[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS OF PENDING MARINE NATIONAL MONUMENT
DESIGNATIONS
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-21
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
96-866 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
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
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Louie Gohmert, TX Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Doug Lamborn, CO Jim Costa, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
John Fleming, LA CNMI
Tom McClintock, CA Niki Tsongas, MA
Glenn Thompson, PA Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Jared Huffman, CA
Dan Benishek, MI Raul Ruiz, CA
Jeff Duncan, SC Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Matt Cartwright, PA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
Doug LaMalfa, CA Norma J. Torres, CA
Jeff Denham, CA Debbie Dingell, MI
Paul Cook, CA Ruben Gallego, AZ
Bruce Westerman, AR Lois Capps, CA
Garret Graves, LA Jared Polis, CO
Dan Newhouse, WA Wm. Lacy Clay, MO
Ryan K. Zinke, MT
Jody B. Hice, GA
Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Thomas MacArthur, NJ
Alexander X. Mooney, WV
Cresent Hardy, NV
Darin LaHood, IL
Jason Knox, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director
Sarah Parker, Democratic Deputy Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS
JOHN FLEMING, LA, Chairman
JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Ruben Gallego, AZ
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Jeff Duncan, SC Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Paul A. Gosar, AZ CNMI
Doug LaMalfa, CA Raul Ruiz, CA
Jeff Denham, CA Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Garret Graves, LA Norma J. Torres, CA
Dan Newhouse, WA Debbie Dingell, MI
Thomas MacArthur, NJ Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, September 29, 2015...................... 1
Statement of Members:
Fleming, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Louisiana......................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Gosar, Hon. Paul A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Bamford, Holly, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary for Conservation
and Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's (NOAA) National Ocean Service, Silver
Spring, Maryland........................................... 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Questions submitted for the record....................... 17
Moore, Rod, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors
Association, Portland, Oregon.............................. 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 27
Oliver, Chris, Executive Director, North Pacific Fishery
Management Council, Anchorage, Alaska...................... 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Rosenberg, Andrew A., Ph.D., Director, Center for Science and
Democracy, Union of Concerned Scientists, Two Battle
Square, Cambridge, Massachusetts........................... 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Questions submitted for the record....................... 24
Williams, Jon, Owner, Atlantic Red Crab Company, New Bedford,
Massachusetts.............................................. 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Northeast Seafood Coalition, Letter dated September 23, 2015
from over 1,500 fishermen and community residents to the
President.................................................. 2
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS OF PENDING MARINE
NATIONAL MONUMENT DESIGNATIONS
----------
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Fleming,
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Fleming, Young, Gosar, LaMalfa,
Graves, MacArthur; Huffman, Costa, Sablan, Lowenthal, Torres,
and Dingell.
Also Present: Representative Radewagen.
Dr. Fleming. The Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans
will come to order.
The Water, Power and Oceans Subcommittee meets today to
hear testimony on an oversight hearing entitled, ``The
Potential Implications of Pending Marine National Monument
Designations.''
Before we begin, I ask for unanimous consent to allow our
colleague and committee member, Congresswoman Amata Radewagen,
to participate in our hearing today. I do not see her; but
anyway, hearing no objections, so ordered.
We will begin with our opening statements.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN FLEMING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Dr. Fleming. Today the Subcommittee on Water, Power and
Oceans will look at the lesser known side of the Antiquities
Act, the designation of marine national monuments. Like the
designation of land-based national monuments, marine monuments
could have significant impacts, not just regionally, but
nationwide as well.
Many of our colleagues here today represent noncoastal
districts. However, we can all relate to the issue when a
president abuses the Antiquities Act as a means to shut off
multiple uses of lands and waters. This is a tool that
President Obama has used more than any other president to date.
Just because the Antiquities Act has been used by Republican
presidents, does not justify such closures.
While there are not any marine national monuments currently
being considered off of the coast of my home state of
Louisiana, there are potential impacts that such a designation
could have on our multiple industries and our world renowned
restaurants.
While more than 30,000 Louisiana jobs are directly
supported by the seafood industry, Massachusetts' and Alaska's
seafood industries support more than 160,000 jobs that will be
directly impacted by potential designations that are now on the
table.
One of our witnesses here today directly employs 150 of
these workers himself, all of whom would be affected by a
marine national monument designation.
What is really most troubling here is that these areas
already have a great deal of protections under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. These are longstanding protections that have the
support of over 1,500 fishermen and community residents in New
England, all of whom are opposed to a potential marine national
monument off their coast.
I ask unanimous consent to enter their letter into the
record.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
[The letter from New England fishermen and community
residents follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
September 23, 2015
The President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Mr. President:
We, the undersigned, in conjunction with the Fisheries Survival
Fund and the Northeast Seafood Coalition, object to any attempt to
manage New England's offshore marine habitats through the use of the
Antiquities Act and the designation of National Monuments. Doing so
undermines the public and democratic processes that are now in place to
manage these areas, shuts out important stakeholders, and prevents
meaningful outside input. Considering that the current public process
has led to the substantial habitat protections already in place
throughout the region, such a designation is both unnecessary and
damaging to the long-term management of these areas.
New England's marine habitats are currently managed through a
consultative process that considers the experience and input of expert
scientists, fishermen, environmentalists, and regulators. It is where
the best available science and analytical approaches are vetted in an
open and transparent venue. Large-scale closures, enacted by executive
fiat and not based in science, are not only undemocratic but they can
have substantial unintended adverse impacts on bycatch composition,
region-wide habitat, and the economies of coastal communities.
Recent actions by the New England Fishery Management Council
(NEFMC), specifically the recently passed Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2
(OHA2) reinforce habitat protections in New England waters into the
foreseeable future.
In addition to protecting features such as the kelp forests on
Cashes Ledge under OHA2, the regional management councils have gone to
great lengths to further safeguard essential habitats such as corals.
The NEFMC is considering the Deep-Sea Coral Amendment, which would
preserve the coral habitats in the New England Canyons and Seamounts,
areas that have also been frequently under discussion for National
Monument designation. The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
(MAFMC) also recently acted to protect over 38,000 square miles of
deep-sea coral. These are clear demonstrations that current habitat
management is remarkably sensitive to conservation and the need to
protect unique habitats.
Replacing this collaborative, open management with top-down
Presidential action undermines these successful efforts. It makes it
less likely that local voices are heard in the deliberations, narrows
the decision-making process from broadly democratic to single-handed,
and in consequence disregards crucial stakeholder input and expertise.
It ultimately results in a regulatory process that is not responsive to
feedback and is not accountable to the people who are most affected by
it.
As members of the fishing communities whose livelihoods depend on
inclusive, responsive management we recognize that such a fundamental
altering of the regulatory process is unacceptable. Any management of
public resources needs to preserve public input and involvement, not
disregard it. We oppose unilateral Executive Action to declare marine
National Monuments in New England.
Sincerely,
[This letter contains 74 pages of signatures.
The complete list of names is available in the Committee's
official files.]
cc: Hon. Penny Pritzker, Secretary of Commerce
Hon. Kathryn Sullivan, Ph.D., Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans
and
Atmosphere
Eileen Sobeck, NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
______
Dr. Fleming. Another area we will be looking at today, the
Aleutian Islands in Alaska, was submitted through NOAA's
National Marine Sanctuary Public Nomination Process for
additional protections and was denied because the proposal did
not demonstrate the support from a ``breadth of community
interests.''
Now, those same special interests are trying to take a
second bite at the apple by petitioning the President to
designate an even larger area as a marine national monument.
While we will hear today that the impact of these potential
designations would be devastating to the local communities and
economies, there is much more at stake here. According to
Federal statistics, the North Pacific and New England rank one
and two in total landings revenue by region, well over half of
the U.S. harvested seafood landings. The only thing monumental
in all of this is the staggering impact it could have on our
seafood markets.
This is an important issue, and we are privileged today to
hear from on-the-ground experts. I look forward to hearing from
them and from the Administration on its plans.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Fleming follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. John Fleming, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Water, Power and Oceans
Today, the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans will look at a
lesser known side of the Antiquities Act: the designation of marine
national monuments.
Like the designation of land-based national monuments, marine
monuments could have significant impacts not just regionally but
nationwide as well.
Many of my colleagues here today represent noncoastal districts,
however we can all relate to the issue when a president abuses the
Antiquities Act as a means to shut off multiple uses of lands and
waters. This is a tool that President Obama has used more than any
other American president to date. Just because the Antiquities Act has
been used by Republican presidents does not justify such closures.
While there aren't any marine national monuments currently being
considered off of the coast of my home state of Louisiana, there are
potential impacts that such a designation could have on our multiple
industries and our world renowned restaurants. While more than 30,000
Louisiana jobs are directly supported by the seafood industry,
Massachusetts and Alaska's seafood industries support more than 160,000
jobs that will be directly impacted by potential designations that are
now on the table. One of our witnesses here today directly employs 150
of these workers himself--all of whom would be effected by a marine
national monument designation.
What is really most troubling here is that these areas already have
a great deal of protections under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. These are
longstanding protections that have the support of over 1,500 fishermen
and community residents in New England--all of whom are opposed to a
potential marine national monument off their coast. I ask unanimous
consent to enter their letter into the record.
Another area we will be looking at today--the Aleutian Islands in
Alaska--was submitted through NOAA's National Marine Sanctuary Public
Nomination Process for additional protections and was denied as the
proposal did not demonstrate the support from a ``breadth of community
interests.'' Now, those same special interests are trying to take a
second bite at the apple by petitioning the President to designate an
even larger area as a marine national monument.
While we will hear today that the impact of these potential
designations would be devastating to the local communities and
economies, there is much more at stake here. According to Federal
statistics, the North Pacific and New England rank one and two in total
landings revenue by region--well over half of U.S. harvested seafood
landings. The only thing monumental in all of this is the staggering
impact it could have on our seafood markets.
This is an important issue and we are privileged today to hear from
on-the-ground experts. I look forward to hearing from them and from the
Administration on its plans.
______
Dr. Fleming. I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr.
Huffman, for his statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.
In 1903, a Republican president, Teddy Roosevelt, made his
first trip to the Grand Canyon in Arizona, which at the time
was under significant threat of damage from the mining industry
and other development interests. Roosevelt lacked legal
authority to protect the area at the time; but in a speech
during that visit, he publicly pleaded for its conservation
saying, ``I want to ask you to keep this great wonder of nature
as it is now. I hope you will not have a building of any kind,
not a summer cottage, a hotel or anything else, to mar the
wonderful grandeur, the sublimity, the great loneliness and
beauty of the canyon. Leave it as it is. You cannot improve on
it. The ages have been at work on it, and man can only mar
it.''
Three years later, a Republican Congress passed the
Antiquities Act, which gave President Roosevelt the authority
to dedicate national monuments, to preserve our country's
natural and cultural heritage. In 1908, he used it by
dedicating the Grand Canyon National Monument. It later became
a national park, and it is protected in perpetuity for the
benefit of all Americans.
A century after President Roosevelt signed the Antiquities
Act into law, another Republican president, George W. Bush,
dedicated the first marine national monument around the
Northwest Hawaiian Islands. Subsequent marine monument and
sanctuary designations and expansions by Presidents Bush and
Obama have increased the amount of U.S. waters protected from
development to nearly 3 percent, but that total still lags far
behind the 10 percent of U.S. lands that have been set aside
for conservation. That is a shame because America's coral
reefs, kelp forests, and submarine canyons have incredible
value as fish factories, as banks of biodiversity.
Protecting these resources will actually lead to more
productive fisheries and more opportunities for scientific
observations and discoveries that could benefit all of us. I
fear that the Majority is holding today's hearing in an attempt
to pit conservation interests against the fishing industry.
I think most Americans reject that as a false choice. In
fact, fishermen in my district overwhelmingly supported last
year's expansion of the Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank
National Marine Sanctuaries off the coast of my district. They
understand what marine scientists also understand, and that is
that protecting key habitats can improve fisheries in adjacent
areas, leading to healthier coastal economies.
Just last month, I had the pleasure of catching the fish
you see in that picture in one of our national marine
sanctuaries. That was in the Gulf of the Farallones Sanctuary
off the Coast of Marin County.
So, obviously, the notion that you cannot fish in marine
sanctuaries certainly has not been my experience.
Republican presidents from Roosevelt to Bush, and many in
between, recognize the importance of the Antiquities Act in
creating a balance between the use of U.S. public lands and
waters for resource extraction and protecting those areas for
future generations.
Who knows what might have happened without the national
monuments established under the Antiquities Act. Would
Americans today enjoy their views of the Grand Canyon Copper
Mine, the Muir Woods giant redwood clear-cut, or the Dinosaur
National oil field?
Thankfully, instead of that we have the protection of
national monuments in these areas, and it does not seem to have
caused a shortage of land available for the extractive
industries. It is completely appropriate for us to move toward
a similar balance with respect to utilization of our ocean
resources.
I would like to close, Mr. Chairman, by offering another
quote from President Teddy Roosevelt, ``The nation behaves well
if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn
over to the next generation increased, and not impaired, in
value.''
We are still trying to understand our oceans. They cover 70
percent of our planet's surface, but we have only explored 5
percent of their depths. Every day we make new discoveries that
have the potential to benefit future generations, but the
potential for those discoveries is limited when we allow
unchecked resource exploitation without setting aside
representative areas for conservation and further study.
Particularly in the face of climate change and ocean
acidification, we must use whatever authorities are available
to us to ensure that our ocean ecosystems remain healthy and
productive.
I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes our Vice Chair, Dr. Gosar, for a
statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL A. GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today's hearing brings together those concerned about the
sweeping powers allowed under the Antiquities Act of 1906. Well
over a century old, the law is in desperate need of
modernization.
The West, of course, is all too familiar with national
monuments and not in a good way. In Arizona, a state with more
national monuments than any other state in the Union, extremist
environmental organizations, and some misguided members of our
own state's congressional delegation, have been pushing the
President to circumvent Congress and to make a new 1.7 million
acre designation using the Antiquities Act in the Grand Canyon
watershed.
The real intentions of these short-sighted, self-interest
groups are clear. They want these designations to prevent
energy development, timber harvesting, grazing, mining, and
different types of recreation on massive swaths of land.
Earlier this year, the House passed an amendment that I
helped to spearhead, which would prevent the President from
circumventing Congress to carry out such a declaration on the
Antiquities Act. When President Clinton single-handedly
designated the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in
Utah--he announced this move from a mountaintop in Arizona, I
might add--it sent shockwaves of presidential abuse. Now, our
domestic ocean waters have joined the party.
The prior administration mistakenly created our first
national marine monuments, yet this President seems to be on
steroids when it comes to expanding marine monuments and
creating land monuments. He has single-handedly walled off over
260 million acres of land and 430,000 square miles of ocean in
his wake; and as we will hear today, there could be more to
come with the stroke of a pen under the cover of darkness.
Arizona is not exactly known as a seafood harvest mecca,
but we have plenty of consumers who depend on the ocean's
bounty. Our food supply is already being compromised by natural
drought and land and water regulations, and now we have an
environmental activist using a deeply flawed law in an attempt
to close commercial fishing off the coasts of Alaska and New
England. It is no doubt they are banking on this Administration
for help.
The Administration, in my opinion, showed its true colors
when it recently held a town meeting in Providence, Rhode
Island to hear public input on a proposed, nearby marine
monument. One witness before us today called the meeting a
``charade'' that provided little details to the public.
The meeting was not broadcast on radio, television, or on
the Web, unintentionally symbolic of an era in which the
Antiquities Act was created. The agency before us today, NOAA,
needs to explain this pitiful process despite its President
once saying that it would be the ``most transparent ever.''
The Antiquities Act, at the very least, should be brought
into the 21st century and needs to stop being a relic hijacked
by those bent upon restricting access and jobs. Taxpayers
deserve better; landowners deserve better; fishermen deserve
better; and dock workers, among many, deserve better.
This hearing is a step toward giving those a voice that
this Administration chooses to ignore.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gosar follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Paul A. Gosar, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Arizona
Today's hearing brings together those concerned about the sweeping
powers allowed under the Antiquities Act of 1906. Well over a century
old, the law is in desperate need of modernization.
The West, of course, is all too familiar with national monuments
and not in a good way. When President Clinton single-handedly
designated the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah--he
announced this move from a mountaintop in Arizona, I might add--it sent
shockwaves of presidential abuse. Now, our domestic ocean waters have
joined the party.
The prior administration mistakenly created our first national
marine monuments, yet this President seems to be on steroids when it
comes to expanding marine monuments and creating land monuments. He has
single-handedly walled off over 260 million acres of land and 403,000
total square miles of ocean in his wake. And, as we will hear today,
there could be more to come with the stroke of a pen under the cover of
darkness.
Arizona isn't exactly known as a seafood harvest mecca, but we have
plenty of consumers who depend on the ocean's bounty. Our food supply
is already being compromised by natural drought and land and water
regulation and now we have environmental activists using a deeply
flawed law in an attempt to close commercial fishing off the coasts of
Alaska and New England. It's no doubt they are banking on this
Administration to help.
The Administration, in my opinion, showed its true colors when it
recently held a town meeting in Providence, Rhode Island to hear public
input on a proposed nearby marine monument. One witness before us today
called the meeting a ``charade'' that provided little details to the
public. The meeting was not broadcast on radio, television or on the
web--unintentionally symbolic of the era creating the Antiquities Act.
The agency before us today--NOAA--needs to explain this pitiful process
despite its President once saying that it would be the ``most
transparent ever.''
The Antiquities Act, at the very least, should be brought into the
21st century and needs to stop being a relic hijacked by those bent
upon restricting access and jobs. Taxpayers deserve better. Landowners
deserve better. Fishermen deserve better. And dock workers, among the
many, deserve better.
This hearing is a step toward giving those a voice that this
Administration chooses to ignore.
______
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back.
We have also been joined today by Mr. Sablan, former
Ranking Member of the subcommittee that I was Chairman of
before this Congress, and I would like to ask unanimous consent
that he sit on the dais with us.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
OK. We have our witnesses today, but before we introduce
our witnesses, I just want to let you know that we do have a
time system here. You have 5 minutes for your testimony; you
will be under a green light for 4 minutes, then a yellow light
for 1 minute. Once the red light comes on, we ask that you
quickly conclude your opening statement.
Your prepared statement, no matter how long it is, will be
entered into the record completely. So, no need to rush through
it, just use up your 5 minutes as you will and we will put your
entire statement into the record.
The Chair now calls upon Mr. Young for a couple of
introductions this morning.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate this
hearing and I think it is crucially important. I have two
witnesses on this panel.
We have Chris Oliver, Executive Director of the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council, who has done an outstanding
job. More than that, we have Rod Moore--and just to give you a
little background, Mr. Moore worked for me for numerous years,
helped write the Magnuson-Stevens Act for fisheries and for the
sustainable yield, and it benefited communities, not for
monuments, and he is retiring. I hate to hear that. He will
probably get a fishing boat and go fishing on one of these
monuments, but, Rod, thank you for all of your service to the
United States and to the state of Alaska and, of course, the
state of Oregon.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Fleming. OK. We have further introductions. First of
all, we have Mr. Jon Williams, owner of the Atlantic Red Crab
Company in New Bedford, Massachusetts.
Your names are very tiny. I hope I am getting this in
proper order. I cannot read them from here.
Dr. Holly Bamford, the Assistant Secretary for Conservation
and Management for the National Ocean Service in Silver Spring,
Maryland.
Dr. Andrew Rosenberg, Director of the Center for Science
and Democracy with the Union of Concerned Scientists in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Mr. Rod Moore, Executive Director of the West Coast Seafood
Processors Association in Portland, Oregon.
And, of course, previously introduced, Mr. Chris Oliver,
Executive Director of the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council, based out of Anchorage, Alaska.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Williams for his testimony.
STATEMENT OF JON WILLIAMS, OWNER, ATLANTIC RED CRAB COMPANY,
NEW BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to
be here, and an honor.
Dr. Fleming. It is important to bring the tip of the
microphone close to you, otherwise we cannot pick up your
voice.
Mr. Williams. OK. My name is Jon Williams. I am the founder
and owner of the Atlantic Red Crab Company. It is a vertically
integrated crab company. We own our own vessels and catch our
own crab; and we process, package, and distribute it around the
country. We are the largest crabmeat company in North America.
We employ about 160 people, a little over 150 this week, I
guess.
This, obviously, is a very troubling time for me and my
company in kind of going through this process. I just want to
say that it is the process that is troubling, because as I
built my company, I had numerous, numerous opportunities to
testify and get involved with the fishery management councils,
both the New England Fishery Management Council and the Mid-
Atlantic Fishery Management Council, and sat on many committees
and in many, many fairly rowdy conversations between fishermen
and environmentalists in the same room.
But at the end of the day, the system, as flawed as some
people think it is, works and it has worked for many years. It
works because there are two different opinions in the room, and
both people get the opportunity to speak their own opinion, and
generally if you say there are two sides to every story, the
truth falls someplace in between.
We have for many years, and even as recently as 3 months
ago, participated in an over 2-year process when they wrote a
whiting amendment or squid amendment in the Mid-Atlantic that
resulted in protecting 38,000 square miles of ocean floor for
exactly what we are asking for today, and it was 38,000 miles
of coral protection.
My fishing company and I have been exempted for 2 years
from those four large areas. I do not know what my future will
be down there after 2 years--that is still up in the air, but
we were part of the process, and the fishermen were part of the
process. We had a 2-day workshop with the environmentalists,
regulators, and fishermen all in the room. We had charts up on
the wall. There were dozens and dozens and dozens of charts of
where we are moving lines, and fishermen would be able to
participate.
Now, just 3 months later, the first I heard about this was
the week before the town hall meeting, when somebody called me
up and said, ``What do you know about this monument thing going
on? '' And I said, ``I don't know anything about it,'' and
nobody else did. I actually ended up getting a call from one of
the environmental groups that is spearheading this asking me if
I was going to attend and, of course, I was.
The problem that is tough is the perception that something
has to be done here and this is an emergency, that these areas
are going to be faced with irreparable harm; and that if we do
not do something right now, that these places are going to go
away.
That is what people are being told in the fact sheets that
are going out to millions of people. Fishermen are going to
fish deeper. Oil companies are coming in, and everything else.
I mean, we are already as deep as we want to fish. There is
nothing deeper than where we are, and we have the technology to
go a lot deeper, but it is an abyss. There is really nothing
for us to go after or we would be there.
Eighty percent of the area that is being proposed is deeper
than anybody fishes. It is really the fringe of the area. But
we have yet to see a chart, so we do not really know what the
area looks like. We have yet to see one line drawn on a
nautical chart on where this is going to be and where the
radius is going to be.
So now, we have had petitions go back and forth. I think it
is very unfortunate that 160 people signed a petition because
of being given some false information.
That is really the big thing. There are places that are
described as being pristine, and they are pristine and they
need to be protected. There are four fisheries that have been
in those areas for 40 years. If they go out there in these
deepwater submersibles and they do not find any damage, I do
not think that this is an emergency.
I think this should go through the normal process with the
New England Council where we have mechanisms in place for
everybody to get their opinions out there. That is the American
way.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jon Williams, President, Atlantic Red Crab
Company
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Jon Williams and
I'm the owner of a small business that fishes for Atlantic red crab off
the New England coast. I thank you for the opportunity to speak about
the threat to my livelihood that is posed by the pending marine
national monument designation along the edge of the Continental Shelf
off New England.
Twenty years ago I started my crab fishing business from nothing;
today I employ approximately 150 people in New Bedford, MA and feel
confident that at least 5 million people each year enjoy the crab I
produce, despite the fact that the red crab fishery is a very small
fishery.
More importantly, however, the Atlantic red crab fishery is proud
to be an industry leader in sustainable fishing. In 2009, our fishery
was the first on the Atlantic coast of the United States to be
certified as sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council. This
certification process required a thorough review of the impact of the
fishery on the red crab resource and its habitat along the edge of the
Continental Shelf off the coast of New England and the Mid-Atlantic
states. Although this process cost hundreds of thousands of dollars--a
significant amount for a small business to pay out of pocket--it was
important to us that we both understood how our fishery impacted the
environment and demonstrated that our practices were indeed
sustainable.
The findings of the MSC certification process were indisputable:
the Atlantic red crab fishery had minimal environmental impact on both
the species stock and the surrounding environment, and set a clear
example of how a commercial fishery could operate in a truly
sustainable manner. Red crab is also listed as an ``Ocean-Friendly''
seafood by the New England Aquarium's Seafood Guide program.
Now, 6 years later, NOAA Regional Administrator John Bullard an
audience in Providence, RI that the Obama administration wants to
designate three Continental Shelf canyons and four seamounts as a
``National Monument,'' a move that would likely exclude the red crab
fishery from its traditional fishing grounds. Despite the fact that a
NOAA request for public comments on the proposal states a desire ``to
ensure that we protect these unique places for future generations while
recognizing the importance of sustainable ocean-based economies,''
there has been no meaningful opportunity to achieve that balance
because the public has not been given any information on the details of
the proposal. Mr. Bullard indicated to the press that no further
details were likely before the President made his decision.
The hastily arranged and poorly advertised ``Town Meeting'' hosted
by NOAA in Providence on September 15 was a charade. With no details
available, the fishermen whose livelihoods are at stake could not
comment intelligently on the proposal, other than to express their fear
that it would harm their businesses. On the other side, the people who
bought the environmentalists' propaganda would have been happy to
support anything that they believed would protect the oceans, because
they didn't know and didn't care about the details, or about who would
be hurt unnecessarily.
The most troublesome thing about the use of the Antiquities Act to
create marine national monuments is the complete lack of meaningful
public input. The current proposal entirely circumvents the public
processes outlined in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the
Administrative Procedures Act, and numerous Executive Orders that were
intended to protect the public against arbitrary rulemaking. In the
fishing industry, we are also governed by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act. These laws insure that stakeholders
have input into difficult and complex public policy questions. In the
case of imminent threats, the Secretary of Commerce can always declare
emergency regulations, which are followed by a more deliberative
solution to whatever problem caused the emergency. In 1999, I asked for
emergency action to protect the red crab fishery from overfishing. The
New England Fishery Management Council then replaced the emergency
rules with a carefully constructed fishery management plan based on
extensive public input. We protected the resource without trampling on
the laws that guard the public process.
There is no need to abandon NEPA and the APA to protect marine
areas. The established public process was used by the regional fishery
management councils to protect more than 61,000 square miles of ocean
bottom off the South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic coasts. The New England
Fishery Management Council is developing its own regulations to protect
deep-sea corals even as we speak. In June 2015, when the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council used the established process to protect
38,000 square miles of ocean bottom off the Mid-Atlantic coast, NOAA
Regional Administrator Bullard praised the collaborative process and
its result, citing it as a model for future ocean policy development.
Mr. Bullard's words will ring hollow if the President closes our
fishing grounds with no meaningful public process.
While the Antiquities Act of 1906 was undoubtedly conceived with
the best intentions, a conglomerate of wealthy environmental activists
has realized its potential to circumvent the normal public processes
and lock up large areas of the ocean--a convenient loophole that
ignores any public deliberation.
As an industry that has worked tirelessly to serve as a model for
sustainable fishing, we are not threatened by a public discussion of
ocean conservation. Instead, it is the willingness of these
environmental groups to ignore all public processes that we firmly
stand against.
There are no imminent threats to the Continental Shelf Canyons or
the Atlantic seamounts from the Atlantic red crab industry or the other
fisheries that operate in the proposed area. After spending millions of
taxpayer dollars exploring and photographing these canyons, there has
yet to be one shred of evidence of any damage caused by red crab
fishing gear--even the supporters of the proposal have called these
areas ``pristine'' after 40 years of red crab fishing.
By displacing the Atlantic red crab fishery, the proposed national
monument would harm the future of sustainable fishing--if a leader in
sustainability can be irreparably harmed with no public process, then
other fisheries will see few incentives to decrease their own
environmental impact.
Finally, the current proposal is also concerning because it has
generated support based on faulty information. With billions of dollars
in assets, the environmental organizations have demonstrated both an
ability and a willingness to buy the support of concerned citizens
through the use of misleading Web sites and ``fact sheets.'' For
example, the video used to extoll the beauty of the proposed area
wasn't even shot in the proposed area--instead it was shot in Block
Canyon 100 miles to the west. Careful editing hid this deception from
the public and from policymakers.
The promotional materials further misled citizens in a discussion
of right whales, claiming that designating the canyons would protect
the species. Yet right whales are not known to travel in these canyons;
they travel in much shallower waters--exactly where all of the
displaced fishing gear will end up if forced out of the canyons. With
this in mind, it becomes apparent that the proposed monument areas will
undoubtedly be detrimental to the fragile right whale population.
Our Founding Fathers recognized the danger to the Republic of
``factions,'' and relied upon representative government to overcome
that threat. As well-meaning as the Antiquities Act might have been
when it was first adopted in 1906, it is clearly being misused and
abused by ``factions'' who know that their overzealous attacks on
environmentally benign fisheries would never pass muster in a more
rigorous process.
There is no need to exclude the historic commercial fishermen from
the proposed marine national monument off New England. To the contrary,
commercial fisheries provide the most tangible benefit to the public
from these areas and commercial fishermen are part of the national
heritage that needs to be preserved. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act can assure that fisheries that operate
in this area are sustainable. In fact, I would suggest that any marine
national monument designation include language to assure that fisheries
within the monument shall not be peremptorily excluded, but would
continue to be managed under the terms of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
In closing, I sincerely hope that before adopting these monuments
as proposed, the Obama administration will meet with a few of the key
stakeholders in these areas so they can get a true prospective on the
impact this will have on our industry--and more importantly, the people
that depend on it.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Williams.
The Chair now recognizes Dr. Bamford for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HOLLY BAMFORD, Ph.D., ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION'S (NOAA) NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE, SILVER SPRING,
MARYLAND
Dr. Bamford. Good morning, Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member
Huffman, members of the subcommittee.
My name is Holly Bamford, and I am the Assistant
Administrator for NOAA's National Ocean Service, currently
performing the duties of the Assistant Secretary for
Conservation and Management.
Thank you for inviting NOAA to testify along with
representatives from the commercial fishing industry, fishing
management councils, and the scientific community on marine
monument designations.
NOAA works under a number of authorities to conserve and
manage coastal marine resources, which support recreational,
economic, cultural, and other opportunities for the American
public. These include the National Marine Sanctuaries Act,
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act,
Endangered Species Act, and Marine Mammal Protection Act.
More recently, through Presidential Proclamations, NOAA has
been given co-management responsibility with the Department of
the Interior for four marine national monuments in the Pacific
established by the prior administration in the Antiquities Act,
and one expansion under the current president. Each of these
statutes are tools to protect our Nation's trust resources.
Today, I will focus my testimony on the process of
establishing monuments and some conservation implications of
place-based tools.
Authorities to establish national monuments were provided
to the President by Congress through the Antiquities Act of
1906. Sixteen presidents of both parties have used the Act's
authority more than 100 times to protect national treasures,
such as the Grand Canyon, the C&O Canal, and the Statue of
Liberty.
Typically, ideas for areas to be established as monuments
are proposed to the Administration by local and state elected
officials, nongovernment organizations, scientists, or citizen
groups.
The authority to designate a monument lies with the
President. NOAA's role includes providing information on the
resources and activities in the considered marine areas and to
assist with public engagement. While not required under the
Antiquities Act, the four existing marine national monuments,
which NOAA co-manages, each had some level of public engagement
prior to their establishment and/or expansion.
For example, in 2014, when President Obama indicated that
his Administration would consider extending protections around
the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, the
Departments of Commerce and the Interior held public meetings
in the region and accepted written public comments from
interested parties.
Congress has created a number of different place-based
authorities for NOAA to protect and manage areas of significant
natural, cultural, and maritime heritage. Many of those tools
are found within the National Marine Sanctuaries Act and the
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
For more than 40 years, NOAA's Office of National Marine
Sanctuaries has worked to protect special places in America's
ocean and Great Lakes waters, from the site of a single Civil
War shipwreck to remote coral reefs and tiny atolls.
Marine sanctuaries have also shown to provide significant
direct economic benefits for local and regional businesses. For
example, it has been estimated that the National Marine
Sanctuary System generates about $4 billion annually in local,
coastal, and ocean-dependent economies from activities like
fishing, research, recreation, and tourism.
The success of many businesses, millions of dollars in
sales, and thousands of jobs depend directly on thriving
resources that these areas protect and maintain.
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, eight fisheries management
councils make conservation decisions every day. Fisheries
management plans include conservation requirements, such as
fishing seasons, quotas, and defining essential fish habitat
and enclosed areas. Fisheries management councils are an
important management partner with NOAA, and we are very mindful
of their difficult responsibilities and efforts to help manage
our fisheries and end overfishing.
A good example of this is the North Pacific Fisheries
Management Council's Precautionary Management Plan for the
Arctic. The Plan prohibits commercial harvesting of fish until
sufficient information is available to support a sustainable
management of commercial fishing there.
National marine monuments can provide a broad ecological
and national heritage protection of the entire system, which is
an effective manner of maintaining intact ecosystem services.
For example, Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument
provides critical protection of about 7,000 marine species,
one-quarter of which are found only in the Hawaiian
Archipelago. The monument also possesses rich, submerged
heritage resources such as shipwrecks, sunken naval aircraft
from World War II, and other archeological sites that are
windows into the past.
Additionally, the monument is the first site ever
designated as a cultural seascape and is the only natural and
cultural world heritage site in the United States.
History has shown us that over time, conservation decisions
guided by the Sanctuaries Act, Magnuson-Stevens Act,
Antiquities Act, and other place-based authorities have shown
positive social, economic, and cultural benefits.
In closing, marine national monuments are one of a suite of
place-based authorities available to the President to protect
our most cherished ocean resources. NOAA is committed to
building a stronger, more resilient future for American
communities and economies. I thank you for the opportunity to
discuss this today.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Bamford follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Holly Bamford, Assistant Administrator for
the National Ocean Service, performing the duties of the Assistant
Secretary for Conservation and Management, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
introduction
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Holly
Bamford and I am the Assistant Administrator for the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Ocean Service
performing the duties of the Assistant Secretary for Conservation and
Management. NOAA is dedicated to the stewardship of living marine
resources through science-based conservation and management, and the
promotion of healthy ecosystems.
As a steward, NOAA works under a number of authorities to conserve,
protect, and manage living marine resources to ensure functioning and
healthy marine ecosystems, which support a wide range of recreational,
economic, cultural and other opportunities for the American public.
These include the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA), Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Endangered Species
Act, and Marine Mammal Protection Act. Based on these authorities, NOAA
also has been given certain responsibilities for the stewardship and
management of marine national monuments established by the President
under the Antiquities Act.
Today I will focus my testimony on the authorities, processes,
management, and benefits of both national marine sanctuaries and marine
national monuments.
national marine sanctuaries
National marine sanctuaries are special places in marine and Great
Lakes waters that protect and manage nationally significant natural,
historical, and cultural resources. NOAA manages 13 national marine
sanctuaries created to (1) improve the conservation, understanding,
management, and sustainable use of marine resources; (2) enhance public
awareness, understanding, and appreciation of the marine environment;
and (3) maintain for future generations the habitat, and ecological
services, of the natural assemblage of living resources in these areas.
For more than 40 years, NOAA's Office of National Marine
Sanctuaries has worked to protect special places in America's ocean and
Great Lakes waters, from the site of a single Civil War shipwreck to a
vast expanse of ocean surrounding remote coral reefs and tiny atolls.
From Washington State to the Florida Keys, and from Lake Huron to
American Samoa, NOAA seeks to preserve scenic beauty, biodiversity,
historical connections, and economic productivity of these precious
underwater treasures. A healthy ocean is the basis for thriving
recreation, tourism and commercial activities that drive coastal
economies.
The NMSA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce, through NOAA, to
identify, designate, and protect areas of the marine and Great Lakes
environment with special national significance due to their
conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, cultural,
archeological, educational, or esthetic qualities. Sanctuaries are
designated by NOAA under the NMSA or through congressional action and
are managed by NOAA using the authorities granted through the NMSA.
Currently, 10 sanctuaries have been designated by NOAA and 3 have been
designated by Congress (Stellwagen Bank, Hawaiian Islands Humpback
Whale, and Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuaries).
The sanctuary designation process is described in the NMSA and has
four principal steps:
1. Scoping: NOAA announces its intent to designate a new national
marine sanctuary and asks the public for input on potential
boundaries, resources that could be protected, issues NOAA
should consider, and any information they believe should be
included in the resource analysis.
2. Sanctuary Proposal: NOAA prepares draft designation documents
including a draft management plan and a draft environmental
impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act that analyzes a range of alternatives, proposed
regulations, and proposed boundaries. NOAA may also form an
advisory council to help inform the proposal and focus
stakeholder participation.
3. Public Review: The public, agency partners, tribes, and other
stakeholders provide input on the draft documents. NOAA
considers all input and determines appropriate changes.
4. Sanctuary Designation: NOAA makes a final decision and prepares
final documents.
In 2014, NOAA established a new sanctuary nomination process where
a collection of interested individuals or groups can identify and
recommend special areas of the marine or Great Lakes environment for
possible designation as a national marine sanctuary. NOAA evaluates the
strength of a nomination based on the information provided for the
national significance criteria and management considerations, as listed
and described in the Sanctuary Nomination Process June 2014 final rule
(79 FR 33851). The nomination should demonstrate broad support from a
variety of stakeholders and interested parties and identify the
specific goal or intent for designation. Once NOAA accepts the
nomination of the sanctuary to the inventory, NOAA can begin the
process to designate the sanctuary at any time. In general from
identification of a potential sanctuary to its designation takes 2 to 4
years.
While the primary objective of the NMSA is ecosystem- and science-
based resource protection, NOAA also facilitates compatible use of all
public and private users in sanctuaries in a manner that is adaptive
over time. To accomplish this, NOAA prepares terms of designation for
every sanctuary that describe the activities that NOAA may regulate,
regulations that describe what actions are prohibited or restricted,
and procedures that allow permits to be issued for certain activities.
Sanctuary regulations are enforced by NOAA and its state and Federal
partners. The NMSA also provides NOAA the authority to recover monetary
damages for injury to sanctuary resources that are used for their
restoration and recovery.
The NMSA requires NOAA to manage national marine sanctuaries
through an extensive public process, local community engagement,
stakeholder involvement, and citizen participation. NOAA establishes
local offices to manage each national marine sanctuary with staff who
live in the community, and management plans are developed, implemented,
reviewed, and revised for each sanctuary site, taking into account the
specific needs and circumstances of that area. These management plans
focus on resource protection, science, research, education, and
outreach. The NMSA also calls for NOAA to establish community-based
National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Councils, comprised of a diversity
of interests (e.g., recreational fishers, divers, teachers, boaters,
scientists, and elected officials) at each sanctuary to provide advice
and recommendations to the superintendent of the site on issues
including management, science, service, and stewardship.
marine national monuments
The authority to establish a national monument was provided to the
President by Congress. The Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431-433)
was the first U.S. law to provide general protection for objects of
historic or scientific interest on Federal lands. It authorizes the
President to proclaim national monuments on Federal lands that contain
``historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other
objects of historic or scientific interest.'' Sixteen presidents of
both parties have used the Act's authority more than 100 times to
protect unique natural and historic resources and places. The
Antiquities Act has been used to designate as national monuments such
national treasures as the Grand Canyon, the C&O Canal, and the Statue
of Liberty.
The Antiquities Act has been used mostly to protect terrestrial
resources, but has been used to protect special areas of the marine
environment as well. President George W. Bush established four marine
national monuments for which NOAA has management responsibilities in
partnership with other agencies. These are Papahanaumokuakea Marine
National Monument (PMNM) in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands; Marianas
Trench Marine National Monument in the Mariana Archipelago; Rose Atoll
Marine National Monument in American Samoa; and the Pacific Remote
Island Marine National Monument in the south-central Pacific Ocean,
recently expanded by President Obama.
The President establishes both terrestrial and marine national
monuments by executing a Presidential Proclamation as authorized under
the Antiquities Act. The process for establishing a monument is in the
President's discretion. Through the America's Great Outdoors
Initiative, which involved public listening sessions in every state,
this Administration has recommended taking a transparent and open
approach to new national monument designations tailored to engaging
local, state, and national interests.
Often ideas for areas to be designated are proposed to the
Administration by local and state elected officials, nongovernmental
organizations, or other citizen groups. The four existing marine
national monuments each had a level of public engagement prior to their
establishment or expansion. For example, the PMNM was established after
public and stakeholder engagement helped develop a proposal for a
national marine sanctuary. Another example: in 2014 President Obama
indicated that his administration would consider how it might expand
protections near the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument in
the south-central Pacific Ocean. Following that announcement, the
Departments of Commerce and the Interior held a public meeting in the
region, convened numerous smaller meetings with affected stakeholders,
and accepted written public comments from all interested parties.
The President's Proclamation generally spells out how a marine
national monument will be managed, including which agency or agencies
will have management responsibility. To date, the four marine national
monuments have been managed in partnership among the Department of the
Interior (DOI) and NOAA, with other Federal and state partners that
have existing authority or jurisdiction. For example, NOAA, DOI, and
the state of Hawaii co-manage the PMNM. This monument has a Monument
Management Board with representatives from the Federal and state
agencies involved.
As with marine sanctuaries, the public also has had opportunity to
engage as part of the process to development management plans for the
long-term stewardship of the designated monument. All marine national
monument proclamations have required the development of a monument
management plan. The structure and content of management plans for each
marine national monument will vary because each monument is unique with
regard to underlying protections, agencies involved, and physical and
environmental conditions. Draft plans and associated National
Environmental Policy Act environmental documents are provided for
public input and developed by NOAA and DOI in coordination with other
relevant Federal and state agencies. For example, the proclamation
establishing the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument required the
establishment of an Advisory Committee including representatives from
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). DOI, NOAA, and
the CNMI are now drafting a management plan that will soon be made
available for public comment.
Management plans for these marine national monuments are intended
to incorporate multiple objectives, and address activities such as
fishing, takes of birds, and oil and gas or other development activity.
Care has been taken to ensure the monuments do not compromise critical
activities and exercises of the Armed Forces, and reflect due regard
for the rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea enjoyed by all
nations under customary international law. NOAA and DOI use specific
authorities to protect and manage marine monument resources and address
threats to their protection. As a co-manager of living marine resources
in the marine national monuments, NOAA has used its authority under
several statutes--including the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the
Endangered Species Act--to manage resources and objects to be
protected.
Presidents have used the Antiquities Act to protect landscapes,
ocean ecosystems, and cultural resources. The four marine national
monuments in the Pacific protect the abundant and diverse coral, fish,
and seabird populations; facilitate exploration and scientific
research; and promote public education regarding the value of these
national places. By establishing these areas as marine national
monuments, the President has ensured that these marine environments of
significant scientific interest receive a high level of environmental
protection for our and future generations.
economic benefits of national marine sanctuaries and monuments
In addition to preserving places of great ecological, historical,
and scientific value, marine sanctuaries and national monuments can
provide significant direct economic benefits for local and regional
businesses. For example, across all the national marine sanctuaries,
NOAA economists estimate about $4 billion annually is generated in
local coastal and ocean dependent economies from diverse activities
like fishing, research and recreation-tourist activities. From
restaurants and hotels, to aquariums and kayak operators, the success
of many businesses, millions of dollars in sales and thousands of jobs,
directly depend on thriving resources that these areas protect and
maintain.
Sanctuaries and monuments also create education and outreach
opportunities that link communities through innovative programs and
help spread awareness of the ocean's connection to all of us. Further,
they enable outreach to the broader community about the coastal
environment and what they can do to be to good stewards of the marine
environment.
conclusion
In closing, NOAA is committed to building a stronger, more
resilient future for America's communities, ecosystems and economy. A
healthy ocean is the basis for thriving recreation, tourism and
commercial activities that drive coastal economies, and for the many
ecosystem services that protect our planet. National marine sanctuaries
and marine national monuments are based on different authorities,
processes, and management--each has its place within the suite of
authorities provided to protect our most cherished historical,
scientific, and environmental resources.
Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss national marine
sanctuaries and marine national monuments.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Dr. Holly Bamford, NOAA's
National Ocean Service
Questions Submitted by the Hon. Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan
Question 1. Can you please provide a brief description of NOAA's
plans to support the Marianas Trench Monument in the upcoming fiscal
year?
Answer. NOAA Fisheries' Fiscal Year 2016 President's Request
includes approximately $3.0 million for activities in the Pacific
Marine National Monuments, similar to Fiscal Year 2015 enacted levels.
Activities planned for the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument
(MNM) in 2016 include completion of the Monument Management Plan
(currently in review by the CNMI government) and holding public
meetings in Guam and CNMI.
On the research side, through a NOAA-wide effort, the NOAA Ship
Okeanos Explorer will continue its exploration of the Pacific
Monuments, traveling to conduct mapping and ROV dives in the Mariana
Archipelago for 3 months. Planning efforts for the trip to include
discussions with local researchers and government officials are being
initiated. Through telepresence technology, scientists around the world
are able to actively participate in and provide input to expedition.
Educators and the public can also view the real time video feeds from
the ship and ROVs using a standard internet connection. Ship tours are
planned during port calls in Guam. NOAA is considering the feasibility
of additional tours in Saipan. The Okeanos Explorer work follows the
successful ``Why do we Explore the Marianas Trench'' educator workshop
held in CNMI and Guam last year.
Question 2. Today's witnesses have stressed the importance of
fishery management in the role of conservation. What other
considerations are critical to sound ocean conservation?
Answer. Our Nation relies on healthy and resilient ocean and
coastal ecosystems. The ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes deeply
impact the lives of all Americans, whether living and working in the
country's heartland or along its shores. America's rich and productive
coastal regions and waters support tens of millions of jobs and
contribute trillions of dollars to the national economy each year. They
also host a growing number of important activities including
recreation, science, commerce, transportation, energy development, and
national security as well as providing a wealth of natural resources
and ecological benefits.
Ocean conservation efforts can account for these many ocean
activities holistically through principles of ecosystem-based
management and adaptive management. Ecosystem-based management
integrates ecological, social, economic, commerce, health, and security
goals, and recognizes both that humans are key components of ecosystems
as well as the importance of healthy ecosystems to human welfare.
Adaptive management calls for routine reassessment of management
actions to allow for better informed and improved future decisions in a
coordinated and collaborative approach.
Questions Submitted by the Hon. Raul M. Grijalva
Question 1. During your testimony, you indicated that there are
monuments and sanctuaries that allow fishing. Is that accurate? Please
provide a list of the areas and percentages of each marine national
monument and national marine sanctuary that is open to commercial
fishing and to recreational fishing, along with any specific fishing
restrictions in those areas.
Answer. The answer varies by monument, as the relevant Presidential
Proclamations dictates the specific activities allowed or restricted
for the purposes of protecting resources in the monument. The
Antiquities Act requires that a designation to protect objects assures
that the objects are protected. Based on that information, some types
of restrictions have led to a ban on mining, drilling for oil or gas,
and closures to commercial fishing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent Open to
Area of Monument Percent Open to Recreational/
Monuments (sq mi) Commercial Traditional
Fishing Fishing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Papahanaumokuakea 139,797......... 0%.............. 0%
, HI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Remote 370,000......... 0%.............. 100%
Island Areas sq nmi.......... Refuge areas 0-12
nm in the
Monument are off-
limits to
fishing at this
time, with the
exception of
Palmyra
(recreational
fishing) and
Wake (USAF
subsistence/
recreational
fishing)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marianas Trench-- 96,714.......... 0%.............. 100%
Island Unit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Atoll--No- 13,451.......... 0%.............. 0% (within 12 nm
take area of Atoll)
(within 12 nmi 100% (from 12-50
of Atoll) nm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise, fishing regulations vary by sanctuary, with the majority
of the national marine sanctuaries allowing various forms of fishing.
The table below specifies the fishing restrictions under the National
Marine Sanctuaries Act regulations that occur within the 13 national
marine sanctuaries:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area of
Site Name Sanctuary (sq Percent Open to Fishing
mi) Fishing* Restrictions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel Islands 1,470........... 78.37%.......... 11 marine
National Marine reserves where
Sanctuary all take and
harvest is
prohibited, and
2 marine
conservation
areas that allow
limited take of
lobster and
pelagic fish.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cordell Bank 1,286........... 100%............ None
National Marine
Sanctuary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Keys 3,840........... 94.30%.......... Ecological
National Marine Reserves,
Sanctuary Sanctuary
Preservation
Areas and
Special-use
Research Only
Areas where all
fishing is
prohibited. An
additional 145
sq mi (Key Largo
and Looe Key
management
areas) allows
all fishing
except damaging
coral,
spearfishing,
bottom gear and
taking tropical
fish.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flower Garden 56.............. 100%............ Hook-and-line is
Banks National the only method
Marine Sanctuary of fishing
allowed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray's Reef 22.............. 62.40%.......... Research Only
National Marine Area where all
Sanctuary fishing is
prohibited. Hook-
and-line is the
only method of
fishing allowed
in the rest of
the sanctuary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greater 3,295........... 100%............ None
Farallones
National Marine
Sanctuary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaiian Islands 1,615........... 100%............ None
Humpback Whale
National Marine
Sanctuary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor National 1............... 100%............ None
Marine Sanctuary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monterey Bay 6,100........... 100%............ Fishing below a
National Marine depth of 3,000
Sanctuary ft in the
Davidson
Seamount
Management Zone
is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Marine 13,581.......... 99.99%.......... All fishing is
Sanctuary of prohibited in
American Samoa Fagatele Bay. In
Aunu'u Unit Zone
A, fishermen
must notify the
sanctuary prior
to fishing. In
Aunu'u Unit B,
fishing is
allowed except
for bottom-
dwelling
species. In the
rest of the
sanctuary,
fishing is
allowed, except
for use of
poisons,
explosives,
spearguns, fixed
nets and bottom
trawling.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Olympic Coast 3,193........... 100%............ None
National Marine
Sanctuary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stellwagen Bank 842............. 100%............ None
National Marine
Sanctuary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thunder Bay 4,300........... 100%............ None
National Marine
Sanctuary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Any form of fishing is allowed. Total percent is calculated by taking
the total area of the sanctuary and subtracting the no-take area.
Question 2. During the hearing, it was insinuated that there was no
fishing, commercial or recreational, allowed in the Channel Islands
National Marine Sanctuary. Is that accurate? Please provide a summary
of the actual fishing regulations in the Channel Islands National
Marine Sanctuary.
Answer. Fishing is allowed within the Channel Islands national
Marine Sanctuary (CINMS); in fact, it is has some of the richest
commercial \1\ and recreational \2\ fishing on the west coast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Commercial fishing in the sanctuary generates nearly $27.3
million in harvest revenue each year. This in turn creates $45.3
million in output, $30.9 in value added, $27.8 million in total income
and 659 full- and part-time jobs.
\2\ Recreational fishing within the sanctuary generated roughly 250
jobs annually from 2010 to 2012. Each year from 2010 through 2012, the
CINMS local economies saw, on average, an additional $11.0 million in
income as a result of recreational fishing in the sanctuary.
Fishing in state waters (0 to 3 nautical miles) of the sanctuary is
managed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, while NOAA
Fisheries manages Federal water fisheries (3 to 200 nautical miles).
The commercial and recreational harvesting of fish, kelp and
invertebrates is permitted in nearly 80 percent of the sanctuary waters
(0 to 6 nautical miles) around the northern Channel Islands--see figure
below. Just over 20 percent of the sanctuary is designated as marine
reserves or conservation areas to protect the diversity and abundance
of marine life, the habitats they depend on, and the integrity of
marine ecosystems. The state of California established this network of
marine reserves and conservation areas in 2003 and NOAA extended it
into Federal waters in 2006 and 2007, respectively. The network
includes 11 marine reserves where all fishing and harvest is
prohibited, and 2 marine conservation areas that allow limited take of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
lobster and pelagic fish.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Office of National Marine Sanctuaries Socioeconomic
Research and Monitoring Program
Question 3. In your testimony, you note that the establishment and
expansion of all of the marine national monuments designated to date
included a public engagement process. Will you please describe those
processes? Please provide a list of public engagement initiatives
(including location, dates and estimated number of people reached) that
were conducted before the designation of each marine national monument.
Answer. Although no public process is required under the
Antiquities Act, designation of each of the 2009 monuments was preceded
by a series of public meetings. In American Samoa, the Governor
supported the marine national monument designation for Rose Atoll and
2-3 public meetings were held by the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ). For the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument, CEQ and the
PEW Research Center coordinated many public meetings in the region (PEW
reports it held over 100 meetings in open forums). No public meetings
were specifically held on the 2009 designation of the Pacific Remote
Islands Marine National Monument, although it was discussed in other
forums.
On August 11, 2014, NOAA held a Town Hall in Honolulu, Hawaii to
discuss the expansion of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National
Monument. Approximately 300 people from various fishing groups and NGOs
attended and over 50 people commented at the public meeting. In
addition, NOAA received over 170,000 email comments. Discussion of the
monument proposals also occurred during meetings of the Western Pacific
Fisheries Management Council, which are open to the public.
NOAA held a Town Hall in Providence, Rhode Island on September 15,
2015 to discuss possible conservation protections in New England. Over
200 people from various fishing groups and NGOs attended and
approximately 60 people commented at the public meeting. To date, NOAA
has received over 150,000 email comments and the comment period remains
open.
Question 4. We touched upon the impacts of climate change during
the hearing, but can you expand on the importance of habitat protection
to the resilience of ocean and coastal resources in the face of climate
change? How does permanently protecting diverse marine ecosystems help
build resilience to climate change?
Answer. Climate change adds an additional level of stress to marine
ecosystems, which already may be affected by local and regional impacts
such as artificial shoreline modification, habitat loss, land-based
pollution, and historical overfishing. Climate change impacts from sea
level rise, ocean warming, changes in oceanic circulation, ecosystem/
biome shifts, and ocean acidification will compound problems that
already degrade ocean and coastal ecosystems.
Marine protected areas (MPAs) provide a tool to restore, preserve,
and protect the ecological integrity and resilience of ocean and
coastal ecosystems so they can withstand the additional stress of
climate change. Healthy ecosystems will be more resilient to ocean
warming, sea level rise, extreme weather events, and other climate
change impacts. To help maintain the health of the marine environment,
the U.S. Global Change Research Program endorses increasing the
resilience of MPAs by managing other human-caused stressors that
degrade ecosystems, and by protecting key functional groups of marine
species.
The long-term, place-based nature of MPAs helps to mitigate the
impacts of climate change by providing a focal area for management and
science to reduce local and regional stressors, monitor current
conditions and changes over time, engage the public, and implement
adaptive, flexible management of ecosystems and resources.
Collectively, these efforts serve to enhance the effectiveness of MPAs
and thereby enable these areas to continue supporting the communities
that rely on them.
MPAs that connect or are located near each other ensure diverse
ocean ecosystems and living resources are protected. This provides
broader ecological and economic resilience when localized climate
change-related impacts occur.
Faced with significant uncertainty about where, when and which
species, habitats, and ecosystems are most vulnerable and likely to
change, MPAs can be designed to reduce the risk of catastrophic
ecological and economic loss due to the more extreme impacts of climate
change by providing protection for as much diversity as possible, and
for replication of specific species, habitats, or ecosystems. MPAs can
be designed and managed to help reduce the ecological and socioeconomic
risk of losing key species and habitats.
By reducing nonclimate stressors on the environment, providing
protection to those coastal and marine resources most at risk, and
reducing risk in the face of uncertainty, MPAs can foster the
resilience and health of marine ecosystems in order to improve their
ability to resist and recover from the impacts of climate change in the
ocean and directly contribute to public health, safety, and economic
welfare of coastal communities.
In conclusion, habitat protection through MPAs and networks of MPAs
are valuable tools that, with proper management, can help buffer
impacts, create climate change refugia, and sustain ecologically,
culturally, historically, socially, and economically valuable coastal
and marine resources throughout the Nation's waters and beyond.
Question 5. Section 2 of NEPA states that: ``The purposes of this
Act are: To declare a national policy which will encourage productive
and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote
efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and
biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the
understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important
to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality.''
Is NEPA supposed to be used as a tool to slow down conservation work?
Please describe how NEPA relates to monument designations.
Answer. NEPA is not intended to slow down conservation work. NEPA
is intended to ensure that Federal agencies act as responsible stewards
of America's vast natural resources while adequately reviewing all
options. NEPA seeks to balance environmental concerns with the social,
economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of
Americans. State and local governments, concerned private and public
organizations, and individuals encouraged Federal agencies to work in
partnership; NEPA endeavors to reconcile the inherent tension between
the rapidly changing world and its finite natural resources.
The Presidential Proclamation that implements a monument is not
subject to NEPA or The Administrative Procedure Act. However, the
Monument Management Plan is analyzed under NEPA prior to being
finalized. Any other Federal actions proposed to occur within the
monument would also be assessed.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Dr. Bamford.
I now recognize Dr. Rosenberg for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW A. ROSENBERG, Ph.D., DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
SCIENCE AND DEMOCRACY, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS, TWO
BATTLE SQUARE, CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS
Dr. Rosenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and
members of the committee.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today to discuss
the importance of marine national monuments.
I am Andrew Rosenberg, Director of the Center for Science
and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. However, I
am testifying here today in my personal capacity as a marine
scientist. For the past 30 years, I have worked in marine
ecology, fishery science, and ocean policy in academia and
government. I am a former Northeast Regional Administrator for
the National Marine Fisheries Service, Deputy Director of the
National Marine Fisheries Service, and former Dean of Life
Sciences and Agriculture at the University of New Hampshire.
The idea of marine national monuments makes sense to me.
Some features, such as seamounts, underwater canyons, and
ledges, are unique oceanographic features supporting ecosystems
of high biological diversity. As such, they are important
public trust resources for the Nation as part of our natural
heritage.
In addition, these ecosystems are important for supporting
marine life in surrounding areas. They contribute so-called
ecosystem services. These are functions of the ecosystem that
directly support human well-being from fisheries, as we have
already heard, but also natural products, genetic resources due
to the biodiversity, and resilience to the ongoing effects of
climate change.
The New England seamounts, ledges, and canyons are a
critical part of the large marine ecosystem of the northeast
United States. These are the only seamounts in U.S. Atlantic
waters. Several outstanding U.S. ocean sciences research
organizations and universities have ongoing studies of the New
England seamounts, Cashes Ledge, and the deep canyons because
of their important role in the ecology of the entire region. In
fact, one is even named Oceanographer's Canyon.
Life forms that live in the deep sea are most often slow
growing and slow to reproduce, with very long life spans. This
means that they are highly vulnerable to both environmental
changes and human exploitation. Simply put, they can be very
rapidly overexploited and very slow to recover once damaged.
There are numerous examples around the globe of newly
discovered resources, or often new markets for products from
known deep sea resources, attracting a boom of escalating
fishing and a rapid bust due to overexploitation or a boom of
other kinds of exploitive activities, followed by very slow or
no real recovery. In other words, if human impacts on deep sea
resources are to be managed, we likely only have one chance to
get it right for these kinds of deep sea, slow-growing
resources.
Creating a marine national monument containing seamounts,
ledges, and canyons in offshore areas is a sensible step for
conservation. It would create a marine protected area, which is
a well-developed and well-studied management tool for ocean
resources, that restricts damaging activities within a monument
area.
Area protections have been shown to be effective if they
truly limit or minimize exploitation and are large enough to
provide real protection for biological resources. The Northwest
Hawaiian Islands National Monument, that we have already heard
about, and other large enclosed areas in the Western Pacific,
Indian Ocean, and North Atlantic are all cases in point.
The large closed areas in New England have led to a
recovery of some of the important fishery resources, including
scallops and some groundfish, as well as habitat that will pay
dividends in the future.
Many published peer-reviewed studies, including my own,
have shown that MPAs can be an effective management tool,
particularly when coupled with other measures that control
exploitation.
One of the most important attributes of MPAs is that they
provide a hedge against rapid increases in fishing pressure or
the impacts of other activities, including the ongoing effects
of climate change. Protecting an intact, significant portion of
an ecosystem helps ensure that other impacts will not have as
potentially devastating effects as they might have with no
protected area in place.
For example, there is good scientific evidence that parts
of an ecosystem that are largely intact are far more resilient
to the effects of changing climate than those that are already
heavily exploited. As a matter of the ecology, the marine
resources of the United States, the seamounts, ledges, and
canyons are unique and they play an important role in the
productivity of our oceans.
As a matter of policy, MPAs are well-developed management
tools that can be applied to good effect, reasonably and simply
enforced. MPAs can provide real benefits to the Nation, and it
is important to recognize in this instance putting a protected
area in place before extensive exploitation is underway is far
easier, more efficient, and less disruptive than waiting to try
to conserve resources once fishing or other activities have
already ramped up very substantially.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to
share my views, and I would be happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Rosenberg follows:]
Prepared Statement of Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D., Director of the
Center for Science and Democracy, Union of Concerned Scientists
Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today to discuss
the importance of marine national monuments. I am Dr. Andrew Rosenberg,
Director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of
Concerned Scientists. However, I am testifying here today in my
personal capacity as a marine scientist. For the past 30 years, I
worked in marine ecology, fisheries, and ocean policy in academia and
government. I am formerly the Deputy Director of NOAA's National Marine
Fisheries Service and also the former Dean of Life Sciences and
Agriculture at the University of New Hampshire.
The idea of marine national monuments makes sense to me. Some
marine features such as seamounts and underwater canyons and ledges are
unique oceanographic features supporting ecosystems of high biological
diversity. As such, they are important public trust resources for the
Nation as part of our natural heritage. In addition, these ecosystems
are important for supporting the marine life in surrounding areas. They
contribute so-called ecosystem services. These are functions of the
ecosystem that directly support human well-being from fisheries, to
natural products and genetic resources, to resilience to the ongoing
effects of climate change.
The New England seamounts, ledges and canyons are a critical part
of the large marine ecosystem of the northeastern United States. This
seamount chain contains the only seamounts in U.S. Atlantic waters,
highlighting their uniqueness. Several outstanding U.S. ocean sciences
research organizations and universities have ongoing studies of the New
England seamounts, Cashes Ledge, and the deep canyons because of their
important role in the ecology of the entire region.
Life forms that live in the deep sea are most often slow growing
and slow to reproduce, while often have very long life spans. This
means that they are also highly vulnerable to both environmental
changes and human exploitation. Simply put, they can be very rapidly
overexploited and very slow to recover once damaged. There are numerous
examples around the globe of newly discovered resources, or more often
new markets for products from deep sea resources, attracting a boom of
escalating fishing and a rapid bust due to overexploitation, followed
by very slow or no real recovery. In other words, if human impacts on
deep sea resources are to be managed, we may only have one chance to
get it right.
Creating a marine national monument containing seamounts, ledges
and canyons in offshore areas is a sensible step for conservation of
these areas. It would create a Marine Protected Area, or MPA, which is
a well-developed and studied management tool for ocean resources that
restrict damaging activities within the monument area. Area protections
have been shown to be effective if they truly limit or minimize
exploitation and are large enough to provide real protection for
biological resources. The Northwest Hawaiian Islands National Monument
created by President Bush is a case in point. Other large closed areas
in the western Pacific, Indian Ocean and North Atlantic are also in
place. The large closed areas in New England have led to the recovery,
of some important fisheries including scallops and some groundfish.
Many published, peer reviewed studies, including my own, have shown
that MPAs can be an effective management tool, particularly when
coupled with other measures that control exploitation.
One of the most important attributes of MPAs is that they provide a
``hedge'' against rapid increases in fishing pressure or the impacts of
other activities including the ongoing effects of a changing climate.
Protecting an intact, significant portion of an ecosystem helps ensure
that other impacts won't have as potentially devastating effects as
they might have if no protected area existed. For example, there is
good scientific evidence that parts of an ecosystem that are largely
intact, are far more resilient to the effects of a changing climate
than those that are already heavily exploited.
As a matter of the ecology of the marine resources of the United
States, these sea mounts, ledges and canyons are unique and play an
important role in the productivity of our oceans. As a matter of
policy, MPAs are well developed management tools that can be applied to
good effect, reasonably and simply enforced. MPAs can provide real
benefits to the Nation. It is important to recognize in this instance,
putting a protected area in place before extensive exploitation is
underway is far easier, more efficient and less disruptive than waiting
to try to conserve resources once fishing or other actions are already
ramping up.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to share my views and
I would be happy to answer any questions.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Dr. Andrew A. Rosenberg, Union of
Concerned Scientists
Dr. Rosenberg did not submit responses to the Committee by the
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Questions Submitted by the Hon. Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan
Question 1. Since the Antiquities Act was passed, Democratic
presidents have dedicated 98 national monuments and Republican
presidents have designated 82. That's a fairly even split.
a. Does the designation of national monuments seem to you like it
should be a partisan issue?
b. I know that the ecology of the marine environment is very
complicated, but is there general consensus in the scientific community
as to the utility of having Marine Protected Areas, both for
conservation and for increasing the sustainable production of
resources?
Questions Submitted by the Hon. Raul M. Grijalva
Question 1. I know that the ecology of the marine environment is
very complicated, but is there general consensus in the scientific
community as to the utility of having Marine Protected Areas, both for
conservation and for increasing the sustainable production of
resources?
Question 2. Are marine national monuments, and MPAs in general,
important to protecting the biodiversity both of the region and of the
oceans as a whole?
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Dr. Rosenberg.
I now recognize Mr. Moore for his testimony.
STATEMENT OF ROD MOORE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WEST COAST SEAFOOD
PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION, PORTLAND, OREGON
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member,
members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to
appear before you today.
For the record, my name is Rod Moore. I am the Executive
Director of the West Coast Seafood Processors Association. Our
Association represents commercial fishermen and shore-based,
American-owned seafood processors and associated seafood
businesses located in Washington, Oregon, and California. Our
members also have operations located in Alaska, Arizona,
Georgia, Hawaii, Nevada, Texas, and Utah.
Our main objective is to assure the regular supply of
sustainable seafood so we can provide healthy products to the
consumer.
Let me make one thing clear from the beginning: a well
designed marine sanctuary is not a bad thing. Just as on land,
there are special places in the ocean that deserve protection.
Nobody wants to see trawlers trawling up pieces of the ``USS
Monitor'' or a deep sea sport fisherman pulling up coral from
Flower Garden Banks.
However, there is a big difference between a marine
sanctuary and a national marine monument. There is a process
and there are criteria for establishing a sanctuary. To begin
with, the process is locally driven. Under quote to the NOAA
Web page, every nomination starts at the community level.
While NOAA's concept of a community might not be the same
as ours, there at least has to be a local nexus.
NOAA then reviews the nomination against several criteria,
including existing management regulations and against community
support. Only if the proposed area passes muster, or at least
the red face test, will it be placed on NOAA's list of
nominated areas for consideration to be designated as a
national marine sanctuary, which is an entirely separate
process.
Unfortunately, this process is not good enough for some
people. We have seen public calls for the President to use his
powers under the Antiquities Act to establish marine monuments
off New England and Alaska. In the latter case, a nomination
for a sanctuary was denied by NOAA. Undaunted, the Public
Employees for Environmental Responsibility set up an online
petition for which, as of last week, they had nearly 114,000
supporters.
Of course, that includes signatories from 28 foreign
countries. In fact, there were more foreign signatories than
there were from the state of Alaska, including a lone signature
from the Lao Democratic People's Republic.
In the former case, proponents did not even bother with the
sanctuary nomination. They went directly to the monument
petition route. They did this in spite of the fact that the New
England Fishery Management Council was working on a fisheries
habitat plan that would protect some of the same places that
were covered in the petition.
So why this rush to action when a perfectly good, workable,
and science-based sanctuary nomination process is readily
available? The obvious answer to our industry is that
proponents wish to shut down most commercial fishing and
control whatever commercial and sport fishing that is left.
And this gets to the heart of the matter. Under the
Antiquities Act, the President can withdraw whatever Federal
lands he wants and have that withdrawal managed using any
criteria he chooses. You don't like trawling? Poof, it is gone.
The Antiquities Act provides no basis for learned
discourse, no scientific, economic, or social analysis; it is
whatever the President says it is.
The use of the Antiquities Act to create marine national
monuments is a true top-down, dictatorial approach, which is
frequently championed by big bucks environmental groups and
which the public, including the fishing community that is
directly affected, has no voice.
So what are the alternatives? The first, obviously, is by
submitting a nomination through the sanctuary process.
The second alternative, the one which I prefer, is to
establish sensitive areas under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. And
how well does this work? Well, in the West Coast it works
pretty well. In 2005, the Pacific Fishery Management Council
completed its review of EFH and HAPC areas; and in 2014, began
its formal review of those areas.
During this process, leaders in the fishing industry and
the environmental community decided they had more to gain by
working together than fighting with each other, so they
established the Collaborative EFH Working Group. The
Collaborative is working on a comprehensive plan of habitat
protection and access to fisheries which, if adopted, will
increase the permanent closed areas significantly, while
recognizing that there are areas that are now closed but should
be opened.
Although one environmental group has bowed out of the
process, and some fishermen are reluctant to trust those that
remain, the majority of us have hope for the future.
I learned last night a similar situation has occurred in
the Mid-Atlantic Council which has won praise in the
environmental community.
Finally, a word about legislation pending before this
committee and the House. The House has already passed H.R.
1335, which among other things makes clear that the FCMA is the
controlling legal statute in fisheries management. This will
resolve such strangled legal interpretations like the one
provided to the Pacific Management Council by NOAA's legal
counsel: that the Council has jurisdiction over fishing and the
ocean bottom, but does not have jurisdiction over the water
column.
Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt in my mind there are
certain key areas in the ocean that need protection. The
question is how best to do it. I think you would find that most
rational people agree that protecting an area should be
conducted only after scientific analysis and a true public
process. The use of the Antiquities Act should not be allowed.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rod Moore, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood
Processors Association
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the subcommittee, I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
potential implications of pending marine national monument designations
and the role of the National Marine Sanctuary System. For the record,
my name is Rod Moore and I serve as Executive Director of the West
Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA). Our Association
represents commercial fishermen and shore-based, American-owned seafood
processors and associated seafood businesses in Washington, Oregon, and
California. Our members also have operations located in Alaska,
Arizona, Georgia, Hawaii, Nevada, Texas, and Utah. Our main objective
is to assure the regular supply of sustainable seafood so that we can
provide healthy products to the consumer.
Let me make one thing clear from the beginning: a well-designed
marine sanctuary is not a bad thing. Just like on land, there are
special places in the ocean with historic, cultural, or natural values
that should be protected. Nobody wants to see trawlers operating on the
site of the wreck of the U.S.S. MONITOR; nobody wants to see deep sea
sport fishermen hauling up chunks of coral in the Flower Garden Banks.
However, there is a big difference between a national marine sanctuary
and a marine national monument.
The National Marine Sanctuary System was established in 1972 and
presently encompasses 12 properly created marine sanctuaries and 2
marine monuments, one of which is identified and managed as a
sanctuary. Reading through the history of the Sanctuary System (http://
sanctuaries.noaa.gov/about/history/welcome.html), one can see that the
initial sanctuaries were chosen to celebrate and protect key historic
and environmental values. As time went on, other agendas came into
play. For example, let's look at the four sanctuaries--Cordell Bank,
Greater Farallones, Monterey Bay, and Channel Islands--established off
the coast of California. Visiting the Web sites for each of them, you
discover that all four speak grandly--and vaguely--about protecting
biological diversity, the importance of upwelling to biological
productivity, and ecosystem values. In fact, they were originally
designated as a way to prevent offshore oil and gas exploration. To
quote a local fisherman on the history of the designation of the
Monterey Bay NMS: ``The main public interest in creating a sanctuary
was to add another layer of regulation to keep oil development out of
the region.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Tom Roff in http://alliancefisheries.org/uploads/
BaitandSwitch0215.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But still, there is a process and there are criteria for
establishing a sanctuary. To begin with, the process is locally driven
(``every nomination starts at the community level'' \2\). While NOAA's
concept of a ``community'' may not be the same as ours, at least there
has to be a local nexus. NOAA then reviews the nomination against
several criteria--including existing management and regulations--and
against community support/opposition. Only if the proposed area passes
muster--or at least the red face test--will it be placed on NOAA's list
of nominated areas for consideration to be designated as a national
marine sanctuary, which is an entirely separate process. As of the
beginning of September, five formal nominations have been submitted;
three have been denied; one has been re-submitted; and two have been
accepted. That is a reasonable track record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.nominate.noaa.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, that isn't good enough for some people. Recently, we
have seen public calls for the President to use his powers under the
Antiquities Act to establish marine monuments off New England and
Alaska. In the latter case, a nomination for a sanctuary was denied by
NOAA, citing three of the nominating criteria that it didn't meet.\3\
Undaunted, the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility set up
an on-line petition for which--as of last week--they had nearly 114,000
supporters. Of course, that included signatories from 28 foreign
countries; in fact there were more foreign signatories than there were
from the state of Alaska (including a lone signature from the Lao
Democratic People's Republic). In the former case, proponents didn't
even bother with a sanctuary nomination; they went directly to the
monument petition route. They did this in spite of the fact that the
New England Fishery Management Council was working on a fisheries
habitat plan that would protect some of the same places that are
covered in the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http://www.nominate.noaa.gov/nominations/
aleutian_letter_012315.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So why this rush to action when a perfectly good, workable and
(mostly) science-based sanctuary nomination process is readily
available? The obvious answer to our industry is that the proponents
wish to shut down most commercial fishing and control whatever
commercial and sport fishing will be left.
And this gets to the heart of the matter. Under the Antiquities
Act, the President can withdraw whatever Federal lands he wants and
have that withdrawal managed using any criteria he chooses. Don't like
trawling? Poof, it's gone. The Antiquities Act provides no basis for
learned discourse, no scientific, economic, or social analysis; it is
whatever the President says it is. The use of the Antiquities Act to
create marine national monuments is a true top-down, dictatorial
approach which is frequently championed by big-bucks environmental
groups and in which the public--including the fishing community that is
directly affected--has no voice.
As to the value of the fisheries, it's difficult to say. Not having
seen the direct proposals, nor being familiar with the particular
fisheries in either case, I would hesitate to put a value on the loss
to the Nation's--and the region's--economy if either of these areas was
established by presidential fiat. But once again, that gets to my
point: there is no analysis done, no deliberations, no meaningful
public comments--the President simply signs his name to a piece of
paper and 554,000 square nautical miles encompassing the Aleutian
Islands, a large chunk of the Bering Sea, and southwest Alaska as far
north as the Kuskokwim delta is off limits to whatever the President or
his staff decides.
So what are the alternatives if we want to protect habitat in a
studied, sensible way? The first obviously is by submitting a
nomination through the National Marine Sanctuary Process. The National
Marine Sanctuaries Act provides a number of checks and balances to give
the common man a fighting chance to shape the extent of sanctuary
protection. I would submit it doesn't always work; for example, the
Greater Farallones and Cordell Bank Sanctuaries off the coast of
California were recently expanded by 2.5 times each through a simple
regulatory process. However, to be fair the sanctuaries listened to the
comments of the regulated communities--sport and commercial fishermen,
ports, aircraft owners, etc.--in crafting with their final regulations.
The second alternative, and the one I prefer, is to establish
sensitive areas through the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSFCMA) process. The MSFCMA provides for the
identification of essential fish habitat (EFH) and the creation of
habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC). More importantly, the
MSFCMA provides for a public process to evaluate and decide on what
areas are going to be protected.
How well does this work? Using the West Coast as an example, I
think you will find that it works extremely well. In 2005, the Pacific
Fishery Management Council (PFMC) completed work on its initial round
of EFH and HAPC areas. These areas ranged from spots where there was no
fishing allowed to spots where only non-bottom tending gear was
allowed. These EFH/HAPC areas were in addition to the five national
marine sanctuaries located off the West Coast, the Rockfish
Conservation Area (RCA) which stretches from Mexico to Canada and is
designed to allow depth-based protection for certain overfished
species, and restrictions on the use of gear (e.g., no large footrope
trawl gear shallower than the RCA). Combine these restrictions with the
plethora of state-regulated nonfishing areas and you will find that the
area left to fish in is quite limited.
In 2014, the Council began its formal review of EFH pursuant to
section 303(b)(2)(C) of the MSFCMA. During this process, leaders from
the fishing industry and the environmental community decided they had
more to gain by working together than fighting with each other so they
established the Collaborative EFH Working Group. The Collaborative is
working on a comprehensive plan of habitat protection and access to
fisheries which if adopted will increase the permanent closed areas
significantly while recognizing that there are areas which are now
closed but could be opened. Although one environmental group has bowed
out of the process and some fishermen are reluctant to trust those that
remain, the majority of us have hope for the future.
Finally, a word about legislation pending before this committee.
The committee--and the House--have already passed H.R. 1335 which among
other things makes clear that the MSFCMA is the controlling statute in
fisheries management. This will resolve such strangled legal
interpretations like the one provided to the PFMC by NOAA's legal
counsel: that the Council has jurisdiction over fishing and the ocean
bottom but doesn't have jurisdiction over the water column. By using
the MSFCMA process to develop regulations instead of the NMSA and the
Antiquities Act, we will ensure that at least when it comes to fishing
there will be thoughtful and thorough analysis and the opportunity for
public comment.
The committee also has pending before it H.R. 330 and H.R. 332,
both introduced by Mr. Young of Alaska. H.R. 330 is more general in
that it prohibits the establishment of a marine national monument
anywhere in the exclusive economic zone before certain steps are taken,
including getting approval from the governors of affected states. H.R.
332 is more specific in prohibiting the establishment of a marine
national monument in the EEZ off Alaska. Both are good bills but we
would prefer the passage of H.R. 330 because of its more general
applicability.
Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt in my mind that there are certain
key areas in the ocean that need protection. The question is how best
to do it. I think you would find that most rational people agree that
protecting an area should be conducted only after scientific analysis
and a true public process. The use of the Antiquities Act should not be
allowed. I will be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
______
Dr. Fleming. OK. Thank you, Mr. Moore.
Finally, Mr. Oliver, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS OLIVER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTH PACIFIC
FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
Mr. Oliver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to comment today.
The North Pacific Council, one of eight regional fishery
management councils established by the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
manages the fisheries off of Alaska. A few statistics I would
recite that many of you have heard before: the fisheries off
Alaska provide over half the Nation's annual seafood
production, are the largest employer in the state of Alaska,
are second only to oil in revenues, and have sustained between
3 and 5 billion pounds annually for over 30 years.
A statistic you may not have heard: these fisheries occur
within the 1.3 million square mile area managed by the Council
of which about two-thirds, or 66 percent, is currently closed
to all or some fishing activities. Many of these areas qualify
as marine protected areas.
Our ecosystem-based management approach is not focused on
fisheries extraction alone, but includes explicit consideration
of numerous related components of the ecosystem, including,
importantly, the use of geographic/area closures to fishing
activities.
Closure areas in the North Pacific have been implemented
for a variety of reasons, including essential fish habitat
designation and a number of other reasons.
I have attached maps to my written testimony which provide
a visual representation of the scope and magnitude of some of
these closed areas. I have listed a few of the most
significant, including the U.S. Arctic EEZ, where nearly
150,000 square miles is closed to all commercial fishing as a
precautionary measure.
Bottom trawl closures, developed to protect essential fish
habitat, cover over 400,000 square nautical miles in the
Northern Bering Sea and throughout the Aleutian Islands
management area to protect pristine habitat and to `freeze the
footprint' of existing bottom trawling.
What all of these closed areas have in common is that they
were all implemented based on careful consideration of
scientific information, detailed analysis of biological,
economic, and social impacts, and with extensive input from all
affected or interested stakeholders, as well as the state of
Alaska.
The Council process, operating through the authorities of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act and subject to approval by the
Secretary of Commerce, has demonstrated that it is by far the
best equipped to manage fishing activities within the U.S. EEZ,
including identification and designation of areas appropriate
for protection.
This process includes outreach to, and input from, fishing
industry participants, local coastal residents, and
environmental organizations.
I would like to specifically highlight the Aleutian Island
habitat conservation area closures, which were established as
part of the Council's essential fish habitat process mandated
under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This map illustrates the
careful balancing achieved by this process and the necessary
complexity resulting from consideration of numerous management
objectives. This particular map shows the open and closed areas
for only a single target species, Pacific cod.
The result is that only about 6 percent, the areas that you
can see in beige, only about 6 percent of the entire area
remains open to bottom trawling. However, it is that 6 percent
which was identified through the Council process as the most
critical to the continued viability of economically and
socially valuable commercial fishing activities in this area.
Unilateral closure of this area would be unnecessarily
devastating to the fishing industry, to numerous remote,
coastal communities who are heavily dependent upon fishing
activities in this region, and to the United States as a whole.
This balancing act is not only possible through the Council
process, it is precisely what the Council process was set up to
do. Other councils around the region have implemented similar
closures. I have listed some of those: off of New England; off
of the Mid-Atlantic, where it was noted they recently closed an
area more than 38,000 square miles, nearly the size of
Virginia; and off the Pacific Coast by the Pacific Council,
where they have already designated over 130,000 miles of EFH
conservation area.
A flip side story exists in the Western Pacific, Mr.
Chairman. A stark contrast to these examples of deliberative,
science-based closure designations can be found in the Western
Pacific Region, where U.S. fishermen governed by the Magnuson-
Stevens Act and managed by the Western Pacific Council have
lost about 30 percent, or 665,000 square miles, of fishing
waters to monument and sanctuary designations, with little or
no evidence of benefits.
In summary, area closures to fishing or other activities
are, indeed, an important natural resource management tool, and
they have been applied extensively in the North Pacific and in
other regions of the United States. Successful use of this
resource management tool requires a careful balancing of
multiple considerations, which is not possible under unilateral
actions, such as monument designations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Oliver follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mr. Chris Oliver, Executive Director, North
Pacific Fishery Management Council
introduction
The North Pacific Council, one of eight regional fishery management
councils established by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), manages fisheries in the U.S.
EEZ off Alaska. Widely recognized as one of the most successfully
managed fisheries in the world, the fisheries off Alaska provide over
half of the Nation's annual seafood production, are the largest
employer in the state of Alaska, are second only to oil in revenues,
and have been sustained between 3 and 5 billion pounds annually for
over 30 years. These fisheries occur within the 1.3 million square
nautical mile area managed by the North Pacific Council, of which
approximately two-thirds, or 66 percent, is closed to all or some
fishing activities, many of which qualify as marine protected areas.
Our ecosystem-based management approach is not focused on fisheries
extraction alone, but includes explicit consideration of numerous
related components of the marine ecosystem, including: seabird, Steller
sea lion, and other marine mammals and protected species; predator-prey
relationships and a ban on fishing for forage fish species;
conservative exploitation rates for target species; aggressive bycatch
reduction measures for species like halibut, salmon, and crab;
comprehensive observer and catch accounting system; and, importantly,
the use of geographic/area closures to fishing activities throughout
the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands, and into the
Arctic. Management decisions, including designation of closed areas,
are informed by detailed staff analyses, review by our Scientific and
Statistical Committee, recommendations from our industry Advisory
Panel, and input from a wide variety of stakeholders.
development of closure areas in the north pacific
Closure areas in the North Pacific have been implemented for a
variety of reasons, including: essential fish habitat designation, or
further designation as habitat areas of particular concern
(particularly deep sea coral concentrations); specific protections for
crab, halibut or rockfish nursery areas; minimizing bycatch of
prohibited species; Steller sea lion protection (critical habitat or
foraging areas); or simply as a precautionary measure in the face of
limited information (such as the Arctic FMP). The attached maps provide
a visual representation of the scope and magnitude of some of these
closed areas. The attached table provides more descriptive details on
major closed areas. A few of the most important examples include:
The U.S. Arctic EEZ--nearly 150,000 square nautical miles
closed to all commercial fishing as a precautionary
measure, pending better scientific information on resources
within that area.
Steller sea lion protection zones--over 73,000 square
nautical miles, throughout the Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian
Islands, and Bering Sea, closed to fishing for major sea
lion prey species (pollock, Pacific cod, and Atka Mackerel)
and/or to protect haulouts and rookeries.
Coral gardens and seamounts in the Gulf of Alaska and
Aleutian Islands--over 10,000 square nautical miles closed
to all bottom contact fishing gear, to protect deep sea
coral concentrations.
Bottom trawl closures developed to protect Essential Fish
Habitat (EFH)--over 400,000 square nautical miles in the
Northern Bering Sea and throughout the Aleutian Islands
management area closed to bottom trawling, to protect
pristine habitat and to `freeze the footprint' of existing
bottom trawling.
Crab protection zones--over 31,000 square nautical miles,
in the Gulf of Alaska, Bristol Bay, and Pribilof Islands,
closed to trawling to protect vulnerable crab habitat.
Southeast Alaska trawl closures--nearly 60,000 square
nautical miles closed to bottom trawling to protect crab
and rockfish habitat.
What these closed areas have in common is that they were all
implemented based on careful consideration of available scientific
information, detailed analysis of biological, economic, and social
impacts, and with extensive input from all affected or interested
stakeholders, as well as the state of Alaska. The Council process,
operating through the authorities of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) and
subject to approval by the Secretary of Commerce, has demonstrated over
and over that it is by far the best equipped to manage fishing
activities within the U.S. EEZ, including identification and
designation of areas appropriate for protection. The North Pacific
region in particular benefits from some of the most extensive and
robust scientific information available to inform its decisionmaking.
Extensive analyses of the biological impacts to the marine resources,
as well as the social and economic impacts to affected stakeholders,
are conducted prior to any designations. This process includes outreach
to, and input from, fishing industry participants, local, coastal
residents, and environmental organizations. This ensures that when an
area is identified for closure to fishing activities, we have
confidence that the intended beneficial consequences to the ecosystem
will indeed occur, and confidence that we have minimized unintended,
and potentially adverse, consequences to the extent possible.
aleutian islands habitat conservation areas
I would like to specifically highlight the Aleutian Island habitat
conservation area closures, which were established as part of the
Council's EFH process mandated by the Magnuson-Stevens Act
reauthorization. The Council process to identify and designate these
areas (including NMFS and the state of Alaska) resulted in several
hundred pages of detailed analysis of available scientific information,
including information on coral concentrations and other benthic habitat
features, as well as analysis of fishing patterns in the area. After a
lengthy process of scientific analysis and stakeholder review,
including input from local, coastal residents, fishing industry
representatives, and environmental organizations, the Council
ultimately developed a plan to protect known coral concentrations from
fishing activities, and essentially `freeze the footprint' of bottom
trawling activity throughout the entire area. The result is that only
about 6 percent of the entire area remains open to bottom trawling;
however, it is that 6 percent which was identified through the Council
process which is most critical to the continued viability of
economically and socially valuable commercial fishing activities in
this management area. Attachment 4 illustrates the careful balancing
achieved by this process, and the necessary complexity resulting from
consideration of numerous management objectives--this map shows the
closed and open areas for only a single target species, Pacific cod.
Unilateral closure of such an area would be unnecessarily devastating
to the fishing industry, to numerous remote, coastal communities who
are heavily dependent upon fishing activities in this region, and to
the United States as a whole.
I would also note that we have developed an Aleutian Islands
Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP), which serves as an overarching guide to
our long-standing Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The FEP provides an
explicit ecosystem context for management considerations, and includes
a series of ecosystem indicators which can be periodically assessed to
help inform whether further protections are warranted, and specifically
guide decisionmakers as to specifically where and how such protections
make the most sense. Our Council is now in the process of developing a
similar overarching FEP for the Bering Sea management area. These
processes will dovetail in 2016 as the Council will also be conducting
a 5-year review of our Essential Fish Habitat provisions, which could
inform consideration of additional, or alternative, closure areas.
bering sea canyons
An additional area of intense focus for our Council over the past
few years has involved consideration of protection measures for canyon
areas adjacent to the vast Bering Sea slope area, specifically Pribilof
and Zemchug Canyons, the so-called `grand canyons of the Bering Sea'.
These canyons are small parts of the much larger Bering Sea slope,
which is an area of extremely high productivity and importance to
commercial fisheries. While relatively little fishing effort occurs in
the two canyon areas (and most trawl effort occurs at depths far
shallower than where most deep sea corals occur), the Council has been
petitioned to prohibit fishing in these canyons, or in areas within the
canyons, to protect areas of coral concentration or other benthic
habitat. Beginning in 2012, based on initial video transect surveys
(Miller et al 2012) and numerous proposals from ENGO organizations, the
Council began to specifically examine the necessity of special
protection for these canyon areas, as important habitat for deep-sea
corals, sponges, and certain life history stages of fish and crab
species. Based on examination of trawl survey and other available
information, NMFS scientists concluded that while Pribilof canyon in
particular does contain areas of coral concentration, neither area
contains unique physical characteristics which distinguish them from
other areas of the Bering Sea slope.
Additional, underwater camera transect surveys were conducted in
2014, and the report of that research will be reviewed by our Council
at our upcoming October meeting. Among the results of the recent camera
drops are that about 97 percent of the images captured were classified
as ``containing only unconsolidated substrate (mud, sand, gravel,
pebble, or mixed course material).'' However, this work also did verify
areas of the Pribilof canyon with deep-sea coral concentrations. While
relatively little commercial fishing occurs in these canyon areas
currently (less than 3 percent of total Bering Sea catch), and most
trawling occurs at depths much shallower than most deep-sea coral
concentrations, it can be an important area for certain species at
certain time. The important point is that careful consideration of the
available scientific information, and the involvement of the numerous
stakeholders, is necessary in order to make informed, responsible
decisions regarding proposed closures of large areas of the ocean.
Similar to the development of the Aleutian Islands Habitat Conservation
Area, it is likely that, in the case of the Bering Sea canyons, a more
surgical resolution could result in appropriate protections, without
unnecessarily closing large areas of the ocean which are, or may be in
the future, important to fisheries, but which would provide little
marginal habitat protection. This is not only possible through the
Council process, it is precisely what the Council process was designed
to accomplish.
examples from other regions
Other regional councils around the country have implemented similar
closures for habitat protection, through very similar processes.
New England: New England Council Chairman, Terry Stockwell,
outlined in a recent statement numerous habitat protections developed
by their Council over the years, some of which apply to areas which are
currently being considered for National monument designation--for
example, through the New England Council process fishing activities
have been restricted in the Cashes Ledge and adjacent areas, an area of
520 square nautical miles, for over 15 years. The NEFMC just completed
a multi-year review of its closure system. This included the innovative
development of the Swept Area Seabed Impact model to evaluate the
impacts of fishing on habitat. Some measures to protect deep-sea corals
were first adopted in 2007. In 2013, the three East Coast fishery
management councils signed a Memorandum of Understanding to coordinate
protection of deep sea corals. The NEFMC is now moving forward with
plans to adopt additional protections in many offshore canyons.
Mid-Atlantic: The Mid-Atlantic Council earlier this year took
action to designate `deep sea coral zones' which will prohibit the use
of any bottom-tending gear over an area of more than 38,000 square
nautical miles--an area nearly the size of Virginia. Reflective of the
science-base, participatory process used in the North Pacific and other
council regions, and the need to appropriately balance habitat
protections with fishing opportunities, Council Chairman Rick Robbins
was quoted--``This historic action by the Council was made possible by
the cooperation of a broad group of fishermen, advisors, coral
researchers, conservation groups, Council members, and staff. . . .
Many people deserve credit for their collaborative efforts to refine
the coral protection areas in a way that protects deep sea corals in
our region while accommodating current fishing practices.''
The Mid-Atlantic Council took this action under the discretionary
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act which allow regional fishery
management councils to designate zones where, and periods when, fishing
may be restricted in order to protect deep sea corals. The success of
this action hinged on a cooperative effort to define the proposed coral
protection areas in order to protect deep sea corals in the region
while accommodating current fishing practices and minimizing the
potential negative economic impacts. Over the course of the amendment's
development, the Council engaged with of a broad group of fishermen,
advisors, coral researchers, and conservation groups.
A particularly successful element of this collaborative process was
a workshop that the Council held in April 2015, in order to refine
proposed boundaries for 15 ``discrete coral zones,'' which are areas of
known or highly likely coral presence. This workshop included
participants from the Council's advisory panels, deep sea coral
experts, industry members, and other stakeholders. During the
interactive workshop, boundaries were refined and negotiated in real
time, allowing the participants the opportunity to provide feedback on
key areas of importance for both coral conservation and for fishing
communities. This participation was critical to reconciling multiple
boundary proposals, for which small-scale spatial modifications may
have led to large differences in impacts, and where fine-scale fishery
and coral data were often lacking. Workshop participants were able to
reach consensus on alternative boundaries for all 15 proposed discrete
areas, all of which were ultimately recommended by the Council for
implementation.
Pacific: The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council)
has a long and collaborative history of protecting habitat and unique
natural areas. The West Coast currently has extensive conservation
areas in place. In 2005, the Pacific Council set aside over 130,000
square miles of essential fish habitat conservation areas for species
in its Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. Additionally,
there are five national marine sanctuaries on the West Coast, the
California Coastal National Monument, and numerous state water marine
protected areas in California, Oregon, and Washington. A new national
monument designation for marine areas would presumably be for the
purpose of protecting objects of historic or scientific interest and
the West Coast has both existing protected areas and an open Pacific
Council process to address current and potential future needs.
The Pacific Council is currently considering further geographic
protections and conservation areas. The Pacific Council has been
engaged for the last 5 years in an extensive review of groundfish
essential fish habitat. This collaborative and transparent process
between stakeholders, environmental organizations, and government
agencies has resulted in proposals to add an additional 120,000 square
miles of essential fish habitat conservation area designations. The
Pacific Council also works closely with West Coast treaty tribes to
ensure that protective measures are consistent with treaty trust
responsibilities in the tribal usual and accustomed fishing areas. The
establishment of a national monument would, in many ways, be
duplicative of ongoing efforts, but would lack the Pacific Council's
valuable public process.
Fisheries are import to our Nation in many ways; socially,
culturally, and economically. The management of our natural resources
through the National Monument Process can be seen as a blunt tool that
causes controversy, resistance, and conflict. The Pacific Council
believes that the management of our Nation's fisheries, fish stocks,
and the habitats they rely on should continue to occur under the
authorities of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its collaborative processes
through the regional fishery management councils. Our Nation's marine
resources and fisheries are national treasures, treasures that are
adequately protected under existing conventions.
Western Pacific--a flip-side story: A stark contrast to these
examples of deliberative, science-based closure designations can be
found in the Western Pacific Region, where U.S. fishermen governed by
the Magnuson-Stevens Act and managed by the Western Pacific Council
have lost 30 percent (665,000 square miles) of fishing waters to
monument and sanctuary designations, which equates to more than 100
times the proposed Atlantic marine national monument in the Gulf of
Maine and off Cape Cod, which together would total about 6,000 square
miles. Created under executive proclamation without the science and
collaboration described above, marine monument designations can subvert
the socioeconomic and cultural importance of fishing to coastal
communities (Hawaii is the 47th smallest state in the Union, with 6,459
square miles of land), which depend on the ocean for food, natural
resources, cultural identity and social cohesiveness. Combined with
prohibited areas established under the Council process (which are based
on a scientifically informed, public process), currently 44 percent of
the U.S. EEZ waters in the Pacific Islands are closed to U.S. longline
and purse-seine vessels. Purported reasons for the creation of the
monument in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI), e.g., protection
of endangered monk seals from fishing and protecting fish stock
recruitment areas for the main Hawaiian Islands (MHI), have proved
unfounded. Somewhat ironically, monk seals increasingly migrate from
the NWHI to the heavily populated MHI where they fare better (and which
is exactly where displaced fishing effort occurs), and scientific
research indicates that ``connectivity between the MHI and NWHI is
limited; thus, the MHI will not receive substantial subsidy from the
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument.'' (Toonen et al. 2011).
summary
In summary, area closures to fishing or other activities are indeed
an important natural resource management tool and have been applied
extensively in the North Pacific region, and in other regions of the
United States. The Council process, guided by the provisions of the
Magnuson-Steven Act and other applicable laws and subject to approval
by the Secretary of Commerce, is uniquely positioned to most
effectively implement this management tool, using the best available
science and with the collaboration and input of affected stakeholders,
and the affected, adjacent state(s). This process has resulted in the
implementation of significant protection areas throughout the North
Pacific and the rest of the United States, and has done so in a way to
minimize potentially adverse impacts to other components of the
ecosystem, including region-wide habitat, bycatch encounters, coastal
economies, and fishermen. Unilateral closure designations represent a
tremendous destabilizing force which place significant investments at
risk--ongoing investments in vessel replacement, processing facilities,
and coastal community infrastructure, along with the thousands of jobs
attendant to these activities, can be wiped out with a single,
unanticipated, relatively uniformed action.
Successful use of this resource management tool requires a careful
balancing of multiple considerations which is not possible under
unilateral actions such as monument designations. In late 2014 the
North Pacific Council, at the request of Senator Lisa Murkowski,
submitted a comment letter on draft legislation titled ``Improved
National Monument Designation Process'' (similar to legislation, H.R.
330, just introduced by Congressmen Jones and Young). Quoting from this
letter, Council Chairman Dan Hull stated, ``Your legislation would
indeed improve upon the existing process, and would require
deliberative consideration of consequences, rather than unilateral
Executive Action. . . . Further, we note that the Regional Fishery
Management Council process provides an open and transparent forum to
consider potential impacts of monument designation relative to fishing
and related activities within any proposed monument site . . . and
that, if an area is designated, any fishing regulations within that
area should be accomplished through the authorities of the relevant
Regional Fishery Management Council, and the processes of the Magnuson-
Steven Act.''
ATTACHMENT 1
Year-Round Area Closures Established by NPFMC off Alaska
Summary Table
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
* Estimate; not precisely calculated from GIS mapping.
ATTACHMENT 2
Year-round area closures established by the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council. Note that closures to protect Steller sea lion prey
are not included in this figure.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
ATTACHMENT 3
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
ATTACHMENT 4
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
____
Dr. Fleming. OK. Thank you, panel. Thank you for your
valuable testimony.
I believe we will begin with questions, and I now recognize
myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Williams and also Mr. Moore, you saw the photograph up
there of Mr. Huffman, Ranking Member, with the fish that he
caught--I believe you said it was in either a sanctuary or----
Mr. Huffman. It is a sanctuary.
Dr. Fleming. Sanctuary. OK. So my question to you, Mr.
Williams and Mr. Moore: will you be able to fish in sanctuary
and monument areas?
Mr. Moore. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Huffman, if you had gone
fishing in the Channel Islands National Monument, as opposed to
the Gulf of Farallones, you would not have been able to fish,
because there is a massive marine protective area closure in
both state and Federal waters in that island.
So, it is going to depend on what regulations are in place
in what area.
Dr. Fleming. Mr. Williams, what about you?
Mr. Williams. We are being told that we are not going to be
allowed to go in there. I have not been told anything from
NOAA. The environmental groups that are spearheading this have
it closed for commercial fishing.
Dr. Fleming. What about that, Dr. Bamford? Are they going
to be able to fish?
Dr. Bamford. Again, for sanctuaries, the ones that exist,
there is a lot of fishing that is allowed. Less than 2 percent
of fishing is restricted within sanctuaries, based on the
sanctuaries authorities and the Sanctuaries Act. We have
thriving, both commercial and recreational fishing----
Dr. Fleming. Well, what about going forward? We are talking
about new sanctuaries, new monuments. Is fishing going to be
allowed or not?
Dr. Bamford. New sanctuaries will be designed by the
public. There is a very public process that we go through that
includes the fishing councils and the fishermen. So it just
will----
Dr. Fleming. So, really you are not committing one way or
another here today that there will be fishing.
Dr. Bamford. That is correct. It will depend on the
resources.
Dr. Fleming. OK. Now, Mr. Williams, you were at the
September 15 town hall hosted by NOAA regarding the potential
marine national monument designation in New England. In your
testimony, you mentioned that it was hastily arranged and that
NOAA provided little detail on the proposal. Could you
elaborate a bit more on that and the town hall meeting as a
whole?
Mr. Williams. Generally, whenever there is a public hearing
or public meeting, you will find it in the Federal Register. I
believe there is a regulation someplace; it has to go in 3
weeks prior to the meeting.
This meeting was not announced until 10 days prior to the
meeting. It went out in email, and it just went to a general
NOAA emailing address; and many people that are actually in
these fact sheets did not even know about the meeting. They are
stakeholders, and they did not know about it until even up to
the day before the meeting.
Dr. Fleming. And, Dr. Bamford, it seems like there was
little or no notice. It was difficult for Mr. Williams. We know
he is a busy businessman, commercial fisherman. What about
that?
What is your response to such lack of notice?
Dr. Bamford. Although no public process is required on the
Antiquities Act, we did want to hold a public process, a public
meeting, and a listening session in the region.
On September 1, the NGOs held a meeting at the aquarium,
and they talked about this issue. We heard interest in it, so
we wanted to follow up with a public----
Dr. Fleming. But what do you say to Mr. Williams though?
This is his trade craft. This is how he makes a living. He has
employees, I am sure. What do you say about this?
Does it really matter that he does not get notice? His
business could be wiped out of existence.
Dr. Bamford. The listening session is very important
information. We are continuing to gather information. We are
very thankful that Mr. Williams was there. The public comment
period is still open, and he can submit continued comments into
that process.
Dr. Fleming. Mr. Williams, what do you say about that? How
does that impact your business?
Mr. Williams. I think it is unfortunate that this was the
only meeting, and I was basically given 2 minutes. I mean even
getting 5 minutes in front of you was much better.
It is pretty hard to go up and make a position to try to
save your company in 2 minutes.
Dr. Fleming. Dr. Bamford, would you commit today to having
more meetings, giving Mr. Williams and others an opportunity to
make their plea?
We still do not know whether they are even going to be
allowed to fish if this goes forward, but certainly their input
is important. Would you agree? Would you agree to more
meetings?
Dr. Bamford. I would agree input is extremely important,
and that is why we have the public comment period still open.
In terms of our future schedule----
Dr. Fleming. But I asked about meetings.
Dr. Bamford. In terms of our future meeting schedule, I
really cannot speak to that at this point, but continue to
engage----
Dr. Fleming. So you will not commit to more meetings?
Dr. Bamford. In terms of our future schedule, I don't know
that at this time. We can get back to you on that.
Dr. Fleming. So, your schedule is more important than Mr.
Williams' business is what you are saying.
I now yield to the Ranking Member for questions.
Mr. Huffman. Just for the record, that is not what I heard
you say. I will ask you, Dr. Bamford--we do a lot of strawman
chasing here in the committee, we hear rumors and sometimes
even concoct threats toward industries, and then have entire
hearings that are about knocking down those strawmen.
So, we are hearing about a petition to use the Antiquities
Act, a petition not from anybody in government, not from
anybody in Congress, from people entirely outside, to create a
new national monument in the Aleutian. Is the Administration,
to your knowledge, even considering a national monument
designation in the Aleutians?
Dr. Bamford. I have not been part of those discussions.
Mr. Huffman. Yes.
Dr. Bamford. But to my knowledge, no.
Mr. Huffman. I have seen no evidence of it either, but it
is one of many useful strawmen that we see in the political
debate around here.
Let me just ask you. Is a Presidential Proclamation under
the Antiquities Act the only way a national monument can be
created? Is there another way to use the Antiquities Act?
Dr. Bamford. That is correct. There is another way.
Congress, under legislation, can also designate a monument, as
well as the President through the Antiquities Act.
Mr. Huffman. Right, and in addition to the power to create
national monuments, does Congress have the authority to rescind
national monument designations?
Dr. Bamford. I think so, but I am not 100 percent sure on
that question. So I will have to get back.
Mr. Huffman. I think you are right. I think your `think so'
is right, and that they can.
And, given that national monuments clearly are not
permanent and, in fact, have been altered and even disbanded by
Congress in the past, there is nothing to prevent the Majority,
if they are so outraged about abusive designations of national
monuments, to come up with a list of ones that they would like
to see go away, put that list forward for public comment, and
try to move legislation, instead of broad claims about abuse
and improper use of the Antiquities Act.
Dr. Rosenberg, we have heard testimony that decisions on
which areas will be closed to fishing are best left to the
councils under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Do councils have the
authority to prohibit drilling, mining, land-based pollution,
things that could adversely affect fisheries resources other
than just fishing?
Dr. Rosenberg. No, they do not.
Mr. Huffman. In your opinion, is it fair to say that some
councils, such as the Pacific and North Pacific, have done a
better job of protecting the ecosystems for healthy fish stocks
than others?
Dr. Rosenberg. I think that is generally true; but it is
more complicated than that, as you can imagine, because
everyone had a different starting position from when the
regulations moved into place. So, yes, I do think North Pacific
and Pacific have generally done a better job, but they also had
a much better starting position when the Act came into place.
Mr. Huffman. Let me ask you specifically about the New
England Council. Do you think that a failure by that Council to
protect key spawning areas and other critical habitat
contributed to the collapse of the cod stocks?
Dr. Rosenberg. I think it did.
Mr. Huffman. Do you think a stronger network of marine
protected areas in New England waters, including Cashes Ledge,
would help groundfish stocks rebound, particularly in the face
of climate change?
Dr. Rosenberg. I believe the Cashes Ledge is quite
important. I do think that it would help cod stocks and some
other groundfish stocks. Of course, the large, closed areas of
New England have had a major impact for other groundfish
stocks. We have very good evidence how effective they are,
unfortunately not so much for cod. So, Cashes Ledge is a very
important area.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you.
Mr. Williams, I just want to say I appreciated your
testimony. I appreciate the fact that you see value in the
process. When you get folks in the room of different
perspectives, the process can, and often does, work quite well.
You obviously feel blindsided because you heard about a
possible national monument designation that could move very
quickly without the kind of process you are interested in, and
I think your request for input, for more deliberation, and
stakeholder involvement is a very reasonable one.
My prediction, however, is that that's going to happen. You
know, we will see. We do a lot of hyperventilating here about
things that are not real or never happened. My prediction is,
that whether this goes the way of the Antiquities Act, or under
the Sanctuaries Act or whatever, nobody is going to blindside
you with some permanent Federal fishery closure. I suspect that
there is going to be a very open, deliberative, and inclusive
process that unfolds on anything that happens in that area.
That is my prediction, and again, I just want to say I think
your concern is understandable, but I think it will be
considered and addressed.
With that, I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. I am sure Mr. Williams appreciates your
clairvoyance----
Mr. Huffman. Yes.
Dr. Fleming [continuing]. And ability to predict the
future.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Fleming. Mr. Young, I recognize you for 5 minutes.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do compliment Dr. Bamford. This Administration could
dance better than the Rocky Bottom Boys almost. I have never
seen groups not ever answer a question. That is what you have
not done.
Because no one wants to answer a question, you slip through
the darkness and impose restrictions. The Antiquities Act was
never meant for the ocean, never. Now to reach in, you say
there is no worry about the Aleutians. Fine. Let's put it into
law. You want to solve the problem? Let's put it into law.
You say it is not there, say it is a straw boy? Let's put
it into law, because it will be proposed by this
Administration. I will say this, because I have been here 44
years and I have watched this, ``We aren't going to do anything
to you. Don't worry. The check is in the mail.''
It has killed my timber industry and is trying to kill the
fishing industry by federally-controlled management of fish,
and I would say timber and all other resources, otherwise a
socialist program.
Has anybody explained to me, and I have listened to one
doctor there, what advantage if someone has been fishing in an
area for 44 years, and then you cannot fish because you have
decided that this is a pristine area. It is a pristine area and
you have been fishing there for 44 years. You do not count. You
made a living off the ocean, but it is more important to
somebody from Boston, it is more important to somebody from San
Francisco or Los Angeles, not to the fisherman.
Now, of the fish, and remember I was the author and a
sponsor of the Magnuson-Stevens Act--if they are not
sustainable, cannot provide it, the fishing is not allowed; but
if you take fishing away from the fisherman when there is no
danger to the fish and then you declare an Antiquities Act, you
are taking the fishing industry away from that fisherman. And
that has happened, and they are continuing to try to do it.
We are buying more fish now from Thailand and Vietnam than
we are catching ourselves. I challenge you to go over to
Thailand and Vietnam and see how they can take care of their
fish.
We are taking care of our fish, and why would we impose--
and the good lady said, we do not know for sure if they can
fish or not. Let's put it into law. Fishing that occurred in
the past can continue to occur.
Uh-uh, not going to do that because it is not a monument.
It is not a sanctuary. It is an area, we are going to protect
it from you.
That is the thing that I have watched over and over, the
creeping cancer of the Federal Government over-reaching. The
worst managers of any resource is the Federal Government. They
do not manage. They preclude. No happening at all.
Mr. Oliver, you mentioned, I believe, or they mentioned in
the questionings of the other councils, the councils are
already doing a lot. What are they doing to help these things
out? What are the councils doing?
Mr. Oliver. I provided some examples of other regions
around the country. I can speak certainly to the North Pacific.
I would repeat the statistic I mentioned earlier in my
testimony. We have 1.3 million square nautical miles that we
manage, and two-thirds of that area, or about 665,000 square
miles of it, is closed to all or most fishing activities. That
is, I guess coincidentally, or perhaps ironically, equal in
size to the 665,000 square miles that have been closed in the
Western Pacific under monument designations.
Mr. Young. So what you are saying now--have any of these
monuments been proposed in the areas already closed?
Mr. Oliver. We have not had any formal monument
designations.
Mr. Young. Wait a minute. Listen. If you have that many
acres off limits now, are any of the monuments that they are
proposing in that area? No, that is the answer to that.
Mr. Oliver. No.
Mr. Young. They are proposing the areas that fishing takes
place now; is that correct?
Mr. Oliver. The areas that I have heard discussed for
proposed monument designation include areas like the Aleutian
Islands, which are currently under our participatory, science-
based process. Only 6 percent of that area, for example, is
open to cod fishing; but it is critically important that that
area be open to cod fishing.
Mr. Young. And that is the area they are proposing.
Mr. Oliver. Yes, sir.
Mr. Young. They say this is a strawman--baloney. I know
when they propose something, it is going to be attempted by,
and you say you can do it by legislation. We have a one-man
delegation. You have 52, I believe. A one-man delegation, and I
am going to change the Congress to try to solve the problem?
You know that is not going to happen.
So, I am saying that Congress should not allow these
monuments set aside and sanctuaries set aside in the fishing
area, period, until it is cleared by the Congress. Let the
Congress say.
Why do we let the President do this all the time? Let the
Congress make that decision. If you decide you want to make it
through the congressional level, then let it happen. I am still
only one guy.
But maybe, just maybe, instead of the agencies doing it, it
would be the right way to do a democracy, not the Federal
agency telling us what to do.
Twentieth, Mr. Chairman, we are ranked today on freedom.
That is how far we have gone down the line.
I yield. I do not have any more.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman's time is up. The gentleman
yields. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Sablan for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman; and good
morning, everyone.
Mr. Chairman, I actually never left the subcommittee. I
could not. Whenever the word ``old-shunist,'' I am there. I am
glad to be back.
Thank you for holding today's hearing, and while I cannot
speak for the residents of Alaska and Cape Cod, where there are
petitions pending with the Administration to designate areas
off of Alaska and Massachusetts, I can speak to you about an
existing national marine monument that surrounds the Northern
Mariana Islands, the district I represent.
While some people may see the establishment of monuments as
cutting off commercial fishing access, undermining domestic
seafood supplies and associated jobs, and harming the
environment, this is not entirely the case in the Marianas
Trench Marine National Monument.
Then-President George W. Bush established a Marianas Trench
Marine National Monument by Presidential Proclamation in
January of 2009. Over 6,000 people in the Northern Mariana
Islands supported the creation of the monument in a petition
campaign to the White House.
As I have said before, we are justifiably proud of this
world class conservation area: 95,216 square miles of submerged
land and ocean waters. The marine monument that President Bush
established is truly a national wonder. It includes the
Marianas Trench, the deepest point on earth. It includes 21
undersea mud volcanoes and thermal vents harboring exotic forms
of life in some of the harshest conditions imaginable.
A pool of liquid sulfur at the Daikoku submarine volcano in
the monument is one of only two known locations of molten
sulfur. The other one is on Io, one of the moons of Jupiter.
In the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, we
value the monument. It is home to species ranging from stony
corals to threatened sea turtles to unique deep sea animals.
Protecting this and other special places from destruction is
critical to scientific discovery and natural resource
management.
After the creation of the monument, it was important to
follow up with education, scientific research, and exploration
of this vast area. That is why I had introduced bills that
would authorize the construction of a multipurpose visitor
center for the interpretation, public education, and enjoyment
of the marine environment within the boundaries of the Marianas
Trench Marine National Monument.
Later, I was able to secure funding through appropriations
for the assessment of a possible visitor center site, and last
year in September, the Marianas Trench Monument Advisory
Council hosted public meetings to gather ideas from the
community regarding the purpose and location for the visitor
center.
A final report has been drafted and is being reviewed by
the Commonwealth government.
Management plans are also being hashed out, especially as
the Commonwealth government and the Federal Government
continues negotiations on the terms to coordinate management
around the island's unit, which includes management of the
waters and submerged lands of the three northernmost Mariana
Islands.
Back in 2013, we were able to address management measures
to allow noncommercial fishing, including subsistence,
recreational, and traditional indigenous fishing, within the
island units. This was an important step to harmonize the
traditions of the people of the Northern Mariana Islands while
at the same time to help protect and preserve valuable natural
resources.
Its location is different, and any president considering
establishing or expanding a marine monument should always
thoroughly consider the benefit and impacts to that area.
I will being my line of questioning with Dr. Bamford.
Dr. Bamford, how close are you to finalizing an agreement
with the Commonwealth government on the coordination of
management of the protection of resources of the monument?
And, can you please provide, as I have very little time, a
brief description of NOAA's plan to support the Marianas Trench
Monument in the upcoming fiscal year?
Dr. Bamford. Thank you.
Yes, we have provided, as you said, a draft management plan
to CNMI, and they are currently reviewing that. As you know,
they have been hit by a number of typhoons so they have been
pretty busy, but they are getting to it.
We have a great working relationship with CNMI and are
looking forward to completing that.
Mr. Sablan. When? When? When?
Dr. Bamford. Hopefully, as soon as possible.
Mr. Sablan. That is not a time.
Dr. Bamford. Well, it is in CNMI's hands right now.
Mr. Sablan. I understand.
Dr. Bamford. So, hopefully, they will get that to us as
soon as possible.
Mr. Sablan. I empathize with Mr. Young's statement that he
is a single delegation. Imagine not just being a single
delegation, but being a delegate and also getting the Federal
Government--Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I will yield back.
Dr. Fleming. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. LaMalfa for questions.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Pivoting off of what my colleague from Alaska was saying
here, when you are looking at a designation of a monument,
sanctuary, or wilderness area, it only takes one signature by
the executive. We heard the gentleman, Mr. Moore, talking about
how he had 2 minutes to make his case, right? Is that not what
you said earlier?
Mr. Moore. No, that was Mr. Williams, I believe, sir.
Mr. LaMalfa. Oh, was it Mr. Williams? OK. I am hopping
around here. Sorry.
The gentlemen who are in business here, 2 minutes to make
your case for something that gravely important to you versus a
stroke of a pen down at 1600 Pennsylvania, and then it was
asserted that, ``Well, you can repeal it any time.''
It takes 218 plus 60 plus 1. As you have noticed, things do
not move very quickly in this body around here, nor do you
align the planets, or the blood moon or whatever it is, that
often to get that done very often.
So, once you have one of these designations, it just does
not come right back off, and the public process can be very
spotty.
I have clairvoyant prediction as well. Sometime in the next
16 months, there will be several new wilderness areas,
monuments, others put in place with little activity from the
people that really are paying for it being able to counteract
that.
So, I am not happy with it when Ms. Bamford mentioned also
that there is no requirement of public process in the
Antiquities Act. You said that, correct?
Dr. Bamford. Yes.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. So it is the public who loses out on it.
As I watch our forests burn in California in the West, seeing
how the Federal Government being in charge of that Federal land
is continuing to let that happen, I do not think we need to
have a heck of a lot more lack of public process in how these
things are managed.
Let me get to a question or two here quickly. The gentleman
from Alaska was speaking about the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and
there will be a reauthorization of that in H.R. 1335, that the
Act would be the controlling fishery management authority in
cases of conflict with sanctuaries or monuments, et cetera,
under the Antiquities Act.
First of all, Ms. Bamford, do you support this language in
H.R. 1335?
Dr. Bamford. As a single agency under the Administration, I
cannot really comment on that legislation at this time.
Mr. LaMalfa. So how difficult is it? What is the process
for getting permitting to fish in an area that is not already
designated as a monument or a sanctuary? What is the process
one would have to go through to go out and set up shop and
start a fishing operation in any area not designated, just for
the record?
Dr. Bamford. Typically the requirements for fishing in
Federal waters would be worked through the Fisheries Management
Council process.
Mr. LaMalfa. And what kind of permitting does that look
like?
Dr. Bamford. I think it depends on the type of fishing, if
it is trawling, if it is in the water column. There would be
various permits and processes that would take place depending
on the type of fishing and the type of region that you are in.
Mr. LaMalfa. If I wanted to set up shop to take any type of
fishing, are there permits available? Are they all taken up?
Are they expensive? What is the time line for them, things like
that?
Dr. Bamford. Again, it depends on the region and what fish
you are actually talking about, but I can get you specifics as
a follow-up.
Mr. LaMalfa. Well, would you say there are permits readily
available for most types of species, whether it is trawling,
whether it is shellfish, what?
Dr. Bamford. I am not sure.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. I would guess that they are not very easy
to get a hold of and that they are pretty expensive. My
understanding is that these permits are kind of like something
that is inherited, or passed through generations or sublet, and
so you do not easily just set up shop fishing.
What I am getting to is that the designation of a marine
sanctuary or a monument is a vast over-reach when you already
have a regulatory scheme in place that monitors and keeps in
check the amount of fishing that goes on.
And, indeed, if you are having an enforcement operation, is
it any easier to enforce people that have a permit for fishing
versus those that should not be out there at all? Is it the
same amount of effort for enforcement personnel to enforce
inside a sanctuary versus legalized fishing in maybe a similar
area?
Dr. Bamford. We focus our enforcement within the
sanctuaries, monuments, and fishing grounds as appropriate.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Fleming. OK. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Lowenthal is recognized.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I am glad we are
having this hearing today. In my state of California, we have
one of the largest ocean economies in the country, but we also
understand the importance of, and the value of, setting aside
large areas of the ocean for conservation, and we are talking
about national marine sanctuaries, but we are also talking
about, in the discussion today, we are talking about all of the
marine protected areas.
As has been pointed out, although we have set aside
thousands of acres of Federal and state waters protected areas,
which include as we know the sanctuaries, the reserves, and the
monuments, no take fishing amounts to only slightly less than 3
percent of the areas of water that are dedicated.
So, we are not talking about a large amount of area,
because in our toolbox, which we are really talking about what
should be in the toolbox, there are many things to preserve our
ecosystem, how we can build resilience. We can use this to
build resilient ecosystems, rebuild fish stocks; and we can
also do that without totally eliminating the ability to fish,
and that is really what we are talking about.
I think it is really important that we go about setting
aside marine protected areas in the right way to maximize
ecosystems and economic benefits. Marine protected areas offer
great long-term protection and conservation potential, but as
with any tool as we are hearing, the type of protection needs
to be carefully matched to the conservation and fishery
management goals that we set out for an area.
We need to make sure that communities are on board because
public input and buy-in is important. We also need to ensure
that management is ecosystem-based, includes relevant
stakeholder partnerships, and that scientists do have access to
track the conservation's progress and to measure results.
Finally, and this is our job in Congress, we need to make
sure that sanctuaries, wildlife refuges, and monuments have
adequate funding in order to properly manage these conservation
areas.
My questions are to Dr. Bamford. As the Chair, myself, of
the Safe Climate Caucus, I am very much interested in how we
can increase the resiliency in the face of climate change. You
have been a leader in efforts to build resiliency to climate
change and to managing our oceans and coastal resources to best
address a shifting climate.
What I would like to know is: what are the scientifically
accepted practices for increasing the resiliency of ecosystems
to respond to these changes? That is my first question.
Dr. Bamford. Ecosystems, we have shown in studies, are
significantly important to improving the resiliency of any
coastal community. We have seen it for essential fish habitat;
but beyond that, we have seen it for coastal protection of
severe storms as well as flooding, both nuisance flooding that
can happen on sunny days during high tides and high winds, as
well as during major storms.
So, ecosystems provide a suite of services, not only for
the ecosystem and the species that live in the water, but for
the community itself.
Dr. Lowenthal. Good. So you believe then, in talking about
habitat protection, that some highly valuable and diverse
marine ecosystems for permanent protections can aid in that
effort; that's what you believe?
Dr. Bamford. Yes, sir.
Dr. Lowenthal. Dr. Rosenberg, are there changes happening
in the oceans that are impacting marine ecosystems and fish
stocks?
Dr. Rosenberg. Yes, there are. Certainly, the ongoing
effects of climate change as detailed in the National Climate
Assessment are changing the conditions for marine ecosystems,
and we have seen quite a bit of that in the Northeast,
including, of course, the impact on iconic cod stocks.
Dr. Lowenthal. In your testimony and here, you raise the
concept of marine protected areas as a hedge against
uncertainty and overexploitation of resources.
Do you believe that climate change makes hedging our bets
in this respect even more important?
Dr. Rosenberg. Absolutely.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, and I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back.
Mrs. Radewagen is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Chairman Fleming and Ranking
Member Huffman, for holding today's hearing.
I also want to thank the panel for being here today.
In my home district of American Samoa, the ocean plays a
culturally and economically significant role in day-to-day
life, and has for hundreds of years. Long before American Samoa
became a U.S. territory, people have fished for their
livelihood in these waters that surround the island, and to
this day these traditional fishing methods are still practiced.
In addition to the cultural significance, commercial
fishing and the related industries make up nearly 80 percent of
our island economy. So, I would not be exaggerating if I said
the people of American Samoa understand better than most the
importance of protecting our oceans, and how much of an impact
those broad, sweeping administrative decisions have on
individual communities.
Mr. Oliver, fishing is a mainstay for the local culture and
economy in American Samoa, and both sanctuaries and marine
national monuments in the Western Pacific have impacts on our
fisheries. Many proponents of marine monuments say they do not
hurt commercial fishing because the grounds directly outside of
the monument become more fruitful.
However, in your testimony you seem to indicate that may
not always be the case. Looking at the monuments in the Western
Pacific, what did those designations do to commercial fishing?
Also, in your professional opinion, have the monuments in
the Western Pacific succeeded in aiding the species they were
created to protect, such as the monk seal?
Mr. Oliver. I am not an expert on Western Pacific
fisheries, but I can respond to that question based on my
general knowledge and information that was provided to me for
this hearing by the Western Pacific Council.
Any time you close an area, you move fishing effort into
other areas, concentrated on the margins of the closed areas.
If you do such a closure designation without a real knowledge
of what those impacts are, you do not know whether you are
moving fishing effort into areas that have a greater impact or
a higher bycatch. All you know is that you have displaced
fisheries.
In the case of the Western Pacific Northwestern Hawaiian
Islands, the purported creation of the monument was for the
protection of endangered monk seals from fishing, and also for
protecting that area for fish stock recruitment, essentially
for seeding other areas.
Recent scientific publications on that have actually shown
that to be unfounded. In fact, somewhat ironically, the monk
seal populations appear to be migrating out of the Northwestern
Hawaiian Islands and into the main Hawaiian Island areas which,
in fact, is where the effort was displaced directly into, where
the displaced fishing effort now occurs.
That research also indicated that the connectivity in terms
of stock recruitment, the connectivity between the main
Hawaiian Islands and the Northwest Islands, is quite limited.
Therefore, the main Hawaiian Islands will not receive
substantial benefit from that closure.
Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair recognizes Mrs. Torres for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you, and good morning.
Mr. Rosenberg, the majority of the Fishery Management
Council members are participants in, or otherwise financially
linked to, the commercial or recreational fishing industry.
Their votes are the ones who also determine how the Council
manages offshore conservation efforts.
Do you think that this process produces the best outcomes,
or could it be improved?
Dr. Rosenberg. Thank you for the question.
You are certainly correct in terms of the membership of the
councils. I believe that there has been significant progress in
fishery management. Of course, the process could be improved. I
think with the discussion that we are having today, although we
are centering on fisheries, we have sort of left to the side
all of the other issues that occur within an area that might be
designated as a monument, such as the seamounts, canyons, and
ledge areas for biodiversity; and the councils, while they
touch on that and habitat, it is really only focused on the
impacts on fisheries.
Mrs. Torres. So how are the comments and priorities of
nonfishing members incorporated into Council decisions?
Dr. Rosenberg. There is a public process and usually the
people who participate in that are from the nongovernmental
organization. There is an opportunity for the broader public,
but by and large, the broader public does not participate in
the process. It is largely the fishing industry, both
recreational----
Mrs. Torres. The majority of you, as citizens, cannot
participate because either they do not know about these
processes, are left out because they are not members, or they
do not have a participating member on this council or these
councils.
Dr. Rosenberg. They are not precluded from participating,
but what you just stated is correct.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you.
Dr. Bamford, we have heard that there are potential adverse
impacts resulting from the creation of sanctuaries and
monuments. I also know that there are positive economic
impacts.
Can you talk a little bit about those positive economic
impacts?
Dr. Bamford. Yes. Thank you for the question.
It is estimated, as I said in my opening remarks, that
sanctuaries can generate about $4 billion annually to coastal
communities. There is also a significant increase in tourism
and recreation.
For example, up in the Great Lakes, we have the Thunder Bay
National Marine Sanctuary. It has generated $92 million in
sales and $35 million in personal income, and has generated
over 1,700 jobs in that region.
The visitor center at Thunder Bay, which is located in
Alpena, a population of only 11,000 people, gets 60,000
visitors annually. That is three times the amount of the
population, so it is an extremely populated destination for
tourists.
Mrs. Torres. And, it is because of this impact with tourism
coming into these communities, that would otherwise not have
solid employment opportunities, that I think it is critical for
outsiders, that are not professional fishermen or financially
linked to these management councils, to have an opportunity to
be able to participate in the dialog as we move forward.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the rest of my
time.
Dr. Fleming. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. MacArthur is now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MacArthur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have heard a lot of different Acts mentioned this
morning: National Marine Sanctuaries Act, Magnuson-Stevens Act,
the Antiquities Act. I have heard programs mentioned under
those: the National Monuments Program, the Marine National
Monuments Program.
I guess I would start with you, Dr. Bamford. Do you see
these as parallel paths to achieve identical objectives, or do
you think each of these has a unique purpose?
Dr. Bamford. Congress has created a number of different
authorities for the Administration, as well as the President,
to look at conservation. I do think they are different.
We have seen in the Sanctuaries Act, in the sanctuaries
process, it is completely different from the monument process,
which is also different from the Fisheries Management Council
process.
Mr. MacArthur. Following on that, these all seem to have a
nexus in your world, in NOAA, and I appreciate that. I
represent a coastal area and a lot of interests, fishing
interests and recreational interests, and I appreciate the work
that NOAA does; but with regard to the Antiquities Act, what
would you see as the primary purpose of that Act?
Dr. Bamford. So the primary purpose of that Act would be
that it grants the President an opportunity to protect objects
in the ocean to the fullest extent.
Mr. MacArthur. In your opinion is trying to achieve
environmental objectives, as worthy as they might be to people,
is that in your view, consistent with the primary purpose of
the Antiquities Act as it was intended in 1906?
Dr. Bamford. I cannot speak to the original intent, but the
Antiquities Act required that the President designate objects
to be protected and assures those protections through that
authority.
Mr. MacArthur. For the record, I would state my strong
opinion that it is being abused, and that its purpose is trying
to be twisted by people who did not get their way through the
obvious path and are now wanting to go a different route and
hopefully get a different result.
I will stay with you, if I might, for another minute.
Representative Huffman predicted an open process, and I would
like you to follow on--you were asked about this earlier, but
you did say that no public process is required under the
Antiquities Act; is that correct?
Dr. Bamford. That is correct.
Mr. MacArthur. So, how would we achieve this public process
that was predicted? How will people have any input into this
process if there is no public process required?
Dr. Bamford. Under the American Great Outdoors Act, this
Administration has stated that it will have an open and
transparent process for any monument designations. Although
there is no public process required for the previous four
national marine monuments in the Pacific that NOAA was involved
with, there was public engagement, and so we are hoping that
that process continues to help in decisionmaking.
Mr. MacArthur. I am hoping, too, although when it is not
required by law, I become less optimistic in my hope.
Mr. Moore, I appreciated your testimony because, with all
of this highfalutin talk about hopes and dreams and what we are
going to do, it is good to be reminded that it affects real
people, and the same with you, Mr. Williams. I thought it is
helpful to be reminded that it affects real people.
And I guess I would ask you. I have gill netters, long
liners, scallopers, and trawlers; I have them all. I have
recreational fishermen that go out off the New England Coast
and the Jersey Shore. I have people who make their living. We
have a $4 billion fishing industry, and I have people that feed
their wives, husbands, and children. They make their livings.
They employ people.
What do I tell them when suddenly we have just decided
without a public process being required, that suddenly this
area is so pristine and so essential for the happiness of
America that you can no longer fish in it?
How do we respond to people like that?
Mr. Moore. I wish I knew, Mr. MacArthur. To me it makes no
sense. You have the sanctuary process, which is locally-based
and has a public process and so forth, which can designate
discrete areas as perhaps worthy of protection, but it does not
designate a massive area with just the stroke of one person's
pen.
Mr. MacArthur. Well, I agree. I wish I had more time to
discuss it more, but I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair recognizes Gentlewoman Dingell for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today's hearing is an interesting one, and it is an issue
we should be examining very closely. However, the fact of the
matter is that the national marine sanctuaries and marine
national monuments have been very useful tools to protect some
of the world's most iconic treasures, even if they lie on the
ocean floor.
Testimony today has raised concerns that the new
designations could hinder economic activity and cost jobs, and
if that is indeed the case, I have some very serious questions,
as have been raised, and I guess my colleague from Alaska is no
longer here and others followed on it. I would like to say I
would love to do more bipartisan talking about some of these
issues in the Congress and wish we could do more together and
find ways to do that. We do not do enough of it. But I will
leave that. That will be my last editorial comment of the day.
Let me ask some questions that will explore this economic
cost of jobs. Dr. Bamford, is it true that there is no hard and
fast rule banning fishing in the marine national monuments, but
that Presidential Proclamations and management plans for
individual monuments dictate what is and is not allowed?
Dr. Bamford. Yes, ma'am, that is correct. It is depending
on the objects being protected. Basically under the Antiquities
Act and a monument, the President designates the object to be
protected and assures their proper care and management.
Mrs. Dingell. So are there monuments in sanctuaries that
allow fishing?
Dr. Bamford. Yes.
Mrs. Dingell. Can you please provide a list for the record
of all the monuments and sanctuaries that allow fishing?
Dr. Bamford. Yes, we can.
Mrs. Dingell. Then I want to build on some previous
questions with both you and Dr. Rosenberg. Dr. Bamford, can you
discuss how your agency balances the economic needs with
conservation priorities when managing the national marine
sanctuaries or monuments?
Dr. Bamford. Sure. We always try to balance economic,
social, cultural, and heritage needs as well as the resources.
We take an ecosystem-based approach to our management
authorities. We do that through various processes.
For example, the sanctuaries process is a process that is
bottom up. We work with the Sanctuaries Advisory Council. We
take public input. We work with the community in the region to
ensure we are balancing each of those pieces.
Mrs. Dingell. Dr. Rosenberg, to what extent do fishery
management councils take into account the needs and interests
of other ocean users, such as ocean tourism and whale watching
businesses, et cetera?
Is the Council process adequate to meet all of our
important resource conservation challenges?
Dr. Rosenberg. Those other activities are taken into
account through the public process that the councils run; but,
no, I do not believe it is adequate. I believe that is the
reason why we have different authorities for different areas,
like the Sanctuaries Act, in addition to the Fisheries
Management Act. The Fisheries Management Act is focused on
fisheries.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Dr. Fleming. The gentlelady yields back, and the Chair
recognizes Congressman Graves for 5 minutes.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much for being here, Dr. Bamford, and I
welcome you back to being in the committee. I appreciate you
being here again.
I am struggling a little bit with the National Marine
Sanctuaries Act. Why would Congress establish a process whereby
you could establish a national marine sanctuary, and then at
the same time, have a law that predated it that Congress
intended to allow for the President to create these offshore
areas through the Antiquities Act.
Dr. Bamford. Congress has created a number of different
authorities to the agencies and to the President for protecting
natural resources for various reasons. These include the Outer
Continental Shelf Act, Sanctuaries Act, Magnuson-Stevens Act,
Coastal Zone Management Act; and I think the Administration
looks at all of those tools in the toolkit to decide, based on
what resource they are looking to protect.
Mr. Graves. Yes, but none of those other ones allow to set
areas offshore and put restrictions on them in regard to
designating them as sanctuaries or otherwise off limit zones.
That would only be the National Marine Sanctuaries Act,
correct?
Dr. Bamford. Say that again.
Mr. Graves. In terms of actually designating an area as
protected area, only the sanctuaries authority in this case
would apply in terms of being able to actually designate it as
a protected area, largely.
Dr. Bamford. I think----
Mr. Graves. You have other things, essential fish habitat--
--
Dr. Bamford. Sure.
Mr. Graves [continuing]. And things along those lines which
I understand, but in regard to establishing an area as a
protected area, like you would a national park or something
else, those two are the only ones that apply here.
Dr. Bamford. There could be others, but the National Marine
Sanctuaries Act does designate certain areas under the
Sanctuaries Act as protected and managed.
Mr. Graves. I just want to make note again that the
Antiquities Act only makes reference to land, whereas obviously
the Marine Sanctuaries Act applies to offshore areas.
Why do you think it is appropriate to avoid using
authorities like NEPA and APA to apply to the Antiquities Act
process?
Dr. Bamford. The President is not subject to the NEPA
process, but once the monument is created or any monument is
created, the agencies then promulgating any regulations or
authorities do go through that NEPA process.
Mr. Graves. But is there any other case whereby a Federal
project, program, or some activity would be carried out whereby
you would sort of retroactively apply NEPA or APA, as opposed
to doing it on the front end to help inform your decision in
determining whether or not that it makes sense to actually do
the designation to begin with and understanding socioeconomic,
environmental impacts, and others?
Dr. Bamford. Again, the President is not subject to NEPA,
but many agencies then that have management authority are, and
we go through that process doing delegation of any rules and
regulations.
Mr. Graves. So the answer is no? My question was: Is there
any other situation where NEPA and APA effectively are applied
retroactively like this?
Dr. Bamford. To Federal agencies? Not that I am aware of.
Mr. Graves. Thank you.
This really seems to be somewhat of a black box type
process. NEPA does provide sort of a window into that. It
allows for public participation, allows for I think the agency
to get a fully informed approach to these decisions on the
front end, and it seems entirely contrary to a lot of the
messaging that this Administration has done in the past about
transparency, making sure that decisions are fully informed,
and environmental consequences are being considered. It just
seems entirely inappropriate in this case.
What role do you see Congress having in terms of the role
in making these designations? Certainly, there are cost
implications and other things, which is a role of the Congress.
What role do you see Congress playing in terms of designating
these monuments?
Dr. Bamford. I do not want to define your role, but
Congress has created the Antiquities Act and also Congress can,
through legislation, designate a monument if they choose to.
Mr. Graves. But in regard to the designations or potential
designations, it sounds like you are suggesting that Congress
largely just play a bystander role, despite the fact that there
could be significant cost implications on these decisions.
Dr. Bamford. I do not----
Mr. Graves. Mr. Chairman, one last question if I can.
Years ago there was a proposal that was out there. I
believe it was called ``Island in the Streams.'' It was a
proposal for a potential monument designation in the Gulf of
Mexico. Can you tell me if there are any potential monument
designations in the Gulf of Mexico that are currently under
consideration by the Administration?
Dr. Bamford. No, sir, not that I am aware of.
Mr. Graves. I just want to be clear, and certainly the
Chairman knows this as well as I do. The Gulf of Mexico is a
unique area; and coastal Louisiana in particular is known as
being a working coast. We have been able to be the top offshore
energy producer, the top commercial fisheries producer, I think
the fourth top recreational commercial fisheries in the
Continental United States, I think the fourth top recreational
fishing destination, and one of the most productive ecosystems
on the continent.
We have been able to manage all of those things at the same
time, and we have done a good job at that. I just want to make
note that the management regime that is underway today seems to
be working really well, and I think any efforts to come in and
distort that would be problematic and not met very well among
the Gulf Coast states.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Fleming. And among all those things, the best food.
We thank the panel members today for your valuable
testimony. It has been very interesting and very informative.
Members may have additional questions; we will submit those
in writing and would appreciate your response on that.
If there is no further business, the committee is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]