[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 6537, SANCTUARY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2008; AND H.R. 6204, THUNDER
BAY NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY AND UNDERWATER PRESERVE BOUNDARY
MODIFICATION ACT.
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE
AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Thursday, July 24, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-83
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-709 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free(866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Jim Saxton, New Jersey
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Chris Cannon, Utah
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Jeff Flake, Arizona
Islands Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Grace F. Napolitano, California Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Carolina
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Jim Costa, California Louie Gohmert, Texas
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Tom Cole, Oklahoma
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Rob Bishop, Utah
George Miller, California Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Bill Sali, Idaho
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Mary Fallin, Oklahoma
Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island Adrian Smith, Nebraska
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
Lois Capps, California Steve Scalise, Louisiana
Jay Inslee, Washington
Mark Udall, Colorado
Joe Baca, California
Hilda L. Solis, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
Heath Shuler, North Carolina
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Rick Healy, Chief Counsel
Christopher N. Fluhr, Republican Staff Director
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam, Chairwoman
HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Jim Saxton, New Jersey
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
Samoa Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Tom Cole, Oklahoma
Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Bill Sali, Idaho
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island Don Young, Alaska, ex officio
Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Lois Capps, California
Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia,
ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, July 24, 2008.......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate in Congress from Guam 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Brown, Hon. Henry E., Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of South Carolina................................ 4
Capps, Hon. Lois, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California.............................................. 5
Statement of Witnesses:
Dunnigan, John H., Assistant Administrator, National Ocean
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce................................ 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Gudes, Scott B., Vice President, Government Relations,
National Marine Manufacturers Association.................. 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Kroll, Steve, Chair, Thunder Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council.. 33
Prepared statement of.................................... 35
Marks, Rick, Principal, Hoffman, Silver, Gilman & Blasco..... 36
Prepared statement of.................................... 38
McCotter, Hon. Thaddeus G., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Michigan...................................... 6
Prepared statement on H.R. 6204.......................... 7
Ros-Lehtinen, Hon. Ileana, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Florida....................................... 8
Spruill, Vikki, President and CEO, Ocean Conservancy......... 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
Stupak, Hon. Bart, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan.......................................... 15
Prepared statement on H.R. 6204.......................... 16
Sullivan, Timothy J., Executive Director and CEO, The
Mariners' Museum........................................... 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Additional materials supplied:
Farr, Hon. Sam, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, Statement submitted for the record.......... 10
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 6537, SANCTUARY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2008;
AND H.R. 6204, THUNDER BAY NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY AND UNDERWATER
PRESERVE BOUNDARY MODIFICATION ACT.
----------
Thursday, July 24, 2008
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:14 a.m. in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Madeleine Z.
Bordallo [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bordallo, Brown, Capps, Saxton and
Wittman.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM
Ms. Bordallo. Good morning, everyone. The legislative
hearing by the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
will now come to order. The Subcommittee is meeting today to
hear testimony concerning H.R. 6537, the Sanctuary Enhancement
Act of 2008, and H.R. 6204, the Thunder Bay National Marine
Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve Boundary Modification Act.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 4[g], the Chairwoman and the
Ranking Minority Member will make opening statements. This
morning the Fisheries Subcommittee meets for the purpose of
receiving testimony on H.R. 6537, the Sanctuary Enhancement Act
of 2008, and H.R. 6204, the Thunder Bay National Marine
Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve Boundary Modification Act.
During this Congress, this Subcommittee has held two
oversight hearings to gather views from a wide range of
stakeholders regarding reauthorization of the National Marine
Sanctuaries Act. It is generally agreed that our national
marine sanctuaries are fulfilling their statutory
responsibility and that is to protect nationally significant
areas of the marine environment.
Witnesses also have told us that our sanctuaries are
serving collectively as a useful demonstration model for
ecosystem-based management. Since Congress last reauthorized
the National Marine Sanctuaries Act in 2000, however, the
administration and concerned stakeholders have raised specific
issues regarding the administration of sanctuaries and the Act
itself that this Subcommittee continues to consider.
H.R. 6537 attempts to address many of these issues, and we
do welcome the comments of the witnesses today and other
stakeholders regarding the proposed amendments to the Act.
First and foremost, in order to emphasize resource
protection and to provide for consistency in the management of
the sanctuaries, H.R. 6537 would formally establish a national
marine sanctuary system to be managed by the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration in accordance with a clear
mission statement that would be added to the Act.
Second, H.R. 6537 calls for the inventorying and ecological
classification by NOAA of the maritime environment and marine
heritage resources under the jurisdiction of the United States
based upon guidelines to be developed in consultation with the
coastal states and territories, the Indian tribes and the
regional fishery management councils, among others.
H.R. 6537 would allow for additional sanctuaries to be
designated. The bill also would provide more realistic
timeframes for NOAA to complete management plan reviews and
evaluate their effort or their effect to free up more resources
to support research, management and education activities.
During the course of its oversight, the Subcommittee was
informed by NOAA that none of its statutory authorities under
the National Marine Sanctuaries Act applied to its management
responsibilities as co-trustee of the Northwestern Hawaiian
Islands Marine National Monument.
To address this situation, H.R. 6537 would amend the
National Marine Sanctuaries Act to ensure that NOAA can fulfill
the Agency's management responsibilities as a co-trustee of the
world's largest marine protected area. Finally, several
stakeholders maintain that the regulation of the fishing within
marine sanctuaries is in need of clarification.
H.R. 6537 would amend the existing Section 304 process to
clarify the Secretary of Commerce's authority to determine the
need for and to issue fishing regulations for sanctuaries. The
Act would continue to utilize the regional fishery management
councils as the principal entities responsible for drafting
fishing regulations and provide for greater stakeholder
consultation and review of the fishing regulations.
Regulation of fishing within the boundaries of sanctuaries
is recognizably a sensitive issue and clarifying the role of
both the Secretary and the regional fishery management councils
in drafting and approving such regulations should improve the
management of the resources.
So keeping in mind that all legislation can be refined and
improved, we look forward to hearing the comments and the
recommendations of today's witnesses to ensure that H.R. 6537
serves to strengthen the entire sanctuary system and to address
the myriad interests of the millions of people who live, work
or recreate near marine sanctuaries.
Additionally, I look forward to discussing the proposed
boundary modifications to the Thunder Bay National Marine
Sanctuary in the State of Michigan.
Now, at this time I would like to recognize the Ranking
Member, my friend from South Carolina, The Honorable Henry
Brown.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bordallo follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
This morning the Fisheries Subcommittee meets for the purpose of
receiving testimony on H.R. 6537, the Sanctuary Enhancement Act of
2008; and H.R. 6204, the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and
Underwater Preserve Boundary Modification Act.
During this Congress, this Subcommittee has held two oversight
hearings to gather views from a wide range of stakeholders regarding
reauthorization of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. It is generally
agreed that our national marine sanctuaries are fulfilling their
statutory responsibility to protect nationally significant areas of the
marine environment. Witnesses also have told us that our sanctuaries
are serving collectively as a useful demonstration model for ecosystem-
based management.
Since Congress last reauthorized the National Marine Sanctuaries
Act in 2000, however, the Administration and concerned stakeholders
have raised specific issues regarding the administration of sanctuaries
and the Act itself that this Subcommittee continues to consider. H.R.
6537 attempts to address many of these issues and we welcome the
comments of the witnesses today and other stakeholders regarding the
proposed amendments to the Act.
First and foremost, in order to emphasize resource protection and
to provide for consistency in the management of the sanctuaries, H.R.
6537 would formally establish a National Marine Sanctuary System to be
managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in
accordance with a clear mission statement that would be added to the
Act.
Second, H.R. 6537 calls for the inventorying and ecological
classification by NOAA of the maritime environment and marine heritage
resources under the jurisdiction of the United States based upon
guidelines to be developed in consultation with the coastal states and
territories, Indian tribes, and the Regional Fishery Management
Councils. H.R. 6537 would allow for additional sanctuaries to be
designated. The bill also would provide more realistic timeframes for
NOAA to complete management plan reviews and evaluate their effect to
free up more resources to support research, management and education
activities.
During the course of its oversight, the Subcommittee was informed
by NOAA that none of its statutory authorities under the National
Marine Sanctuaries Act apply to its management responsibilities as co-
trustee of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument.
To address this situation, H.R. 6537 would amend the National Marine
Sanctuaries Act to ensure that NOAA can fulfill the agency's management
responsibilities as a co-trustee of the world's largest marine
protected area.
Finally, several stakeholders maintain that the regulation of
fishing within marine sanctuaries is in need of clarification. H.R.
6537 would amend the existing Section 304 process to clarify the
Secretary of Commerce's authority to determine the need for, and to
issue, fishing regulations within sanctuaries. The Act would continue
to utilize the Regional Fishery Management Councils as the principal
entities responsible for drafting fishing regulations, and provide for
greater stakeholder consultation and review of fishing regulations.
Regulation of fishing within the boundaries of sanctuaries is
recognizably a sensitive issue, and clarifying the role of both the
Secretary and the Regional Fishery Management Councils in drafting and
approving such regulations should improve the management of the
resources.
Keeping in mind that all legislation can be refined and improved,
we look forward to hearing the comments and recommendations of today's
witnesses to ensure that H.R. 6537 serves to strengthen the entire
Sanctuary System and to address the myriad interest of the millions of
people who live, work or recreate near marine sanctuaries.
Additionally, I look forward to discussing the proposed boundary
modifications to the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary in the State
of Michigan.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HENRY E. BROWN, JR., A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair. I know the National
Marine Sanctuary Program has endured widespread support for
many years. However, through the series of hearings that we
have held on issues surrounding the reauthorization of the
National Marine Sanctuaries Act, I have heard from a number of
witnesses that they are concerned with where the program is
headed.
They have mentioned concerns about their activities being
prohibited even when the sanctuary was not designated to
regulate their specific activity, and they have mentioned
concerns about the ability of individual sanctuary managers to
implement regulations that restrict their ability to use
sanctuary resources.
These people legitimately fear for their livelihood because
they feel they can be excluded at any time for little or no
reason. While I have not had much time to review your
legislation, I am afraid the bill will do nothing to ease their
concerns. In fact, I think it will do the opposite. Individual
sanctuaries get designated for specific reasons that for the
most part are unique to that sanctuary.
The destination documents for each sanctuary lay out the
reasons for the designations and they are supposed to make it
clear what activities are OK and which are not OK. If sanctuary
managers continue designation documents for no good reason or
it looks like Congress is likely to outlaw activities for all
sanctuaries, people will feel about the sanctuary program the
way they feel about the rest of Federal government: fear and
distrust.
When we designate a sanctuary, we make it pledge with the
users of that area. If circumstances change and restrictions
need to be put in place, the stakeholders need to be a part of
the discussion. They should not be regulated without cause or
without explanation.
In addition, people are similarly concerned that the
precedent set by the designation of the Northwest Hawaiian
Island National Marine Monument will allow activities to be
banned with no public comment or review. This certainly
concerns by constituents when they hear that there is a
potential for a monument designation off the coast of South
Carolina.
Madam Chairwoman, as I stated at the last hearing, on this
issue we have a strong tradition of recreational and commercial
fishing in South Carolina. In fact, we have very strong ties to
the water, both inland waters and the open ocean. Any proposal
from the Federal government to come in and override the state's
ability to allow fishing or other activities all for sure will
not be welcome.
Any proposal from the Federal government to tell South
Carolina that we cannot develop our natural gas resources off
of our coast would not be welcome. In fact, any proposal that
would tell us what we can or cannot do without any public input
would, and should, be opposed and rejected. I still hear that a
number of proposals are working their way through this
administration to declare areas off limit to certain activities
by Presidential decree, including off South Carolina.
Doing this type of resource lock up without any public
comment is wrong. Any attempt to create a sanctuary or a
monument off South Carolina that would lock up our fishery
resources and our energy resources is bad policy and a bad
idea.
Finally, Madam Chair, at least two of our witnesses start
their testimony with statements that they were not given enough
time to either fully review the reauthorization bill or did not
have enough time to get input from representatives of their
industry sector. That is unfortunate. Even though this hearing
was scheduled in plenty of time, the legislation was not
available until last week giving witnesses less than one week
to prepare for the hearing and get their comments reviewed.
For that reason and because this legislation makes a
significant change to the sanctuary program by adding
authorities for the national marine monuments, something which
we have had very little discussion on in the previous hearings,
I would like for you to make a commitment that this
Subcommittee will not move this legislature prior to us holding
at least one more hearing to discuss the issue surrounding the
designation of national marine monuments and how such monuments
would be treated once they are designated.
I hope such a commitment can be made, and I would like to
work with you to make sure this legislation is something that I
can support and that will not cause more fear among those who
make their living on the waters of the United States.
Thanks, Madam Chairman. You have the balance of the time,
and I welcome my colleagues as witnesses. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the Ranking Member from South
Carolina, the gentleman, Congressman Mr. Brown. Now, I would
like to recognize the gentlelady from California, Lois Capps,
for opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LOIS CAPPS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Capps. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for holding this
hearing, and welcome to our first panel, our expert witnesses
who are our colleagues, Mr. McCotter from Michigan, and
particularly want to welcome colleague Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of
Florida. She and I are co-chairs of the newly created sanctuary
caucus, and it is a pleasure to work with her on behalf of some
of the issues that our colleague, Mr. Brown, just mentioned
inclusivity.
Madam Chairwoman, one of the reasons I joined this
Subcommittee was to reauthorize and be part of this process to
reauthorize the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. This is the
third hearing we have had on this important law in the 110th
Congress. As you recall because you were there, one of our
hearings was held on the site overlooking the Channel Islands
Marine Sanctuary, which I am honored to represent, out in
California.
The hearings have given the Subcommittee an opportunity to
determine if the Act has kept pace with advances in ocean
management and science. Today we begin the next phase of this
process. I want to congratulate you for introducing the
Sanctuary Enhancement Act. This is a good bill.
It makes several targeted and critical changes to the Act,
it lists the current moratorium on the designation of new
sanctuaries, it establishes a process for potential new sites
to be added to the system and it improves the process for
updating sanctuary management plans.
I am confident that these changes will enhance and ensure
the continued success of the sanctuary system for years to
come. Once again, Madam Chair, you have assembled a diverse
group of stakeholders to address the Subcommittee this morning.
I am interested in what they think of some of the provisions
included in the Sanctuary Enhancement Act, hopeful that with
their suggestions we can work toward a successful
reauthorization.
I am ready to do my part to develop these ideas as the
reauthorization process moves forward. Once again, thank you
for introducing the bill and for convening this hearing. I
yield back.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentlelady from California, Lois
Capps, for her opening remarks. Although he is not making any
opening remarks, I would like to introduce the gentleman from
New Jersey, Mr. Saxton, who was a former Chairman of this
Subcommittee. I recognize the Ranking Member.
Mr. Brown. Madam Chair, I would like unanimous consent to
place in the records the statement from our Ranking Member of
the full Committee, Honorable Don Young.
Ms. Bordallo. No objection. So ordered. Now, I would like
to recognize our first panel, two very distinguished colleagues
of mine, Congressman Thaddeus McCotter from Michigan and
Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen from Florida. I want to thank
you both for being here this morning. I know it is a very busy
time for us, particularly on a Thursday.
So at this time before recognizes Congressman McCotter to
testify I would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record
a statement from Congressman Bart Stupak, the sponsor of H.R.
6204, in support of his legislation. Hearing no objection, so
ordered.
Ms. Bordallo. Mr. McCotter, you are now invited to testify
on H.R. 6204, which would expand the Thunder Bay National
Marine Sanctuary.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE THADDEUS McCOTTER, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. McCotter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am delighted to be
here, I am delighted to testify on behalf of this bill by my
colleague from Michigan, Bart Stupak. I think the idea of my
coming in today was hatched while we were standing at first
base at the congressional baseball game and he said what are
you doing?
I said well, I am planning on stealing off of Joe Baca, and
he said well, what are you doing after that? I said well, I
think I can come testify if you are busy, Bart. He said well, I
will be busy, will you go testify? I said who is the Chair of
that Subcommittee? He said Madeleine Bordallo. I said I would
be delighted to attend. I did not know that the good gentleman
from New Jersey was here. I might have reconsidered.
I would like, with your permission, to enter a statement
into the record. I would just like to add to that my personal
belief that the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and
Underwater Preserve has been a tremendous asset to Michigan,
both for its archeological research as well its tourism to our
state.
It has been a very bipartisan issue and the leadership of
people like my colleague, Bart Stupak, and Senator Levin across
the rotunda, is of critical importance to our state as it
struggles. I know there are larger concerns that are with this
issue but in the spirit of the times I remember what Tip
O'Neill said: All politics is local.
I am a citizen of Michigan and this bill will have a
tremendous impact for our residents, and I would urge that it
be passed out of Committee.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Congressman McCotter,
for your testimony. I would like to mention a little on the
side here that I first had the opportunity to meet the
distinguished gentleman on a trip to the Middle East. We did a
series of concerts, I think six altogether. I did not know he
was a very accomplished musician.
I was part of the group, it is called the Second
Amendments, made up of all the Members of Congress. Mr.
McCotter there plays a very mean guitar. So it is good to see
you again, and thank you very much for testifying this morning.
Don't ask me what I played in that. I am just a tambourine
player.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McCotter follows:]
Statement of Representative Thaddeus G. McCotter, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Michigan
Good Morning Chairwoman Bordallo, Ranking Member Brown, and members
of the Subcommittee. Thank you for granting me this time to speak on
the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary. I am pleased to submit this
statement in support of H.R. 6204, the Thunder Bay National Marine
Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve Boundary Modification Act, of which I
am an original co-sponsor.
As you know, in 2000, the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary was
established as the thirteenth national marine sanctuary and the only
marine sanctuary in our Great Lakes. Preceded by thirty years of
tireless dedication, the 448 square miles of protected waters of the
Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary encompasses many natural and
cultural treasures to our Great Lakes and the nation. Certainly, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) itself
recognized Thunder Bay's unique significance in designating this
sanctuary under its mandate is to select sites which are shown to
contain resources of ``special national significance'' due to their
``conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, research,
educational, or aesthetic qualities.''
Specifically, Thunder Bay's cold, freshwater environment has
preserved and protected many historic shipwrecks, unseen in wrecks
found in saltwater environments. Today, more than 200 known shipwrecks
and 65 possible shipwrecks can be found within the boundaries of the
Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Within this impressive array of
shipwrecks lies a rich history detailing the early settlement of our
Great Lakes. While the upper Great Lakes region was sparsely populated
throughout much of the 17th and 18th centuries, in the early 19th and
20th centuries, most of the early immigrants to the region came by boat
due to lack of interior infrastructure development. Evidence of the
development in Great Lakes shipping technology can be clearly seen in
Thunder Bay's impressive inventory to sunken ships. These sunken
vessels range from wooden sailboats to early steel-hulled steamboats,
including a few sidewheel steamboats. One of the more well known
shipwrecks in Thunder Bay was the wooden sidewheel steamer, NEW
ORLEANS, which was sunk during a storm in 1849. Another famous wreck
was the GRECIAN in 1906, which was one of the first steam powered
``lakers'' to sail our Great Lakes. Ultimately, the GRECIAN's design
was replaced by straight-decked lakers, typified by the ISAAC M. SCOTT,
which also sank in Thunder Bay during the Great Storm of 1913.
Indeed, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) used to study the
designation of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary concludes the
importance of Thunder Bay as a microcosm of the larger Great Lakes
shipping system. To highlight one such conclusion from the EIS,
``Virtually all types of vessels employed on the open lakes regularly
passed along this important trade route, and most vessel types are
represented in its shipwreck collection. These vessels were engaged at
the time of their loss, or sometime during their careers, in nearly
every kind of trade. Most of these trades had a national--and some had
an international--significance and spawned uniquely designed vessels.
Thunder Bay, therefore, impacted the design and construction of
traditional Great Lakes craft.'' (EIS, 123)
After its designation as a National Marine Sanctuary, NOAA, in
cooperation with the City of Alpena and Alpena County, Michigan,
established the Great Lakes Maritime Heritage Center. Importantly, the
Great Lakes Maritime Heritage Center serves approximately 60,000
visitors every year as the gateway to Thunder Bay. The Center allows
visitors to explore shipwrecks in real time; investigate
archaeologist's preservation of these historic shipwrecks; and discover
our Great Lakes' maritime history through interactive exhibits. In
2005, I had the pleasure of attending the 5th Anniversary of the
designation of Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary. In June 2008, the
Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary opened a new Great Lakes Maritime
Heritage Center. Now more than ever, visitors can experience the
wonders of Thunder Bay through all new interactive exhibits, including
a replica shipwrecked vessel. While I have not had the opportunity to
visit the new facility, I look forward to one day sharing this
experience with my children.
Importantly, to continue the preservation efforts already underway,
I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of H.R. 6204, the Thunder Bay
National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve Boundary Modification
Act. Specifically, H.R. 6204 would expand the Thunder Bay National
Marine Sanctuary to include the offshore waters of Presque Isle and
Alcona Counties, Michigan. Significantly, these areas are home to a
comparable number to lost vessels which archeologists and students
alike can study and explore. Today, these shipwrecks are popular with
many recreational divers and are integral parts of our Great Lakes'
maritime heritage. Without proper preservation, these historic sites
could be lost. Additionally, this expansion is welcomed by these
surrounding communities in recognition of the good work NOAA and the
Thunder Bay staff is already doing in Alpena.
In conclusion, let me again thank Chairwoman Bordallo, Ranking
Member Brown, and members of the Subcommittee for extending me the
privilege to speak about the benefits of the Thunder Bay National
Marine Sanctuary and H.R. 6204.
______
Ms. Bordallo. I would like to now introduce and recognize a
Co-Chair of the House National Marine Sanctuary Caucus, and she
is our colleague from Florida and the co-sponsor of my bill,
and Congressman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. I have a hard time
sometimes with that name.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. What about your name, Madam Chair?
Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much for your continuing
support for the sanctuary system, and so please begin your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Madam Chair, thank you,
ranking Member Brown, and fellow National Marine Sanctuary
Caucus Co-Chair and Co-Founder, my good friend from California,
Lois Capps. We have a new member of our caucus. I had to assure
Congressman McCotter that it is a marine sanctuary caucus and
not sanctuary cities caucus, so he is quite relieved about
that.
I made quite a mess of your table here, Madam Chair. I
poured an entire cup of water before realizing that it was all
spilling into your beautiful table and onto me. I do not have a
drinking problem.
Ms. Bordallo. Well, since this is the Oceans Committee, I
think it is very appropriate.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Right. That is what Mr. McCotter was
saying. I am developing my own marine sanctuary right here.
Thank you so much for the opportunity. I would like to
recognize in the audience Don Basta, who is a good friend, a
good friend of Lois, a good friend of mine as well. He is the
head of the sanctuary program, so take a bow there, Don. Thank
you.
I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to speak before you
in support of H.R. 6537, the Sanctuary Enhancement Act of 2008,
introduced by the Chair. I am the original co-sponsor, as well
as the lead Republican sponsor on the bill. I believe that we
are at a critical period in which all Americans should unite to
protect our ocean and coastal resources and the reauthorization
of the Sanctuaries Act is an important step toward that goal.
The legislation before this Committee reaffirms the
significance of our marine resources by strengthening Federal
authority to conserve pristine areas, increasing interagency
collaboration and participation between the appropriate
stakeholders, and most importantly, expand educational
opportunities for our young people.
I have the great honor of representing a good chunk of
paradise in this beautiful country. My district consists of 265
miles of Florida coastline from the tip of Miami Beach all the
way down to Key West. The Florida Keys, in particular, is one
of the most ecologically diverse areas in the nation. I think
that applies to humans as well. It is pretty diverse.
The Keys are home to two national parks, four national
wildlife refuges and the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary, and there are currently 13 national marine
sanctuaries and one marine national monument established in
areas where the natural or cultural resources are so
significant that they warrant special status and protection.
Our sanctuary, established by Congress in 1990, includes
the most extensive coral reef system in the continental United
States and the third largest in the world.
National marine sanctuaries provide economic, environmental
and educational benefits to surrounding communities and
visiting populations, and these benefits are fully realized in
my home district where the national marine sanctuary is a prime
hub for tourism, it is a critical source of revenue for local
industries, and it has an underwater lab for children and
adults.
Each year, nearly two million tourists visit the Florida
Keys, including so many ocean enthusiasts, scuba divers--and I
am a scuba diver myself--and the attractions of our sanctuary
system contribute greatly to the total value of Florida's
tourist economies and fisheries.
Commercial and recreational fisherman, as Mr. Brown had
pointed out, operating within sanctuary waters, they contribute
millions of dollars to Florida's economy annually. In fact, our
sanctuary is a model for collaboration and cooperation between
the scientific and commercial fishing industries throughout the
United States.
Provisions included in today's bill seek to strengthen the
interaction between industry stakeholders and conservationists.
I know that numerous commercial fishermen, including those
in my congressional district, are concerned about the role of
their industry in future sanctuary designations and potential
area closures, but I look forward to working with members of
this Subcommittee and the full Committee in ensuring that the
final bill does, indeed, maintain the role of regional
fisheries council and also invites individual fishermen in
decisionmaking that affects their livelihood.
I am a former teacher so I believe that life and learning
are very much connected, and sanctuary systems provide
countless educational opportunities for students of all ages. I
look forward to working with this Subcommittee and with the
full Committee on strengthening our sanctuaries program while
protecting the commercial fishing industry. Thank you so much,
Madam Chair, Ranking Member, Mr. Saxton and Ms. Capps.
Ms. Bordallo. I want to thank you very much for your
excellent remarks, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, and thank you, also, for
your support for a vibrant and effective national marine
sanctuary system. I know you are from the great State of
Florida so you are surrounded by water, just as we are, and I
do want to go on record to thank you for some of the past
support that you have given the territory of Guam.
We still have a bill lingering in the Senate and you have
been very, very helpful. I want to thank you very much for your
die hard support of that piece of legislation. Also to Mr.
McCotter. I know you are both very busy people.
Ms. Bordallo. Is there anybody that wishes to ask any
questions of----
[No response.]
Ms. Bordallo. All right. I want to thank you both then. I
would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a
statement in support of H.R. 6537 on behalf of Congressman Sam
Farr. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
[The statement submitted for the record by Mr. Farr
follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Sam Farr, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California
Having been born and raised on the Central Coast of California, I
have long admired the bounty and the beauty produced from the rich
ecosystems of our oceans. I thank Chairwoman Bordallo for holding this
hearing on the reauthorization, strengthening, and clarification of the
National Marine Sanctuaries Act. I believe that the National Marine
Sanctuaries are a vital tool for the conservation of our oceans and
important models for ecosystem based management. This legislation will
make it clear that the primary purpose of the sanctuaries is the long-
term protection and conservation of the living and nonliving resources.
The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS), which I am
proud to have in my district, contains our nation's largest kelp
forest, one of North America's largest underwater canyons, and the
nearest-to-shore deep ocean environment in the continental United
States. The sanctuary is home to one of the most diverse marine
ecosystems in the world, including 33 species of marine mammals, 94
species of seabirds, 345 species of fishes, and numerous invertebrates
and plants. These features make it ideally situated for learning about
and engaging the public with the marine environment and I believe its
establishment has contributed to the health of our coastal economy.
Having been a long-time supporter of the sanctuary, and lifetime
resident on its shores, I have witnessed the Monterey Bay National
Marine Sanctuary's commitment to building a strong foundation for
continued success by actively engaging local residents in what is
possibly the most involved citizen advisory group in the system. I
believe it is this commitment that has maintained the broad base of
support that continues to be the sanctuary's greatest asset.
The management of the National Marine Sanctuaries requires that we
take the long view and ensure that we continue to have productive,
healthy oceans. The protections for the ocean ecosystems that the
Sanctuaries provide do not endanger the commercial and recreational
fishing industries, but will guarantee the continued existence of these
businesses and these ways of life for future generations of fishermen.
The sanctuaries are an important part of the protections of the
ocean that the people in my district have come to expect. They
represent a promise that we will maintain the ecosystems that are the
cornerstone of commercial fishing, recreational fishing and boating,
and tourism on the coast. Recreational uses of the ocean alone account
for more than $100 billion of the coastal economies, with wildlife
viewing alone generating up to $50 billion. These sanctuaries will
ensure that there remains something for our grandchildren to come see.
The sanctuaries protect fragile benthic habitats from destructive
drilling for oil. They also restrict ship traffic in order to protect
these ocean waters from future oil spills and to avoid repeating the
disastrous consequences from oil spills in the past. During the Cosco
Busan oil spill the staff and the impressively knowledgeable volunteers
of the Sanctuaries on the California coast aided the oil spill response
teams in monitoring and cleanup along the coast. I do not want to
imagine the outcome without these dedicated and caring people. The
sanctuaries guarantee that we will not sacrifice these amazing and
productive living resources for short term economic gain.
Finally we must not underestimate the scientific benefit of having
places from which we can learn about the complex systems of the ocean
on which our climate, our weather, much of our economy, and our food
supply depends. The importance of our oceans will only increase in the
coming decades as the communities along the coasts and inland are
forced to adapt to changes in our climate.
I am pleased that we are starting the process of strengthening and
clarifying the best marine conservation program that we currently have.
I believe we need to include and educate all people who have a stake in
healthy, pristine, and productive oceans in this process. I look
forward to working on this and protecting
______
Ms. Bordallo.The Chairwoman now recognizes the second panel
of witnesses, Mr. John Dunnigan, the Assistant Administrator
for Ocean Services, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration; Ms. Vikki Spruill, President and CEO of the
Ocean Conservancy; Mr. Scott B. Gudes, Vice President,
Government Relations, National Marine Manufacturers
Association; Mr. Timothy Sullivan, Executive Director and CEO,
The Mariners' Museum; Mr. Steve Kroll, Chairman, Thunder Bay
National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council, Diving
Representative; and Mr. Rick Marks, Principal, Hoffman, Silver,
Gilman & Blasco.
I now recognize Mr. Dunnigan to testify for five minutes,
and I would note for all the witnesses that the red timing
light on the table will indicate when your time has concluded
and we would appreciate your cooperation in complying with the
limits that have been set as we have several witnesses to hear
from today. Be assured that your full written statement will be
submitted for the hearing record.
Now, if you would, Mr. Dunnigan, please begin.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN H. DUNNIGAN, ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR OCEAN SERVICES AND COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT,
NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Dunnigan. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Members of the
Committee, good morning. Let me say how much I appreciate the
opportunity to be back here today on behalf of NOAA and the
administration in support of one of the strongest programs that
we have in Oceans and Marine Affairs for the conservation and
protection of valuable resources.
Since you have indicated, Madam Chairwoman, that the
statements will be entered in full in the record, let me just
make a few comments. The National Marine Sanctuaries Act really
is one of the strongest pieces of Federal legislation for
protecting both natural, as well as cultural, resources for the
oceans and the great lakes, and yes and no, we recognize that
the great lakes are oceans, too.
The Sanctuaries Act is unique among a suite of Federal laws
aimed at protecting marine resources because its primary
objective is to identify marine areas of special national
significance for their protection and conservation and for
managing these special places as ecosystems so that we can
maintain their natural biodiversity as well as the historical
and cultural heritage that is associated with these wonderful
places.
NOAA fully supports the reauthorization of the National
Marine Sanctuaries Act, and so we very much appreciate the
opportunity to once again reiterate our views for the
priorities for that reauthorization. Madam Chairwoman, we have
not had sufficient time to completely review the provisions of
H.R. 6537, and so I can't give you specific comments today on
behalf of the administration.
We do, however, look forward to continuing our work with
the Committee and the Committee staff. We have been doing that
over the last couple of months providing technical assistance.
As we go through the bill, we look forward to working with you
some more. If I could, let me just mention a couple of issues
that we have testified before this Committee before about that
we think are some high priority themes that need to be carried
forward.
First, although the Sanctuary Act's primary purpose is
resource protection, we think that the Sanctuary Act has lacked
an overarching sense of mission since the law was first passed
in 1972, and so in clarifying the primary purpose of this bill,
the National Marine Sanctuaries Act could be modified to
include a standalone purpose and policy that very clearly
states what it is that the Congress is trying to achieve
through this legislation rather than the way the bill is
written today where you have to go through the law in a number
of different places and try to tease out what are the important
and salient policy prerogatives that are contained in it.
So establishing a clear primary mission and focus for the
law is something that we think needs to be done. Second, we
think that there are some improvements that can be made in the
processes contained in the law, particularly the sanctuary
identification and designation process. For some time there has
been a moratorium on the consideration of new sanctuaries.
As I said to you a couple of weeks ago when we were here at
the last hearing, we think it is time to allow that moratorium
to be lifted, not necessarily so that we would move forward and
identify or designate a whole swath of new sanctuaries, but
really to create a better opportunity for us to evaluate, and
plan, and look at the system as a whole so that we can make
better judgments as to how it ought to be operating.
We also believe very strongly in NOAA in public process,
and I recognize a number of comments that had been made so far
in this hearing this morning. We have a longstanding commitment
to transparency and to working with the public. Our sanctuary
advisory councils are critical to the success of the process
that we have today. We think that whatever processes are
carried forward need to recognize the importance of the
public's engagement in making these decisions.
The last point that I would like to mention is this
question of marine national monuments. This was brought to us
new when the President designated the Papahanaumokuakea Marine
National Monument. We are looking for an opportunity to try to
make the requirements of monuments under the Antiquities Act
work with the resources that we have under the Sanctuaries Act.
We think that would be a good thing to include in the
reauthorization of the law. Let me make one last comment, if I
could, about Thunder Bay. NOAA agrees with the underlying
purpose of H.R. 6204 to provide Federal protection to the
shipwrecks and other maritime heritage resources located off of
Michigan's Presque Isle and Alcona Counties by incorporating
them into the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary.
There is a lot of public support for this. We recognize it.
We have had a lot of opportunity to work with the public. Our
general view is that these are better done through the
sanctuary process rather than by statute, but, in fact, this is
a wonderful part of the national marine sanctuary system, and
we look forward to being able to continue to work with the
Committee. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Dunnigan, and we look forward
to working with NOAA to refine and improve this legislation to
strengthen the mission and the capabilities of the national
marine sanctuary system. I want to go on record to congratulate
you. You are able to pronounce that monument in Hawaii.
Mr. Dunnigan. It is a requirement of the job, ma'am.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dunnigan follows:]
Statement of John H. Dunnigan, Assistant Administrator, National Ocean
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce
INTRODUCTION
Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the Subcommittee. I am
John H. Dunnigan, Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and
Coastal Zone Management for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R.
6537, the Sanctuary Enhancement Act of 2008 and H.R. 6204, the Thunder
Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve Boundary
Modification Act.
Thirty-six years ago, Congress passed the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-532). Title III of that
law, later named the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (the NMSA),
authorized the Secretary of Commerce to designate areas of the marine
environment, including the Great Lakes, as national marine sanctuaries.
The NMSA is one of the strongest pieces of federal legislation for
protecting both natural and cultural resources in the oceans and Great
Lakes. The NMSA is unique among the suite of federal laws aimed at
protecting or managing marine resources in that its primary objective
is to set aside marine areas of special national significance for their
permanent protection and to manage them as ecosystems to maintain their
natural biodiversity and historical and cultural heritage.
NOAA fully supports reauthorization of the NMSA and appreciates the
opportunity to once again reiterate our priorities for reauthorization.
Although we have not had sufficient time to review H.R. 6537 and cannot
provide specific comments on it today, we look forward to working with
the Committee in the future once we've conducted a more thorough
analysis. My testimony today will therefore focus more generally on
NOAA's priorities for reauthorization and on H.R. 6204.
PRIORITIES for NMSA reauthorization
The NMSA is one of the nation's most successful marine resource
conservation laws and its reauthorization should be a top priority of
Congress as it considers environmental legislation. There are, however,
several issues that the Administration considers ripe for change within
the Act.
NOAA's top three priorities for NMSA reauthorization are to:
Clarify and strengthen that the NMSA's primary mission is
resource protection.
Streamline and clarify the processes of: (1) identifying
and evaluating sites for possible designation as national marine
sanctuaries; (2) selecting eligible sites to begin the designation
process; and (3) designating sites as national marine sanctuaries.
Provide those portions of marine national monuments
managed by NOAA with legal management tools that are currently
available to national marine sanctuaries.
The NMSA's Primary Purpose and Mission Focus
Although the NMSA's primary purpose is resource protection, the
NMSA has lacked an overarching mission statement since its passage in
1972. In implementing the NMSA, NOAA must piece together current
priorities and management goals through references found scattered
throughout the NMSA. This has, on occasion, led to confusion as to the
NMSA's primary mission focus. In clarifying its primary purpose, the
NMSA could be modified to include a stand-alone purpose and policy on
resource protection and a clear concise mission statement for NOAA in
implementing that policy.
Sanctuary Identification and Designation
There has been considerable confusion about the processes for
evaluating sites for eligibility and designating them as national
marine sanctuaries. This confusion has been a significant impediment to
NOAA making timely decisions about designating sites and in conducting
management plan reviews for existing national marine sanctuaries.
Reauthorization discussions of the NMSA could include consideration of
new language to streamline and clarify these processes with the goal of
allowing NOAA to make more timely and predictable decisions.
Any changes to the existing processes, however, must be made in a
way that first and foremost preserves the NMSA's longstanding
commitment to transparent public process. Any changes must also
maintain the NMSA's important procedural safeguards, such as
interagency and intergovernmental consultation requirements.
Marine National Monuments
The Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431-433) gives the President
authority to protect natural and cultural objects through designation
of a national monument. Although this authority has been largely used
to protect terrestrial resources, it has been used to protect special
areas of the marine environment as well, including the
Papah'naumoku'kea Marine National Monument (PMNM), which is the first
monument NOAA has responsibility to manage. NOAA is a co-manager of the
PMNM, along with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State of
Hawaii. While this statute provides a basis for strong protection, the
NMSA provides NOAA a number of well-tested and highly valuable
administrative management tools to effectively manage and protect
national marine sanctuaries that are not available under the
Antiquities Act. In particular, the NMSA provides for the recovery of
damages from parties responsible for injuring sanctuary resources
(section 312); it allows for a community-based advisory council to
provide input in sanctuary management (section 315); and it allows for
NOAA to pursue civil penalties for violations of the NMSA and
regulations or permits issued under the NMSA (section 307). These
authorities would be useful in marine national monuments, or portions
thereof, that are managed by NOAA.
Technical Enhancements to Key Elements of the NMSA
Several key elements of the NMSA lay the basic foundation for
management of the National Marine Sanctuary System and provide
essential statutory authority to ensure its overarching goals and
objectives are efficiently met. These include the ability to conduct
enforcement (section 307), the authority to issue regulations (section
308), the mandate to conduct scientific research and educational
programs (section 309), the flexibility to issue special use permits
(section 310), the authority to enter into cooperative agreements
(section 311), the authority to collect damages from parties
responsible for injuring sanctuary resources (section 312), the
authority to establish and convene advisory councils (section 315), and
the authority to solicit sponsors and accept other forms of support
(section 316). Reauthorization discussions could include careful
evaluation of these foundational pieces of the NMSA and update them as
necessary to ensure they continue to meet NOAA's needs. For example,
some considerations could include:
increasing the maximum civil administrative penalty per
day per offense, to provide a greater deterrent;
providing better clarity on the issuance and enforcement
of permits (e.g., clarify that NOAA has the authority to revoke permits
it issues under the authority of NMS regulations);
making the management of advisory councils more efficient
by eliminating the 15-member limit on advisory councils for sanctuaries
designated after November 4, 1992; and
allowing NOAA to withhold data and information that, if
released, could result in injury to sanctuary resources.
THUNDER BAY EXPANSION
NOAA agrees with the underlying purpose of H.R. 6204, which is to
provide federal protection to the shipwrecks, and other maritime
heritage resources, located off Michigan's Presque Isle and Alcona
Counties by incorporating them into the Thunder Bay National Marine
Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve (Sanctuary). This proposal also has
widespread support in the local communities. On May 22, 2007, the
Thunder Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC) recommended expanding the
Sanctuary to a 3,662-square-mile area extending from Alcona County to
Presque Isle County, east to the international border with Canada.
Formal support for sanctuary expansion has been received from the City
of Alpena, Alpena County, Alpena Township, Sanborn Township, Presque
Isle Township, the City of Rogers City, Alcona County, Michigan Sunrise
Side Travel Association, and the Sunrise Side Coastal Highway
Management Council. While there is public support for such an
expansion, as a general matter NOAA prefers to see that significant
actions such as these be vetted through public management plan and
regulatory development processes rather than legislatively, as H.R.
6204 would do.
The Sanctuary was designated in October 2000 for the purposes of
providing long-term protection and management to the conservation,
recreational, research, educational, and historical resources and
qualities of a nationally significant collection of shipwrecks and
other maritime heritage resources in the area. The bill would increase
the size of the Sanctuary by approximately eight times its current size
of 448 square miles. The Sanctuary's shoreline would also increase from
95 to 225 miles and subsequently include the cities of Alpena,
Harrisville and Rogers City. Under this proposal an additional five
state park properties, seven historic lighthouses and one lifesaving
station would also be adjacent to the expanded boundaries.
More than 200 shipwrecks rest within the proposed boundaries.
Magnificently preserved by the cold freshwater of Lake Huron, these
archeological sites are one of the nation's best-preserved and
historically-significant collections of shipwrecks. From pioneer
steamers to majestic schooners to modern freighters, these sites
represent a microcosm of maritime commerce on the Great Lakes. As
memorials to the men and women that worked the inland seas, these
unique sites have tremendous historical, archaeological, and
recreational value. They not only connect us to the past, but they also
connect us to the Great Lakes--one of our most precious natural
resources.
CONCLUSION
In closing, I'd like to reiterate NOAA's support for NMSA
reauthorization and our sincere gratitude for the hard work this
Subcommittee has done toward that goal. We look forward to working with
the Subcommittee once we've conducted a more thorough analysis of the
bill. I also would like to reiterate NOAA's support for the underlying
purpose of H.R. 6204.
Thank you again for the opportunity to offer my thoughts on these
important issues. I will be glad to answer any questions you may have.
______
Ms. Bordallo. At this time we are going to interrupt for
just a few minutes. Congressman Stupak has come in and he is
the sponsor of 6204, so the Committee would like to have him
give his opening remarks and statement on that bill.
Congressman, go ahead.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BART STUPAK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Stupak. Well, thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank
you for the courtesy. I was helping Oversight Investigations do
a hearing. But this is H.R. 6204, the Thunder Bay National
Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve Boundary Modification
Act. It is of great concern to us and enjoys full support
throughout my district.
What started off as a marine sanctuary, the first one on
the Great Lakes, somewhat controversial a number of years ago,
very few elected officials would support it, but now we enjoy
widespread support from all the counties affected. It has had a
tremendous impact on our community and tourism.
It has opened the eyes of so many people as to I should say
the depths of the Great Lakes, all the shipwrecks we have had,
how the deep, cold waters in the bottom of those lakes have
preserved those shipwrecks for so many years, and we look
forward to expanding the marine sanctuary. It has been a great
asset with great pride.
The State of Michigan and the local communities have
expanded the heritage center that now connects underwater
cameras to some of the shipwrecks. We just had a grand opening
of the new center about two, three weeks ago. A tremendous
turnout, tremendous support. So we are asking for this
Committee if you would approve the boundary modification. Make
it larger to include about another 117 more shipwrecks in this
part of Lake Huron.
We certainly appreciate the help and support of this
Subcommittee and the full Committee, and we look forward to
continuing to expand the enjoyment, the excitement, the
discovery process, the eyes that we open up for people around
the Great Lakes as to our great maritime history in the Great
Lakes. Thank you for your help and support, Madam Chair, and to
all the members.
Thank you for taking me out of order and the courtesy shown
here today. I will go back up on my hearing on long-term care.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stupak follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Bart Stupak, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan
Thank you Chairwoman Bordallo, Ranking Member Brown, and Members of
the Subcommittee for holding this hearing on H.R. 6204, the Thunder Bay
National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve Boundary Modification
Act.
I also want to thank the bill's original co-sponsors Congressman
Kildee and Congressman McCotter, who's efforts have been instrumental
in bringing my bill to the Committee.
In 1975, Michigan State University in response to local interest
collected an inventory of shipwrecks located within Lake Huron's
Thunder Bay. What they found was that Thunder Bay potentially contained
the largest number of historical shipwrecks in the country.
This discovery warranted the establishment of an underwater
``reserve'' and in 1981 the state of Michigan declared Thunder Bay as
Michigan's first Great Lakes Bottomland Preserve.
Following this state recognition, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration designated the Thunder Bay National Marine
Sanctuary in 2000 making it the first sanctuary in the Great Lakes.
The Sanctuary is a federal-state partnership with a unique focus on
preserving the large collection of underwater cultural resources. These
resources consist of over 100 shipwrecks spanning over 200 years of
Great Lakes shipping history.
In order to study and preserve the cultural resources present at
Thunder Bay, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and
the State of Michigan established the Great Lakes Maritime Heritage
Center in Alpena, Michigan in 2005.
The Great Lakes Maritime Heritage Center allows visitors to learn
about Great Lakes' maritime history, explore shipwrecks via live video
feeds, and see how archaeologists continue to work to preserve these
historic sites.
To continue this positive outcome, the Thunder Bay Sanctuary
Advisory Council, a fifteen-member group representing local interests
such as fishermen, the business community, educational institutions,
and local government, have passed a resolution that recommended the
sanctuary be expanded.
My legislation, H.R. 6204, would extend the sanctuary's boundaries
to include the waters off Alcona, Alpena and Presque Isle counties in
Michigan and extend the sanctuary east to the international boundary
with Canada.
Currently, the sanctuary covers 448 square miles of water and 115
miles of shoreline, protecting 116 shipwrecks. H.R. 6204 would increase
this area to 3,722 square miles of water and 226 miles of shoreline,
adding an additional 180 shipwrecks to the Sanctuary.
In addition, the legislation would direct NOAA to produce updated
charts of the newly designated areas and apply the protection and
preservation provisions in the existing management plan to the newly
added areas.
By authorizing an expansion to the Thunder Bay National Marine
Sanctuary, the affected local communities would receive the benefits of
having additional historical resources highlighted and preserved, as
well as increased tourism, which is an important driver for economic
growth.
The Senate companion bill, S. 2281, introduced by Senator Carl
Levin, was approved by the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation on May 15, 2008.
It is my hope that this Committee will also support this
legislation, so we may make this expansion a reality. I thank you again
for allowing me to testify, and for your consideration of my
legislation.
______
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Stupak, who is the author of H.R. 6204. I understand he
represents one of the largest districts in his state. I would
like to recognize the Ranking Member who has a question.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Bart. Thanks for being here today. I
was just looking at the map, you know, showing where the
current sanctuary is and where you want to expand it to. I
would assume that the boundary out there would be the boundary
that your protected waters in Michigan versus the protected
waters in Canada. Is that the dividing line?
Mr. Stupak. No. The dividing line is out a little bit
farther. It is an international border there so it is quite a
ways out there.
Mr. Brown. OK.
Mr. Stupak. We were still fairly close to the shoreline
because of the reefs that are found in that area. That is where
all those shipwrecks lie, and all lie within the State of
Michigan. The international border is still farther out in the
water.
Mr. Brown. I got you.
Mr. Stupak. I have over 1,600 miles of freshwater
shoreline. I have more shoreline than any other congressional
district except Alaska. So it is a pretty big district and
Canada is very supportive of it. Right across from us is the
Manitou Islands where they have a number of passages and
shipwrecks that Canada is developing.
Mr. Brown. OK. Thanks.
Ms. Bordallo. Again, I thank the gentleman from Michigan
for his statements today and they will be entered into the
record. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. Now, we will continue on. I would like to
introduce Ms. Spruill. Welcome before the Subcommittee and you
are now recognized to testify for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF VIKKI SPRUILL, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
THE OCEAN CONSERVANCY
Ms. Spruill. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and members of
the Subcommittee. I am Vikki Spruill, President and CEO at
Ocean Conservancy. I would like to thank Chairwoman Bordallo
for her leadership on the issue of ocean conversation and for
moving this critical reauthorization forward.
As is probably true for many of us here, the ocean has been
a constant throughout my life. I was fortunate to grow up along
the panhandle of Florida with its sugar sand beaches and
emerald waters that attract countless tourists every year. I
went to college in New Orleans not far from the Gulf of Mexico
where oil rigs and refineries mark the coastal waters.
Ocean conservancy is the country's oldest and largest ocean
nonprofit. We harness over 35 years of policy and scientific
expertise to anticipate ecological threats and to deliver
sustainable solutions to protect our ocean and improve our
quality of life. I am honored to represent a half a million
members and volunteers from across the country.
We believe it is time to look beneath the surface of the
ocean to see where the health of our planet really begins. The
ocean is Earth's life support system.
It covers two-thirds of the planet, provides much of the
air we breathe, the food we need, and it actually moderates the
climate that sustains us, yet many still take it for granted,
so it falls to us to be stewards of the ocean, to put in place
the kinds of policies like we are discussing today that will
conserve and protect the ocean.
I had a lengthy career in the private sector before working
in ocean conservation and the good news is that we are seeing
the emergence of a new ocean ethic in which American businesses
recognize the comprehensive value of the ocean rather than
discrete resources to be extracted.
I appreciated the stories from the businesspeople who
testified in favor of this reauthorization. They told very
compelling and personal stories about the positive impacts that
sanctuaries had on their businesses and in their communities.
Even though it is not the focus of today's hearing, I must say
that I hope this ocean ethic prevails as the Congress debates
whether to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling.
Lifting the moratorium would do nothing to lower today's
gas prices and there are cheaper, and faster, and safer ways to
solve our energy crisis by investing alternative technologies.
By far, one of the most comprehensive ways to achieve our goal
of a healthy ocean is through a sound national marine sanctuary
system.
It is one of the most critical instruments in our
conservation toolbox, and it allows us to create a healthier
and more resilient ocean. It is our duty to make the Marine
Sanctuaries Act the strongest law it can possibly be because
the ocean is in trouble.
Sanctuaries bring the best of the ocean to life for people
and give them firsthand opportunities to experience the beauty
and the majesty of the ocean while also protecting its
productivity and the lives who depend on that productivity. The
sanctuary system has shown great potential to address the
growing challenges facing our oceans, to reverse declines in
ocean ecosystems and to provide special ocean places for us and
for future generations to enjoy.
We have seen some successes along the California coast, in
the Florida Keys and in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.
While each sanctuary has a unique story, they all share some
key elements, including well-developed community support,
public education and outreach, science, and a real commitment
to protect marine resources in a comprehensive way.
They also reflect strong Federal leadership and close
collaboration with states and other partners. We are very
pleased with the bill you have introduced. We believe it is a
thoughtful, balanced bill and goes a long way toward addressing
the priority issues that we identified when this Committee met
in Santa Barbara.
We believe the limited and targeted classifications and
improvements that you have included will greatly improve the
nation's ability to achieve its critical mandate. There are six
components that we are especially pleased to see included.
First, the bill significantly strengthens the core purpose
of the sanctuary system making clear that the primary purpose
is long-term protection and conservation of ocean resources,
and it creates a strong and clear mission for the system that
echoes this purpose.
Second, it recognizes the value of protected areas in the
ocean for replenishment and for resilience and encourages the
use of zoning within sanctuaries, including the potential
designation of marine reserves and other highly protected
areas.
Third, the moratorium on new sanctuaries would be removed.
Fourth, the bill would create a process to identify and
prioritize potential new areas for inclusion in the system and
would set an ambitious expansion goal to include a full range
of our ocean's special and representative places by the year
2030.
Fifth, the bill would improve the process for developing
fishing regulations in conjunction with fishery management
councils in a consultative process. Last, the bill would
provide an adequate budget to accomplish these objectives. No
matter what we say or do here, adequate budget is critically
important to the success of the program.
We have a few minor concerns with some specific language
that is detailed in our written comments, and we look forward
to working with you on making further improvements to address
these. So in closing I want to reiterate Ocean Conservancy's
commitment to working with you, and thank you, again, for
showing your dedication and leadership in moving this important
effort forward. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Ms. Spruill, for your
recommendations concerning H.R. 6537.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Spruill follows:]
Statement of Vikki Spruill, President and CEO,
Ocean Conservancy
INTRODUCTION
Good morning Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am
Vikki Spruill, President and CEO at Ocean Conservancy, the country's
oldest and largest ocean non-profit harnessing over 35 years of policy
and scientific expertise to anticipate ecological threats and deliver
sustainable solutions that protect our ocean and improve our quality of
life. I'd like to thank Chairwoman Bordallo for her leadership on the
issue of ocean conservation and for moving the critical reauthorization
of the National Marine Sanctuary Act forward with the introduction of
the H.R. 6537, the Sanctuary Enhancement Act of 2008. My testimony
today will focus on this bill and I will leave the discussion of the
Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve Boundary Modification Act, H.R. 6204,
to other panelists with greater relevant expertise on it.
As is probably true for many of us here, the ocean has been a
constant throughout my life. I was fortunate to grow up along the
panhandle of Florida, with its sugar-sand beaches and emerald waters
that attract countless tourists each year. And, I went to school in New
Orleans, not far from the Gulf of Mexico where oilrigs dot coastal
waters and refineries light the night. For over a decade, I have been
closely involved in ocean conservation and I am constantly reminded of
the extraordinary vision, wisdom, and, in many cases, courage it takes
to conserve our majestic ocean places. I am honored to represent the
half a million ocean conservancy members and volunteers from across the
country and thank you for this opportunity.
It seems, at every turn, we are reminded of the critical role that
the ocean serves as Earth's life support system. The ocean covers 2/3
of the planet and provides much of the air we breathe, the food we
need, and moderates the climate that sustains us. Yet, most take it for
granted. So it falls to us to be the stewards of the ocean to put in
place the kinds of policies that will conserve and protect the ocean.
That is what brings us together today.
While I am here representing the conservation community, there is
also a sea change afoot throughout our culture, particularly in the
business community. In recent years, we have seen the emergence of a
new ``ocean ethic'' in which American businesses are starting to
recognize the comprehensive value of the ocean, rather than as a
collection of discrete resources to be extracted. I, too, had a lengthy
career in the private sector and I related to the stories from the
businesswomen and men who testified in favor of National Marine
Sanctuary Reauthorization before this committee in June. They told
personal stories about the positive impact sanctuaries had on their
businesses and their communities. Even though it is not the focus of
today's hearing, I must say that I hope this ocean ethic prevails as
the Congress debates whether to lift the moratorium on offshore
drilling, even though doing so would do nothing to lower today's gas
prices and there are cheaper, faster, safer ways to solve our energy
crisis.
The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) is one of the
cornerstones of the conservation work we do. Is it perfect? Certainly
not! Is it a critical instrument in our conservation toolbox that
allows us to create a healthier, more resilient ocean? Absolutely!
Therefore, it is our duty to make the National Marine Sanctuaries Act
the strongest law it can possibly be, because the ocean is in trouble.
Given the existing and growing threats to ocean ecosystems, we need a
strong and robust National Marine Sanctuary System now more than ever.
Today there is widespread scientific recognition that multiple
stressors including overfishing, pollution, poor land use practices,
and habitat modification have been degrading marine ecosystems for
decades, if not centuries, and are now pushing them beyond the breaking
point. Superimposed on these multiple stressors and exacerbating their
impacts, global climate change is increasingly affecting marine
ecosystems and degrading them further. The good news is that there are
practical steps we can take to turn the tide and restore our oceans and
make them more resilient to these threats. There is increasing evidence
that MPAs, especially marine reserves and other highly-protected ones,
can help protect and restore ecosystems, maintain ecological integrity,
increase ecosystem resilience, and provide an important hedge against
global climate change and other stressors. Some of this new evidence is
for the first time coming from within our National Marine Sanctuary
System, as a result of the marine reserve networks that have been set
up in the Florida Keys and California. In spite of the many challenges
it faces, our existing Sanctuary System is already contributing to
ocean health and resilience. The new and ambitious marine reserve
network recently implemented to help protect the Great Barrier Reef
from global climate change and other threats is also already showing
positive results.
Today, I believe, you have a watershed opportunity to clarify,
strengthen, and reauthorize the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. This
reauthorization gives us an unprecedented opportunity to build on the
Act's successes and ensure that it achieves its broader mandate--and we
speak for many when we thank you for moving forward today. By far, one
of the most comprehensive ways to achieve our goal of a healthy ocean
is through a sound National Marine Sanctuary System. We urge you to
make this happen by expediting approval of the strong reauthorization
bill that has been introduced, with some minor modifications.
SUMMARY OF OCEAN CONSERVANCY VIEWS ON H.R. 6537
We are very pleased with the bill you have introduced. We believe
it is thoughtful, balanced, and would go a long way toward addressing
the priority issues that Ocean Conservancy Executive Vice President,
Dr. Dennis Takahashi-Kelso, and others identified when this
subcommittee met in Santa Barbara last November. We believe the
limited, key, and targeted clarifications and improvements that you
have included will greatly improve the National Marine Sanctuary
System's ability to fulfill its critical mandate. We are especially
supportive of and pleased to see that you have included language that
will help to:
1. Update the National Marine Sanctuary System's Findings Based on
New Science: The Clarification of Findings, Purposes, and Policies in
section three would greatly clarify, improve, and strengthen the NMSA.
The finding in the new section 301(a)(3) of the Act would recognize
recent scientific advances in delineating ocean boundaries and
ecosystems that will help pave the way for inventorying U.S. marine
ecosystems and developing a more complete, robust and representative
Sanctuary System. New finding 301(a)(4) would similarly recognize the
large and growing body of scientific evidence confirming the value of
marine reserves and other highly-protected areas for restoring living
marine resources; maintaining natural ecosystem resistance and
resilience to multiple anthropogenic threats, now including and
exacerbated by the growing threat of global climate change; and
providing the potential to supply eggs and larvae to replenish
populations within and adjacent to the marine protected areas.
2. Clarify and Strengthen the NMSA's Purposes and Policies:
Section three of the bill would also help clarify and strengthen the
NMSA's Purposes and Policies by making several key changes to section
301(b) of the Act. The new paragraph (2) makes clear that the
overarching priority of the System is the long-term protection and
conservation of nationally significant marine ecosystems and their
living and non-living resources, thus removing misconceptions about the
core purpose of the Sanctuary System. New paragraph (3) would make it a
purpose of the System to include within the NMSS the full range of
marine biological diversity and ecosystems, setting the stage to expand
the system and make it more representative. New paragraph (8) retains,
clarifies, and improves language allowing for the regulated public and
private uses of the System's resources to the extent that such uses are
compatible and not prohibited by this statute or other authorities.
Ocean Conservancy supports these changes to clarify and strengthen the
NMSA's purposes and policies.
3. Encourage the Use of Zoning within Sanctuaries, including the
Potential Use of Marine Reserves, Other Highly-protected Areas and
other Spatial and Temporal Management Tools: We are very pleased that
H.R. 6537 includes strong language to encourage the use of temporal and
spatial zoning, among other innovative management techniques (section
3(b)). The proposed new section 301(b)(10) of the Act,, especially when
used together with other language in the bill referring to the
``purposes and policies'' of the Act, could go a long way toward
implementing zoning and marine reserves where they are needed. We
strongly support this language with some fine-tuning, and recommend
including parallel language within the ``Procedures for Designation and
Implementation'' (16 U.S.C. 1431 Sec. 304) that would more specifically
and directly require the consideration of these tools. Requiring such
consideration would help ensure that the best available science-based
management tools to achieve comprehensive resource protection are
available to resource managers and that they are evaluated during the
development, review, and revision of sanctuary management plans and
regulations, but it would not mandate their use. There is a precedent
for such language contained in the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary and Protection Act of 1990, which successfully led to the
development of the Florida Keys NMS initial zoning plan and the
subsequent Tortugas Ecological Reserve.
4. Recognize the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) and
Provide a Clear and Unambiguous Mission: Earlier this year, the
National Marine Sanctuary Program was administratively elevated to
become the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. Language contained in
H.R. 6537 section 4 would recognize this elevation in statute and also
provide the NMSS with a strong, clear, and unambiguous mission,
consistent with the stated and long-standing priority and purpose of
the NMSA, to protect nationally-significant marine ecosystems. Ocean
Conservancy is very supportive of the elevation to office level, and
eventually higher, and of the proposed NMSS mission which would greatly
improve the System's probability for success by providing a strong,
clear and explicit mission for the NMSS.
5. Create a Process for Identifying Waters to be included in the
National Marine Sanctuary System and Set a Goal for Expansion and
Representativeness: Ocean Conservancy supports and appreciates the
inclusion of H.R. 6537's section 6, ``Living and Nonliving Resource
Classification, Identification, and Inventory.'' This new section would
help to expand the Sanctuary System, ensure that each of the
biogeographical provinces in U.S. waters is well-represented, and
include areas that protect rare, critical, unique, outstanding, or
otherwise special resources. The ultimate, anticipated, and highly-
desirable goal of this process would be to provide a rational framework
for identifying, prioritizing, and developing new sanctuary sites. We
further support the language included in section 6 that calls for a new
Site Evaluation List and sets a system expansion and representativeness
goal to be achieved by 2030. Achieving this goal will clearly require
adequate budgetary and human resources for the Office of National
Marine Sanctuaries.
6. Remove the Moratorium on New Sanctuaries. Ocean Conservancy
supports and appreciates the language in H.R. 6537 in section 7 repeal
the limitation on designation of new National Marine Sanctuaries, which
is currently contained section 304(f) (16U.S.C. Sec. 1434(f)). This
moratorium was originally purported to be temporary in nature and a
means to prioritize making existing, recently added, sanctuaries
functional before adding additional new sites. Regardless of its
initial intent, the moratorium has clearly outlived its proposed
purpose and now constitutes a severe impediment to the rational
development of an effective National Marine Sanctuary System. Despite
the moratorium, the continued demand for marine protected areas has
persisted and may force a greater reliance on the use of Marine
National Monuments and Congressionally-designated National Marine
Sanctuaries. Regardless, the time to lift the moratorium is now.
7. Improve the Process for Development of Sanctuary Fishing
Regulations: Ocean Conservancy supports and appreciates the language
contained in sections 7 and 10 of H.R. 6537. related to developing
sanctuary fishing regulations. This language preserves the important
role of fishery management councils in assisting the Office of National
Marine Sanctuaries with the development of sanctuary fishing
regulations, but clarifies the process, provides criteria and
timelines, and ensures that resulting fishing regulations will be
consistent with the NMSS's and the individual sanctuaries' purposes and
policies. We are concerned that there may still be some ambiguity in
the process, particularly with respect to the process the councils must
employ to develop the regulations, and would be happy to work with you
to make sure the bill will achieve its intended purpose.
8. Provide an adequate budget to accomplish these objectives:
Ocean Conservancy strongly supports the increased authorization levels
contained in H.R. 6537, and greatly appreciates your recognition of the
critical importance of the Sanctuaries Act and Program.. In our
November 3, 2007 testimony before the Subcommittee in Santa Barbara, we
suggested that a budget on the order of $100 million was appropriate
for the NMSS, and H.R. 6537 would authorize appropriations at roughly
that level. We continue to believe that this level is well-justified,
would provide for a reasonable and manageable rate of growth, and still
be an order of magnitude below comparable authorization levels for
terrestrial protected area programs, such as those managed by the U.S.
National Park Service. In fact, an increased level could well be
needed, given the increased responsibilities of the program and the
expansion goal contained in this bill. In particular, the increased
authorization level of $10 million annually specifically to implement
the new section 303(c) (the bill authorizes $5 million) would help
ensure a comprehensive resources classification and inventory, and a
site selection list that represents the full range of marine ecosystems
and results in an expanded System.
CONCLUSION:
H.R. 6537 provides a strong framework for reauthorization of the
National Marine Sanctuaries Act and addresses some key shortcomings in
the existing law. We look forward to working with you on making further
improvements to this bill and addressing any remaining concerns. There
have been calls for more far-reaching changes to the NMSA which may
warrant further consideration, but your approach goes a long way toward
clarifying and improving the NMSA and addressing its most critical and
urgent needs.
In closing, I want to reiterate Ocean Conservancy's commitment to
working with you and thank you again for showing your dedication by
holding this important hearing.
Thank you.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Mr. Gudes, welcome back to the Subcommittee,
although today you are wearing a different hat from years past.
I think you were with NOAA for quite a number of years, so we
are looking forward to your testimony. Please begin.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT B. GUDES, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS, NATIONAL MARINE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Gudes. Thank you, Chairwoman Bordallo, Ranking Member
Brown, Representative Capps, Representative Saxton, staff of
the Committee. Let me first thank you for your focus on NOAA,
the Marine Sanctuary Program. This program, marine sanctuaries,
has helped focus public's attention on our oceans and coasts
and I think the analogy is often made that it is the National
Park Service, National Park System of the Oceans, if you will.
The Marine Sanctuary Program has clearly benefitted from
great leadership over the years from the late Dr. Nancy Foster
to Jack Dunnigan and Dan Basta today, and the program has
greatly benefitted from dedicated staff, the support of
hundreds of volunteers and of course the invaluable leadership
and assistance of Lori Aguies and the Marine Sanctuary
Foundation.
As you know, I am pleased to be here today to represent the
National Marine Manufacturers Association, America's
recreational boat industry. We have some 1,700 members across
the country representing 80 percent of marine products made in
the United States.
I want to note at the outset that manufacturing of
recreational boats takes place primarily in the United States,
that it is done by American workers, and that, frankly, this is
an industry that has not been exported to other countries, and
that generally our members are small businesses, family owned
small businesses, with about 100 to 300 workers making boats.
There are currently 18 million recreational boats in the
United States. Ninety-five percent of motorized boats are 26
feet or less. Seventy-five percent of boating households earn
less than $100,000 per year. We know through survey data that
over half of all recreational boats are used for sport fishing.
Given the location of NOAA's marine sanctuaries, it should
not be surprising that boating in all its aspects, sailing,
fishing, cruising, water sports, occurs within sanctuary
boundaries. If you think about it just a bit, most of the
activities in a marine sanctuary, actually experiencing the
sanctuary requires a boat.
Other than people who go in from the shoreline or are in
large research vessels, probably every boat in a marine
sanctuary is made by my membership in the United States.
Boating is about recreation, about quality of life, about jobs,
economic significance, and marine sanctuaries cover a lot of
our coastal waters and they are very important to our industry.
In my written testimony, there are some numbers showing the
economic significance of boating in just two of the areas, and
I think those are actually low estimates. My key overall point
today is that access and protecting Americans rights to boat
and fish is a huge issue for our industry and for boaters
across the country.
Maintaining access to waters and use within marine
sanctuary boundaries is an overriding objective and concern
with any reauthorization, whether it is Executive Branch,
Agency action or congressional action. As my written testimony
points out, we applaud your effort to enhance and reauthorize
the Marine Sanctuaries Program; however, in our case, we do
have some concerns about H.R. 6537 as presently drafted.
First, the sanctuary program needs to be balanced and
recognize not only long-term protection and conservation but
also long-term protection and conservation of recreation, of
enjoyment and use by people, by citizens, by your constituents.
We strongly recommend that the mission statement in the
sanctuary program and your bill in Section 4 be amended as
drafted to include living resources, that living resources also
mean people and the use of sanctuaries. That is true in the
National Park Service and the National Park System, for
example. There is a strong emphasis on use by people.
Indeed, H.R. 6537 rewrites the current marine sanctuary
statute to eliminate the program's mission of facilitating all
public and private compatible uses in sanctuaries, and we would
hope that that would be restored. We should be encouraging
boating and angling recreation in sanctuaries.
Both have the ability to inspire kids, and, in fact, I
would recommend, and I think probably a number of people would
share, that education also be part of the mission and function
of the sanctuaries. Second, the scope of the bill is very broad
and far reaching. One of the changes is that it gives sanctuary
managers the ability to manage resources outside the sanctuary
boundaries.
I suppose this relates to energy development. We were just
talking about OCS drilling. It probably relates to land use
development. Maybe, for example, the creation of marinas and
boat ramps outside a sanctuary. I would just suggest this is
pretty far reaching authority.
In fisheries management, and this was addressed in part by
the Congresswoman's comments, the bill appears to make
significant changes in law to fisheries management that would
no doubt affect recreational fishing. What this bill language
does in your draft, I must admit, is not exactly clear to me,
but it appears to be empowering and resourcing the sanctuary
program and the Ocean Service to be in the fisheries management
business.
I am pretty much out of time, but I would simply say that
NOAA fisheries has something like 3,000 personnel, $830 million
budget. Marine sanctuaries has $60 something million and about
170 Federal employees. I don't know if this Committee is
contemplating it, but it would require a huge change in
capacity building for the Marine Sanctuary Program to put that
program in the fisheries management business.
From our industry's standpoint, we think the Magnuson-
Stevens bill and all the work that this very Subcommittee and
this Committee has done makes a lot of sense. We are really not
fond of changing the fisheries management program to reflect
those sort of changes.
I would just say from my experience at NOAA, all fisheries
management ends up being litigated. It is one of the nature's
of fisheries management. One should fully think about all of
the ramifications that that would result in if you were to
empower the Marine Sanctuary Program basically to be in the
fisheries management business within each of the sanctuaries. I
am out of time. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank you, Mr. Gudes, and I thank you for
your excellent testimony and insights regarding the many
contributions of the recreational boating community in building
regional and local support for the sanctuary system.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gudes follows:]
Statement of Scott B. Gudes, Vice President of Government Relations,
National Marine Manufacturers Association
Good morning Chairwoman Bordallo, Ranking Member Brown and Members
of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify this
morning on H.R. 6537, the ``Sanctuary Enhancement Act of 2008.''
I am pleased to be here today representing the National Marine
Manufacturers Association (NMMA). NMMA is the nation's leading
recreational marine industry trade association, representing nearly
1,700 boat builders, engine manufacturers and marine accessory
manufacturers who collectively produce more than 80 percent of all
recreational marine products made in the United States. The association
is dedicated to industry growth through programs in public policy,
market research and data, product quality assurance, marketing
communications and the promotion of sound environmental stewardship
among its consumers.
As the former Deputy Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere for
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) from 1998-
2003 and subsequently the Acting NOAA Administrator for most of 2001, I
am familiar with the National Marine Sanctuaries Program (NMSP) and
appreciate the leadership that this Committee, both its members and
professional staff, have shown for that program as well as all of the
marine, ocean and coastal programs at the Agency. While at NOAA it was
my honor to work with over 12,000 great professionals and NOAA's many
partners in state and local government, universities, joint institutes
and grant recipient institutions as well as volunteers at Marine
Sanctuaries.
In my new role representing America's historic recreational marine
industry, which is comprised of nearly 19,000 great American companies
employing more than 154,000 U.S. workers, I represent members who are
deeply interested in marine environmental protection as well as robust
policies that protect and ensure the public's right to access the
nation's natural resources which are held in their trust.
Boating's Impact and the Importance of Access
The recreational boating community is an important stakeholder in
any national process to enhance marine resource protection. Boating has
deep historical roots in outdoor recreation in America and
participation has been steadily trending upwards. In 2007, nearly 26
percent of all adults went boating at least once, which means that 59
million American adults were out on the water spending time with their
family and friends and enjoying our natural resources, fishing,
cruising and just being outdoors. As I will point out later in my
statement, a lot of boating goes on in and around our National Marine
Sanctuaries. In fact, except for individuals who enter the water from
shore or who are aboard larger vessels, it is safe to say that almost
all visitors to these sites are on a boat built by a member of the
National Marine Manufacturers Association.
There are nearly 18 million recreational boats currently in
operation in the United States. These boat owners power an important
American manufacturing sector that contributed $37.5 billion in new
sales and services during 2007 alone. Overall, the direct and indirect
economic impact nationwide from recreational boating totals
approximately $85.1 billion annually and supports more than 330,000
U.S. jobs. I might also note that recreational boat manufacturing is a
sector of the economy that is largely carried out by small businesses
and manufacturing that occurs here in the USA.
The Members of the Subcommittee might be interested to know that
the vast majority of recreational boats sold are small are inexpensive
pleasure craft used occasionally, and 75 percent of current boat owners
have an average household of less than $100,000 per year. Of the
recreational boat population in the U.S., 95 percent of registered
mechanically-propelled boats are less than 26 feet in length. The
average price of a new boat in 2007 was under $14,000, and boat owners
spent an average of 32 days (or 16 total weekends) on the water.
Recreational boating and angling are closely tied, and we are
frequently engaged in important fisheries concerns. Of current boat
owners, we know that 65 percent used their boat in 2005 to go fishing.
Indeed, many boats are designed and purchased specifically for the
purpose of sportfishing, a $40 billion industry for which NOAA has
developed a five-year strategic plan designed to ``provide recreational
fishing opportunities by ensuring sustainable fisheries resources,
understandable regulations, and reasonable public access.'' In this
plan, NOAA explicitly acknowledges that maintaining public access,
which is essential to both sportfishing and boating, is a key part of
its mission, and, in fact, such activities are usually included in
assessing the economic benefits from sanctuaries.
Although more Americans went boating in 2007 than in 2006, our
industry is certainly feeling the turbulence in consumer confidence,
finance, and energy costs that is facing our economy. Other than
inflatable boats, jet boats and personal watercraft, all segments in
the recreational marine industry showed a decline in unit sales this
year. Also in 2007, the typically robust aftermarket accessory market
decreased with sales down an estimated 5 percent, reflecting an overall
weakness in our industry. These declines have caused many of our
manufacturers around the country to furlough plants or close them
altogether, resulting in job losses.
While we are optimistic about the future and we believe the
fundamentals our business and the American economy are strong, I
emphasize these numbers to demonstrate why we must be vigilant in the
maintaining a vibrant consumer base and keep recreational opportunities
for American boaters and anglers widespread and available.
National Marine Sanctuaries are Important for Boating and Outdoor
Recreation
Given the location of the current sanctuary system in coastal
communities in areas like the Florida Keys, and the Southern and
Central Californian coasts, it should not be surprising that boating in
all its aspects, such as recreational fishing, sailing, and water
sports, occurs within sanctuary boundaries. Sanctuaries, like the
National Parks they are so often compared with, provide for the multi-
use of resources, working to conserve resources but also providing for
outdoor recreational opportunities. Sanctuaries are living classrooms,
where constituencies are built by the very recreational boaters,
anglers, divers, and other responsible users of the resources.
In the area around the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, for
example, there are some 37,000 registered boats and more than 272
recreational boating businesses. Our data shows that each year, during
the 861,000 total days people spent boating in this area, some $140
million is spent on boat related products and services and an
additional $92 million on boating trips, generating nearly 3,800 local
jobs.
Similarly, in the area around the Channel Islands National Marine
Sanctuary there are some 17,000 registered recreational boats and over
83 recreational boating businesses. Boaters here spent 318,000 total
days out on the water, spending $65 million on boat related products
and services and boating trips. We estimate that almost 1,100 jobs are
directly related to boating and fishing in this area alone.
Sanctuary Reauthorization Should Better Consider Value of Recreation to
System Purposes & Objectives
Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, we applaud you for
your efforts to enhance the National Marine Sanctuary Program. For
boating consumers, recreational anglers and the marine manufacturers
who build the products they purchase, the health of America's marine
resources is of vital importance. We recognize the special national
significance of currently designated National Marine Sanctuaries and we
appreciate your legislative efforts to reauthorize and strengthen the
Program.
We are, however, increasingly concerned that public access to our
nation's oceans and aquatic resources is becoming unduly restricted in
place of policies that promote sound conservation and responsible
recreation. Increasingly we are seeing states from California to South
Carolina moving to restrict water access, and we are hearing reports in
major national news outlets that large swaths of new protected areas
may be designated by The President through Executive Order--with the
mere stroke of a pen--without the stakeholder processes, without
involving citizens, and without using science-based decision-making
that has, in the main, served as the guiding principles for those
protected areas in the National Marine Sanctuaries Program. We believe
this trend is worrisome and not consistent with longstanding American
policy that promotes sustainable outdoor recreation.
To be sure, NMMA does not oppose the designation of marine
protected areas in the event of significant ecological concerns for
which the prevailing scientific evidence--which is peer reviewed and
methodologically robust--demonstrates that such a designation is
necessary to protect resources. But, we encourage Congress and federal
agencies to recognize that it is a longstanding policy of the federal
government to allow public access to public lands and waters for
recreational purposes consistent with sound conservation. This policy
is reflected in the principles of our wildlife refuges, national
forests, national parks, and wilderness areas. We believe this policy
should pertain to NOAA and National Marine Sanctuaries as well
reflected in any final reauthorization bill for a strengthened National
Marine Sanctuaries Program.
Indeed, throughout the legislative history of the National Marine
Sanctuaries Act, Congress has clearly and consistently demonstrated
that it favors a management approach that balances preservation of the
resource with allowing compatible human uses, such as recreational
boating and angling. In the most recent reauthorization of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, too, Congress reiterated its desire to maintain
robust access to our ocean resources to recreational anglers and
directed federal regulators to utilize no-take marine reserves only as
a resource management tool of last resort. Some have argued that the
reliance on the multiple use doctrine has made the National Marine
Sanctuaries Program less effective than it could be. We strongly
disagree. In fact, the Program has had many significant accomplishments
and has been instrumental in protecting key marine sites and educating
the public about the importance of these areas and of the importance of
sound environmental stewardship more generally.
Under current law, NOAA and the National Marine Sanctuary Program
have an obligation, stated explicitly, to strive toward a management
approach that balances resource protection with the rights of boaters,
anglers and other user groups who are entitled to access the public
aquatic treasures that are held in the their trust. A reasonable
expectation of access is currently required under the law. Certainly
this is what Congress intended when it passed the Act and in each case
when it reauthorized the Act--a comprehensive system of managing key
ocean resources that emphasized balance and not prohibition. We believe
this tradition should be followed and even strengthened in this
reauthorization round because maintaining public access is good for the
resource--it motivates sustainable practice by those who value the
resources most, and it helps to maintain a cooperative, non-adversarial
relationship between regulators and the regulated community, enhancing
opportunities for mutually beneficial partnerships that improve
resource protection. For example, my colleagues at the Personal
Watercraft Industry Association (PWIA), an affiliate of NMMA, are
currently working with the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuaries to
develop a program in which personal watercraft are used by volunteers
to educate visitors on the sanctuaries resources. We look forward to
the implementation of what we believe is an exciting opportunity for
our industry and FKNMS.
Unfortunately, Madam Chairman, nowhere does H.R. 6537 endorse the
importance of recreation as policy or purpose of the National Marine
Sanctuaries Program. Indeed, it appears that the bill would deemphasize
and downgrade longstanding Congressional intent and NOAA policy by
amending the policies and purposes of the Act to require that the
``primary purpose'' of the NMSP be the ``long-term protection and
conservation of the living and nonliving resources of the System.''
Undoubtedly, the long-term protection of the resource is essential, but
the bill goes further and would strike existing statutory language in
Sec. 301(b)(6) of the Act directing NOAA to ``facilitate to the extent
compatible with the primary objective of resource protection, all
public and private uses of the resources.'' This revision to the Act
runs counter to the notion that--while resource protection is the
primary objective of the Act--recreational opportunities should be
encouraged and, indeed, are a key part of the individual sanctuary
programs particularly with respect to outreach and education.
We would strongly recommend that the bill be revised to recognize
specifically recreation as an important purpose and objective, to
retain and even expand on the Act's current language that directs the
sanctuary managers to engage the public and promote recreational
opportunities. To be clear, the current NMSP mission in Section 4 of
the Committee bill should be amended to include people. I respectfully
suggest that the mission statement should include balance by firmly
stating that public access, recreation and enjoyment (to use a term in
the National Park Service charter) are also important missions of the
system. I also recommend that ``education'' of the public and youth
should be explicitly listed in the mission statement.
Expansion Goal Raises Concerns
Given trend lines we have seen with respect to new marine protected
areas being established in premier recreational boating and sport
fishing sites in the U.S., the amorphous and ambiguous legislative
requirement in H.R. 6537 that the Secretary of Commerce ``strive to
achieve the goal of including in the System by 2030 that number of
sites that will incorporate a full range of the Nation's marine eco
regions [which the bill defines as a `large area of the marine
environment']'' concerns us. We believe that sound science--rather than
simple geography--and the specific needs of a resource should be
determining factors in the designation of a marine protected area. It
makes no sense to simply designate large marine sites for the purpose
of being in the System, something which could have significant
unintended consequences.
Indeed, a review of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act
demonstrates that Congress harbored concerns that the National Marine
Sanctuaries Program would overreach in designating new sanctuaries.
Section 303(b)(1) lists the factors that the Secretary of Commerce must
consider when determine if an area should be designated a sanctuary
such as ``the manageability of the area, including such factors as its
size, its ability to be identified as a discrete ecological unit with
definable boundaries, its accessibility, and its suitability for
monitoring and enforcement activities.'' We are pleased that H.R. 6537
does not alter these requirements. The National Marine Sanctuaries
Program currently has broad discretionary authority to initiate a
designation process--complete with robust public participation
requirements--for new sanctuaries. Rather than adding undue resource
constraints by requiring new sanctuaries, we believe the Agency should
continue to work to improve the current system of sanctuaries.
Additionally, Madam Chair, NMMA is concerned that Sec. 12(h) (A) of
the bill greatly expands the authorities of the National Marine
Sanctuaries Program. While we applaud efforts to increase coordination
among federal agencies, it is important to not give sanctuary managers
authority over resources that are not within the sanctuary boundaries.
As written, it appears that the bill would extend the scope of the Act
to ``Federal agency actions within or outside of a national marine
sanctuary or marine national monument.'' All that would be required is
a determination--apparently by a sanctuary manager--that an activity is
likely to harm a system resource. This language is vague, expansive,
and we would urge its removal from the bill.
Fisheries Management Should Remain Led by NOAA Fisheries Working in
Concert with Regional Fishery Management Councils
While they can be valuable, marine protected areas--and
particularly no-take marine reserves--are not a panacea for fisheries
management. Indeed, we are concerned with language in the ``Findings''
section of the bill affirming that science has proven the value of
marine protected areas. As with many issues before the scientific
community, the value of marine protected areas has been much debated.
While there may be scientific studies that show the benefit of marine
protected areas, there are also scientific studies that show that
marine protected areas do not provide significant benefit beyond
traditional fishery management measures. While marine protected areas
may serve a purpose within the context of ocean resource management, it
may be premature for Congress to affirm with absolute certainty the
value of such areas. In any case, the use of marine protected areas as
a management tool may have significant impacts on the regulated
community, and MPAs should be pursued only with the proper view on
their potential short- and long-term socioeconomic implications.
At present, as the Committee is well aware, the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act is the prevailing federal
authority and structure for the management of the nation's ocean and
coastal fisheries. The Congress just recently reauthorized this law and
provided new requirements to conserve resources and prevent
overfishing. Under the Act, regional fishery management councils which
contain stakeholders nominated by Governors and appointed by the
Secretary of Commerce (Administrator of NOAA) regulate and supported by
the full scientific and management expertise at NOAA--has
responsibility for the sustainable management of fisheries in federal
waters. And as part of their management authority, councils may, and
are, utilizing MPAs. The authority of the regional management councils
should be recognized, and yet H.R. 6537 appears to shift authority away
from them.
It has been my experience from my years as a professional staffer
in the U.S. Senate and an official at NOAA that the Fisheries
Management Councils are indeed unique among Federal regulatory
entities. They involve the Federal Government, the States, the industry
and outside groups in the management of marine resources. But, at the
end of the day, few outside entities better bring together large number
of disparate stakeholders in the management of the resource.
We do not believe that the revisions in Sec. 7 of the Sanctuary
Enhancement Act are necessary or advisable. Fishery Management Councils
currently have the opportunity to prepare draft fishing regulations in
a National Marine Sanctuary, or it may determine that such regulations
are not necessary. If the Council deems it necessary to regulate
fishing within a sanctuary, it is obligated to use as guidance the
National Standards of Sec. 301(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The
point is that the operative statute for fishing regulations within a
sanctuary is MSA, and under present law the Secretary of Commerce has
broad authority to accept or reject the Council's determination and
regulate fishing within a sanctuary
Our reading of the Committee bill is that it would significantly
change Federal fisheries management large sections of the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone:
First, it removes Fishery Management Councils from the
initial decision-making process regarding whether to regulate fishing
in the sanctuary, giving the Secretary of Commerce the authority to
unilaterally determine whether to regulate fishing.
Second, H.R. 6537 empowers the Secretary to make such a
determination for new, existing, or proposed sanctuaries--this
authority would contravene the existing process of updating management
plans which provide opportunities for the public to weigh in and
support or oppose changing a sanctuary designation document to include
the authority to regulate fishing.
Third, existing language in the Act explicitly requires
in the statute using the National Standards of MSA in the development
of any fishing regulations within the sanctuary. H.R. 6537 does not
appear to have such a requirement.
Fourth, we believe the proposed changes in H.R. 6537 are
unnecessary and set NOAA Fisheries/NMFS and NOAA's sanctuary program up
for conflict, rather than cooperation. We understand that NOAA is
finalizing a Policy Document regarding its regulation of fishing in
National Marine Sanctuaries that demonstrates the Agency's work and
commitment to improved coordination and collaboration between programs.
We see no need for legislative changes on this matter at this time and
urge the Subcommittee to let this internal agency process play out.
I would note that NOAA Fisheries has over 3,000 employees and a
budget of $829 million in FY 2008 and $782 in the President's FY 2009
budget request. The marine sanctuaries program, by contrast, has a
budget of $64 million ($50 million in the President's FY 2009 budget)
to do all its missions and 169 full time employees. To take on this
level of fishery resource management responsibly would require a lot of
capacity building in sanctuaries. It would take the addition of many
staff. I would respectfully suggest that the program has many other
unfulfilled requirements in education, in research, in facilities, and
in vessels and maintenance.
For these reasons, we believe Sec. 7 of the SEA Act is a
significant departure from the status quo with unpredictable
consequences and would strongly encourage you to reconsider the
inclusion of this language in the bill.
Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of the National
Marine Manufacturers Association and the recreational marine industry.
We look forward to continuing to work with you on this legislation and
other important legislation, and I would be pleased to respond to any
questions you may have.
______
Ms. Bordallo. I would like to now invite Mr. Sullivan to
testify.
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY J. SULLIVAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND CEO,
THE MARINERS' MUSEUM
Mr. Sullivan. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the
Committee. My name is Tim Sullivan, I am President of the
Mariners' Museum in Newport News, Virginia, and President
Emeritus of the College of William and Mary. I have worked
closely with the National Marine Sanctuary Program during my
tenure as museum President and have been keenly aware of their
work for the last decade at the Monitor National Marine
Sanctuary.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify during this
oversight hearing. As you are aware, the Mariners' Museum has
considered NOAA and those associated with the National Marine
Sanctuary Program key partners for more than 20 years in the
important work of preserving and protecting the story of the
most famous and arguably most significant shipwreck in United
States Naval history, the U.S.S. Monitor.
Designated in 1975 as our nation's first national marine
sanctuary, the Monitor holds a special place not only in the
history of Virginia and North Carolina but in the Nation as a
whole.
In the 1980s, the Mariners' Museum was selected to serve as
the official repository of the artifacts recovered from the
wreck site of the Monitor as NOAA began the process of
selective recovery of key artifacts from that shipwreck which
ultimately would include the ship's engine, propeller, and most
significantly, her revolutionary revolving gun turret and
cannons.
During those years of major artifact recovery between 1998
and 2002, NOAA and the Mariners' Museum worked together, and we
have developed a world-class facility to house and display
these important artifacts dedicated solely to the preservation
of the Monitor's story. That facility, I am proud to say,
opened in March of 2007 to rave reviews.
Today, the U.S.S. Monitor Center at the Mariners' Museum
has become one of the premiere maritime attractions in this
country, if not the world. The Conservation Department has set
the standard for scientific treatment of large, complex
artifacts recovered from a marine environment.
I believe the partnership between NOAA and the Mariners'
Museum is serving as a model of public/private efforts to
preserve our nation's maritime heritage. The Monitor Center has
also done much more than preserve history. It has also helped
shape the future, our future.
Through our partnership with the Sanctuary Program, NOAA
has also helped us protect our local heritage, expand tourism
and strengthen our economy, not to mention helping our
community understand the challenges and threats the ocean
faces.
Twenty years after we began our partnership with NOAA I can
tell you that our community and our museum are stronger because
of the sanctuary program, and we look forward to the next 20
years working together. As a museum dedicated to telling the
story of man and the sea, NOAA's work in preserving and
uncovering our nation's maritime heritage wherever it may be is
deeply important to the Mariners' Museum.
At its core, the work of the Mariners' Museum is about
preservation. I believe NOAA has done a tremendous job in
preserving our nation's maritime heritage within the protected
waters of the national marine sanctuaries. I also believe they
are doing truly important work for our nation in discovering,
documenting and cataloging new marine heritage resources in our
oceans and in our waters.
I am worried about what can be done quickly to afford these
resources protection. Our nation's maritime heritage is at risk
from looting, illegal salvage, damage and loss. Additionally,
once a site is disturbed, either by natural or human forces,
the deterioration of the site inevitably accelerates, so prompt
action is needed to assure that proper preservation and
conservation efforts can be undertaken as quickly as possible.
As the law now stands, little can be done to protect these
important discoveries unless they lie within the boundaries of
the established national marine sanctuary. I would therefore
respectfully urge the Committee and the Congress to find ways
to improve the efficiency of this process of designation and of
amending designation documents after a sanctuary is designated.
I further urge you to develop a new process for designating
sanctuaries or special areas of conservation for submerged
cultural resources to assure expedient preservation efforts.
Even as we speak, archaeologists from the National Marine
Sanctuary Program are working off the coast of North Carolina
to document and discover ships lost during the second world
war.
Madam Chairman, I am aware of the new legislation that is
the subject of this hearing. I believe that it contains much in
it that will move the National Marine Sanctuaries Program in a
good and positive direction and will serve the interests of the
future of the citizens of this country working together with
the leadership of our nation in preserving these important
national cultural marine enterprises. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank you, Mr. Sullivan, for your
thoughtful statement and for the ongoing efforts of the
Mariners' Museum to enlighten the American public about the
rich maritime history along the mid-Atlantic coast of the
United States.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:]
Statement of Timothy J. Sullivan, Executive Director and CEO,
Mariners' Museum
Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the Committee. My name is
Timothy Sullivan. I am the President of The Mariners' Museum in Newport
News, VA, and the former President of the College of William and Mary
in Virginia. I have worked closely with National Marine Sanctuary
Program during my time as Museum President and have been keenly aware
of their work at the Monitor National Marine Sanctuary for the past
decade. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this oversight
hearing on the reauthorization of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act.
As you are aware, The Mariners' Museum has considered NOAA and the
National Marine Sanctuary Program a key partner for more than two
decades in the important work of preserving and protecting the story of
the most famous and arguably most significant shipwreck in United
States naval history--the U.S.S. Monitor. Designated our nation's first
National Marine Sanctuary in 1975, the Monitor holds a special place in
the history of not only Virginia and North Carolina, but to the nation
as a whole as she played an important role in the preservation of the
Union during the difficult years of the American Civil War. In the
1980s, The Mariners' Museum was selected to serve as the official
repository for artifacts recovered from the wreck site of the Monitor
as NOAA began the process of selective recovery of key artifacts from
the shipwreck which ultimately would include the ships engine,
propeller and most significantly, her revolutionary revolving gun
turret and cannons.
During the years of major artifact recovery, between 1998 and 2002,
NOAA and the United States Navy recovered literally thousands of
artifacts from the shipwreck along with the remains of two United
States sailors lost the night the Monitor sank on New Year's Eve 1862.
Working together, NOAA and the Mariners' Museum have developed a world-
class facility to house and display these important artifacts,
dedicated solely to the preservation of the Monitor story. That
facility I am proud to say opened last March to rave reviews. Today,
The USS Monitor Center at The Mariners' Museum has become one of the
premier maritime attractions in the country if not in the world and the
conservation department has set the standard for scientific treatment
of large, complex artifacts recovered from a marine environment. With
an international team of conservators and the newly completed
laboratory complex, the 200+ tons of material recovered from the
Monitor are undergoing desalination and chemical and electrochemical
processes. Through viewing platforms and internet webcams and blogging,
the public is given a unique opportunity to watch the ongoing
conservation efforts. Thus the partnership between NOAA and The
Mariners' Museum is serving as a model of private/public efforts to
preserve our nation's maritime heritage.
The Monitor Center has also done much more than just preserve
history. It has also helped shape the future--our future. Through our
partnership with the Sanctuary Program, NOAA has also helped protect
our local heritage, our tourism, and our economy and has helped our
community better understand the challenges and threats our oceans face.
The Sanctuary Program has brought enhanced recreational opportunities,
educational initiatives, research capabilities and economic development
to our community. Working with our partners at NOAA, the Monitor Center
has become a major tourist attraction and point of pride for the
communities of Hampton Roads and most certainly for the City of Newport
News. In fact, attendance at our facility has almost doubled in the
year since the USS Monitor Center opened and tens of thousands of
school children have been inspired by the story of the Monitor and her
famous Battle of the Ironclads in Hampton Roads in 1862. In addition to
the work on the USS Monitor, we have also had the terrific opportunity
to work with NOAA on other projects and initiatives and have benefited
greatly from the Sanctuary Program's ongoing work around the country in
promoting and preserving our nation's maritime heritage. Twenty plus
years after we began our partnership with NOAA, I can tell you that our
community and our Museum are stronger because of NOAA and the Sanctuary
Program and we look forward to the next twenty years working together.
As a museum dedicated to telling the story of man and the sea,
NOAA's work in preserving and uncovering our Nation's maritime
heritage--wherever it may be--is of keen interest to The Mariners'
Museum. At the core of our mission, The Mariners Museum is about
preservation. I believe NOAA has done a tremendous job in preserving
our nation's maritime heritage within the protected waters of our
National Marine Sanctuaries, and I believe they are doing truly
important work for our Nation in discovering, documenting and
cataloging new marine heritage resources in our oceans and great lake
waters. But I am worried about what can be done to quickly afford these
resources protection once they are discovered. Our Nation's maritime
heritage is at risk from looting, illegal salvage, damage and loss.
Additionally, once a site is disturbed--either by natural or human
forces--the deterioration of the site accelerates considerably. Thus
prompt action is needed to assure that proper preservation and
conservation efforts can be undertaken as quickly as possible.
As NOAA and the Sanctuary Program continue their important work of
cataloging our Nation's marine heritage resources, little can currently
be done to protect those important discoveries unless they lie within
the boundaries of an established National Marine Sanctuary. I would
therefore respectively urge the committee and the congress to find ways
to improve the efficiency of the process for designating sanctuaries
and amending designation documents after a sanctuary is designated. I
further urge you to develop a new process for designating sanctuaries
or special areas of conservation for submerged cultural resources for
expedient preservation efforts
Even as we speak, Archaeologists from the National Martine
Sanctuary Program are working in the waters off the coast of North
Carolina to document and discover ships lost during the Second World
War during the Battle of the Atlantic including three German U-Boats.
Many of the discoveries being made are important to our national story,
and yet once the divers leave the site, very little can be done to
protect them from looting as they are not protected by the National
Marine Sanctuary Act. In fact the sites which have been visited by
these archaeologists in the past few weeks show unbelievable
destruction by looters and souvenir hunters in spite of the fact that
these sites are war graves. From the Museum's perspective, these NOAA-
sponsored expeditions are important to the Museum as they become the
content for new exhibits, programs and educational initiatives, but
they are only the first step. As I consider the success we have had
with Monitor, I can only wonder what the site of the Monitor would look
like today if the Sanctuaries Act had not been put into play to protect
the wreck shortly after the Monitor was discovered. I have no doubt
that had the United States government not moved swiftly after the wreck
was positively discovered in 1974, that there would be little left to
protect today. I believe we must work to strengthen the National Marine
Sanctuary Act so that new maritime heritage discoveries can be quickly
protected just as the Monitor was.
As this demonstrates one of the main pillars of working with a
sanctuary or with the System is partnerships. As we have experienced
and no doubt many others have as well, working with NOAA and the
Sanctuary System is a positive experience when two or more groups are
focused on a common goal or vision. Great things have come out of this
type of approach and no doubt great things will come in the future.
I want to also make a statement about the importance of the
National Marine Sanctuary System to this Nation's ocean conservation
ethic. As far as Federal leadership, it's all we have. As the only
Federal agency dedicated to protecting living as well as cultural and
historical resources of the sea, Sanctuaries protect our oceans just as
the Park Service is focused on terrestrial conservation. If we have
learned anything from the terrestrial or land experience of
conservation related ethics, and the dimension, its about places,
special places. Sanctuaries are these special places. We need this
continued leadership and partnership is important to the Mariners
Museum and many others like us.
As president of an institution that has for more than 75 years
dedicated itself to preserving our maritime past, I urge you to pass
reauthorization of the National Marine Sanctuary Act and to include
those amendments that would strengthen the National Marine Sanctuaries
Program's ability to protect our Nation's maritime heritage and to
improve the efficiency of the process for designating sanctuaries and
amending designation documents after a sanctuary is designated. I
strongly encourage you to develop a new process for designating
sanctuaries or special areas of conservation for submerged cultural
resources for quick preservation efforts. And lastly, I urge you to
lift the moratorium on the designation of new sanctuaries and to help
find ways to identify and prioritize new maritime heritage sites
considered for designation.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Now, as Chair, I recognize Mr. Kroll. I
commend you for your leadership role in chairing the Thunder
Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council, and I look forward to hearing
from you regarding the proposed expansion of the Thunder Bay
National Marine Sanctuary. Please begin.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN KROLL, CHAIR, THUNDER BAY NATIONAL MARINE
SANCTUARY ADVISORY COUNCIL, DIVING REPRESENTATIVE
Mr. Kroll. Thank you, and good morning, Madam Chair and
members of the Committee. My name is Steve Kroll, I am a 57
year resident of Rogers City, Michigan, a retired high school
math teacher and Chair of the Thunder Bay Sanctuary Advisory
Council. I have owned and operated a dive shop and charter
business in Presque County, Michigan, for 35 years.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 6204, the
Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve
Boundary Modification Act. I might say that my mother advised
me that they don't give you much time to talk, so don't
stutter.
I am here today to support H.R. 6204 because it would add
some protection to some of the nation's best preserved
shipwrecks and expand successful sanctuary programs to other
communities in northeast Michigan. Communities along the coast
of Presque and Alcona Counties are maritime-oriented and ready
to recapture, preserve and protect their maritime heritage.
I have been diving area shipwrecks for 42 years and can
testify that they are the best preserved shipwrecks in the
world and there are many more to be found. I have brought
photos of two of these shipwrecks, the F.T. Barney on the right
and the Florida on the left. The F.T. Barney is a 130 foot
schooner that sank near Rogers City in 1868.
You would find a ship that looks ready to sail if you took
the time to dive on her. A ship's wheel, one mast still
standing, anchors, rigging blocks, dishes, running lights and
the compass are all there for us to see. This wreck is listed
in the National Register of Historic Places.
The Florida is a 271 foot wooden steamer that sank off the
shore of Presque in 1889. The wreck is mostly intact, and in
addition to containing all of its ships artifacts, it is loaded
with a cargo called general stores, items that served everyday
needs of people at that time.
Both of these wrecks are outside of the current sanctuary
boundaries and are not provided the same protection as
shipwrecks inside the sanctuary. It is very important that you
understand one important part of this testimony because I was
originally against the establishment of the sanctuary.
I believed having the Federal government determine what we
should do with our resources would lead to too many
restrictions. This attitude was shared by many citizens and
expressed at public hearings prior to designation. As a result,
the proposed size of the sanctuary was greatly reduced.
I now see that this was unfortunate as the sanctuary has
proven itself a trusted partner, not just with the State of
Michigan, but also with the local community. The Sanctuary
Program should serve as a model for other government programs.
Public input is received by NOAA with the attitude they can
learn, react and grow from it.
I have been involved in this process, and I can assure you
it is very real and working. What will an expanded Thunder Bay
National Marine Sanctuary mean to northeast Michigan? I believe
that an expanded sanctuary will provide increased protection
for shipwrecks in Presque and Alcona Counties and provide
greater opportunities for education, research, long-term
monitoring and law enforcement.
I personally support sanctuary boundary expansion because I
believe it will provide a vehicle for education. Yes, we need
to protect these shipwrecks, but it is not just about them. It
is about our past, present, and most importantly, our future.
The sanctuary has programs and opportunities for individuals of
all ages to utilize and enhance their educational skills.
I have seen this firsthand as a Judge for the International
Remotely Operated Vehicle Building Competition which inspires
students to pursue careers in math, science, marine technology
and archeology. Whether it is a young person learning to map a
shipwreck site, a graduate student researching shipbuilding or
a family building a boat together, it is about passing on the
values we have preserved.
Volunteer participation is a testament to community support
for the sanctuary. The sanctuary has over 100 volunteers whose
talents and expertise are utilized daily in the operation of
the sanctuary. I am one of those volunteers because I believe
in the sanctuary's mission. I strongly urge you to pass both
H.R. 6204 and the Sanctuary Enhancement Act because I believe
sanctuaries benefit not just northeast Michigan, but the entire
United States.
Thank you, again, for this opportunity to testify before
the Committee. I will be glad to return and answer any
questions you may have. I also invite you to visit and
experience northeast Michigan's lower peninsula.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. I will take you up on that
invitation, Mr. Kroll. I want to thank you very much for your
testimony this morning.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kroll follows:]
Statement of Steve Kroll, Chair,
Thunder Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council
Good morning Madame Chair and members of the committee. My name is
Steve Kroll. I'm a 57-year resident of Rogers City, Michigan, a retired
high school math teacher, and Chair of the Thunder Bay Sanctuary
Advisory Council. I've owned and operated a dive shop and charter
business in Presque Isle County, Michigan for 35 years. Thank you for
the opportunity to testify on H.R. 6204, the Thunder Bay National
Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve Boundary Modification Act.
I'm here today to support H.R. 6204 because it would add protection
to some of the nation's best preserved shipwrecks and expand successful
sanctuary programs to other communities in northeast Michigan.
Communities along the coasts of Presque and Alcona Counties are
maritime orientated and ready to recapture, preserve, and protect their
maritime heritage. I've been diving area shipwrecks for 42 years and
can testify that they are the best preserved shipwrecks in the world
and there are many more to be found. I've brought photos of two of
these shipwrecks: the F.T. Barney and the Florida. Diving on the F.T.
Barney, a 130-foot schooner that sank near Rogers City in 1868, you
would find a ship that looks ready to sail. A ship's wheel, one mast
still standing, anchors, rigging blocks, dishes, running lights, and
the compass are all there to see. This wreck is listed in the National
Register of Historic Places. The Florida is a 271-foot wooden streamer
that sank off the shore of Presque Isle in 1889. The wreck is mostly
intact, and in addition to containing all of its ship artifacts, it's
loaded with a cargo called general stores, items that served the
everyday needs of the people at that time. Both of these wrecks are
outside of current sanctuary boundaries and are not provided the same
protection as shipwrecks inside the sanctuary.
It's very important that you understand that originally I was
against establishment of the sanctuary. I believed having the federal
government determine what we should do with our resources would lead to
too many restrictions. This attitude was shared by many citizens and
expressed at public hearings prior to designation. As a result, the
proposed size of the sanctuary was greatly reduced. I now see that was
unfortunate since the sanctuary has proven itself as a trusted partner,
not just with the State of Michigan, but also with the local community.
The sanctuary program should serve as a model for other government
programs. Public input is received by NOAA with the attitude that they
can learn, react, and grow from it. I've been involved in the process
and can assure you it's real and working.
On May 22, 2007, the Thunder Bay Sanctuary Advisory Council voted
to recommend expansion of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary.
The advisory council represents local governments and community
interests including diving, fishing, and economic development. Prior to
this vote, I was part of the working group that evaluated the pros and
cons of expanding the sanctuary. The working group considered the
following in our discussions: how many additional shipwrecks would be
protected, how sanctuary programs could be expanded to other
communities, and the impact of expansion on existing sanctuary
operations. The working group came to the conclusion that there was no
reason not to expand the boundary and many reasons to expand it. When
the working group presented its findings to the full advisory council,
there was considerable enthusiasm and no dissent. Many county entities
and citizen groups of both Presque Isle and Alcona counties also voiced
their support for this expansion.
What will an expanded Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary mean to
northeast Michigan? I believe that an expanded sanctuary will provide
increased protection for shipwrecks in Presque Isle and Alcona Counties
and provide greater opportunities for education, research, long-term
monitoring, and law enforcement. I personally support sanctuary
boundary expansion because I believe it will provide a vehicle for
education. Yes, we need to protect the wrecks but it is not just about
them. It's about our past, present, and most importantly our future.
The sanctuary has programs and opportunities for individuals of all age
levels to utilize and enhance their educational skills. I've seen this
firsthand as a judge for an international Remotely Operated Vehicle
Building Competition, which inspires students to pursue careers in
math, science, marine technology, and archaeology. Whether it's a young
person learning to map a shipwreck site, a graduate student researching
ship building, or a family building a boat together, it's about passing
on the values we've preserved.
Volunteer participation is a testament to community support of the
sanctuary. The sanctuary has over 100 volunteers whose talents and
expertise are utilized daily in the operation of the sanctuary. I'm one
of those volunteers because I believe in the sanctuary's mission.
In regard to the Sanctuary Enhancement Act, I have not had the
opportunity to review this act but I do support NOAA working with non-
governmental partners to enhance support for the sanctuary because I've
seen it positively affect the community. A perfect example is the
successful partnership between the sanctuary and Alpena Regional
Medical Center which led to funding of a hyperbaric chamber facility in
northeast Michigan. The facility provides treatment for divers
suffering dive-related injuries and treats other patients with aliments
that benefit from hyperbaric oxygen treatment.
I strongly urge you to pass both H.R. 6204 and the Sanctuary
Enhancement Act because I believe sanctuaries benefit not just
northeast Michigan, but the entire United States. Thank you again for
this opportunity to testify before the Committee.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Now, I recognize Mr. Marks. Thank you for
being with us, and you are now recognized to testify for five
minutes.
STATEMENT OF RICK MARKS, PRINCIPAL,
HOFFMAN, SILVER, GILMAN & BLASCO
Mr. Marks. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Brown and
distinguished members of Subcommittee, greetings. My comments
on the Sanctuary Enhancement Act today here are my own but they
do reflect the opinions of my clients and colleagues that
operate in fisheries around the Nation in and out of seven
existing sanctuaries.
I appreciate your effort to retain some of the focus on the
unique areas that are of special national significance. The
inventory provision in your bill specifies that discrete areas
be considered for designation, and this is very important
because it maintains the consistency with what the regulated
community believes the targeted focus of the Act should be and
is.
I also support clarification for the regulated public and
private uses of sanctuary resources and your willingness to
address the fishing regulation issue. I also appreciate the
consultation provision for the tribes. I note that the Olympic
Coast Sanctuary is a special case, the only one that
encompasses four usual unaccustomed areas of the Northwest
Treaty tribes.
I am a bit disheartened that there is not a specific
provision in this bill to deal with the elevation of that
issue, but I do hope that you will work with the tribes to
elevate their role in that sanctuary to the appropriate level.
Finally, I applaud your authorization levels for additional
appropriations.
In terms of my areas of concern, the bill lacks a
requirement for sanctuary decisions to be based on the best
scientific information available. There is a perception that
exists that sanctuary decisions are more policy than science
driven. You can resolve this issue by applying scientific
integrity to all sanctuary decisions using the standards in the
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Your bill also contains new requirements that require the
Sanctuary Program to identify and protect maritime heritage
resources. Based on my work in and around the graveyard of the
Atlantic, I certainly would support that. However, the term
expands to an undefined area concept in the bill and that has
some serious resource use implications.
H.R. 6537 requires a specific review of the impacts of
fishing but would not require the same review of any other
activities. This unitary focus, I believe, is unrealistic
because merely addressing fishery issues will not necessarily
protect the sanctuary or the ecosystem.
H.R. 6537 also repeals the designation limitation. My
concern here, Madam Chair, is the removal of the fiscal checks
and balances. This is analogous to the situation we had with
our national parks where we consider adding new parks while the
existing ones fall in disrepair. I would suggest that you
retain the limitation until such time that we can remove the
budgetary constraints on the Sanctuary Program.
Regarding the fishing regulations, the new mission
statement does not include sustainable use of sanctuary
resources. Clearly, the program is being recast to protect
rather than use. This represents a fundamental shift. On the
west coast, sanctuaries were originally conceived to address
concerns over oil and gas exploration and development.
The U.S.S. Monitor was protected for its maritime heritage
value. Commercial and recreational fishermen and tribal
interests generally supported establishment of the sanctuaries
because they were led to believe that their fishing activities
and their access would be guaranteed. Changing policies for
existing sanctuaries is a bit of a Trojan Horse.
Most disappointing to me, quite frankly, is the trawl ban
that is included in your bill. This amounts to legislating
predetermined management decisions and circumventing the public
process, not to mention the scientific process. This is
extremely worrisome if you consider this provision along with
the system expansion goals.
Madam Chair, I have to tell you now that the opposition to
this provision from the regulated community from every region
cannot be overstated. H.R. 6537 will still require that fishing
regulations be compatible with the new mission. Considering
that fact, plus the bottom trawl ban, plus the actions to
prohibit fishing in Monterey and Channel Islands makes it hard
for me to envision how any sanctuary fishing in the future will
be safe.
In 2005 and 2008, the council chairs adopted a unanimous
position to amend the Sanctuary Act to exclude fishing
resources as sanctuary resources and to achieve the
jurisdictional clarity by vesting fisheries management under
the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Having served on a council, I agree
with that approach.
It ensures that fishing resources are managed to achieve
the greatest benefit of the Nation consistent throughout the
range and with the best available scientific information.
Councils are mandated to minimize the impacts of fishing on
habitat and can use ecosystem-based tools to protect areas,
which they are now doing.
In closing, Madam Chair, I believe the council system is
equipped to manage and protect fishery and ecosystem resources
while the Sanctuary Program is not, nor was it ever designed to
handle such comprehensive and challenging tasks. Congress, and
in particular this Committee and this Subcommittee, invested
years of hard work to enhance the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
There is no reason why that should not be the primary tool
we use to manage our fishing resources. Madam Chair, I thank
you, Ranking Member Brown and the members of the Subcommittee
for having me as your guest today.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank you, Mr. Marks. Your comments were
very helpful, and I will take into consideration some of the
suggestions you have made. I hope to be able to continue to
work with you and other stakeholders to refine and clarify my
legislation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Marks follows:]
Statement of Rick Marks, Hoffman, Silver, Gilman & Blasco,
Arlington, Virginia
Introduction
Madame Chair Bordallo, Ranking Member Brown and distinguished
members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to speak with
you today about the ``Sanctuary Enhancement Act of 2008'', H.R. 6537.
I am Rick Marks, a principal at Hoffman, Silver, Gilman & Blasco
PC.(HSGB). We are the oldest operating law firm in the State of Alaska
formerly known as ``Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh''. We have offices
throughout Alaska and Northern Virginia and our clients operate in
various marine environments around the nation.
Prior to joining HSGB, I was appointed by the Secretary of Commerce
to serve on the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and worked as a
lead marine fishery biologist for the State of North Carolina. I worked
for NOAA/NMFS twice--once as a Fishery Reporting Specialist and once as
a benthic laboratory and field technician. I participated in the USS
Monitor artifact negotiations, and the WWII Mark IV Enigma coding
machine ownership negotiations with the Federal Republic of Germany. I
served as the East Coast representative for the National Fisheries
Institute and worked for two seasons as a mate on charter fishing
vessels. I hold a Masters Degree in Marine Environmental Science with
emphasis in Fish Ecology from Stony Brook University as well as a
Bachelor of Science in Biology from Lynchburg College. I currently
serve at the pleasure of the NMFS Assistant Administrator on four
Federal Marine Mammal Protection Act-mandated ``Take Reduction Teams''
(TRTs).
Since we had just five working days to organize our testimony on
H.R. 6537, all of our clients did not have time to formally approve
this final version. Therefore, for the record my comments here today
are solely my own. However, please note my testimony reflects issues
critical to many of my clients and associates around the country
including several that operate in or near seven existing national
marine sanctuaries--Olympic Coast, Monterey, Channel Islands, Cordell
Banks, Gulf of Farallones, Florida Keys and Stellwagen Bank. Recently,
you were kind enough to receive oversight testimony directly from one
of my current clients--Chairman Micah McCarty of the Makah Tribe. Where
appropriate, my comments will expand on those provided by Chairman
McCarty.
Today I will deal with the substantive issues of H.R. 6537. I
intend to discuss three topics: (1) positive aspects of this
legislation; (2) areas of concern; and (3) fisheries regulations. I
will also include recommendations along the way that are intended to
improve the legislation.
Strengths of H.R. 6537
Regarding Section 301(b) I appreciate your efforts to retain some
of the core purposes and policies of the National Marine Sanctuary Act
(NMSA) including the assurance that we look at areas of the marine
environment that are of special national significance. The importance
of this underlying concept must not be underestimated. We should heed
this requirement and choose sites wisely or else the program may suffer
the same problem that initially plagued the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA)
essential fish habitat designation process--``if everything is
essential then nothing is.''
Further along in Section 301(b) I also support the clarification
allowing for regulated public and private uses of sanctuary resources.
While we may not agree on exactly what those uses are and the degree to
which they may be exercised, it is nonetheless important to our clients
that we see this recognition in the policy section and we thank you for
that addition.
We support the Resource Classification, Identification and
Inventory specified in Section 303 and in particular, the provision at
303(d)(1) which specifies that ``discrete'' areas of the marine
environment be considered for potential designation as a sanctuary.
This provision maintains consistency with the purposes and policies
section in 301(b). We recommend a formal, independent peer review be
conducted of the final site selection list to ensure that areas
prioritized for designation are unique, discrete marine areas of
special national significance.
We very much appreciate your effort to resolve the fishing
regulation conflict in Sections 304 and 308 and to have the Regional
Councils clearly involved in the process. While we have not reached a
resolution with this version of H.R. 6537 I want to express sincere
thanks to you and your staff for focusing on this issue. I will circle
back to this discussion in the part of my testimony addressing fishing
regulations.
In Section 308(b)(5) we recognize and appreciate the cooperation
and consultation provision, especially for Federally-recognized Indian
Tribes. It is critical these interests be afforded the proper
government-to-government recognition specified by their treaties,
embodied in Executive Orders 13158 and 13175, and further clarified in
case law.
As noted by Chairman Micah McCarty of the Makah Tribe at your NMSA
oversight hearing on June 18th, it is important to recognize that the
Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS) is a special case due
to the fact that it is the only sanctuary within the combined U&A Areas
of four Treaty Tribes. I am disheartened that a tribal consultation
provision specific to the OCNMS is not contained in H.R. 6537. I do
hope you and your staff will work cooperatively with the Makah Tribe
and other Northwest Treaty Tribes to provide specific statutory
authorization for the existing IPC, moving from an MOA to a binding
legal arrangement which specifies co-management opportunities, ensures
federal treaty trust responsibility, and clarifies a government-to-
government consultation process.
I also support conceptually the idea of special use permits in
Section 310. While I retain some concerns about practical
implementation and utility, this provision does maintain consistency
with allowing for regulated public and private use of sanctuary
resources. We recommend the sanctuary program be required to use the
best available science in decision making regarding issuance of special
use permits.
Finally, I support your overall program authorization levels for
additional appropriations in Section 313 provided those appropriations
do not negatively impact funding levels for our ongoing fisheries
research and management programs which you well know are woefully
under-funded.
Areas of Concern
Section 301(a)(4) indicates that scientific research has confirmed
that protected areas do a number of wonderful things both inside and
outside of the protected zones including repopulating adjacent areas. I
would be remiss in my scientific duties if I did not point out that
there remains significant controversy about these benefits and should
be viewed on a sanctuary-specific, case by case basis. Some leading
scientists (Hilborn and Walters, 2008) suggest that in certain
instances, benefits of protected areas may not be either extensive or
net positive.
Indeed, the value of MPAs has been shown in tropical areas with
more sedentary or habitat-specific species, but not in areas with
dynamic ocean conditions such as the West Coast. It also has not been
demonstrated for species that are migratory such as whiting, Dover
sole, sablefish, Atlantic bluefish, various squids and Atlantic
mackerel. For other benthic species such as lingcod, time/area closures
may work equally well in protecting stocks during sensitive spawning or
rearing times.
Dynamic marine environments experience constant input/output of
biological, physical and chemical components. Being able to maintain
total ``ecosystem'' protection is a fairly broad claim, especially when
talking about perceived threats such as global climate change. For
example, the buildup of atmospheric CO2 has been linked to
ocean acidification and simply putting areas off-limits to fishing will
do nothing to address other impacts.
Citing these uncertainties I also note that the NMSA, even with the
proposed changes, would still lack a specific requirement that
decisions be based on the best scientific information with provisions
crafted to implement such standards. Currently, it is my sense the
sanctuary process often times appears to be more ``policy'' driven than
anything else. As a starting point I recommend that clear scientific
integrity be required of NMSA decisions using the same standards that
apply to MSA actions.
In Section 301(c)(1)(B) of H.R. 6537, Congress would bring marine
national monuments under the jurisdiction of the NMSA. This presents a
double-edged sword for resource use constituencies. Certainly, once an
area is designated pursuant to the ``Antiquities Act'' (``The Act'',
Chpt.3060; 16 U.S.C. 431) there should be some applicable management
and regulatory regime by which the public can gain benefit and access
to the area. It would appear that the NMSA is the most appropriate
statute.
However, designations pursuant to the Antiquities Act are arguably
not achieved by way of a scientifically-defensible, public process. If
we proactively envelop monuments into the NMSA as is proposed here, do
we encourage future designations to be done separate from the public
process? I believe we may do just that.
As a justification for my concerns we can look to the much-rumored
example of the ``Islands in the Stream'' initiative being supposedly
developed by among others, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
and the National Ocean Service (NOS). If the rumors are true about
linking the Flower Garden Banks across the Pinnacles to the Florida
Keys Sanctuary via monument authority then it is being discussed with
little or no public process. By proactively allowing the addition of
future monument designations to the NMSA we are facilitating the very
activities that are anathema to what we should be trying to achieve
with a transparent, science-driven, fiscally-responsible designation
process.
H.R. 6537 contains new requirements to identify and protect
maritime heritage resources (See Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 310).
The term is defined at 302(a)(14) but then quickly morphs into
``maritime heritage resources areas'' at 303(c)(3)(A)(ii) and (C) and
(d)(1)(B) without any explanation what the new term means or what the
implications are for area management. Having worked for years in and
around the Graveyard of the Atlantic I have a special appreciation for
preserving maritime heritage resources but expanding this to an
undefined area concept with resource use implications is serious cause
for concern and not just for fishermen along North Carolina's Outer
Banks.
A ``System Expansion Goal'' provision is incorporated into Section
6 of H.R. 6537 specifying the Secretary should strive to add the number
of sites necessary to incorporate a full range of ecoregions and rare
and unique habitats and maritime heritage resource areas before 2030.
My concern here is that numerical goals could drive what should be a
deliberative, scientific, and fiscally-responsible designation process.
It may make more sense to remove the numerical target and endeavor to
add those areas that truly qualify as discrete areas of national
significance that we can manage effectively.
Section 7 (Sec. 304) revises the designation procedures and
management plan review process. Here, H.R. 6537 reduces (by 6 mos.) the
time to publish a notice of designation but increases the period of
management plan review from 5 to 7 years. Furthermore, subsequent
management plan reviews are pushed back from once every 5 years to only
once every 10 years. These changes are counterintuitive for managing
dynamic marine systems--on the one hand we increase the speed to
designate but on the other we delay a review of what we have done. This
will effectively reduce government oversight, slow the system's
reaction time to make substantive changes, and possibly dull the
effectiveness of the advisory panels.
Furthermore, the management plan review section appears to require
a specific review of the impacts of fishing regulations within the
sanctuary but would not require the same level of review for any other
activity. This is also counterintuitive since there are numerous other
activities that may impact sanctuary resources. It is unclear how
controlling fishing activities will protect the health of the entire
ecosystem while whale watching, boating, water pollution, air
pollution, non-point source discharge, marine mammal predation, vessel
strikes, ocean acidification, etc., are not the subject of similar
scrutiny or control.
H.R. 6537 repeals the limitation on new sanctuary designations and
the associated findings requirement. My primary concern here, in
addition to the fiscal burden of new designations on previously
designated sanctuaries, is the willing removal of the checks and
balances inherent in the current findings at 16 U.S.C. 1434(f)(1).
Currently, before he can add a new designation the Secretary must
ensure that a new designation will not have a negative impact on the
system, that he has sufficient resources available in the fiscal year,
that he can effectively implement a sanctuary management, and that he
can complete an inventory within 10 years at the current funding level.
The existing designation language provides some fiscal
responsibility on whether the Secretary has adequate funds to
administer existing sanctuaries before creating new ones. This is
analogous to the situation we face in our National Parks, where new
parks are created while existing ones are falling apart due to the lack
of operational capital. My recommendation is to retain the designation
limitations until such time that we can change the budgetary
constraints on the NMSP.
Section 306 revises the prohibited activities provisions by
striking the phrase ``knowingly and willfully'' on paragraph (3)(C)
regarding submission of false information to the Secretary or any
authorized officer. This change lowers the legal standard to the point
that a person could be prosecuted under the full extent of the penalty
schedule for making a simple mistake. By all means I support the law
being applied to the fullest extent possible for determined criminal
activity but this new standard seems rather excessive for an honest
mistake.
Similarly, increasing the maximum prison sentence (from 6 months to
2 years) and increasing the maximum fine (from $100,000 to $250,000)
for violations of the Act seem relatively harsh. Changes in the penalty
schedule could be warranted should the number and scope of NMSA
violations be of such serious concern but there is no indication from
NOS that this is the case.
Section 309 is amended here to permit the Secretary to withhold
certain public information to protect sanctuary resources. Subpart (ii)
allows the Secretary to further determine who may have access to these
data but provides no standard by which the Secretary shall make that
determination. Active withholding of such information in the context of
artifacts discovered within the Olympic Coast Sanctuary is inconsistent
with the Federal treaty trust responsibilities afforded the four Treaty
Tribes of Washington State (i.e. Makah, Ho, Quinault, Quileute). The
OCNMS is located entirely within the combined Usual & Accustomed Area
of these four federally-recognized Tribes and any discoveries of
cultural artifacts should be shared with them immediately.
New Section 310 allows the Secretary to issue permits for bottom
trawling in some cases but then goes on to require conditions and
restrictions that make it impossible for an individual fisherman to
actually get a permit. Also unclear is whether any fisherman--
commercial or recreational--would be required to have a permit issued
under this section. There should be an explicit statement that fishing
allowed by regulation would not require a separate Sanctuary permit. I
note here that that applicable language is found in subsection (g) of
the existing NMSA but was omitted in H.R. 6537.
Finally, there is a fundamental change to the provision clarifying
how the Act relates to other existing federal laws in Section
301(b)(2). The original NMSA authority complemented existing regulatory
authority while the new language appears to make existing authority
comply with the mission of the sanctuary system. It would be helpful if
a provision could be added explaining that the Act is not intended to
override other federal laws dealing with the marine environment but is
intended to complement them.
Fisheries Regulations
Turning to fishery resource management, the proposed NMSA
``mission'' statement specified at 301(c)(2) is well crafted but does
not include any real use of sanctuary resources. Clearly, the system is
being redesigned to protect resources (including fish), not utilize
them. I note this here because it forms a critical philosophical
component in the debate over fishing regulations in sanctuaries.
This new mission statement represents a major fundamental change in
the purpose of the Sanctuary system, a change which--had it been in
effect prior to the designation of existing sanctuaries--would have
resulted in different views on establishing them in the first place.
For example, on the West Coast, sanctuaries were established primarily
over concerns about oil exploration and development. The USS Monitor
was protected off the coast of North Carolina for its maritime heritage
value.
Ocean resource users such as commercial and recreational fishermen
and tribes generally supported establishment of sanctuaries because
they were led to believe that fishing opportunities and access would be
protected. Changing policies for existing sanctuaries is the equivalent
of re-zoning property for non-commercial use after the owner has
already made investments on that property.
A perfect example of this bait and switch can be seen in the
``Fishing Activities'' portion of the Monterey Bay NMS Final EIS (See
NOAA, Vol. II, Part IX, Section F; Response to Comments on Draft EIS,
Issue 13--Regulation of Fishing, pgs. F-41 to F-43, 1992). Regarding
the question concerning the prohibition and management of fishing
within the sanctuary NOAA responded with the following
Existing fisheries are not being regulated as part of the
Sanctuary regime and fishing is not included in the Designation
Document as an activity subject to future regulation. Fisheries
Management will remain under the existing jurisdiction of the
state of California, NMFS and PFMC.
Similarly, Congressman Sam Farr (D-17th), a well-respected coastal
legislator and current co-sponsor of H.R. 6537 submitted clarifying
correspondence to Mr. William Douros, Superintendent of the Monterey
Bay NMS (See Farr, 2002) elucidating a position similar to NOAA's on
fishing regulations in the sanctuary. Representative Farr's letter
contains a section titled ``The Role of the Sanctuary in Regulating
Fisheries'' from which the following quote is taken
In the process of building support for the designation of the
sanctuary, a clear commitment was made to the fishing community
that the sanctuary would not impose any regulations directed at
fishing activities or fishing vessels. This agreement is based
on the understanding that the fisheries within the sanctuary
are already being regulated and that there is neither the
necessity nor the resources for the National Marine Sanctuary
Program to take on this responsibility. The regulation of
fishing in the sanctuary should remain under the jurisdiction
of the California Department of Fish and Game and the Pacific
Fisheries Management Council. Any future reexamination of this
relationship should be conducted directly with representatives
of the fishing and these agencies.
Despite these prior promises, designation documents that do not
allow the regulation of fishing activities or fishing vessels, and
despite a lack of consensus with the regulated community--approximately
64% of the Monterey Bay NMS is off limits to fishing (Hilborn and
Walters, 2008). This year, the sanctuary superintendent announced (as
of February 15, 2008) that NOS will proceed with the implementation of
MPAs in the federal waters of the Monterey Bay NMS. It is our
understanding that the proposed MPAs would only ban fishing while no
other activity would be impacted.
In the nearby Channel Islands, the role of the sanctuary in fishing
regulations is also being painfully felt by the regulated community. In
the document titled ``Our National Marine Sanctuaries 2007
Accomplishments Report (NOAA/NOS/NMSP 2007) the single ``Featured 2007
Accomplishment'' listed for the entire National Marine Sanctuary
Program is described as follows
Marine conservation in U.S. waters increased in July when NOAA
expanded protected areas within the Channel Islands National
Marine Sanctuary. The move permanently bans fishing from nearly
111 square miles around the Channel Islands, extending a
network of marine reserves that now make up the largest area of
no-fishing zones in the continental United States.
Clearly, the Sanctuary mission has evolved over time by shifting
away from protecting discrete marine areas to one geared toward closing
large areas to fishing under the guise of ``ecosystem management'' with
little in the way of standards, scientific peer review, and transparent
public processes. Unfortunately, rather than rectify the fishing
regulation problem and address the conflict between the M-SA and the
NMSA, H.R. 6537 appears to make matters worse.
Perhaps most shocking in all of H.R. 6537 is Section 306(a)(5)
which specifies an outright ban on ``bottom trawling'' for any
sanctuary designated before January 1, 2009 unless expressly approved
by the Secretary consistent with the sanctuary mission, and a full ban
with no exception for any sanctuary designated on or after that same
date. This amounts to legislating pre-determined management decisions
for sanctuaries and monuments thereby circumventing the entire public
and advisory processes.
Should the trawl ban provision be retained and implemented absent a
scientific determination process, what would prevent the sanctuary
program from prohibiting all fishing gear that touches bottom including
gear that has even the potential to touch the sea floor under the new
mission to protect all sanctuary resources? This is a very serious
issue for all marine fishing constituencies.
The ban on trawling is particularly galling to the regulated
community if you consider its application along with the ``System
Expansion Goal'' specified at Section 6 and the addition of numerous
but undetermined ecoregions and maritime heritage areas. I believe the
opposition from every region to such a provision cannot be overstated.
In the case of the OCNMS the proposed trawl ban would effectively
abrogate the Tribes' fishing rights to continue their well-managed,
adaptive bottom trawl fishery which is the result of transparent co-
management efforts between the Tribes and the Pacific Council.
The proposed changes to Section 304 and 308 still require that
fishing regulations be compatible with the purposes and mission of the
sanctuary. Since the new proposed mission of the sanctuary is
protection (and not use) of living and non-living resources, and based
on the evidence of management activities in several sanctuaries that
suggest a proactive ratcheting down of fishing activities, it remains
unclear how any fishing in a sanctuary is safe under H.R. 6537.
Furthermore, the new section 308 could put the Regional Councils
even further behind the process. First, the new section adds timelines
that heretofore did not exist, effectively forcing the Councils to
examine NMSA issues as a priority--possibly at the expense of other
more crucial conservation and management issues. If it cannot meet the
deadlines the Councils lose their ability to managing fisheries
throughout their range, a requirement of the MSA. Typically, amendments
to fishery management plans take up to two years to complete even when
the Council has made specific allowances in its strategic planning for
that activity.
In my opinion, the Secretary already has the authority under the
MSA to issue regulations consistent with the MSA to close certain areas
to fishing if it is deemed necessary to protect the ecosystem. However,
there is still a need to clarify the existing relationship between the
NMSA and MSA.
In 2005 and again in 2008 the Regional Fishery Management Council
Chairmen adopted unanimous positions to amend the NMSA to specifically
exclude fishery resources as sanctuary resources and to achieve
jurisdictional clarity by vesting federal fisheries management within
the MSA. The House Natural Resources Committee attempted to address
this very issue during the 2006 MSA reauthorization but Members
deferred the debate to the NMSA reauthorization.
I agree with the position of the Regional Council Chairmen for a
number of reasons. First, this approach ensures that fishery resources
are managed to achieve the greatest benefit the nation, consistently
throughout their range, and with the best scientific information
available. Second, the MSA has very specific National Standards,
guidelines, scientific & economic considerations, a complete fishery-
specific committee structure, and clear requirements for public input
that include but extend beyond National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
considerations. And third, the Councils are mandated to minimize the
impacts of fishing gear on fish habitat as a component of FMPs and were
provided with authority to employ ecosystem-based tools to implement
area management such as marine protected areas and special limited
fishing zones to protect resources (See 16 U.S.C. 303(a)(7) and 303(b).
The Regional Councils are already incorporating these EFH and
ecosystem-based concepts into their management plans which would be
consistent with the intent of the NMSA. There are many examples of this
from every region, here are just a few--the North Pacific Council
operates a full retention trawl program and has set aside an expansive
deepwater coral protection area. The Pacific Council, through its EFH
process, has already established discrete areas where bottom contact
gear of any kind (not just trawls) is prohibited. The Rockfish and
Cowcod Conservation Areas put thousands of square nautical miles off-
limits to fishing. This Council has gone one step further and
established a committee designed to modify those areas based on new
information. The Mid-Atlantic Council has implemented trawl Gear
Restricted Areas and the New England Council closed the heads of
several marine canyons to trawling for purposes of managing Atlantic
monkfish.
Simply put, the NMFS and the Regional Council system are designed
and well-equipped to manage and protect fishery and ecosystem resources
using all the tools at their disposal (incl. area management concepts)
while the NMS system is not, nor was it ever intended to handle such a
comprehensive task. Fisheries management is standard operating
procedure for NMFS and the Councils using their resources of fishery
science and statistical committees and support staff, economists,
periodic fishery surveys, program monitoring, cooperative research
programs, a fleet of federal research vessels, specific data reporting
requirements, vessel trip and dealer reporting, permits and licensing
activities, specific limited access and allocation methodologies,
constituent services and outreach, and other pending programmatic
changes to overfishing and rebuilding requirements resulting from the
2006 MSA reauthorization.
In sum, the U.S. Congress and this Subcommittee just invested years
of hard work to substantially improve the MSA by separating politics
from quota setting, ending overfishing, providing for enhanced habitat
management, adding tighter controls on catch limits and accountability,
and by specifying clear roles for advice from Science and Statistical
Committees. In other words, the Councils operate under a very
comprehensive, conservation-oriented set of requirements pursuant to
the MSA. They have consistently proven the ability to deal with area
management concepts to protect living marine resources in a transparent
and science-based manner. There is simply no valid reason why this
system should not be the primary tool used to manage fishery resources
in sanctuaries.
Madame Chair, I thank you and Mr. Brown and the Subcommittee
members for allowing me to speak with you today regarding the details
of H.R. 6537. I hope to continue our work with you and your staff
during this reauthorization process.
Literature Cited
Farr, S. 2002. Letter to Mr. William Duoros, MBNMS Superintendent (cc'd
to Mr. Dan Basta), dated January 31, 2002; 4 pages.
Hilborn, R and C. Walters, 2008. Ecosystem Consequences of MPAs for the
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary; 24 pages.
NOAA, 1992. Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Final Environmental
Impact Statement, Volume II, Part IX, Section F; Responses to
Comments on Draft EIS, Issue 13--Regulation of Fishing. Pages
F-41 to F-43.
NOAA/NOS/NMSP, 2007. Our National Marine Sanctuaries 2007
Accomplishments Report; 7 pages.
______
Ms. Bordallo. I will now recognize members for any
questions they may wish to ask the witnesses alternating
between the members and allowing five minutes for each member.
Should members need more time, we very well could have a second
round of questions. I will begin with myself, and I do have
some for Mr. Dunnigan of NOAA.
According to your testimony, NOAA's priorities for
reauthorization of the Sanctuaries Act are: 1] to clarify the
protective mission of the system; 2] streamline the processes
for identifying, selecting and designating new sanctuaries; and
3] ensure that NOAA's authorities under the Act are applicable
for NOAA's management responsibilities at marine national
monuments. Does H.R. 6537 address these priorities? Just a yes
or a no.
Mr. Dunnigan. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. It addresses
those priorities. As I said, we haven't had a chance to review
all of the details, but it at least goes in those directions.
Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. Thank you. I have a series of
questions, so. Will the President's recent action to lift the
administrative moratorium on offshore energy production affect
the system, and is this action by the President consistent with
the NMSA, and how might this affect the marine national
monument in Hawaii in the Pacific Ocean?
Mr. Dunnigan. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. The
President, when he lifted that moratorium continued its
applicability to national marine sanctuaries. So the system is
still operational there. Specifically with reference to
Papahanaumokuakea, the President, when he designated that
monument prohibited oil drilling activities. So our
understanding is that that remains in place as well.
So we think that the President's action doesn't have any
direct impact on the sanctuary system.
Ms. Bordallo. Very good. All right, another question. H.R.
6537 would enact several systemwide statutory prohibitions for
certain activities for existing and future sanctuaries. What is
NOAA's position on this provision of the bill, and if NOAA does
object, please explain why these activities that are prohibited
in national parks should be allowed in national marine
sanctuaries?
Mr. Dunnigan. Well, again, I think, reserving the
opportunity to look at the specific language, we believe that
the better approach is to look at each of the sanctuaries in
its particular context and then craft the appropriate
regulatory scheme that is best applied to that particular area.
So in general we would prefer not to see broad prohibitions
that apply across the board to a lot of different areas.
We think this program works best when the prohibitions can
be tailored to the needs of the particular area.
Ms. Bordallo. Each sanctuary. Does NOAA support a
requirement to conduct an inventory of marine ecoregions and
maritime heritage resources and to develop a new site selection
list for potential designations of new sanctuaries?
Mr. Dunnigan. We think that it is time for us to have an
opportunity to consider broadly the needs of the system and
that is one way of doing it, so that is consistent with that
provision that was in our testimony.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. I have two other questions. Does
NOAA support having a goal to expand the system to include
representative sites of each marine ecoregion and a full range
of maritime heritage resources by the year 2030?
Mr. Dunnigan. We don't have a position specifically on that
particular part of the bill, but let me say that one of the
things we have to be careful to consider here is that the
resources that we have available to protect these places are
consistent with the requirements that we are laying on
ourselves.
So one of the things we have to think about is are we going
to be able to continue to maintain the protections for the
whole system as we try to move forward and provide broad
protection for all these types of resources around the country?
Ms. Bordallo. Very good. My final question. The bill would
authorize an annual funding level of $100 million by 2013 for
implementing the NMSA and for construction projects. Now, does
NOAA feel that this amount is sufficient given the projected
growth of the system in that timeframe? I expect the answer to
be no.
Mr. Dunnigan. I think the answer that the administration
always has for these kinds of questions is that as we work out
appropriations bills we have to evaluate every year what the
requirements are against all of the other requirements that the
country faces and provide the appropriate funding.
Ms. Bordallo. So you don't feel the $100 million would be
sufficient?
Mr. Dunnigan. No, I didn't say that.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much. Now to Mr. Gudes. I want
to thank you for your discussion regarding how the proposed
mission statement could be amended to better preserve
recreational opportunities. Why do you believe, however, that
an explicit mission to require NOAA to manage the sanctuary
system for the long-term protection and conservation of the
resources would result in a loss of recreational activities or
opportunities?
Mr. Gudes. I suppose there is probably two questions. One
is if what the bill is doing is saying what is the purpose,
what is the mission for what a marine sanctuary is, if, in
fact, human use, people use of the sanctuary, it would make
sense to have that in the statement, just in the same way some
other parks, for example, national parks have it in.
Second, I think I am mindful of Rick Marks comments that if
you look at the history of the Marine Sanctuary Program,
designations have started and then over time restrictions have
been put in place that were not contemplated by the
stakeholders when they supported the designation of the
sanctuary.
Those are all human uses that I am talking about, and I can
point to a number of those, but I think Rick was talking in
terms of commercial fishing. I can point out the use of
personal watercraft on the west coast, I can point out the no
takes zones have been put in place. It is not clear to me that
when those things came into effect that stakeholders at all
knew that was what they were agreeing to.
Ms. Bordallo. Is that not covered through the management
plan reviews at this----
Mr. Gudes. The uses do come about through the management
plan review, and in each case at some point the people who are
most involved in a sanctuary have put forward a proposal that
often is advertised in the local media for stakeholders to come
forward. It doesn't mean that all the members of the public who
are affected understand that each time it happens.
Usually they find out that they should have been involved
earlier or might have been involved earlier when a restriction
comes into place. I can tell you coming into this industry I am
aware of restrictions that came into place that had the
industry known when they were first proposed, it would have
come forward forcefully and not agreed.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. Well, I will have a few additional
questions but right now I would like to recognize the gentleman
from New Jersey, Mr. Saxton.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Dunnigan and
Ms. Spruill, I am sure you were listening as intently as I was
to the concerns, if you will, that were raised by Mr. Gudes and
Mr. Marks about the bill. I noted three in particular that I
would like to ask you to express your views on.
First is, as pointed out by Mr. Marks, there is a general
acceptance of the notion that scientific information should be
used as a basis for our policy rather than policy being a goal
all of its own. Mr. Marks is concerned that the integrity of
the scientific approach be maintained. That is number one.
Second, that as the bill is currently written it may be biased,
my word, in terms of expansion rather than maintaining and
managing the current system.
Third, that there is an emphasis on protection rather than
use. I think that Mr. Gudes at least contributed to the last
part in terms of the opportunities for fishing and so on, so if
you could just have a conversation with us about your
perspective on those three areas.
Mr. Dunnigan. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. I would be
pleased to address those. I think, first of all, we recognize
that national marine sanctuaries present one of the really
great opportunities for doing important scientific research in
the oceans. They are identified on the basis of particular
values that each of the sanctuaries represents.
It is important to understand how global processes, climate
change and other things that are happening affect these places
and what we can learn from that for application elsewhere. So
we believe in a strong scientific base for the National Marine
Sanctuary Program, and we believe that science, and good
science, the best available science, needs to underpin the
actions that we take.
We also believe that that science is a part of what is
brought out in the public discussion processes that we have
when we consider regulations, when we do designation documents.
So we feel we have a fairly open process, we believe that we
are reflecting the best available science and we don't have any
difficulty with that being an underpinning for the program.
I think there is a focus in our position from the
administration's standpoint on clarifying that the particular
requirements for sanctuaries are more focused on protection and
conservation than they are on management. We are not
necessarily here just to manage resources in the same sense
that we manage fisheries to try to achieve an optimum yield.
There is an identification that these are special places
that deserve the kind of conversation and protection, but,
again, sometimes we get the impression that people are thinking
that we generate all of this in our offices in Silver Spring
without having an opportunity to sit and spend a lot of time
with stakeholders.
If you hear the comments that you have heard from the
Thunder Bay folks, including the mayor who was here at the last
hearing, you hear people talking about how the Sanctuary
Program was something that once they got to understand it and
the values that it protected in their local areas, that it was
important to move forward with.
The third thing I would say about fishing is that in the 12
national marine sanctuaries that we have, leaving
Papahanaumokuakea off for the moment because that was the
President's action, in the 12 sanctuaries we have, we allow
fishing in every one of them. We allow commercial fishing, I
believe, to some extent in every one of them.
So if you were to go out to the Channel Island Sanctuary
that is in Ms. Capps' district, you would see a series of
panels on the wall of the office that says uses of marine
sanctuaries. We have recognized from the beginning that
national marine sanctuaries are special places for people.
Although we believe the principal focus needs to be on
conservation and protection, we recognize that these are
valuable places for people to use as well.
Ms. Spruill. Thank you, Congressman, for your very
thoughtful questions. I concur, I have to, with Jack that
science must absolutely anchor all decisions related to
sanctuary designation. I think we have to recognize that
America's future depends on the health and productivity of our
oceans.
This bill, therefore, makes it really clear that the
primary purpose of the sanctuary system is the long-term
protection and conservation of ocean resources. Now, that said,
we also understand that fishermen are facing a number of
challenges from diminishing fish populations and rising fuel
costs, and we see the sanctuary system providing us with an
opportunity to really invest in the future of a healthier
ocean, and therefore, all the livelihoods that depend on that
ocean.
As Jack said, we can't forget that every single sanctuary
is open to fishing and the vast majority of the waters within
those sanctuaries are open to fishing, and at the same time we
have to acknowledge that fishing is one of the greatest impacts
to ocean ecosystems. So I like to look at sanctuaries as sort
of an insurance policy for both the future health of the ocean
and its productivity and the livelihoods that depend on it.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.
Saxton. Now the Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
California, Ms. Capps.
Ms. Capps. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. NOAA seems to
be on the hot seat for questions. Right off the back this
morning, Mr. Dunnigan, I am going to start out with questions
for you. I heard you say something about a second round so if I
don't get to it, I have a couple of other people I want to pick
on as well.
To continue, Mr. Dunnigan, the conversation or testimony
that has already occurred on fishing, I want to ask your
opinion about the National Marine Sanctuary Program and
expertise in fishing management. Do you believe that the
sanctuaries have the kind of expertise in fishing management to
make decisions on fishing issues within their boundaries?
Mr. Dunnigan. Well, I have two answers to that question.
First of all, I think we have an immensely capable staff that
has broad capacity and capability to deal with a wide range of
ocean issues, including those relating to living resources. The
other thing I would like to say is that this is a NOAA program,
so the National Marine Sanctuary's office is also working
closely with the offices of the National Marine Fishery Service
and of the regional fishery management councils.
In many cases we have excellent working relationships with
the regional fishery management councils on a continuing basis.
So from the NOAA perspective, we believe that we have the
opportunity to bring a number of resources and capabilities
together to try to address these issues.
Ms. Capps. Thank you. You mentioned already my, not mine,
but our Channel Island Marine Sanctuary, and I know this to be
the case. We have evidence of that in our sanctuary as well.
Other witnesses have testified, Mr. Dunnigan, that a
provision in H.R. 6537 to increase the period of management
plan review from five to seven years or to require subsequent
reviews every 10 years instead of every five years, that this
provision would reduce oversight and slow down the process to
make changes to plans.
There is another side to it, too, I believe. I want to ask
you if expanding the period of review would make the process
more inefficient.
Mr. Dunnigan. Ms. Capps, I would not say that it would make
the process more inefficient. I think right now one of the
problems that we are having is that the amount of work that
gets associated with doing each of these is sufficient enough
that it is hard for us to be able to get to it all.
So, actually, if the law gets written in a way that
requires us to do it at least every so many years, then we have
an opportunity in the interim times to be able to deal with
particular issues as they come up, and yet, give us an
opportunity to schedule these in a way that are consistent with
the resources that we have available.
Ms. Capps. Since we have in our sanctuary completed that
five year plan, it is strenuous and I know from personal
experience what you are talking about. To follow-up, what else
could be done, do you believe, to make management plan review
process more efficient? Do you have other ideas that we could
include?
Mr. Dunnigan. We are looking at a number of things and we
have been talking to the Committee staff about them. Until we
get an approved view officially from the administration, it is
hard to say what those might be. One of the things that we
think is extremely important is to continue the strong
engagement with the public through our advisory councils.
As you saw in the process in the Channel Islands, it was
open, it gave us an opportunity to talk not only with the
industry, but also with the state. Especially in the four
California sanctuaries where we have such a close alignment
with the state itself, it gives us that opportunity to work
together.
Ms. Capps. One more. I think I have time. At the Channel
Islands, as you referred to this, the SAC has utilized issue
specific working groups to improve the public process. They
also help keep the SAC updated on emerging issues, almost like
to anticipate problems, some of these being aquaculture and
offshore renewable energy.
I have seen personally that these have been very helpful.
You suggest removing the 15 member limit on certain advisory
SACs. I know that at the Channel Islands and Monterey Bay
sanctuaries we each have 20 members each. Why do you think this
change might be useful or necessary?
Mr. Dunnigan. As we move forward with these, we have to
make sure that we have the opportunity to get the diverse
representation that is appropriate for that particular
sanctuary. The kinds of people that we need are different in
California than they are in the Great Lakes or than they are in
the south Atlantic where we have the Grays Reef National Marine
Sanctuary.
So we would like to have the opportunity to be able to have
sufficient size on those advisory councils so that we can reach
out through the board diversity of interests in each case.
Ms. Capps. Thank you. Madam Chair, I want to question a
couple more witnesses but I notice the red light is on and I am
going to take you at your word about a second round.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. I want to assure the gentlelady
from California that we will have a second round of questions.
At this time I would like to recognize the Ranking Member, Mr.
Brown from South Carolina, for any questions he may have.
Those standing in the back there, if you would like to sit
around this table here, you are more than welcome. Thank you.
Mr. Brown. Welcome. Ms. Spruill, are you from South
Carolina?
Ms. Spruill. I am not from South Carolina.
Mr. Brown. I want to let you know that in my district we
have Spruill Avenue.
Ms. Spruill. We do. And there is a Pointer and Spruill law
firm, too.
Mr. Brown. Is that right?
Ms. Spruill. Yes. No relation.
Mr. Brown. OK. OK. Let me begin my questioning I guess with
you. Does your organization support the ban on oil and gas
explorations and development in all sanctuaries?
Ms. Spruill. I am sorry, could you repeat the question?
Mr. Brown. Does your organization support the ban on oil
and gas explorations and development in all of the sanctuaries?
Ms. Spruill. Yes, and we at the same time recognize that,
you know, we all feel the pain at the pump. Congress has to be
focused on a real solution. Drilling our way out of this one we
don't think is the solution. Lifting the moratorium will do
nothing to lower today's gas prices, especially when there are
faster, and cheaper, and safer plans in investing in clean,
renewable energy, like solar, and wind, and alternatives to
gas.
Ms. Bordallo. Would you come closer to the mic, please?
Ms. Spruill. I am sorry.
Ms. Bordallo. Yes.
Ms. Spruill. We need to move this between us. Thank you.
Mr. Brown. Would you further maybe explain that as why you
would be against it?
Ms. Spruill. Against drilling in the sanctuaries is how I
understood the----
Mr. Brown. Yes, ma'am, that is right.
Ms. Spruill. Because the----
Mr. Brown. Is it environmental concerns or what would be
your major concern?
Ms. Spruill. Well, we are dealing with a vulnerable ocean
ecosystem that is facing threats from a number of sources. It
is an already vulnerable system that we need to be as resilient
as possible to sustain life on this planet. You know, things
like pollution, and habitat destruction and overfishing are
already creating a vulnerable ocean ecosystem.
So it is not just the drilling we have to be concerned
with, it is the whole system, the whole process from extraction
to transportation. When you are looking at things through an
ecosystem lens, which this sanctuary act is trying to do, we
have to look at the sort of cumulative impact of all of these
stressors. So it is more than just environment. I think that it
is a combination.
Mr. Brown. OK, but aren't you aware that other countries
are drilling offshore, and even in the United States off the
coast of Louisiana, off the coast of Texas and off the coast of
California we are drilling? I think the track record has been
pretty good.
Ms. Spruill. Well, again, it is we have to look beyond the
drilling. It is not just about the drilling, it is the whole
system from extraction to transportation. Look at the spill in
Louisiana just yesterday.
Mr. Brown. That was transportation, right?
Ms. Spruill. Right.
Mr. Brown. Right. So then you would be in favor of closing
the sanctuaries for transportation of tankers across the
sanctuaries?
Ms. Spruill. No. I was responding specifically to your
drilling question.
Mr. Brown. I know, but I was responding to your question
about the barge that----
Ms. Spruill. If you look at drilling, when we look at oil
drilling, I think we have to look at the whole system. What we
are talking about is an ecosystem-based approach to managing
our oceans. The sanctuaries bill, you know, makes it clear that
the primary purpose of the sanctuary system is the long-term
protection and conservation of our ocean ecosystems and
resources.
It may be that there are some uses that are not compatible
with that long-term comprehensive view, but we have to consider
sanctuaries as an insurance policy. We have to invest in the
health and future of our oceans because otherwise, the lives
that depend on those are lost anyway.
Mr. Brown. I guess that is the big argument we have today
with the price of gasoline at $4 a gallon and, you know, the
very poorest of our country, they are suffering the most
because most of those people live outside of the region where
they have jobs and they have to transport back and forth on a
daily basis. I know it is hurting in my district. That is the
reason.
I guess my next question would be then does your
organization support the designation of a monument off the
coast of South Carolina?
Ms. Spruill. I have not been briefed on that specific
question and so I would need to get back to you with a specific
answer to that.
Mr. Brown. OK. Is there any place outside the monuments or
the sanctuaries where it would be OK to drill?
Ms. Spruill. We think we are not going to drill ourselves
out of this problem. We need to look for alternative energy
sources.
Mr. Brown. OK, but in the meantime, I think we are looking,
you know, for alternative sources, and, you know, windmills and
whatever else is out there, nuclear power, and hydrogen power,
and whatever else, but we are using 21 million barrels of oil a
day and we are getting in some 13 million barrels from people
that don't like us and the price keeps going up every day.
We are having the greatest transfer of wealth in this world
today than we have ever had before where some $700 billion a
year is transferred from the wealth of the United States to
these countries that supply our oil.
You know, I see that we live on the same planet where
everybody has got something, a mutual responsibility, and yet,
we are insisting almost that Iraq and some of these other
places continue to drill and we don't want to share in that
level of responsibility.
Anyway, thank you, Madam Chair. I am sorry I used up all my
time, too, but it has been a good exchange.
Ms. Spruill. Thank you, Congressman.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much to the Ranking Member,
the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Brown.
Mr. Marks, I have a few questions for you. You raised
rather strong concerns about the establishment of marine
protected areas, including marine reserves, in some sanctuaries
that were established to protect sanctuary resources from
fishing activities, yet, you go on to note several examples
where regional fishery management councils have utilized the
same tools to the same effect.
So as a general principle, you are not opposed to the use
of marine protected areas or even the use of marine reserves,
is that correct?
Mr. Marks. As a general principle, you are correct, I am
not opposed to those. What I am concerned about, Madam Chair,
is to implement those in situations where the designation
documents did not indicate that they could be used to curtail
fishing.
The council process has a very scientifically driven,
clear, transparent process to implement those protected areas,
and the councils are actively doing that all around the
country, but they are science-driven, and that is what I would
support and that is what my clients operate in.
These other issues about marine protected areas within
these sanctuaries were not what many people had anticipated
when the system was brought about. It gets a lot to the issue
of science, ma'am.
If you listen to Mr. Dunnigan's answer to the question
about science, he is very skillful in the response because,
yes, the sanctuaries can be used to do a very good science on
climate research, et cetera, but when we talk about science, we
mean to apply that to the fishery management decisions, to the
marine protected area decisions.
That is very different than doing scientific research. So
you are correct, I do support the concept of those MPAs, but I
support a process that determines that they are necessary.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. Now, your concern is more about
who controls the process, is that correct? They are under the
same department, am I, Department of Commerce?
Mr. Marks. You are absolutely correct, so what we do have
is competing departments, ma'am, but there is something very,
very important I need you to understand because we haven't been
able to get to the kernel of why this is a problem.
The problem is you have two acts that are in conflict
because, and I think someone may have pointed it out, one, we
talk about optimum yield, managing use, greatest benefit to the
nation, actually having people harvesting for protein for all
of us. The other act in the same area is now being recast to be
more protectionary and that is why we have the rub, and that is
why I am advocating that consistent with Magnuson, throughout
the range, species are managed that way.
The sanctuaries should certainly be able to work in
consultation with the National Fishery Service. If there are
areas that need to have MPAs in them, then let us use the
science process and the council process to put those in
wherever they are required.
Ms. Bordallo. All right, but under existing law and my
particular bill, the councils would still have the primary
responsibility for drafting fishing regulations, so what is the
problem?
Mr. Marks. Well, they still would, ma'am, but there is a
couple of things. Number one is you change the timeframes on
the council to be able to act, and, quite frankly, you tighten
them up a bit faster than the council system normally operates.
As I indicated, you, having been a council member before, I
know how, I was going to say how fast, but how slow sometimes
the council process grinds forward because it is so
comprehensive, so what you have done is you have tightened up
the timeframes for them to act.
Not only is it problematic from a time perspective, but
what if the council has so many other issues that are pressing
on them from a fiscal standpoint and from a planning standpoint
that if the sanctuary turns around and says we need regulations
today in this sanctuary, then the council is going to be forced
to drop everything else on its agenda that it plans for a year
in advance, ma'am, in order to be able to react.
If they can't react in time, then it defaults to Mr.
Dunnigan to do the fishing regulations. As I indicated, we have
no scientific process to depend on.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. Then the Committee would be
interested to know what kind of timeline are you looking at
here, I mean, to be reasonable?
Mr. Marks. OK. That is a fair question keeping in mind,
though, that I am still putting my chips with the council. To
answer your time question, you know, councils typically for a
full-blown amendment, when a council has already planned it in
their structure to get to an amendment it takes upwards of
about two years to do a full-blown fishery management plan
amendment.
If you want to do a faster plan amendment, called a
framework amendment, you can actually do that and probably get
it off the dime in about a year and a half. There are so many
requirements, NEPA, et cetera, that it takes a long time to
make that happen.
So I think, and, again, I only had a few days with your
bill, ma'am, but I think that your bill would allow the
council, if you told them today, six months to finish their
work and they could extend that time period once for three
months, if I am correct. The staff is nodding his head.
That is not enough time for the councils to do what they
would have to do, not even talking about still the conflict
between the two statutes.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. I have another question for you,
Mr. Marks.
You raise significant concerns that the sanctuary system
has evolved to a more protective ecosystem management approach
with little in the way of standard scientific peer-review and
transparent public process, yet, in looking at the record at
the establishment of the system of marine reserves at the
Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, where is that list,
I see a very comprehensive public process that included over 44
sanctuary advisory councils or working group meetings and other
public meetings or hearings, and this was just for the period
between 1999 and 2001.
Forty-four. So I would say that is pretty thorough.
Furthermore, the full process took eight years to complete and
still left 78 percent of sanctuary waters open to fishing
activities. So just exactly how much public process do you
believe is necessary before NOAA is allowed to take a
management action in a marine sanctuary?
Mr. Marks. Fair question, Madam Chair, and I don't
denigrate the public process that has gone on to implement
these sanctuaries. To designate them and implement I know it
takes a long time, I know there is tremendous amounts of
discussions.
My issues tend to be not so much with actually where you
draw the box on the nautical chart, but then what happens from
the designation document standpoint moving forward? That is
where a lot of my concerns and a lot of my clients' and my
associates have raised concerns is that there tends to be a
feeling that the advisory process is being dictated to rather
than more involved in the actual implementation of regulations,
and there is a difference.
You mentioned the Channel Islands. I have been on a
commercial squid boat in the Channel Islands, it is a beautiful
place, I have kayaked there, people are using it, I do
understand we are fishing, but let me give you an example just
right near there. The designation documents for the Monterey
Bay Sanctuary were clear, and Mr. Farr was clear very far back
in the initiation of that, that we wouldn't manage fishing.
Well, right now, 64 percent of the Monterey Bay Sanctuary
is estimated to be off limits to fishing when people didn't
think that that was going to happen at all in the beginning. So
there is public process, you are absolutely right; however, in
certain instances there is concerns about whether there is
enough of it and whether the standards and the science apply.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Marks. My time is over and I
am going to be recognized Mr. Wittman. I would like to ask Mr.
Dunnigan one quick question. Mr. Marks describes the two
statutes, meaning Magnuson and the Sanctuaries Act, are being
in conflict. Do you share his idea on that?
Mr. Dunnigan. No, ma'am, we don't share that view at all.
We think that there are two statutes that can work together,
and, in fact, in almost all cases, do work together well.
Ms. Bordallo. That complement each other. All right. Thank
you. Now the Chair recognizes Mr. Wittman.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate the
time. I would first like to welcome Timothy Sullivan, the
Director and CEO of the Mariners' Museum. Prior to joining the
Mariners' Museum, Mr. Sullivan also served as President of the
College of William and Mary for 13 years.
The Mariners' Museum is located in Newport News, Virginia,
and for those who don't know, the Mariners' Museum does a great
job of displaying and interpreting maritime history, and most
notably, the history of the great Civil War naval battle
between the ironclads U.S.S. Monitor and C.S.S. Virginia. So,
Mr. Sullivan, thank you for joining us today. I appreciate
that. It is good to have you here.
I would like to begin with Mr. Dunnigan with a question.
Mr. Dunnigan, as you know, anglers play a very important role
in the conservation of our marine resources and namely through
the license fees and excise taxes that they pay on fishing
tackle.
However, I know that many recreational anglers are
concerned about management practices that might restrict public
access and the implementation of no take areas. How does the
administration plan to proceed with the establishment and
management of marine protected areas and other management
measures, and how will public access for recreational purposes
be ensured?
Mr. Dunnigan. If I can answer the second part of your
question first, the correct process for ensuring the
appropriate use of a marine protected area, or a sanctuary, or
any other area, is really through a broad public process that
gives transparency and gives folks an opportunity through some
regularized review to be able to have their views heard.
We recognize that recreational fishing is an important
value for America, we recognize that the sport fishing
community has been among the strongest supporters of good
fisheries management and of good environmental protection, so
we think that the right way to do that is to focus specifically
on the process.
Mr. Wittman. Very good. As related to the process, how do
you see the application of science playing in, both the process
of public hearing and in the decisionmaking side?
Mr. Dunnigan. Well, we begin with our own scientists in the
sanctuary program that are associated with each of the
individual sanctuaries, and they have extensive collaborations
with other scientists in NOAA, specifically the National Marine
Fisheries Service, we work with scientists that work for the
regional fishery councils, for other Federal agencies and for
the states.
We have a strong recognition of the collaborative effort
that we need to do and recognize the capabilities of the
states. So we really begin with science when we are building
our record and trying to make a decision as to what the
appropriate things to do in a particular sanctuary might be.
Mr. Wittman. So what you will be doing is integrating the
public information or the public process and the information
you gain there, along with the science that you gain from your
scientists, others, and other Federal agencies in the states?
Mr. Dunnigan. Sir, I would say that, but I would also point
out that an important part of a program like this is to make
sure that we are communicating the science through effective
public education and outreach programs.
Public education and outreach is one of the strongest
underpinnings of the National Marine Sanctuary System, so we
need to be able to use these programs to take the opportunity
to get that science into the hands of the people whose
resources these are so that they can consider what the
appropriate uses and protections that are necessary for these
places should be.
Mr. Wittman. OK. Like to drill down a little bit further
into the decisionmaking process. Can you tell us how fisheries
management or the fisheries management provisions of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act mesh with the requirements of the National
Marine Sanctuaries Act, and how would H.R. 6537 change
authorities in the Sanctuaries Act?
Mr. Dunnigan. Under the current law, and I believe under
H.R. 6537, the principal responsibility initially for crafting
individual fishery regulations rests with the fishery
management councils. I haven't studied all of the details, but,
as I understand it, H.R. 6537 I think makes that process a
little bit clearer as to how that is supposed to happen and
stages it better.
You know, that process is going to work well when we have
the sanctuary staffs, the fishery staff and the council staff
all working together much earlier in the process. This should
not be a situation where the sanctuaries program decides that
it needs a fishing regulation and calls up the fishery council
and says come back in 90 days.
We have to have that collaboration working from the very
beginning. Sanctuary designation processes take many years as
well, along with fishery management processes, and it is our
responsibility to make sure that we have them working side by
side all the way through.
Mr. Wittman. Just one other question. Maybe a little more
elaboration. I know that the Magnuson-Stevens Act has a fairly
proscriptive process for making decisions. Do you see that
meshing with the process with the Marine Sanctuaries Act? Do
you see it occurring separately? How do you envision that? Let
us say that there is a decision process that has been gone
through say with a species, and then there is an effort to put
in place a marine sanctuary.
How do you see that process either meshing or reconciling
if there is a potential conflict in that decisionmaking?
Mr. Dunnigan. For about the last 18 months we have been
doing a very detailed analysis of the legal requirements of the
two processes and how they work together. That is almost
completed and ready to be shared. And so that will give, you
know, the sort of I think very technical details from the legal
standpoint that you are looking for.
Let me give you just an example because this is an area
where we have really tried to do a better job over the last
couple of years to have the sanctuary staffs and the fishery
management staffs in NOAA and the councils, you know, working
better together. The Chairman of the Sanctuary Advisory Council
for the Grays Reef Sanctuary is an employee of the National
Marine Fishery Service.
The director of the Channel Islands National Marine
Sanctuary staff used to work for the National Marine Fishery
Service, as did I. So what we have been seeing is a much
greater sense of collaboration across NOAA really in this
administration on programs, and that is something that we can't
ever say is done. We have to keep working to make that more
effective.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Dunnigan. Thank you, Madam
Chairwoman.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Wittman. Now the Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
California, Ms. Capps.
Ms. Capps. Madam Chair, I do have questions for Mr. Kroll
and Mr. Marks, but I want to give Mr. Dunnigan a chance to
respond, I know you have been talking a lot, but you engaged
Mr. Marks, Madam Chair, in an interesting conversation in which
I believe I heard Mr. Marks suggest that the sanctuary program
does not engage in public processes that are science-based or
transparent.
I want to ask you, Mr. Dunnigan, for a brief response to my
question. What happens when decisions are made after the
designation process is completed? How does the public
participate in those instances?
Mr. Dunnigan. Well, on a continuing basis people are
participating through the sanctuary advisory council process,
and that is open. We have continuing membership infusion so
that we get a broad view of interests. The advisory council
process is very engaged and continuing to review how the
sanctuaries are being implemented, so there is open discussion.
I can tell you that they are not all meetings where
everybody sits around a table and agrees with each other. Those
are a lot of fun sometimes. I can tell you that at my level I
hear from those people after those meetings are over with. So,
you know, I spent 25 years in the fishery management process.
They are hard.
I recognize the hard work that my colleagues in fisheries
do, and I am committed, and we are all committed in NOAA to
working better together.
Ms. Capps. I want to tell you and just make this as an
aside, the process I watched firsthand at Channel Islands, and
I have bragged about that advisory committee to almost every
other public/private partnership that I have ever witnessed, it
was the one, and I won't say bloody, but it was a very hands on
and strongly held opinions where they sat around the table
until they ironed out every one of the areas where they could
agree on.
One of the most publicly driven processes I have ever
experienced. It was initiated by the recreational fisheries.
Completely driven by science all the way through. I think it
is, at least my experience, a very remarkable process.
Now, Mr. Kroll. I have never had the privilege of visiting
your Thunder Bay Sanctuary. The pictures are beautiful. Last
weekend I was at Monterey Bay Sanctuary Visitors Center in
Cambria, California, my district, celebrating a second
anniversary. I am always impressed by the number of businesses
from my area and the surrounding around the sanctuary that
support it.
The sanctuary has developed amazing partnerships with local
lighthouse and maritime-related associations all to enhance
tourism, which they can tell you it has. I am sure the Thunder
Bay Sanctuary has had some positive impacts on your area as
well. Just mention a couple of those in a brief response. I
want to follow it up with another question.
Mr. Kroll. Well, the diving community certainly appreciates
the efforts of the sanctuary in buoying wrecks in such a way
that they are a little bit safer to dive on, and it is a little
bit more reliable and not harmful to the wreck by not attaching
to them, so I think we are getting a better feel for that.
As we progress buoying different wrecks and making that
available, it makes for a much safer environment to dive in,
and so we are getting more divers coming to the area. The
sanctuary itself, having the Maritime Heritage Center now,
which has just opened, is drawing nondiving community to the
area.
It is amazing the number of people that we have coming
through. I mean, it is more than we could have possibly
anticipated. The whole sanctuaries program for our area has
been just an amazing effort of cooperation between government,
private people and everything to get this thing motivated and
going. It is just, you know, a tenfold kind of thing that is
going on as far as the use.
The educational ramifications of our sanctuary just amazes
me. We have had Dr. Ballard there doing some research, and we
put things together with, you know, live broadcasts and that
kind of thing.
Ms. Capps. Can I get you to segue to a part of this that I
find very fascinating? You have spent a lot of time there and
you represent it well, some of the changes in our Great Lakes
in terms of invasive species. Have you observed this change
over time, and is that a part of this educational process you
are describing as well?
Mr. Kroll. Yeah. This is kind of a good thing, bad thing.
You know, we have 185, I believe, invasive species that have
come into the Great Lakes since we have opened the canal. Some
of those things maybe are good, some of those things are bad. I
don't know if we understand all that yet.
Good thing I guess is that the visibility in our Great
Lakes has greatly increased. What ramifications that has as far
as warming the waters or whatever has yet to be studied. Bad
thing about a lot of it, which are the zebra and quagga
mussels, are that they manifest themselves by covering up the
wrecks.
Even though these pictures show wrecks, which are, from a
distance they look really great, some of the artifacts are
covered up by these mussels and in some ways it is not as good,
but when you get down there and you have 100 feet of
visibility, where back in the 1960s when I dove these wrecks we
were lucky to have four and five feet of visibility, those were
considered good days.
Now, if you have less than 30, you are complaining about
it. So there are pros and cons to all that. Where it is going
to go, to some degree we can't control anymore, but certainly
studying their effects is important.
Ms. Capps. Thank you. Madam Chair, I know my red light has
gone on, but since I am the last speaker, could I ask Mr. Marks
one question?
Ms. Bordallo. Go ahead.
Ms. Capps. Do you mind? I just wanted to refer in your
testimony, Mr. Marks, to the statement that you made that
scientists seem to be split on spill over as a benefit of
marine reserves, but anecdotally, I can tell you right off
Santa Barbara, Channel Islands National Park, we see
anecdotally every day fishers fishing the line.
They know exactly the sanctuary line ends because they can
see the number of fish returning and it is providing a much
better catch with them. Why should not this be considered a
positive affect of marine research?
Mr. Marks. Let me clarify, Ms. Capps. I didn't mean to
indicate that it never works. As a fifth year biologist myself
having worked in fisheries, I just wanted to make sure that it
was clear in my written testimony that people understood that
there is a lot of debate still ongoing about the positive
benefits of some of these areas.
That is only the point that I was trying to make. I
certainly would think in some areas with species that are more
ventrically oriented or structure oriented where their larvae
are retained, I would certainly agree with you that in some of
those instances it would work. Whether it repopulates adjacent
areas in all cases, there is a lot of that that depends on
particular case by case situations.
So in some instances, I think you are absolutely right, in
others, I am not convinced and others in the scientific
community. I just still think it remains a debate. That is all.
Ms. Capps. All right. Fair enough. We need to have another
hearing, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Bordallo. I think the gentlelady from California would
remind the members that there are four votes coming up between
12 and 12:15. However, being a representative from a territory,
I only vote on amendments, so I will keep this going.
I have a question here for Mr. Gudes. You raised a concern
with provisions in the bill that would direct NOAA to complete
a classification of marine ecoregions and also direct NOAA to
work toward the goal of designating new sanctuaries
representative of the full spectrum of marine ecoregions of the
United States.
Now, why is this inventory, which would be designated by
NOAA in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, a problem?
Mr. Gudes. Well, I think our focus is that where NOAA
should be investing additional resources that the Committee is
recommending should be on capacity building in the existing
sanctuaries before going and creating additional sanctuaries.
As far as ecosystems, beyond that, I would have to get back to
you and focus a bit more on the study that you are talking
about.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. We would appreciate that. Also,
why is the goal of designating new sanctuaries to capture the
full range of marine ecoregions a problem when currently the
same type of goal exists for the National Estuarine Research
Reserve System?
Mr. Gudes. Well, I think part and parcel to this discussion
today, which was kind of before when Rick was talking and I was
talking, is that the flip side of the comment before about only
28 percent of the Channel Islands is closed to fishing is that
as the system increases that means that there is 100 percent of
all those areas that are open to recreational fishing now, and
whether it is 28 percent, or 50 percent, or 100 percent, that
means that what the Committee is contemplating or the NOAA
Marine Sanctuary Program is contemplating is additional fishing
closures.
As I tried to say at the beginning of my statement,
geographic-based management and no take zones is not something
that our industry supports at all. I hope that is clear. Madam
Chair, can I also? Earlier you had asked me about why I thought
that there needed to be a focus on balanced use and human use
of the sanctuaries.
This is a reauthorization bill, so it is pivoting off of
what already exists. As I tried to point out in my testimony
before, the reauthorization eliminates the current law which
provides for facilitating public and private uses of
sanctuaries.
So I am not allowed to ask questions of the dais, but it
seems that the Committee has made a decision to eliminate that,
and, you know, we are strongly arguing no, that that side needs
to be put into the bill, not the way it is drafted now.
Ms. Bordallo. Yes. Well, when you reauthorize something,
you know, you may add or subtract from the original.
Mr. Gudes. Yes, ma'am. You do the laws, we don't.
Ms. Bordallo. We will confer with the Committee on that.
Mr. Kroll, I have a question for you. Can you confirm that all
of the counties and the communities that surround the Thunder
Bay Sanctuary support the expansion of the sanctuary's
boundaries? To your knowledge is there any local opposition to
the expansion?
Mr. Kroll. Thank you, Madam, but when we started our
management plan review process we of course had some public
hearings in counties on either side of us, and, as a result of
those hearings, we ended up with requests from these counties
to become part of the sanctuary. We have a lot of documentation
of where county entities have written letters of support and
requesting to become part of the sanctuary as adjoining
counties.
So as part of our management plan review process it ended
up bringing up actually a bigger question to us. So the way I
look at this whole process is that it is wonderful we can go
back and do these public hearings and do this process. Now
Senator Levin has introduced in this bill. In a way, all we are
going to do is really duplicate what already in a sense has
been done by virtue of actual, if you wish, error by the fact
that people came to us rather than we go to them.
So this documentation is there, there is many county
entities, local government groups, private groups that have
written letters of support in requesting us to expand the
sanctuary. So if we go right out there back to them for the
same reason, you know, this would be a whole lot better process
in my mind.
Ms. Bordallo. So generally then you would say that they are
in support?
Mr. Kroll. They are absolutely 110 percent in support the
way I look at it.
Ms. Bordallo. Very good. We will put that down in the
notes. I have, yes, another question for Mr. Sullivan. My
legislation would direct NOAA to complete an inventory of
maritime heritage resources in the United States and include a
selection of such areas in a new site selection list for
potential designation as new marine sanctuaries.
To complete these tasks, the bill would amend the
Sanctuaries Act to allow NOAA to withhold from the public
resource information in order to protect the resource from
harm. Do you support this particular provision?
Mr. Sullivan. I think as everything depends on facts of an
individual situation and the law has to be applied, but in
general, for good reasons and for a limited time, yes, I think
that would make a good deal of sense in terms of protecting the
integrity of the process to produce the best results.
Ms. Bordallo. You think it should be mentioned or is the
provision not necessary?
Mr. Sullivan. I think it would be a good thing to keep it
in.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much. I have another question
now for Ms. Spruill. Other witnesses have raised the prospect
that President Bush might use his authority under the
Antiquities Act to designate new marine national monuments
before he leaves office.
Now, regardless of whether you think this is good or bad,
do you believe the existing statutory limitation on the
designation of new marine sanctuaries has left the President
with few, if any other options to protect nationally
significant portions of the marine environment?
Ms. Spruill. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think what you are
touching on now, you are mentioning some of the minor concerns
that I raised in my testimony. There are sort of four points
that we think could be fairly easily addressed. One of them is
that the language on the marine national monuments not undercut
the Antiquities Act or the proclamation creating them.
We think that there is some modification of the language in
the bill that could help that situation. We also think adequate
public review is provided for the resource classification,
identification and inventory procedures, and then a couple of
other minor points that we can certainly follow-up with later.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes
Mr. Wittman for any questions he may have.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Another question
for Mr. Dunnigan. You had said a little bit earlier that there
was no conflict between the Sanctuary Program and the National
Marine Fishery Service. If you look back, in 2005, Senator
Inouye asked for some clarification. As I understand it, the
internal operational guidelines are still not final.
Can you give us an idea about when you think those internal
guidelines will be final?
Mr. Dunnigan. Thank you, sir. Yes. I expect that they will
be final within the next couple of weeks, if not sometime early
next week. We were trying to get them done, understanding the
Committee's work, and just have had some final touch ups that
we have had to do to that.
Vice Admiral Lautenbacher wrote Senator Inouye a letter at
that time two years ago, and that letter is still our
understanding of how these programs can work together. The
guidelines are not so much guidelines as they are an
explanation of the processes and how they relate to each other.
Mr. Wittman. And you will make sure you provide copies of
that to the members of the Committee once the guidelines come
out?
Mr. Dunnigan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wittman. OK. Thank you. One other additional question.
You had spoken earlier about how there are some fishery
scientists available within the National Marine Sanctuaries Act
area to make decisions. Can you tell us how many fishery
scientists are actually assigned to decisionmaking within the
National Marine Sanctuaries Act?
Mr. Dunnigan. I can get you some detail on that, sir. I
don't have that number with me right now.
Mr. Wittman. OK. That would be great if you could do that.
Mr. Dunnigan. Be glad to. Thank you.
Mr. Wittman. For Mr. Sullivan. You had spoken a little bit
earlier about obviously the mission of the Marine Science
Museum. Can you give us an idea about how you believe this
reauthorization of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act would
actually help an entity, like the Marine Science Museum, in
accomplishing its mission?
Mr. Sullivan. I think I should first say that without the
National Marine Sanctuary Act I doubt seriously that the
magnificent facility we have in Newport News, working in
conjunction with our partners at NOAA, would exist. I mean, it
made possible the preservation and the recovery of Monitor
artifacts.
So it is a powerful example of when done right what an
institution like mine, a private museum, can accomplish working
with a government agency to preserve an important part of our
marine heritage. So I am not a national expert, my expertise is
limited to your district, Congressman, but I think we could be
an example that could be applied, and probably is being
applied, in other parts of the country and in additional places
if this reauthorization is complete.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. Thank you, Madam
Chairwoman.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. Now the
Chair recognizes the Ranking Member. Do you have any questions?
Mr. Brown. No, ma'am. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. He passes. All right. I guess I have three
quick questions to Mr. Dunnigan. This is for H.R. 6204, the
Thunder Bay Sanctuary Expansion. What are NOAA's views on H.R.
6204, and are the State of Michigan and the two affected
counties in full support of this expansion, and what additional
costs will this expansion impose on the Sanctuary Program's
annual budget?
Mr. Dunnigan. One, two, three, Madam Chair. First of all,
we don't have a specific administration view on that bill.
We recognize that the values that the bill would promote
are consistent with the existing sanctuary and so it is the
kind of thing that we think could be a good idea, although
generally we think that it is better for these kinds of
decisions to be made through the administrative processes
rather than having a lot of them turned down in legislation.
Second, in terms of the specific amount, the support,
rather, of the counties in the State of Michigan, our
impression is that the local governments are in support of
supporting, and strengthening, and broadening the sanctuary. I
do not know what the position formally of the state is.
Third, on the question of how much more would it cost us to
administer the sanctuary, we haven't done that kind of an
analysis yet, but when we have it, we would be glad to make it
available.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. Ms. Spruill, you noted your
support for the updated findings that recognized the several
ecological benefits that are derived from the use of marine
protected areas, including marine reserves. Mr. Gudes and Mr.
Marks to the contrary seem to believe that the science behind
these strategies remains inconclusive.
So can you tell us, what is the present scientific
consensus on the ecological function and the benefits from
using marine protected areas?
Ms. Spruill. I think there is no doubt that marine
protected areas and marine reserves, and we have to be careful
about the language because it means different things in very
different places, but there is no doubt that marine protected
areas, the no take areas, are having a significant impact on
ecological systems in the ocean.
You know, I think, again, we have to look at these systems
as long-term investments in our future, and we need a series of
these tools. I think the Channel Islands has been probably the
best example. Congresswoman Capps already mentioned the fishing
along the line. We are seeing that in the Florida Keys as well.
So we are not only seeing more science with regard to
marine reserves, we are also beginning to see results. So it is
clear that it needs to be part of the system.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much. I want to
thank all of the witnesses for their participation in the
hearing today, and particular to thank my Ranking Member, Mr.
Brown from South Carolina, for being here with us, and Mr.
Wittman, the gentleman from Virginia. Ranking Member has a
comment/question.
Mr. Brown. Madam Chair, I would like to enter in the
records a letter to the President from the Sport Fishing
Association and others, and also a statement from fishery
community on marine protected areas.
Ms. Bordallo. No objection. So ordered. I will also like to
remind the members of the Subcommittee, they may have
additional questions for the witnesses and we will ask you to
respond to these in writing. The hearing record for all
involved will be held open for 10 days for these responses.
If there is no further business before the Subcommittee,
the Chairwoman again thanks the members of the Subcommittee and
all of our witnesses this morning. The Subcommittee on
Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]