[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING THE CREATION AND MANAGEMENT OF MARINE MONUMENTS AND
SANCTUARIES
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-2
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC 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
24-696 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Chairman Emeritus Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Louie Gohmert, TX Jim Costa, CA
Vice Chairman Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Doug Lamborn, CO CNMI
Robert J. Wittman, VA Niki Tsongas, MA
Tom McClintock, CA Jared Huffman, CA
Stevan Pearce, NM Vice Ranking Member
Glenn Thompson, PA Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Norma J. Torres, CA
Scott R. Tipton, CO Ruben Gallego, AZ
Doug LaMalfa, CA Colleen Hanabusa, HI
Jeff Denham, CA Nanette Diaz Barragan, CA
Paul Cook, CA Darren Soto, FL
Bruce Westerman, AR Jimmy Panetta, CA
Garret Graves, LA A. Donald McEachin, VA
Jody B. Hice, GA Anthony G. Brown, MD
Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS Wm. Lacy Clay, MO
Darin LaHood, IL
Daniel Webster, FL
David Rouzer, NC
Jack Bergman, MI
Liz Cheney, WY
Mike Johnson, LA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Jason Knox, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS
DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Chairman
JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Democratic Member
Robert J. Wittman, VA Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Jim Costa, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
Doug LaMalfa, CA Nanette Diaz Barragan, CA
Jeff Denham, CA Jimmy Panetta, CA
Garret Graves, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Jody B. Hice, GA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Daniel Webster, FL CNMI
Vice Chairman Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
David Rouzer, NC
Mike Johnson, LA
Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, March 15, 2017........................ 1
Statement of Members:
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado, prepared statement of................... 1
Webster, Hon. Daniel, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida........................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Bruno, John, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Biology,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.. 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Questions submitted for the record....................... 19
Chiasson, Chett, Executive Director, Greater Lafourche Port
Commission, Galliano, Louisiana............................ 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 26
Hallman, Brian, Executive Director, American Tunaboat
Association, San Diego, California......................... 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 21
Questions submitted for the record....................... 24
Mitchell, Jon, Mayor of New Bedford, Massachusetts on behalf
of the National Coalition for Fishing Communities, prepared
statement of............................................... 6
Questions submitted for the record....................... 8
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Governors of Guam, American Samoa, and CNMI, March 3, 2017
Letter to President Trump.................................. 62
Huffington Post, November 22, 2016, ``Marine reserves lead to
bigger fishes--Florida needs more of them,'' by John Bruno. 46
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
Committee's official files................................. 71
National Coalition for Fishing Communities, Letters submitted
by Chairman Bishop......................................... 54
Outcomes Statement and Recommendations, Council Coordination
Committee on Marine National Monuments..................... 66
Pacific Legal Foundation--New England fishermen challenge
Obama's marine national monument........................... 43
Seafood Harvesters of America, March 13, 2017 Letter to
Chairman Bishop............................................ 67
Tabular Fleet information submitted by Rep. Sablan........... 34
Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, February
23, 2017 Letter to President Trump......................... 68
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EXAMINING THE CREATION AND MANAGEMENT OF MARINE
MONUMENTS AND SANCTUARIES
----------
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Daniel Webster
[Vice Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Wittman, Graves, Webster, Bishop
(ex officio), Beyer, Panetta, Sablan, and Grijalva (ex
officio).
Also Present: Representatives Radewagen, Young of Alaska,
and Lowenthal.
Mr. Webster. The Committee on Water, Power and Oceans will
come to order.
The Water, Power and Oceans Subcommittee meets today to
hear testimony on the oversight hearing entitled ``Examining
the Creation and Management of Marine Monuments and
Sanctuaries.''
Due to the winter storms that impacted many Members'
traveling schedules, including Chairman Lamborn's, I will serve
as the Acting Chair today.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
hearings are limited to the Chairman and Ranking Minority
Member and Vice Chair.
Since Chairman Lamborn could not be here today, I ask
unanimous consent to enter his statement into the hearing
record. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamborn follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Doug Lamborn, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Water, Power and Oceans
Today, the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans meets to examine
the impacts of Federal Marine National Monuments and Marine
Sanctuaries, including the processes by which they are established and
implemented.
The designations of these so-called Marine Protected Areas have
occurred under both Republican and Democratic administrations. While I
did not agree with President George W. Bush's creation of the first-
ever Marine National Monuments in the Pacific, the last administration
was on steroids when it came to creating new land-based monuments,
expanding marine monuments and creating the first monument in the
Atlantic Ocean.
In my home state of Colorado, the Obama administration imposed a
top-down, big-government National Monument land grab in the Browns
Canyon in 2015. This impacted grazing rights, water rights, outdoor
recreation, and compromised the ability of first responders to manage
and fight wildfires in the area. Coloradans deserved better than an
edict from Washington, DC.
These national monuments and the proposed expansion of a marine
sanctuary in the Gulf of Mexico completely undermine the multiple-use
history of our Federal and territorial lands and waters. As we will
learn, they have real-life impacts on those economies and cultures
which depend on their natural resources. They also affect consumers
throughout the entire country, including those in Colorado, which is
not known as a seafood mecca.
As an example, the proposed expansion of the Flower Garden Banks
National Marine Sanctuary, about 100 miles off the Texas and Louisiana
coasts, could significantly impact oil and gas and commercial fishing
activities that will hit consumer pocketbooks and seafood availability.
The Federal Government's preferred sevenfold expansion plan--as
proposed by the last administration--has been referred to a ``bait and
switch'' because it does not reflect the diverse stakeholder consensus
found earlier in the Advisory Board process.
In addition, the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National
Monument, 130 miles off the coast of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, will only
increase our heavy reliance on seafood imports by shutting off fishing
access. The last administration simply ignored a local alternative and
had what was a called a ``charade'' of a late-noticed town meeting far
away from the working docks of fishing communities. It's with little
wonder that the designation has now resulted in litigation.
There are similar stories in the Pacific, which Mrs. Radewagen will
discuss in greater detail.
It didn't need to be this way. It's simply unacceptable. The
Federal Government does not know better than the people on land, on the
docks or in the water. Our agencies need to be working with local
officials, industry, and all stakeholders as they are the ones that
will directly benefit from, or bear the burden of these closed areas.
We need to return the multiple-use philosophy of our Federal
waters. While I am new as the Chair of this Subcommittee, my time
holding the gavel on the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee
allowed me to see firsthand the economic impacts of heavy-handed
Federal actions that prohibit access and commercial use.
Whether it's making our country energy independent or to reverse
the seafood trade deficit--and creating jobs in doing so--we can only
accomplish these goals if we work together to ensure that we can
responsibly capitalize on the wealth of resources that sit off of
America's coasts.
Today marks a good start on this dialogue and it's my hope that we
can work with this Administration in righting some of these past
wrongs.
______
Mr. Webster. I also ask unanimous consent that all other
Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record
if they are submitted to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5:00 p.m.
today. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
We will begin the opening statements, starting with myself.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DANIEL WEBSTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Webster. Today, the Subcommittee on Water, Power and
Oceans meets to examine the impacts of Federal marine national
monuments and marine sanctuaries, including the process by
which they are established and implemented.
This is an important topic for my own home state of
Florida, for the region, and the entire country also. Many know
Florida as the ``fishing capital of the world,'' where roughly
2.4 million saltwater recreational anglers fish annually, and
the state's seafood industry supports over 82,000 Florida jobs.
To continue this way of life, commercial and recreational
fishermen must have access to inland and ocean waters, and
these waters must continue to have sustainable fisheries for
generations of sportsmen who have proven to be good
conservationists.
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission is charged with
managing the state's fisheries, and in working with the Federal
Government to provide fishing opportunities and protect our
natural resources. Sometimes the relationship with the Federal
Government has not been as cooperative as it should be.
For example, the National Park Service imposed a 10,000-
acre fishing closure in the Biscayne National Park last year
despite significant opposition from the stakeholders and the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. This ban is within the
state's managed waters, albeit waters on the other side of the
state.
The new park superintendent has told my delegation
colleagues that she is reassessing this closure and has brought
better communication skills to the table. That is a good thing,
but this situation could have been avoided in the first place
had the Federal Government been a little bit better listener.
Today, we will hear how unilateral Federal decisions have
impacted fisheries elsewhere in the Atlantic and the Pacific
over the last few years when it comes to marine national
monuments and sanctuaries. Federal decision-making directly
impacts local citizens, local economies, and the environment.
It is important to review how these decisions are being
implemented and, where needed, correct or improve the laws
guiding these decisions.
Environmental protection and fisheries access are not
mutually exclusive. We can and should have both. I hope today's
hearing helps move policy in that direction. I look forward to
hearing from the distinguished panel of witnesses.
Mr. Huffman could not make it, so we have two subs today,
me and Mr. Grijalva, who is recognized for his opening remarks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Webster follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Daniel Webster, Vice Chairman,
Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans
Today, the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans meets to examine
the impacts of Federal Marine National Monuments and Marine
Sanctuaries, including the processes by which they are established and
implemented.
This is an important topic for my home state of Florida, for the
region, and for the entire country. Many know Florida as the ``fishing
capital of the world''--where roughly 2.4 million saltwater
recreational anglers fish annually and the state's seafood industry
supports 82,141 Florida jobs.
To continue this way of life, commercial and recreational fisherman
must have access to inland and ocean waters. And, these waters must
continue to have sustainable fisheries for generations of sportsmen who
have proven to be good conservationists.
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission is charged with managing
the state's fisheries and in working with the Federal Government to
provide fishing opportunities and protect our natural resources.
Sometimes the relationship with the Federal Government has not been as
cooperative as it should be.
As an example, the National Park Service imposed a 10,000-acre
fishing closure in the Biscayne National Park last year despite
significant opposition from stakeholders and the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Commission. This ban is within state managed waters, albeit
state waters on the other side of the state.
The new Park Superintendent has told my delegation colleagues that
she is re-assessing this closure and has brought better communication
skills to the table, so that's a good thing. But, this situation could
have been avoided in the first place had the Federal Government been a
better listener.
Today, we will hear how unilateral Federal decisions have impacted
fisheries elsewhere in the Atlantic and the Pacific over the last few
years when it comes to marine national monuments and sanctuaries.
Federal decision-making directly impacts local citizens, local
economies, and the environment. It is important to review how these
decisions are being implemented, and, where needed, correct or improve
the laws guiding these decisions.
Environmental protection and fisheries access are not mutually
exclusive. We can and should have both. I hope today's hearing helps
move Federal policy in that direction. I look forward to hearing from
our distinguished panel of witnesses.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And the Ranking
Member from our side of the aisle, Mr. Huffman, is, as well, a
casualty of the weather, and I will be filling in in his stead.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
Today's hearing is not about helping fishermen catch more
fish. If it was, we would be talking about the science proving
that climate change is jeopardizing our fisheries.
If the Majority wanted to help fishermen, they would be
giving managers what they need to understand shifting stocks,
not proposing massive budget cuts for science and monitoring.
If they wanted to help fishermen, the Majority would abandon
the Empty Oceans Act and work with us to preserve and
strengthen the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
We are not doing any of that today. Instead, this hearing
is part of a campaign to score political points by attacking
the Antiquities Act. Republicans are fixated on undermining
this law, even though it has been critical to protecting
spectacular places on land, like the Grand Canyon in my home
state, and vital marine monuments like the one near Hawaii,
which I cannot pronounce, and I apologize.
Chairman Bishop has asked President Trump to allow
industrial fishing at all marine monuments and to abolish the
newly-designated Bears Ears Monument in Utah. He has called the
Antiquities Act one of the most evil acts ever created and
suggested anyone who likes the Act should die. I like the
Antiquities Act, so I hope that his death threat is just in
jest.
Congress gave the President the authority to designate
national monuments on lands already belonging to taxpayers
because the legislative process can grind to a halt and prevent
special places from being protected in time.
The use of this authority by presidents of both parties,
including for the creation of marine monuments, has been
judicious and even patriotic.
There should be places that are off limits to commercial
fishing, just as there are places that are off limits to
hunting, drilling, mining, driving, smoking, nude sunbathing,
and other activities that may have negative consequences for
society if allowed to occur anywhere.
Thanks to improvements to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the
fishery management councils have emerged from the dark ages of
rampant overfishing. That is progress, but councils cannot
regulate nonfishing activities, and ocean conservation is more
than fish farming. They deserve a seat at the table, not a
veto.
Marine monuments and sanctuaries are banks of biodiversity
and productivity. Scientists agree that to sustain ecosystems
and productive fisheries we need to set aside 30 percent of the
ocean as no-take areas.
Even after the recent establishment and expansion of the
Pacific monuments, we have protected only 13 percent of our
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and less than 1 percent outside
of the vast Western and Central Pacific.
The text of the Antiquities Act is clear. Congress
explicitly authorized the President to designate ``objects of
historic or scientific interest that are situated upon lands
owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to
be national monuments.'' The submerged lands beneath the EEZ
are owned by the U.S. Government. Shipwrecks, coral reefs,
waters, and anything in them that are situated upon these lands
are certainly of historic and scientific interest.
The oceans are an enormous part of our natural and cultural
heritage, and parts of them should be preserved for posterity,
just as Congress intended when it passed the Antiquities Act.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Arizona
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today's hearing is not about helping fishermen catch more fish. If
it was, we would be talking about the science proving that climate
change is jeopardizing our fisheries.
If the Majority wanted to help fishermen, they would be giving
managers what they need to understand shifting stocks, not proposing
massive budget cuts for science and monitoring. If they wanted to help
fishermen, the Majority would abandon their Empty Oceans Act, and work
with us to preserve and strengthen the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
We are not doing any of that today. Instead, this hearing is part
of a campaign to score political points by attacking the Antiquities
Act.
Republicans are fixated on undermining this law, even though it has
been critical to protecting spectacular places on land--like the Grand
Canyon in my home state--and vital marine monuments like the one near
Hawaii that I can't pronounce: Papahanaumokuakea.
Chairman Bishop has asked President Trump to allow industrial
fishing in all marine monuments and to abolish the newly-designated
Bears Ears National Monument in Utah. He has called the Antiquities Act
one of the most evil acts ever created and suggested that anyone who
likes the Act should die.
I like the Antiquities Act.
Congress gave the President the authority to designate national
monuments--on lands already belonging to the taxpayers--because the
legislative process can grind to a halt and prevent special places from
being protected in time. The use of this authority by presidents of
both parties, including for the creation of marine monuments, has been
judicious and even patriotic.
There should be places that are off limits to commercial fishing,
just as there are places that are off limits to hunting, drilling,
mining, driving, smoking, nude sunbathing and other activities that may
have negative consequences for society if allowed to occur anywhere.
Thanks to improvements to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the fishery
management councils have emerged from the dark ages of rampant
overfishing. That's progress, but councils cannot regulate non-fishing
activities, and ocean conservation is more than fish farming. They
deserve a seat at the table, not a veto.
Marine monuments and sanctuaries are banks of biodiversity and
productivity. Scientists agree that to sustain ecosystems and
productive fisheries, we need to set aside 30 percent of the ocean as
no-take areas.
Even after the recent establishment and expansion of the Pacific
monuments, we have protected only 13 percent of our Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ), and less than 1 percent outside of the vast Western and
Central Pacific.
The text of the Antiquities Act is clear: Congress explicitly
authorized the President to designate ``objects of historic or
scientific interest that are situated upon lands owned or controlled by
the Government of the United States to be national monuments.''
The submerged lands beneath the EEZ are owned by the U.S.
Government. Shipwrecks, coral reefs, waters and anything in them are
situated upon these lands and are certainly of historic AND scientific
interest. The oceans are an enormous part of our natural and cultural
heritage and parts of them should be preserved for posterity, just as
Congress intended when it passed the Antiquities Act.
______
Mr. Webster. Thank you.
Each witness' written testimony will appear in full in our
hearing record, so I ask that the witnesses keep their oral
remarks to 5 minutes, as outlined in the invitation letter and
under Committee Rule 4(a).
I also want to explain how the timing lights work. When you
are recognized, press ``talk'' to activate the microphone. Once
you begin your testimony, the clerk will start the timer. For
the first 4 minutes, it will be green and then yellow after
that. And then when red, you are to finish, complete the
sentence you are on and stop thereafter.
Our first witness was slated to be the Honorable Jon
Mitchell, the Mayor of New Bedford, Massachusetts.
Unfortunately, the weather impacted his flight, as well, and he
could not be here today. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent
that his written testimony be entered into the record. Without
objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jon Mitchell, Mayor, New Bedford, Massachusetts,
on behalf of the National Coalition for Fishing Communities
Thank you, Chairman Bishop and members of the Committee. My name is
Jon Mitchell. I am the Mayor of New Bedford, Massachusetts, the
Nation's top-grossing commercial fishing port for the past 16 years.
I'm pleased to testify today as mayor, and on behalf of the National
Coalition for Fishing Communities, of which New Bedford is a leading
member.
I would like to submit my written testimony for the record, and use
my time this morning to offer my perspective on the designation of
permanent marine monuments under the Antiquities Act.
the national coalition for fishing communities
Commercial fishing is a vital business for the Nation's coastal
communities, employing tens of thousands of people and generating
billions of dollars in revenue. The Port of New Bedford, for example,
generates $9 billion in direct and indirect economic output annually.
Despite these significant economic contributions, in recent
decades, fishermen and fishing communities have lacked the ability to
effectively communicate industry concerns to the public at large, and
in Washington. On issues vital to their livelihood, they often compete
directly with well-funded and well-coordinated non-government
organizations.
Recognizing the need for better communication, in 2009, the non-
profit Saving Seafood was created by a small group of New Bedford-based
industry leaders to report and aggregate news and information for our
domestic harvesters and processors. The first major reporting effort of
Saving Seafood led to the exposure and correction of problems in NOAA
Fisheries' law enforcement division.
Saving Seafood demonstrated the value of educating policymakers and
the public about developments in the fishing industry, and that lead,
in turn, to the formation in 2015 of the National Coalition for Fishing
Communities.
The Coalition's mission is to be a voice for the communities that
depend on commercial fishing so that policymakers and the public hear
directly from those whose lives and livelihoods are at stake.
As the Nation's number one fishing port, New Bedford has a history
of very active engagement on policy matters before NOAA, Capitol Hill,
and in the White House. That is why the city decided to take a
leadership role in founding the Coalition, and provided the initial
seed grant which enabled its creation.
Today the Coalition is comprised of dozens of fishing businesses
and organizations with deep roots in port communities across country,
from New England to the Gulf of Mexico to California to Hawaii. Our
members represent many of the country's most valuable fisheries, like
the Atlantic sea scallop, red crab, lobster, tuna and swordfish, to
name just a few.
One of the Coalition's first priorities has been to communicate the
growing concerns of its members over insufficient consultation in the
designation of marine monuments, including the expansion of monuments
around Hawaii, proposed monuments off the coast of California, and the
newly created monument off the coast of New England.
The Coalition has brought these concerns to the press and public.
We have worked to inform Members of Congress. We have been pleased, for
example, to host Chairman Bishop during his recent visit with affected
fishermen in New Bedford. And we have facilitated several meetings
between industry and the White House Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ).
marine monument concerns
The port communities represented by the Coalition have serious
concerns about the impacts that monuments have had, and may continue to
have, on the U.S. commercial fishing industry. These concerns take two
forms: (1) poorly conceived terms of particular monument designations,
and (2) more fundamental concerns with the process itself.
We in New Bedford have been especially troubled by questionable
terms of recent Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine Monument
designation.
This designation, the first in the Atlantic Ocean, was adopted
without even the base level of scrutiny conducted for temporary ocean
closures. For example, with little advance warning, our red crab
industry lost access to large swaths of its historically most
productive fishing grounds.
The red crab fishery represents nearly 10 percent of the 240
million pounds of seafood transported annually to New Bedford for
processing, so this term of the monument designation has been
particularly impactful.
The Atlantic monument designation also established a moratorium on
fishing in the water column above the monument seabed. This approach
was of serious concern for our pelagic fisheries, including swordfish
and tuna fishermen and processors. Pelagic fishermen have no impact on
the integrity of the bathymetry and substrate that a monument is meant
to protect, so we question the underlying basis for this particular
restriction.
I offer these two local examples as illustrative of a longer list
of poorly conceived monument terms that have had unnecessary and
harmful impacts in fishing communities nationwide.
In addition to the New England and Mid-Atlantic fishermen impacted
by the Atlantic designation, Coalition members around the country have
experienced their own harm from recently designated monuments. Others
fear the effects of proposed monuments.
In Hawaii, previous administrations created and then expanded the
largest marine protected area in the world, the Papahanaumokuakea
Marine National Monument, which is now more than twice the size of
Texas. Hawaii longline fishermen who depend on access to those waters
are being pushed further into the open ocean to catch species like
bigeye tuna, often in competition with foreign fishermen.
Another monument, the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National
Monument, also bars Hawaii fishermen from large swaths of the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone.
On the West Coast, monument proposals surfaced last year that would
have declared virtually all offshore seamounts, ridges, and banks off
the California coast as marine monuments, permanently closing those
areas to commercial fishing.
Such closures would have resulted in economic devastation for
California fishermen and the communities that rely on the sustainable
catch of albacore tuna, mackerel, market squid, and numerous other
important species. These communities continue to be concerned that any
president has the power to take these valuable grounds away from them
with just the stroke of a pen.
But simply pointing out instances where the monument process got it
wrong, misses the larger issue, which is this:
The monument designation process has evolved effectively into a
parallel, much less robust fishery management apparatus that has, to
date, been conducted, in all essential respects, entirely independent
of the tried and true Fishery Management Council process provided for
under the Magnuson Act.
And that is precisely why, I would suggest, the monument
designation process has consistently led to less than optimal policy
outcomes.
It lacks sufficient amounts of all the ingredients that good
policy-making requires: Scientific rigor, direct industry input,
transparency, and a deliberate pace that allows adequate time and space
for review.
This is especially troubling given that, unlike the ordinary
regulatory determinations made under Magnuson, monument designations
under the Antiquities Act are by definition permanent.
I want to be clear on this--The designation process is not lacking
because the agency staff, principally the White House CEQ, didn't work
hard at their assignment. The officials involved with the Atlantic
monument designation with whom I interacted were all, to a person,
earnest, professional, and well-intentioned. But they were operating
without a solid, consistent procedural framework and they lacked the
resources and familiarity with commercial fishing operations necessary
to do their task justice.
In contrast, the Fishery Management Council process is far from
perfect, but it affords ample, structured opportunities for
stakeholders and the public alike to study and comment on policy
decisions and for the peer reviewing of the scientific bases for those
decisions.
For its part, the Port of New Bedford has been an active
participant in the New England Fishery Management Council. Our fishing
interests are directly affected by the decisions made by the New
England Fishery Management Council and NOAA Fisheries, and we don't
hesitate to use the Council process to challenge regulatory approaches
with which we disagree.
That said, there is a process in place that allows industry
concerns to be aired; a process in place for revisiting management
decisions to account for new data; and a process in place that, at its
best, finds creative policy solutions that respect the interests of
competing stakeholders.
I would argue that the continued use of a parallel process outside
Magnuson, outside the Management Councils--however well-meaning--
ultimately works against the long-run interests of all stakeholders.
We all lose when the checks and balances employed in the NOAA
process are abandoned. A decision-making process driven by the simple
assertion of executive branch authority ultimately leaves ocean
management decisions permanently vulnerable to short-term political
considerations. Such an outcome is cause for deep concern no matter
one's position in the current policy debates.
So I encourage the Committee to explore ways to integrate the
executive branch's monument authority with proven processes established
under the Magnuson Act.
This Congress has an important opportunity to restore the
centrality of Magnuson's Fishery Management Councils to their rightful
place as the critical arbiters of fisheries management matters.
Doing so would give fishing communities much more confidence in the
way our Nation approaches fisheries management. And it could give the
marine monument designation process the credibility and acceptance that
it regrettably lacks today.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by Rep. Lamborn to Mayor Jon
Mitchell, City of New Bedford, Massachusetts
Mayor Mitchell, the New England and Mid-Atlantic Regional Fishery
Management Councils (Councils) have both conducted habitat amendments
in the past few years, both focusing on protecting unique, productive
habitat.
Question 1a. Through the use of such habitat amendments, closed
areas, and fishery management plans, do you believe the regional
councils have the tools available and the desire to balance ecosystem
protection with economic productivity?
b. Do you believe that these tools, when properly used by the
Councils, can achieve the same goals of ecosystem protection as the
Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument?
Answer. Since I took office as Mayor of New Bedford nearly 6 years
ago, I have had the opportunity to appear before the New England
Fishery Management Council on numerous occasions regarding matters
impactful to the Port of New Bedford, the Nation's leading commercial
fishing port for the past 16 years.
As a knowledgeable observer of the Council's work and a participant
in the Council's processes, I believe I can offer the Subcommittee an
informed, independent assessment of the institutional capacity of the
Council, as well as remark on the manner in which it conducts its
affairs.
On both these counts--and in response to your query--I would argue
that the Council has both the resources and the approach necessary to
achieve ecosystem protection (while balancing economic productivity)
commensurate with any protections that could be pursued in conjunction
with a monument designation under the Antiquities Act.
Moreover, I am convinced that the use of the processes established
under the Magnuson Act are at least equal in their utility in
protecting the marine environment as any monument designation; and in
fact, Magnuson-based processes--like the Fishery Councils--are far
superior.
I believe this to be the case because I have witnessed firsthand
the strengths of the Fishery Council's deliberative- and decision-
making processes. As I recounted in my written testimony, while the
Council process may not have, at times, produced specific policy
outcomes sought by the Port of New Bedford and commercial fishing
interests, the Council has generally demonstrated a commitment to:
soliciting industry input,
transparent deliberation,
a structured approach that provides time for ample
discussion,
a reliance on peer-reviewed scientific research, and
a willingness to revisit prior policy based on new
information.
The processes used to develop the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts
designation were in no way comparable on any of these metrics. My
comparative confidence in the Council process is illustrated by two
recent examples:
Mid-Atlantic Deep-Sea Coral Protection Area
A particularly remarkable conservation achievement under the
Fishery Council process, is the Frank R. Lautenberg Deep-Sea Coral
Protection Area which was designated by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (MAFMC). This protected area, approved in a June
2015 MAFMC amendment and finalized by NOAA Fisheries and the MAFMC at
the end of last year, covers over 38,000 square miles of Federal waters
off the Mid-Atlantic coast, an area roughly the size of Virginia.
Commercial fishermen provided extensive input to fisheries managers
in a collaborative effort to close off the protected area to most types
of bottom-tending fishing gear, such as trawls, dredges, bottom
longlines, and traps. As the chairman of the MAFMC noted afterwards,
this action brought together a broad range of stakeholders, including
Council members, fishermen and industry representatives, scientists,
and environmental groups, to reach a consensus on the boundaries of the
protected area.
The area designated for protection was informed by research from
NOAA and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, including deep sea
surveys and the creation of a predictive deep sea coral habitat
suitability model. Based on this information, the Council's advisory
panels, deep sea coral experts, and fishing industry members worked
cooperatively to identify the boundaries of the protected area.
The resulting protected area was praised by environmentalists and
fishermen alike. The Pew Charitable Trusts wrote that it would ``cement
a conservation legacy for the Mid-Atlantic,'' while a representative of
Mid-Atlantic commercial fishermen called the process a ``model for
developing targeted habitat protection.'' Groups and individuals
involved in the process won several awards including the Urban Coastal
Institute Regional Champion of the Ocean Award, which was presented to
the MAFMC.
New England Council Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2
Another example of the effectiveness of the Council process is the
Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2 (OHA2) passed last June by the New England
Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) and awaiting final approval by NOAA.
Passed after more than a decade of work, OHA2 ensures that essential
and vulnerable New England habitats, such as the Gulf of Maine, Georges
Bank, and areas in the Great South Channel, are protected based on the
most up-to-date science.
New technologies have allowed researchers to map and analyze the
ocean floor, informing them about which areas of the seabed are most
susceptible to harm from fishing gear, and which areas are hotspots for
groundfish spawning. OHA2 incorporates this science, increasing the
amount of overall habitat-specific protected areas in the region while
opening up areas that are no longer considered important for
successfully conserving fish stocks.
The development of OHA2 was deliberative and collaborative, with
input from Federal and state regulators, environmental groups,
scientists and academics, and members of the fishing industry. This
amendment has been carefully crafted to ensure that marine resources
are better protected than ever, while helping those who make their
living on the water.
I hope this response proves useful to you and members of the
Subcommittee in your continued deliberations. If there is any way I can
assist the work of the Subcommittee in the future, please do not
hesitate to contact me. Thank you again for your invitation.
______
Mr. Webster. Our second witness is Dr. John Bruno,
Professor, Department of Biology at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Professor Bruno, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN BRUNO, Ph.D., PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF
BIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, CHAPEL HILL, NORTH
CAROLINA
Dr. Bruno. Good morning.
I grew up on the Loxahatchee River in south Florida fishing
for snook and blue fish.
And how do I advance the slides? Just look at you?
I passed some of that love of fish and fishing on to my
daughters. We typically go to the Florida Keys for our summer
vacations. This is my daughters fishing in the national marine
sanctuary down in the Keys outside of Marathon. So, at a
personal level, that is why I support the creation of national
parks in the ocean.
As a scientist, I can tell you there is overwhelming
science that marine parks greatly increase the biomass,
density, size, and diversity of marine fishes. That often leads
to what we call a spillover effect, where either as babies or
as adults some proportion of those fishes leave the protected
area, where they are then caught by fishermen. And fishermen
know this, and they typically focus their fishing efforts right
around the edges of these parks, as you can see here from a
Mediterranean fishery of lobster.
Another huge benefit of marine parks is the restoration and
protection of large vertebrate predators. My lab just published
a study last week where we found that 90 percent of the sharks,
barracuda, and grouper are gone from Caribbean reefs. The only
places we still find these predators are in the marine
reserves, which are a tiny postage stamp of coverage. The
benefit of having predators, aside from their inherent value,
is restoring key ecological interactions to the system.
Female fishes produce more and higher-quality eggs as they
grow old, large, and fat. In fact, the relationship is
exponential. So, the number one priority of increasing the
productivity and stability of fisheries management is to
protect these large, old females. And the best way to do that
is to set aside small areas where they can grow large, be
happy, and produce lots of babies.
But, of course, that is not the primary purpose of our
national monument designations in the ocean or of our general
marine park system; it is to preserve biodiversity and whole
ecosystems, which are made up of tens of thousands of species,
including corals that live in the deep sea, all the fishes and
marine mammals that inhabit the water column, and the seabirds
in the air over the surface and on the small atolls in the
system. These components of biodiversity cannot and are not
conserved or managed by traditional fisheries management tools
like the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
I am sure you are all aware that the oceans are rapidly
warming. One hundred percent of this warming is due to
greenhouse gas emissions. There is no scientific question about
that. Warming is having a huge impact on ocean ecosystems. I
consider it the biggest threat both to marine parks as well as
to fisheries. Nobody is going to be fishing for lobster in New
England a decade or two from now because they are all migrating
north into Canada. The tropical tuna fishery is going to shut
down by the end of the century. Tuna can only survive
temperatures up to 34-35+ C. They are not going to be happy
when it is 36-38+ C in the end of the summers. So, we really
need to come together and tackle this problem collaboratively
together.
We have made great progress in expanding our national parks
in the ocean over the last 10 to 15 years, but still, only a
tiny percentage is protected, about 3 percent globally, in a
park. Only about 1 to 1.5 percent is protected strongly.
We recently expanded the size of both the Papahanaumokuakea
Reserve as well as the Pacific Remote Islands Reserves. And
that was based on new science that came in indicating that many
of the target species were moving outside of the reserve,
increasing their risk of accidental capture.
For example, this is a recent result for great reef sharks
where they were satellite tagged around Palmyra, and they are
moving, you know, 10, 20, 100 kilometers. The square is the
original park boundary. We have expanded it to include at least
a larger proportion of their range.
The same is true for seabirds. Many of them will travel
hundreds of kilometers while they are catching fish for their
young, then return to the park to feed their young. Expanding
the reserve out to the 200-mile limit of our EEZ greatly
increased the protection of these highly threatened species. We
have lost 70 percent of the world's seabirds over just the last
couple decades, and fisheries bycatch is the number one cause
of that.
So, to conclude, I will just say we have made huge progress
in ocean conservation primarily by expanding our protection
particularly in our U.S. waters over the last 10 to 20 years.
These are the only places, as a scientist, I can go and study
natural interactions. It is the only place large predators
exist. And these are critical baselines so we can monitor and
track the impacts of climate change on natural ecosystems.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Bruno follows:]
Prepared Statement of John F. Bruno, PhD, Professor, Department of
Biology, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chairman Lamborn and Ranking Member Huffman, my name is John Bruno
and I am a marine community ecologist and Professor of Biology at the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
I appreciate the invitation to talk with you today about marine
reserves and how they simultaneously benefit people and wildlife.
Our ocean ecosystems are being degraded by a range of factors such
as plastic pollution, over-fishing, and global warming.1-4
Nearly a billion people (including tens of millions of Americans)
depend on healthy ocean ecosystems for their food and livelihoods.
Whether through the seafood we eat, our jobs in the fisheries and
tourism industries, or via recreation and personal enrichment, nearly
all of us benefit from clean and healthy oceans.
Marine reserves are a proven policy tool that can lead to win-win
ocean stewardship:
Dozens of studies indicate that well-designed and strictly
enforced reserves increase the density, diversity and size
of fishes, invertebrates and other marine organisms
important to recreational and commercial
fishermen.5-8 Fish biomass in fully protected
reserves quickly grows to be fourfold greater on average
than in fished areas.9
Reserves contain more apex predators, many of which are
rare or absent from unprotected areas.9 Edgar et
al.5 report that shark biomass is 14 times
greater and the number of large fish species was 36 percent
greater in Marine Protected Areas (MPAs, which includes
fully protected marine reserves and other protected areas
where fishing is limited but not banned). Likewise,
Valdivia et al. found that apex predators are almost
entirely restricted to marine reserves that cover only a
small fraction of the Caribbean.10
The restoration of many fished predatory species in
reserves (e.g., sharks, grouper, lobster, etc.) restores
key ecological functions and species interactions that can
have strong cascading effects on lower trophic
levels.11-13
Big, old, fat, and fecund female fishes (BOFFFFs)
contribute a large number of eggs that produce future
generations. The presence and successful reproduction by
large fish generally leads to greater larval recruitment,
population growth rate, and fisheries productivity and
sustainability. Marine reserves are the best way to protect
large females, enabling them to grow old and large, thereby
enhancing fisheries productivity, and
stability.14
The increased population density and reproductive output
seen within well-designed and enforced reserves often leads
to a ``spillover effect'' when adult and juvenile (or
larval) fishes migrate outside of the reserve where they
are then captured by recreational or commercial
fishers.15-18 This ``leaky'' aspect of marine
reserves is one of their primary benefits to fisheries and
is a phenomenon well-known to fishers, whom tend to
concentrate fishing on reserve boundaries (termed ``fishing
the line''). Spillover can offset the loss of fisheries
catch caused by the implementation of
reserves.18
For some species and systems, marine reserves may increase
resistance to or recovery from human-caused disturbances
like ocean warming and acidification. For example, by
increasing population size, and thus genetic diversity,
reserves can increase the adaptive potential (i.e.
resilience) of populations to changing environmental
conditions.19 Thus, reserves can counteract the
deleterious loss of genetic diversity caused by
overfishing.
These and other positive outcomes for harvested species
protected in marine reserves have obvious commercial
benefits, not only for fisheries but also for other
commercial enterprises such as shark and other SCUBA-based
tourism.
Research over the last 10-15 years has refined the reserve
characteristics that can maximize benefits to humanity and improve the
conservation of biodiversity. A recent synthesis found that to meet the
biodiversity and fisheries goals of MPAs, global coverage needs to be
increased from its current extent of just 3 percent (of which 1.6
percent is ``strongly protected'') to 30 percent or greater
20 (note for U.S. waters: 16.5 percent in MPAS and 13.5
percent in no take reserves).
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In a synthesis of studies of the effectiveness of 87 MPAs
around the world, Edgar et al.5 identified five features
that influenced conservation and economic outcomes:
1. Level of protection: Fully protected or ``no-take'' reserves are
far more effective than general use MPAs where harvesting
is only partially restricted.7
2. Enforcement: The effective and durable compliance with and
enforcement of fisheries restrictions is crucial to reserve
success. Most MPAs and reserves around the world are poorly
enforced and amount to little more than ``paper parks''
that achieve no measurable outcomes for people of
wildlife.5,21
3. Reserve age: Many of the benefits of reserves accrue over time,
e.g., trophic cascades are restored as predator populations
recover. Effective reserves are generally at least 10 years
old (i.e., have been enforced for 10 or more years) and
often 25-40 years old.13,22 An
exception is when an area was relatively pristine when
protection began, as in the Papahanaumokuakea Marine
National Monument.23,24
4. Reserve size: Given the movement of many fishes, and marine birds
and mammals, size can be a key feature defining reserve
success. Small size is a primary reason so many MPAs fail.
If animals frequently swim or fly outside the reserve
boundary, it will have limited positive effects on their
populations.
5. Isolation: Effective coastal reserves are typically isolated by
deep (75 ft.) water from fished habitat. This feature
appears to have the largest effect on biomass and diversity
and is thought to limit the movement of animals out of the
protected area.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.epsEdgar et al.5 found that reserve success was much
more likely when three or more of the ``NEOLI'' features (no take,
enforced, old, large and isolated) were met. Reserves that met only one
or two NEOLI criteria rarely had greater fish biomass than unmanaged
locations. When all five criteria were met, total fish, total large
fish, and total shark biomass increased by 244 percent, 840 percent and
1,990 percent, respectively 5 (see graphics above from Edgar
et al.5). The few reserves that met this standard were 10-20
times more effective than reserves with only three NEOLI features. This
and numerous similar studies emphasize the crucial importance of design
and post-implementation management features in marine reserve outcomes.
There is also a growing consensus in the field that ecosystem
representativeness, locations with unique geological and/or
biodiversity attributes, and the global change context be considered
when planning reserve implementation at regional or global scales.
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument
The PMNM is a rare example of a near-pristine
23,24 marine reserve that includes all five NEOLI
features considered essential for maximum efficacy. It also encompasses
a unique high latitude coral reef ecosystem, is inhabited by endangered
species including the Hawaiian monk seal, and probably most importantly
it is predicted to warm far less than most other tropical systems this
century (see graphic below). Tropical MPAs are highly threatened by
ocean warming: the predicted average warming under the IPCC A2
emissions scenario for tropical MPAs is 3 +C for annual mean Sea
Surface Temperature and 6 +C for maximum annual SST by 2100. It is
believed that many topical marine species cannot survive warming of
this magnitude. Although some will migrate to higher latitudes, many
will go extinct and biodiversity in these ecosystems will likely crash
regardless of local protection from fishing and other stressors.
Therefore, at least some conservation resources should be focused on
the small subset of marine ecosystems that will experience
substantially less warming and are likely to survive the century,
regardless of our national energy policy (i.e., as an insurance policy
against a worse-case climate scenario). In addition, PMNM offers an
additional benefit given that its extent, stretching from tropics
through the subtropics, and orientation may offer an important
migration pathway for species retreating from climate change.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Predicted increase in Maximum SST (+C in 2100) for the Hawaiian
Islands (left) compared to that for the coral triangle in the western
Pacific (right). Based on the coupled ocean-atmosphere model
simulations (CMIP3 downscaled to 9.5 9.5km) under the A2
high/business-as-usual emissions scenario. Maximum SST for coral reefs
of the Papahanaumokuakea reserve are predicted to increase by <2.5 +C
compared to 3-8 +C for much of the western Pacific.
The PMNM reserve was recently expanded based in part on new science
detailing the movements of many of the target species (information that
was not available for the original design and designation). For
example, recent findings indicate that numerous ecologically important
apex predators travel beyond the historical 50nmi PMNM
boundaries.25-27 The larger 200nmi boundary provides a
minimum buffer for these species, reducing the risk of mortality and
populations declines. White et al. found that grey reef sharks swim far
beyond the original 50nmi boundaries of Palmyra Atoll in the Pacific
Remote Islands Marine National Monument (see graphic below). Maxwell
and Morgan 2013 report that many species of breeding seabirds
frequently forage at distances well over 50 nm from their colonies,
where they rely on schools of predatory fish like tuna to drive small
fish to the surface.26
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Left: Movement of six satellite tagged grey reef sharks
(Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos) at Palmyra Atoll.25 Right:
foraging ranges of seabirds (thin lines) and tuna (thick lines),
centered around Johnston Atoll, part of the U.S. Pacific Remote Islands
Marine National Monument. Maximum foraging ranges and median lifetime
displacement are shown in () following species names or abbreviations.
RTTB: red-tailed tropicbird; GFRI: great frigatebird; SOTE: sooty tern;
WTSH: wedge-tailed shearwater; MABO: masked booby; WTTB: white-tailed
tropicbird; BRNO: brown noddy; BRBO: brown booby; RFBO: red-footed
booby; BLNO: black noddy; BGNO: blue-grey noddy.26
The PMNM's deep-sea beds more than 1,000 feet down are home to
black corals, which bide their time in quiet currents and virtual
darkness and are among the oldest animals on earth, living for
thousands of years. Typical shallow water coral colonies are highly
productive and fueled by sunlight; black corals slow their metabolisms
to a crawl, with centuries clicking by like years to a human. Hawaii
researchers explored a forest of large colonies of the black coral,
Leiopathes glaberrima, living in deep water throughout the Hawai'ian
Islands. The oldest specimens elongate branches at about \1/64\ of an
inch a year, about the width of four hairs. Isotope aging of the
skeletons showed that some of these simple animals had been living for
over 4,000 years: before some the pyramids of Egypt were built.
Leiopathes looks like a gangly explosion of orange wire, 3-6 feet high,
with bright orange polyp flowers spread across comb-like branches that
sprout in chaotic tangles from tough black stems. All are fragile, like
blown glass sculptures, and are found only where the water is cold and
calm. If subjected to strong currents, the smallest wave, or barest
touch of a rogue fishing net, a black coral would be destroyed.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument
The PRIMNM is a reserve network that surrounds five remote and
near-pristine atoll groups in the central Pacific (Wake, Johnston,
Howland and Baker, Kingman and Palmyra, and Jarvis). The coral reefs
and shallow seas surrounding these atolls support some of the few
remaining intact tropical coral reef ecosystems on earth. Coral cover
is substantially higher than average and the biomass of predatory
fishes is extraordinary.28,29 The PRIMNM was
expanded in 2014 to better protect highly migratory species that
inhabit the nearshore reefs and offshore seamounts including sharks,
tuna, and marine mammals (such as false killer whales, melon-headed
whales, spotted dolphins, minke, and humpback whales). As with PMNM,
science has shown that several keystone species have migratory and
forage ranges that extend well beyond the original 50 nm boundary. They
are also crucial habitat to numerous other threatened and at-risk
species including humphead wrasses, humphead parrotfishes, and seabird
populations. Seabirds are an important and disproportionately
threatened group of birds, which have declined by almost 70 percent
since 1950.30 After the expansion, these atoll reserves now
have all five NEOLI features.
Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary
NOAA has proposed to expand the FGNMS to buffer the unique coral
reefs within the current boundaries from chemical contamination from
nearby extractive activities and to add protection for several other
deeper sea mounts (formally on salt domes). These additional sites
contain a remarkable diversity of sponge and deep sea coral communities
and are essential fish habitat for the region. The FGNMS currently
meets four of the five NEOLI criteria; all except size (it is currently
rather small). The coral communities within the FGNMS have by far the
highest living coral cover of any reefs in the southwest Atlantic (mean
living coral cover on the FGNMS reefs is 60 percent, compared to the
Caribbean average of 15 percent 31,32). Moreover,
these reefs are still dominated by massive Orbicella faveolota and O.
franksi colonies (see image below), species federally listed as
threatened under the U.S. endangered species act. At nearly every other
reef in the Caribbean, Orbicella corals have been wiped out by disease
and bleaching due to ocean warming. They have survived within the FGNMS
because these reefs are warming more slowly than the Greater Caribbean.
These Orbicella populations need additional protection to ensure their
survival and to act as larval sources for the highly degraded
populations in the Florida Keys and other U.S. reefs in the Caribbean
(e.g., Puerto Rico). Additionally, the fish community in the FGNMS is
near pristine and boasts the highest predatory fish biomass in the
region.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Orbicella colonies of the FGBNMS. Photo by William Precht.
Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument
At just under 5,000 square nautical miles, the Northeast Canyons
and Seamounts Marine National Monument is by far the smallest of the
marine monuments created under President Obama and yet it encompasses
two distinct areas of unique habitat in the United States' north
Atlantic Exclusive Economic Zone, with the closest point of the NCSMNM
to land being roughly 150 miles east southeast of Cape Cod, MA. The
northern area includes a section of the continental shelf that includes
three canyon complexes--Oceanographer, Gilbert, and Lydonia Canyons--
each of which plunges deeper than the Grand Canyon from the southeast
edge of Georges Bank to the deep seabed. The southwest area encompasses
the only four seamounts in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ. These underwater
mountains loom up from the deep ocean, to a height taller than any
mountain east of the Rockies. Together, these features and the water
column above them provide habitat for countless species, from ancient,
thousand year-old coral structures the size of small trees, to
threatened seabirds, whales, and other marine mammals, which feed on
the nutrients welling up from the deep ocean around the canyon heads.
Ocean warming in this area has been a major concern, with the Gulf of
Maine just north of Georges Bank warming faster than 99 percent of the
world's oceans.33 Ocean warming has already taken a toll on
fisheries in this region, particularly the lobster fishery, which has
declined precipitously in southern New England in recent years.
Protecting these areas free from further commercial activity will not
only safeguard these living resources from potentially damaging
encounters with fishing gear, but also provide scientists a living
laboratory in which to measure and quantify the impact of warming and
acidifying oceans on these species in an environment otherwise free of
human interference.
Conclusion
The United States has made substantial progress in protecting our
marine resources via the implementation and expansion of several
critical marine reserves. We lead the world in this regard, with nearly
15 percent of our national waters within no-take marine reserves (up
from 6 percent in 2014). This common-sense zoning of recreational and
commercial activities is maximizing the economic output of our oceans
while ensuring sustainable use and the conservation of biodiversity for
the long term.
literature cited
1. McCauley DJ, Pinsky ML, Palumbi SR, et al. Marine defaunation:
Animal loss in the global ocean. Science (80-). 2015;347(6219):247-254.
doi:10.1126/science.1255641.
2. Poloczanska ES, Brown CJ, Sydeman WJ, et al. Global imprint of
climate change on marine life. Nat Clim Chang. 2013;3(10):919-925.
doi:10.1038/nclimate1958.
3. Halpern B, Walbridge S, Selkoe K, et al. A global map of human
impact on marine ecosystems. Science (80-). 2008;319(February):948-952.
doi:10.1126/science.1149345.
4. Bruno JF, Selig ER. Regional decline of coral cover in the Indo-
Pacific: timing, extent, and subregional comparisons. PLoS One.
2007;2(8):e711. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000711.
5. Edgar GJ, Stuart-Smith RD, Willis TJ, et al. Global conservation
outcomes depend on marine protected areas with five key features.
Nature. 2014;506(7487):216-220. doi:10.1038/nature13022.
6. Halpern BS, Warner RR. Marine reserves have rapid and lasting
effects. Ecol Lett. 2002;5(3):361-366. doi:10.1046/j.1461-
0248.2002.00326.x.
7. Lester S, Halpern B. Biological responses in marine no-take reserves
versus partially protected areas. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2008;367:49-56.
doi:10.3354/meps07599.
8. Lester SE, Halpern BS, Grorud-Colvert K, et al. Biological effects
within no-take marine reserves: a global synthesis. 2009;384:33-46.
doi:10.3354/meps08029.
9. Halpern BS. The impact of marine reserves: Do reserves work and does
reserve size matter? Ecol Appl. 2003;13(1 SUPPL.). doi:10.1890/1051-
0761(2003)013[0117:tiomrd]2.0.co;2.
10. Valdivia A, Cox CE, Bruno JF. Predatory fish depletion and recovery
potential on Caribbean reefs. 2017;(iii):1-12. doi:10.1126/
sciadv.1601303.
11. Myers R, Baum JK, Shepherd TD, et al. Cascading effects of the loss
of apex predatory sharks from a coastal ocean. Science.
2007;315(5820):1846-1850. doi:10.1126/science.1138657.
12. Mumby PJ, Harborne AR, Williams J, et al. Trophic cascade
facilitates coral recruitment in a marine reserve. Proc Natl Acad Sci.
2007;104(20):8362-8367. doi:10.1073/pnas.0702602104.
13. Edgar GJ, Barrett NS, Stuart-Smith RD. Exploited reefs protected
from fishing transform over decades into conservation features
otherwise absent from seascapes. Ecol Appl. 2009;19(8):1967-1974.
doi:10.1890/09-0610.1.
14. Hixon MA, Johnson DW, Sogard SM. Structure in fishery populations.
ICES J Mar Sci. 2014;71(1914):2171-2185. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fst200.
15. Cudney-Bueno R, Lavin MF, Marinone SG, et al. Rapid effects of
marine reserves via larval dispersal. PLoS One. 2009;4(1):e4140.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004140.
16. Gell FR, Roberts CM. Benefits beyond boundaries: the fishery
effects of marine reserves. 2003;18(9):448-455. doi:10.1016/S0169-
5347(03)00189-7.
17. Roberts CM, Bohnsack JA, Gell F. Effects of marine reserves on
adjacent fisheries. 2001;294(November):1920-1923.
18. Goni R, Hilborn R, Diaz D, et al. Net contribution of spillover
from a marine reserve to fishery catches. 2010;400:233-243.
doi:10.3354/meps08419.
19. Pinsky ML, Palumbi SR. Meta-analysis reveals lower genetic
diversity in overfished populations. Mol Ecol. 2014;23(1):29-39.
doi:10.1111/mec.12509.
20. O'Leary BC, Winther-Janson M, Bainbridge JM, et al. Effective
coverage targets for ocean protection. Conserv Lett. 2016;0(0):1-6.
doi:10.1111/conl.12247.
21. Cox C, Valdivia A, McField M, et al. Establishment of marine
protected areas alone does not restore coral reef communities in
Belize. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2017;563(1):65-79. doi:10.3354/meps11984.
22. Selig ER, Bruno JF. A global analysis of the effectiveness of
marine protected areas in preventing coral loss. PLoS One.
2010;5(2):e9278. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009278.
23. Friedlander A, DeMartini E. Contrasts in density, size, and biomass
of reef fishes between the northwestern and the main Hawaiian islands:
the effects of fishing down apex predators. Mar Ecol Prog Ser.
2002;230:253-264. doi:10.3354/meps230253.
24. Selkoe KA, Halpern BS, Ebert CM, et al. A map of human impacts to a
``pristine'' coral reef ecosystem, the Papahanaumokuakea Marine
National Monument. Coral Reefs. 2009;28(3):635-650. doi:10.1007/s00338-
009-0490-z.
25. White TD, Carlisle AB, Kroodsma DA, et al. Assessing the
effectiveness of a large marine protected area for reef shark
conservation. Biol Conserv. 2017;207:64-71. doi:10.1016/
j.biocon.2017.01.009.
26. Maxwell SM, Morgan LE. Foraging of seabirds on pelagic fishes:
Implications for management of pelagic marine protected areas. Mar Ecol
Prog Ser. 2013;481(Field 1998):289-303. doi:10.3354/meps10255.
27. Young HS, Maxwell SM, Conners MG, et al. Pelagic marine protected
areas protect foraging habitat for multiple breeding seabirds in the
central Pacific. Biol Conserv. 2015;181:226-235. doi:10.1016/
j.biocon.2014.10.027.
28. Smith JE, Brainard R, Carter A, et al. Re-evaluating the health of
coral reef communities: baselines and evidence for human impacts across
the central Pacific. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2016;283(August):20151985.
doi:10.1098/rspb.2015.1985.
29. Sandin S, Smith JE, Demartini EE, et al. Baselines and degradation
of coral reefs in the Northern Line Islands. PLoS One. 2008;3(2):e1548.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001548.
30. Paleczny M, Hammill E, Karpouzi V, et al. Population trend of the
world's monitored seabirds, 1950-2010. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):1-11.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0129342.
31. Schutte V, Selig E, Bruno J. Regional spatio-temporal trends in
Caribbean coral reef benthic communities. Mar Ecol Prog Ser.
2010;402:115-122. doi:10.3354/meps08438.
32. Jackson J, Donovan M, Cramer K, et al. Status and trends of
Caribbean coral reefs: 1970-2012. 2014:306.
33. Pershing AJ, Alexander MA, Hernandez CM, et al. Slow adaptation in
the face of rapid warming leads to collapse of the Gulf of Maine cod
fishery. Science (80-). 2015;350(6262):809-812. doi:10.1126/
science.aac9819.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Dr. John Bruno, Professor,
Department of Biology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Dr. Bruno did not submit responses to the Committee by the appropriate
deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Questions Submitted by Rep. Grijalva
Question 1. One of the witnesses described the tuna fishing by
purse seine in the Pacific as benign because the fishing gear does not
touch and destroy the bottom and is not destructive to ocean
ecosystems. Longline fishing has been described the same way by
industry interests. Can you explain the impacts that purse seine and
longline fishing has on other components of the ecosystem such as
seabirds, sea turtles, bycatch, and populations of different tunas?
What impact does this have on other species or ecosystem functions?
Question 2. While some areas of the EEZ like the U.S. Western and
Central Pacific have received protections, other areas, like the U.S.
Atlantic and Gulf coasts and marine waters, have received little to no
protection. What does science tell us about the impact on fisheries and
ecosystems due to a lack of marine reserves in the areas? Are there
certain types of areas in the Atlantic and Gulf that you believe
deserve to be considered for inclusion in marine reserves?
Questions Submitted by Rep. Tsongas
I do not represent a coastal district, but the history, culture,
and economy of Massachusetts have been inextricably linked to the
health of our ocean for centuries. Massachusetts is home to one of the
Nation's most historic fishing industries, and remains the lifeblood of
many communities. We are also home to world-class ocean research
institutions and beautiful vacation destinations, both of which are
sustained by our connection to the ocean.
We have a generational responsibility to protect the health of our
ocean so that it will continue to be a sustainable resource for our
children and grandchildren. That's why I supported the President's
creation of the first national marine monument in the Atlantic Ocean.
In doing so, it will protect fragile ecosystems off the coast of New
England, including pristine undersea canyons and seamounts, and help
scientists better understand the impacts of climate change in our
ocean. In fact, according to a recent study, New England is one of the
most vulnerable regions in the country to these changing ocean
conditions due to our economic dependence on shellfish such as
scallops, oysters, mussels, and clams.
Like the land management challenges on our public lands, we face
similar challenges in our Federal waters to balance the needs of many
competing users, which we must take seriously.
Question 1. Dr. Bruno, how will the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts
Marine National Monument protect fish habitats and promote the long-
term sustainability of Northeast fisheries?
Question 2. How will the Northeast monument help scientists better
understand the impacts of climate change in our oceans? How will this
research benefit the commercial fishing industry?
______
Mr. Webster. Thank you for your testimony.
And now I ask unanimous consent that the gentlelady from
American Samoa, Mrs. Radewagen, be allowed to join us on the
dais and be recognized to participate in today's hearing.
Hearing no objections, so ordered.
Now I will recognize the gentlelady from Samoa to introduce
our next witness.
Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I first want to
thank you, Chairman Webster and Ranking Member Grijalva, for
allowing me to participate in today's Water, Power and Oceans
Subcommittee hearing.
I would like to introduce one of our witnesses today, Mr.
Brian Hallman, who serves as the Executive Director for the
American Tunaboat Association.
Mr. Hallman has a long and distinguished career in the
management of tuna fisheries in the Atlantic and Pacific. Many
of the vessels in his fleet operate out of my home district of
American Samoa and are a major driving force to our local
economy.
These monuments have had a major impact on his fleet, and I
look forward to hearing his views on the issue.
Thank you for being here, Mr. Hallman. You have the Floor.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN HALLMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN
TUNABOAT ASSOCIATION, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Hallman. Thank you, Mrs. Radewagen and Mr. Chairman and
members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify today.
My name is Brian Hallman, and I am the Executive Director
of the American Tunaboat Association (ATA), which represents
all of the large U.S. flag purse seine vessels fishing in the
Pacific Ocean. And we fish there pursuant to three different
treaties.
We have one of the most significant tuna fleets operating
in the Western Pacific and the largest distant water fishery
anywhere in the world. American vessels catch tuna with a
landed value of approximately half a billion dollars per year,
and many vessels, as Mrs. Radewagen has said, land their catch
in American Samoa, contributing significantly to the
territory's economy. The figures for that, Mr. Chairman, are in
my testimony. A number of other U.S. boats tranship their catch
to canneries around the world, including in the United States.
I am here today to discuss the impact on fishing at marine
monument designations. Bluntly said, limiting fishing via
marine monuments makes no sense whatsoever. It is actually
harmful, and it is detrimental to maintaining sustainable
fisheries.
The main point to understand is that all U.S. fisheries are
already managed by other legislative and legal means. For
fisheries under U.S. jurisdiction, there is a system
established by U.S. law. For fisheries in waters beyond U.S.
jurisdiction, there are treaties setting forth the conservation
of management procedures. And in both cases, the establishment
of marine monuments completely pre-empts and usurps these long-
standing, legally binding, and effective processes.
The second point, which I have already alluded to, is that
the fishing prohibitions in these unilateral monument
declarations are not based on established, accepted science.
That is not to say that fishing area closures cannot be based
on science, but again, there are established procedures. The
existing systems are rigorous and well-established, involving
some of the best fisheries scientists in the world. Why should
these scientific processes be bypassed for closures not based
on accepted science?
Mr. Chairman, let me speak for a moment about the Pacific
Remote Islands Marine National Monument expansion dictated by
the previous administration in September of 2014.
These closures around remote, uninhabited U.S. islands in
the Pacific include traditional and productive U.S. fishing
areas. And, incredibly, the initial announcement of the
intended White House action was made with no advance
consultation with U.S. fishing interests or with U.S.
territories or states.
ATA made the point that the U.S. fisheries in these waters
are for highly migratory tunas, which only swim through these
areas and are already being effectively conserved and managed
via a legally-binding multilateral treaty. Tuna fishing by U.S.
vessels in these island areas and beyond is sustainable and is
heavily regulated.
We also noted that these remote waters have essentially
been unaffected over the years from operations by U.S. purse
seine and longline fisheries. Our surface fishing gear does not
touch corals or the ocean bottom, and the fishing has no
negative impact on the ecosystems of these areas.
And, finally, we commented that closing U.S. waters in the
region undermines the continued viability of U.S. access
agreements in the region. There must be a level playing field
for American fishermen. The U.S. unilateral prohibition on
fishing healthy stocks by its own fishermen, without a
scientific recommendation, seems to be unique to our country.
In my some 40 years of working in this field, I have never
heard of any major fishing nation doing the same.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, ATA strongly supports the
call Chairman Bishop and Congresswoman Radewagen have made in
their letter to the President for him to remove all fishing
restrictions in all marine national monuments.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, for
the opportunity to address you today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hallman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brian Hallman, Executive Director, American
Tunaboat Association, San Diego, California
Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Brian
Hallman, and I am the Executive Director of the American Tunaboat
Association (ATA). In my career in international management of
fisheries, I have also held policy positions with the Inter-American
Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and the Department of State.
The ATA represents all the large U.S. flag purse seine vessels
fishing in the Pacific Ocean, where ATA members' vessels fish pursuant
to three international Conventions. In the eastern Pacific, there is
the Convention establishing the IATTC. In the west, where the bulk of
the U.S. fleet has operated in recent years, there are both the Treaty
on Fisheries between the United States and certain Pacific Island
States (popularly known as the South Pacific Tuna Treaty), as well as
the Convention establishing the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries
Commission (WCPFC).
The U.S. purse seine fleet consists of 40 vessels, making it one of
the most significant fleets operating in the western Pacific Ocean and
the largest U.S. distant water fishery anywhere on the globe. The
largest tuna purse seine fishery in the world--for fish that typically
ends up as a canned tuna product--takes place in this region in the
western Pacific. Although somewhat variable, the U.S. purse seine fleet
catches tuna with a landed value of approximately half a billion
dollars a year.
Around one-half of the U.S. flag purse seine tuna fleet lands its
catch at Pago Pago, in the Territory of American Samoa, where the tuna
industry accounts for approximately 80 percent of the private sector
economy, and where the tuna processing sector is the largest private
employer in the Territory. The purse seine vessels that utilize
American Samoa as a home port contribute significantly to the economy
of American Samoa through the purchase of fuel, oil, deck supplies/
other local supplies, maintenance/repairs, hotels, restaurants, staff
payroll, etc. We estimate that this economic contribution is between
$50-$60 million annually, which is directly to the benefit of American
Samoa's economy.
The other half of the U.S. flag purse seine fleet transships to
canneries around the world, including in the United States. I further
note that the United States is the country with the largest canned tuna
market in the world.
Mr. Chairman, the Committee has asked me here today to discuss the
impact of marine monument designations under the Antiquities Act on
fishing, and, in particular, the experience of the U.S. flag purse
seine tuna fleet regarding marine monument designations. The
fundamental purpose of marine monuments, as I understand it, is to
preclude, or at least severely limit, human activity in the designated
area. Perhaps that makes sense for certain activities such as drilling
on the ocean floor or seabed mining, but limiting fishing via marine
monuments makes no sense whatsoever.
Actually, not only do marine monument fishing prohibitions make no
sense, they are downright dangerous. Several anti-fishing groups have
publicly stated their desire and intention to prohibit fishing in up to
one-third of the ocean, regardless of whether the fish stocks involved
are already being managed and conserved, and regardless of the best
scientific advice. This kind of approach to ocean governance could be
devastating to sustainable fisheries.
Let me say at the outset that, while I am not a legal expert and
prefer not to discuss the legal aspects of designating extensive marine
monuments under the Antiquities Act, I note that such legality has been
questioned.
That aside, there are reasons of both principle and practicality
why marine monuments affecting commercial fishing are problematic,
which I shall address now, elaborating on an example of a marine
monument established by the last administration which has a detrimental
impact on the U.S. fishermen who I represent, and on the economy and
prosperity of the Territory of American Samoa.
The main reason why fishing activities involving U.S. fishermen
should never be included in a marine monument designation is that all
relevant fisheries are effectively conserved and managed by other
legislative and legal means. For fisheries under U.S. jurisdiction,
there is a congressionally mandated process established by the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. For fisheries
in waters beyond U.S. jurisdiction, there are Treaties or Conventions,
to which the United States is a Contracting Party, setting forth the
conservation and management procedures and responsibilities that are
promulgated in regulations that are assiduously monitored and enforced.
I am not intimately familiar with the conservation and management
processes for fisheries in waters under U.S. jurisdiction, such as the
regional Council process, but I have had a close involvement with
Treaty-based management of fisheries in waters outside of U.S.
jurisdiction. In both cases, the establishment of marine monuments
completely pre-empts and usurps these long-standing, legally binding,
and effective processes.
A second and related point relative to the establishment of marine
monuments is that the prohibitions on fishing found in these unilateral
declarations are not based on science. That is not to say that fishing
area closures cannot be based on science. In fact, science-based area
closures do exist and have at times proven to be effective fisheries
management measures. But, again, there are established procedures for
basing any such measures on meaningful scientific analyses. This is
true for both fisheries in U.S. waters and for those involving U.S.
fishermen in waters beyond U.S. jurisdiction. I could elaborate on
those processes, Mr. Chairman, but suffice it to say here that the
existing systems for the conservation and management of fisheries are
rigorous and well established, involving some of the best fisheries
scientists in the world. Why should these scientific processes be
bypassed for closures not based on science, or even worse, junk
science?
Mr. Chairman, let me speak for a minute about the Pacific Remote
Islands Marine National Monument expansion plan (PRIMNM) established by
the previous administration in September of 2014. The initial
announcement, on June 17, 2014, of the intended White House action was
done, incredibly, with no advance consultation with U.S. fishing
interests. These closures involved traditional and productive U.S.
fishing areas around Johnston Atoll, Jarvis Island, Wake Island,
Howland and Baker Islands, Palmyra Atoll, and Kingman Reef. The initial
intention of the White House was to prohibit all commercial activity in
these areas. The proposed action was modified somewhat following an
uproar from U.S. fishing interests--including ATA--the American
territories in the region, tuna science experts, and the Western
Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council (WPRFMC).
These areas are traditional fishing grounds for U.S. flag tuna
vessels operating mainly out of Pago Pago, American Samoa and Honolulu,
Hawaii. From a practical point of view, the fishing closures dictated
by the U.S. monument areas and U.S. EEZs in the central Pacific, along
with like closures of fishing areas within the EEZ of Kiribati and
areas on the high seas by U.S. regulations, have been estimated to cost
the Territory of American Samoa upwards of $100 million annually as
estimated by NOAA Fisheries.
In arguing against this action, ATA made the point that the U.S.
fisheries in these areas are for highly migratory tunas, which are
already being effectively conserved and managed via a legally binding
multilateral Treaty. Tuna fishing by U.S. vessels in these island areas
is sustainable. These fisheries are some of the most regulated of any
in the world, with catch restrictions, full reporting, electronic
position monitoring, on-board observers, and strict regulations to
protect non-tuna species and the environment.
We made the additional points that these remote, pristine waters
have essentially been unaffected over the years from operations by U.S.
purse seine and longline fisheries. Our surface fishing gear does not
touch corals or the ocean bottom, and the fishing has had no negative
impact on the ecosystems of these areas. What our sustainable fishery
does do is generate healthy food, jobs, businesses and revenue for U.S.
interests.
Finally, we commented that fishing access for U.S. purse seine
vessels to the waters of Pacific island countries in the south Pacific
is organized pursuant to a multilateral Treaty. To close U.S. waters in
the same region without scientific justification undermines the
continued viability of this Treaty, which provides access to 14 Pacific
Island countries and a Pacific Island Territory (of New Zealand), and
which has for almost 40 years now been considered by many to be the
cornerstone of overall U.S. relations with all these Pacific Island
states.
Then there is the issue of basic biology--highly migratory species
such as tuna cannot be conserved or effectively managed by marine
protected areas, marine parks, or marine monuments--a simple scientific
fact not disputed by reputable fisheries scientists. These species may
travel thousands of miles through the waters of many nations and the
high seas--that is why highly migratory fish stocks are managed
throughout the world by U.N.-sanctioned multilateral conventions
covering their extensive migratory routes, and including all fishing
nations involved.
Another point that should be made regarding the previous
administration's efforts to establish marine monuments prohibiting
fishing is the process and its total lack of transparency. As
previously noted, the initial announcement of the PRIMNM was done with
no consultation whatsoever with the affected fishing interests,
although there apparently was close consultation with environmental
non-governmental organizations. Afterwards, when the proposed action
became public, there was minimal such consultation, and U.S. fishing
interests had to push hard to be heard.
Mr. Chairman, one of the tenets of the ATA's approach to
international fisheries management crucial to the survival of the U.S.
fleet is that there must be a level playing field for American
fishermen on which to compete. The U.S. purse seine fleet is in fierce
competition with fleets from China, Japan, Korea, the Philippines, and
Taiwan, as well as with others. The United States' unilateral
prohibition on fishing healthy stocks by its own fishermen--that is not
based on any science--seems to be unique to the United States. In my 40
years of working in this field, I have never heard of any major fishing
nation doing the same, and, as alluded to above, for the U.S.
Government to do so is a terrible example and precedent for other
countries to follow.
Mr. Chairman, for these many reasons, ATA strongly supports the
call Chairman Bishop and Congresswoman Amata Radewagen have made in
their letter to the President for him to remove all fishing
restrictions in all Marine National Monuments, thus restoring the
conservation and management processes for highly migratory fish stocks
established by U.S. supported multilateral Treaties, and the
prerogatives of the Councils and the Secretary of Commerce to
effectively conserve and manage fisheries in U.S. waters. For the
longer term, to further ensure that the existing fisheries management
processes are respected, it would seem that legislation to restrain
future unilateral executive branch actions prohibiting fishing in these
types of situations would be appropriate.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, for the
opportunity to address you today on this important matter.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by Rep. Grijalva to Mr. Brian
Hallman, Executive Director, American Tunaboat Association
Question 1. You answered that only half of the purse seine tuna
fleet vessels are authorized under Coast Guard endorsement to fish in
the U.S. EEZ. However, records show that only 8 of the 35 U.S. flagged
vessels in the fleet have Coast Guard fishery endorsement (information
received since the time of the hearing). Can you confirm the total
number of vessels that are authorized to fish in the U.S. EEZ? Can you
also tell us what percentage of the tuna catch from these vessels came
out of the waters that were closed by monument expansions?
Answer. According to the American Tunaboat Association's records,
11 U.S. flag purse seine vessels are authorized to fish in the U.S.
EEZ. Historically, these vessels have mostly operated out of American
Samoa. I do not know what percentage of the tuna catch from these
vessels came out of the waters that were closed by monument expansions.
Question 2. You say that, ``From a practical point of view, the
fishing closures dictated by the U.S. monument areas and U.S. EEZ's in
the central Pacific, along with the like closures of fishing areas
within the EEZ of Kiribati and areas on the high seas by U.S.
regulations have been estimated to cost the Territory of American Samoa
upwards of $100 million dollars annually as estimated by NOAA
Fisheries.'' Can you please provide documentation for this estimate,
including how much of the $100 million in `damages' is directly due to
the U.S. monument closures alone?
Answer. Attached is a copy of the NOAA report from where I obtained
this estimate. The report does not say, and I do not know, how much of
the damages are directly due to the U.S. monument closures alone.
*****
[The following document was submitted as an attachment to Mr. Hallman's
responses. This document is part of the hearing record and is being
retained in the Committee's official files:]
--``Analyzing the economic impacts of the 2015 ELAPS closure,'' an
Internal Report by Valerie Chan and Dale Squires, NOAA,
August 2016
______
Mr. Webster. Thank you very much.
I now recognize Mr. Graves to introduce our last witness.
You are recognized.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The last witness is Mr. Chett Chiasson, who is the
Executive Director of the Greater Lafourche Port Commission,
otherwise known as Port Fourchon. He also runs the South
Lafourche Airport, as well.
Chett is originally from south Louisiana, has a bachelor's
and a master's from LSU.
Raise your hand if you don't think LSU Tigers are the best
team in the Nation. Thank you.
Chett is a great advocate and partner that has done a
fantastic job running this port facility, which services
approximately three-fourths of the Gulf of Mexico in terms of
offshore energy production. He also has been a great partner
with us on many of our coastal restoration projects in south
Louisiana, and also incredibly dynamic in the oil spill. He
took his port facility and ended up being the major launch
facility for all of the rescue and efforts to cap the well in
2010 from the Deepwater-Horizon oil spill.
Last, Mr. Chiasson is a fisher. And I want to distinguish
that from a catcher. He enjoys going out in the Gulf of Mexico
and enjoying the bounty of the Gulf. But certainly an expert
witness in regard to oil and gas production, particularly
offshore.
Mr. Webster. Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF CHETT CHIASSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GREATER
LAFOURCHE PORT COMMISSION, GALLIANO, LOUISIANA
Mr. Chiasson. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee. My name is Chett Chiasson. In addition to serving as
Executive Director of Port Fourchon, I also serve on the
Louisiana Governor's Advisory Commission for Coastal
Activities, the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration
Authority Finance Corporation, and the Executive Board of
Restore or Retreat, a regional non-profit coastal restoration
advocacy group.
With this testimony, I hope to impress upon you several
points: (1) the importance of robust oil and gas research and
development activities in the Gulf of Mexico that contributes
to the Gulf economy and our national economy and also funds
vital coastal restoration efforts through a variety of means,
such as the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, or GOMESA,
passed by Congress in 2006; (2) the importance of commercial
and recreational fishing activities to the Gulf and national
economies; and (3) illustrating a successful history in
Louisiana and the Gulf region of balancing economic activities
such as oil and gas development and commercial fishing with
environmental protection and restoration. Indeed, from a
Louisiana standpoint, the Gulf of Mexico and its adjacent
wetlands is the thread that sews together our heritage, our
livelihood, our recreation, and our homes.
Port Fourchon is a political subdivision of the state of
Louisiana and the only Louisiana port directly on the Gulf.
Port Fourchon does not itself handle any bulk and gas cargo,
per se. Rather, we are an intermodal offshore services and
supply port. In total, Port Fourchon plays a key role in
servicing nearly 20 percent of the Nation's oil supply.
According to several economic impact studies, our port supports
over 10,800 direct jobs across the state of Louisiana. These
are very good-paying jobs.
Our region has traditionally maintained one of the lowest
unemployment rates in the country, at one point hitting as low
as 3.7 percent. However, during the current downturn in the
energy industry, our region alone has lost over 12,000 direct
and indirect jobs, which has many in our community turning to
commercial fishing and other activities. Actions by the Federal
Government to lock away productive ports of the Gulf would take
even more opportunities away from already challenged sectors of
our economy.
I would like to remind the Committee that, through the
contribution of Louisiana's share of offshore energy revenue
produced in the Gulf of Mexico, the continued ability for
offshore energy activities in the Gulf would directly fund
coastal restoration in Louisiana.
GOMESA is currently accruing offshore revenues to be
distributed to the energy-producing Gulf states and Louisiana
and will form the most significant and sustainable revenue
dedicated to funding the state's 50-year, $50 billion Coastal
Master Plan. Thus, Federal actions that restrict energy
activities would also limit large-scale environmental
restoration in areas which need it most.
The focus of today's hearing is on the Marine Sanctuary
Program. Several sanctuaries exist today in the Gulf of Mexico,
and there is a current proposal from NOAA that would expand the
boundaries of one existing sanctuary, Flower Garden Banks
National Marine Sanctuary, located off the coast of Louisiana
and Texas. While I would view all areas of the Gulf as critical
and deserving of our stewardship, Flower Garden Banks was one
area in the Gulf selected in 1992 and then expanded in 1996 for
designation as a marine sanctuary.
But the key to understanding the complexity of balancing
environmental protection and maintaining economic prosperity
for the country is that the same reefs, bottom topographies,
and other features that provide habitat for fish and other
resources are also the very areas in which commercial and
recreational fishing is most productive, and the geological
formations associated with these areas often hold fossil fuels
buried below the seabed. Therefore, government policy needs to
balance these dynamics, which is not always an easy task.
In announcing its plan to expand the current sanctuary,
NOAA indicated that the proposed expansion is required to
provide protection that could most effectively be addressed
through the comprehensive suite of habitat conservation and
management actions made possible by expanding the sanctuary.
While national marine sanctuary designation allows for some
uses, various activities are prohibited, including many means
of commercial fishing. Furthermore, when the Department of the
Interior announced last week upcoming lease sales for oil and
gas activities, the areas that encompassed Flower Garden Banks
were specifically excluded, given their marine sanctuary
designation.
Whether or not the current sanctuary requires further
expansion, it is beyond my professional and academic
capabilities to render an opinion. A key element for the
government, in collaboration with all interested communities,
is to effectively and fairly utilize, in NOAA's words, a
comprehensive suite of habitat conservation management actions
so as to achieve an appropriate balance of goals.
With respect to doing so, the government must also consider
the massive and ongoing natural resources damage assessment and
planning which has followed the tragic Deepwater-Horizon oil
spill incident. While this event had disastrous impacts on
human life, the environment, and economy of the Gulf, it has
resulted in the largest coordinated environmental restoration
and conservation planning effort in our Nation's history.
Thus, there are conservation activities much broader and
effectively underway which will greater benefit the Gulf than
the proposed expansion of this sanctuary, with potentially
fewer negative effects to industries and people who can ill-
afford economic restrictions on their livelihoods.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chiasson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chett Chiasson, Executive Director, Greater
Lafourche Port Commission, Galliano, Louisiana
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Chett
Chiasson, and I am the Executive Director of the Greater Lafourche Port
Commission, otherwise known as Port Fourchon. In addition to service as
the Executive Director of Port Fourchon, I also serve on the Louisiana
Governor's Advisory Commission for Coastal Activities, the Louisiana
Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority Finance Corporation, and
the Executive Board of Restore or Retreat, a regional non-profit
coastal restoration advocacy group.
With this testimony, I hope to impress upon you several points: (1)
the importance of robust oil and gas research and development
activities in the Gulf of Mexico that contributes to the Gulf economy
and our national economy, and also funds vital coastal restoration
efforts, through a variety of means, such as the Gulf of Mexico Energy
Security Act (GOMESA), passed by Congress in 2006; (2) the importance
of commercial and recreational fishing activities to the Gulf and
national economies; and (3) illustrating a successful history in
Louisiana and the Gulf region of balancing economic activities such as
oil and gas development and commercial fishing, with environmental
protection and restoration. Indeed, from a Louisiana standpoint, the
Gulf of Mexico and its adjacent wetlands is the thread that sews
together our heritage, our livelihood, our recreation, and our homes,
and you would be hard-pressed to find another group of Americans whose
culture, character and fortunes are tied so closely to their natural
environment as those of us who call South Louisiana home.
The focus of today's hearing is on the Marine Sanctuary Program.
Several sanctuaries exist today in the Gulf of Mexico, and there is a
current proposal from NOAA that would expand the boundaries of one
existing Sanctuary, Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary,
located off the coasts of Louisiana and Texas. While I would view all
areas of the Gulf of Mexico as ``critical'' and deserving of our
stewardship, Flower Garden Banks was one area in the Gulf selected in
1992, and then expanded in 1996, for designation as a Marine Sanctuary.
But the key to understanding the complexity of balancing environmental
protection with maintaining economic prosperity for the country is that
the same reefs, bottom topographies and other aesthetic features that
provide habitat for fish and other biological resources are also the
very areas in which commercial and recreational fishing is most
productive, and the geologic formations associated with these areas
often hold fossil fuel resources buried below the seabed. And thus, at
all times, government policy at the Federal, state and local levels
need to balance these dynamics, which admittedly and for good reason is
not always an easy task.
I would be remiss in my duties as both the Executive Director of
the Nation's premiere energy services port and as a member of state and
non-profit coastal restoration entities if I did not remind the
Committee that through the contribution of Louisiana's share of
offshore energy revenue produced in the Gulf of Mexico, the continued
ability for oil and gas exploration and production in the Gulf will be
directly funding coastal environmental restoration in Louisiana. GOMESA
is currently accruing offshore revenues to be distributed to the
energy-producing Gulf states, and in Louisiana, will form the most
significant and sustainable stream of revenue dedicated to funding the
state's ambitious 50-year, $50 billion Coastal Master Plan. Thus,
Federal actions which would restrict energy exploration and production
would also limit large scale environmental restoration in areas which
need it most.
By way of background, The Greater Lafourche Port Commission, a
political subdivision of the state of Louisiana, facilitates the
economic growth of the communities in which it operates by maximizing
the flow of trade and commerce. We do this to grow our economy and
preserve our environment and heritage. The Port Commission operates
both the South Lafourche Leonard Miller Jr Airport and Port Fourchon,
which both service the bulk of America's offshore energy industry by
air, land and sea.
Port Fourchon is located on the Gulf of Mexico near the mouth of
Bayou Lafourche and is the only Louisiana port directly on the Gulf of
Mexico. Although 675 million barrels of domestically produced and
imported crude oil per year are transported via pipelines through the
Port, Port Fourchon does not itself handle any bulk oil and gas per se.
Rather, we are an intermodal offshore services and supply port. More
than 250 companies utilize Port Fourchon in servicing offshore rigs in
the Gulf of Mexico, carrying equipment, supplies and personnel to
offshore locations. In terms of service, Port Fourchon's tenants
provide services to more than 90 percent of all deepwater rigs in the
Gulf of Mexico, and roughly 45 percent of all shallow water rigs in the
Gulf. Eighty percent of all Gulf oil now comes from deepwater Gulf of
Mexico operations. In total, Port Fourchon plays a key role in
providing nearly 20 percent of the Nation's oil supply--or one in every
five barrels of oil in the country.
In a recent study conducted by Dr. Loren C. Scott, former Chair of
the LSU Economics Department, of the economic impact to the Nation of
Port Fourchon, Dr. Scott finds that Port Fourchon accounts for nearly
$4 billion in direct economic activity each year, which includes over
$650 million in household earnings. A copy of this report is attached
hereto for the record. The Port commissioned Dr. Scott to conduct this
economic study as a means of documenting the importance of Port
Fourchon to the Nation, in order to justify Federal participation in
infrastructure development at the Port, such as modernizing Louisiana
Highway 1, which connects the Port to the rest of the world, or for
seaport security funding, or for additional hurricane protection.
A 2015 study by the Rand Corporation and Louisiana State
University, Economic Evaluation of Coastal Land Loss in Louisiana,\1\
placed the value of imports and exports coming and going through
coastal Louisiana at over $300 billion annually, with petroleum and
chemical products forming a large portion of that activity. A copy of
this report is attached hereto for the record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://coastal.la.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/LSU-
Rand_Report_on_Economics_of_Land_ Loss-2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Loren Scott economic impact study referenced
above, a 3-week shut down of LA1/Port Fourchon would cause a loss of
$11.2 billion in sales to U.S. GDP, plus an additional $3.2 billion in
lost household earnings because 65,502 jobs would be lost nationally--
for just a 3-week shutdown. While each of these reports was intended
for different purposes, I share this information with the Committee to
illustrate the need for continued and sustained progress in developing
all of our offshore energy resources, both conventional and non-
conventional. Port Fourchon is the epicenter of offshore oil and gas
activities, and the companies in and around Fourchon, and their
technologies and innovations developed as a result of these activities,
will not only continue to sustain future offshore domestic oil and gas
activities, but will foster growth in our budding offshore renewable
energy industry as well.
For Port Fourchon to continue to grow and have a successful future
creating jobs throughout the economy and facilitating development for
our community, continued Gulf of Mexico energy exploration and
development is critically important. Robust levels of exploration and
development have the ability to energize oil and gas service companies,
their suppliers and their suppliers' suppliers throughout the country,
who are planning for future development. It facilitates critically
needed investment by entities that service these offshore activities,
which has a positive ripple effect throughout the national economy.
According to the economic impact study to which I alluded earlier,
Port Fourchon supports over 10,800 direct jobs across the state of
Louisiana. These are good paying jobs, in which someone with a high
school diploma can start out making $50,000 per year. If someone wants
to work on an offshore supply vessel or tugboat company, they can start
out as a deckhand and work their way up to Captain within 5 years,
earning a six-figure income. The Houma-Thibodaux MSA has traditionally
maintained one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country, at one
point hitting as low as about 3.7 percent, which was well below the
national average at the time. However, during the current downturn in
the energy industry, our region alone has lost over 12,000 jobs, which
has many in our community trying to turn to subsistence fishing,
hunting and trapping at a time when those commercial fisheries catches
are also declining. Actions by the Federal Government to lock away
productive parts of the Gulf would take even more opportunities away
from already challenged sectors of our economy, and would kick these
people when they are down.
The importance of our commercial fisheries industry is nationally
significant, producing approximately $300 million in revenue each year,
and Louisiana accounts for one-third of all fisheries landings in the
contiguous United States. The forthcoming ``Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan (CCMP)'' from the Barataria-Terrebonne National
Estuary Program includes the following economic update regarding our
commercial fishery along the Gulf Coast: ``Louisiana's seafood
harvesting sector has been in decline for more than two decades, due
primarily to price stagnation caused by an influx of imported seafood
(Asche et al. 2012; Josupeit 2004; Bene et al. 2000). This competitive
pressure has been compounded by rising input costs and a succession of
natural and man-made disasters. Together, such factors have led to a 56
percent decline in commercial fisherman license sales in the last 25
years, with more than half of this reduction occurring in the past
decade alone (LDWF 2016). The number of seafood dealers and processors
in Louisiana has also been in decline, as the globalization of
fisheries commodity markets has led to downsizing, consolidation, and
closure of more than half of the firms in this sector.''
The current Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary is
located in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico, 70 to 115 miles off the
coasts of Texas and Louisiana. The Sanctuary currently includes three
separate undersea features: East Flower Garden Bank; West Flower Garden
Bank; and Stetson Bank. The banks range in depth from 55 feet to nearly
500 feet, and provide a wide range of habitat conditions that support
several distinct biological communities, including the northernmost
coral reefs in the continental United States.
East and West Flower Garden Banks were designated a national marine
sanctuary in 1992 for purposes of protecting and managing the
conservation, ecological, recreational, research, education, historic
and aesthetic resources and qualities of these areas. The Stetson Bank
area was added to the Sanctuary by Congress in 1996.
While National Marine Sanctuary designation does allow for some
uses--as long as they are compatible with primary objective of
protecting resources--anchoring is prohibited. Also prohibited are
shrimping, longlining, and spearfishing. Recreational and commercial
hook and line fishing are allowable, but the economic opportunities
presented by those limited uses nowhere near offset the economic
opportunities displaced by the near sevenfold expansion of the area
locked away by the proposed action. Of timely importance, when the
Department of the Interior announced just last week upcoming lease
sales for 2017, the areas that encompass East and West Flower Garden
Banks were specifically excluded, given their marine sanctuary
designation.
In 2012, NOAA updated and revised the 1991 Flower Garden Banks
Management Plan to address recent scientific discoveries, advancements
in managing marine resources, and new resource management issues. As a
result of this review, in 2015, NOAA recommended expanding the
sanctuary to provide similar protections to additional banks in the
north central Gulf of Mexico. After a public scoping process, NOAA
proposed the expansion of the existing boundaries from 56 square miles
to an area that encompasses 383 square miles of waters in the
northwestern Gulf of Mexico. This alternative would add 15 additional
banks ranging from 70 to 120 miles offshore. In announcing its plan,
NOAA indicated that the proposed sanctuary expansion is required to
provide protection to marine resources ``that can most effectively be
addressed through NOAA's evaluation and implementation of the
comprehensive suite of habitat conservation and management actions made
possible by'' expanding the Flower Garden Banks Sanctuary. It is worth
noting that the advisory committee actually recommended a smaller
expansion of the FGBNMS, Alternative 2, which would have encompassed
100 fewer square miles and 3 fewer bank areas than the Alternative
which NOAA has put forward.
Whether or not the current Sanctuary requires further expansion, or
other areas within the Gulf of Mexico should be under consideration for
designation under the Marine Sanctuary Program is, frankly, beyond my
professional and academic capabilities to render an educated opinion.
However, in my occupation, on a daily basis, I am confronted with the
need to continually balance economic development with environmental
protection, and to live within a regime of Federal, state and local
laws and regulations that attempt to achieve that balance. And, at
times like today, I have the ability to provide my thoughts on matters
of pubic policy that impacts that balance of economic development and
environmental protection. So to me, a key element is for the
government, in collaboration with interested communities across
industry, environmental and recreational sectors, to effectively and
fairly utilize in NOAA's words ``a comprehensive suite of habitat
conservation and management actions'' so as to achieve an appropriate
balance of goals.
With respect to developing ``a comprehensive suite of habitat
conservation and management actions,'' we would be remiss not to
consider the massive and ongoing Natural Resources Damage Assessment
and associated resource condition, management and conservation research
and planning which has followed the tragic Deepwater Horizon oil spill
incident. While the Deepwater Horizon spill event had tragic and
disastrous impacts on the economy and environment of the Gulf of
Mexico, it has resulted in the largest coordinated environmental
assessment and comprehensive restoration and conservation planning
effort in our Nation's history. Over $7 billion is being dedicated
through the NRDA process to actively identify and address the health of
the Gulf. The Final Programmatic Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan
and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement guiding the
application of these billions of dollars of active conservation and
restoration include the very deep ocean and ocean floor habitat areas
that the proposed expansion of the FGBNMS would seek to lock away. Thus
it seems to me that there are conservation activities much broader-
based and effective underway which will have wider-ranging benefits for
these deep ocean habitats than the proposed expansion of the Flower
Garden Banks, with potentially fewer negative effects to industries and
people who can ill afford economic restrictions on their livelihoods.
In conclusion, Port Fourchon should be seen as an example of what
could happen in areas all along our coastlines, if these areas would be
available for conventional and renewable energy development, balanced
with appropriate environmental protection and conservation goals.
Billions of dollars of investment throughout the country, low
unemployment rates, high paying jobs, more revenue for our country, and
making great strides toward energy independence . . . What's not to
like about that!
Again Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today, and I would be happy to answer
any questions that the Committee may have.
*****
The following documents were submitted as supplements to Mr. Chiasson's
testimony. These documents are part of the hearing record and are being
retained in the Committee's official files:
--``Economic Impacts of Port Fourchon on the National and Regional
Economies,'' a Report by Dr. Loren C. Scott, April 2008
--``Economic Evaluation of Coastal Land Loss in Louisiana,'' a
Report by the Louisiana State University, Economics &
Policy Research Group, December 2015
______
Mr. Webster. Thank you so much for appearing.
Now, before we go into questions, I want to ask for
unanimous consent that Mr. Lowenthal be allowed to sit at the
dais and participate in today's hearing. Are there objections?
Show that it was adopted without objection.
We will at this point begin our questioning. I am going to
defer to the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Young, for 5 minutes.
You are recognized.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for having
these hearings.
It is a sad thing, in a way, for a lot of people that I am
still around, because I remember this battle about tuna and the
battle that tried to put the tuna business out of business
many, many years ago and very nearly came to it.
I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe the
Antiquities Act should ever have been applied to oceans. That
was never the intent of that. If you look at the Act itself, it
was intended for on-land places of significance, to protect it,
not oceans of massive square miles.
And it is ironic that even President Bush and President
Obama picked areas that had intensive other uses than a
monument area--fishing, potential oil. We heard from the
gentleman from Port Fourchon.
This is an attempt, very frankly, to control again the
seabeds, without scientific information, without consultation
with people directly affected, to my knowledge. And I can say
no one talked to any of the states, no one talked to the people
that were actually in that area. It was done by the interest
groups that said no more of anything unless it suits our goal,
and the goal is to have nothing--no oil exploration, no fishing
commercially, and little fishing sport-wise unless it is
approved by a Secretary.
That is our role. I have introduced, Mr. Chairman, my bill
called the MAST Act, the Marine Access and State Transparency
Act. It will take out the ability from the President. Nothing
can be done without the OK of the Congress.
We have to stop transferring that power around. To my
colleagues, we have lost our role of leading this Nation and
allowed the executive branch to do so, and it affects a lot of
us sitting at this table.
Now, we hear from people, ``Oh, this is a way to save the
fish.'' To my knowledge, very little science or cooperation
from anybody else involved, one-sided only.
Having said that, Mr. Hallman, what financial losses--and I
hate to ask this, because everybody says, oh, it is all about
money. What financial losses would your industry suffer under
these monument withdrawals?
Mr. Hallman. Well, thank you, Mr. Young, for that question.
The monument areas where the U.S. vessels fish are the so-
called Remote Pacific Island areas, and the catch there is
quite variable, so it is hard to put a precise monetary figure.
But all of the boats that fish in those areas operate out of
American Samoa, where the boats contribute $50 million to $60
million to the economy of American Samoa.
Mr. Young. Just American Samoa?
Mr. Hallman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Young. So, it is a terrible financial knock if these go
in place.
Was there any consultation by the Administration about
these withdrawals?
Mr. Hallman. No, sir, not at all. I woke up one morning and
found out that this was already announced by the White House.
And then there was an uproar for a few months and some
opportunity to intervene.
Mr. Young. That is my complaint about our government. It is
supposed to be for the people, by the people, with the people,
not by an executive branch making a decision without
consultation.
Would you support legislation, such as my legislation, that
would prevent marine designations and protection at 100
nautical miles or 200 nautical miles, the entire EEZ? The
question is, do you want Congress to do it or do you want
administrations to do it?
Mr. Hallman. Oh, absolutely, I think it should be the
Congress that does this, Mr. Young.
Mr. Young. OK.
And last, do you believe the overall intent of these
designations was to shut down your industry and fishing
altogether to turn our oceans into limited aquariums?
Mr. Hallman. Well, to some extent, you could project that
idea out, since there are ideas from activists to close 30 or
40 percent of the ocean to fishing, not based on science
recommendations.
Mr. Young. I am always interested that most of these
recommendations come from universities that really have no
stake in this, that really have no loss of revenues. And I
think we ought to look at those finances, as far as where this
money comes from, to make a recommendation without a
consultation with the people. It is about the people.
Thank you.
Mr. Hallman. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Webster. I now recognize the Acting Ranking Member, Mr.
Grijalva, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to defer the
first set of questions to Mr. Sablan.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's
hearing. Welcome to all the witnesses. We know the weather, and
we are sorry that we are missing the Mayor today.
But in my district, in the Northern Marianas, many were
excited when in January of 2009, it was at 11 o'clock in the
morning, when President Bush used his powers under the
Antiquities Act to declare the Marianas Trench a national
monument. My governor had his picture taken hugging the
President with one of the biggest smiles on his face.
And we continue to be hopeful that the monument designation
will bring cultural and economic benefits to our islands. This
is why I have been working closely with my governor, my local
legislators, key stakeholders, and activists to have the
Marianas Trench National Monument declared a national marine
sanctuary.
So today, I am pleased to announce that the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has placed the monument
on its sanctuary inventory list. This is the first step in the
process, and hopefully NOAA will soon commence the full public
participatory process required to determine sanctuary
determination under the National Marine Sanctuary Act. Our
efforts are an example of a community listening to each other
and working together for the greater good.
The law is clear that the designation of marine monuments
is a completely appropriate use of the Antiquities Act. And the
science is clear that protecting key species of marine
ecosystems from more extractive industries make our fisheries
healthier and more productive.
Further, each marine monument designation has been preceded
by a stakeholder process that included the fishing industry and
led to changes in the final designation based on fishermen's
concerns. Data show that very little of the industry's catches
were coming from the areas that are now monuments.
Indeed, the Hawaii longline fleet, a critic of the
monuments, lands only about 5 percent of its fish from those
waters and still meets its quotas by fishing elsewhere. Last
year, the fleet reached the limits of its allowable catch of
bigeye tuna by July.
We should be embracing marine monuments rather than
opposing them. And we should not allow Regional Fishery
Management Councils, including the Western Pacific Council, to
have veto power over fishing rules in monuments and sanctuaries
designed to conserve all marine species and habitats, not just
fish.
Westpac, in particular, has fought against every major
marine conservation initiative in recent memory, including
legislation to end the gruesome practice of shark finning and
regulations designed to protect threatened and endangered
species of sea turtles, marine mammals, and seabirds.
The executive director of Westpac, a Federal employee, has
gone so far as to lead a petition to remove endangered species
protections from the green sea turtle and, more recently, has
attempted to recruit other council members and staff from
around the country to join her in lobbying the Trump
administration to abolish marine monuments.
These activities are inappropriate at the very least and
show that Westpac supports the fishing industry at the expense
of marine conservation that benefits all Americans. So, instead
of blaming monuments for problems that do not exist, Westpac
should focus on addressing the serious allegations of labor
abuses and human trafficking aboard Hawaii-based longliners and
rebooting the numerous reef fish stocks that NOAA recently
showed are overfished.
I don't have very much time, Mr. Hallman, but could I
please get a yes-or-no answer from you. I have a couple of
questions about the purse seine tuna fishery and the Pacific
Remote Islands Marine National Monument. So, just a yes-or-no
answer, please.
You claim that the entire fleet of 38 boats is negatively
impacted, but isn't it true that only a handful of these
vessels have the proper Coast Guard endorsements to fish in the
U.S. EEZ?
Yes or no? I really don't have too much time, sir.
Mr. Hallman. Yes. Only half the boats are allowed to fish
in the EEZ.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you.
Data submitted to NOAA from logbooks aboard U.S. tuna purse
seine vessels show that only a small fraction of their catch
was coming from the areas that now comprise the Pacific Remote
Islands Marine National Monument.
Do you believe that vessels you represent are submitting
false data to fisheries regulators?
Mr. Hallman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you, Mr. Hallman. I appreciate your
answers.
Mr. Webster. The Chair recognizes----
Mr. Sablan. Mr. Chairman, if I may ask unanimous consent to
submit records--this for the record.
Mr. Webster. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Sablan. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Webster. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady, Mrs.
Radewagen.
Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The economy of American Samoa depends on U.S. fishing more
than any other state or territory. In fact, over 80 percent of
our local revenue is generated by our local tuna cannery. The
impact that these monument designations have had on American
Samoa cannot be overstated.
This may be a silly question, and it is something that I
and all of my constituents are aware of, but I want it for the
record, Mr. Hallman. How important is the fleet to the economic
well-being of American Samoa?
Mr. Hallman. Yes, thank you, Congresswoman Radewagen. And I
know you know the answer to that.
First, let me just take a few seconds to thank you very
much for your and Chairman Bishop's efforts at the end of last
year in getting the legislation passed to strengthen the WCPFC,
particularly with respect to high seas fishing. This is going
to be helpful, I believe, very helpful to the U.S. tuna fleets.
But to answer your question, ma'am, about half of the U.S.
fleet lands its fish in American Samoa. About 80 percent of the
private-sector economy in American Samoa is dependent on the
tuna industry in one way or another.
I mentioned to Mr. Young that $50 million is what the
expenditure of the boats is, but the canneries there is a whole
different matter, which contributes significantly to the
economy of American Samoa. Those tuna canneries are the largest
private employer on American Samoa.
And I do not represent the canneries, but for the fleet,
and just to repeat, our expenditures, the boats' expenditures,
in American Samoa for fuel, supplies, et cetera, is about $50
million, $60 million a year. So, it is quite significant.
Mrs. Radewagen. PRIMNM, or the Pacific Remote Islands
Marine National Monument, established in 2014, has a
significant impact on your fleet and on American Samoa.
Can you tell me about the process that went into
establishing that? Was it transparent? Were you involved?
Mr. Hallman. Thank you for that question, because I think
it is a very important one.
There was no transparency. None. As I told Mr. Young, we
woke up one morning and found out this was already announced
right at the same time there was an ocean conference being held
at the State Department by Secretary Kerry--this was all a big
announcement. I was a participant in that conference, by the
way, and was surprised.
I am not sure everyone in it was surprised, because it was
90 percent of environmental activists in there. But there were
a few fishing representatives, and we did not know anything
about it. So, there was no consultation.
After that, we, I hate to use the word, almost forced our
way into the dialogue and did have a meeting at CEQ where we
expressed our concerns. And we did participate in a public
forum in Honolulu, but it was not a good process for such an
important action, ma'am.
Mrs. Radewagen. And, last, I understand that the fishery in
these areas is for highly migratory fish stocks. What is the
relationship between these stocks and the Remote Island Area?
Mr. Hallman. Well, there really isn't a relationship. The
highly migratory tuna stocks, which our fleet catches and are
landed in Samoa--mostly skipjack tuna. And these stocks, they
travel thousands of miles. They just swim across these monument
areas.
And the Law of the Sea has a special chapter to deal with
highly migratory species, where it prescribes that they are
managed and conserved by international mechanisms. There is a
treaty, there are legally binding treaties. The best tuna
scientists, population dynamicists in the world look at these
stocks and give recommendations every year, and the countries
all decide what to do.
So, this pre-emption of that process is something,
honestly, I don't understand, because it has no positive
benefit for the highly migratory fish stocks whatsoever.
Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Webster. The Chair recognizes Mr. Grijalva for 5
minutes.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.
Mr. Hallman, you claim in the testimony that the Pacific
Remote Islands Marine National Monument is the reason for one
of the two tuna canneries closing on American Samoa. But
industry reports and the plant owner's own assessment cite the
fishing days lost through the South Pacific Tuna Treaty and
larger economic factors, not the monument, as the reasons for
closing the cannery.
In essence, I think the company admitted that it was
closing the plant because it was cheaper for them to process
tuna in foreign countries than in American Samoa, despite the
fact that the workers there were being paid less than minimum
wage, 80 percent were foreign workers, and they were avoiding
very significant import duties.
Do you disagree with this assessment and these widely
reported facts, including the company's own assessment?
Mr. Hallman. Well, I don't totally disagree with that, sir.
American Samoa is an expensive place to operate for a tuna
cannery. Nonetheless, it is a good place for a lot of reasons.
And there is always that balance of economics. To address your
earlier point, I don't think the marine monument was the only
reason for the closure of the cannery, no. There are other
reasons.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. That is the point, that there was
no singular reason, there was a combination of reasons.
Mr. Chiasson, you expressed concern over the proposed
expansion of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary
in the Gulf of Mexico to a size of less than 383 square miles.
By contrast, President Trump's plan for oil and gas lease sales
in the Gulf's western, central, and eastern planning areas was
more than 114,000 square miles.
Do you believe it is unreasonable to protect less than \1/
10\ of 1 percent of critical fish and coral habitat in these
areas of the Gulf from oil drilling?
Mr. Chiasson. I think in order to establish energy
independence we need to have everything open.
Mr. Grijalva. So, it is----
Mr. Chiasson. I am not saying it is to the detriment of
fisheries or any habitat.
Mr. Grijalva. So, your point is these 383 miles need to be
open as well, correct?
Mr. Chiasson. Correct.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Thanks.
Dr. Bruno, in your testimony, you point to a significant
scientific evidence of the importance of marine reserves like
marine national monuments for increasing the productivity of
fisheries and benefiting the fishing industry as a whole.
Your fellow panelist there, Mr. Hallman, claims that marine
reserves only hurt fishermen and that eliminating fishing
pressure from those areas does not benefit stocks of highly
migratory species like tuna.
Are these claims accurate? Will you please talk in a little
more detail about the importance of spillover effects in
improving fishery harvest? And can marine reserves help protect
and restore populations of wide-ranging marine species like
tuna, sharks, whales, and seabirds? In 1 minute. I am sorry.
Dr. Bruno. It is OK.
Yes, absolutely, there is very clear scientific evidence
that marine reserves increase fisheries' productivity via the
spillover effect.
That is not necessarily true for highly migratory species.
As Mr. Hallman has testified, a lot of these tuna swim in and
out of these very, very small reserves. But, as a result, these
small reserves have absolutely no impact on the fishery's
catch, the tuna fishery in the PRI. The former purse seine
catch in the PRI was about 1 percent of their total catch. That
is obviously a tiny amount. The fish move through the monument,
so they cannot possibly be locked up in the monument. And,
finally, this is a quota-based fishery, so there is a certain
number of fishes that the tuna boats are allowed to catch every
year. The monument designation has zero impact on that number.
So, it does not in any way restrict the number of tuna that
have been caught. In fact, tuna catches have been going up in
recent years post-sanctuary implementation. Overall, there is
no evidence that the sanctuary has any negative effect on the
tuna fishery, despite what Mr. Hallman testified, and there is
good evidence to suggest that they have benefited the fishery
because it has increased and gone up.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Webster. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Louisiana, Mr. Graves, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Bruno, thank you for being here today.
Just a quick question for you. Under marine sanctuary
designations, there is an opportunity for public comment and
participation. Under national marine monuments, there is not.
Do you have a preference on either one of those?
Dr. Bruno. I really do not have any professional opinion on
that.
Mr. Graves. Do you think the public should be able to
participate?
Dr. Bruno. Absolutely. I certainly think the public should
be able to participate in that process.
Mr. Graves. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Chiasson, I want to go back to the line of questioning
that the Ranking Member just posed. Let me ask you a very
simple question. When you go fishing offshore, where do you go?
Mr. Chiasson. I go to the platforms and the rigs offshore.
Mr. Graves. Have you and I scripted this in any way?
Mr. Chiasson. No, not at all.
Mr. Graves. All right.
Mr. Chairman, there is a fundamental misunderstanding.
Look, we fish. That is what we do, we fish. There is this
belief that you cannot have proper management of fisheries
without a marine monument designation or a sanctuaries
designation. That is not the case. That is where we fish. That
is the habitat for the fish. And it is amazing, the explosive
productivity that occurs in these areas.
So, I love all of these landlocked states that are now fish
experts telling us what we need to do with our Gulf, but let me
point out a few things.
The most productive commercial fisheries in the continental
United States are off the coast of Louisiana. At the same time,
let me tell you what we have. You have six states that produce
offshore energy--Alaska, California, Texas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama--six states. When you add up the
offshore production in Federal waters for Alaska, California,
Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama and you multiply it times about
three or four, that is how much offshore production you have in
Louisiana. And at the same time--I will say it again--we have
the most commercial seafood production in the continental
United States.
So, it is not a we have to choose one or the other. You can
actually manage these things, and they can co-exist. The place
we go to catch the fish is we tie up to the rigs. Now, look, I
am not going to sit here and say that we need to be
irresponsible and not have appropriate environmental
regulations in place and allow people to spill oil and other
things. I am not saying that. But this is not an exclusivity
thing. You can actually do both. And I think that point is
unfortunately being missed, and I think that is very dangerous,
to think that you cannot do one or the other.
I want to ask a question to anybody actually on this panel.
When you pull up the Antiquities Act--and when I say ``this
panel,'' that means up here as well--it gives the President the
authority to establish these monuments, and it says ``that are
situated upon lands''--lands--``owned or controlled by the
Government of the United States.''
Anybody here care to comment on why we are talking about
water right now when the statute says lands? Up here, there, or
anywhere? Anyone care to comment on that?
OK. Just curious as to why we are talking about water when
the law actually says lands.
Let me go to another question here.
Dr. Bruno, I want to ask you, based on what I was just
talking about, do you believe that you can actually manage
fisheries in a way without coming in and saying that these
areas are off limits to any fisheries, recreational,
commercial, or energy production and other things? Do you think
that you could actually have a management plan that would allow
for different types of activities to co-exist while still
sustainably managing the fisheries?
Dr. Bruno. Absolutely. I mean, different activities
certainly can co-exist. And that is really what we are talking
about here, is zoning these activities, just having them
slightly spatially segregated. Yes.
Mr. Graves. Great. Thank you.
And, Mr. Hallman, your members' business depends upon the
sustainability of the fisheries. I have said this on this panel
before, and I will say it again--sustainability of fisheries is
a critical priority to me. I don't want just my kids and me to
be able to fish. I want future generations to be able to fish,
as well. It is an important part of our culture and economy in
south Louisiana.
Do you believe that active fisheries management, rather
than just shutting things off, do you believe that you can
possibly sustainably manage fisheries by doing that?
Mr. Hallman. No, I don't believe--I believe that is
detrimental to sustainable management of fisheries. And I agree
with you----
Mr. Graves. When you say ``that is detrimental,'' you are
talking about shutting areas down.
Mr. Hallman. Shutting off areas arbitrarily without--based
on good, rigorous science.
Mr. Graves. Because I know cases where you have certain
populations of species that actually become explosive, to the
detriment of other species, because they affect habitat or food
sources and other things. So, in some cases, you need to
actually active-manage, catch, or cull different species in
order to ensure the right diversity and populations.
Mr. Sablan. Will the gentleman yield for an answer to his
question?
Mr. Graves. You can have all the time I have left.
Mr. Sablan. OK.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Can I interrupt also and interject just 1
second? Because I also, I didn't want to take away your time,
but I also had another answer to the question you gave.
Let me ask unanimous consent to put into the record the
announcement of the lawsuit done by the Pacific Legal
Foundation over exactly your point on lands and water. And
while you are sitting there thinking of your next round, try
and figure out--because the law also says it is the smallest
footprint. I am trying to figure out how you get a footprint in
water.
But let me ask UC to include that in the record.
Mr. Webster. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Contact:
Jonathan Wood, Attorney Damien M. Schiff, Senior Attorney
Pacific Legal Foundation Pacific Legal Foundation
[email protected] [email protected]
(703) 647-4119 (916) 419-7111
www.pacificlegal.org www.pacificlegal.org
New England fishermen challenge Obama's marine national monument
Creation of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National
Monument exceeded the Antiquities Act, which authorizes monuments only
on federal land, not the ocean
Boston, MA; March 7, 2017: A coalition of New England fishermen
organizations filed suit today over former President Barack Obama's
designation of a vast area of ocean as a national monument--a dictate
that could sink commercial fishing in New England.
The organizations filing the lawsuit are the Massachusetts Lobstermen's
Association, Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen's Association, Long Island
Commercial Fishing Association, Rhode Island Fisherman's Alliance, and
Garden State Seafood Association.
They are represented, free of charge, by Pacific Legal Foundation, a
watchdog organization that litigates nationwide for limited government,
property rights, and a balanced approach to environmental regulations.
Watch this brief video
The lawsuit challenges President Obama's September 15, 2016, creation
of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, 130
miles off the coast of Cape Cod.
``By declaring over 5,000 square miles of ocean--an area the size of
Connecticut--to be a national monument, President Obama set this entire
area off-limits to most fishing immediately, with what remains of
fishing opportunities to be phased out over the next few years,'' said
PLF attorney Jonathan Wood. ``This illegal, unilateral presidential
action threatens economic distress for individuals and families who
make their living through fishing, and for New England communities that
rely on a vibrant fishing industry.''
A monumental abuse of presidential power
President Obama claimed to be relying on the federal Antiquities Act.
But as today's lawsuit makes clear, his decree far exceeded the
authority granted to presidents by that 1906 statute. The Antiquities
Act was enacted to protect ancient antiquities and human relics
threatened by looting, giving the president broad powers to declare
monuments consistent with that purpose.
However, the statute permits creation of national monuments only on
``lands owned or controlled'' by the federal government. Moreover, any
designation must be ``confined to the smallest area'' needed to protect
the artifacts or objects that the monument is intended to safeguard.
``President Obama violated both of those core requirements of the law
when he created the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National
Monument,'' Wood noted. ``Most fundamentally, the ocean, where the
monument is located, is not `land,' nor is it federally owned or
controlled. The monument designation is also not confined to the
smallest necessary area; on the contrary, its sprawling boundaries bear
no relation to the underwater canyons and seamounts it is supposed to
protect. In short, the designation of a vast area of ocean as a
national monument was a blatant abuse of presidential power.
``Unfortunately, the Antiquities Act has morphed into a favorite tool
for presidents to abuse,'' Wood continued. ``Today, presidents use it
to place vast areas of federal lands off limits to productive use with
little input. Monument designations are particularly common at the end
of a chief executive's term, once the president can no longer be held
accountable.
``Former President Obama was the king of Antiquities Act abuse,
invoking it more times than any prior president and including vastly
more area within his designations than any predecessor,'' said Wood.
``Our lawsuit is intended to rein in abuse of the Antiquities Act and
underscore that it is not a blank check allowing presidents to do
whatever they want. The creation of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts
Marine National Monument is a clear example of a president exceeding
his authority, and we are suing to make sure this edict is struck down
and the rule of law prevails.''
No environmental justification
``Beyond its violation of the law, the monument designation also
threatens to harm the environment by pushing fishermen to other, less
sustainable fisheries, and increasing conflicts between their gear and
whales,'' said Wood. ``The president's proclamation cites protection of
coral as one of the reasons for the monument. But the corals remain
pristine after more than four decades of commercial fishing because
fishermen know where the corals are, and carefully avoid them, out of
environmental concern and because coral destroys their gear.
``Instead of punishing New England's fishermen--and shutting down their
businesses--federal officials should be acknowledging their positive
role as stewards of the ocean's environmental resources,'' Wood added.
``This is shown in their laudable efforts to promote sustainability.
PLF's clients, for instance, have spent years working to improve their
methods and equipment and to retire excess fishing permits, knowing
that these costly sacrifices will provide long-term benefits to their
industry and the environment. The monument designation undermines those
sustainability efforts, by depriving the fishermen of any reward for
their sacrifices.''
With a `stroke of the pen,' Obama's illegal action `puts men and women
out of work'
``We are fighting every day to keep the men and women in the commercial
fishing industry working, but with one stoke of President Obama's pen--
and his abuse of the Antiquities Act--they are out of work,'' said Beth
Casoni, executive director of the Massachusetts Lobstermen's
Association.
``The monument designation will have a negative rippling effect across
the region as fishermen will have to search for new fishing grounds--
only to find they are already being fished,'' she said. ``The shoreside
businesses will also feel the impacts, as fishermen have to go further
and further to harvest their catch, leaving less funds to reinvest in
their businesses.
``We are extremely grateful to have PLF at our side as we fight back
against this legal travesty, which is causing so much hardship for the
commercial fishing industry here in the Northeast.''
The case is Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association v. Ross. More
information, including the complaint, a video, a podcast, photos, and
an explanatory blog post, is available at: www.pacificlegal.org.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Chairman, if I may?
Mr. Webster. Yes.
Mr. Grijalva. If I may, if there is no objection, enter
into the record the memorandum opinion from the Solicitor of
the Department of the Interior, General Counsel of NOAA, and
General Counsel for the Council of Environmental Quality that
was issued for both President Bush and President Obama when
they did their marine designations.
Mr. Graves. Can I ask a point of clarification, Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. Ranking Member, I just want to make sure that you
concur in that. Is that accurate? You concur in that it does
apply to waters as well?
Mr. Grijalva. I introduce these into the record at this
point. Thank you.
Mr. Webster. Without objection, both motions are approved.
Mr. Bishop. And I am not going to object either, because we
are cutting down more trees to put all these things in the
record.
Mr. Webster. Mr. Beyer, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
While we are putting things on the record, some opponents
of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument
have claimed that there was a lack of public and scientific
support for the proposal and that stakeholders' concerns were
not taken into consideration, even though the monument was
reduced in size significantly from the original proposal and
fishing will be phased out over the years based on industry
feedback.
I would like to submit for the record, if there is no
objection, a large body of scientific evidence supporting
designation of the monument, along with dozens of letters from
scientists, businesses, conservation groups, and others in
favor of the designation.
Thank you very much. If there is no objection, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. That is a big forest right there.
Mr. Beyer. Exactly.
And my friend, the distinguished Member from Alaska, seemed
to lay blame and responsibility on universities as an important
part of the process to establish marine monuments and
sanctuaries, as if that were a terrible thing.
As the father of a Brown graduate, let me address the Brown
Ph.D. in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Dr. Bruno, and ask:
Is there science behind these designations?
Dr. Bruno. Absolutely. In addition to the science I have
already talked about, these are not randomly selected areas. I
mean, these are the most pristine ecosystems we have left on
the planet. We very specifically target, you know, the best of
the 1 percent that is still out there.
Mr. Beyer. Some people have expressed concerns about the
Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, but I
am optimistic about the long-term benefits.
One of the things in the written statement of the New
Bedford mayor, who didn't come, he said that the Atlantic
monument designation established a moratorium on fishing in the
water column above the monument seabed, and this approach was
of serious concern for pelagic fisheries because pelagic
fishermen have no impact on the integrity of the bathymetry and
substrate that a monument is meant to protect.
Can you respond to the mayor on this?
Dr. Bruno. I can say that the monument was not only meant
to protect the deep-sea corals and other invertebrates, but it
was meant to protect the water column. It is a hotspot for
marine mammals. There are sperm whales, humpback whales near
the surface and that dive down into the water. There are
seabirds, over winter, puffins, on the surface of the water.
So, it is really kind of a surface-to-sea-floor protection.
Mr. Beyer. Last fall you wrote an Op-ed entitled, ``Marine
reserves lead to bigger fishes--Florida needs more of them.''
And again, if there is no objection, I would like to enter that
essay into the record.
[The information follows:]
THE HUFFINGTON POST
Marine reserves lead to bigger fishes--Florida needs more of them
John Bruno, Contributor
Marine Ecologist
11/22/2016 03:44 pm ET
The ongoing battle over the planned marine reserve in Biscayne Bay has
scientists and citizens scratching our heads. The impassioned
opposition to the proposed protection of a tiny sliver of our shared
resource is stunningly out of proportion to what the National Park
Service (NPS) has proposed. Moreover, the arguments made by opponents
have not been based on science and are mostly illogical. For example,
citing a scientific paper I co-authored, Representative Ros-Lehtinen
correctly pointed out in an op-ed that a marine reserve in Biscayne Bay
National Park wouldn't protect Florida's remaining corals from global
warming. However, this is analogous to arguing brushing your teeth is
unnecessary because it doesn't prevent cancer. Protecting corals from
climate change isn't the purpose of a marine reserve, although reserves
provide countless other benefits. If Rep. Ros-Lehtinen wants to protect
corals from climate change, her party and her CORAL bill should support
the move to renewable energy, one of the few actions that could in fact
protect and restore corals and the reefs they build.
While marine reserves are not a panacea for everything afflicting the
ocean, the science indicates, in literally hundreds of case studies,
that reserves can greatly benefit fishes, fisherman, and coastal
economies based on tourism. This is because the fishes that are allowed
to grow large and reproduce within a protected area eventually leave
(with their babies) and can then be caught. This is called the
``spillover effect'' and is the reason why trophy fishes are so often
caught adjacent to reserves, like the Merritt Island National Wildlife
Refuge.
The resistance of fishing groups and some of our elected officials
stems from the ``freedom to fish'' mentality that considers fishing a
right that should not be constrained. To most Floridians, this is
preposterous: we can't drive, hunt, skateboard, smoke, fly a kite or be
naked anywhere we'd like. Government places restrictions on all kinds
of activities to separate things that don't belong together, e.g.,
highways and playgrounds. In marine conservation, this is called
spatial planning--working within constraints of the seascape, the local
ecology, and the demands of user groups, we zone the oceans to try to
keep everybody happy and safe. The NPS is only proposing some much
needed zoning to reduce the dangerous (occasionally chaotic) comingling
of activities currently taking place throughout the Bay. To me, setting
aside 6% of a national park, so people can observe wildlife in a safe,
low impact manner is a no-brainer. Recreational fishing would still be
allowed in 94% of the parks waters and across thousands of square miles
of prime fishing habitat outside the parks boundaries.
I work mainly on the effects of climate change on corals and other
marine critters. As Rep. Ros-Lehtinen pointed out, my work shows that
marine reserves do little to mitigate those impacts. Yet, as a
scientist, I still strongly support the establishment and expansion of
marine reserves throughout Florida for their proven benefits for fish
populations. If the planned Biscayne Bay reserve has a flaw, it is that
it is way too small--a groundbreaking study recently found that to
maximize benefits for fish and fisherman, at least 30% of the oceans
should be protected (essentially creating nursery grounds that would
massively boost the profitability of commercial fishing).
I also support the planned reserve as a father. Last summer, my family
and I spent our vacation in the Florida Keys, which we've been doing
since the early 1970s. Every day, we snorkeled in the Sombrero Reef
Special Protected Area, where, safe from harvesting, the fishes are
absolutely stunning. Snorkeling just a mile outside the reserve was a
totally different experience; the fish are much smaller, scarce, and
afraid.
Scientists, snorkelers, SCUBA divers, reasonable fisherman, and parents
don't have lobbying groups, but if we did, we'd deploy them to convince
our representatives to support the Biscayne Bay reserve and the general
expansion of protected areas throughout Florida. Instead, we have to
rely on public comment periods, during which time 90% of 43,000 pieces
of correspondence received were in support the marine reserve. Congress
simply hasn't listened.
______
Mr. Beyer. The topic was the proposed no-take marine
reserve in Biscayne National Park. I was there with our
Chairman a year ago. And you argue it was a no-brainer because
in addition to other benefits, there were actually more and
bigger fish for anglers to catch. We seem to have seen this in
marine monument to marine monument, that fishery catch actually
goes up. This then was echoed by Bouncer Smith, who was a south
Florida charter captain who testified before the Committee in
Homestead, and many other saltwater anglers, scuba divers, and
tourism-related businesses.
Can you discuss why protecting part of the reef, I believe
there is only 6 percent of the reef that was good for Biscayne
Bay and good for fishermen.
Dr. Bruno. Yes, absolutely. Like as you just said, that is
where the fish get big. Any sports fisherman knows that is
where you go to get a record fish, you fish right in the edge
of the marine park, whether it is Florida or anywhere else.
Mr. Beyer. And then if I want to shift just to Mr. Chiasson
for 1 second. I just wanted to thank you for one thing you said
here. Too many pieces of paper. I can't find it, let me
paraphrase you. When you said that on a daily basis, you are
convinced and proud of the fact that you have to find the right
balance between the natural resource exploitation, the fishing,
and the preservation of the environmental balance, and you said
it very well twice in the same paragraph. How do you reconcile
that with your response to the Ranking Member that you also did
not want to have any restriction on the 383 square miles?
Mr. Chiasson. I think, if I could elaborate on what I said
to him, there is a large amount of technology that exists in
the offshore drilling that can allow for the tapping into the,
so to speak, fossil fuels with direction of horizontal
drilling, and not taking it off the footprint of allowing
access to that energy production. When I said that, I mean,
let's not take it all for the allowance of offshore activities
in that footprint.
Mr. Beyer. I liked your first answer better, but thank you
very much.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Webster. The Chair recognizes Mr. Wittman for 5
minutes.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
for holding today's hearing on national marine monuments and
sanctuaries. My background is working in the area of biology
and fishery science for over 27 years running the seafood
safety program in the state of Virginia, so I know a little bit
about this particular subject area. I have heard from hundreds
of folks in my district along the Potomac River, including the
State Delegate who represents that area, Margaret Ransone, who
is in the seafood business herself, about a proposed Mallows
Bay Potomac River marine regional sanctuary, and the impact
that it would have on watermen and seafood businesses. And by
the way, my son is a waterman, so I hear from him on a daily
basis. He makes his living off of the water.
The management in that region is put in the hands of a bi-
state commission, it is adjudicated by members from Virginia
Marine Resources and Maryland Marine Resources. They are in
charge of managing those resources. We all understand the
economic impacts of the resources in that river have. We
understand crab populations and oyster populations coming back,
good examples of good management.
My concern is that the National Marine Sanctuaries Act does
not contain any legal protections for fishermen who have been
fishing these waters for years. And the sanctuary plan
supersedes any existing regulations. We all know, too, that the
Act does not contain any provisions that require sanctuaries to
use science-based management, meaning sanctuary managers can
prohibit fishing in sanctuaries without scientifically
justifying a fisheries ban.
And in the case of the Mallows Bay Potomac River region
sanctuary, NOAA has promised stakeholders that the state of
Maryland can maintain full adjudication of managing the
resources there, including the Potomac River Fisheries
Commission.
Mr. Hallman, I want to ask you, I know that American Samoa
was promised exactly the same thing. Can you tell me how this
has worked for American Samoa, with the decisions now being
made about marine resources there under this Act? Tell me how
that has worked out?
Mr. Hallman. Well, I have a little reluctance to speak for
American Samoa, because that is not who I represent. But I
don't think it has worked out well, Congressman. Again, I go
back to one of my basic points in my testimony, which is that
there are existing scientific procedures already established in
law that you have alluded to, and they apply to Samoa, to all
over the world. So, why these would be pre-empted by some other
executive branch, or professors, or whatever it is, when some
of the best procedures in law and science are already there to
do this and doing a pretty good job. That is what I don't
understand. And I think that is one of the key points.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Hallman.
I want to ask the other panel members, when we look at
these designations and in now taking decision-making away from
states, who have had records of good management practices,
resources being restored, and now you replace that with an
ability for Federal decision-makers to make decisions without
science, without the knowledge of local fisheries, the effort
that goes in by those managers, do we believe that that is the
right way to manage these particular areas? And is the right
way to do fisheries management through taking out of access for
recreational and commercial fisherman those areas that are most
biologically productive, and then tell folks, ``By the way, you
have all these other hundreds of thousands of square miles of
water that are open to you that have no biological ability to
support fish.'' Is that the right way to go about managing
this? I ask any panel member to give me their answer on that.
Dr. Bruno. It is not, but that is not how the process works
at all. For example, these monuments do not exclude
recreational fishing, they really promote it. It is enjoyed in
them. And that it is not part of the what the monuments are
designed to do.
Mr. Wittman. So, there has not been any limitation on
recreational fishing in any of these national marine
sanctuaries?
Dr. Bruno. No, I can't say that. There has been.
Mr. Wittman. OK. So, when it is promised by NOAA that that
will not happen and it has happened elsewhere, you don't think
we should be suspect, or, at least, questioning of that and
when NOAA now supersedes the responsibility that is, I think,
sovereign with states, to manage the resources that are in
their state waters, the waters of the Potomac that are
adjudicated jointly on an agreement between Virginia and
Maryland that now NOAA, a Federal Government entity, should
supersede the sovereignty of states for their own resources? Do
you believe that is proper?
Dr. Bruno. No, I do not.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Webster. Mr. Panetta, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Panetta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
Gentlemen, first of all, let me thank all three of you for
taking the time and your efforts to come here and testify. I
know it can take a lot, and I want to thank you for that. So, I
appreciate that.
Mr. Bruno, I appreciate you putting up that picture of your
two daughters, because in some way it goes to what Mr. Young
was saying that people are important in this process, there is
no doubt about it. I have two daughters, and I am proud that
they are growing up in the central coast of California, and
being exposed to a monument and national marine sanctuary that
we have there on the Monterey Bay, the Monterey Bay Marine
Sanctuary, as well as the California Marine Monuments Act as
well. And what I have seen in my experience, having grown up
there, is that it does greatly benefit the people of that area.
And I would ask you, in your experience in dealing with
monuments and marine sanctuaries, do they benefit fishermen?
Dr. Bruno. They absolutely do benefit fishermen, including
recreational fishermen.
Mr. Panetta. Does it benefit tourism?
Dr. Bruno. Hugely, and that is why in almost every case the
people are strongly in support. In Connecticut, I believe it
was 68 percent; in Hawaii a very large majority of the
population--not the industry groups--support monument
implementation. There are 3 million people in America that
scuba dive; 50 million that are saltwater fishermen. The scuba
industry is $11 billion, adds $11 billion toward GDP;
recreational fishing, $70 billion. These are big numbers and
these are the activities that these monuments promote and
really develop.
Mr. Panetta. Does it benefit research?
Dr. Bruno. Absolutely, these monuments are critical to
research. There is really nowhere else we can go to figure out
a lot of things about how the oceans work that we really don't
know yet.
Mr. Panetta. I think recently in the central coast of
California, we had an issue with our sea stars and how they
were shrinking away. And there was a research institution from
UCSC, University of California Santa Cruz, that actually
figured out the issue. Isn't that correct?
Dr. Bruno. That is right, it appears to be linked to ocean
warming.
Mr. Panetta. Mr. Hallman, I appreciate what you had to say
about being involved in the process. I saw, firsthand,
indirectly with a Congress Member who was a major participant
in the creation of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.
And the way they did that is bringing everybody to the table in
order to get things done, in order to hear things out. I think
that is something we should learn in Congress, to be honest
with you, that you cannot just have one side cram legislation
through, you have to be able to come and talk about it on both
sides. And this way you have lasting legislation, lasting
policies. Is that correct?
Mr. Hallman. I agree with you, Congressman. I believe there
should be transparent and public opportunity for all of these
kinds of decisions that affect people.
Mr. Panetta. Exactly. I was a member of the Sanctuary
Advisory Council of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.
Has anybody ever been involved with the Sanctuary Advisory
Council for a marine national sanctuary? It is sort of
something where everybody is at the table--you have fishermen,
you have representatives of tourism, of industry, of research
institutions, from NOAA, all types of fishermen are there. It
is something where they are able to basically manage the
sanctuary and talk about the issues with the sanctuary. I think
that is important. You know, with the Antiquities Act, when you
say that there was no science involved, Mr. Hallman, of the
Antiquities Act that was used, you said you woke up one
morning, and next thing you know there was a monuments act that
was brought down upon you. Is that correct?
Mr. Hallman. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Panetta. And are you saying there was no science used
to come up with that?
Mr. Hallman. Well, there may have been some used, but it
was not science that was reviewed or that anybody could look
at. It was almost done--I hate to sound conspiratorial, but
almost a secretive kind of process and not one that we are used
to in fisheries management, which is a transparent, public
process with good scientists and people going back and forth
and figuring things out--that did not happen.
Mr. Panetta. Thank you very much. I yield back my time.
Mr. Webster. Mr. Bishop, the Chair, questions?
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate it.
I am happy to be here at this time and hear your testimony.
I should probably go first so I don't get worked up before I
ask my questions. Let me speak on behalf of the mayor, the good
mayor who is not here because of the snowstorm, which is
unfortunate, because I have a great deal of respect for the
mayor in New Bedford. I was up there last summer with him, and
actually, I was told these were going to be action photos of
that trip, there is not a hell of a lot of action going on up
there. We were there also with the local Congressman, Bill
Keating. Part of the visit, we met with dozens of local
fishermen in the industry, as well as to talk about the
Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization as well as the State-Federal
fisheries management. We also did the tour of the boatyard, the
working boatyard, and we were on some of the commercial fishing
vessels, and it did not take a long time to actually start
talking about the Marine National Monument off the coast.
When we went to the round table of the Whaling Museum, the
fishermen came in there, the local community came in there to
talk about an alternate solution that they were there and they
showed to me, as well as Mayor Mitchell. This alternative
protected most of the ocean floor, well above the
Administration's unilateral and arbitrary designation, and
contained almost the same area within the designation, but
under their alternative, the bottom-tended fishing gear, such
as lobster and crab traps, were prohibited outside the 900-
meter depth mark that all boats using the mid-water and surface
fishing gear were allowed to continue fishing, since none of
that gear actually did have any impact on the coral which the
Administration and special interest groups that were pushing
it, alleged that was their goal to protect.
So, this type of pragmatic and collaborative approach was
supported by the industry and the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission, which is composed of states from Florida
through Maine. But it was totally rejected without any kind of
explanation on why. The alternative was not considered by the
Administration.
So, Mr. Hallman, if I could ask you, in your testimony, you
seem almost as confused as I am as to why mid-water and surface
fishing gear is prohibited without the discussion of what that
alternative could mean in this particular area. When you have
been faced with some of the proposed expansions and marine
monuments in the world in which you live, have you ever
suggested a similar idea about nondisruptive fishing gear types
to be used within these monuments?
Mr. Hallman. Well, if I understand your question, sir, it
is not something that we talk about in terms of the monuments.
We talk about the use of the gear in a sustainable way.
Mr. Bishop. Have you talked about any of that with
Administration folks in the past?
Mr. Hallman. No, not with the Administration, no.
Mr. Bishop. Was it ever received by those groups with whom
you had discussions?
Mr. Hallman. No, sir.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Which is kind of one of the issues and
questions we have, especially when we start talking about the
serious pristine. I think in 2015, we had a discussion of
another monument proposal off the coast of Cape Cod, the same
kind of verbiage was used there, as well as kind of interactive
opportunities that were used there. Mr. Chiasson, am I
pronouncing that close?
Mr. Chiasson. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. It is a Louisiana name, so Smith.
When NOAA released their draft environmental impact
statement expanding the Flower Garden Banks National Marine
Sanctuary off the coast of Texas and Louisiana, their agency's
preferred alternative was, I think, what is currently up there,
and the agency's preferred alternative was the one at the
bottom, I believe, but it increased from 56 square miles to 383
square miles. That is a 600 percent increase. The second image
below--this is the correct one--is recommended by the advisory
committee, which is the area that is in red, and that is about
100 square miles smaller than what the agency was pushing.
There are really very few places like the Gulf of Mexico, where
energy exploration and fisheries coincide in such a
complementary fashion.
In your testimony, you repeatedly gave examples of how
important it is to the economy of Louisiana and ports that they
remain multiple use. This is more evident, especially in the
RAND Corporation LSU studies, that also you cited in your
testimony, that accounts for nearly a $4 billion annual to the
direct economy and 11,000 Louisiana jobs.
How much of the economic activity is directly relating to
fishing and offshore energy in those ports in Louisiana?
Mr. Chiasson. Virtually all of it.
Mr. Bishop. All right. What will walling off more zones
from activities do to the local and regional economy there?
Mr. Chiasson. It will certainly negatively impact the
economies in our region, in our state.
Mr. Bishop. OK. After the preferred alternative was
released by the agency, the advisory committee members called
the entire process bait and switch, which is kind of cute,
considering what you are doing. In your dealings with fishermen
and others in Louisiana, do you feel that there was a common
sense of frustration when the agency finally released its
preferred alternative?
Mr. Chiasson. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Bishop. What does it say about the integrity of these
advisory councils that we asked to actually give input, when it
is totally ignored by administrations who make arbitrary
decisions.
Mr. Chiasson. It absolutely devalues the process.
Mr. Bishop. Let me ask a couple of other questions that
were brought to my attention. I am sorry. I will ask other
questions at an appropriate time, but I am not asking more
stuff to be added into the record because our staff is already
freaking anyway.
Mr. Webster. Mr. Lowenthal to be recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for letting
me speak today and to join you on this fascinating hearing. And
I want to thank all the panelists, also.
I want to start with some questions I have with, first, Mr.
Chiasson. In your written testimony, I think you mentioned
GOMESA in the written testimony, and especially about funding
coastal restoration activities, which I agree with you are very
important and I am very supportive of that also. But I think
GOMESA is also being used to fund infrastructure projects too,
such as the elevation of the Louisiana 1, which, I believe, you
are also in support of. Is that true?
Mr. Chiasson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lowenthal. Why does Louisiana 1 need to be elevated?
Mr. Chiasson. Why does it need to be elevated?
Mr. Lowenthal. Yes.
Mr. Chiasson. It is the only highway in Louisiana, or one
of the major highways in Louisiana, that has been impacted by
coastal land loss.
Mr. Lowenthal. By what?
Mr. Chiasson. Coastal land loss.
Mr. Lowenthal. Coastal land loss.
Do you think that sea level rise or extreme weather related
to climate change is a problem?
Mr. Chiasson. Yes, but the majority of our problem in south
Louisiana is subsidence.
Mr. Lowenthal. Subsidence. Also do you believe that human
caused emissions from the burning of fossil fuels do contribute
to climate change?
Mr. Chiasson. Yes.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
I would like to follow up on this, I think, very
fascinating and, I think, very productive argument about how
you balance development with protection. I think it was my
colleague from Louisiana, which I want to compliment, he talked
about that you can manage fisheries and have mineral extraction
at the same time. They can co-exist. These are not necessarily
in competition with each other, they can work together.
I would like to also mention that in my part of the
country, in our ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, when we
embarked on clean air protection, it was said that you cannot
have environmental protection and economic development, but
over the last 10 years, we have demonstrated the very same
thing. Under the right planning, you can have great
environmental protection, protect our citizens from both
immediate impacts of particulates, and you can also move
forward the economy and advance. So, I want to follow up on
that, in agreement with that. And I think that is a model we
should always be aware of that we make these binary kind of
exclusions, one or the other when, in fact, it just means that
we should be reformulating the paradigm in seeing how we can
work together to enhance both. I am glad that you brought that
up.
But I want to go now to Dr. Bruno, in following up this
same kind of balancing development with protection. We have set
aside, as you know, thousands of acres of Federal and state
waters as protected areas, we talked about the sanctuaries,
reserves--not so much reserves, but monuments. But to be clear,
in my understanding in talking about this balance, they really
only amount to 1 percent of the ocean waters that are under the
jurisdiction of the United States. Is that correct? We are
talking about 1 percent of the ocean waters?
Dr. Bruno. Yes, overall for U.S. waters, it is about 13
percent, but in many regions, it is very small. The canyons and
seamounts account for 1.5 percent of our fishing grounds in New
England. NOAA's proposed expansion of the Texas Flower Gardens
would take us from \1/4\ of a percent to \1/2\ of a percent of
the Gulf of Mexico open to oil and gas exploration.
Mr. Lowenthal. Let's go back to now, because we are really
trying to figure out what is, to me anyway, what is that
balance and how do we--let's go to what was brought up just
previously about the Flower Garden Banks expansion. That would
encompass, I believe, about 383 square miles. Is that not true?
Anybody on the panel? I think I have heard that over again. It
is my understanding in the March 2016 Gulf of Mexico planning
area sale, more than 69,000 square miles were offered for
lease, and about 1,000, 1,084 of that offering actually
received bids. So, the question is, we are talking about having
approximately over 1,000 square miles that actually received
bids. My final question is, Dr. Bruno, does it make sense to
establish these protected buffer areas around sensitive and
productive ocean environments, like the coral reefs at Flower
Garden Banks?
Dr. Bruno. I absolutely think it does, and one thing we
have not talked about is what is there. On the Flower Garden
Banks in the existing reserves, we have the highest coral cover
reefs of the entire Caribbean. The live coral coverage there is
about 60 to 70 percent; the Caribbean average is about 15
percent; in the Florida Keys it is about 4 percent. So, these
are extraordinary reefs and we have a number of endangered
corals living out there. We envision these reefs as really seed
stock for replenishing our reefs in Florida and Puerto Rico.
They have immense ecological value.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Webster. The Chair recognizes Mr. Bishop for a motion.
Mr. Bishop. I lied. I do have another UC to submit to the
record. These are the letters that the mayor from New Bedford
was going to introduce if he were able to be here. They are
from the fishermen who actually live in that area and know what
they are talking about.
Mr. Webster. Without objection, so ordered and approved.
[The information follows:]
National Coalition for Fishing Communities,
Washington, DC
March 14, 2017
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva:
Thank you for holding today's important hearing on marine protected
areas and monuments.
Since 2014, the creation and expansion of marine monuments by
executive action has been a primary concern of the commercial fishing
industry and the National Coalition for Fishing Communities (NCFC). The
NCFC was created by Saving Seafood in 2015 as a partnership among
dozens of fishing and seafood industry organizations and businesses to
elevate the voices of fishermen across the country in support of their
communities. Across the nation, we are represented in Congress by
Democrats and Republicans alike.
Our coalition was formed in part because well-funded, well-
coordinated non-government organizations claiming to speak for
fishermen, have frequently drowned out the actual voices of fishing
communities, hurting our ability to effectively communicate to
regulators, lawmakers and the public. NCFC members represent key
commercial fisheries, across the nation including Atlantic sea scallop,
red crab, lobster, tuna, swordfish and squid.
NCFC members from New England and the Mid-Atlantic to Florida,
California, the Pacific Northwest and Hawaii have all united in
opposition to the unilateral designation of marine monuments through
the Antiquities Act. Fishermen have made it clear that the management
decisions that affect their livelihoods should be made through
democratic, science-driven processes that encourage stakeholder
engagement.
The fishing industry cares deeply about protecting the marine
ecosystems that provide for and sustain fishing families, but there is
a right way and a wrong way to do it. Management decisions through the
eight regional fisheries management councils created by the Magnuson-
Stevens Act already require compliance with a wide range of substantive
legal requirements, including the Administrative Procedure Act, the
National Environmental Policy Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the
Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the
Unfunded Mandates Act.
The Council process allows for stakeholders, scientists, and
concerned citizens to review and debate policy decisions in a
transparent manner. In contrast, the Antiquities Act authorizes the
president to take away public areas and public resources with no public
input. Using executive authority, the President can close any federal
lands and waters in an opaque, top-down process that too often excludes
the very people who would be most affected.
Ill-considered monuments have already taken their toll on America's
coastal communities. In New England, the recently designated, 5,000
square-mile Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument
ejected red crab and trawl fishermen with little notice. Pelagic
fisheries, including swordfish and tuna, have been needlessly excluded
from the monument area despite the fact that their fishing activities
have no impact on the features the monument is meant to protect.
This action was taken with no formal public hearings, cost-benefit
analyses, or input from affected constituents, and despite no
compelling reason or threat to marine resources. Fish stocks in the
monument area were healthy, and the areas were still considered
``pristine'' after 40 years of fishing activity.
Industry leaders estimate the financial impact on the lobster,
crab, squid, mackerel, and butterfish fisheries at approximately $30
million directly, with $100 million in indirect impacts. Additionally,
the monument closure forces fishing effort into other waters inhabited
by endangered right whales, and forces large vessels into competition
with inshore small boat fisheries.
Mid-Atlantic fisheries have also been severely impacted by the
monument designation. One fishing boat owner in Montauk, New York
estimates an annual loss to his business of 15 percent of whiting and
squid landings, 25 percent of butterfish landings, and 10 percent of
tilefish landings, totaling over $400,000 a year in value. In any given
year, this figure could be significantly higher.
NCFC members continue to fear the expansion of previously created
monuments. In Hawaii, the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument
was expanded last year into the then-largest marine protected area in
the world. Combined with the effects of the Pacific Remote Islands
Marine National Monument, the fourth largest marine protected area in
the world, Hawaii longline fishermen are now banned from over 60
percent of our Pacific waters.
Reducing access to traditionally important fishing grounds
threatens Hawaii's food security, as the fishing industry is the
state's largest domestic food producer. It is also damaging to Hawaii's
economy, where the 145 boats of the longline fishery support hundreds
of jobs directly and thousands of jobs in related sectors. These
fishermen are now being pushed further into international waters, often
in competition with foreign fishermen, making it more difficult to
support domestic demand for responsibly sourced seafood.
On the West Coast, a proposal last year would have declared
virtually all offshore seamounts, ridges and banks off the coast of
California as monuments, and would have closed those areas to
commercial fishing. These proposals were drafted and advanced behind
closed doors with little analysis or public input. The areas marked for
closure are critically important for many fisheries, including tuna,
swordfish, rockfish, spiny lobster, sea urchins, white seabass, and
coastal pelagic species such as mackerels, bonito, and market squid.
While there have not been specific marine monument proposals in the
South Atlantic, fishermen and seafood industry groups came together to
reject the proposed Eubalaena Oculina National Marine Sanctuary in
2015. These groups pointed out that federal laws already existed to
preserve the resources the sanctuary aimed to protect, and expressed
their concern that a sanctuary would have adverse effects on Florida's
fishing and tourism industries.
Alternatively, the fishing industry has worked with fisheries
regulators to achieve remarkable conservation successes. Just last
December, the Mid-Atlantic Council and NOAA Fisheries designated the
Frank R. Lautenberg Deep-Sea Coral Protection Area, which prohibits
most types of bottom-tending fishing gear in a 38,000 square-mile
offshore area. Importantly, this action was taken in collaboration with
the fishing industry in a process that brought together fishermen,
scientists, and regulators.
In light of the economic and cultural harm resulting from ever-
expanding marine monuments on America's coastal communities, we hope
that Congress will work together, across party lines, to reform the
monument and sanctuary designation processes, ensuring they do not
continue to harm our nation's hardworking fishermen.
Respectfully Submitted,
David Borden, Ex. Director, Diane Pleschner-Steele, Ex.
Director,
Atlantic Offshore
Lobstermen's Association California Wetfish Producers
Association
Jim Gutowski, President, Greg DiDomenico, Exec. Director,
Fisheries Survival Fund Garden State Seafood Association
Sean Martin, Exec.
Director, Bonnie Brady, Exec. Director,
Hawaii Longline Association Long Island Commercial Fishing
Association
Robert Vanasse, Exec.
Director, Jerry Schill,Exec. Director,
Menhaden Fisheries
Coalition North Carolina Fisheries
Association
Bob Jones, Exec. Director, Lori Steele, Exec. Director,
Southeastern Fisheries
Association West Coast Seafood Processors
Association
Wayne Heikkila. Exec.
Director,
Western Fishboat Owners
Association
______
Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen's Association,
Dover, New Hampshire
March 15, 2017
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva,
I write to you in my capacity as the Executive Director of the
Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen's Association and member of the National
Coalition for Fishing Communities regarding the Northeast Canyons and
Seamounts Marine National Monument. Thank you and the committee members
for your efforts to address the problems associated with the use of the
Antiquities Act to designate protected areas in marine waters; we very
much appreciate your efforts to make this a transparent process. Our
Association and the Coalition did extensive work on this issue with the
prior Administration, attempting to mitigate the negative impacts to
the fishing industry. Several of our members also participated in your
hearing with Mayor Mitchell in New Bedford, Massachusetts and had an
opportunity to talk to you directly.
For over a year, members of the offshore fishing industry worked
tirelessly with State personnel, Governors' offices, Congressional
offices, Mayors in major ports, and others to dissuade the prior
Administration from closing vast areas in the Atlantic to commercial
fishing. In our collective view, there was never a compelling reason or
threat to the marine resources of the Atlantic that warranted the use
of the Antiquities Act. However, with the mere stroke of a pen,
President Obama closed approximately 5,000 square miles to fishing,
immediately ejecting the trawl fishery, with a near-term phase out of
other industries. This action was taken without formal public hearings,
without cost benefit analyses, without input from the most affected
constituents, and counter to the spirit of the open government
initiatives that the former President himself advocated. Although
select leaders in the fishing industry had limited access to members of
the White House staff, the public and fishing industry were, by and
large, excluded. At no time prior to the Presidential announcement did
we receive a written proposal detailing the specifics of the Monument
designation and, further, the lack of transparency was appalling.
To assert my above comments, I herein submit to the March 15, 2017
committee hearing record copies of ten letters that our Association's
members, staff, and related groups submitted to the prior
Administration. These letters were submitted in the spirit of
cooperation, with the intent of allowing the Monument process to
continue, while reducing impacts on the environment and fishing
industry. Our collective objections to the Monument designation process
via the Antiquities Act, can be summarized as follows:
There were no immediate threats to the marine resources
that warranted the use of the Antiquities Act. Most
documented corals are deeper than the areas fished and
there are no active proposals for oil, gas, or mineral
exploration. Monument supporters called the closure area
``pristine'' despite 40 years of fishing.
Jurisdiction to manage fisheries in the Monument area is
already contained in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act and Atlantic Coastal
Fisheries Cooperative Management Act, promulgated by
regional Fishery Councils/Commission and NOAA Fisheries.
Those acts are subject to impact analyses (NEPA) and
extensive public input. It is our belief that the advocates
for the Monument proposal specifically used the dated
requirements in the Antiquities Act to circumvent the
public process, and curtail public input on a key issue
affecting thousands of individuals, as we do not believe
that the action would have been approved following the
Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements.
U.S. marine Economic Exclusive Zones are not land owned or
controlled by the United States and should, therefore, fall
outside of Antiquities Act authority.
Various fishing interests provided detailed and highly
confidential information to the White House Office of
Environmental Quality in order to document the negative
impacts on the fishing industry. We offered a range of
different alternatives to the White House that would have
avoided negative impacts, but none were adopted. This
included a proposal for a closure 5.5 times larger than the
one designated, which would have protected deep water coral
from the U.S./Canadian border to the Frank R. Lautenberg
Deep-Sea Coral Protection Area in the Mid-Atlantic.
Economic impacts were not analyzed. Using confidential
industry information we estimate financial impacts on the
lobster, crab, squid, mackerel and butterfish fisheries to
be approximately $30 million directly and $100 million when
multiplied across the economy.
Habitat and social impacts were not analyzed. The Monument
closure forces fishing effort into neighboring shallower
waters that are inhabited by endangered right whales and
forces larger vessels inshore, competing with small,
community based, day boat fisheries.
Similarly themed correspondences were additionally submitted to the
Administration by representatives of local, state, and regional
governments and organizations.
In conclusion, we ask that you and your committee update the
requirements of the Antiquities Act, and at a minimum formulate
recommendations which require future Administrations to follow an open
and transparent process. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
David Borden,
Executive Director.
Attachments
*****
The following documents were submitted as attachments to this letter.
These documents are part of the hearing record and are being retained
in the Committee's official files:
--Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen's Association, September 15, 2015
Letter to John Bullard, Regional Administrator, NOAA NMFS
GARFO
--Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association, Inc., September 18, 2015
Letter to President Barack Obama
--Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association, Inc., October 23, 2015
Letter to President Barack Obama
--Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, February 2,
2016 Letter to President Barack Obama
--Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, May 9, 2016 Letter
to President Barack Obama
--Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen's Association, May 18, 2016 Letter
to President Barack Obama
--Mataronas Lobster Co., Inc., August 10, 2016 Letter to U.S.
Congress & U.S. Senate
--Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, September 14, 2016 Letter to Christina
W. Goldfuss, Managing Director, Council on Environmental
Quality
--Peter Brown, commercial offshore lobsterman, August 25, 2016
Letter to President Barack Obama
--Palombo Fishing Corp., September 12, 2016 Letter to President
Barack Obama
______
Hawaii Longline Association,
Honolulu, Hawaii
Hon. Doug Lamborn, Chairman,
House Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Mr. Lamborn:
My name is Sean Martin. I am the President of the Hawaii Longline
Association (HLA). I ask that the Subcommittee consider these comments
on behalf of the longline fishermen of Hawaii and the associated
industries and fish consumers in Hawaii as you assess possible
legislation concerning the National Marine Monuments in the Pacific
Ocean.
Recommendation: The HLA maintains that establishment of the large
national marine monuments in the U.S. waters around Pacific Islands (a)
is scientifically unsupportable; (b) is unnecessary; (c) and is harmful
to U.S. fishing interests. If the monument designations cannot be
reversed, we recommend that the prohibition of commercial fishing in
the monuments be rescinded as long as the fishing is consistent with
U.S. laws and regulations.
HLA and the Fishery: HLA was formed to provide an organization to
work with the U.S. Government and others to ensure that regulations
affecting the Hawaii longline fishery would be effective and
enforceable while imposing the least burden necessary to achieve
conservation needs. HLA has collaborated in the development of
regulations and conducting research into such areas as gear
modifications to protect special species such as sea turtles, seabirds,
and marine mammals. We are proud of our efforts which have resulted in
the Hawaii longline fishery being a model fishery for the Pacific. It
may be the most comprehensively managed fishery in the Pacific. The
local markets are dependent on our fleet. We have 150 active vessels,
and we land about $100 million worth of fish each year, with a total
economic impact of 2,350 jobs and several hundred million dollars in
related seafood industry income. The fishery supports jobs on fishing
vessels, on the docks, at suppliers, and in the fish wholesale and
distributor markets.
HLA members recognize the need for fishery regulations. The primary
species we target are tuna and associated species that are highly
migratory. No single nation can control fishing sufficiently to ensure
sustainability of the stocks or to adequately control adverse impacts
on non-fish species. We support management measures that are based on
science and are adopted in an open, transparent decision-making
process.
The Hawaii longline fishery is managed under two primary sets of
regulations: regulations developed by the Western Pacific Regional
Fishery Management Council under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, and regulations to implement conservation and
management measures by two regional fishery management organizations--
the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission and the Western and Central
Pacific Fisheries Commissions. Council regulations are developed in a
fully open and transparent manner with many opportunities for industry
and public inputs. In the international arena, we appreciate that the
U.S. Government's process is also very open and includes advisory
committees of U.S. fishing and non-fishing interests and frequent
meetings of U.S. delegations at the commissions' meetings.
We oppose the prohibition of commercial fishing in the Monuments
because:
1. It Is Not Scientifically Supportable: There is no science-based
analysis demonstrating that establishment of the Monuments
will in any way conserve or protect fish stocks from any
real threats. The waters and fish and other animals in
these Monuments have not been adversely affected by
fishing. These are pristine waters that retain all the
characteristics of preserves even as fishing has been going
on for years. The fishing that occurred was surface
fishing; there was no impact on bottom corals and reefs.
One of the claims of the supporters of the monuments has
been that the monuments provide a ``refuge'' for tuna and
other migratory species; that is, those fish won't be
caught in the U.S. waters and this might somehow help
conserve the species. This is a fanciful and illogical
argument with no scientific basis. Tuna and associated
species typically travel long distances in their migrations
across the ocean or parts of the ocean. They are not
``residents'' dependent on U.S. waters for spawning or
growth to reproductive size. They are likely to be caught
on the high seas if they are not caught in U.S. waters.
2. It Is Not Necessary: HLA believes that a principle of government
should be to take action where existing laws and measures
have failed. This is not such a situation. There are no
ongoing activities or contemplated activities that are
threatening any of the living or non-living resources in
the Monuments. There is no ocean mining, there are no
activities adversely affecting water or air quality, and
there are no activities that would reduce the ocean's
ability to absorb carbon dioxide or otherwise buffer
against climate change. The only commercial activity in the
Monuments has been fishing. This fishing was only by U.S.
vessels (foreign fishing is prohibited in U.S. waters) and
was fully controlled under existing laws and regulations,
including the Magnuson Act, the Endangered Species Act, the
Marine Mammal Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and
international agreements. It is noteworthy that U.S.
regulations in this regard are far more stringent than most
foreign regulations, with special controls to protect sea
turtles, seabirds, and marine mammals. No other long line
fleet--and there are several, including large Asian fleets
and smaller, Pacific island based fleets--has comparable
controls, and it is questionable whether all nations pursue
actual enforcement to the degree that the U.S. does.
Further, there are existing laws and institutions to deal
with any threats that were to arise in the future.
3. It Is Harmful to U.S. Fishing Interests: Hawaii vessels depend on
U.S. waters and the adjacent high seas in the Pacific for
access to tuna and associated species. In fact, the
establishment of the U.S. exclusive economic zone, or EEZ
(waters out to 200-mile from shore). was largely driven by
the need to protect those U.S. waters and U.S. fisheries
from excessive foreign fishing and to provide waters in
which U.S. fisheries would operate alone, subject to
regulations under the Magnuson Act and other applicable
law. Simply put, the intent was to put ``America first'' in
these waters. It simply does not make sense then to force
U.S. fishers out of U.S. waters and into more intensely
fished high seas. HLA members operate in a very competitive
environment. There are many nations fishing for tuna in the
Pacific. HLA members provide almost all the fresh tuna and
associated species in the market in Hawaii. To the extent
the Hawaii fishery is limited, the market is vulnerable to
takeover by foreign sources, whose vessels have far less
regard for controls to protect fish stocks and non-fish
stocks like turtles, mammals, and birds. Establishment of
the Monuments means that waters historically accounting for
8 percent of the catch by the Hawaii longline fishery are
now closed as part of the Papahanuamakuakea Monument, while
waters accounting for another 5-10% of catch are closed
around remote Pacific Islands (e.g., Howland-Baker,
Palmyra). This has been very disruptive for this fishery.
There also have been adverse impacts on U.S. territories, as
monument designations have seriously reduced the potential for fishery
development in U.S. territories like American Samoa, Guam, and the
Northern Mariana Islands. These U.S. territories have already been
disadvantaged in the past by lack of assistance from the U.S.
Government, and now monument designations have put large areas of ocean
off limits to U.S. fishing with no conservation benefit. This is truly
unfair to the territories.
In closing, HLA recommends that the prohibition of fishing in the
monuments be rescinded so that these waters remain open to U.S.
fisheries as long as they are consistent with established laws and
regulations of the U.S.
HLA appreciates your consideration of these comments. Please feel
free to contact me if you have questions or would like additional
information.
Sincerely,
Sean Martin,
President.
______
North Carolina Fisheries Association,
New Bern, North Carolina
March 13, 2017
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
1324 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Subject: Marine National Monuments
The North Carolina Fisheries Association certainly appreciates the
ability of significant natural, cultural, or scientific features to
receive federal protections as appropriate. Staples of coastal
commerce, fishing and seafood production are also core cultural
elements of coastal and national heritage, going back over five
generations for many families. Commercial fishermen established our
association in 1952 to serve fishing families by protecting their
heritage and promoting seafood. To achieve this, the association
actively engages the scientific and management processes on behalf of
the industry and supports many outreach and education projects. Over
six decades later, we still believe the commercial fishing industry
begins and ends with families--from those who harvest seafood to those
who enjoy it. We are committed to presenting an accurate portrait of
the industry and the people who sustain it.
Although we are a commercial fisheries trade organization that
advocates for sustainable access for our fishermen to their traditional
fishing grounds, we advocate for this access by all who wish to ply our
state and national waters, whether it be for commerce, sustenance or
recreation. Efforts to expand Marine National Monuments substantially
impact our access to traditional fishing grounds that are presently and
sustainably managed through multiple councils, commissions, and
agencies. Through these Council processes, which include extensive
collaboration with multiple industries and entities, Fisheries
Management Plans are developed to ensure our shared resources are
sustained for future generations. Furthermore, they are managed
utilizing the best available science conducted by some of the world's
leading experts in their field. These efforts may not always yield the
results desired by each group, but it is the most comprehensive process
in considering every aspect of sustainably managing these resources.
It is unfortunate however, that the powers used to enact federal
protections can overwrite existing efforts, displacing other culturally
and economically significant features and activities. Additionally, it
disregards H.R. 1335, which delineates the Magnuson-Stevens Act as the
controlling statute for our marine resources. This is the case of the
Marine National Monument nominations of recent, as the process is
ultimately and simply, an executive decision.
Unlike protecting important shipwrecks and other historical
features, the recent nominations have included hundreds of thousands of
square miles of productive marine waters that are already actively
managed through deliberative and scientific decision-making processes
to ensure sustainability. The expansion of the Papahanaumokuakea
monument in Hawaii has already given much concern to the people that
have fished the Hawaiian waters for multiple generations, yet had no
voice in the process that now prohibits their sustainable fishing
activities. The proposed monument in California has also left fishermen
in the dark during discussions and planning, prompting the Pacific
Marine Fisheries Management Council to pen a letter to then President
Obama. In this letter, they stressed the importance of using a
transparent process, taking into consideration the social and economic
impacts, and the fact that their waters, as well as all U.S. waters are
sustainably managed through these council processes as mandated by
federal law. Now New England has now been the subject of the same
process, or lack of. The Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine
National Monument, designated last September, has left stakeholders no
other choice than to sue for relief. While these designations
immediately impact fishermen, they also impact the economies of those
areas reliant on them.
Although this mechanism is executive, early efforts heavily
involved the public, and have been used prudently and sparingly.
Unfortunately, the previous administration took full advantage of this
power, relying very little on the public to gage the impacts, and
disregarded advice provided by the Fishery Management Councils in each
region. The administration supported multiple efforts to identify these
large areas of traditional fishing grounds that are now illegal for
fishermen to fish.
While it is to be expected that fishermen will from time to time
reduce their efforts to maintain sustainability, they never expected
that they would be closed out of a traditional industry for no reason
at all. The marine resources in our great country including, those
areas mentioned previously, are already managed, and managed heavily.
There is no basis to close them out, nor to do so with so little
sensitivity as to the impact of those that will surely be affected.
It is important to consider the progress made by the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council. In October 2015, the Council successfully
mediated a multi-stakeholder Magnuson-Stevens Act coral habitat
protection amendment which resulted in the protection of approximately
38,000 square miles of coral habitat in 13 deep water canyons in the
region. This considerate approach included input from fishermen,
scientists, conservationists, and regulators to discuss the goals of
the amendment, and how they could be achieved with as little negative
impact as possible. Unfortunately, this agreed upon action is now the
target of formal Sanctuary nomination and status by other Non-
Governmental Organizations to completely eliminate fishermen's access.
The Antiquities Act does not take into consideration scientific or
economic analyses, or existing social and cultural impacts. It is
simply the stroke of a pen that initiates this information void
process, which is commonly based on pressure from well-funded
environmental groups that are aware that consideration of these impacts
are not necessary. Unfortunately, the public, including the fishing
community, is directly affected, and has no voice.
The intent of the Antiquities Act may be pure, but without the
advice of leading experts researching these waters, without weighing
the impacts of the fishing industry who has vast experience to offer
and will ultimately suffer the impacts, and without the proven process
to combine all aspects into an effective, yet sensitive tool, efforts
will be misguided and afford insufficient protections while pointlessly
destroying an industry. We strongly encourage you to adopt the approach
employed by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and further outlined by the
example set by the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council.
Sincerely,
Jerry Schill,
President.
______
Mr. Webster. I would like to thank the witnesses for being
here and for their valuable testimony. Members of the
Subcommittee and our two accepted guests are allowed to submit
other questions over the next 3 days according to Committee
Rule 3(o). Members of the Committee also are reminded that the
hearing record will be held open for 10 business days to get
the responses to those questions.
If there is no further business to come before the
Committee, without objection, the Subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
March 3, 2017
Hon. Donald J. Trump, President,
The White House,
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20500.
Dear Mr. President:
We, the Governors of the U.S. Territories of American Samoa and
Guam and the U.S. Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, humbly
request that you use executive authority under the Antiquities Act of
1906 to remove the fishing provisions applicable to the Marine National
Monuments in federal and our island jurisdictions.
Our island communities depend on the ocean for food security and
economic opportunities. Our Samoan, Chamorro, and Carolinian cultures
are interwoven with the marine environment and fishing. The monument
fishing restrictions are unnecessary and impede our socioeconomic and
cultural stability. The promises of previous administrations and
environmental organizations of monument co-management and revenue
generation have not been realized.
Our islands contribute a significant amount of land and water for
military training and among the highest per capita U.S. Armed Forces
personnel and military casualties, reflecting our resolute American
patriotism. Many of our people have not returned from harsh and distant
battlegrounds, providing the ultimate sacrifice for our great country.
We trust you will demonstrate your great leadership on this
pressing issue and do what is right for our people and the Nation.
Please return American fishermen to U.S. waters and remove the monument
fishing prohibitions.
Respectfully,
Eddie B. Calvo,
Governor of Guam.
Lolo L. M. Moliga,
Governor of American Samoa.
Ralph D. G. Torres,
Governor of CNMI.
Attachments
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
* The Coral Reef Ecosystem Regulatory Area excluded the portion of
EEZ waters 0-3 nautical miles (nm) around the CNMI. The Bottomfish
Management Subarea was divided in the CNMI Inshore Area, which was that
portion of the EEZ shoreward of 3 nm of the shoreline of CNMI, and the
CNMI Offshore Area, which was that portion of the EEZ seaward of 3 nm
from the CNMI shoreline.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Outcomes Statement and Recommendations
Council Coordination Committee
MARRIOTT BEACH RESORT
ST. THOMAS, U.S.V.I.
MAY 24-26, 2016
Marine National Monuments
The Council Coordination Committee (CCC) notes the successes of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act in managing
fishery resources of the United States as well as the marine ecosystems
of the United States Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and the CCC
recognizes that there have been a number of proposals regarding the
designation of new, or the expansion of existing, Marine National
Monuments within the U.S. EEZ.
Whereas, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act) was originally passed by Congress in 1976 for
the specific purpose of sustainably managing the nation's fishery
resources to provide a food source, recreational opportunities and
livelihoods for the people of the United States;
Whereas Congress, in passing the Magnuson-Stevens Act, found that
``Commercial and recreational fishing constitutes a major source of
employment and contributes significantly to the economy of the
Nation.''
Whereas, the Magnuson-Stevens Act created eight Regional Fishery
Management Councils that are charged with managing, conserving, and
utilizing fishery resources as well as protecting essential fisheries
habitat, minimizing bycatch, and protecting listed species within the
United States Exclusive Economic Zone;
Whereas, through the implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and
through the actions of the Regional Fishery Management Councils, the
United States has become a global leader in the successful management
of its fishery resources and associated ecosystems in a proactive
sustainable manner;
Whereas, the Regional Fishery Management Councils and the National
Marine Fisheries Service have made great strides in managing fisheries
in an ecosystem-based manner;
Whereas, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that fisheries management
actions be developed through a public process, in a transparent manner,
and based on the best scientific information available;
Whereas, the Regional Fisheries Management Councils and the National
Marine Fisheries Service manage fisheries stocks throughout their range
and concerns have been raised that designations such as marine
monuments may disrupt the ability of the Councils to continue to manage
fisheries throughout their range and in an ecosystem-based manner;
Whereas, the designation process of marine national monuments under the
Antiquities Act of 1906 does not explicitly require a robust public
process or that decisions be based on a science-based environmental
analyses, and does not require fishery management or conservation as an
objective;
Whereas, the Regional Fishery Management Councils have a strong history
of implementing spatial habitat and fisheries conservation measures
(over 1000 individual spatial management measures) in a public,
transparent, science-based manner through the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Whereas, concern has been raised that decisions to close areas of the
U.S. EEZ, through statutory authorities such as through the Antiquities
Act of 1906, may not take into account requirements to achieve optimum
yield (OY) from the Nation's fishery resources, may negatively affect
domestic fishing jobs, recreational opportunities and undermine efforts
by the Regional Fishery Management Councils to develop and implement
ecosystem-based management;
Therefore be it resolved, the CCC reiterates its support for the
public, transparent, science-based process and management required by
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
Therefore be it further resolved, the CCC recommends that if any
designations are made in the marine environment under authorities such
as the Antiquities Act of 1906 that fisheries management in the U.S.
EEZ waters continue to be developed, analyzed and implemented through
the public process of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act.
Carlos Farchette, Chair, Dan Hull, Chair,
Caribbean Fishery
Management Council North Pacific Fishery Management
Council
Kevin Anson, Chair, Dorothy Lowman, Chair,
Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council Pacific Fishery Management
Council
Richard Robins, Chair, Michelle Duval, Chair,
Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council
E.F. ``Terry'' Stockwell
III, Chair, Edwin Ebisui Jr., Chair,
New England Fishery
Management Council Western Pacific Fishery
Management Council
______
Seafood Harvesters of America,
Arlington, Virginia
March 13, 2017
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
1324 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Bishop:
On behalf of the Seafood Harvesters of America, we want to express
our appreciation for your leadership in examining the creation and
management of marine monuments and sanctuaries. The extensive use of
the Antiquities Act has unnecessarily impacted the commercial fishing
industry, which has otherwise willingly adopted responsible approaches
to prevent overfishing.
The Harvesters represent over 3,900 small businesses, 19,000
thousand jobs, almost $500 million in income and $1.25 billion in
economic output. Our members are privileged to go to sea every day from
the Gulf of Alaska, to the Gulf of Mexico and the Gulf of Maine
bringing to market healthy, domestic, sustainable seafood. We honor,
depend upon and live with accountability in our fisheries and
transparency in the regulatory process. Through the Magnuson-Stevens
Act (MSA), our fisheries have improved dramatically as the commercial
fishing industry has become more responsible, accountable, and
efficient.
The MSA allows for identification of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
and regulatory mechanisms for preventing fishing in areas designated as
essential. This process had been completed through the New England
Fishery Management Council, which would have designated extensive areas
for EFH protection along the Atlantic Seaboard, from the Carolinas to
the Canadian border. This collaborative decade-long process that
incorporated the best science available, stakeholder engagement and
featured transparency was overridden by the establishment of the
Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument. With the
stroke of a pen, President Obama unnecessarily took fishermen off the
water across vast stretches of traditional fishing grounds, threatening
local economies, increasing our seafood deficit, and ignoring the
federal fishery management process.
While management decisions to reduce quotas or restrict fishing are
always contentious, we willfully engage in the process and abide by the
decisions made through the regional council process as it has worked to
prevent overfishing, rebuilt dozens of fish stocks and provided greater
regulatory and economic certainty for our industry. Consequently, we
believe that fishery decisions should continue to be managed through
the MSA-established processes and not be subject to restrictions
through the monument designation process.
We look forward to working with you to ensure that we have a
sustainable, renewable and a stable seafood supply that is managed with
regulatory certainty and not subject to politically driven executive
action.
Sincerely,
Chris Brown, President Kevin Wheeler, Executive Director
______
Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management
Council,
Honolulu, Hawaii
February 23, 2017
The President,
The White House,
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20500.
Dear Mr. President:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the impacts American
fishing industries, seafood consumers and indigenous communities face
as result of proclamations establishing Marine National Monuments (MNM)
in the Western Pacific Region. Most recent in our region was President
Obama's proclamation of August 26, 2016, massively expanding the
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument (PMNM) in the Northwestern
Hawaiian Islands. The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management
Council (Council) was one of many organizations and individuals who
expressed strong reservations over the scientific and empirical basis
for this monument expansion and other MNMs in the U.S. exclusive
economic zone (EEZ) waters. Together, these large marine protected
areas prohibit American commercial fishing vessels from operating in
half of the U.S. EEZ waters in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean.
Impacts to U.S. Commercial Fishery Landings: The Hawaii longline
fishery lands $110 million of fresh (not frozen) fish, consistently
ranking the Port of Honolulu as one of America's top 10 fishing ports
in value landed. The PMNM expansion shuts this fishery out of an area
that is twice the size of Texas. Located 50 to 200 miles from shore,
this expanded monument area has historically produced 8 percent of the
bigeye tuna and 11 percent of the swordfish landed by the fishery.
Likewise, the expansion of the Pacific Remote Islands (PRI) MNM by
Obama closed fishing grounds comprising 12 percent of the Hawaii
longline fishery's landings. About 20 percent of the productivity of
the Hawaii longline industry has been needlessly compromised by MNM
expansions, executed by the Obama Administration under the Antiquities
Act of 1906. These monuments also closed fisheries that produced half
of the locally landed bottomfish and a lobster fishery. The closure of
fishing grounds in the PRI and the Rose Atoll MNMs severely impacted
the U.S. purse-seine and American Samoa-based longline fleets. The area
of the PRIMNM formed 10 percent of the U.S. purse-seine fishing effort.
The Rose Atoll MNM increased the area closed to American Samoa longline
vessels by about 1,800 square nautical miles, an annual loss of about
$237,000 of albacore tuna.
Impacts to U.S. Commercial Fishing Industries: The loss of fishing
grounds due to the MNMs will have an immediate and long-term effect on
fishery participants, shore-side business and coastal communities that
rely on the fishing industry. PMNM expansion has an estimated potential
annual loss of more than $9 million to fishery support businesses
(e.g., fuel and gear suppliers), $4.2 million in household income, and
$500,000 to the State of Hawaii in tax revenue.\1\ The impacts to the
U.S. purse-seine fleet have devastated the U.S. canneries in American
Samoa, an industry that represents 52 percent of the territory's gross
domestic product and is its largest private enterprise employer.
Further, U.S. commercial fishing vessels will be displaced into the
much reduced U.S. EEZ waters to compete with recreational and small
boat fishermen or the high seas to compete with foreign fishermen from
Asia, this at a time when the United Nations is being asked to close 30
percent of the high seas to fishing.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Marine Fisheries Service's Pacific Islands Fisheries
Science Center presentation to the 168th Council, Oct 12-14, 2016,
Honolulu.
\2\ http://www.ipsnews.net/2016/03/un-begins-negotiations-on-
treaty-to-protect-marine-resources/
National Food Security: Hawaii imports 90 percent of all the food
it consumes. Among locally produced food, fishing ranks as the single
largest food producer in the state. About 60 percent of the
commercially caught fish consumed in Hawaii is imported and about 40
percent is locally produced. Hawaii fisheries are also important to the
nation, which depends on foreign imports for 90 percent of its seafood.
The majority of the bigeye tuna (90 percent) and a substantial amount
of the swordfish consumed in the continental United States are from the
Hawaii fishery.\3\,\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Fisheries of the United States 2015.
\4\ 2015 Pelagic Stock Assessment Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report.
Honolulu: Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. http://
www.wpcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2017-01-31_Final-2015-
SAFE-Report.pdf.
Regulatory Duplication: The Obama Administration used the
Antiquities Act to overlay no-take or very limited-take monuments in
areas that were already designated as marine protected areas under the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and
which allowed sustainable commercial fishing. The MSA, the preeminent
federal fishing law, ensures the prevention of overfishing while
achieving optimum yield for the benefit of nation. The management
measures under which these fisheries have operated have set standards
that have been internationally adopted by regional fishery management
organizations worldwide.\5\ The monuments do not add any fishery
conservation benefits or climate change mitigation (the purported
purpose of the establishment of the monuments), especially to highly
mobile species such as tunas, billfish, and sharks. Instead the
monuments weaken U.S. fisheries, U.S. interests, U.S. negotiations and
U.S. competition in the Pacific.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Inter-
American Tropical Tuna Commission, etc.
Federal Cost: Creation of the four MNMs in the Western Pacific
Region have increased administrative and monitoring burdens on the U.S.
Coast Guard and other agencies that patrol these U.S. EEZ waters. The
U.S. waters, now devoid of American commercial fishing vessels that
served as a deterrent, are imperiled by encroaching foreign vessels.
The establishment of the Marianas Trench MNM cost $10 million, and
costs to establish the PMNM (2006) amounted to about $35 million for an
area spanning 140,000 square miles.\6\ The expanded PMNM area is three
times the size of the original PMNM area, i.e., an additional 443,000
square miles. There is no known, publicly available cost and benefit
analysis for the expanded PMNM; however, it is conceivable that the
cost to establish the expanded MNM could reach more than $100 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ McCrea-Strub A et al. ``Understanding the cost of establishing
marine protected areas.'' Marine Policy 35 (2011) 1-9.
Council staff is available to provide additional information about
the impacts of MNMs, which are utterly pointless and an affront to our
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
nation's fisheries.
Sincerely,
Edwin A. Ebisui Jr.,
Chair.
Kitty M. Simonds,
Executive Director.
Attachment
*****
Impacts of Marine National Monument Fishing Prohibitions
February 18, 2017
MONUMENTS NOW COMPRISE ONE QUARTER OF THE ENTIRE U.S. EXCLUSIVE
ECONOMIC ZONE (1,184,000 square miles in the Western Pacific
and 4,913 square miles in the New England region)
141,000 square miles with establishment of
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument (MNM) in 2006
encompassing 0-50 nm around the Northwestern Hawaiian
Islands (NWHI) in 2006
192,000 square miles with establishment of monuments in
2009 around encompassing 0-50 nm around Rose Atoll
(American Samoa), Pacific Remote Island Areas, and the
Marianas Trench MNMs
408,000 square miles with expansion of monuments in 2014
of the Pacific Remote Islands (PRI) MNM, with boundaries
around some of the islands to the full extent of the U.S.
EEZ (0-200 nm around Wake, Johnston, Jarvis Islands).
443,000 square miles with expansion of the NWHI monument
in 2016 to the full extent of the U.S. EEZ (0-200) around
two-thirds of U.S. waters around the Hawaii Archipelago
4,913 square miles with establishment of the Northeast
Canyons MNM in 2016.
MONUMENT FISHING PROHIBITIONS COULD HAVE NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF MORE THAN
$69 MILLION ANNUALLY TO U.S. COMMERCIAL FISHERIES
$10 million in landings, $9 million to fishery support
businesses, $4.2 million in household income, and $500,000
in State of Hawaii tax revenue from NWHI monument expansion
area, which produced on average around 10% of the catch
harvested by the Hawaii longline fishery
$42 million in landings from expanded PRI monument, which
produced on average over 12% of the catch harvested by the
Hawaii longline fishery and about 10% of the catch from
U.S. purse seiners that historically delivered tuna local
canneries in American Samoa
$0.25 million from the Rose Atoll monument from reduced
fishing grounds to the American Samoa longline fleet in
U.S. waters around American Samoa
$1-2 million from Northeast Canyons MNM (Does not include
loss from tuna and offshore lobster fisheries)
PRI and Rose Atoll monuments were in part responsible for
the closure of one of American Samoa's two canneries in
December 2016 as a result of reduced supply of U.S. caught
tuna. The closure resulted in the loss of a thousand jobs.
The two canneries in American Samoa accounted for 52% of
the Territory's gross domestic product and are the
Territory's primary private employer.
MONUMENT FISHING PROHIBITIONS WEAKEN U.S. FISHERIES, INCREASE IMPORTS
AND JEOPARDIZE U.S. FOOD AND NATIONAL SECURITY
Monuments displace U.S. fishing fleets to international
waters where they must fish alongside and compete with
foreign fishing fleets
Displaced fishing to more distant international waters
increases trip costs and poses greater safety at sea risks
Deterrence of foreign fishing fleet encroachment in the
U.S. EEZ is compromised when U.S. commercial fishing
vessels are removed from a quarter of the U.S. EEZ now
designated as monuments
Weakened U.S. fisheries impact national food security and
foster increased imports. The U.S. already relies on
foreign imports for 90% of seafood it consumes
Displaced U.S. commercial fishing vessels could also
concentrate effort and increase potential gear conflicts in
the reduced areas of fishable U.S. waters that are also
fished by recreational and small boat fishermen
MONUMENT FISHING REGULATIONS CAUSE REGULATORY DUPLICATION AND LACK
CONSERVATION BENEFITS
NWHI monument overlay the Protected Species Zone
established under the MSA
PRI monument overlay the 0 to 300-feet depth no-take and
low-take zones established under the MSA and 0 to 3 mile
refuges established by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in
many of the islands
Rose Atoll monument overlay the Large Vessel Prohibited
Area established under the MSA
Marianas Trench monument's Islands Unit overlay the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands' conservation
zone
All coral reef, deep-reef slope, and pelagic ecosystems in
federal waters were subject to comprehensive fishery
ecosystem management regulations established under the MSA
prior to monument designation
Monuments and other large-scale marine protected areas
provide little to no added conservation benefits to marine
resources, especially for highly mobile species such as
tunas, billfish and sharks, as stated by highly renowned
fisheries scientists
FEDERAL OVERREACH, INCREASED ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN, & POOR
IMPLEMENTATION RECORD
Without added conservation benefits, monuments are an
unnecessary burden on the U.S. fishing industry and seafood
consumers
Congress has not provided the USCG increased funding to
monitor and enforce the remote, large swaths of ocean
designated as monuments
NOAA and U.S. FWS have yet to release and finalize
monument management plans for Rose Atoll, Pacific Remote
Islands, and Marianas Trench monuments--almost 8 years
after establishment
NO PUBLIC PROCESS, TRANSPARENCY OR ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
Monuments are established under the Antiquities Act of
1906, with Presidential Proclamations and directives to
various agencies to implement regulations under their
respective authorities. The National Environmental
Protection Act and the Administrative Procedures Act are
not required in the designation of monuments
Monument regulations are rigidly implement Presidential
directives with little to no discretion. Some Presidents
have closed huge expanses of U.S. fishing grounds to
sustainably managed U.S. fisheries. Adaptive management is
impossible without additional Presidential or Congressional
action.
______
[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
OFFICIAL FILES]
Submitted by Rep. Grijalva
-- Administration of Coral Reef Resources in the Northwest
Hawaiian Islands: Memorandum Opinion for the
Solicitor, Department of the Interior; the General
Counsel, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration; and the General Counsel, Council on
Environmental Quality. September 15, 2000.
Submitted by Rep. Beyer
-- A large body of documents supporting the designation of
the monuments.
[all]