canyon Fisheries (RCF) submitted permit applications to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for a fish farm to be located in Federal
waters, 4.5 miles off the coast of San Diego, CA. This represented the
third, but most comprehensive attempt at permitting for an offshore
fish farm in California since 2002.
In the ensuing months RCF experienced multiple delays due to a lack
of Federal agency coordination, including a debate on which agency
(ACOE or EPA) should take the lead agency role in coordinating the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a critical step in moving the
applications forward Each agency did initiate their own Notice of
Intent's (NOI) to begin processing applications including public
scoping processes, and the EPA did agree to become the lead agency in
February of 2015. However, by June of 2016, the EPA had cancelled their
agreement to become the lead agency and the ACOE informed RCF that it
would deny their Section 10 Permit application based on concerns about
navigation cited in the Navy's original comments, despite the same
comments that suggested the farm location move slightly to the north to
minimize potential interference with Naval operations. By the end of
2016, NOAA Fisheries Regulatory Branch offered to step in and be the
lead agency on the NEPA review for the RCF permits. While this was a
welcome and significant step forward, the regulatory quagmire and
interagency inaction resulting from the lack of a clear sense of
priority and efficiency amongst agencies continued. In April 2017 (30
months following application submittal), the District intervened and
hosted a meeting with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Navy, and the ACOE. The U.S. Navy re-
iterated its support for the proposal, and while the ACOE was still
reluctant, it did agree to RCF updating its application materials to
reflect the new site location and re-submitting an application package.
In August 2017, the District hosted the first-ever, interagency
pre-application meeting for an offshore aquaculture permit application
in the U.S. NOAA, now officially the designated lead agency, organized
the meeting which included representatives from NOAA, ACOE, EPA, U.S.
Coast Guard, U.S. Navy, California Coastal Commission, California
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Rose Canyon Fisheries, and the
District.
Through the District's Blue Economy Incubator Program, the District
is exploring a partnership with RCF, which has the potential to be a
regional-based model and an early proving ground that will provide an
invaluable database of information and advance the aquaculture industry
nationwide. The District has been asked to act as a Cooperating Agency,
along with NOAA, ACOE, and EPA for the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) review for this project. Next steps are currently being
discussed, along with a draft MOU that outlines each agencies roles and
responsibilities.
The Opportunity for Aquaculture
There is a clear opportunity and critical need to support
development of sustainable domestic marine aquaculture industry. The
U.S. currently imports over 91 percent of the seafood it consumes, yet
only three percent of U.S. domestically produced seafood comes from
aquaculture. In economic terms, these imports consistently contribute
to a nearly $14 billion domestic seafood trade deficit each year. U.S.
based aquaculture advocates, however, believe we can reverse that trend
and allow aquaculture to flourish right here at home. The U.S. could
and should be self-sufficient in seafood production with the goal of
becoming a net trade exporter of seafood by 2050.
The largest opportunity for U.S. aquaculture development lies
offshore, but the required Federal permitting process is poorly
defined. This has caused domestic investment in aquaculture to be
driven to other countries. Besides being the major contributor to our
trade deficit, this also sends U.S. seafood production and distribution
industry jobs to other countries, thereby losing a major economic
opportunity for the U.S. As you heard during oral testimony, for every
one job created on the waterfront, two additional indirect jobs are
created elsewhere downstream. The import deficit also means that the
U.S. is buying seafood that may not be grown to our rigorous health and
environmental standards. There are numerous examples of U.S. investors
growing salmon in Chile, red drum, striped bass and yellowtail in
Mexico and cobia in Panama, simply because those countries welcome
their investments. Any one of these companies would rather be working
in U.S. waters, but they cannot get the permits required from the
Federal Government that they need to locate and operate U.S. farms.
The Port of San Diego's Role
Aquaculture must be tested and proven to be economically,
environmentally and commercially viable. This takes time, money,
expertise and regulatory wherewithal. The District has positioned
itself uniquely to supports efforts to advance State and Federal
policies to increase aquaculture production and deliver a safe, secure
and sustainable seafood supply for California and the Nation. Ports can
and are increasingly playing a critical role in the development of
sustainable aquaculture, given their familiarity and expertise in the
permitting and entitlement process for a variety of coastal and ocean
uses; the unique role they often play as a landlord, operator and/or
regulator, and as champions of the blue economy. As the state-
legislated trustee of tidelands (i.e., land and water) around San Diego
Bay, developing sustainable domestic aquaculture helps fulfill the
District's public trust responsibility to promote fisheries and
commerce, as well as aligning with its mission to enhance and protect
the environment.
As the state-legislated trustee of tidelands (i.e., land and water)
around San Diego Bay, developing sustainable domestic aquaculture helps
fulfill the Port's public trust responsibility to promote fisheries and
commerce, as well as aligning with its mission to enhance and protect
the environment.
San Diego could support the development of an offshore aquaculture
industry, which could become a $1 billion per year industry with only a
nominal percentage of state or Federal waters leased from the
government. A properly constructed and managed industry would provide a
safe, secure, and stable supply of healthful seafood to the region,
alleviate some pressure on wild fish stocks, and help conserve the
remaining working waterfront, all with acceptable impacts on the
environment and other ocean uses. Equally as important, an aquaculture
facility in our region could prove the viability of the domestic
aquaculture industry and act as a catalyst for growth of the industry
nationwide.
The Pressing Need for Congressional Action
To address the challenges above, it is essential to have a
predictable and systematic approach to permitting and leasing within
Federal waters to support and accelerate growth of a domestic
aquaculture industry. As our colleagues and stakeholders stated during
their testimony, the lack of Federal leadership in the permitting
process not only slows the process, but hampers access to private
investment, research, and development of the industry as a whole. The
District supports legislation that provides NOAA with a leadership role
in aquaculture development for our nation, including but not limited
to:
Designating NOAA as the lead agency for aquaculture in
Federal waters and creating a streamlined regulatory process,
Providing support for the National Marine Aquaculture
Initiative (NMAI), including a mechanism for long term research
and development support, and
Facilitating regional projects in support of sustainable
offshore aquaculture industry Development
We have worked with NOAA over the years in support of
environmentally and economically important issues that affect our
region and our Nation and very much look forward to engaging with the
Department of Commerce to advance sustainable offshore aquaculture in
our Nation.
The Time to Act Is Now
The time is ripe for a forward-thinking strategy that embraces our
natural resources. After all, our Nation's independence depends on our
ability to be self-reliant, and not depend on the resources of other
nations. We believe that the solutions to our challenges are home-
grown, and in San Diego, we intend to play a role in crafting those
solutions. The District stands ready to commit our resources and
experience in this area in collaboration with our partners and
stakeholders. We have the expertise, infrastructure, relationships and
marine based regulatory experience needed to substantially contribute
to this successful venture. We are hopeful that the Department of the
Interior and the current administration agrees with our assessment on
aquaculture and can provide resources and regulatory assistance.
The District stands ready to work with the Department of Commerce
and other Federal agencies involved in the permitting process to
advance aquaculture in our Nation and demonstrate the sustainable
development of a domestic seafood industry that both creates jobs and
lowers our dependence on seafood imports.
We thank you for your leadership on these issues and look forward
to working with you on behalf of the United States' interests and the
benefit of all those we serve. If you have any questions please do not
hesitate to contact the President/CEO, Randa Coniglio at 619-686-6201,
or Job Nelson, Vice President, External Relations at
jnelson@portofsandiego.org or 619-686-7274
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger F. Wicker to
Mark Luecke
Question 1. Is there a link between two reasons for slow domestic
growth of aquaculture you identified, namely the ``unavailability of
investment capital to construct more fish production facilities'' and
``an inefficient regulatory pathway permitting fish production
facilities''?
Answer. There is a direct link between an inefficient regulatory
pathway permitting fish production facilities and the unavailability of
investment capital to construct more fish production facilities,
leading to slow domestic aquaculture growth.
Capital sources, such as private equity investors and banks, will
only provide capital to projects where there is (1) a clear
understanding of risk and (2) a clear plan to manage that risk in order
to generate a reasonable return on their invested capital. Given the
current inefficiency and uncertainty experienced by organizations
attempting to permit fish production facilities, capital sources are
unable to obtain a good understanding of the regulatory risk, much less
outline a regulatory management plan, and therefore, they do not place
their capital at risk.
This inefficiency and uncertainty stems from the lack of a clear
regulatory pathway to place and retain fish production facilities in
service. Without a defined lead agency at the Federal level for
environmental review and approval of these projects, the U.S. will
continue to experience a large and growing trade deficit in this
critical food category.
Private capital sources will simply not fund projects where there
is inefficiency and uncertainty.
Question 2. Should permits or leases for marine aquaculture
production facilities be of a long enough duration for investors to
have the opportunity to see a return on their investment?
Answer. It is imperative that permits and leases for marine
aquaculture production facilities be no less than ten (10) years, and
preferably twenty (20) years, with an opportunity to extend that time
period if all conditions of the permit and/or lease are being met.
Quite simply, if permits or leases are not of a long enough
duration for capital sources to generate a reasonable return on their
invested capital, they will simply place capital in other projects in
other segments of the market. This will cause the U.S. to continue to
experience a large and growing trade deficit in this critical food
category.
Incentives for capital sources to participate in the domestic
aquaculture market must be established to stimulate its growth,
starting with long-term permits and leases.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger F. Wicker to
Dr. Kelly Lucas
Question 1. What type of assurances--particularly related to
permitting--do aquaculture businesses and entrepreneurs require to make
offshore aquaculture more attractive to investors?
Answer. Businesses need regulatory certainty to reduce the risk of
investment. They need to know they can get a permit. There needs to be
a streamlined, transparent, permitting process. They need one agency to
take ownership of the permitting process. I would suggest NOAA can lead
the process and can lead the necessary environmental reviews. Other
agencies will still need to supply the permits necessary by law, but it
would be efficient to have a designated agency coordinating the
process. Industry needs permits that are long enough in terms of
duration that they can not only capitalize the expenses, but they can
see a return on their investment. They need certainty that they will be
able to renew their permits as long as they abide by the regulations,
monitoring and reporting requirements.
Question 2. How can marine aquaculture be compatible with and
supportive of the commercial fishing industry?
Answer. First, we need make sure the message is clear that
aquaculture is not trying to replace commercial fishing. World-wide,
wild capture fisheries is stagnant and has been since the 1990s. We are
fishing at maximum sustainable yield and in some cases over sustainable
yield. In order to meet the increasing demand for seafood, aquaculture
will be necessary but it will also be necessary for us to continue to
have sustainable wild-capture fisheries. Offshore and nearshore
aquaculture shares a lot of the same infrastructure and equipment in
terms of working waterfronts, processing plants, seafood markets, boats
and boat repair with the commercial industry and working together both
industries can benefit.
Question 3. What are the key research areas we ought to invest in
to continue U.S. leadership in marine aquaculture?
Answer. We need to invest in larviculture, genetics, aquatic health
management, feeds, advanced technology and engineering. The development
of hatchery capacity and refinement of culture techniques is vital to
offshore development. Commercial operators need a reliable and
consistent source of disease free larval fish. Some larval fish species
can be reliably supplied, many other species that are high value and
fast-growing lack sufficient research development. The use of selective
breeding as a tool to increase production is far behind the plant and
farm animal industries. Selective breeding of fish using genetics to
aid selection can generally be completed in less time than breeding of
farm animals. Domestication of new species and offshore culture will
require monitoring and adaptive health management plans to reduce and
prevent disease and outbreaks. Although we have made advancements in
fish feed and have reduced reliance on forage fish, we should continue
to identify alternative sustainable feeds for large-scale aquaculture.
Improvements in net and cage technology have decreased chances of
escapes; however, we can continue to improve containment systems with
new materials and with remote detection technology. Unmanned systems
and artificial intelligence can aid operators in task such as cleaning
cages, feeding fish and detecting potential problems.
Question 4. Does regulating marine aquaculture under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act work?
Answer. There is great concern among the industry and others that
the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) in not the correct tool to regulate
marine aquaculture. Whereas the offshore aquaculture industry shares
some things in common with the commercial fishing industry, regulating
domesticated fish in a comparable manner as wild fish does not work.
MSA is not the correct mechanism for regulatory elements such as
permitting and aquaculture facility management and monitoring.
Question 5. Why is genetics research important for marine
aquaculture, particularly with respect to fish production, fish health,
and interactions with wild fish stocks?
Answer. Genetic level information and genome sequencing is
important for wild fish stocks and to aid in aquaculture development.
Population level genetic research has contributed to knowledge of how
fish are structured into reproductive populations and how these
populations are distributed. At TCMAC we use genetics to provide
information about local populations of spotted sea trout. We use this
information to isolate broodstock, ensure genetic diversity and release
hatchery reared fish back into their watershed. The genetic markers can
also be used to indicate if a captured fish was reared in the hatchery.
Additionally, we use genetics to help assist with selection of species
for breeding for commercial aquaculture applications. These genetic
tools can aid in selecting against a genetic disorder or condition or
selecting for a value-added trait such as fast growth. These tools can
also be used to select for entire genomes. The use of selective
breeding as a tool to increase aquaculture production is far behind the
plant and farm animal industries and selective breeding of fish can
generally be completed in less time than breeding of farm animals.
Question 6. Should permits or leases for marine aquaculture
production facilities be of a long enough duration for investors to
have the opportunity to see a return on their investment?
Answer. The duration of the lease and/or permits should be long
enough for industry to capture the cost of capital and make a profit on
their investment.
Question 7. Are there environmental benefits to locating marine
aquaculture farms further offshore, such as in the exclusive economic
zone?
Answer. Open-ocean aquaculture can reduce some environmental
concerns that we see in nearshore environments by siting farms away
from sensitive habitats in deep waters with adequate currents the
potential pollution would be reduced.
Question 8. Would a permit to operate a marine aquaculture facility
be sufficiently secure to provide investors with the certainty to
invest in a marine aquaculture operation?
Answer. There is concern with the industry that a permit only gives
an individual or company the authority to operate and does not provide
the property rights necessary to provide business security. If a
company was conducting aquaculture in Mississippi state waters, the
company would need a lease of the water bottoms and would also need a
permit to conduct the aquaculture activity. Several states have similar
models of requiring both a lease and a permit.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Dr. Kelly Lucas
Question 1. General Marine Aquaculture: What are your top
recommendations for building a marine aquaculture industry while
preserving our environment and traditional fisheries?
Answer. Businesses need regulatory certainty to reduce the risk of
investment. Congress should enact legislation to provide a regulatory
framework for offshore aquaculture. The regulatory framework should be
structured to provide an avenue for permit approval. One agency should
be the lead for the permit process. I would suggest NOAA can lead the
process and can lead the necessary environmental reviews. Other
agencies will still need to supply the permits necessary by law, but it
would be efficient to have a designated agency coordinating the
process.
Supporting aquaculture development by similar mechanisms used to
support agriculture can help industry grow. The agriculture industry
grew tremendously from public support of research occurring at
universities, state and Federal laboratories and research stations
spread across the Nation to bring techniques directly to farmers.
Aquaculture can benefit from a similar approach of competitive research
funding and extension funding to advance research and development.
Advancement of aquaculture, especially selective breeding, health
management and culture techniques can take multiple years for
significant gains and long-term funding programs will be critical to
success.
Aquaculture can help expand our supply of local, safe, sustainable
seafood. Fish are more efficient converters of feed to meat and the
ability to produce a steady fish supply can meet the increasing demand
for protein. We have robust environmental laws in the United States
that help ensure we operate in environmentally safe manner. We also
have regulations regarding fish health and treatment of fish for
consumption. Open-ocean aquaculture can reduce some environmental
concerns that we see in nearshore environments by siting farms away
from sensitive habitats in deep waters with adequate currents the
potential pollution would be reduced. We also should continue to grow
land-based and near-shore aquaculture. Land-based aquaculture in
recirculating closed loop systems is advantageous for numerous reasons.
Some benefits of the controlled environment in recirculating systems is
the increased biosecurity and ability to increase production through
year-round growth. Water reuse through filtration and sterilization
also increases the sustainability of closed-loop recirculating systems.
The ability to locate the facilities in areas of market supply helps
create local jobs and supplies safe, fresh, local, seafood for
consumers. Near-shore aquaculture in the United States has been
increasing. Shellfish aquaculture has increased significantly along all
United States shorelines and seaweed aquaculture have been increasing
in several regions of the United States. This un-fed aquaculture in
near-shore locations has environmental benefits of improving water
quality and providing habitat.
We need to think of aquaculture as diversification and not a
replacement for commercial fishing. We need make sure the message is
clear that aquaculture is not trying to replace commercial fishing.
World-wide, wild capture fisheries is stagnant and has been since the
1990s. We are fishing at maximum sustainable yield and in some cases
over sustainable yield. In order to meet the increasing demand for
seafood, aquaculture will be necessary, but it will also be necessary
for us to continue to have sustainable wild-capture fisheries. Offshore
and nearshore aquaculture shares a lot of the same infrastructure and
equipment in terms of working waterfronts, processing plants, seafood
markets, boats and boat repair with the commercial industry and working
together both industries can benefit. For recreational anglers off-
shore and near-shore aquaculture creates habitat that attracts fish.
Allowing anglers to fish near these structures can provide increased
fishing opportunities. In addition to that bait fish can be cultured
that benefit both the recreational and commercial industries. Both the
commercial and recreational communities have benefited from stock
enhancement and aquaculture-based restoration efforts.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto
to Dr. Kelly Lucas
Question 1. Las Vegas receives 42 million annual visitors and has a
local population of around two million. We depend on a responsible and
clean level of drinking water sources. Unfortunately we're experiencing
record-low water levels at Lake Mead. How can we ensure a balance of
creating more aquaculture opportunities in the southwest, while also
maintaining the dependable water sources we desperately need to survive
and thrive?
Answer. One suggestion I can offer is diversification of
aquaculture to include recirculating aquaculture systems. Recirculating
aquaculture systems operate by filtering water and cleaning the water
to remove waste and reuse the water. Often the removed waste products
can be used for alternate activities such as growing plants. Ponds can
also be outfitted in ways to recirculate and filter water for reuse.
Question 2. Electricity is obviously required for pumps used in
aquaculture and aquaponics. Are there any studies on the use of
renewable sources of energy to help maintain the power to these
operations?
Answer. The cost of electricity can be significant for aquaculture
operations and businesses look for ways to reduce cost. One example of
using renewable energy is the use of sunlight to grow algae. The algae
can be the end product or can be used as feed for other aquaculture
activities such as feed in a hatchery. Another example is the use of
the tide to tumble oysters in a bag to create the desired oyster shell
growth. Also, solar energy can be used for automated fish feeders and
monitoring systems. There is ongoing research for using renewable
energy in aquaculture and as renewable energy technology increases so
will numerous uses for this technology in aquaculture.
Question 3. Are there opportunities to utilize geothermal
technologies specifically that you have seen in your work?
Answer. Geothermal energy is used in aquaculture to heat water for
ponds, raceways and tanks. Geothermal energy can also be used to heat
greenhouses and aquaculture facilities.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Roger F. Wicker to
Barton Seaver
Question. From your experience in Maine, how can marine aquaculture
be compatible with and supportive of the commercial fishing industry?
Answer. In Maine, as is true in many fishing communities, we have
seen the proud tradition of wild fisheries atrophy in the wake of
mismanagement, foreign competition, and changing habitats. And yet
these communities somehow remain resilient, finding ways to continue to
pursue the iconic profession of fishing on the open water.
Wild fisheries have a long and strong tradition of apprenticeship,
where the older generation passes its skills and knowledge on to the
upcoming generations through side-by-side collaboration. But a serious
issue facing wild fisheries is the graying of the fleets. As rural
communities and less profitable fisheries are less able to attract
young labor the average age of fishermen is increasing. The aquaculture
industry represents an exciting combination of technology, innovation,
environmental stewardship and sustainable food production that can
attract younger residents.
But this does not have to devolve into a competition between the
two industries, between generations. Rather, it is a perfect
opportunity for the experienced fishermen and women to serve as mentors
to the budding aquaculturists, sharing their knowledge of the local
ecosystems, best economic and sustainability practices, and navigation
of the supply chain. By participating in the growth of a young
aquaculture industry, experienced fishermen and women are celebrated
for their heritage and can serve as catalysts to a new economy,
fostering the emerging workforce that will settle into coastal
communities and maintain their vibrancy.
In Maine, there are over 4,000 individual, owner-operated
lobstermen and women who already possess the transportation equipment,
have established a sophisticated cold storage supply chain, and built
the markets to successfully distribute and sell seafood. Much of the
risk and cost involved in an aquaculture start-up is the creation of
these systems beyond the farm itself. The existing support systems, as
well as the people already working the water could allow rural coastal
economies to diversify into farming to augment their wild capture.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Barton Seaver
Question 1. General Marine Aquaculture: What are your top
recommendations for building a marine aquaculture industry while
preserving our environment and traditional fisheries?
Answer. It is my belief, and I can point to many examples of
collaboration in my home state of Maine, that wild fisheries and marine
aquaculture not are inherently at odds. The existence of one, does not
diminish the other in anyway. But to answer your question more
directly, I do have recommendations that could help both thrive at the
same time.
I recommend the United States heavily invest in the
development of modern aquaculture much in the same way it
invested in the development of the agriculture industry post
World War II. Making more seafood available to more Americans
will raise the consumer confidence in, and the market value of,
both wild caught and farmed seafood. A made-in-the-USA label is
a powerful mark of civic and economic virtue. Investing in
aquaculture as a national priority will send a very clear
message calling needed attention to the opportunities for this
Nation to better utilize our marine resources.
I recommend that we as a nation ensure that best fish
farming practices are followed to protect the environment, wild
fisheries and our citizenry. But I also recommend that specific
regulations in any given region be implemented with a firm
understanding of that region's maritime culture and heritage.
I recommend the government invest in community and economic
development programs based on an apprenticeship model through
which wild fishery and aquaculture participants can find
mentorship opportunities in each other and create cross-
industry collaborations.
Question 2. Mr. Seaver, as a restaurant owner and chef you have
seen first-hand the expectation consumers have about the quality,
origin, and nutritional value of the food they eat. How would consumers
benefit from more marine aquaculture?
Answer. It is important to recognize that seafood is categorically
one of the healthiest foods humans can eat. As a matter of public
health, we must work to increase seafood consumption just to meet our
own government's recommendations for twice weekly consumption of fish
for every American. A limiting factor in seafood consumption to date is
a neutral, or often negative, perception of farmed seafood. It is not a
stretch to say that developing the United State aquaculture industry as
a trusted source for seafood would lead to increased consumer
confidence and consumption.
Question 3. What kind of regulations or standards for marine
aquaculture do you see as necessary to preserve the health and safety
of consumers and the environment?
Answer. There are excellent standards for industry best practices
that are constantly evolving due to emerging science and technological
innovation. While I am not an expert and defer to others on specific
regulations, I can state with confidence that we know how to farm
seafood in environmentally friendly ways that produces healthy food.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Edward Markey to
Barton Seaver
Question 1. Senator Wicker and I worked together to help create the
Seafood Import Monitoring Program, which was just fully implemented at
the beginning of this year. This program will help reduce Illegal,
Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) fishing for specific species because
it requires importers to include data on where and when the fish was
landed and who landed it. However, this data is not consumer-facing. In
your restaurants, you highly valued traceability and trained your staff
to tell the story of how each customer's fish arrived on their plate.
How can we expand these stories beyond high-end restaurants and make
them more accessible to consumers on a daily basis--from fast food to
supermarkets?
Answer. I believe traceability from dock to dish must take many
forms, each one suited to the particular type of operation in which it
is practiced.
In white table cloth restaurants, we have the luxury of extended
customer engagement and the flexibility of daily changing menus that
reduce the risk of offering new products. We have the time to tell
every detail of the fish's origin, but if it doesn't sell well, we can
take it off the menu the next day without too much monetary loss.
But in the case of a large food service operation--where the
customer interaction is shorter and purchasing a variety of seafood
products comes at a cost. Often there is a lower level of culinary
skill and thus less ability to adapt to the nuances of variable
sourcing. In such operations it is common to find menus that
consistently list a single species that must be sourced from wherever
it is currently available. In such cases it is more appropriate to
communicate an operator's commitment to a considered set of civic and
environmental values regarding the fish being served. It is rare in
such scenarios that it is feasible to list the specific fishing boat
that captured it. The solution is to commit to sourcing from certain
regions where the fish is sustainably managed and to communicate region
or provenance as the best means to connect the ingredient back to the
producer community.
The point is to elevate American seafood in general as a trusted
seal of quality and sustainability. Just as the Magnuson-Stevens Act
serves to validate American-caught seafood as sustainable, so would a
robust national aquaculture policy based on best practices and the best
science provide the same level of confidence in farmed seafood.
Question 2. The Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen's Alliance in
Massachusetts has been working with the seafood distribution company
Sea to Table to build domestic markets for locally caught spiny
dogfish. Spiny dogfish is not well known to American consumers, but is
delicious in fish and chips, or in tacos. How can we expand these sorts
of programs so that Americans can enjoy local, plentiful fish that they
might not currently recognize by name or appearance?
Answer. Dogfish has long been the bane of fishermen in New England.
It was an unwelcome catch when the profitable cod was the target. And
despite its abundance and affordable price it has never enjoyed any
significant popularity at market. To counter this our government
undertook multiple efforts to advertise its qualities, even promoting
its use as a ``fighting food'' for those on the home front. It was even
marketed under a variety of more romantic names such as Harbor Halibut,
Mustel, and Cape Shark.
Personally I never have understood the problem with the name
dogfish. We eat plenty of catfish in this country with no complaint.
But these efforts never amounted to any lasting economic impact for
fishermen. Although history would suggest that there is something less
desirable about dogfish, it is simply due to a lingering cultural bias
that has unfairly regarded this truly delicious fish as a stain upon
creation. But as has been proven by the Sea to Table efforts, when
stripped of any stigma, consumers find it to be among the tastiest of
all the white-fleshed fish varieties common to New England.
And that leads to my recommendation that we educate chefs and
consumers about seafood by focusing on the culinary qualities of the
fish rather than the species name. Dogfish cooks the same as cod as
haddock as cusk as hake . . . While a consumer might not know what hake
tastes like they certainly know what flaky white-fleshed fish tastes
like. The best place to implement such education programs is in college
and university food service operations. Students are often willing to
experiment and try new ingredients. And it offers a logistically simple
but high volume and high impact means to sell product and to influence
future consumers. But foodservice operators are hesitant to take risks
on serving something the students will reject and end up wasting.
Education initiatives subsidized by state extension or Sea Grant
programs can help reduce the financial pressure and risk in introducing
new fish. And once the students approve, the market is there, and
companies like Sea to Table and community organizations like the CCCFA
are then able to supply those markets and connect students with
producers.
Seafood cookery is unnecessarily complicated by our irrational
preferences for a single species or another. I know too many people who
swear by rockfish but swear off striped bass (they are actually the
exact same fish). When we start with the familiar, say a fish taco, all
of a sudden the dogfish inside isn't so exotic. I by no means condone
fish fraud. We must always label seafood as the species it is. But why
try to sell dogfish when you can much more easily sell a fish taco made
with dogfish. Sell the dish and not the fish. It's a simple method that
allows consumers to engage with fisheries in a rational way. Instead of
demanding of the oceans and of fishermen only cod, we must ask of them
what they are able to provide. In doing so we shift the entire economy
of fisheries from one based on irrational demand to one based on
sustainable supply. Sustainable meaning that it is often better for the
environment and it allows fishermen to earn the deserved value of
whatever delicious fish they happen to haul up.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto
to Barton Seaver
Question 1. It is not a stretch to say that developing the U.S.
aquaculture industry as a trusted source for seafood could lead to
increased consumer confidence and consumption, correct?
Answer. Yes, I believe that to be true. A robust American
aquaculture industry, regulated for safety and environmental
sustainability, would result in increased consumer confidence in and
consumption of American seafood.
Question 2. How we do ensure that low-income individuals and
families can still have access to this dietary benefit?
Answer. As the aquaculture industry matures, there will be
technological advances made and efficiencies realized that will reduce
the cost of American seafood to the consumer. It is also important to
note that aquaculture isn't limited to farming fish in the oceans.
There are technologically advanced self-circulating systems used to
farm many species of fish that can be set up in an old warehouse in
Detroit or in an empty strip mall in rural American. Not only will
these aquaculture operations provide increased access to fish in these
areas, they could also result in employment opportunities. There are
great examples of these systems such as an urban farm in Milwaukee
where visionary community member Will Allen has proven both nutrition
and community benefits result from these efforts.
Question 3. Furthermore, how can we make it economical enough to
allow for its viability in food assistance programs and its inclusion
in the school lunches that often is the main source of nutrition and
comprehensive meals for millions of American youth?
Answer. Given the prodigious potential for aquaculture production,
strong governmental support for growth in this industry, much like was
done for agriculture commodities, could lead to a scale of production
that will enable the farming of healthy, nutritious seafood that will
fit within the tight budgetary parameters of food assistance and school
lunch programs. There are great programs already being implemented for
getting more wild-caught seafood at affordable prices into the schools,
institutions, and food assistance programs in both Massachusetts and
Maine. These programs, like the Mass Farm to School initiative that
embraces seafood as a basic tenet of its program (https://
www.massfarmtoschool.org/announcement/sea-to-school-takeaways/) could
serve as models for farmed fish distribution and consumption in those
venue across the country.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger F. Wicker to
Donald B. Kent
Question 1. What type of assurances--particularly related to
permitting--do aquaculture businesses and entrepreneurs require to make
offshore aquaculture more attractive to investors?
Answer. As in any enterprise, investors are looking for some
assurance of an investment return, and to realize that return, permits
are needed to not only allow the business to operate, but to also shape
the scope of the operation and to define operational protocols. Here in
the U.S., we have many of the required operational protocols understood
because of existing laws and regulations for operating in U.S. waters
and for growing food, but what we lack is any assurance of acquiring
the permits because the permitting process is not clearly delineated
and many years and millions in investment can be wasted trying to
acquire permits. In juxtaposition to this is Mexico, where a very clear
permitting path is laid out, and permits can be acquired within a six
month time frame at a cost of about $50,000. Because of this
reliability, American investors seek Mexican partners and operate their
farms in Mexico and then sell the seafood back into the U.S., even
though the resulting product may not meet our rigorous environmental
and public health regulations. I do not mean to suggest that imported
seafood is unsafe, only that it is more difficult to ensure that it
meets our standards if we are not growing it ourselves. What is needed
is a consistent, well-defined permitting pathway that builds upon
existing U.S. laws and regulatory processes and that can be applied
across the Nation so to allow investors. This pathway should:
Reiterate the authorities assigned by existing law to
agencies (e.g., issuance of Section 10 permit by U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, issuance of NPDES permit by EPA).
Require the issuance of an Aquaculture Permit by NOAA
Fisheries for any farm located in Federal waters outside state
coastal jurisdiction.
Reaffirm State's authorities and responsibilities under the
CZMA.
Establish that NOAA Fisheries should be the lead agency for
NEPA review based on its aquaculture, marine resource, and NEPA
expertise
Define the criteria by which the extent of the NEPA review
(i.e., Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact
Statement) will be decided.
Question 2. How would ports and working waterfronts benefit from a
growing marine aquaculture industry?
Answer. Our nation's marine fisheries are well managed and many
that had been over-exploited are now harvested sustainably thereby
providing longer-term security in the supply of those harvested
species. But, we all know relying only on domestic fisheries isn't
enough, especially if we have had to curtail harvests to ensure long-
term sustainability. Aquaculture holds the promise of keeping working
waterfronts working.
Much of the infrastructure needed to support commercial fishing
(dock space for loading/unloading, ice machines, fish processing, fuel,
covered storage space, etc.) is also needed for farming operations. The
primary difference is that commercial fishers harvest wild fish and
farmers harvest farmed fish and both need space on-shore to support
their open ocean operations. By supporting both commercial fishing and
farming, our Nation's ports will get a double return on their
investment in this infrastructure and realize a far greater economic
return as a result of job creation and support.
Question 3. Can you describe in detail the employment opportunities
offered by an offshore marine finfish aquaculture operation?
Answer. Marine farms provide a wide range of opportunities for job
creation. Direct jobs on the farm represent an opening for commercial
fishers who have existing skill sets (piloting vessels in rough seas,
harvesting fish, managing nets, etc.) that are needed for working in
the open ocean environment. Besides the direct jobs on the farm raising
fish, there are jobs associated with processing and distributing the
farmed product, maintaining vessels, delivering feed and other business
support activities. For the farm we propose off the coast of southern
California, the San Diego Economic Development Corporation predicts
that on top of the 72 jobs created by farm operations, an additional
300 jobs would be created and supported by the farming operations. This
seems consistent with studies conducted in Canada where they found that
for every thousand tons of salmon production, there are 43 jobs created
and supported over the long term. Using that rough estimator, a
regional increase of 100 thousand tons of fish production in the open
ocean would support over 4,000 new jobs in and around the farms' region
of operations.
Question 4. Would a permit to operate a marine aquaculture facility
be sufficiently secure to provide investors with the certainty to
invest in a marine aquaculture operation?
Answer. Many industries rely on permits as their primary method of
government regulation that guides their operations. For example:
Business permits issued by a municipality to operate in a
given community.
Specialty permits for truck drivers to operate long haul
vehicles across the Nation.
Licenses for certifying the qualifications of doctors,
lawyers, CPAs and other professionals.
Permits are the interactive system by which our government
regulates industry on a day-to-day basis. What is expected in permits
from Federal agencies (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard,
EPA) for offshore farms are conditions to the permits developed to
evaluate, avoid or mitigate and monitor for possible environmental
effects and impacts to other users. These would be developed as part of
the NEPA review and regulatory permitting process. As long as the
conditions are not unnecessarily restrictive, then the resulting
permits are adequate to allow appropriate farming operations.
Question 5. Should permits or leases for marine aquaculture
production facilities be of a long enough duration for investors to
have the opportunity to see a return on their investment?
Answer. Permits or leases HAVE to be of long enough duration to
allow profitability. An offshore farming operation is capital intensive
and the profit margins, like most farming operations, are not that
high, so adequate time has to be allowed to permit a return on the
investment. A typical scenario would require two years to acquire
permits, a year of mobilization, and at least one year, probably two,
for product to enter the market. A 2,000 ton farm would likely require
and investment of at least$15 million, with annual sales not commencing
until at least year five with profitability realized sometime after
that. A ten-year permit would mean that a farm would only have three or
four years to realize an investment return.
Permits or leases should act like drivers' licenses:
Here is the rule book to go with your license. Don't break the
rules, and we'll let you keep driving. The rules may change,
and you will have to adapt to the changes, but you need to
follow them if you want to keep driving. We may ask you to
``renew'' your license, but as long as you have a good driving
record and are still capable of driving the car, the State will
renew your license.
A responsible farm operator, even after 20 years of business,
should be able to continue farming without having to go through the
entire permitting process again. If it is not significantly impacting
the environment and is meeting the Nation's need for seafood, then
permits should be renewed.
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Donald B. Kent
Question 1. General Marine Aquaculture: What are your top
recommendations for building a marine aquaculture industry while
preserving our environment and traditional fisheries?
Answer. I feel we have significant existing regulatory safeguards
in place to ensure that a use of the EEZ for marine farming will not
have adverse impacts on traditional fishing communities, the
environment or other user groups. What is needed is a consistent,
predictable, efficient permitting process. This would require:
Clearly defining the permits required to operate in the EEZ
and reaffirm the limits of the legal authorities of permitting
agencies to issue permits:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit under Section 10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC 403) which
prohibits the obstruction or alteration of navigable waters
of the United States without a permit.
Clean Water Act authorizes the EPA to regulate point
sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United
States through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit program.
The U.S. Coast Guard issues permits for Private Aids
to Navigation (PATON) which includes lighted structures,
lighted and unlighted buoys, RACONs (interactive RADAR
transponders) and fog signals, which are installed and
maintained by anyone other than the Coast Guard. Such a
permit would specify the navigational aids needed for an
offshore farm to avoid impacting the operations of other
vessels in the area.
A missing link at this time is a specified lead agency for
the requisite National Environmental Policy Act review for all
federally issued permits. When only one Federal permit is
required, then the permitting agency is required to conduct a
NEPA review to ensure that public concerns over prospective
environmental impacts are addressed. However, when multiple
Federal permits are required, as with offshore fish farms, then
the NEPA review should be combined into a single, coordinated
NEPA review process that is led by a ``lead agency''. The
resulting environmental review document can then be used to
condition the permits issued by the respective agencies. For
consistency across all coastlines, it is important that a
single agency be identified nationally as the lead agency for
the NEPA review. In my opinion, the lead agency should be NOAA
Fisheries for the following reasons:
The majority of the environmental concerns regarding
fish farming are the direct responsibility of NOAA line
agencies:
Impacts to protected resources like marine mammals,
endangered species, habitat areas of particular concern,
etc. are managed by NOAA Fisheries
NOAA's National Ocean Service is responsible for
interactions with state coastal resource management
agencies under the Coastal Zone Management Act and provides
resources to coastal zone managers to adequately assess
potential impacts. States with approved management plans
would have review for ``consistency'' which is best
coordinated by NOAA.
NOAA's NOS has developed an extensive array of tools
including:
GIS based tools that identify potential farming sites by
delineating bathymetric requirements needs while assessing the
potential for interactions with other user groups and/or
protected resources.
Photographic analysis systems that assess visual impacts of
farms to coastal residents and user groups
Water quality predictive models that evaluate site specific
characteristics (depth, current speed and direction, water
temperature, etc.) to assess potential impacts to the water
column and benthic habitats and mitigate them.
NOAA Fisheries has the most comprehensive experience
in the subject area of aquaculture impacts as well as the
most experience in conducting NEPA reviews.
Collectively, these actions will act to incentivize
American investors to keep their capital investments here
thereby creating a new paradigm for domestic seafood
production toward higher food security, lower transport
costs, more American jobs, a larger tax base and rebirth of
our working waterfronts.
Question 2. Aquaculture Facility Siting: Mr. Kent, the ocean is
very important to my state, especially for fishermen. As industries
advance, we continue to see competing demands for the use of our
Nation's waters. Where is the ideal location for an aquaculture
facility and how should the government sort through competing ocean
uses?
Answer. I agree that the health of the ocean environment around
Florida is by far the State's most important asset as it contributes
significantly to the quality of life of Floridians and the millions of
annual visitors and ocean health is critical to the Florida economy.
Tourism, military operations, commercial and recreational fishing are
all critical components of Florida's economy and are all reliant on
maintaining a healthy ocean ecosystem.
Relative to where to locate farms off the shores of any of our
Nation's coastal states and the Great Lakes, NOAA's National Ocean
Service has developed GIS based analytical protocols that can be used
to answer that question. Bathymetric information exists in databases
accessible to NOAA and can be used to identify areas where it is
presently practical to site farms (e.g., between 100 to 300 feet of
depth). Much of our Nation's EEZ is too deep to accommodate the present
mooring technology used in offshore farming. After determining where
farms can be practically located, other databases can be accessed to
further refine the locations by identifying sites that have adequate,
but not excessive, current flows which act to maintain water quality
for fish health and avoid degradation of the environment. These areas
can then be reviewed to avoid show sensitive habitats, user groups
(fishing, energy production, military operations, transportation,
etc.), navigational conflicts, migratory pathways and other possible
conflicts. After this type of vetting process all of which could be
conducted by Federal agencies (e.g., U.S. Navy, BOEM, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, EPA, U.S. Coast Guard) interacting directly with NOS
technical staff, the resulting areas should then be available with a
far easier environmental review since the majority of the potential
conflicts would have already been addressed in the site analysis
process.
Question 3. Technology Use: Mr. Kent, I am an advocate for
capitalizing on new and innovative technology. How is technology being
used in the monitoring and inspection of marine aquaculture? What types
of systems could be used in Federal waters?
Answer. Because of the rigors of the open ocean, farms located in
Federal waters will need to be regularly inspected and maintained.
Unlike fish farms located within enclosed embayments, offshore farms
will need to withstand high wave and wind conditions not typically
found in near-shore areas. Because of the relative depth (up to 300
feet), it would be difficult, hazardous and expensive to rely solely
upon SCUBA divers to inspect mooring and cage systems on a regular
basis. Fortunately, over the past few decades there have been
significant advances in the development, versatility and availability
of remotely operated vehicles equipped with high resolution cameras and
lighting that are capable of regular use at the required depths of
operation. These ROVs can replace divers for the majority of the
inspections required to maintain operational integrity and safety on
offshore farms.
Large volume cages are now available that can be submerged whenever
weather becomes problematic. Feed systems are available that can feed
multiple cages without wasting feed thereby reducing the potential for
adverse impacts. Cleaning systems are available that keep nets clean of
fouling organisms which decreases hydraulic drag and improves water
flow. New RADAR transponder technologies are available for automatic
warning and avoidance of potential collisions.
Question 4. What have been the technological improvements over the
last decade in reducing the environmental impacts of marine
aquaculture?
Answer. As mentioned above, computer based site analysis can reduce
conflict with other user groups, minimize interactions with protected
resources and ensure minimal, if any, impacts on water quality.
Feeds are no longer completely reliant on fish meal as their
primary source of protein and oil. Diets can use vegetative protein,
protein from fish processing, bacterial protein from agricultural waste
fermenters, black fly larvae grown on garbage and processing waste from
other livestock sources.
Simulation modeling can be used to site farms in locations where
the depth and adequate current flow can combine to make the presence of
farms chemically undetectable and thereby avoid any impacts on water
quality.
Farms can be sited far enough offshore as to make them practically
invisible to people standing on the shoreline thereby avoiding
aesthetic impacts to the coastal zone.
[all]
| MEMBERNAME | BIOGUIDEID | GPOID | CHAMBER | PARTY | ROLE | STATE | CONGRESS | AUTHORITYID |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wicker, Roger F. | W000437 | 8263 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | MS | 115 | 1226 |
| Blunt, Roy | B000575 | 8313 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | MO | 115 | 1464 |
| Moran, Jerry | M000934 | 8307 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | KS | 115 | 1507 |
| Thune, John | T000250 | 8257 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | SD | 115 | 1534 |
| Baldwin, Tammy | B001230 | 8215 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | WI | 115 | 1558 |
| Udall, Tom | U000039 | 8260 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | NM | 115 | 1567 |
| Capito, Shelley Moore | C001047 | 8223 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | WV | 115 | 1676 |
| Cantwell, Maria | C000127 | 8288 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | WA | 115 | 172 |
| Klobuchar, Amy | K000367 | 8249 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | MN | 115 | 1826 |
| Tester, Jon | T000464 | 8258 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | MT | 115 | 1829 |
| Heller, Dean | H001041 | 8060 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | NV | 115 | 1863 |
| Peters, Gary C. | P000595 | 7994 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | MI | 115 | 1929 |
| Gardner, Cory | G000562 | 7862 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | CO | 115 | 1998 |
| Young, Todd | Y000064 | 7948 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | IN | 115 | 2019 |
| Blumenthal, Richard | B001277 | 8332 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | CT | 115 | 2076 |
| Lee, Mike | L000577 | 8303 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | UT | 115 | 2080 |
| Johnson, Ron | J000293 | 8355 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | WI | 115 | 2086 |
| Duckworth, Tammy | D000622 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | IL | 115 | 2123 | |
| Schatz, Brian | S001194 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | HI | 115 | 2173 | |
| Cruz, Ted | C001098 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | TX | 115 | 2175 | |
| Fischer, Deb | F000463 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | NE | 115 | 2179 | |
| Sullivan, Dan | S001198 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | AK | 115 | 2290 | |
| Cortez Masto, Catherine | C001113 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | NV | 115 | 2299 | |
| Hassan, Margaret Wood | H001076 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | NH | 115 | 2302 | |
| Inhofe, James M. | I000024 | 8322 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | OK | 115 | 583 |
| Markey, Edward J. | M000133 | 7972 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | MA | 115 | 735 |
| Nelson, Bill | N000032 | 8236 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | FL | 115 | 859 |
Disclaimer:
Please refer to the About page for more information.